Guest Twilight Fan Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Definitive evidence of BF is NOT what I'm after. I have a personal belief that if they exist, they don't want to leave definitive evidence behind either. Like Aaron said, the only irrefutable evidence to most people would be to have a body -- and killing a BF would be WRONG. Very wrong. This is the opposite of what I want. All that I seek is to have a personal encounter. No camera, no ill intentions of showing my "finding" to the world. Just to get to know them as they are, just for myself. And to leave them in peace and respect their wishes. Wonder if anyone's left flyers/pamphlets in the woods of stylized stick drawings showing a bigfoot and a person shaking hands . Might help convey benign intent. Imagine it as propaganda, for BF. This is an intriguing idea. But how would they know A] what a picture on paper represents and B] even if they could realize the drawings are meant to be humans and bigfeet, how would they know the intent of a handshake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 I completely understand what you mean, you want something up close and personal. As I'm told, people do have these relationships with them but we don't hear much about it as those involved won't talk publically. Sure, they could have visitors over and say "Here you go--SEE !!!" But that would betray a trust that has taken years to build. Admitedly, I'm a bit skeptical of the interpretation of their behavior angling to make a meal out of salubrious I know, like us they have different personalities and temperaments so some are more likely to be aggressive toward us in an encounter; however, I think their bark is worse than the bite as the saying goes. And parting with popular opinion, my personal IMO is that they are far more human than animal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Make sure to have a picture of a Zagnut in the other hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted July 3, 2012 Moderator Share Posted July 3, 2012 I completely understand what you mean, you want something up close and personal.. .... And parting with popular opinion, my personal IMO is that they are far more human than animal... Agreed. I don't know if you read the link on the Sightings page, but these things were **big**! The first one was easily 10 feet tall. Its the sort of thing that you don't want to make a mistake about, if you know what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) This is an intriguing idea. But how would they know A] what a picture on paper represents and B] even if they could realize the drawings are meant to be humans and bigfeet, how would they know the intent of a handshake? We wouldn't know what they would know, but it's an educated guess considering great apes are self-aware. They won't know specifically what a handshake is, but the proximity of hands might signal indication to get closer. Heck, they've even been reported to smile back (truck driver avoiding young bf incident) so a stylized smiley might even work. Edited July 3, 2012 by poignant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Oh I believe your account completely, and all I'm willing to venture is despite the intimidation factor you probably weren't going to be eaten One day perhaps I'll be forced, by documented cases of people being eaten by a squatch, to reconsider my position. Agreed. I don't know if you read the link on the Sightings page, but these things were **big**! The first one was easily 10 feet tall. Its the sort of thing that you don't want to make a mistake about, if you know what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kerchak Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I've never been too sure about all this " i believe " stuff, where any subject's concerned to be honest. I wouldn't believe in BF in a million years if i hadn't have seen one, no way in the world. A massive hairy man roaming the forests and swamps of one of the most recreational trigger happy Continents on the Planet without ever bringing one in publicly ?? No way, not for me, i could never believe that this Animal could exist and i have no idea why or how anyone who hasn't seen one, could believe that they exist. & i say that even with the PGF which i have no doubt at all is a real living breathing Animal, not sure if i would think it was however if i hadn't have seen one. Bobby, Seeing as bigfoot is one of the least far fetched of all of the world's mysteries or 'belief concepts' I see it another way. The majority of the world's population 'believe' in at least one of the following...God, ghosts, UFO landings, reincarnation, clairvoyancy, ESP etc etc etc. All of them are more far fetched and more incredible than the idea of an elusive rare primate, which wouldn't be too dissimilar to what we already know in the fossil record. So MOST people on the planet 'believe' in something incredible. Bigfoot isn't all that strange and unbelievable compared to all of the above. It's not as if it's the craziest thing in the world. I personally know people who believe in far crazier things than 'bigfoot'. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 3, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted July 3, 2012 Oh absolutely, i don't disagree especially with many of the subjects you listed. I just meant that, along with all those that you listed, there's no way in the world i'd have " believed " in BF if i hadn't seen one. I do however find it absolutely staggering in, like what i said, the most recreational trigger happy Continent on this Planet hasn't brought this Subject out of a Forest or a Swamp. But credit must go to the Subject for this as well as something else that i always say, as well as not thinking that us Humans are the best thing since sliced bread because we most certainly are not.. Especially so when we are out of our comfort zones, such as in a big Forest where something else is the dominant Animal, clearly.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I agree, BobbyO, humans are certainly not the best thing since sliced bread, and neither is science since who else but humans conduct it? Always a potential for an error, and we wonder why we can't nail down a simple flesh and blood "thing" like bigfoot using our pee-brained ideation and preconceptions. IMO, of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 3, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) It's not that difficult to experience them. Getting a visual is very difficult. Persistence is key. It takes dedication. Agreed, plus in some cases, it also takes hard work and trusting in your perceptions and personal evidence collection, jmho. Edited July 3, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) Believing in BF or any of the entities mentioned in #37 is just a matter of the mind accepting whatever evidence or suggestions available as suitable conclusion. It's only when one begins to question the "facts" available that further confirmation is required to acquire or maintain the belief. It all depends on how you view the matter at hand; is it true until proven false? Or, false until proven true? Personality types, as well as various emotional needs, early childhood development, all play into how an individual will "believe"...or not.... IMPO Weeeeeee, I graduated to Bukwas!!!! Thanks Twilight!!!!.....uh, what is a bukwas anyhow? Edited July 3, 2012 by AaronD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I think it's another Native Amnerican name for Bigfoot. They have quite a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I agree with what everyone has said about 'belief' as a poor word to describe the 'correct approach' to Bigfoot. What we really need is indisputable scientific evidence that leaves no trace of doubt that these things really exist as just another resident of the forest. After all, I have never seen a snow leopard, but have no doubt they exist on account of all the excellent evidence I've seen in their favour. 'Belief' doesn't come into it. Having said that..... I would settle for a really good personal encounter. It might be selfish, but my desire go know they exist for myself outweighs my need for the rest of the world to know. Having said that, it would need to be reasonably up close and personal or I would probably soon start wondering if I'd been having an hallucination or a primitive, archetypal encounter or something. I understand that you have to be careful what you wish for and that many are left traumatised and petrified by their encounters. I suppose we're all different, but I imagine it's a bit like childbirth - really, really nasty at the time but the end result leaves you with a lasting sense of fulfillment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Ah yes...IMHO people should refrain from saying that they 'believe in bigfoot', and if they should persist in wanting to include that word in their vocabulary, to say instead that they "believe there is sufficient evidence to support..." or "believe there is a species of surviving primate". Somewhere along those lines. I'll say it again. 'Believing in bigfoot' is like saying 'believing in gorillas', 'believing in coelacanths', 'believing in lions'. It just opens you up for ridicule because you have failed to distinguish faith from method. Believe in bigfoot? Well, bigfoot doesn't believe in you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Ah yes...IMHO people should refrain from saying that they 'believe in bigfoot', and if they should persist in wanting to include that word in their vocabulary, to say instead that they "believe there is sufficient evidence to support..." or "believe there is a species of surviving primate". Somewhere along those lines. I'll say it again. 'Believing in bigfoot' is like saying 'believing in gorillas', 'believing in coelacanths', 'believing in lions'. It just opens you up for ridicule because you have failed to distinguish faith from method. Believe in bigfoot? Well, bigfoot doesn't believe in you. While I agree with you that's being a bit pedantic as it is just a way to seperate one's self from people who don't believe they exist. If I have a protracted discussion about the subject of BF I would use the words you have, that I believe there is evidence they exist but not having ever seen one and as there is no solid proof of their existance "belief" is all I have. I would love to see one so I can state with certainty they do exist but until then I'll have to stick with "I believe". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts