Jump to content

Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi Lee,

How's it going? So, you're clear, not really. Maybe now's a good time to look over the rules:

With regard to your question above, this one wold apply: 1. Respect For Others

A. All members of these Forums will respect the opinions and presence of other members of the Forums. You are welcome to engage in challenging and spirited debate with other users, but rudeness will not be tolerated. Name-calling, disrespecting other users or throwing personal insults against them will not be tolerated. Flaming another user because of their spelling or word choice will not be tolerated. Personal attacks of any kind are not allowed. Antisocial behavior will not be tolerated.

Hope this helps :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we to assume that it would have been considered better for Lee (or whoever) to report the post rather than ask out loud so to speak?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely :-) If anyone thinks they have read soemthing that breaks the house rules, then reporting it is the way to go. The admin team will then take a look at it ASAP. So we don't get off the rails of the topic here, if anyone has any other questions relating to rules etc, please drop me a PM and I'll be happy to answer them directly. That way we can keep this thread on topic. Also, if anyone really has an axe to grind, and really want to get something of their chest, then I strongly suggest they look at Premium membership. It's a bargain price, and you can go wild with your views in the Tar Pit. Shaun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^My apologies. However, how can you answer the fact with all this "evidence" there is still no proof? If that video is the proof the world is waiting for, why isnt it everywhere? This time next year you are all still going to be making the same excuses as to why you cant find bigfoot. 5 years from now same story.

With all due respect, I am not sure it is my burden to answer anything to a group of folks that would not believe in BF under any scenario.

The video is cool for sure and unlike anything ever taken before. It isn't *everywhere* because the landowner holds the rights to it and does not wish for it to be released.

If you feel like we will all be asking the same questions in 5 years then I have to ask why you waste your time here if you are so pointed in your stance?

I have a sneaking suspicion some of you *skeptics* just post from a *contrarian* stance and could never be convinced.

Probably the JREF roots coming through.

Hello there,

Just as an aside, is it ok to tell someone to "keep their mouth shut" on here? I thought this was a place to respect each other and maybe even help educate people if they are wrong about something.

Best regards,

Lee

You talking about my post?.....

I didn't tell Darrell to keep his mouth shut. I said it would be better if he did so about something he obviously knows nothing about if he made the leap that the *grooming video* was related to the Erickson Project and taken from a game/trail cam.

I was involved in writing the rules and am fairly adept at following them.

If I said..."Darrell, you are a liar and should keep your mouth shut" it would have been a violation.

Instead I merely suggested that it would be better if he kept his mouth shut if he were so clueless as to assume the *grooming video* is associated with the Erickson Project and that it was taken from a game/trail cam.

Totally inept post by him that assumes things that just are not true.

You can report it, and that is the preferable path for sure, but it does not violate any rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

You were advising him to keep his mouth shut rather than telling him to. Fair enough.

Best.

Lee

Edited by dopelyrics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all about respect if it is warranted.

But assuming the *grooming video* has anything to do with the Erickson Project, or that it was taken from a trail/game cam is so far off of the mark as related to what has been posted about it that it is laughable.

Not sure where that misguided info came from in all sincerity.

I just told him it was probably better if he did keep mum about something he obviously knows nothing about and didn't make assumptions that suggested he had some knowledge that he obviously does not have.

If I had wanted to tell him, you, or anyone else to *keep your mouths shut*, I would have clearly said so instead of saying it was *better* to do so. But I'm not going to violate the rules here and that would have been a violation.

See the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSR Team

Hello there,

Just as an aside, is it ok to tell someone to "keep their mouth shut" on here? I thought this was a place to respect each other and maybe even help educate people if they are wrong about something.

Best regards,

Lee

It's all about the context Lee, surely, and the context wasn't someone exactly telling someone else to " keep your mouth shout ", at all...

Edited by BobbyO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest toejam

Any researcher that has ongoing activity knows how difficult it is to get a visual on this species. I'm going into my fifth year of research this October and I'm no closer than when I started.

I've had interactive wood knocking in 3 locations multiple times over that time period. I've heard trees "fall" close by, rock clacking, close whoop vocalizations that were human sounding yet way off the human scale with their lung capacity. It was something between human and animal.

I've experienced being in between I believe the same pair interacting with each other, letting each other know I was there. I've heard chest thumps on two occasions, once with a limb break.

We've found undefined prints, stick structures, limb twists and breaks, had visits to camp with something coming in breaking tree limbs and banging on the vehicle.

Still no visual. The last trip earlier this month in a remote location had something start a wood knocking session from several hundred feet away.

All this is ongoing and still no visual. Skeptics don't have a clue what we're dealing with. They're intelligent and they don't want us to see them. You don't know their capabilities.

I've learned so much in a short time. It's not that difficult to gain their attention. It is difficult however to gain a visual or gather evidence of their presence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toejam - your stories sound very interesting and frightening also.

I am a believer, just.

I agree that if they exist, they are highly intelligent and would want to avoid us. What I struggle with, though, is why they would make us aware of their presence if they didn't want us to know about them? The wood knocks, the howls, the tree structures, the coming in to your camp and knocking on the vehicle. I don't get it. Yes, the wood knocks, howls and tree structures might be ways of communicating with each other, but they are also ways of bringing our attention to them. If they are that intelligent that they can hide so well and remain largely undetected, are they intelligent enough to know that by howling and leaving structures they are encouraging us to look for them?

Do they ever consciously make themselves visible to us? I think that a lot of the sighting people have are perhaps accidental, on both the parts of the witness and the Bigfoot itself. Who knows.

Best.,

Lee

Edited by dopelyrics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a brief comment... the original post runs down the road of attributing common proponent arguments to delusion, fraud or romanticism and thereby negating the likelihood of such a creature. I feel compelled to voice an opinion that many of the arguments and counter-arguments are simply the product of artifact, indicating the use of failed investigative infrastructure.

Characteristics often attributed to the notion of sasquatch are also found within investigations into certain forms of serial criminal behavior. Omniscience, unusual or extraordinary sensory skills, superlative stealth, omnipresence, remarkable survival skills and uncanny resourcefulness, superhuman physical prowess, are all characteristics commonly attributed to some serial offenders that are lucky enough to elude apprehension while also developing a certain notoriety (typically due to media coverage). Disappointingly, their eventual capture and interview almost always reveals a very normal, down-to-earth defendant that unwittingly enjoyed the shortcomings of an investigation that was never properly run.

I am not equating sasquatch to a criminal offender. One may or may not exist, the other almost always exists in some form. My point is that the attribution of characteristics to a quarry can get out of hand. If I read the original post correctly, the author is focused on the legitimacy of the characteristics commonly assigned to the sasquatch, inferring that because the characteristics seem to pose a confused logic the creature cannot exist. I, too, believe many of the attributes are false and produced by failed investigative infrastructure. I would argue other indicators that are more properly examined to determine if the creatures exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" That’s why his massive amount of body heat never betrays his presence. Unknown to many BF believers, wildlife agencies both governmental and commercial have conducted hundreds of aerial FLIR surveys on a variety of species as a means to obtain numbers and migration patterns. Moreover, these overflights can cover several thousand square km's in a single night. If BF distribution is as numerous and widespread as researchers claim, how is it that these surveys have never detected 800 lbs. of upright walking primate flesh? "

Maybe they have and they are not telling you.....

I would just like to add (in case no one else has yet) that BF HAS been spotted on IR/FLIR by government officials on other duties

http://www.lawnflowersjerkyandbigfoots.com/Pages/BigfootsandGovernment.aspx (multiple examples)

I already went through this with JREFer's, but sightings and footprints are evidence. Maybe not good evidence, but still evidence.

Forensically typed hairs (Fahrenbach, Pinker, Moore, et al) are better evidence. Tracks can be faked, hairs can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...