Sasquatch – Researchers conclusions – Taking theory one step further!

Originally posted by OzTiger

Originally posted by br0ker
reply to post by OzTiger

 

I fail to see the problem of 30 000 written reports / statements. Also, for every 1 report being investigated it brings up 5 new reports by people living in the vicinity.

Would you as a person be able to see a clear difference between a bear, a deer and a a 8 foot bipedal leaving you area / crossing the road / sneaking around your house / approaching you etc.?
Or do you just believe that other people in general are less intelligent than you?

-----
Count how many times we throw this ball among us! 1 -1 -1-1 - 1 -1- 1 - 1 (a gorilla walks through the room) I -1 -1 - 1-1 -1-1 . Did you notice anything out of the obvious? Yes. It was hard counting how many times you actually passed the ball.

No, the ball wasn`t passed 15 times.

edit on 29-10-2011 by br0ker because: needed a smileyface

edit on 29-10-2011 by br0ker because: another smiley

There would be far more people more intelligent than me rather than less intelligent my friend but if an 8 foot tall Gorilla, bouncing a ball, walked through my lounge room whilst I was watching TV then believe me I would notice it just prior to throwing myself out of the window clad in my brown stained trousers!
The Patterson film has created much discussion with conflicting opinions. I remain sceptical because since the sighting there has been many expeditions in that area (and others) which have found absolutely no evidence whatsoever. The audio tape is also open to different interpretations - a hidden CAMERA would have been conclusive! Here in Oz there have been camera's set up over many years in an effort to catch the elusive 'Tiger' but to no avail.
I am sure we will have many more discussions on this subject as there are sure to be many more 'sightings' in the future.
Have a nice day my friend.

Please stop, you`re embarrassing yourself. Please, stop making the Patterson film you`re make or break point. Again, you`re embarrassing yourself to the Sasquatch community. Comparing Sasquatch to "Tiger" is still noting more than ridiculous. You still fail to see the reasoning of "pinkbat theory".... do more research.

My friend, please..

reply to post by jimbo999


You`re post says that you have no business posting a reply to the OP. Thanks but no thanks. You`re in the process of learning how to walk, you`re post gives nothing to the community of those that know how to sprint.

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by br0ker

 

I did not state one way or another whether I believe Sasquatch exists...I can only state, "I do not know," as there has been no conclusive evidence presented in the affirmative...As to your post about behavior and psychology, again, the thing I find inconsistent would be 1) If they (Sasquatch) venerate and endow Homo Sapiens with "magical," powers, then at what point did this dynamic shift occur? After all, the Native Americans venerated and endowed Sasquatch with, "magical powers." Did they not see the totems plastered with their images? 2) Most all other encounters (as described in historical records) indicate encounters with outside, technologically, advanced civilizations, result in some sort of open display of veneration and homage paid to the visitors, including trade and offerings...there is none of this present in your postulate...

Finally, while I understand your frustration, I do not appreciate comparisons to your ex (an ad hominem). I simply asked, in my original post, if there were more evidence than has already been presented, on which to draw a conclusion...

Thank you.

You don`t have to KNOW and do not need conclusive evidence to discuss the matters at hand in the OP.
1. What point, read the OP.
2. Yes you would recognize you`re races portrait in a totem-pole. But how would you know the meaning without knowing the totems pole significance.
3. None of this present in my postulate,,,, have you still not read the OP?
4. Sorry about the comparison to my ex (the drama queen) but your posts make me put you in the same category - by my own description and recognition of a drama queen.

Sorry if this offended you in any way.

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by br0ker

 

I did not state one way or another whether I believe Sasquatch exists...I can only state, "I do not know," as there has been no conclusive evidence presented in the affirmative...As to your post about behavior and psychology, again, the thing I find inconsistent would be 1) If they (Sasquatch) venerate and endow Homo Sapiens with "magical," powers, then at what point did this dynamic shift occur? After all, the Native Americans venerated and endowed Sasquatch with, "magical powers." Did they not see the totems plastered with their images? 2) Most all other encounters (as described in historical records) indicate encounters with outside, technologically, advanced civilizations, result in some sort of open display of veneration and homage paid to the visitors, including trade and offerings...there is none of this present in your postulate...

Finally, while I understand your frustration, I do not appreciate comparisons to your ex (an ad hominem). I simply asked, in my original post, if there were more evidence than has already been presented, on which to draw a conclusion...

Thank you.

You don`t have to KNOW and do not need conclusive evidence to discuss the matters at hand in the OP.
1. What point, read the OP.
2. Yes you would recognize you`re races portrait in a totem-pole. But how would you know the meaning without knowing the totems pole significance?
3. None of this present in my postulate,,,, have you still not read the OP?
4. Sorry about the comparison to my ex (the drama queen) but your posts make me put you in the same category - by my own description and recognition of a drama queen.

Sorry if this offended you in any way.

As of the many posts presented. I advice you (for simplicity`s sake) to start you`re research into Sasquatch with the FIRST post on the wall of this link.

When you`re up to date with that, we can have an intelligent discussion.

For those with problems understanding - scroll to the very bottom of the page, - click OLDER POSTS - until you come to the end. Research everything, then place your post to the OP.

www.facebook.com...

***happy halloween***

Originally posted by heffo7

Originally posted by br0ker
Let`s bring all of you in on some of the newer research being done on one of the many many audio recordings of Sasquatch out there.

In the following link you will hear Scott Nelson and Ron Morehead Interviewed.

Scott Nelson is:

Retired from the U.S. Navy as a Crypto-Linguist with over 30 years experience in Foreign Language and Linguistics, including the collection, transcription, analysis and reporting of voice communications.

He is a two time graduate of the U.S. Navy Cryptologic Voice Transcription School (Russian and Spanish) and has logged thousands of hours of voice transcription in his target languages as well as in Persian. He is currently teaching Russian, Spanish, Persian, Philosophy and Comparative Religions at Wentworth College in Missouri.

He is came over these Sasquatch conversations by accident and was immediately intrigued.

edit on 29-10-2011 by br0ker because: Embedding youtube video

THAT my friend deserves a thread of it's own! Anyone participating on this thread that skipped over this post... go back and listen.

That the mtDNA findings proved they were half-human and half-something unknown. Wow!

That is was proven that they have language and their own grammar AND that they spoke in frequencies that were outside those able to be detected by humans and could not have been reproduced by a human. Wow again!

Also not to be dismissed regarding the Patterson-Gimlin film, as well as Dr Grover Krantz, Dr Jeff Meldrum proved that the dimensions of the body shown could not have been a human in a suit... conveniently overlooked by those that choose to ignore science. Search my threads and you will see where I posted the information regarding his findings in full.

Thank you!

I agree, for ATS that deserves a thread of it`s own.

But for those who know how to sprint this is the tip of the iceberg. Sasquatch research is - in reality - lightyears beyond what is presented in the discussions on ATS. ATS threads are still trying to debunk videos. That makes no progress... this is why I (like Facebook findbigfoot) presented pinkbat theory to screen out the readers.

There are thinkers and doers in the world.The doers just do what their told. If you present a case to doers they would not know what to do with it (ironic enough). Not even put it through a mental model. I hope this reaches out to others in the field. I believe we only have a couple of more years before the -doers- get their conclusive evidence. Either a Sasquatch killed or a Sasquatch captured. Let`s hope that`s not a turning point for the worse. People have had security living in disbelief. One of the many points that disables them to see truth - as well as proper research and mental models.


More "good stuff" to come.

Originally posted by br0ker

Originally posted by OzTiger

Originally posted by br0ker
reply to post by OzTiger

 

I fail to see the problem of 30 000 written reports / statements. Also, for every 1 report being investigated it brings up 5 new reports by people living in the vicinity.

Would you as a person be able to see a clear difference between a bear, a deer and a a 8 foot bipedal leaving you area / crossing the road / sneaking around your house / approaching you etc.?
Or do you just believe that other people in general are less intelligent than you?

-----
Count how many times we throw this ball among us! 1 -1 -1-1 - 1 -1- 1 - 1 (a gorilla walks through the room) I -1 -1 - 1-1 -1-1 . Did you notice anything out of the obvious? Yes. It was hard counting how many times you actually passed the ball.

No, the ball wasn`t passed 15 times.

edit on 29-10-2011 by br0ker because: needed a smileyface

edit on 29-10-2011 by br0ker because: another smiley

There would be far more people more intelligent than me rather than less intelligent my friend but if an 8 foot tall Gorilla, bouncing a ball, walked through my lounge room whilst I was watching TV then believe me I would notice it just prior to throwing myself out of the window clad in my brown stained trousers!
The Patterson film has created much discussion with conflicting opinions. I remain sceptical because since the sighting there has been many expeditions in that area (and others) which have found absolutely no evidence whatsoever. The audio tape is also open to different interpretations - a hidden CAMERA would have been conclusive! Here in Oz there have been camera's set up over many years in an effort to catch the elusive 'Tiger' but to no avail.
I am sure we will have many more discussions on this subject as there are sure to be many more 'sightings' in the future.
Have a nice day my friend.

Please stop, you`re embarrassing yourself. Please, stop making the Patterson film you`re make or break point. Again, you`re embarrassing yourself to the Sasquatch community. Comparing Sasquatch to "Tiger" is still noting more than ridiculous. You still fail to see the reasoning of "pinkbat theory".... do more research.

My friend, please..

edit on 29-10-2011 by br0ker because: then -> than

I must have offended you in some way and for this I apologize.
I am far from familiar with the 'pink bat' theory. Pink Bats in Australia are fiberglass insulation products.
There has been no scientific recognized evidence that a 'Bigfoot'/ 'Sasquatch'/'Yeti'/'Yowie' ever existing on this planet. That does not mean to say that they didn't exist but until such evidence is forthcoming that they did exist then I am afraid they will remain open to scrutiny and much speculation.
The Tasmanian Tiger was a wonderful looking creature that really did exist and photographs of the last known specimen (in captivity in a zoo) are in abundance on the web. They are not a figment of the imagination but thanks to the human race they were made extinct.
I wish you well in your search for the elusive Sasquatch and regret that my posts may appear flippant to you but I remain sceptical.
Have a nice day my friend.

Originally posted by br0ker
reply to post by jimbo999

 

Leave the tape be. It has no matter in this thread. The sasquatch is concludent as fact, there is no further need of discussing if "bigfoot" is real...

Please discuss the topic/OP at hand.

I have come back to this thread to see if anything else was offered in discussion concerning your OP...as of this date, I am the only one who has offered ANY response concerning your behavior and psychology "theories." And for that, I am further demeaned...sorry, but this is typical of anyone who is just out to hear what they want to hear...you offered no cogent reply to my rebuttal...

reply to post by jeichelberg


The point of the thread is to discuss Sasquatch behavior, not hand you proof to their existence. What you see as proof - I see as material for Sasquatch psychology and behavior analysis.

The work I am doing takes time. It might be everything from 1 month to 3 months before all the best from present research is on track to be posted here. I`m guessing around new-years.
The work involves gathering and analyzing pictures, videos, audio files and taking snapshots from important finds in the videos that back up the thesis of the OP.

Do you have any input to the youtube link I presented concerning Sasquatch language and the OP theories concerning Sasquatch communication?

One of the reports that keep being reported of "skunk ape" / Sasquatch is the stench of it.

I am open to theories on the subject!! Why does it smell?

We`re talking a stench you wouldn`t find on animals in the zoo.

Broker,
quoting you-In this thread I will use conclusions from the researcher community and adapt my own theories for intelligence, strength, illusiveness, tactics and respect for humans. Without further due I will note some of my theories.

Now, bigfoot/facebook is not the only source for bigfoot information. In fact they aren't well regarded by anyone outside of you. That said. As far as the bigfoot community there isn't any kind of consensis on hypothisized conclusions by research groups. In no way shape or form.

So basically since you stated yourself you have no field experience, have not physically yourself observed ANYTHING...your theories are just armchair speculation.

GREAT......

What you do have are some good working observations gleaned from other peoples research. Now since no one knows anything about bigfoot outside of their own observations or observations made by third parties. People can either add to your theories, or choose to interpret the data differently.

Before you go any further, for you to ask anyone to contribute an opinion, you need to pony up the specific data you're working off of and give folks the courtesy of reviewing it. Because as it stands only you know what you're talking about.

BTW many bigfoot have been shot over the years and documented by Robert Lindsey. It works out to about one every 4 yrs. Specific instances off the top of my head are 'the seige at honobia' and the shooting in Manitoba.

If you truely wish to be taken seriously you need to stop whining about your OP....You yourself have made sure intelligent discussion of it is as yet premature. Get Busy.

Originally posted by Caver78
Broker,

First of all, a couple of definitions for you:

THEORY
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.

RESEARCH
1. diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or revise facts, theories, applications, etc.: recent research in medicine.
2. a particular instance or piece of research.
verb (used without object)
3. to make researches; investigate carefully.

For simplicity sake I will quote you then answer you:

QUOTE:
Now, bigfoot/facebook is not the only source for bigfoot information. In fact they aren't well regarded by anyone outside of you. That said. As far as the bigfoot community there isn't any kind of consensis on hypothisized conclusions by research groups. In no way shape or form.

ANSWER:
Bigfoot/facebook have a lot of interesting observations and own analysis of other peoples amateur videos. They theorize and draw conclusions upon the research they have done. Or as you call it - armchair speculation. Well, most of the world to day is run and based on "armchair speculation". When you read a book, add it to your frame of reference with all other information making a mental framework. On amateur observations(those who have not done research or have no experience) you can then theorize upon these observations(written/video/audio/conversation) and draw conclusions.

It is the same principle as the school system. If you have a hand-in on a subject, you do research (read material f.ex.) and then apply your mental framework to copy, theorize and draw your own conclusion.

Other than that - I take note that you say that they facebook/bigfoot isn`t well regarded by ANYONE outside me.

GREAT.

Well I can remember seeing a thorough analysis done by facebook/findbigfoot of the Marble Mountain video before "Finding Bigfoot" picked it up and screened it in a manner less analytical and research based - on national TV. Would you say that the BFRO involved in the series are equally not highly regarded?

I have never said that there are any consensus on hypotized conclusions by research groups. Hypotized conclusions being unlimited and research groups/individuals also being unestimetable..

QUOTE:
So basically since you stated yourself you have no field experience, have not physically yourself observed ANYTHING...your theories are just armchair speculation.

ANSWER:
That is correct. I have not physically observed a Sasquatch in its habitat/nature, but I have observed a lot from my armchair. This is how the world mostly works. The best evidence on this theme is hard to gather on your own, but internet, papers and books can help you a lot on your way. Most of the good research was done upon armchair speculation. If not for armchair speculation, or "theorizing and analyzing upon others observations" we would not have most of the good "evidence" we have today. There would be no PG film known to but a few researchers, few researchers knowing where to look for tracks and evidence if not for reports. I am glad the world is run by "armchair speculation, theorizing and analyzing from their office or home". This makes the world more effective.

Continues....

QUOTE:
So basically since you stated yourself you have no field experience, have not physically yourself observed ANYTHING...your theories are just armchair speculation.

ANSWER:
That is correct. I have not physically observed a Sasquatch in its habitat/nature, but I have observed a lot from my armchair. This is how the world mostly works. The best evidence on this theme is hard to gather on your own, but internet, papers and books can help you a lot on your way. Most of the good research was done upon armchair speculation. If not for armchair speculation, or "theorizing and analyzing upon others observations" we would not have most of the good "evidence" we have today. There would be no PG film known to but a few researchers, few researchers knowing where to look for tracks and evidence if not for reports. I am glad the world is run by "armchair speculation, theorizing and analyzing from their office or home". This makes the world more effective.

QUOTE:
What you do have are some good working observations gleaned from other peoples research. Now since no one knows anything about bigfoot outside of their own observations or observations made by third parties. People can either add to your theories, or choose to interpret the data differently.

ANSWER:
You are wrong, and you are right.
Yes I have observations gleaned from other peoples research. By reading a book or such you will be doing research upon others research, which commonly is based upon research and which again is based upon an amateur observation or report. On this subject we`re not actually handing out questionnaires to everyone – have you ever encountered a bigfoot? A: Yes B: No

But I and all other researchers do analyze and theorize upon it by putting it through our own mental framework based on research around the subject AND every other subject we ever researched.

Some of the theories written are almost copy paste on others theories – Like “proving” why are Sasquatches smart. This is because I think of what I presented as the best theory based on my own framework.
YES, I do hope many will add to my theories, shoot them down or tell me how they interpet the data differently.

QUOTE:
Before you go any further, for you to ask anyone to contribute an opinion, you need to pony up the specific data you're working off of and give folks the courtesy of reviewing it. Because as it stands only you know what you're talking about.

ANSWER:
Well, the specific data I`m working off would be everything I have ever read, seen or heard about the subject. We are talking quite a few books - I have many, reports, videos and audio recordings off both TV, internet and discussions. This is why I created the screening process in the start of the thread – so peers would see an opportunity to discuss the theories here.

So, my mental framework:

Read a few books, many on Amazon.com (but screen them by comments).
Watch almost all of the video clips on the subject – you will find almost all of them on the internet in lesser quality. Including all the thousands of bad clips, fake and hoaxes.
Audiofiles, everything you can get your hands on.
Reports, everytime they pop up.
Discussions, contact and write people that have all of the above if you have questions about them.

QUOTE:
BTW many bigfoot have been shot over the years and documented by Robert Lindsey. It works out to about one every 4 yrs. Specific instances off the top of my head are 'the seige at honobia' and the shooting in Manitoba.

ANSWER:
If you`re talking about Robert LindsAy, then I know. But I never had anything conclusive come out of this, purely because there is no detailed and multiple frames of reference. Thirty or so killings/shootings before dark numbers. And another question that arises is the lack of conclusive documentation. Although I am awaiting DNA testing and pictures to appear from such events. There has also been a few confirmed hoaxes as well as documentation of bones found attached to shootings. Bigfoot graves as well. On this point we need conclusive evidence, since pictures and videos of bones are more easily faked than videos and audio files. And we do not have the sheer frequency of this that we have in bigfoot observations/reports. Although researching credentials and financial status of the persons involved can be a good sign in some of the cases.

Continues...

QUOTE:
BTW many bigfoot have been shot over the years and documented by Robert Lindsey. It works out to about one every 4 yrs. Specific instances off the top of my head are 'the seige at honobia' and the shooting in Manitoba.

ANSWER:
If you`re talking about Robert LindsAy, then I know. But I never had anything conclusive come out of this, purely because there is no detailed and multiple frames of reference. Thirty or so killings/shootings before dark numbers. And another question that arises is the lack of conclusive documentation. Although I am awaiting DNA testing and pictures to appear from such events. There has also been a few confirmed hoaxes as well as documentation of bones found attached to shootings. Bigfoot graves as well. On this point we need conclusive evidence, since pictures and videos of bones are more easily faked than videos and audio files. And we do not have the sheer frequency of this that we have in bigfoot observations/reports. Although researching credentials and financial status of the persons involved can be a good sign in some of the cases.

QUOTE:
If you truely wish to be taken seriously you need to stop whining about your OP....You yourself have made sure intelligent discussion of it is as yet premature. Get Busy.

ANSWER:
I am not here to present reading material, simplify your research of the subject or otherwise convince you or anyone reading the thread that bigfoot is real. If you want it in baby-language then the topic would be: If bigfoot was real – how would he act?

That being said, the only conclusion I can draw from your (timeconsuming post) is, maybe, that bigfoot are maybe not so illusive and skilled in tactics of evading hunters as I would hope. I`d rather not they be killed by a hunter that think they are bears, people hunting them for showing the world or money.

If you have a frame of reference or feel you have done research on the subject of bigfoot, then please. Revise, add, disagree or contribute to the theories in any manner you want. This is why I started this thread and presented my theories (also based upon or copied upon other peoples theories – read above!) as a discussion in a discussion forum.

I look forward to your intellectual response towards the theories presented or your own theories of their behavioral patterns and psychology. I sure hope you have something to contribute, this thread took me almost an hour.

TextTextREPLYREPLY

Originally posted by br0ker
QUOTE:
BTW many bigfoot have been shot over the years and documented by Robert Lindsey. It works out to about one every 4 yrs. Specific instances off the top of my head are 'the seige at honobia' and the shooting in Manitoba.

ANSWER:
If you`re talking about Robert LindsAy, then I know. But I never had anything conclusive come out of this, purely because there is no detailed and multiple frames of reference. Thirty or so killings/shootings before dark numbers. And another question that arises is the lack of conclusive documentation. Although I am awaiting DNA testing and pictures to appear from such events. There has also been a few confirmed hoaxes as well as documentation of bones found attached to shootings. Bigfoot graves as well. On this point we need conclusive evidence, since pictures and videos of bones are more easily faked than videos and audio files. And we do not have the sheer frequency of this that we have in bigfoot observations/reports. Although researching credentials and financial status of the persons involved can be a good sign in some of the cases.

Mr. Lindsay did an amazing amount of fact finding to draw this preliminary conclusion. The only DNA conclusions you could be waiting on are from the Sierra shooting incident as no other shooting samples currently are in testing that I know about. I agree there isn't enough documentation of past shooting incidents, however that doesn't negate the fact they have occurred. It only means the parties involved did inadeqate follow-up post incident. This is due to partly to ordinary folks not realizing the importance of collecting evidence.

QUOTE:
If you truely wish to be taken seriously you need to stop whining about your OP....You yourself have made sure intelligent discussion of it is as yet premature. Get Busy.

ANSWER:
I am not here to present reading material, simplify your research of the subject or otherwise convince you or anyone reading the thread that bigfoot is real. If you want it in baby-language then the topic would be: If bigfoot was real – how would he act?

That being said, the only conclusion I can draw from your (timeconsuming post) is, maybe, that bigfoot are maybe not so illusive and skilled in tactics of evading hunters as I would hope. I`d rather not they be killed by a hunter that think they are bears, people hunting them for showing the world or money.

LOL...didn't ask you to spoon feed me....but it would be awfully nice of you to provide the same info you are referring to so I can comment on it in an intelligent and informed manner. This being the internet I have no earthly idea what you've read or what out of the hundreds of accounts, bigfoot research sites ect...you are basing your theories on. LMAO
Notice I haven't disagreed with your theories, but you HAVE left me and other readers in the dark as to being given the same basic info necessary to either back you or disagree with you.

If you have a frame of reference or feel you have done research on the subject of bigfoot, then please. Revise, add, disagree or contribute to the theories in any manner you want. This is why I started this thread and presented my theories (also based upon or copied upon other peoples theories – read above!) as a discussion in a discussion forum.

I look forward to your intellectual response towards the theories presented or your own theories of their behavioral patterns and psychology. I sure hope you have something to contribute, this thread took me almost an hour.

Equally my response took considerable time. By pointing out your singular source I'd of hoped you'd of linked everyone to some of the more interesting accounts, however that didn't happen.....again....LOL.
And to answer your question about BFRO and the TV series Finding Bigfoot, sigh, many Researchers are moving from the model employed by them as it's become obvious that their tactics don't produce the results necessary. This isn't a slam, but an observation.
While the BFRO'S methods make for good TV....it doesn't advance evidence collection which is necessary for Bigfoot to be studied by anthropologists and the ilk. Yes some isolated biologists and physical anthropologists are interested, as yet there is no widespread interest or move by mainstream universities or wildlife orgs.in the USA to provide funding into cataorgizing Bigfoot.

Now...that said you have some theories you are working from. Behavior's ect.....what I didn't see you do is break it down by region and type's of Bigfoot encountered. This becomes important as while generalizations are easy...if you are really looking at this hard you can't dodge the evidence clearly indicating there are several types whose behaviors are quite different.
Just looking at the spectrum-
The PNW Type- taller, larger and more gray colorations in the hair/fur
The Southern Booger- leaner, reddish color

CONTINUED

The Skunk Ape
The Black Bigfoot- Which seems to have more primate like features and reactions to humans.

This is just a preliminary listing and is still hotly contested in research circles. However if you deal just in sightings reports the variances are accounted for and consistantly reported.

So in your findings are you attributing the behaviors and theory to all bigfoot or certain types of behavior to certain types of Bigfoot. This is important. Grin.........

OP currently chugging asprin......LOL. He/she will be with us momentarily.......

Need... more.... as phh ph..prin..blaargh

reply to post by Caver78


Short version of an answer for you.
I agree, their method doesn`t produce enough anything really. They`re all, and we`re all hoping for a perfect video - where nobody can say.. "that`s a guy in a suit".

Don`t think such a video will exist before bigfoot is either filmed trapped in a cage where you can come see him.. or you`re filming interaction with a bigfoot.

I`ve said many times before - if you want to interact with a BF then show up naked - on equal terms. Then try to communicate. Attach a camera under you`r balls if you have to. Bring only gifts or an offering with meaning to them to gain their trust.

As to categorizing bigfoot it feel it would be like categorizing humans into africans, americans, frenchmen, russians and so on. Looks different but the same inside. Some smell more then others, some climb more trees. We adapt to our environment and so do they. I could of course take on the job, but I don`t really feel it`s important. But I will say that my theories are not made with the skunkape, possible european/russian bigfoot and the himalayan bigfoot in mind. But even though many categorize them by names mostly to geographic placement and looks - I will not. To keep it simple..

Edit:
I feel that if we are to make any progress we must stop trying to prove to the world that they exist, and rather use what we`ve already got to perfect our methods of finding them, contacting them, learning about them in better ways, etc. They can in the future provide a lot of understanding or end up to be a terrible foe. But I think there are a lot of pissed off Sasquatches out there simply because of our disrespect for everything around us in nature (including them) and our "invasion" of their territories. One must remember that Native tribes lived side by side with these creatures for a looong time, since before "white man" sat foot on the land. We don`t show them the respect the indian tribes have done.

Originally posted by Evolutionsend
reply to post by jeichelberg

 

Three people say it's fake, one guy that filmed it says real. I'm going to believe the three people that were each in a position to be involved. I'll admit that he does look oddly built for a simple costume, but that hair looks so fake.

Actually the hair os swhat is more believable about the costume because of how the length changes and conforms to different areas of the body. A suit designer would never have that kind of detail especially back then.

Edit:
I feel that if we are to make any progress we must stop trying to prove to the world that they exist, and rather use what we`ve already got to perfect our methods of finding them, contacting them, learning about them in better ways, etc. They can in the future provide a lot of understanding or end up to be a terrible foe. But I think there are a lot of pissed off Sasquatches out there simply because of our disrespect for everything around us in nature (including them) and our "invasion" of their territories. One must remember that Native tribes lived side by side with these creatures for a looong time, since before "white man" sat foot on the land. We don`t show them the respect the indian tribes have done.

And this is where your argument derails again...there is much info on the 'net detailing research groups doing just this. Building relationships such as can be, working with them in non-threatening ways and slowly making progress.

another derailment is that all Native groups or nations respect them or have in the past. Many did and do not. Point of fact the Choctaw went to war with them and ran them out. Maybe some historical research is in order.
Some nations in the northwest gave them wide berth...ie 'stick indians' due to they're alleged cannabalism.
To portray Native peoples as having more respect for bigfoot as a generalization again is misleading. It romantacises the issue needlessly.

Now.....either my google button works differently than yours or you are very new at this bigfoot thingy. As much as I like your original theories as outlined, your lack of concrete references and generalizations are a sticking point.

Speaking to the different types is quite important as while all are yes, bigfoot, they seem to have different levels of a society going on and since their behavior is what you wanted to discuss I can't see how you'd have a conversation without making mention of it. The darker variety seem to have less skills than others and revert to being aggressive when humans are found in their home ranges. Their features are also noticably different.

The south-eastern reddish ones are much more used to humans and quite bold in drawing humans out to seeminly play games with them.

That is all info you don't really deserve, as your responses have been generalizations. May I make a suggestion....get your cards on the table or go home so to speak. If you want anyone to tell you what they know you have to equally anti-up information. It isn't about fieldwork, or computer research, or crunching data. In the field of bigfoot credability and honesty are everything. One person gives up some info and the courtesy is returned. You have crunched some data...that's good because I'm hoping you've read some things I haven't.

More than likely I know some info you don't have access to because you haven't networked enough or done fieldwork. ....and the asprin crack was a joke......grin. Lighten up.