Leaderboard

Why does the government need to cover up anything when public sentiment and skeptic minions on this very forum spend hours every day trying to persuade those that might think it possible that it cannot be real? As far a Fake Science 101 the problem with the skeptics here is that they skipped their lab periods in the woods where they could have stumbled on the truth for themselves by doing real science.

I still say the government can't possibly be so incompetent as to not know about them. I do believe that any body reported is simply collected and disposed of. And I don't think they go out of their way to cover it up, or even have to, they simply allow prevailing public perception to do their work for them. Really, what government agency wants to have to deal with all of the consequences of proof that bigfoot exist? This is simple calculus right down to the local deputy sheriff.

I really do not get the convincing part based on a website discussion. I would not expect a person lacking any strange encounter experiences to just come onto this website and do some reading and become utterly convinced the creature exists. Or the same person to come to this website utterly convinced in the creatures existence, do some reading and begin not to believe. But by the same token Ive encountered hard skeptics that claimed that if they had an encounter they would not trust their own minds in believing they had an encounter. I find both mind sets equally perplexing. One relies on other peoples experiences and percieved sincerity, and the other completely suspends ones own ability to percieve reality based on their own senses. And instead again relies on others to tell them WHAT to believe. You have to base your own beliefs on your own experiences or the lack thereof. JDL is a knower....I am not. But I have witnessed compelling evidence myself that what he says is true, something large and bipedal is out there. And I openly acknowledge that proof is needed for others without experiences to acknowledge the creatures existence. I think the key issue here is that anyone that comes to this site takes an interest in this subject for whatever the reason. Acknowledge that fact and then concentrate on doing something constructive with it. You dont have to believe or disbelieve to to make valuable suggestions or help out with finding the truth.

I know that you are looking at this as a animal and if it was a animal then there would be sign every where. we would be able to track it like a animal. we would see heavily used trails, broken branches high up on trees food forage where some thing large was there. But nothing of that sort is around and leave us to believe that it does not exist. It is like you said if it is like any other animal that leaves sign like other animals it would be on hunting forums. Who would not like to hunt a Bigfoot, come on it is serious Big game.

Gumshoeye, while you're willing to chat please explain the contradictions of your comments: "I did not see the thing when I snapped the photo" "It was standing upright looking at me looking at it." "Prove it to me" attitude? Nope. The proof is right there in front of everyone's face- what we're dealing with here is acceptance or denial. The more I think about it Gumshoeye the more it equates a hoax- deliberately telling a phony story presented as being true.

What does any of that actually mean? You write a lot but don't seem to be saying anything that addresses the root problem. All you've done is seemingly deflect (or ignore) the question of why you have given two mutually exclusive accounts of the events surrounding the photo. I have never said you are a hoaxer or that the photo in question is a hoax. It is my opinion that the photo itself is ambiguous and no amount of analysis (of the photo itself) will change that. The image is simply not clear enough to be definitive, but I would venture a guess that you really do see a bigfoot in the picture. No problem there. As you have said yourself: The stumbling block for me is that you first stated that you took the photo unaware that there were bigfoot in it, only noting "a quick glimpse of something darting from the trees." Three quotes from the Monroe Talks forum by member "whispers": Here in this thread you later made these statements which seem to contradict the ones quoted above: Which of these two accounts is correct? If it is simply a mistake of grammar, syntax, or vocabulary, why not state that clearly and correct the record? Instead, your responses seem to be those of someone who has chosen to play the victim and then you argue, deflect, ignore, and obfuscate when questions are raised. Either of your accounts I could (and would) consider objectively, but not both together when compared side-by-side. The inherent contradictions won't let me. Much like Fox Mulder, I, in a sense, want to believe. Unfortunately I am unable to because I cannot synthesize your two conflicting narratives. Please throw me (us) a bone and consider clearing up why the two accounts differ. In deference to WSA's request above, I apologize to him for the further derail, and will look forward to your response on this matter (and the thoughts of other interested members) in the appropriate thread found here: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/49226-monroe-monster/

Gumshoeye the only thing that you've done is show that you told a phony Bigfoot encounter story. This was not by the hand of anybody else here, this is by what you yourself wrote. The only "hurdles" that you're facing is your own lack of honesty and lack of taking responsibility for it. People on this site have spent a lot of time arguing that their personal experiences were 100% legitimate. All you did was provide a solid example of why these 'experiences' could just be completely fabricated. Like I said before- honesty is everything in this field.

The post 293 that you linked to states that nothing was noticed at the time when taking pictures. He states that they were randomly taken photos. He only noticed it after he got home and examined said photos. "As soon as I got home I downloaded the five or six photos from the woods to look them over before going to bed. When I looked at the two photos I snapped around the wood formations and magnified them I nearly fell off the chair. Now folks, I never expected to see anything other than trees and vegetation but certainly not a monkey man! Yup, no blob squatch photo.... In one of the random photos I snapped, it appears as though I captured nearly the whole right side (from head down to the upper thigh) of a hairy man looking at us." Gumshoeye is telling us here on this forum that he actually saw the creatures, and even has a full description of what he "saw": Are these reports from the same person?

It's a good thing for you that you weren't a member here six or eight years ago... Roguefooter made a legitimate observation and then still managed to ask a respectful question after you responded to him (merely voicing his opinion that the figure in your photo resembles a broken stump) with this dismissive and condescending post: You post a picture of a supposed bigfoot on a bigfoot discussion board and then complain when someone tries to critically discuss it. You refuse to answer questions or give a detailed account of the incident. Why would you expect everyone to simply fall into line and only post in agreement with you? Can we assume that during your long and storied law enforcement career you always accepted the word of suspects and witnesses without any asking any amplifying questions and without hearing a complete account of the incident in question? Did you believe it was beyond the pale to question a suspect's truthfulness or a witnesses' recall of an event? That is what you are expecting those of this forum to do: to accept your word alone while you obstinately refuse to disclose the full context of the incident or answer respectful questions. Does that not strike you as unreasonable?