Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 (edited) This forum has other subjects besides BF, there is more to a forum than what is on the pages, there is a social aspect also. Tim ~ Edited December 10, 2011 by RedRatSnake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest COGrizzly Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 I come here to argue. And for the hot chicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 I come here to argue. And for the hot chicks. Heh! Awesome! Champawnya for everyone! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 I don't understand why someone who had decided bf were imaginary would even be on this forum, except for their own amusement. But that is another thread, perhaps. It's a topic that has come up a number of times in the past on the forum, though I think you're making a sweeping and incorrect statement about the skeptical mindframe towards this subject. Well, this skeptic anyway. While my skepticism has grown greatly over the past 40+ years, I don't dismiss bigfoot outright as some imaginary mind creation. I will however, try to eliminate all possible other natural or known causes before I attribute something to bigfoot. And, just in general, not just to Saskeptic or others of his stripe, and with due respect to them, I am not trying to prove to you there is a bigfoot. Why do you care if I think there is? What causes this interest? The Devil's advocate might ask, if you're not here trying to prove bigfoot exists, why are you here? To discuss something not yet proven? What a coincidence, so am I. What causes my interest? A thirst for knowledge, an appetite for the unknown, and a desire to see a mystery I been following for 40+ years solved. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest COGrizzly Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Well said Ray! And as an fyi, I was joking on my previous post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 I hope so Grizz cause i was already to get it on ~ Tim ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xspider1 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Champawnya for everyone! You crack me up sometimes I1! Laughter is definitely the best medicine. I will however, try to eliminate all possible other natural or known causes before I attribute something to bigfoot. That's good Ray, I think. But why would any other natural known cause be any more likely than what has been described over and over again? There may be a few psychoanalyst type Bigfoot skeptics who come here to study the purely social construct but; I think most of them have a lingering doubt that maybe all these people aren't lying or mis-identifying after-all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 So your saying the 99% are a bunch of liars? Give your head a shake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 But why would any other natural known cause be any more likely than what has been described over and over again? Evidence/burden of proof. More specifically, the lack of evidence. To my knowledge bigfoot has never been witnessed actually building a bigfoot nest, lobbing pine cones, creating stick structures, or vocally imitating wildlife. So, when someone presents those things as claims of bigfoot activity, I'm more than a little dubious, I'm downright unconvinced. Convince me. Perception. Our hearing, sight, taste, and even our touch can fool us. Our brains try to make sense of things from sensory input and sometimes gets it wrong. More than once my brain has misinterpreted what my eyes were seeing, or thought they saw, which includes a sasquatch walking along the side of the road. (it turned out to be an evergreen, completely natural). Witnesses are unreliable. Not because they are lying, but because we're not hardwired to record details like a movie camera. Confirmation. How does anyone know whether bigfoot is the cause if they don't fully investigate? Whether it's a Moneymaker expedition, or a MonsterQuest/Finding Bigfoot show, the underlying theme seems to be to cease pursuit if they get too close. Time after time misinformation is presented online as though it were bigfoot fact, when, with a little investigation, the promoter should have known it was misinformation. Just why would an undiscovered, unclassified, unidentified animal be the go to answer, if a natural explanation is available? Personally, I'm not a fan of using a second unknown to solve the first. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest COGrizzly Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 So your saying the 99% are a bunch of liars? Give your head a shake! No! NOT ONCE did I say that! Reading the posts sure does help. Sheesh.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 What's this reading crap ? I look at the forum like i look at a playboy, wizz past the words and get to the pictures. Tim ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biggie Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 I come here to argue. And for the hot chicks. Those are one and the same considering hot chicks like to argue so you came to the right place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest COGrizzly Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Those are one and the same considering hot chicks like to argue so you came to the right place. Ok, please, not trying to offend ANY of our female members, but that is mighty funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xspider1 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Just why would an undiscovered, unclassified, unidentified animal be the go to answer, if a natural explanation is available? Because the eye-witnesses describe an undiscovered, unclassified, unidentified animal over and over again. And those descriptions generally have many things in common. Of course other possible, natural explanations besides Bigfoot are proposed but, as far as I can tell, none of those possibilities are as likely (in every case) as is what the descriptions indicate: real, live Bigfoot, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Because the eye-witnesses describe an undiscovered, unclassified, unidentified animal over and over again. And those descriptions generally have many things in common. Of course other possible, natural explanations besides Bigfoot are proposed but, as far as I can tell, none of those possibilities are as likely (in every case) as is what the descriptions indicate: real, live Bigfoot, in my opinion. Each case has its own basis and as a result they do not all have to have the same explanation. One person may misidentify a bear and another may misidentify a hunter. Hoaxers abound apparently. Speaking as someone who hallucinates regularly (I'm on medication now in case anyone's worried) I can vouch for the possibility. It took me a long time to come to terms with this and I know it's an affront to one's self-esteem and identity. Many people will reject this possibility out of hand as I used to do. It is still a very viable explanation for what can be a scary incident. We also have to be on the look-out for people who lie. Just one more possibility in the list. Of course it is still possible that some of these encounters are real bigfoot. At least we can hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts