Leaderboard

I've never thought of a skeptic to be a total non-believer. I've always thought of it as someone who has doubt in mind, but doesn't outright reject it. The possibility is left open- some people being more optimistic than others. Being skeptical is just being cautious and not taking things at face value- especially in a field where the history has been plagued with hoaxing and liars. Then there's the scofftic or denialist- the downright rejection of any possibility. Some are more cynical about it than others. Some people on the forum don't see the distinction between any of the above, or don't want to. It's a 'with us or against us' attitude. I don't know how many times I've been called a scofftic even though I've demonstrated for years that I'm open to existence.

Hello chelefoot, That IS what it's all about. It's everybody's Forum after all. This vvv is a very witty priceless retort: No wonder he never thinks he's wrong. I still chuckle when I read it.

Ha ha ha! We call them "hissy fits" where I live, too. Thanks for that information, Branco. There's an important lesson here, I think, and that lesson is this: It's ill-advised to raise questions about a person's integrity in the absence of hard information about their situation. Who has a proxy server where -- and whether or not book reviews get repeated in multiple places -- is not evidence of malfeasance. If Branco hadn't been here to set the record straight, we could all have become guilty of smearing this person's name for nothing. There is no shame in believing someone until you're given reason not to. But there is shame -- there should be shame -- in harming the reputation of a person who you later learn has done no harm. Be slow to judge.

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.

The heck with the Falcon project, we got Randy!

Hello All, As far as existence goes because of this talk about hybrid stuff one should keep in mind that in hybridization nothing gets added- only taken away. So some genes that were switched on simply don't get switched on. Or their order in the DNA helix is different. Or if they do switch on then the sequence of when they get switched on is changed. Not only that but the time that the gene(s) remains on or off is changed as well. It's these kinds of genetic alterations that tell cells to make a hoof or a fin or a wing.....or an arm.

Holdmybeer You know you can say that about some sightings but cannot explain sightings where they search you out. There is no creature on earth that is smart enough to know a voice, a face or the character of a person that enters it's domain. These creatures do this and there is no way of proving this except by experiencing it first hand. Yes, My sighting happened many years ago and there should be no reason why I should be having encounters now. So how is it that I happen to get into an area where I did not want to have a encounter and it happened. I do not understand and if they are flesh and blood which I believe that they are. How could they leave a trail that they knew I would find unless I was being hoaxed. But then this leaves me questioning what I did to prove a theory, That they some how cold read us. Those deer that I had asked for was a joke for me and really did not believe that it would work. But it did and the creatures breath I could hear it while I stood 20' in my tree stand. Yet I could not see the creature any where. Never even thought about this stealth mode that people are now talking about. Yet the breath sounded like it was right next to me. But is that proof no, not at all. It is just a story being told by some one on the net. The only fact in this is that it did happen to me while hunting. I open my mind to test the waters and found the truth. Until it happens to others no one will never know how real they really are. They have to be experienced to know how truly real they are.

Answer to OP: Possibly. I do believe BobbyO, 1980, Sal and a few others who say they have seen a BF, but I still find the whole idea of there being a 7 foot hairy creature running around in the woods undiscovered... hard to believe. I guess that makes me a skeptical proponent

The famous movie quote comes to mind: "Badges, Badges, we don't need no stinking badges!"

Hello roguefooter That was extremely clear and well said. The lines between skeptic, Bigfoot skeptic, and opponent have for too long been blurred by folks carelessly using them interchangeably. And it overly favors some hardline proponents to do so. A generally vigilant reader who prefers precision in dialogue is all that is needed most times to keep the distinctions between the three terms well defined. It would go a long way in reducing the functional confusion built in by blatant (and sometimes intentional) incorrect usage. One more point to further define the three concepts which actually should be only TWO concepts: There should be NO perceived differences between a skeptic and a Bigfoot skeptic. It has to be the worst clouding of the atmosphere here of any other mis-use of terms. And it creates messes where none should exist.

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...

We currently have 2 moderators on this forum. 2. That is no where near enough for a forum of this size. I think if we had more mods, it would go a long way towards making sure that the rules we already have in place are enforced more thoroughly and consistently.

Well, after all these pages it looks like all we can do is try to act more civil towards one another and if something bothers you report it; and when you do give them time because I know from experience it takes time to get to a complaint and handle it properly. often it is being discussed behind the scenes so be patient. The few times I have reported posts here they were handled in due time. Try it and see how it works for you or don't complain. The mods can't be expected to read every post on this forum and reporting posts instead of letting them take the discussion down hill is the proper way of handling these things. Chele says they need help modding so now is your time to volunteer. .

Hello SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT, No camera? Well all you could've done then was flip it off back

Also, they would not be unknown!

The woods and lakes are largely closed in the Colville NF. They have also canceled hunting season in many spots. Many of these fires will burn until winter. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3852325.pdf

Yes it's a good idea and yes tracks will be very visible after a fire. The problem I have is entering an area with a fire still burning in the vicinity. If there are standing trees that didn't burn completely there is still fuel available. There's a fire burning now in an active sighting area in Okanogan County in north central WA. If a person were to wait for the fire to go out, then in a couple weeks patrol the edges of the area you might get some good tracks entering or leaving the area. However it is dangerous walking around in a burned over area because of still standing trees and sink holes where stumps have burned out and are covered over with ash. I speak from experience, because that is what happened to some of my property last year. No BF tracks but lots of good deer, bear and coyote tracks.