Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/19/2014 in all areas

  1. Truth? In the time I've been here I haven't seen you add anything to a conversation, all I see is your snarky one line quips and comments taking away, distracting and derailing topics ... ending discussions I would like to see continue because I might learn something. Are you here for any reason other than to stroke your ego by intellectually bullying others? That's a serious question, not the insult it probably looks like. I'm trying to solve the puzzle, not just talk about it as a form of entertainment. I don't care about your faux-intellectual wrangling. I want to hear from the witnesses. Y' know what? Some are indeed full of crap. My ego is not wrapped up in abusing people just because I don't believe them. I listen, I judge, I move on. Nowhere on that list is pronouncing my judgment. Maybe I don't belong here. Folks here have chased most of the witnesses off and gagged the rest. If you think about it, without the witnesses, a bigfoot discussion is pretty much a mental masturbation exercise. That's not what I came here for. People wonder why BF hasn't been proven. The conduct right here on BFF illustrates the answer. Ego ahead of understanding. MIB
    4 points
  2. MIB, you seem to take any contention to research, perhaps yours, as a personal affront. Why such personal infliction? You've not been attacked, nor your own research. Yet you seem particularly incensed. I've taken exception to DWA and his phony issues, it's true. He's remarkably able to discern truth in the myriad reports he's read, or so he purports. If that is, as you describe, snark, so be it.
    2 points
  3. Can't say I have noticed much of a difference in reports between men and women myself....Most men out running through the woods who have a encounter are hunting and in my experience have a extremely defensive and uncomfortable attitude towards being in the woods, most women just aren't, and I would say that one little bit of information makes a real big difference in the nature of the encounter.
    1 point
  4. I doubt that the military has been culling aggressive BF. But I know there are numerous sighting reports on various military reservations. Military reservations are for the most part little used at night, off limits for hunting, and off limits to the public at large. So other than more or less infrequent use by the military, they are ideal habitat for BF to hide in. Certainly one of my encounters the BF seemed to use tactics similar to what the military would use. I was penetrating into a thicket where I had heard movement noises trying to catch a glimpse of what was producing them. Then behind me and off to the side I heard a branch crack. It seemed to me at the time that a BF had flanked me, and made the noise, so I was aware I was being flanked. I took the hint and backed out. In my experience, BF only makes movement ground deadwood or tree branch breaking noises when it does not think humans are around, when it intends to for effect on humans, and when it is forced to move rapidly and does not have time for careful foot placement. Those protocols are the pretty much the same as a military special ops team would use when they move in enemy territory. Like Nathan says they do make mistakes when forced to or because we do something unpredictable. My best encounter was with what I think was three and I had reversed directions 4 times in a period of an hour. They would have had no idea what direction I was going until they made contact. When they did I was headed 270 degrees to where they must have first sighted me, and they were headed in the second direction I took up when I turned around the first time. At the time it was all by chance on my part, hot day wearing shorts, and the first trail was overgrown by blackberry bushes. So I turned around then started on a trail I knew was clear. I decided to use that later to get back to may truck and set off on a third trail where I was at the time of the encounter. Since my random movements seemed a likely reason for the encounter, I have used random changes in direction since then trying to catch anything in the area off guard should it choose to keep me under watch.
    1 point
  5. I was injured by one, but it was my fault. I threw a rock and hit it. It could have killed me too, and your point is well taken that in general they don't resort to that. You'll agree that in most instances where someone is injured or killed it was provoked. Where we might disagree, I'm not sure, is there are a small percentage of unprovoked incidents. I agree that being overly worried about attacks from this creature is something to get over, that it is unlikely to ever happen. But you also have to use some common sense as I believe they can be unpredictable just as we have rogue humans who are exceptions.
    1 point
  6. Plussed for well-proclaimed truth. Constant babble doesn't make one's point.
    1 point
  7. Hello Lake County Bigfooot, Yes, LCB, what you say is on point. A hypothetical example (actually it isn't) would be someone highly regarded in the Bigfoot circle who has been found......how to put it nicely......insincere? Hear that DWA? You have work to do my friend so hop to it. Ignoring the challenge the first time round doesn't mean it goes away. You know me better than that right? Again, PM me if you have questions.
    1 point
  8. I think there's two answer the the OP question. 1 ) Personal experiences. 2 ) Mental illness.
    1 point
  9. " 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.
    1 point
  10. 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.
    1 point
  11. Oh yes it does........ http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Treadwell I've watched Tim film himself trying to pet a brown bear fishing in a river. Tim used a high cut bank to pat the bear on the head as he stood out of the water. When the bear growled in alarm, Tim chastised the bear verbally as you would a lap dog. I agree that many woman see Bigfoot as some sort of fuzzy bunny. Just as Tim saw bears, but it doesn't always follow gender. But I would agree that females generally have a greater capacity for empathy than men do. But absolutely it happens with real animals and sometimes with dire consequences for the human who doesn't give it proper respect.
    1 point
  12. Don't spend any meaningful time waiting.....
    1 point
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-05:00
×
×
  • Create New...