Leaderboard

Can you show me some examples here? I think people are taking anything at face value because they would rather have something instead of nothing to support Bigfoot. Lots of stories looks like a lot of evidence, but when you start examining those stories for facts they all start to crumble until there's hardly anything left. That's why I think people hate it when stories and evidence are questioned and put under a microscope. It's like they view it as a threat to the existence of the field. So what happens? It gets turned into a moral issue to make people feel bad. Make everything look like a personal attack, like the questioning will hurt people's feelings and that you're doing a disservice to the field. That doing so makes you a bad person with no morals, etc. Even now we're seeing veteran status brought up and how they fought for the country for freedom, and how could you talk so bad about one of our soldiers? Don't you feel so bad you mean person? Seriously, how ridiculous is this? The only thing people should be interested in is the truth, the facts. That's how you get to the reality of it all. Very little strong evidence is far better than a lot of garbage evidence. It needs to be questioned and put under a microscope- all of it. If you want people to take this field seriously then you need to weed out the garbage. It's like the difference between 'Legend Meets Science' and 'Mountain Monsters'.

Just a reminder from the BFF Rules and Guidelines: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. On the BFF we accept very little at face value. We may have a tendency to over-analyze claims and be more skeptical than some other forums dedicated to this topic, but we think that is preferable to the alternative. Questioning claims, particularly ones like this one (dead, missing persons, murderous Sasquatch) is not only acceptable, it is (or should be, IMO) expected. When the BFF members all stop asking questions and/or asking for evidence, I'm going to start getting worried. It's not just the skeptics/scoftics/denialists who ask questions around here. Proponents do just as much questioning...and in many cases it has lead to stories being completely debunked. I've read so many times that "people don't want to share here because they get attacked". I don't buy that. If I had a siting, and come here to share... I would welcome questions and give answers the best I could. When someone does that, they are rarely "attacked". When they get defensive, refuse to answer questions, complain about anyone who doesn't believe them... then yea, things start getting busy. But there's usually a reason, as we all know. There's lots of questions with this story... and no answers. I hate to say it, but I don't think we will ever know any more about this whole ordeal than we do right now.

These were all posted by Tirademan in the regular forum, thus I can re-post without violating the rules. The premium section has the entire collection of Tirademan's historical articles available. There are hundreds of them.

Who is this person? How does he know this? Who told him? Is he willing to go on public record clearly stating the what he knows? Does there exist even the slightest possibility that no one is actually dead or missing, hence the lack of reporting? Then again, if the account is true, it certainly doesn't help (and seems a bit disingenuous) if he will not go public with the information. If it happens (bigfoot attacks), I'd imagine that some factions in the .gov might want to supress the facts, sure. I doubt, though, that they could have anything approaching a 100% track record of shutting people up. If your premise is correct, then this thread demonstrates what a sub-standard job they are doing. The sticking point for me is not the claims of bigfoot attacks and the subsequent cover-ups, but the complete and utter lack of evidence of a cover-up. Zero. The cases are not similar. Paulides cites the names of the missing along with those involved in the searches, descriptions of the circumstances surrounding the disappearances, police reports and/or the results of the investigations when available, interviews with witnesses, friends, and family members, as well as the precise locations of the incidents. No similar data sets are ever offered as corroboration in the "killer bigfoot" stories. Also, isn't it curious that the powers-that-be allow Paulides to his publish his work if: Bigfoot are responsible for the disappearances he documents, and There exists a government conspiracy to cover-up deaths and disappearances attributable to bigfoot?

You obviously didn't look at either of the links that I postedMacleans magazine is a national magazine here in Canada and in 1929 they published a story by J.W. Burns, a government agent that worked with the Chehalis band Mr. Burns "invented" the term sasquatch when he misspelled/mispronounced the word that the Chehalis used And I agree with Norse

Skeptic or not, you cannot simply base the truthfulness of an account on such things. The fact that Wes Germer stated that two individuals were killed and one left in a mental institution should lead you to question why no trail of such a murder can be found. Yes, it is interesting that Garrett has not come out to deny that Wes claim is false, but that is not exactly his endorsement of Wes claim either, he is simply no longer talking about it. Two campers coming up dead should be something we could pin down in a more exact way through county morgue or other records, not simply relying on second hand hearsay. So kudos to the Skeptic for questioning this one...with that being said I still am in agreement that such a situation is possible, and perhaps that whole gang was making a point, or attempting to scare away the throng of wannabe researchers that can ruin a productive area...have you given that angle any consideration? Throwing a rouge shark into the waters makes for some pretty good surfing...

BobbyO, MagniAesir pretty much covered it for you. The tributaries of the Fraser along this section flow N-S between numerous ridges of mountains, all part of the Coast Range, till they reach the flat land along the E-W flowing Fraser. Hwy 7 on the N side of the river generally runs a km or so S of the ends of those mountains, with farms and several reservations running from the Hwy back to their bases. Virtually all of this land is private or native, so there is no public access to most of it, which is great for the privacy of the creatures there, not so great for us researchers. There are numerous sloughs and marshes along the foot of those hills, as well, that provide water, fish and other freshwater critters, and edible marsh plants. I don't think you could find better habitat for Sasquatch, hence the long history of sightings in the whole area.

Well what kind of questions do you see harmful, and in what way?

So why is it that people will accept this stuff on blind faith and then defend it against questioning? I don't understand the motive here. Does questioning a Bigfoot encounter or story somehow jeopardize something?

Hello All, There are a couple of things that I find strange. One is that believers get eye rolls but it seems the many authors and vendors do not? Why is it that those who are publicly marginalized don't marginalize the ones who profit from the belief? Many complain about folks that are maybe only in it for the money but those folks wouldn't be there if there was no money to be made. There are many reasons why the media and public snicker at Bigfooters. I think the chief unspoken label is perhaps gullibility. Buying trinkets and supporting vendors is part of that label. I know this will seem harsh but the subject of Bigfoot needs to revert back to the ones in the field and those who truly believe there is an extant, large, North American ape out there. And no one needs a BF T-shirt to hunt for it. I really do apologize for the rant here but for pete's sake all of us could clean up our act a bit and that would have to include the conference people and the speakers on the circuit. Get something solid and hold a press conference. We owe this to ourselves to tighten things up and get out and find this creature. If I was a conference speaker I'd feel a whole lot better about myself if I was hitting the circuit with a head than pushing my book that contains no proof.

You mean like bigfoot being a myth or reality isn't at the heart of all discussions here between skeptics and proponents?