Guest Cervelo Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 So we now know how Bigfoot avoids big rigs.... Sal saw what he saw, doesn't really matter no one can prove it one way or the other. Next time Sal please whip out the cell phone and get a pic! But I'm sure at that point biggie would go poof since he knows the difference between a big rig and camera
Guest thermalman Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 I'm not saying it accounts for all sightings or encounters, but there are certain sightings that when I read them, I immediately focus on this explanation. The one with the guy in the tent, and something was pushing on his chest, Salubrius' because of the driving at night, I'm not saying it was Narcolepsy, but it is likely that it was a sleep hallucination. Another is the one in Washington or Oregon last year where the person thought Bigfoot had shot him with Infrasound, and he collapsed. This is indicative of Cataplexy. Incidence of Narcolepsy with Cataplexy is 1 in 3000 people, it is unknown how many people have Narcolepsy without the cataplexy. You might say, 'but that is only when waking up or falling asleep', the thing is, people with Narcolepsy tend to fall asleep for very short periods of time, even during the day. http://www.ninds.nih..._narcolepsy.htm If there are 1 or 2 million people out there in the U.S. with undiagnosed Narcolepsy, then how can we know for sure how many sightings can be attributed to Sleep Hallucinations? How many sightings are there each year? The other thing is, that being extraordinarily tired can lead to the same effect. I believe that some of the BFRO expeditions play on this factor. They keep people up, hiking around all day, then tell stories until late at night, someone falls asleep and has a sleep hallucination, of course, due to the fact that they just spent 12 hours talking about nothing but Bigfoot, the hallucination is going to involve that. The next day, when the person recounts it, of course the explanation is BIGFOOT MAN! Which leads to the possibility, that Bigfootry attracts people with undiagnosed sleep disorders. Logic being, that the victims have a higher incidence of seeing something which they attribute to Bigfoot, thus these people join the same groups and frequent the same circles. Everyone involved that has experienced it, is supporting each other in that they all agree it was a living breathing creature, which unfortunately no one can put a finger on. How would you account for the rest of the sightings that don't fall into your categories? And for those who have actually seen a BF, that accounts for their immediate focus as Bigfoot!
Guest BFSleuth Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 Next time Sal please whip out the cell phone and get a pic! He would have needed a specially equipped DeLorean to accomplish that feat, given that his sighting was well before cell phones with cameras existed... He did have a film camera at the time... in the back seat, in a backpack as I recall from his interview, but he considered whether it was wise to attempt to put his rig in park, lean over the back seat, rummage around to the find the camera, then roll down the window to avoid getting flash glare from the windshield... but thought the wiser course of action was to slowly move away from agitated giant sitting in the road... ... can't say as I blame him. At least he's here to recount the experience.
Guest Cervelo Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) BFS, I did say next time But thanks for trying make it seems as if I didn't know the circumstances of the report! As always your "got to get in the last word is" tiresome to say the least. Edited August 17, 2012 by Cervelo
Guest BFSleuth Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 ... sorry Cerv, didn't mean to try for the "last word"... that's my wife's purview... ... ya know, thinking about Sal's experience I can see it being like one of those classic horror flicks where the entire audience is saying "don't do it!" while the protagonist is starting to do something that brings about an unfortunate encounter with the monster... I think a giant 6' tall and 9' wide while sitting down within 10' of my car qualifies as such an experience...
Guest Cervelo Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 No apology necessary, just wasn't going to let it slide, it's all good We now know that Bigfoot is stupid enough to sit in the road but somehow so smart to know what a camera is and how to avoid it, I find both to be rediculous propositions.
salubrious Posted August 17, 2012 Moderator Posted August 17, 2012 Where did I say you are a 'nutbag'? You didn't nor did I say you did. I was simply elucidating on the problems of 'coming out' (not that there's anything wrong with that) The denial about themselves having a hallucination leads them to try to find an answer that is accepted by others. In this case BIGFOOT. I still don't get where you are going with that. How would BF be accepted by others?? If it was we would not be having this conversation He saw a creature, that: does not- poop, eat, get hit by cars, get caught on game cams, fall off cliffs, leave fossils, but does- look in windows, grow to 9' tall x 6' wide, steal food, porpoise for salmon, scavenge parking lot dumpsters, and squats (in pairs) in the middle of 'a paved major trunk hiway', and to add, doesn't get up and run when a car approaches it. than he simply had and misinterpreted a well-documented human phenomenon; sleep hallucination? Tell me again how Occam's razor works. Bigfoot can sense gamecams, but when a 4000 lb car approaches it on a paved highway, it just sits there while you drive around it? Well, clearly it eats and poops. There's plenty of evidence of that. There's a report in a local paper in mid-Minnesota of a BF getting hit by a minivan. I suspect there is quite a bit of fossil evidence too- but its identified as something else. So that leaves cliffs and game cams and there's been plenty of excellent points made about why the latter is not so successful. Logically there are probably a few that fall off cliffs too but I've not seen any...As far as me coming up to these things and driving around them, leave it to me to find the situation where the unusual and less credible event occurs. I invented a circuit from a dream experience and had 3 patent attorneys tell me it would not work, but it did and I got a patent... and built a business around it. I guess my point here is that we have here a situation where Occam's Razor might point to a simpler answer, but defining what that answer is is clearly a problem. For me its exceptionally simple. I know what I saw and I know it was not a hallucination, anything drug induced, mis-identification and so on. Why were they sitting there? I have no idea and I really felt that maybe it was not the best thing to try and find out. It seemed better to live with the lost opportunity than entertain some very possible consequences, if you know what I mean. I'm still alive- that thing seated on its butt was as tall as me and I'm 6'. It was very big and *very* agitated. So this puts us back to before. I know I can't convince you of anything about this, and you sure as heck won't convince me it was 'sleep hallucination' (I do know that that is like FWIW; I would have to have been up another 6 hours to get to that point). So, how about answer my earlier question? Its still something I don't understand at all and you can shed some light on it.
indiefoot Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 Cervelo, That might be valid if there were only one BF.
Guest BFSleuth Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 We now know that Bigfoot is stupid enough to sit in the road but somehow so smart to know what a camera is and how to avoid it, I find both to be rediculous propositions. I can't think of any animal that doesn't have behavioral variance. The greater the intelligence the greater the variance. If we accept that humans are at one end of the intelligence spectrum, there's enormous variance in our behavior within one individual let alone within our population. Read the news on any given day or watch America's Dumbest Criminals to see some pretty extreme behaviors that make absolutely no sense. Or watch folks on any given day and see behaviors that most frequently make sense within our framework of understanding. If we were a species different than HSS looking at HSS behavior we might say the same thing, that we are stupid enough to do X but smart enough to do Y and conclude that these extremes of behavior are ridiculous. But as observers of HSS behavior every day we have all seen extremes of behavior, smart or dumb (or whatever scale we might choose). As such when I consider the variation of behavior reported by witnesses in light of BF's likely high intelligence, it doesn't seem unusual at all that there is such variance. Nor can we extrapolate a given report and say, "Well, that must be the defining behavior of the entire species!" Just as we wouldn't say, "Well that person tried to rob a liquor store and left his file folder with his employment information at the counter!" would define the human species. I read each report as a single incident of a single individual of the species at a moment in time. I would not expect the same individual to behave in the same way at another encounter, let alone a different individual of the same species.
Guest Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 My philosophy teacher was in the Canadian Reserves and he had an interesting story on sleep deprivation. During training, they had to spend a lot of time awake and one of the commanding officers decided to play a prank on the recruits by dressing up in a giant bunny suit. All of the trainees saw a giant hopping rabbit that felt real at the time. My point is, everything you know comes from your senses. However, if the senses are faulty or your mind is not in a good state, then what good is the stuff that you see?
Drew Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 Good point Zoala. And if your senses were faulty it can be difficult to admit to later, after many people have vouched for you and emotionally revealed their own encounter with you.
Guest Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 Exactly, you cannot legally sign documents when you are intoxicated. Therefore, testimonials about bigfoot ,when state of mind is in question, should also be considered unreliable.
indiefoot Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) ^^^So.... you are saying that if state of mind is not in question, bigfoot testimony should be considered reliable? Edited August 18, 2012 by indiefoot
Guest Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 ^No, when state of mind is questionable, testimony should be thrown out immediately. However, if state of mind is "good", then a further step can be taken in analyzing the story.
Recommended Posts