Leaderboard

It never does... argumentum ad numerum argumentum ad numerum Looks like we have another one line wonder. Nothing to support their view but one line quips, very original and thought provoking. I can write in that language to and my comment to you would be Ad Nauseam.

Actually it's four Norse. If we count the Columbia whitetail (a protected species). But you are right because I know you are inferring that a hunter better know the difference and be able to count antler points or you're in trouble. The problem is that each one of us filter what we see through our personal experiences. If all we ever see are pictures of footprints or blobsquatches or chewed bones and have never experienced such ourselves; then because of our perceptions it is right to conclude that BF can't possibly exist. But if you have had a personal encounter or found track ways or found and done research on those chewed bones then your perceptions change. I have never seen one. Yet I do know, because of my experiences, that something is out there. Sasquatch is the best fit for the evidence I have found without coming up with something else that doesn't fit the evidence anyway. All the forum discussions in the world aren't going to change my experiences. And I know it is the same for others. I would hope that those in the non-existent crowd will someday get the confirmation they require to change their minds. One problem I see with this hope on my part is this huge problem of being able to trust others. This is also one of my perceptions that there are many here that trust no one.

Rogue, It completely is apples and oranges.....no two ways about it. Here is the crux of our disconnect. If a Chinese film maker had a ten second clip of a large Lizard like beast walking across a creek bed? And there was a trackway associated with the film to boot? I would not dismiss the footage out of hand as a hoax and declare that Dragons don't exist. Put it another way, if the PGF was nothing but a swirling mist that vaguely resembled a Primate? I would dismiss it offhand as a natural occurance. That's because my mind doesn't accept that we have discovered everything on this planet yet. We haven't even as a global community made contact with all of our own species yet. Albeit I will openly admit that our planet is shrinking fast and the resources that could sustain cryptid animals or lost tribes is shrinking along with it at a alarming rate. Which brings us to the next question..... what are we losing that we dont even know about. What are the unknown unknowns? Ultimately the PGF is declared a hoax for the simple reason that we do not have a mundane explanation for it, and more importantly because we think the possibility of a relic hominid living in north America is absurd. We being the majority of humanity, with very few of us ever walking those mountains in our life time.

This thread has been good. I try to be objective and fair when enforcing the rules. But some things are going to be a judgement call - It helps to know how everyone feels about how we should be dealing with these kind of issues in order to make the forum run smoother and more to the liking of the membership. That's what it's all about.

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.

Here we have yet another thread that has been derailed and devolved into the old "Prove to me that they exist!" argument. No one is going to find conclusive proof of their existence on this forum, and no one on this forum is ever going to be able to lay out a logical argument for their existence that a committed skeptic will accept. They will find information that thaey can choose to accept or reject. Personally, I participate in this forum to associate with other people who have had encounters and to share information with them. I am happy to share my observations equally with skeptics, and even answer questions regarding details of my encounters, but I've got to say that, like many others on this forum, I'm well past the question of their existence. What I'm interested in is additional knowledge, new information, consistent theory, and meaningful discussion predicated on the understanding that they do, in fact, exist. I find that open-minded skeptics frequently ask good solid, searching questions that advance discussion, but the problem is that every time someone starts jumping up and down and yelling "Prove it, prove it, prove it!" (new day, new guy demanding proof), the meaningful discussion is inhibited. It would be handy to have a thread specifically reserved for arguments surrounding their existence to which we could re-direct people who are pigeon-holed in the "Prove it to me!" mindset. We could each spend a little time on that thread for their benefit. This might reduce the number of hijackings.