Hmmm, no comment! How about this one; Survivaldude runs into BF out in the woods and kills him, dresses him out, and slow roasts him over a fire, giving us another great "lifesaving" tip!:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by trax
Printable View
Hmmm, no comment! How about this one; Survivaldude runs into BF out in the woods and kills him, dresses him out, and slow roasts him over a fire, giving us another great "lifesaving" tip!:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by trax
Of course, Survival Dude will really have to kill a crew member dressed in the BF costume, so.....
Sounds good. We'll have an "EC" shot at the end of that scene where survivaldude, recognizes his mistake, sheaths his $700 knife, says "oops",:eek: then goes on to show how to make an incredible bar-b-que sauce out of urine!:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by trax
I think he should make a Rambo style headband out of "BF's" entrails and just clench the knife in his teeth for effect, the bbq sauce really works for me tho', I'm sure Martha would want in on that!
Now how did I miss that headband idea? He could also make a cool coat from the hide, & while modeling it is photographed "out-of-focus" by a passer-by and his pic appears on the front page of the National Enquirer as another BF sighting.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by trax
Ha! Martha GAVE him the idea! And she wanted to have SOMETHING NEW to roast, that would set her above any other cook, so it had to be something others haven't cooked!Quote:
Originally Posted by trax
Survival Dude has Martha and Paris H. with him. I'm sure one of them would demand the new fur coat, and if Paris was modeling it, they'd have out of focus pictures of a little scrawny bigfoot. I better stop :)
Well Bigfoot is a legend... and Legends started somewhere didn't they? Then there is some kinda truth to Bigfoot or SASQUATCH but I think by now the species has probably died out, and all the photos or videos are either distorted or blurry. :D
If you think about there are not that many sightings so if real there might not be to many probably less than grizly bears how man have you seen in the wild how many skeletons of bears or other great animals have you sen in the wild so the fact that no bones have been found from BF is not the best excuse for denial. Maybe it is slick maybe it is reclusive or maybe it just isn't/
ill admit it, im slightly obsessed with bigfoot... even if he may not exist, i love to read about people's sightings. maybe the reason all of the pictures people take of bigfoot are blurry is because he is just a large blurry monster :P although there are these new pictures that some claim to be a young bigfoot
you can find them here http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp
I'd like to think that there is a "sasquatch" out there, would really hate to know that we have all knowledge of the existing wildlife.
Last night, on the History Channel, they started a new series called: "Monster Quest". This episode was about a lake way up in Northern Canada where the only way in is by sea plane. There have been reports of a (Gasp) :eek:Sasquatch-like creature running around up there because of some bits of evidence. I called them and told them it was probably Trax, FVR, Wareagle69, along with Norm just fartin' around with the investigators.
Seriously though, these guys even had some DNA evidence that they let stay out exposed to the elements for two years before they let it be looked at. Interesting program all the same.:rolleyes:
That ain't no bigfoot Sarge, it some big dumba** canuck circus freak like the dog faced boy, crap ain't that Trax... lol... jk fellers. :D
We should have a Big Foot Day it could become bigger than ground hog day.
I wear a size 13 shoe... ladies;)... jk, but i do wear a 13 :D
Big-foot turns out to be an old Hippie lost out in the woods years ago trying to get to Woodstock, but over-dosed on "Bad Acid". He's 4 foot talll, covered with hair, wieghs 500 lbs., and has size 20EEEE feet. The Cryptozooologists go nuts!:rolleyes:
*sigh* gotta love bigfoot babble
there are many unexplaned things out there so why dont we just have opened minds on the unexplaned. it just sounded good to me?
This doesn't make any sense. Open minds to what if it's unexplained?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by sam30248
People have been trying to explain it with really stupid answers. if you want to believe them then go for it.:rolleyes:
Do we really need scientific evidence to suggest such an animal exists? And by scientific evidence I mean tangible physical proof such as a body or body part.
well sarge i said it just sounded good but while you have been out say,hiking you have never come across anything or track you cannot explain , or anyone out there
Was that a question? Yes I have and since I don't know what it is I DO keep my options open. That's why I don't buy into the groups like BFRO and others. One lady reported a Sasquatch/BF visiting her on occaision and said he could talk English in a low, gutteral voice and would converse with her on a social level.. My problem is that I look through things logically and all the Hoopla, while apparently desired to be true by some, is very Illogical. Here's the "nut-shell" version.Quote:
Originally Posted by sam30248
In 50 years of reported sightings no one has:
a.) Figured out to use the "Auto-focus" feature or their power-zoom lens
on their cameras; hence all the "bad" camera shots.
b.) Found one BF Corpse. Either dead of Old age or Road-kill.
c.) Admitted the confessions of self-admitted "hoaxers", which, BTW are
ignored by the BF "groupies".
D.) Does BF "poop" in the woods? Not one trace of BF scat reported.
No DNA evidence of any kind.
Now I have an Open mind, also an IQ a bit larger than my shoe-size. It "Could" be the Sasquatch character that many are desperately hoping for,(which some claim is actually an Alien creature from a UFO) or some other animal, or more "Hoaxers". Maybe even my "Hairy Hippy", which is equally as absurd as some of the reports I've read. My point is: we DON'T know, so let's knock off the silly stuff. I've put my judgement on hold, all the way around, until solid evidence is laid out in front of me. :confused:
Bigfoots fake.
I have never seen a big foot. However, here is a link to someone who has? http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp Interesting...
Of course, my avatar has pretty big feet also..:D
Hell I dated her for a time, way back in my young and dumb days. Connie had mens size 14 shoes. Bigest feet I ever did see. Great dancer.
Dilli
I BELIEVE it is far more fun to believe then not to , I hope that we as a people never stop to find the woods sometimes scary, that we find wonder or that we do not know all the answers at list to know all would be dull .. I do not CARE one way or the other.. I just love to hear something in the woods and ...GO... did ..you ..hear.. that !!!
I bet Connie stepped on a lot of toes.
We do have FUR and there is no match in the animal kingdom for it :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge47
However that does not mean that we need to "jump to the conclusion" that it belongs to a 9' creature that leaves huge footprints. BTW, a lot of the "so-called" fur has been analyzed and found to be POLYESTER fibers. Some people are actually creating evidence to support there desired belief. Penn & Teller did a really great expose of some of the lengths these so-called "Crypto-Zoo-ologists" go through to "prove" their" theory on their series: "Bull Sh*T".:rolleyes: Bring me DNA evidence and I'll start listening. We don't have any! Not one trace of Scat! Not one case of them being tracked to their lair by some of the best trackers around. Not one of them ever found dead on the road, or anywhere else for that matter.:confused: We do have people like Rance Mullens who admitted to faking footprints. Others who have admitted to throwing rocks onto the roofs of buildings. and don't even get me started on the "Patterson footage." I need to see a BF body, then we'll go from there; otherwise it's all conjecture. You prove the existence of any new species by producing solid evidence, not merely opinions.:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Smok
If there were a bigfoot, what would it be?
A big ape (gorilla) that evolved on the north american continent?
Or a neanderthal that escaped extinction?
Or a giant ground sloth that was mistakenly identified (This did/do exist).
I think it is possible for both things to have existed in the past (hundreds of years ago), but not anymore. We would have seen one by now or they would have all been killed off. A yeti, I hold out hope for.
WE do have Big Foot Days here :) and it is Bigger than Ground Hog Day... Here .But then I live in N. Calif. where the first BIG FOOT was sited :eek: O by the way what is a ground hog Ieeee think you may be making it up :pQuote:
Originally Posted by HOP
I'm headed for the Big Foot center on Thanksgiving so I will stop and get you all some Photos ... :cool: I hope to be able to post the photo by then ...:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MedicineWolf
Where is the costume?
If the original costume is gone, why can't they make an identical costume and do it again? Why is that so hard?
Why does the news media always trumpet every half-baked "man in the costume" story that comes along without asking for the obvious proof, which should be so simple to provide?
The size of a creature like big foot would mean that it would be foraging 90% of its time, need a cave or den bigger than a wolf, about bear size. No one has a clear picture, cear video, scat, hair clumps, or other conclusive evidence. Only haphazard pics and blurry video's, thus I say big foot is fake. But is Big foot the same as Sasquatch? In my native culture they are different, as is the wendigo which is covered by every native american culture and still believed in to this day with physical proof.
Sarge regarding your question, "Does Bf "poop" in the woods? Not one trace of BF scat reported."
Their feces are sausage-shaped, up to 4" inches in diameter and up to three feet long, forming a folded heap. They are replete with numerous intestinal parasites, including hook worms, as well as small bones, hair of prey and ample vegetal matter. A sasquatch has been observed to wipe itself with its hand and lick its fingers briefly, a decidedly simian gesture.
MedicineWolf; Bigfoot was a journalistic term for Sasquatch generated in the middle of the last century during a rash of sightings in Northern California; its use is not unreasonable since the species has proportionally much bigger feet than those of human beings and, furthermore, the word has come to be recognized widely. Myself I don't like the term, Bigfoot.
Because science has dismissed big foot as a hoaxs and science is not exact I wonder if they have discovered bones but have misrepresented them as neanderthal or ape. Science has done great thingd but is also the biggest hustle on the planet that is why they are so secretive. Maybe the varmits drag the bones of like they do most other animal remains, coyotes don't leave much .
I disagree, Sasquatch is a Native American term if I am correct, and has been around since the white an came into contact with them. In northern Wisconsin, Lakota Indians know the creature by the name Chiye-tanka, a Lakota name for "Big Elder Brother"[
many scientists believe bigfoot, if he exists, is a reminant of the species gigantopithecus which was a giant hominid. They have found bones of gigantopithecus that have been dated to only 100 thousand years agoQuote:
Originally Posted by HOP
ive heard that theory amoung others... such as there are in fact an entire population of bigfoots... lol @ that
further, some ppl believe that he or that group is or are ancestors of ancient indians that have evolved in an odd way
others think there is a few guys who live in the northwest who pop up every now and again and scare the daylights outta ppl
well then... wat i hafta say about bigfoot relating to outdoor survival... thats a lot of meat to cook!:)