Leaderboard

But every so many times you get lucky and you do get that picture. The best thing to do is to hold on to it and not share it. There have been many times I have been wanting to be that trigger man and I just stopped and said no. Yet for them to be on the books so to say one does need to be killed. DNA has nothing in this no more, it is now a body. A body is evidence of that DNA and this how we might learn of a split. Just my opinion

IMO, he wants to be the Big Dog (as opposed to the camp flunkie) however, the behaviors I observed exhibited a total reticence to get out in the brush and actually be what he postures to the public. What took the cake was the second trip down to MC (at Lansdale's invitation to search for the body) he later admitted to having his own son covertly trail me while going through the search operations. In all three instances, I heard him, stopped and took up a position and waited to see what it was that was trailing me. What if I had been like one of the other guys (woodswatcher) who (IMO) is also scared of the woods, had been there and decided to shoot first (i.e. NAWAC) and ask questions later? Could have been a major tragedy so (IMO) for someone to send their own flesh & blood to do what they are afraid to do is, by definition, gross cowardice.

I think you guys already essentially called me a liar earlier in the thread anyway, so have at it again if you want.

There are proponents that might not agree with you on a couple points you just made in the above statement. Don't shoot the messenger (me) or think I have invested in either of these alternative theories because I have not. First of all many do not think them animals. And secondly there is an increasing woo woo group, one of which I listened to last Sunday, (Dr Mathew Johnson) who do not think them animals or even from this planet. While probabilities that they are some sort of primal people is not that unlikely, the woo woo group cannot be completely dismissed if you look at all the same body evidence you reference as pointing to existence. Strange things that defy common explanation are often reported. Whatever they are has to be included in the set of possible explanations even if that sub set of things is very unlikely. If we dismiss that possibility we are doing exactly the same things that the deniers are accused of; excluding evidence, or discounting witness reports because they do not fit into our own belief system. So while extra terrestrial origin might not be accepted by most proponents, at the same time there is some small probability that might be the answer. If tomorrow, SETI announced proof of nearby alien planetary systems, and the day after tomorrow as a result, NASA announced, since the cat is out of the bag, they have been monitoring ET travel too and from earth, that small probability that BF is alien in origin would just get way more credible and likely. I will leave it at that but certainly that possibility would explain some reason for a present cover up.

I guess you're busy giving orders to CEOs and such.

Lots of proponents here have a proven lack of objectivity. For example, people like DWA insist there is a 0% chance that bigfoot does not exist. Never even claiming to have seen one. I would call that lacking some objectivity. Do I get to call him names now? Even your sighting is just a claim. Some might argue that since you rule out any sort of fault in your own perception, that you might be lacking some objectivity. Based on that, can we start calling you names as well?

Hmm, so if I felt that someone wasn't being truthful, I could call them a liar? I mean, it's a precise descriptor in this context, no?

"Jokers"? We get to use a group pejorative to refer to those we disagree with now?

Thanks, LeafTalker. There are people on this forum, both skeptical and proponent, that I've learned to appreciate. LOL. Try researching my past posts on here and watch what happens. That's right, you can't go back very far can you? JDL was probably unaware of that as I was until I was tasked to do so. Learn something new everyday. Yeah, BF is such a silly subject in the minds of the public that shows like Finding Bigfoot get cancelled after one season. And you may counter, in a broad statement, by saying that the general public is simply amused by the silliness of it. But in reality, what you're doing is, you're trying to paint a detailed picture with a paint roller. Trust me, I don't mind the skeptical pov, but, if you like the "scientific high ground" of no proof Heck, I'm still waiting for these jokers to come back screaming because the forum search engine doesn't allow you to search 3-letter terms.

Woe be unto us sheeple who cannot decipher the truth

Do you have tangible objective evidence of Bigfoot? Objectivity is for objective evidence - if you have it then that's what I'll strive to be... If you do not have any tangible objective evidence of Bigfoot then you must realize that your claim is as subjective as any other - an experience (or a memory of an experience). Real, intense... but a subjective experience nonetheless. Subjectivity for subjective evidence. I may be able to help you with that and I hope to learn a thing or two myself... Additionally, my perspective is quite broad - I don't just focus on the claims that support my working hypothesis and ignore the rest as irrelevant. Bigfoot is a surprisingly big subject - and it's ALL relevant...