Leaderboard

I'm sure I'm about to commit BFF seppuku, but here goes... Sorry, not a straw man, nor an evolving vocabulary, unless you believe that she only recently learned the words for it "...followed our car out into the road and watched us drive away." Hopefully, since SweetSusiq has me blocked, the following won't cause her any more consternation, because that is truly not what this is about, and my intent never was, and is not now, to malign or attack her. I am not a victim here, but I have been accused of offensive behavior (which, until this post, perhaps, I feel is untrue and unwarranted) . Her original sighting genuinely interested me, and as I began to review all of her statements together, I noticed some issues, so I asked her for clarification in good faith. Please review this post which quotes SweetSusiq's own statements: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/48010-ptsd-and-bf-sitings/?p=862030 and here: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/48956-here-is-the-story-of-my-encounter-from-susiq2/?p=867642 and here: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/48956-here-is-the-story-of-my-encounter-from-susiq2/?p=867696 and here: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/48956-here-is-the-story-of-my-encounter-from-susiq2/?p=867696 The creature went from a black thing with long arms that ducked behind a tree, to a terrifying, soul chilling, Suburban following 8-foot, 800lb bundle of wilful malevolence bent on visiting violence and destruction on all he encountered, all based on a 5 second-or-so sighting. Also of note are the quickly forgotten claims of two prior creature sightings (a family pod) on the same road as her type 3 "dogman". I asked respectful questions about this and in turn have been accused of harrassment: Never did I accuse her of lying. Ever. The only accusation made in our discourse heretofore has been levied by SweetSusiq against me, for harassment by asking for clarification of her statements. She tells me, "Go harass some other poor innocent victim..." She may as well have asked me, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" By positioning herself as victim, anything I say can (and certainly will) be viewed as an attack, while at the same time she makes herself immune to scrutiny. I suppose I'll now be relegated to BFF meanie-head status, but I'll first at least state my case. For the the record, I don't think she is lying. I think she believes everything she relates about the incident. I do, however, based on familiarity with her posting history here on the BFF, believe that she is an unreliable historian. I believe that she saw something that she perceived to be a snouted bigfoot (I'm unsure when the snout was actually added to the description). If the discrepancies were limited only to the physical description of the creature itself, I would be more sympathetic. Instead, what has changed in the telling are the creature's movements and behavior. I can't see how that could differ to any great degree (as it has in her case) over time and reflection. Read the above posts in her own words and decide for yourself.

Northfork - Shouldn't they report the truth, report whatever they experienced, in exactly as much detail of whatever sort they remember? Is there nowhere here for a person to advocate for truth? Are we only allowed to advocate for respectability? There's a catch-22, self fulfilling prophecy deal going on here. You would be surprised and maybe appalled to know how many of the raw reports going to different BF research organizations contain content that is not published because that content doesn't fit the organization's idea of what will be respected. That same lack of such content being published increases the (mis) perception of how unusual it is. Circular. I don't know what to make of it. IMHO if the report is bogus if the report contained some woo aspect, the report is equally bogus after being "sanitized." We're all crazy anyway, might as well be only crazy rather than crazy and liars, too. IMHO tell it as it is and let the chips fall where they may. MIB

The quote function gives me some grief sometimes, too. I looked at that link. I think we're seeing the same thing and coming to different conclusions. I read the report, I've seen most of SusiQ's subsequent posts, I listened to the interview. What I see is not a change in the event, what I see is a result of her vocabulary evolving as she's been here on the forum longer and been exposed to more ideas. I guess this is maybe getting off on a tangent, more about me than about her, but I see it like this: Frankly I don't know what to think of her report. I wasn't there. I can't say that she did see a dogman, I can't say that she didn't. The consistency of the story's contents as the vocabulary evolves suggests to me that she believes it, she does not seem to be trying to back-fill details to cover sloppy tracks. I don't see any contrived corrections. It doesn't cost me anything to give her the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't cost me anything to be polite if I doubt a story. It doesn't gain me anything to behave badly, either. MIB

We as a species are a product of the Pleistocene epoch. This time frame of Earth's history had some of the largest mammals (megafauna) ever........Cave Bear, Lions, Dire Wolves, Short Faced Bears and other Homo species that probably practiced cannibalism. So while most of us live in a urban setting of concrete and steel, our brain is still very much wired for survival in the Pleistocene. The odds that a Cougar or a Bear or Bigfoot that matter is stalking you in dark timber is very very slim? Your mind doesn't like it. Dark timber allows predators to stalk close to you. We rely heavily on our sight, dark timber negates that defense we possess. So every snap in the forest is interpreted by us as the boogie man, and for good reason. We may have had our senses dulled with the modern age, but the Industrial revolution is a couple hundred years old at best, we as a species are over one hundred thousand years old. Our Pleistocene is still there, just scratch the surface.