Leaderboard

Hello DWA , You should be ducking right now. I'll risk warnings and being banned at this point rather than let you slide.

This thread has been helpful for me, thanks. As I stated earlier, the tool to deal with this issue is contained in the Forum's mission statement. The purpose (among others) is to discuss the EVIDENCE. Those who feel the way to discuss evidence is to deny that it IS evidence of the presence of BF, are violating the Magna Carta of the BFF, no more, no less. Any member who sees this happening in any thread, has the tool to make it stop.

Hello, everyone. It was this thread that motivated me to register for the BigfootForums instead of lurking around in the shadows of cyberspace. For this particular episode, the Finding Bigfoot cast members were faced with a situation where one producer wanted to push the "scary dangerous" bigfoot angle. We three bigfooters (and Ranae too, though she doesn't think bigfoots are even real, so I'll leave her out of this discussion) view that as part of the problem with television depictions of sasquatches, so we pushed back against this particular producer. Nobody was on board for that scary, overused angle but this one guy. The other producers knew we wouldn't go for it, and if we're not on board with something, it can get really difficult really fast. We bigfooters are a hard-to-handle bunch of folks on a good day. Don't let Bobo's teddy bear demeanor fool you. Don't even get me started on trying to tell MM what to do... I'm a pretty stubborn and pig-headed guy as well, despite how I'm edited. We three individuals guide the bigfoot content of the show as well as we can from the back seat. This was a situation where some back seat driving was needed. So, if you perceived that we seemed to go a bit overboard with the "gentle giant" thing, you are probably right. We never know what will make the edited version of the show, so we give it to the editors several times and hopefully one of the times we say it might make it through the editing process. In this case, the editors made sure that our message was clear. Bigfoots are not the murderous, violent monsters that television would want you to believe. For whatever it's worth, and solely speaking my own opinion... These things are giant wild animals. Of course they're potentially dangerous. Chimps, who only stand around four feet tall, have strength that is 8 to 12 times greater than a person. How much more so is a bigfoot's strength? No matter how human-like anyone thinks sasquatches are, if people came in that size and dimension, they'd be amazingly dangerous too. I just don't think they're an aggressive species. If they were out to get us, there would be very few of us left.

Hello DWA, "This kind of thing" is of your own making. YOU'RE why the OP started this topic. YOU and your "opponents" over the years who have blistered more threads as fast as anyone could write them. Taken them over with ridiculous unwinnable existence debates that has ruined thread after thread after thread. Halted OP discussions, ignored members trying to sustain an unbroken line of thought and more or less been a bully. You, DWA, are a chief reason this topic was ever even necessary. Truth.

Obviously I am referring to those who's baiting has risen to a masterful level. I'm not sure what you two are on about...

If nothing else, I agree there are a few regular posters who are master baiters.

After 17 (or 18?) pages and counting, I think the original proposition needs tweeked. The OP posits 3 camps: Skeptics/Scoftics/Denialists <---> True Believers w/knowers off to the side. Knowers shoud be to the side - if you state you encountered a Bigfoot you are either: 1) being truthful, 2) being truthful but (honestly) didn't accurately identify what you encountered, 3) being truthful but under an incapacity (i.e., mental illness, substance abuse) that precludes reliance on your claimed encounter, or 4) flat out lying/hoaxing. (I'm not calling anyone a liar, these are just the logical alternatives.) Everyone can form their own opinion, based on a variety of factors, as to whether they give credence to any individual claim of an encounter, but the only person who knows for certain is the person who was there. The remaining breakdown (and the title) creates a false dichotiomy. Essentially, the groups are: Scoftics/denialists/baiters ---> open to existence but skeptical ---> believe in existence, but not all claims ---> Commissars/Baiters Example A of a Commissar: I have read 8,000 of these posts and can offer the following statistical breakdown: # of posts that offer any evidence or discuss evidence - 0 # of posts that demand loyalty to the existence of Bigfoot - all the rest As Roguefooter said more succinctly above, which I apparently deleted, there are denialists on both sides. To discuss evidence requires two sides. I agree that it does not add anything meaningful or constructive to any topic to simply say, "Bigfoot does not exist, therefore, this evidence is meaningless." However, when a critical question is asked of offered evidence or a proposed theory, it is equally meaningless and unconstructive for the response to simply be, "Science, shut up." The baiters on both side are free to continue baiting because there is no cost for them to constantly bait. If they had a limited supply of posts, perhaps they would spend them more wisely. Or at least, everyone else would only have to deal with them for the first 8-10 days of the month.

Hello All, Bigfoot exists!. Uh...wait a minute...No it doesn't because there's no proof. Hmmm. It would appear that I can debate this all by myself and don't need anyone else involved. Ok. This is now MY thread now- EVERYBODY OFF!

Nakani I agree with you up until you said the dirty word that proponents and knowers are not allowed to use and is something that needs to be looked at, the word PROOF. If Proven by science is what everyone is going to hold over everyone elses head and thrown in the face of every discussion then this and any other Cryptid sight are nothing but a joke and a waste of time. I and everyone on this forum and everyone in the world knows Sasquatch is not recognized by science so that should not be allowed a reason for stomping down evidence and people here discussing Sasquatch. I see to much here about people can't claim Proof , I and everyone knows according to science that there is no proof, so I suggest proponents and knowers call what they talk about and share personal experiences or evidence in the case of video, pics, footprints and sound and we go from their on the voracity of the evidence. Some people on here have been in a situation that has Proven Sasquatch to be real to them they do not need to have science tell them what they already know. I can understand the skepticism , I was skeptical about Sasquatch existing in NC and just chuckle and never give it another thought until I had experiences of my own. To sum up and tie this in with the topic I believe that if proponents cannot use the word proof, then denialist and Skofftics should not be allowed to have a parrot setting on their shoulder squawking prove it ,prove it when they run out of true discussion. It is very much like having your hands tied behind your back yet the other person can still slap you in the face. I would be all for banning the word proof on all accounts until we get Sasquatch recognized by science. The people that use this tactic of defaulting to proof or nothing quickly show themselves for what they really are.

Hello Bodhi, Thank you, but what I said goes for the far other extreme of the existence debate spectrum as well as we all know. And it's not that I'm against such debates but threads that don't start out as one shouldn't end up with one simply because two extremely opposite poles need a battle ground. Take it somewhere else. Hello Cotter, Same old arguments, different thread. *also bangs head*

The very nature of this mystery is what causes the chaos. Almost everything being discussed is unproven. Throwing flying or paranormal bigfoot into the mix is like adding fuel to the fire.

Yay, Cliff! Everything you say is completely consistent with everything observant people have been observing from the beginning of your show (or, in my case, the near beginning; I didn't join the party until 2012). It's clear you have tremendous integrity, as do Bobo and others. I remember reading about the time the producers wanted to leave in (or did leave in?) a FLIR image and not disclose that it was later discovered to be a shot of a deer, I think it was. You and others objected to the deliberate misleading of the audience and raised a fuss about that editing decision with the producers. I think you even discussed that incident on one of the behind-the-scenes segments with Keith. Anyway, my point is, it's abundantly clear that you have enormous integrity. Thank you for that. That's a rare thing, as we all know. And thank you also for being so vigilant about this particular issue: not portraying BF as a "monster". Human beings have an unfortunate tendency to view as dangerous anything they don't completely understand. Those of us with some experience in this area know there is nothing to fear; but the numbers of fearful, inexperienced people are much greater, and those voices tend to drown out the others. Thank you for refusing to be drowned out! Fear is a big problem. Not only does it prevent people from being able to analyze correctly what's happening right in front of their faces, but it contributes to a strange kind of blindness that makes empathy almost impossible. A frightened person will characterize another person's apparent agitation as aggression, while simultaneously labeling their own agitation as courage, as heroism. As long as we continue to aggrandize ourselves for the very same behaviors we're criticizing in others, we're going to have a hard time convincing anyone else (that is, the BF) that it's worth it to hang out with us. So thank you for helping to give us a fighting chance of coming to consciousness of our hairy neighbors in the most peaceful way possible. That's a huge, huge service you're performing. With gratitude, LeafTalker

This thread has become a microcosm of the problems befalling the forums. Hopefully you guys figure out what you're about, and what the forums are about before it's too late and it ends in forum death. Right now, as the situation stands, I'm not holding out much hope for any sort of peaceful resolution as both factions are doing nothing but finger pointing. Deflection will not solve the problem. Good Luck.

I'm like 99% in line with Ted Nugent and other hunters and hunter rights advocacy groups like SCI. Sport hunters especially rich ones do more for conservation of the species than anyone else. They spend tens of thousands of dollars and turn their noses up at most of the animals shown to them. Only record book trophies are good enough to shoot. As for remorse of shooting an Ape? Absolutely. I think the great Apes are cool and you could not give me a Gorilla hunt. But I think proving the species exists is more noble than allowing them to remain in the paranormal sub forum of the ISF.

LCB, the owl is either a Western Screech Owl or a good BF imitation of one. http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Western_Screech-Owl/sounds The second recording is exactly like yours. I hear the long, loud howl followed by a pack of coyotes almost every night. Sometimes the louder one will chime in with the coyotes several times before they stop howling. Often there will be some whoops mixed in, too.

Those sort of self absorbed slightly veiled insults are just as bad as anything any scofftic does.

I have a simple request of you that will settle your claims for all - Please present just one recognized as reputable scientific journal that substantiates your claims of reports as being testable and repeatable evidence.

This statement is incorrect, and if you really believe it you do not understand the nature of the subject. People have experiences, that is where the knowledge of BF comes from, not from people who simply believe. IOW the persistence of the BF phenom over the years is due to experience, not belief. And if I may: it is obvious that you have a belief, not a knowledge. But in watching your posting behaviour as that is part of what I do here on this site, it is readily apparent that you are treating your belief as if it is real. Here is something to chew on, which is nothing more than a simple fact: belief is not real. What is real is reality. Sorry, we are not going to discuss angels here other than to mention that they will not be discussed. See the Forum Rules if you have any questions about that.

Nothing could be further from the truth Drew. It's about people who ridicule, not criticize.

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.

I somewhat agree, HOWEVER ... The probability of success of any particular search method is at least partially reliant on not being out smarted by the bigfoots, SO ... if results are the goal, it is better to over-estimate their intelligence and account for it in the search methodology than underestimate it and fail to account for it. One leads to success, one leads to failure, and since all we've seen so far is failure or success-by-accident (PGF), I suggest for the purposes of investigation, we need to give them a lot more credit for intelligence than we are right now. Not just pay lip service to it but continue the same old monkey hunt, but approach it as if we're "competing" with our equals and doing it on their turf. Just my opinion, of course ... MIB

Interesting angle. Some people believe that Peter Tork could personally be behind up to 70% of the phenomenon.