• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

114 Outstanding!

About TedSallis

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Writing, reading, pop culture, cryptozoology

Contact Methods

  • Have you ever had an encounter with a sasquatch-like creature?

Recent Profile Visitors

645 profile views
  1. Does anyone think it is even POSSIBLE for media of a REAL Bigfoot to be believed these days? We've got our heads so full of the possibilities of digital hoaxing could any of these remote encounters, usually involving one or a very few witnesses, ever convince anyone? Sadly, I would say "no." I'm to the point where even though I enjoy looking at the stuff, it just doesn't hit me like it used to because I can never be sure anymore. I guess what I'm getting at it that it seems as if all this media has basically been rendered...valueless. In the absence of a mass (and I mean MASS) sighting, only a specimen seems to have any chance of pushing the creature into the realm of the recognized and believable. Has there ever been an animal that was widely recognized as existing just based on photo or video alone? I'm drawing a blank...maybe the giant squid?
  2. I just visited the Cryptomundo site, that has posted some pictures alleged found recently but taken in 1966 of a Bigfoot and his family. I didn't even look at the video with the photos and went straight for the comments, which were both dismissive and snarky. It made me wonder if the vast amount of hoaxes, whether through photos, videos, footprints or whatever, hasn't made the people who honestly think this creature exists just a bit TOO cynical. We KNOW what can be done in the realm of photoshopping and editing, and we've been "burned" so many times, that now we "default" to a position of skepticism. That's an understandable position, of course, but it might lead to a closed mind and some missed opportunities down the road. What if some of these "obviously" fake photos aren't fake, but we just throw them in the hoax basket because it's easier than getting our hopes up and being burned again? There's no way to know of course, because none of them are definitive and until there's real physical proof, photos will just be a sideshow. But I wonder if for instance, the PG film were made today, would anyone even believe it? One of the strongest arguments for it being real is the fact that the tech didn't exist back then to hoax that convincingly. Well, now the tech has advanced quite a bit (though we still can't reproduce the PG) and we all know it so are we doomed to be blinded even in the fact of something authentic? Just curious.
  3. This is obviously for those among us who have had a sighting or at least an encounter that was fairly unequivocal (i.e. not much doubt that it could have been a bear, other animal, etc.). What, if any, psychological impact did it have on you? Were you able to just be amazed for a short while, then easily move on? Did it really make you question more than just the existence of this one creature, i.e. open you up to other inquiry? Did it frighten you, make you feel very vulnerable? Maybe it stuck with you in the form of fear of ridicule? I'm just curious about this because personally, I really think if I had such an encounter, it would be a life-changing event. I mean, I think I would have a hard time not thinking about it when I should be thinking of other things. Maybe not; I guess I won't know until when/if I have one, and that's pretty doubtful. Thanks in advance for your responses. I understand these are very personal experiences and I'd imagine talking about them might be a little difficult for most.
  4. Great (though occasionally sidetracked ) discussion, everyone. Hifier, I can maaaaybe grant you that some of the so-called "dogmen" sightings could be bear, but what about the fact that the vast majority of up close BF sightings indicate a flat face, and rounded, not pointed, ears? Seems to me when you take away these attributes, you really are out of the "bear" game altogether.
  5. Argh! I feel that the line from that old Who song, "every thought that's in my head, someone else has said". Oh well, thanks Bonehead!
  6. http://ericdockett.hubpages.com/hub/Teddy-Roosevelt-Bigfoot Don't know if this has been discussed before but I haven't seen it here. Enjoy if you haven't seen it.
  7. ^ Oh, you can scream. You can always scream.
  8. Misidentification exists, granted, and it may well account for a large majority of sightings. However, I think it is much more difficult to dismiss or explain away cases of seasoned outdoorsmen (hunters, trappers, etc.) who are quite familiar with the 'other' things it could have been like bear, people, etc. and still say "this is something else". Those in particular are the cases that defy easy explanation and need to be taken very, very seriously.
  9. The difference is that the "proponents" often do not assign exact definition to what they saw, they simply say it was something they had not encountered before and wasn't a bear, man, etc. The skeptics (many of them, at any rate) have 'figured it all out' by default, since they KNOW the animal does not exist. Their minds are closed. Those who have sighted it do not often explicitly say "yes, that was a relic hominid" or a Sasquatch or whatever...they just know they saw something unusual.
  10. I take 'everywhere' to mean just that...everywhere. I admire your insight in regards to the motives and psychology of EVERY single witness, regardless of time frame, continent, ethnicity, etc. But I find it wanting, sorry.
  11. For the sake of argument, let me just concede that BF more than likely does not exist in the regions you listed. OK. Does that somehow mean that it doesn't exist in any of the other regions in the country that I assume you feel are more logical? It seems like you are using the argument that some of these places are unlikely to eliminate the possibility of the animal existing ANYWHERE, and that doesn't make sense to me. For the record, I do feel this is a physical, not supernatural, being we are discussing here.
  12. . So your logic is that if they are supposedly seen in places where you think they cannot be (though since we don't yet know what BF is, I have no idea how one could know where they "could" or "couldn't" exist), that somehow also invalidates all the times they are seen in places you think they 'could' be?
  13. Disagree with the analysis, I'm afraid. There are not "everywhere"...nobody says they've seen them in the middle of the ocean, or in mid-air, for instance. And as far as "nowhere", tell that to a witness.
  14. Depends on what you call a "monster", I guess. To some, the gorilla is a monster or the hippopotamus or the great white shark.
  15. All myths have some basis in truth. The trick is to disseminate what is truth and what isn't. It's a fallacy to assume that just because something isn't totally true as presented, that necessarily means it's totally false