Guest Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) Pardon my asking, but it seems that you completely think there is no such thing as bigfoot, right JohnCartwright? If you've been in the field twice with Melissa, witnessed the implied bigfoot activity, heard spooky sound and witnessed possible eye shine, why do you still disbelieve? Were you able to find proof of other things making those questionable noises and events? Just seems like you put so much effort into NOT believing - going out with Melissa implies at least a time investment. And I see you have over 800 posts here, which again is an investment of time and energy. Why do you do it for something you don't believe in? Edited October 30, 2012 by madison5716 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Of course not, I know there is a Bigfoot. I am a witness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 If I may speak for John (John please correct me if I'm wrong)..... John's issue (it appears) is that he's tired of 'so-called' researchers who claim any and every twig, branch, and leaf found in the woods as bona-fide sasquatch evidence. Especially trackways. He appears to be tired of everyone and their cousin waving the 'it's a squatch' flag at every corner. I for one can fully understand his point b/c, even tho I am not a witness, I HAVE witnessed amateur researchers seeing so much BF sign (including eyeshine) that there would have literally have to been 2 dozen BF's surrounding us at all times in the woods. I find that difficult to swallow and I am a proponent. I can almost see John's frustration in his posts due to these sort of 'investigative conclusions'. Anyway, John, was I close? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Spot on. If you go into the woods expecting to get Bigfoot evidence. You will. "Researchers" then pull the " I will no longer post my evidence on the Bigfoot forums because people are too critical. They take it personal or get insulted when the evidence is questioned. People who are mistaken about Bigfoot evidence are not hoaxers and should\would not take it so personal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 If you've been in the field twice with Melissa, witnessed the implied bigfoot activity, heard spooky sound and witnessed possible eye shine, why do you still disbelieve? Were you able to find proof of other things making those questionable noises and events? Just seems like you put so much effort into NOT believing - going out with Melissa implies at least a time investment. And I see you have over 800 posts here, which again is an investment of time and energy. Why do you do it for something you don't believe in? For the record. I have been involved in this field of research now since 2005 - as of this month that makes it 7 years. In my short amount of time involved in this field - I have only been witness to maybe a handful of things I still can not explain - but do not rule out human involvement. Seems less dramatic now.. I have always been very skeptical of everything I hear and see and to date have never said "this is evidence of bigfoot".. LMAO!!! I would love to have enough proof to make that statement - but unfortunately I have not been that lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Plus for Melissa and her answer. For the record. I have been involved in this field of research now since 2006 -that makes it 6 years. Only 4 of that in the field. In my short amount of time involved in this field - I have only been witness to maybe a handful of things I still can not explain - but do not rule out human involvement. Melissa was one of the first people I contacted about my encounter. Nothing dramatic about it. I have not always been so skeptical of everything in Bigfootery. I get good vibes from some witnesses I have spoken to. I have spooky sounds recorded, pictures of possible prints, (I refuse to cast pointless trophies) had scary things happen in the woods, etc. I don't feel a need to present it as evidence of Bigfoot or speculate about it. Because it is not good evidence. Because of my personal experiences and the things being claimed as real evidence, I am now skeptical. Skeptical of the evidence, not skeptical of Bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) "Researchers" then pull the " I will no longer post my evidence on the Bigfoot forums because people are too critical. They take it personal or get insulted when the evidence is questioned. People who are mistaken about Bigfoot evidence are not hoaxers and should\would not take it so personal. I can't blame anyone for not posting "spooky sounds" or other possible evidence on this forum. I have seen how it can go, and so has everyone else that was here before it became the new and improved BFF. A few years back, there were folks that presented sounds here, that lead to a big hellabaloo.. because they were not completely accurate about describing the nature of their location. They were declared "hoaxers" by many here, and by the lords of the JREF (the BFFs big brother). I've seen..It's much "cooler " to be jumping in on the feeding frenzy with the scoffics, then to try and Really learn and compare, what the sounds might have been. Pretty **** sad, and not what I'm involved in this so called "research" for. It had really Nothing to do with the audio, but Much more to do with personalities, past vendettas, and who was who. I still think the audio is great, and can come up with nothing known, to match it. In fact, I've heard numerous field recordings..in the years after, with unknown vocals that were similar, or the same. Where ? Sure the heck not here, as this is Not the place. Lessons were learned... by observing how it all went down, and probably would again..if the more good "evidence" was ever presented here. Also... people are only "mistaken" . if the evidence is proven to be a known source, or they were indeed hoaxed. Edited October 30, 2012 by imonacan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I would plus 1 your comment imonacan, but I am out. We have some recordings and some casts - but what do they really amount to. We have never put them out publicly but are having audio looked at. If the Ohio Howl isn't enough to say, "Hey, that could be bigfoot." Then I don't think any audio will do it. Recordings are nice to have - and can come in handy for call blasting - but as far as "evidence".. Well, not so much. Castings are interesting - but not proof of anything.. I have actually casted a number of tracks.. But, I haven't made any public. Why? I just don't find the casts that convincing.. The longer I am in this the more I am convinced the only way the question "is bigfoot out there" will be answered is by the worst way I can think of --- and it's because nothing else is working. I am also starting to see how no-kill researchers become pro-kill. I'm not there but I can see why and how it happens. There is so much hostility at times directed toward those who want to use casts, audio or video - to avoid killing a Bigfoot - you almost feel like your being pushed to become pro-kill. Keep the gear at home - and pack your favorite hunting rifle. I just can't do that - though. I hold out hope proof can come through non-lethal methods. But, I can see how it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 For me, Melissa.. I've never been in a field situation, long enough.. to have been able to take a shot (if i wanted to.. which i Don't). Have you ? I don't even think the pro-kill stance is an option in the field, besides a rare situation an individual might come across..that probably isn't looking for the subject(s). The pro-kill stance, to me.. is just more internet egotistical ramblings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 imonacan said: For me, Melissa.. I've never been in a field situation, long enough.. to have been able to take a shot (if i wanted to.. which i Don't). Have you ? Good point.. Hum.... If I had been armed the night I seen the "red eyeshine" - I would have seen it long enough to take a shot. BUT - I would not have. Why? Because it could have been a person.. I have not ruled anything out where this is concerned. Someone could have been messing with me - but I haven't figured out how to replicate that eye shine yet. My dad would KILL me if I ever took a shot at something I could not identify 100%. I would deserve it too - I know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I agree with imonacan. Got your back today Mel, I used mine. Really, what defines "good evidence" anyways? Evidence is plenty and easily debunked, it's like shooting fish in a barrell. Proof there is none.... yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Thank you WesT "Evidence" is easily debunked - because there is no specimen. Until we have something to compare the casts, photos and audio to - that can actually be seen in a lab - everything we have and say is just speculation. Which is the worst part.. It always comes back to a body - either alive or dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I prefer an already dead one as opposed to killing one. Capturing one alive?.... good luck with that!!! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweatyYeti Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I agree with imonacan. Got your back today Mel, I used mine. Really, what defines "good evidence" anyways? Evidence is plenty and easily debunked, it's like shooting fish in a barrell. Proof there is none.... yet. But not always easily replicated... See Patty. See Patty Walk... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I actually think the PGF is the real deal, for many reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts