Leaderboard

Thats the point I'am making...... Observed behavior can be perceived how ever the human mind wants to perceive it. In the case of Tim petting a wild brown bear? He never perceived it's growl as a lethal threat, only as the bear being "cranky" with him for a moment. Seems ludicrous to me but made perfect sense to Timothy. The only difference between reported and documented behavior is that a biologist has been able to study a creature and assign the species with traits. That doesn't change the fact that generally speaking men want to kill everything in the forest and women want to cuddle and nurture it. Sasquatch being a real creature or not has nothing to do with generalized gender perceptions.

Just speaking for myself here, but I'd find it even stranger if those claims were made about an animal that was already confirmed to exist.

" Um, no, actually, dmaker's wrong and wrong by so much - and pointed out way way too many times here - that I'm not going to waste fingerprints doing it again." And yet, you didn't stop talking.....

There are also a lot of real things one can ridicule if they choose. A person's choices, especially their "go to" default choices, say a lot about them. MIB

^^^Plussed, dmaker^^^ Speaking as a bigfoot proponent, this is the most cogent and succinct critique of the evidence "problem" and the burden of proof that I have read here. BF believers and proponents of all bents have to face it if they want to be taken seriously.

" Yes dmaker, you could, undoubtedly, but to suggest that in and of itself that negates eyewitness reports as a whole is not consistent with logic." That was not what I said. I said that the oft touted consistency in the reports points to truth is, in my opinion, wrong since fabricating a report that contains, what many would consider consistent details, would not be difficult at all to do. The evidence that you mentioned can, and often has been, faked. So until, or if, bigfoot is ever confirmed then one cannot rule out mistakes or hoaxes in any single piece of the mentioned evidence. That is,also, just being honest and logical. Name one type of evidence for bigfoot that has not also had examples of hoaxing or mistaken identity. Just one. You cannot. We have proof of faked tracks; proof of faked photos; proof of faked video; DNA testing results, many of them, that have come back as either synthetic material or known animals. I am not saying that this proves that ALL alleged bigfoot evidence is mistakes or faked, but it demonstrates that any one of them could be. This negates your assertion that we must prove all of them to be fake. No, proponents must prove just ONE of them to be genuine. Therein lies the burden of proof. Not the other way around. To suggest that some of them must be true unless all are proven fake is incorrect. Many have been proven to be faked or mistakes, not a single one has proven to be genuine. There is no secret truth lurking in the absence of proof that all are fake. That is incorrect logic. If anything the current record leans strongly toward more fake than genuine since, as I pointed out, not a single piece of alleged bigfoot evidence has ever been proven to be genuine. But many have been proven false. The numbers are not on your side.

I'm talking about reported behavior vs actual documented behavior. In the case of the bear, and other known animals, we have the benefit of observing the actual animals behavior. When dealing with purely imaginary animals, it is interesting to note the differences in reported behavior based on gender of the witness.

Has anyone actually listened to the link? Coonbo makes it very clear that it is a second or third hand story and that he doesn't believe that it happened.

The boys who do that show undoubtedly have their own views that they push on the people that listen each and every week which are that these animals aren't the lovey dovey "forest people" that some people think they are, and are actually quite dangerous wild animals that highly likely do hurt humans at times and they only have guests on their show who always drop in words to that effect in every interview they air. Whether they're right or not, who knows. My guess as always is that like so many things, it's somewhere in the middle. I don't believe every one of these animals has an underlying intention to eat people like the Guys that do that show seem to think, but nor do I think these animals are just big hairy furballs that are more likely to leave a flower on your porch and smile at you than anything else, like others seem to think.