Leaderboard

The BFF is open to anyone who can follow the rules and conduct themselves in a respectful manner. If you feel a member(s) is personally annoying, use the ignore feature. If you feel someone is violating a rule, use the report feature at the bottom of each post. The staff on this forum do an outstanding job but they are not mind readers. And let me say this- If you are an individual who believes that Bigfoot does not and cannot exist, you log on for the sole purpose of reading the content and mocking the membership here and elsewhere....I can tell you that there is a growing intolerance to that mindset on this forum.

The atmosphere has become such that fence sitters and folks who search for the truth are scoffed at as much as the knowers,. Newbies most likely won't join the forum to discuss as the BF subject has evolved into "crackpot theories" and proponents are label as delusional - as some are allowed to clearly assert here.

I agree, other than some members being offended and leaving on their own, the answer is no. Yet you are trying to weasel out of the real issue, which is that it has stopped members from participating in the BFF, thus injuring it. So is string "theory", the difference is that dorky fantasies are labeled scientific, when in fact they are not. Nobody has ever solved string theory equations either, much less even proposed a way to confirm the theory experimentally, so it's all just belief, just like BF. The question we are asking here is whether trollish behavior like the one you excibit here, should be tolerated. I think more aggressive moderation is in order. I see this as intimidation. It's a problem. ^^^ This. This times a thousand. intimidation ? funny, but G , iirc , is pretty skeptical about the whole BF thing , yet gives it a chance. what he did there was give an example for comparison against the trolling going on that appears to be affecting participation in the "bigfoot house" and blasphemers ......lol, the SC member referred to there is also a skeptic .... well, an actual skeptic , as opposed to denialism. look, ford vs chevy taste great / less filling , skeptic / "bleever" whatever.... any given subject and debate the opposing discussion helps fuel a forum which (as long as its respectful and on topic ) should be cool. however, when that opposing side may also include troll-ish "na na na boo boo im right & you're crackpot crazy " every time combined with possible evidence of target practice on the BFF then running back to Randiland for counting coup..... well, that's not cool, and a doggone good reason to open troll season . apparently we'd have more posting from the pro BF side if so many threads didn't devolve into the same snide mockery about existence generating complaints . yes, there is plenty worthy of mocking in BFery, but we'll never hear the interesting stuff if we run off potential good posts beforehand.

I just want to say first in this thread before posting further that Dmaker and I had a really long talk and remain friends, I used a quote of his earlier in this thread that he felt that I had taken out of context from the ISF. I apologize to Dmaker for that, he didnt ask me to make a public statement, but I felt compelled to do so here and now. Now what I want to say is that there is a evidence and then there is proof, big difference. Despite not having proof of existence this forum allows for the possibility that it does indeed exist. Evidence is what proponents use in order to find said proof if there is any to be found. I fully support a skeptic looking at evidence and recognizing mundane explanations for said evidence. Even if I'm on the opposing end of the argument (skookum cast = Elk lay vs. whatever). What I dont support is when a denialist argues that all evidence is a hoax or whatever based on their stalwart stance that in no way can Sasquatch, or any other cryptid hominiod on the planet exist because science would have found it by now. What if the denialist is wrong? If your constantly looking for the zipper is there a chance to overlook something? We proponents are laymen, we go out, we look (sometimes your horse cracks your ribs and you dont make it out) and I dont think its too much to ask from the skeptic side of the debate to show people some respect about this subject on a forum dedicated to the subject....... that's all I ask. I'm not suggesting you take my tree break find as proof of existence, I know that, I'm just looking for sign that possibly might lead me to proof. And if in the end, I'm wrong? That's OK too, it was my time, fuel, patience and enjoyment in being in the outdoors........and if you mock me for being a schmuck, I'd appreciate it if you did somewhere other than here. I do not need to be "saved", I get plenty of time in hunting and fishing and leading a normal life, thank you. Existence of the creature is a open question here, despite the fact that it is not an open question most anywhere else.

It's not always what you say but how you say it. I often qualify my doubt in BF by saying things like, "if bigfoot does exist" then offering my opinion on the subject at hand. I don't believe I have ever had a "true believer" jump me for saying that. But then, I am open to the idea. If I had made up my mind that Bigfoot can't possibly be real, I wouldn't waste my time on the subject. The problem seems to lie with those who are decided on both sides of the issue. If for whatever reason you are certain Bigfoot does exist, that is fine, but you have to understand many of us aren't and we question to help us determine what we personally feel is valid or not. Those who are convinced that Bigfoot does not exist in turn needs to realize those of us on the fence want to discuss certain topics without them devolving into an existence/non-existence war. Sometimes the existence/non-existence discussion has to be a part of the conversation, that's understandable; but it seems that whenever it is brought up from either side, the other side feels the need to interject. And while there is nothing wrong with offering a different opinion, that's what this is all about, those discussions seldom pertain to the subject at hand but instead take us off the rails into the existence/non-existence war. For those folks on both sides of that war, you should start a thread on that subject alone to fight it out. Keep it out of threads unless it pertains directly to the subject at hand please. Leave the other threads for honest discussion. The rest of us would greatly appreciate it.

I know that this has been discussed ad nauseam here, but I wanted to give my thoughts on the subject... For quite some time now I've been considering if I truly have a place here and whether I should end my participation on the BFF. My two main sticking points are the fanatical "Bigfoot exists", "No they don't", "Yuh-huh!", "Nuh-uh!" echo chamber and the insistence by both sides that the issue must be proven one way or another. There has been much debate recently about the participation of the skeptic/scofftic/denialist (referred to hereafter as SSD's) on the forum. Often quoted is this paragraph from the intro to the forum's Rules & Guidelines: None of this is given as a binding rule, but the principle that if one comes here with "preconceived and immovable notions about bigfoot" then there can be no expectation of "thought-provoking debate" is quite clear. The two viewpoints are mutually exclusive. Without conceding the possibility, no matter how small, that bigfoot might, might exist, then any "discussion" will inevitability devolve into a grade school ***-for-tat that stifles discussion and frustrates a significant portion of the membership who simply want to talk about bigfoot.What is also vital to the debate is the idea that the above principle applies not only to the SSD, but to the True Believer (TB), those who are 100% certain of bigfoot's existence without a sighting of their own. If the TB's cannot bring themselves to admit that someone might have a legitimate reason for not believing that bigfoot exists, we are at loggerheads again. That leaves us with the Knowers, those who claim clear, unambiguous, unmistakable sightings of an unknown large hairy biped. There is no respectable way to deny these claims, and not being present at the time of their encounter, I am happy to accept their claim barring other facts which come to light to contradict it. For the sake of argument, the Knowers exist as an entity unto themselves, and have no real bearing on the endless SSD/TB vicious circle. It seems to me that the FMT, the other administrators, and the Steering Committee here need to decide if we can allow those on both sides of the debate (who staunchly refuse to give any quarter to the other side) to continue their blind-arguing-the-blind antics. The fact we must all face (Knowers excluded. They have their personal proof) is that there is no proof either way. I am a proponent who tries to remain skeptical in the truest sense, and respect those who have thoughtfully reached a different conclusion. What I can't abide is the disrespectful and dismissive dogmatism of both the SSD and the TB, as well as their ongoing feud which serves only to derail many otherwise reasonable discussions, and poison the well here on the BFF. I understand that more rules here would further burden the good folks who volunteer their time as moderators, but unfortunately see no other alternative. Please understand that I am not advocating a stifling of debate. The behavior I am describing, and arguing for the banning of such, is not debate or discussion in any reasonable sense, but is instead merely a peeing contest between two immovable and closed-minded factions who refuse to give one inch to the other side. I am interested in any respectful discussion or views on the subject.

So when Redbone makes a claim in his post that I feel should be challenged what do you suggest? Unless he says "a woman claimed to have seen a sasquatch fly from out of the bed of her pickup truck for more than a thousand feet", don't use it to counter his point. Pretty simple concept really. Speaking of being respectful, how about you not telling someone if they could read they would know sasquatch exists.

Hello Faenor, The real bottom line in all of it? None of those issues no matter how passionately discussed, believed, or disbelieved will solve the BF mystery. The discussions will be sometimes interesting but for the most part only succeed in letting other members know where one stands in their THINKING about Bigfoot. It doesn't put the phenomenon to rest and never will. Because it's just talk. It's why there's so much focus on activities in the field. That's where the front line is. Sitting at my computer and debating or discussing conspiracies, while possibly entertaining, is just mental gymnastics. The issue is in the woods- not on the computer. It just boils down to whether or not one is serious about the BF problem enough to do what amounts to the only thing available to someone, even a skeptic, who seriously wants to end the controversy; and that would be field work. Of course if one absolutely doesn't think BF exists then this all falls on deaf ears. But for those who think the creature exists or is even on the fence but leans towards existence then there's plenty of work to do.

That list demonstrates that conspiracies are usually busted open relatively quickly. Its a pretty weak list as well some not even really being conspiracies at all. How long do you think a list of all the unfounded popular government conspiracies in the last 50 years would look? If you take an unlikely, but possible, variable like bigfoots existence and combine it with another unlikely variable, the government purposfully supressing/hiding bigfoot for 50-100 years. Thats a crackpot theory. Again bigfoots existence combined with the evolutionary adaptation like mind speak or ir vision, not seen before in mammals, gets you on the crackpot scale. Could the government be covering up for an ir vision mind speaking undiscovered by the general public for 100 years. Sure its possible. Its also possible most of obamas policies come from the advice of Lincoln's ghost or aliens started the water fluoridation program to eliminate our psychic powers and make us weakened for their future invasion.

Have you heard them cackle and sound like an ape on steroids yet? Hahahaha......my first exposure to that type of call was in White Oak Canyon of Shenandoah National Park when I was still a teenager....... sounded like a serial killer on the loose outside the tent....... I've always liked the caterwauling of barred owls on a calm, dark night in the forest. Especially when I'm with someone that has never heard it before. Their reaction is priceless. They always swear it's an ape making those sounds.

Since 'crackpot' theories are being discussed, along with 'conspiracy' theories. I wanted to share a list of crack pot/conspiracy theories that *GASP* were shown to be true. http://listverse.com/2013/05/02/10-nefarious-conspiracies-proven-true/ Government lying, hiding, and covering up....it happens......

I have been posting and reading less on the BFF because of the silly argument loops that seem to go on page after page. My position verses yours. I have been as guilty as anyone in the argument loops, but then I realized it was an argument loop which was going nowhere but in circles and I jumped out of it. It seemed multiple threads went that way - page after page. I try my best to recognize argument loops and I will try to stay away from them. Argument loops derail threads and it's sad because we know each others position on the general subject of BF and still need to argue and have the last word.

^^^ I also remember a time (BFF 1.0) when this place was a veritable box canyon where those positing things such as personal sightings/encounters would be immediately bushwhacked by the cadre of resident experts/skofftics, et. al. with a firestorm of vitriol. IMO, commercialization of the endeavor with cable TV productions and various "research" groups engaged in apparent monetary gain activities such as symposiums, field "expeditions", literary products and even some taking the non-profit(able) route pursuing the grant M.O. all while posturing as valid and credible entities and/or endeavors. This mining of the miners has likely contributed to the current state of malaise within the BF realm as even the most ardent believers have had their faith sorely tested. IMO, those lacking a FTF sighting/encounter are at a decided disadvantage when discussing a topic of which they have no practical experience thereof. This is not a condemnation of those individuals rather, an appeal that they get afield and seek out the subject matter realizing that when they aren't looking for an encounter, is when it will occur. There is a huge forest out there among all those trees.

The SSR is not a "pretension".

Perhaps not. Perhaps it will successfully roll along for many years operating as the best little "woo-house" in Texas. However, there was a time when it was possible for people interested in researching Bigfoot could find information of value in the general forums. That seems to have faded into the morass described in the OP. While there are still members interested in having critical discussions and weighing evidence at least somewhat impartially, it feels like you have to search harder and harder to find them and you have to have your discussions quickly before a thread becomes derailed. If the BFF's goal/core mission is to be just another internet coffee chat club social gathering where people can discuss Bigfoot, perhaps it should make that clear and drop other pretensions, like the SSR, or moderating threads to ensure that discussions stay on point. Just feels like trying to ride two horses going in opposite directions w/one saddle.

As dwa would say claiming "bigfoot does not exist" is a crackpot theory But in my opinion anything with aliens, mind power, ir vision, government conspiracy can be lumped under the umbrella of crackpot theory

And another thing that I detect in your post. THE BFF IS NOT A RESEARCH ORGANIZATION!!!!!!! Where does this sense of entitlement come from? I dont really care about what you "ask" for........ This forum exists as a place to discuss Bigfoot! Its not a place were proponents scurry around to collect evidence to "convince" people who dont believe the creature exists in the first place. If you find this subject to be a "crackpot" theory? I encourage you to go join the ISF (if you are not already) and scream and shout at fellow skeptics in wonderful subjects like"Are Bigfooters delusional, liars or mistaken"? And if you truly do find this subject interesting despite your skepticism then maybe you'll stay and become a productive member to the subject!

I agree, other than some members being offended and leaving on their own, the answer is no. Yet you are trying to weasel out of the real issue, which is that it has stopped members from participating in the BFF, thus injuring it. So is string "theory", the difference is that dorky fantasies are labeled scientific, when in fact they are not. Nobody has ever solved string theory equations either, much less even proposed a way to confirm the theory experimentally, so it's all just belief, just like BF. The question we are asking here is whether trollish behavior like the one you excibit here, should be tolerated. I think more aggressive moderation is in order.

I'm just glad someone here has finally spoken up and told us there is no evidence that bigfoot exists, that it is nothing more than fanciful imagination, that believing bigfoot exists is the same as thinking angels exist. No one has ever told us that before. It must have took a lot of courage for you to speak up like this. I guess we can close the forum now. Move along people, nothing to see here.

I'll concede that point, and I have no desire to stifle honest debate. The problem is absolutists on both sides refuse to concede the slightest possibility that their position may be the incorrect one. As far as the denialist camp goes, there is a vast gulf fixed between, "I do not find any of the evidence for bigfoot that I have examined compelling enough to accept the creature's existence." and "Bigfoot doesn't (or can't) exist, so any evidence proffered is not and cannot be legitimate." This difference is my sticking point and WSA did a good job above of elaborating on the idea.

Hello Old Dog, Why I'd thought you'd never ask The idea came to me after watching the NAWAC update video here: http://woodape.org/index.php/news/news/48-news/251 Bob Strain talked about the trail cam failures, the number of Plot Watchers in the field etc., etc. and also about the sheer number of rocks thrown, their sizes, and the enormous slaps on the cabin in which dust would even fall from the rafters sometimes. This thread is to pursue the pic/video capture as far as the rocks and cabin slaps go though. The idea is simple really. Remember the jokes we used to make about the Clap on/Clap off commercials? Well, that is where this is going- sound-triggered image capture. No IR LEDS needed. Voice/sound activated equipment isn't new technology by any means; it's been around forever in mini recorders and other devices. So this idea is to incorporate sound to activate cameras. It's mainly targeted to areas with KNOWN activity like Area X. When a loud slap is detected on the cabin say, than the sound of the slap turns on either lights, camera strobes or maybe passive video which is sitting anywhere one wishes. Nothing will be "on" until a loud sound is detected and then all heck can break loose not limited to lighting up the perimeter for good images or video even if it's only for capturing motion lasting a few seconds. The other idea which I've not really pursued very deeply is a perimeter of very light weight trip strings that control the power supply to energize image capture equipment in order to save on battery consumption. Everything is off until the string gets broken then again all heck cuts loose and everything turns on. This isn't high tech at all. just using what is already available in a different way. Because I agree, you need BF in an area to pull this off like perhaps the perimeter around the farm in Honobia? I don't care how good BF's eyesight is- even in the daytime a thin black trip string will be impossible to see. The other think which has been in my thoughts for a long time is that camera lenses look like eyes. So change the shape of the lens aperture into something different with some electrical tape like say into a square or diamond or some other odd shape. One will get what is called vignetting but who cares really if most of the field of view is intact. I sent the main idea to NAWAC last week but haven't heard back yet.

^that's possible. :-)

skookumelkprints2.jpg Here's a deer lay in the snow. Did it levitate? DeerBed.jpg