Leaderboard

According to Paulides, who formerly spent 20 years in law enforcement, he uncovered details that were not publicly known which the tracker never heard. Did the tracker in that TV station video you linked to ever talk to the Key familiy? No, he got second hand knowlege. Paulides discovered that the key family had observed the hairy man or whatever they saw carrying something on its shoulder, but the tracker in the TV interview never heard that. Paulides learned that from talking to the little boy's father who is someone who was there during search and rescue. Now, the tracker claims the key family heard a little boy screaming, but states the FBI claims the Key family was too far away for it to be related. But Paulides and another man walked the distance and claimed it was not too far away for the time frame, and may have been just right for that time frame. Now, you say Paulides is sensationalizing all this for book sales, which is highly subjective and you have no strong basis to claim that. Fortunately she was chased by a slow one. I suspect if he really wanted to catch her he would have.

Well actually there is one exception. Everyone is welcome to discuss anything your heart desires in the Premium section of the forum. No rules (obviously you can't threaten someone's life, but you know what I mean). No moderation except in very extreme circumstances. It's only about $1.70 per month. The proceeds go towards forum maintenance, so it's a good cause. The entire BFF 1.0 is archived there along with tons of historical archives... and more. Well worth a buck 70 a month. Send me a message if you want more info. We would appreciate your support!

Georgerm, I've always loved that story about the three blind men and the elephant, too. I often think of it when reading the posts on this forum. As for what I said back there a ways, I stand by it. Every perspective IS valid, for the holder of the perspective. Being afraid IS a choice, just like every emotion is. We've all seen people react completely differently to the exact same thing. One person might laugh; another might cry. Those two people are making different choices. Once upon a time, a similar situation made them laugh (or cry). So when something similar presents itself again, the brain quickly searches the memory banks to find out how they reacted the last time, so they can "pick" an emotion that "matches". We're not always conscious of doing that -- it happens really quickly -- but it IS a choice. If our reactions, thoughts, and feelings were not under our control -- if they really sprang from something in our external circumstances, instead of from something in us -- then we'd all have the exact same responses to everything. So the question becomes, why do people choose fear? Why do they let it sit in the driver's seat? It is the place of least clarity; the least helpful response. In a genuine emergency, many people experience the slowing of time and the descent of a sense of calm. In that state, they are able to make intelligent, quick decisions and avert further disaster. Fear does the opposite. It causes us to make bad decisions and invites further disaster. As for the statement that most BF are not interested in killing people, it's an obvious fact, to me. BF is all over North America, and all over the planet. I live far from the Pacific Northwest, but they're here. I live in an urban area, and they're here. They're here in large numbers, living right next to us in every conceivable part of the world -- and yet, every night, people come home to their suppers without incident. Every day, children go play in the woods and come back when their mothers call them. If BF had some predisposition to kill humans, none of the witnesses and experiencers who jaw on this forum every day would be moving a muscle. Have some BF killed humans? Obviously so. So, both things are obvious: that some human deaths have been caused by BF, and that the vast, vast majority of BF have no interest in killing anybody. Which do you choose to emphasize as important? The rarity of BF violence? Maybe you like rare things. That's cool. But if you're looking to expand human knowledge and human experience, you might want to choose to emphasize the thing that has the greater relevance, the greater import, and the greater truth behind it. -------------------------------------- And every (most) perspective is valid, for the individual who holds that perspective. But the question for many of us is, how broadly does that perspective apply? We are trying to tease out the universal from the personal. It's fine to be afraid of things, if that's what you enjoy. Nobody would take that away from anybody. But it helps to be conscious of the choices we're making. It's a choice to be afraid, not a necessity. (it's not Susi's choice imho but hysteria) So, that's the piece of information that becomes more universal: that fear is a choice.(not really) Knowing that, being reminded of that, leaves us with more space to consider that we can choose some other feeling with respect to BF. Not to mention that the facts, the evidence -- the preponderance of it -- shows that most BF are not interested in killing people.(a theory, we don't know what percentage kill humans or if they kill at all....maybe all bigfoots kill 1 human over a life time.....we don't know........maybe 1 or of a 100 engage in killing one human over a life time......we may never know) Again, if most WERE, nobody here talking about their experiences would be able to speak. Or type. Or breathe.

Everyone does what they think best. You have a generous heart, and are doing what is best both for you, and for the people you care about. I want to do that, too. I just have a different take on how to do that. I am trying to teach myself to look closely at the choices I make each moment, and at what happens down the road as a result of those choices. It's very strange and interesting, seeing how the present connects with the future. There are consequences to everything we do, and sometimes they're not the ones we were expecting. The attempt to protect myself in one moment has often led to some real unpleasantness later on. (Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, yes?) So I'm very interested in the whole idea of protection, and the ways in which efforts to protect ourselves can sometimes backfire.

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.

Naked with mange AND hip hugger briefs...

Such a bad movie. Deliverance hillbillies in Northern California.

Movie was the worst Found footage film I have ever seen, and I am a huge fan of those...Probably seen 20 or so of them, most are B movies, and all were better than this....