Information: This board is currently read-only.

BF Invisibility Explained... again?

Advanced Member
Joined: October 12th, 2011, 3:11 am

September 28th, 2013, 4:27 pm #1 ... 2questions

This is a VERY LONG article and tries to present the broad idea of why it "could be" true, but like anyone who has a wild hypothesis, they use anecdotal evidence and present it as verifiable (spelling?) then blend the two together and conclude it must be possible for bigfoot to do this.

I've read thru it once, but I'm not prepared to say I really find anything about it plausible. In our research area, the inclusion of a smell directly related to what we believe are bigfoot encounters are small. On a night when Pat and I had a direct vocal interaction with several individuals, there was a small area within 75 or so feet of camp where when Pat walked thru it, there was a skunky odor there for a little while that eventually dissipated.

So, while we've had situations where we've had odd, bad smells appear around camp, there's not necessarily been a direct connection to believing a BF was around, and more over, we've had plenty of BF interactions where there's simply no connection to smell. But of course, the person who believes in what this paper is trying to present would simply say that in our cases, they just haven't needed to use invisibility to protect themselves.

Like many in this field, it seems the lack of good rational explanations breeds the need to understand what's happened to them, and creating irrational explanations fills the void of "not knowing".

Enjoy... if you can? LoL