Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Why has no hunter bagged one yet?"
I would NEVER shoot at something I was not sure of what it was (only exception would be if I thought I was in immediate danger of an attack). There is not one hunter I know of that would shoot at something that was not the game they set out to hunt.
ETA: Lucky for all the hoaxers who think going around the woods dressed up like bigfoot is a great pass time
Of course, in all of human history of hunting, a person would never shoot something that was not the game they set out to hunt. I mean why, out of all the poaching and hunting, would a person at some point in human history, kill a bigfoot? Makes perfect sense for the continued fallacy argument bigfoot believers partake in.
Even at that, I can go and find evidence of deer, bears, elk, raccoons, moose, ect, so where is this evidence of bigfoot at?
Of course, in all of human history of hunting, a person would never shoot something that was not the game they set out to hunt. I mean why, out of all the poaching and hunting, would a person at some point in human history, kill a bigfoot? Makes perfect sense for the continued fallacy argument bigfoot believers partake in.
Even at that, I can go and find evidence of deer, bears, elk, raccoons, moose, ect, so where is this evidence of bigfoot at?
I doubt you actually know hat to look for. Thinking you can just go for a walk about and see one or find tracks is a fallacy. These things are very good a hiding the tracks and very often travel quadrupedal, Many good trackers keep up with them when tacking two feet but have trouble following the quad tracks.
Why not for just a bit accept a bit of what is being told and follow that line of thought and learn a bit and go do what is told to do to put you into position to have an experience or find sign and you will be intrigued.That is what i did on my hoax busting trips and i came away that there was definitely something out of the ordinary going on. I come from a strong farm back ground and hunted for years and that included predators as well.There were some strange things happened while camping as a kid and after adult hoax busting attempts it only created more questions.
We found a pine tree that a tall and skinny left over from logging on a steep hillside at least 40 degree slope. This tree was alive and bent over to the ground right in the middle of a huge blackberry patch. Weighing the tree top down was a old log section about 2&1/2 ft thick about 5 ft long and was hardwood and looked to weigh at least 250-300 lbs. We looked for at least 15 minutes for the stump and couldn;t ever find it. The log was a very old cut and not from the last logging on that hillside about 2 years before.
Why someone would do this and how they could have done this is beyond me. Way to much debris and too steep for a truck etc to have driven there and no vehicle track or dozer tracks knocked down the berries. I a guy would need a crane to have done it. There are so many arm chair judges that do nothing but just say no and won't look at anything. Yes be skeptical.
Of course, in all of human history of hunting, a person would never shoot something that was not the game they set out to hunt. I mean why, out of all the poaching and hunting, would a person at some point in human history, kill a bigfoot? Makes perfect sense for the continued fallacy argument bigfoot believers partake in.
Even at that, I can go and find evidence of deer, bears, elk, raccoons, moose, ect, so where is this evidence of bigfoot at?
Ah, but you fail to realize that poachers, though irresponsible, are also very lazy and are not hiking into the back country where bigfoot is supposed to be. They are often shooting animals from their vehicles on busy roads/high ways (case in point: game wardens often catch them with decoys at such locations).
Also, animals such as deer, bears, elk, raccoons, moose, ect, are not reclusive, nor as scarce as animals like the Bigfoot is reported to be. I wonder how often one will find evidence of wolverines in their native habitat, an animal that is both scarce and reclusive. On top of that, if a reclusive great ape is out there, he would be far more intelligent and therefore efficient at evading detection than a wolverine. Wolverines were thought to be a mythical animal for a long while by Europeans being told about such an animal by Native Americans.
Also, you seem to assume that just because I defend hunters, that I must believe in Bigfoot. You are wrong, I even made the point that those people running around the back country in hairy costumes are lucky that most hunters are responsible. Even if I was faced with something that I believed was a bigfoot, I would not shoot it as there would be that nagging thought at the back of my mind, "what if it's a guy in a really good costume?" I'm not going to take that chance, and I think many would be tempered by that same thought. Actually, many hunters who have reported seeing a bigfoot, often sight that reason to the question why they didn't shoot it, or that it was just too human like for them to feel comfortable to shoot (along with the reason that they are not just going to shoot anything that moves). I would have to feel I was in immediate danger of attack by an aggressive animal before I would shoot anything outside my intended game.
But no, I do not think there are bigfoots (or is the plural of that bigfeets ). I'm just pointing out the errors I see in the naysayers arguments. I believe many who report they saw bigfoot, believe they saw something, but it was mistaken identity by "citified" individuals who do not have a knowledge of nature or wildlife or saw some hoaxer playing a prank. Also, I've seen some hunting "mossy" camo outfits that essentially turns the hunter into a walking hairball, greenish in color, but at a distance the silhouette of a walking man wearing such a getup would look like an upright ape. Most non-hunters seeing that would not know what that was, but most hunters would just chalk up that distant, upright walking figure as a man in "mossy camo" and is not going to think it is a bigfoot.
Actually, for that reason, I give a bit more credence to hunters who say they've encountered a bigfoot, just for the fact they are more knowledgeable about nature, the creatures they encounter on a regular basis and are far less likely to mistake a bear or "hairy camo guy" for a real creature that does not fit the description of a known animal. But I can't rule out attention seeking behavior in those cases, so again, I have yet to see definitive proof of bigfoot....I just don't like to seeing flawed arguments, even if it is supporting my belief/viewpoint.
The flawed argument is that bigfoot believers continue the circular argument that it exists, but bigfoot is so smart and rare, it is impossible to prove it exists, thus resorting to the fallacy argument that the beleivers do not need to prove bigfoot exists, but non-believers must prove bigfoot does not exist.
There is no evidence at all, nothing, that shows bigfoot exists. Any argument against bigfoot's existence is met with unsupported theories and fallacy arguments. There is no hair, bones, blood, teeth; nothing.
"Wolverines were thought to be a mythical animal for a long while by Europeans being told about such an animal by Native Americans."
Hardly an apples to apples comparison.
"Actually, many hunters who have reported seeing a bigfoot, often sight that reason to the question why they didn't shoot it, or that it was just too human like for them to feel comfortable to shoot (along with the reason that they are not just going to shoot anything that moves)."
Of course, there is always a reason, no surprise there, this is the only way to support the cause.
"Ah, but you fail to realize that poachers, though irresponsible, are also very lazy and are not hiking into the back country where bigfoot is supposed to be."
Oh yes, of course, poachers would never go through great lengths to bag some kills, cut some illegal trees, something, just for money. You are incorrect in your assumption about poachers; though many are lazy and will shoot from their cars, there are many that go deep into the back country to do their misdeeds, bag a few bears and sell the parts to the Chinese, or scope out some valuable trees to fell and make money. Many poachers are hardly the one tooth redneck in SC spotlighting deer.
Given the circumstances that would surround the first person that proved bigfoot exists, I do not at all think that out of the course of HUMAN HISTORY (we can just keep with recent), a person would have not killed a bigfoot to show to the world. People kill over much less, and illegally at that.
How do you know some poacher or poachers have not shot one? Just because the don't know you or feel any need to let you in on their crimes. Once again i put the offer out there to go get some free info and i get naysayers and no takers.
The flawed argument is that bigfoot believers continue the circular argument that it exists, but bigfoot is so smart and rare, it is impossible to prove it exists, thus resorting to the fallacy argument that the beleivers do not need to prove bigfoot exists, but non-believers must prove bigfoot does not exist.
There is no evidence at all, nothing, that shows bigfoot exists. Any argument against bigfoot's existence is met with unsupported theories and fallacy arguments. There is no hair, bones, blood, teeth; nothing.
Where did you get this crap from?(bigfoot believers continue the circular argument that it exists, but bigfoot is so smart and rare, it is impossible to prove it exists, thus resorting to the fallacy argument that the beleivers do not need to prove bigfoot exist) I offer to take you to a great location and you just ignore it and try to act so smug and all knowing. Arm chair quarter backing at it's best. The people i know that are in the know just see no reason to even talk to arm chair quarterbacks.What's in it for them? nothing but ridicule.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). I'm just pointing out the errors I see in the naysayers arguments. I believe many who report they saw bigfoot, believe they saw something, but it was mistaken identity by "citified" individuals who do not have a knowledge of nature or wildlife or saw some hoaxer playing a prank. Also, I've seen some hunting "mossy" camo outfits that essentially turns the hunter into a walking hairball, greenish in color, but at a distance the silhouette of a walking man wearing such a getup would look like an upright ape. Most non-hunters seeing that would not know what that was, but most hunters would just chalk up that distant, upright walking figure as a man in "mossy camo" and is not going to think it is a bigfoot.
