Leaderboard

Uhm, great. Thanks for that..not even sure what to call it. If you don't believe that the Internet has changed the speed of news reporting, then I would suggest that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Be careful there... This forum is licensed to: Centre for Fortean Zoology

woo n.(or adj), the way a person is when they uncritically believe unsubstantiated or unfounded ideas. Short for "woo woo". woo woo Unfounded or ludicrous beliefs ludicrous adjective: so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing. Such "experiences" can be deeply personal and profound - certainly not unfounded, nor foolish, nor unreasonable, nor amusing. A term like "woo", therefore, is not accurate and is inappropriate in this context... I think that the process of legend-tripping may be a bit more elaborate than just mild external stimuli creating a mega elaborate construct. It's ritualistic in some ways - perhaps tapping into something primal. Potentially, under the right set of circumstances, anyone could get a similarly profound experience. Belief may not even be necessary - maybe just the suspension of disbelief. Would certainly make for an interesting experiment but may not meet ethical criteria so perhaps Reality TV may be the way to go... it'd be like taking Finding Bigfoot to the next step - Really Finding Bigfoot ! or Finding Bigfoot for Yourself ! (which is essentially what people do when they go out researching/legend-tripping Bigfoot anyway)... It is profound but the profundity is the willingness to add layer after of straw based flesh and blood to what are mind games. Crow, most of us don't try to play any mind games with anyone. But do consider that the process of subjective rationalization to accommodate your own belief system is a mind game in and of itself.

Not the same. A sighting is a direct 1st person account. It's only speculative if the circumstances were not clear to the witness himself. What skeptics do is speculate on all sightings without regard for the quality of the witness or the circumstances of the sighting based solely on their own belief system. The skeptical process is a step removed, derivative to the sightings themselves and, more often that not, subjectively dismissive based on nothing more than the premise that bigfoot do not exist.

Have no intention of interfering with you tooting your little horn - whatever kind of band you got. Not musically inclined on my end. In the first place, I'm not going to "track" anything. I'm not going to "hunt" anything. I'm not going to be "seeking" anything. So much for these supposed SF personnel with researchers. They obviously don't have a clue as to what they're about. People are simply not doing their homework. This isn't about a hunting trip. You're not going to stalk them. You're not going to run one down. You're not going to track one. You're not going to find them. Comparison of me with SF personnel isn't exactly fair. I also served in Co. H, 75th Inf Rangers (LRRP), and Co. O, 75th Inf Arctic Rangers. Also with the 82nd, 101st, and 1st Cav. You see, SF are primarily teachers - if one wishes to get technical. In the process of my misspent youth, I picked up four MOS's, one bullet hole and shrapnel. As far as whatever's played out over and over on this forum, I haven't heard one single thing yet that has ANY commonalities with what I'll do IF I go after one. Nothing. Nada. I seem to have folks telling me why I can't, entirely based on erroneous assumptions. Some may mistakenly assume I think too much of my skills. My success will have nothing to do with stalking or hunting skills. Absolutely - zero. It's just that I learned a thing or two sharing a mountain with them for a few months. If I go, I'll go to an isolated area and remain for a minimum of three months. Allowing for four, but a minimum of three. Not three days. Not three weeks. Three months. Further, I'll be spending just under four hundred grand to have Mr. Murphy to sit this one out. As I've said - I don't hunt them. I'm not wasting my time. I go, I'll get a good return on my investment. Or I won't go. I don't believe a word of this. That doesn't surprise me in the least. It's not what you don't know that makes you lacking. It's what you know that isn't true that makes you lacking.

Not all of them. Perhaps you should look for a psychiatrist that deals with hallucinations while you're at it.

I don't believe you.

The evidence that bigfoot does not exist is best expressed by the absence of evidence that should be present if bigfoot were a real animal. There should be proof by now. There should be plenty of biological evidence collected such as: orts, middens, hair, saliva, scat, blood, etc. There should be undeniable video and photographic evidence. There should be fossils and there should be cultural artifacts that are unmistakably bigfoot in origin. There is a long list of evidence that would be present if bigfoot was real. How do we know this? Because every other large North American mammal has left exactly the type of evidence described. Bigfoot simply cannot be so special that it avoids leaving any kind of objective evidence behind. I'm not even going to bother getting into hoaxes, pranksters, delusions, hallucinations, etc. That's a slightly different conversation. The simple fact remains that if an animal such as bigfoot is reported actually existed, the animal would have been described and proven to science a long time ago.

^^ If you are truly interested in the answer to that question, then perhaps you should start a new thread. If all you really want is to create a place to take pot shots at skeptics and their point of view, then please spare everyone the hassle.