Bigfoot Is Real (page 8)

flipper

FINKELSTEIN- I know the difference between bear tracks and Sasquatch tracks. THIS is NOT a bear track. This was the first Bigfoot print we photographed back in 2007

belbab

Big foots are bears that lost their front legs in a bear trap and then learned how to walk on their hind legs.

Belbab

I am trying to find some actual statistics about land surveys. I head that it is a 50/50 split between inhabited and virtually uninhabited areas. 100 years ago the uninhabitad regions were far greater. This is arable land percentages, not including Antarctica and deserts. There are many areas of the world that have been surveyed, but only by air because they are just too difficult for humans to navigate. Some of the toughest people IMO are Army Rangers and even they hate certain areas because of the terrain. As humans we are just so weak compared to the rest of nature. Most of us would die from exposure in under a month if we were dropped naked into a dense forrest. We just can't hack it, we are too soft. As an example the Congo swamp is about 90% uncharted to this day, and it is about the size of Florida. Nobody wants to go in there except for some scientist once in a while, it's too dangerous! To make the argument that we can just waltz into a real wilderness with dangers from exposure and Grizzlies for a few days and expect to find something doesn't really hold up. The Giant Panda was only a rumor for decades. Supposedly a German Zoologist puchased a cub in 1916. Before that it was just stories and one reported hide owned by a villager somewhere. After that the hunt was on, everyone wanted to see this animal. It took about 50 years to find it. Teddy Roosevelt's son finally shot one. The funny thing is that the Panda is pretty dumb and was just living his life in China, in a area about the size of Arizona. It was making no special efforts to hide as it is not a very sneaky animal. We just couldn't find it.

I think of Snow Leopards as well. They have rarely been filmed in the wild because they are so elusive. They were legends as well. Although I admit there is no accepted scientific evidence yet, the amount of uncharted territory that exists along with a possible primate intelligence makes me think that an un-classified animal could still exist. Don't forget Mountain Gorillas either. No one thought they were real.

The numbers of this animal could be small and all sightings could just be accidental. The sightings could be Males patrolling their territories. The animal is reportedly nocturnal so that doesn't help. I would love to be able do some research myself. I think you would have to live all alone in an isolated area where numerous sightings have been reported. You would have to lose your city smell and really stay out there a while to have a chance of finding something if it existed. Even a skeleton would be gone in a matter of weeks. The jury is out for me. I think it is possible.

EntirelyPossible

This was the first Bigfoot print we photographed back in 2007.

Where is the footprint in the picture? Were there any other tracks? How long is the stride? How long after a rain was this?

DATA-DOG

The footprint is very clear. Some things are hard to see unless we are outdoor types. Even then some " Hunters " have pretty poor woodcraft as they tend to fixate on only certain animals during specific hunting seasons. That is not a bear or a boot, or a human foot. I saw a similar track in a frozen creek as a teen. I wish that I had photographed it. There was no human running around barefoot that winter.

flipper

ENTIRELY POSSIBLE- " Where is the footprint in the picture " ? Oh, I forgot, you're blind. I'll try to post the picture in braille next time. Jesus

EntirelyPossible

Oh, I forgot, you're blind. I'll try to post the picture in braille next time.

Are you hiding behind sarcasm because you can't point it out or because it isn't there? Seriously, I see a depression. I am asking you to point out what specifically identifies it as a Bigfoot.

Can you or can't you? I ask about the stride because, if in fact there IS a footprint that you can point out with toe marks and everything, the length of the stride and the depth of the depressions will absolutely give us some indication about whether the animal was walking or running, height, weight, etc. Information about how long since the rain can give us information about how old the footprint was, etc.

Also, if you are considering the front and rear depressions in the picture to be part of the same footprint, the animal has an interesting foot shape, with an arch so high it barely touched the ground even though it's heel and toes made deep depressions. Also, the outside shape of the foot indicate an almost banana shaped foot, not a shape seen in any other purported Bigfoot prints, it would be difficult for a bipedal mammal with this shaped foot to walk, let alone actually run (also why I asked about other prints, stride information, etc.). With the ground soft enough for a depression that deep, there should be others close by to find.

Or, it could just be two depressions side by side.

So, any more info?

EntirelyPossible

Oh, and since you brought it up, how DO you know the difference between bear and squatch tracks? I mean, you've never seen a squatch make a track, so you can't actually confirm what it looks like....

Finkelstein

FINKELSTEIN- I know the difference between bear tracks and Sasquatch tracks.

THIS is NOT a bear track. This was the first Bigfoot print we photographed back in 2007.

Peace out, Mr. Flipper

The name in itself purposes an identity that is large in nature, so the argument that well

the animal can hide easily is mute.

Being somewhat of a hiker myself I've come across indentations in soil that could be

perceived as a foot print.

As EP pointed out animal foot prints can become distorted by the initial pressure impact on

to the soil if the soil is particularly wet and lose.

So lets imagine an animal like a bear for example going through some wet soft soil and during

the point of impact there is s slight slip upon one individual impression. This would elongate the

impression left in the soil and over some time as weather elements occurred such as rain this would further distort the print.

or even other animals stepping into the same print, the original impression becomes so distorted that it doesn't look nothing

in similarity to the limb that made the print.

flipper

FINKELSTEIN & ENTIRELY POSSIBLE- I'm not going to waste any more breath, time, or writing on behalf of either one of you guys. It's obvious you will try to discredit ANYTHING I put on this thread about ANY legitimate research I've done and since you are into tandem warfare tactics and group gang bang techniques I'll just stop replying . I know what I've researched and that's really good enough for me. Not going to keep arguing the point as it's clear you both have some hidden reasons you want to discredit anything I say. I'm satisified with research studies I've read from noted scientists, primatologists, and university accredited teachers that prove that Sasquatch exists. I don't exist in this world to prove something to people that don't DESIRE something to be proved to them . No big deal. I'm quite happy within my own experiences and I know Sasquatch exists due to my and MANY thousands of other people experiencing this creature. If you were really interested you'd take the time to read these thousands of experiences- but THAT is not the goal you are after - you just purely wish to discredit. So, carry on, have a good evening or day wherever you are

Bigfoot Is Real

Share this