Leaderboard

Ghosts UFOs and all kinds of religious stigmata.

If you can't conceive the idea of someone coming to a different conclusion than yourself in regards to subjective evidence and feel "roasting carcasses" is the way to approach said difference of opinions, you cannot be a grownup, here.

WSA.. Meet your bigfooters.

Nah not corrected, just sharing info.. I like the Liberty as well. Interesting bit of info- the original Cherokee was killed in 2001/2002 and the Liberty is the vehicle that replaced it. Outside of the US, it was never marketed as "Liberty". Ive watched numerous off-road videos from Australia and the vehicle there (and other places) Jeep retained and used the "Cherokee" name. For all intents and purposes, the Liberty is an updated Cherokee. Errr, or was because the Liberty is dead now as well. I wish Jeep would come to their senses, scrap this new "renegade" they came out with (tiny joke shoebox of a Jeep), the Compass and new Cherokee are seriously lacking in 4x4 capability (just my opinion) and seem to be aimed more at soccer moms and the "fun family vehicles" market much more so than anything to do with true offroading. The Wrangler is the only vehicle theyre producing any more that has a true 4x4 drive system in it, but they keep monkeying with that as well adding in more electronic crap that's not needed. All just my opinion of course, i'm just a purist when it comes to Jeeps and what they should be used for. Jeeps are not intended to spend their lives on pavement, never have their hardtop removed (for Wranglers), and a great deal of people who own Jeeps today have no intention of ever utilizing the vehicle to its true potential. It's kind of sad, and drives me nuts at the same time.

Something is bothering me: in discussion of bigfoot we often lament the participation of "scientists." Is that really true? What do you consider to be the defining characteristics of a "scientist"? What attributes separate them from "non-scientists"? What is it about being a "scientist" or not that makes one person's comments on bigfoot more relevant or weighty than others'? Thoughts, please? MIB

When I saw the credits I noticed at least one notorious hoaxer on the list. Then I noticed the guy who disappeared in every video just before the activity started and returned shortly after it stopped. I did like the fact that your group researches from the car. That is a lot easier than hiking and toting equipment to remote areas.

^^^ Not according to DWA !

My first job is to survive. My second job is to keep a very short list of other people alive. Unless required for one of those two, nope. So far they haven't shown any tendency to overstep that boundary, not even when they've gotten a bit .. pushy. You'd almost think they know where I've drawn the line ... a how question for the hmmmm bucket. MIB

If you can't conceive the idea of someone coming to a different conclusion than yourself in regards to subjective evidence, you cannot be a grownup, here.

Agreed, they can swim. The first one I saw was initially wading but eventually it dropped into deeper water and swam away around the bend in the river, head and upper shoulders above the water. I don't know about underwater but there's reason to believe they swim well enough to steal salmon out of the tribal people's nets on the Klamath. MIB

They can swim. Have a family member that watched one swimming and playing in a pond for over an hour. In the 70's when I was young kid, we always fished since we lived on the lake. My parents would take us to drive in movies every weekend back then. One weekend we also Creature from Black Lake. I loved those movies but the opening seen in Creature, when the arm comes up and drags that guy out of the flat bottom boat, I wouldn't go fishing for months after that. I'm a serious tournament bass angler here and to this day I'm always just looking in the water for that stuff lol. Just something always in the back of my mind that arm reaching up and grabbing that guy. But too many reports of them being seen swimming or just in the water to not assume they swim. Maybe like humans, some learn how to swim and some never learn how. I don't think they all know how to swim but some sure do.

Yeah, precisely ... invest to prove to whom? Myself? Close friend? Someone I care nothing about? Varies. In some cases I might pay something NOT to prove even with proof in hand. I already **know**, I don't need proof. The only value I see of proof, now, is to maybe give some closure to people who are troubled by their experiences. MIB

I know you were asking him, not me, but it's a question I've pondered so I'll answer anyway. I'm following the data. It's not about belief, not about what I want to find. I've come to where I'm at by applying Occam's Razor to the mass of data, not to a single piece in a void. When a single, consistent solution better fits the data than the one I have now, I will change my mind, but all the scoftics offer is a Rube Goldberg mix of arbitrarily labeling things misidentification, hoax, etc with less evidence, on a case by case basis, for their rationalization than exists for them being real, I'm not convinced and I'm not going there. The second option would be influx of such a mass of data with different characteristics which appears valid, but outweighs what I've already seen, that a scientific approach requires change. Both are technically possible but at this point, after this many years, with the amount and consistency of data already in hand, the probability of a better fit explanation or adequate data telling a radically new story appears vanishingly low. A change of mind is possible, but it has to be scientifically warranted. That's the yardstick it has to meet. I'm open to it if it happens but I'm sure not holding my breath after this many years. MIB

Welcome to the jungle, Starling. Foghorn Leghorn is a trip.

The first one I saw was the "Dog Headed Pig Monster" from Namibia. I wasn't expecting them to find the title critter, but enjoyed learning about the honey badger and brown hyena, neither of which I had heard of. They conducted some reasonable investigation and determined that the 16 year old boy, Martin, died of rabies and that the culprit was likely a rabid honey badger, the dead goats with neck wounds may have been killed by a big cat in a killing frenzy and the headless goat was probably killed by a brown hyena which can open its jaws enough to engulf the head and has a powerful bite. The lack of blood was due to it settling to a low point of the carcass following death. The other episode was an enhanced version with subtitles about the "Indian Monkey-Man". Again, I didn't expect a revelation of the titular creature, but found the jungle trek interesting. They definitely needed a tire upgrade on the 4 x 4 that got stuck in the mud. The show is better than I expected and I'll watch further episodes to see how it develops. Agreed on Mountain Monsters. I fear if they carried live rounds, none of them would be left by now.

Love all the Jeeps... Nothing like a O||||||O ! I've had 3 Wranglers over the years. A 90 YJ, a 2004 TJ, and a 2009 JK. The TJ was probably my favorite of the three. Anyway, I was looking recently to get back into a Jeep, but I'll tell ya... don't get me wrong, I have much love for the Wrangler, but they've become way too popular and trendy to own, and are holding their value too well (for my purposes haha). I could not find a used Wrangler in the 4-5 yr old / sub 60,000 mile category that was under $20 Grand.... I did some reading online, and went and took a 12' Liberty for a test drive, and was impressed with it, and wound up buying it. For the 2012 year, same 3.7 V6 as the Wrangler ( yea i know theyve gone to 285hp Pentastar), same Command-Trac 4x4 system (4x2, 4x4HI + 4x4Low), same NP231 transfer case, etc etc etc.. The Difference ? found a used 2012 (and sadly discontinued) Liberty KK with low 60's mileage- $12,500. Big difference.. ! I'm ok with it being a hard top, Im ok with the way it looks (reminds alot of the original Cherokee), and the extent of my "wheeling" is logging roads, seasonal limited use roads (some of which are hairy, washed out, bottom out alot), and I've been nothing but impressed by how this vehicle has reacted to everything I've thrown at it. I've had it nearly bottomed out in soupy mud, on three wheels several times, and so far its shown the same sure footed ways that I was used to with my Wranglers. Similar road driving experience, you know its a Jeep- but hey we knew that when we signed on, and it's all about the off road, deep snow, go nearly anywhere experience that we were seeking. Here's a photo of mine, next to Marsh Pond here in upstate NY.

^^^^ That might be fine if bigfoot were paranormal, but they are not, they are just flesh and blood biological things ... same as you. Having to recast them as paranormal rather than biological so you can summarily dismiss them isn't a very rational path .. though it is quite the rationalizing straw man argument setup, gotta give you that much credit. MIB

Bravo, Starling. Wish I could plus your insightful posting a dozen more times. I look forward to more words of wisdom from you!

My apologies...I can get overly Socratic. I should know by now this group does that not so much. But the larger point I'm trying to make here... No sighting report (with the likely exception of the PGF) is proof of Bigfoot. They are not nothing though. Collectively they are a pretty big something. What you get out of them though is only what you put into reading them, and this is but one example. I was privileged enough as a young man to have the tutelage of a number of very talented legal practitioners who taught me this skill by example. (I've also had any number of juries double-down on that lesson and school me the hard way) Those lawyers could read the same deposition, expert witness report, medical chart or other bit of evidence, and while it would warrant only a shrug from me, they on the other hand could pull out any number of unassailable inferences and conclusions. While the sighting reports are not sworn, they are testimony and they are vulnerable to giving up their consistencies and inconsistencies in exactly the same way. So, you can read hundreds of these things and only get as far as, "He said he saw a BF, but that is not possible, so nothing else in the account is worth examining". This is where most of the public, most of the scientific community and many members of this Forum land. Then, you have geeks like me and a few others who are never going to be satisfied with such an unexamined conclusion. I'm not claiming to have some super acumen, I'm only emphasizing it is learned skill that won't just happen. You have to be intentional about it. The question I always want to ask is: Once you get past the obvious details that any hoaxing witness could provide (i.e. "I saw a huge bipedal hairy thing with white hair that stood and stared at me...) can you find other, much more subtle details which a hoaxing witness is very unlikely to either think of at all, or find the need to include if he did. The report in the OP fits that description for me. What the reports describing an albino creature should trigger, I believe, is some consideration of the congenital traits associated with albinism and some of the genetically related syndromes associated with the recessive gene inhibiting melanin in mammals. I mentioned only a few above. Things like deafness, poor vision, hypermobility of the joints, etc. All of which are subject to some conjecture, I grant you. Still, if you stop at "that's impossible", you wall yourself off to a huge trove of supporting observations.

Triton It is not about buying into the membership but supporting something that you believe in. Of course people are going to have discourse about this subject. We are talking about a creature that is not going to just stand there and give us a nice picture. The same goes with killing one they are not just going to let you do it . I did it cause I gave my word that I would and that means a lot to me . It may sound like a sales pitch but it is not. The tar pit for myself would be a hell pit in fact for my self by all these sharks just swimming around while I wade. But sharing knowledge is key to understanding these creatures. This is the development of understanding and enlightment. But keeping it on a level where those who pay so that knowledge can be shared well. That is a different monster in itself. But this gives us insite to these creatures existence and this how we learn as humans. I would rather have some one critical of my findings then to have some one who is not. Reason ! To give me drive to prove them wrong. It is not about money with these creature for me or fame. I am not even sure what it is even about any more. But to hear what others have found and have experienced eases my mind and makes me feel at ease. We should be thank full to be able to experience what others have not been able too. I really do not see this forum like what you have said : " I don't want to pay just to read more bitching back and forth. ) I see this forum more as a highly critical forum. That has a lot of intelligent people with intelligent minds. That are looking for a single answer whether these creatures exist or not. I have always supported this critical thinking and have always challenged it. crit·i·cal think·ing noun noun: critical thinking the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment. "professors often find it difficult to encourage critical thinking amongst their students Again I need to stop ranting since it is hot in Michigan and have had to many Modelo's.