Leaderboard

Just thought I'd point out that we can't be certain of a lack of spiritual awareness in any creature we can't effectively communicate with, just as we can't assess their capacity for or level of abstraction without understanding any potential aspects of their communications. On the flip side, science demands we consider the possibility that our spirituality is a remnant or vestigial artifact of our species attempt to find order in the natural world we found ourselves in and from that arose and evolved the various levels and forms of spirituality and religions, sort of an explanation that took on a life of its own. So perhaps we shouldn't use spiritual awareness as a viable gauge of advanced development, just in case it turns out to be a well crafted delusion after all. "Hey you guys! You aren't gonna believe what these hairless apes really think run the cosmos!"

I have the book but never finished it. https://www.amazon.com/Bigfoot-Observers-Field-Manual-follow/dp/0937663158 If I recall correctly, I realized I already knew most of what was in it because I had already attended some BFRO expeditions. I think their 'little green men' analogy document covers most of it. from the amazon link

Many years ago in 1980, I rode a bicycle from Los Angeles to Washington DC. A friend and I crossed the Mojave desert in late July, early August. I have photos of thermometers at gas stations reading about 107 degrees. There were two of us, and we each carried three gallons of water with us each day. Had to blow on it to cool it off to make it drinkable. But I remember being about 60 miles from anywhere, and starting to get that dizzy feeling. I started seeing things, and my peripheral vision narrowed to a tunnel. I saw a tower in the desert, and thought it was a tower from an amusement part I had worked at. Saw it clear as day. I saw buzzards circling in the sky. When I focused on them, they disappeared. Hallucination. We stopped in what little bit of shade of a joshua tree made and I drank a lot of water, and drank some honey (a trick I used to use from my rock-climbing days), even wet my clothes down before hopping back on my bike to get some airflow to cool off a bit. It was really no huge deal at the time, but looking back on it, I now realize how close I came. The thing is that I didn't even care. I would have been content to just lie down and sleep. And I was young and fit. I was glad to have had a friend with me to urge me on. Heat exhaustion and heat stroke are no joke.

Is what I quoted supposed to be the end of the story for me? Just thought it was an interesting section in the report. I'll second what @Twist said... Was there something to be won or lost here? Well... What if all "wild man" reports do indicate your synopsis? I haven't seen or read anything to support an opinion. What was so mysterious about my quoting from an article that another member posted? Are 5 posts an issue? Should have I posted in many other threads and pad my count before posting in this thread? Is there some hierarchy that I missed in the newb FAQ? Is there something wrong with being a previous participant? I'm using the same user name, go back in the old database and check it out. My posts were pretty mellow back then too. Zana's story is an interesting one and we'll never know the true story 100% for sure unless until time travel is a thing. Or is it a thing, did I miss that in the newbie FAQ too?

The paper states she has expected origins of an African woman with some issues. That’s what I read, that’s all I got. If you have an issue with the paper take it up with them.

Was there really a thing to be won or lost here? 🤔. I think now we just know that she was a typical human female that most likely had some health and developmental issues. Her being an almasty or having ancient African origins has been put to rest.

Truer words were never spoken. Do I think that conventions and Bigfoot celebrities cause damage to the larger cause? No. Do I think that these strange people who try to become self appointed gatekeepers of the topic cause damage to the larger cause? Yes. If they had their way, only ‘serious researchers’ such as themselves would be permitted to speak about certain things, and free public discourse would be controlled or eliminated. Bitter, self-appointed experts who constantly demand that others be quiet and bow to their wisdom turn away more potential enthusiasts than Mountain Monsters. And one of those enthusiasts might just be the one to prove Bigfoot’s existence someday. I used to rail against BFRO paid expeditions on this forum, until a couple of members were kind enough to take the time to explain an opposing point of view to me. Just because I don’t find any personal value in those things doesn’t mean that other people shouldn’t have the opportunity to enjoy them if they so desire. At the end of the day, it exposes more people to the subject, many of whom are not able to do what we would define as field research themselves. Real field research is hot, dirty, expensive, time consuming, frustrating, and sometimes dangerous. Just because someone can’t or isn’t willing to endure all of that, doesn’t mean that they can’t have an interest in the subject…even if the version that they are interested in doesn’t necessarily reflect my own experiences. When the shut-in on Facebook starts to lecture you on Bigfoot behavior…just laugh and move on. There’s too many windmills out there to tilt with, so why bother? And if you do argue with them and successfully impose your own viewpoint…well, congratulations. There’s only a few million more out there, so you better get cracking if you want everyone to think the same way as you. At the end of the day, the person who wants to pay to go on a BFRO expedition has absolutely zero effect on me or my efforts. Nor does a little grandmother who collects Bigfoot memorabilia. Nor does a Bigfoot celebrity who brings out his own branded ‘Monster Hot Sauce’. I personally find it a bit cringe, but people might think the same way about me. And I don’t want those people to have the ability to limit or control my actions or speech concerning Sasquatch…so I will afford them the same courtesy. The idea of subjective control of the discussion seems to be appealing to a disturbing number of forum participants these days. I went to the Smokey Mountain conference, mainly because I enjoy watching Paulides give his presentation and I wanted to hear Ron Morehead speak. I approached it with a certain level of hesitancy given some of the participants. I ended up having a ball. A lot of it didn’t appeal to me, but I enjoyed being there and talking to some of the attendees…even the ones who I find to be polar opposite of me on the subject. Enjoyed the heck out of it, and even ended up buying some Cryptid related patches off of a kid who had a table there…just because I found his enthusiasm for the subject infectious. At the end of the day, if you think that Matt Moneymaker and someone’s grandma who collects Bigfoot tchotchkes is going to prevent the eventual proof of these creatures, or if you find yourself bitterly stewing over their very existence…maybe reflect a little upon why you are allowing others to affect you to such a degree. At the end of the day, this subject and it’s pursuit is supposed to be something that brings us joy. If you find yourself hating the subject and everything or anyone involved with it…yet are still involved because you feel that you and you alone can solve the mystery…then I don’t know what to tell you, other than maybe request that you don’t constantly attempt to poison the subject for the rest of us. No one person is ever going to completely control the narrative. This isn’t the day of the Four Horsemen, were only a comparative handful of people were conversant on the subject. There are more YouTube channels and podcasts than you could shake a stick at…. Most of them aren’t my cup of tea, but I don’t have an innate desire to control what others say, hear, or do…so I don’t care. And if you do care? More power to you. I only answered because you asked, and now I will continue my day free from the worry that Matt Moneymaker might be out there somewhere doing something that I disagree with.