Leaderboard

I don't see what the argument is... can't we all admit that there are people out in the field that no matter what they see hear, they automatically (often incorrectly) label it a Bigfoot phenomenon? They have become so wrapped up in Bigfoot that they have lost their objectivity. (And I think this can happen to denialists - those who will not under no circumstances consider anything to be caused by a BF). If everyone can't admit that these people exist, well, I don't know what to say. They have blinders on.

This thread is centered on interpretation of findings or events attributed to BF. I think confusion and disagreements about those things arise due to taking these things out of context and measuring them against some hypothetical standard of proof, It should be considered that without the context and experiencing events In situ there will always be questionable interpretations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_situ I'm just saying this is a factor in interpretation that is ignored conveniently by critics.

He had to have heard things, the question is, did he know the source of everything he heard and did he ignore those sounds when he didn't.. Lots of recordings are made of sounds that are beyond a persons hearing distance. (too far away). A person out there just digging in the soil during the day is not such a vigilant listener of what sounds occur at night, it's not what they are there for, and collecting the sounds on recordings would be a distraction from their primary job. While BF researchers can record such sounds with frequency, they can be subtle, distant and rarely is there a barrage of objects thrown them.

I said, "I think what is being exaggerated here is the 'danger' of a misidentification. There is no danger involved." Trogluddite said, I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant, no danger will result from a misidentification. No buildings will fall down, no nuclear plants will blow up, if I walk in the woods and hear a bird chrip and say, "That's a BF." And yet we somehow feel the need to slap a label on people who are learning, in an attempt to embarrass them for identification "mistakes", as if something were at stake, when nothing is. I wonder why it's so important to us to embarrass people for no reason?

Hunters don't usually just randomly wander around in the woods. Most hunt the same territory, some for decades.

slides 28-34 attached - this is the last group THANKS to all for not replying while I was waiting to upload all these images.

Good grief. No one said it is an actual disease. I fully understand the OP and I imagine most do. All it is saying is that we can slip into thinking any noise or strange event is caused by bigfoot. That is not how to stay objective, it how we end up with any story, no matter how unsubstantiated and unbelievable, being accepted as authentic by many people. And that itself, is how we end up with a mountain of crap that constitues what many call evidence.

I haven't done that. ( pick apart Freeman) To the contrary: 1) I find the tracks in the footage to be preposterous 2) I find the fact that such an elusive creature would put itself in a situation to be easily filmed by a guy talking aloud and walking around for a significant amount of time prior to the "money shot" to be preposterous. 3) I find his (Freeman's) mannerisms, comments and voice tone on the tape to be suspicious ( I.e. contrived) 4) I find the film subject to be bulky, move unnaturally, appearing to look down at his pathway as a man in a mask would, and more akin to a fat guy in a fur suit than an elusive primate designed by Mother Nature to be an extremely stealthy apex predator. So separate the "Freeman shots" that others are taking from the footage itself. I ask again. Why is it good?