Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 I will give it its do.... It's by far the best Bigfoot show there is" could be the only" I like Ranae ... As I can relate to her...
Sunflower Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 We watched and know every area in Oklahoma City as soon as we saw the map. Hubby and I have first hand knowledge of what those areas are like and have to agree that something tall, hairy and very smart would have no problem hanging out over there. Our midnight rides on our bike included the areas out as far as Crescent, OK and almost to Watonga, OK. One particular ride to Chandler in the winter after midnight was very weird. We were heading to I-35 from Luther and Jones area and had just passed the round barn. I was burying my face in hubby's back because of the cold trying not to suck in the freezing air and did not have my head up as we made this curve. Something grabbed my foot but slipped off the ice cold leather boot. It was in the bar ditch, felt not like a dog, there was not a sound from my left side at all. I was absolutely stunned, surprised and scared but held on to hubby. I decided not to say anything until we stopped. Then I changed my mind thinking it would be better to wait til we got home.
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Not in 1941, for a guy with a German surname, in a country at war with Germany, having shot what he, having no idea what it was, thought might conceivably be a person. I'm betting, if I'd been him, that I might have done what he did. Essentially: RUN. Unlike Justin Smeja, he didn't do this for 15 minutes. Because he didn't want 15 minutes. If you want to base a belief from that tale I can accept that but I don't. I'd rather see and hear witnesses for myself like they have on Finding Bigfoot.
Guest DWA Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) I don't see how anyone could base "belief" on one tale. I sure don't, because I don't "believe." I follow evidence. It is the size and consistency of the evidence file that sways me. What is so compelling about the Manitoba hunter's report is that it is firmly in the mainstream of what thousands have reported since him. Edited November 26, 2012 by DWA
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 I don't see how anyone could base "belief" on one tale. I sure don't, because I don't "believe." I follow evidence. It is the size and consistency of the evidence file that sways me. What is so compelling about the Manitoba hunter's report is that it is firmly in the mainstream of what thousands have reported since him. I sure don't and I need better evidence than what you're following there. That's what I like about witness evidence on the show I can judge for myself and some are pretty compelling.
Guest DWA Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Well, mine's actually better than yours. You are saying "some are pretty compelling"? Some what? I'm talking thousands of consistent reports I have read. It is an absolute rule of science, that I didn't make, that if you know what i know you will think what I think: Science has been lax at pursuing the evidence, and needs to get up to speed. Period.
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Witness reports on the show are consistant as thousands of others. You're wrong mine is better because I'm not reading meaningless reports I'm watching the person explain. I have the advantage of reading their physical expression along with gestures, verbal context and content, these are all important signs of deception. You have nothing but words on paper.
Guest DWA Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) Witness reports on the show are consistant as thousands of others. You're wrong mine is better because I'm not reading meaningless reports I'm watching the person explain. I have the advantage of reading their physical expression along with gestures, verbal context and content, these are all important signs of deception. You have nothing but words on paper. Nope. Wrong. you don't know how to look at evidence. Thousands of reports on paper are better than two people who can really act well. It is a fundamental misunderstanding that people should be mistrusted when they say they saw something. No they shouldn't. We live by our eyes. When somebody says they saw something you presume they're not lying or mistaken unless there is evidence that they are. This does not mean you accept their testimony as proof. It means you can't toss it as junk. And thousands of them, all consistent in what they are describing, are better than even 500 you witnessed yourself. You know who knows that? Your Finding BF buddies. It's why they have a database. The reports on which are posted only after, wait for it: interviewing the witness, in person if possible. You have some reading to do. Edited November 26, 2012 by DWA
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Nope. Wrong. you don't know how to look at evidence. Thousands of reports on paper are better than two people who can really act well. It is a fundamental misunderstanding that people should be mistrusted when they say they saw something. No they shouldn't. We live by our eyes. When somebody says they saw something you presume they're not lying or mistaken unless there is evidence that they are. This does not mean you accept their testimony as proof. It means you can't toss it as junk. And thousands of them, all consistent in what they are describing, are better than even 500 you witnessed yourself. You know who knows that? Your Finding BF buddies. It's why they have a database. The reports on which are posted only after, wait for it: interviewing the witness, in person if possible. You have some reading to do. Nope I'm an expert at reading people, you have some watching to do. I can tell most of the people on the show at least think they are being truthful.
Guest DWA Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Nope I'm an expert at reading people, you have some watching to do. I can tell most of the people on the show at least think they are being truthful. That's just your opinion. Nobody would take that to the bank. Which is why you take lots of data over a little data, every time. But at least I see why you like the show.
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 I like the data they collect and the way they do it. I just rather see it myself. Seeing is believing, and many of their interviews are done via telephone.
bipedalist Posted November 27, 2012 BFF Patron Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Witness reports on the show are consistant as thousands of others. You're wrong mine is better because I'm not reading meaningless reports I'm watching the person explain. I have the advantage of reading their physical expression along with gestures, verbal context and content, these are all important signs of deception. You have nothing but words on paper. You have nothing but words made from electrons. Edited November 27, 2012 by bipedalist
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 You have nothing but words made from electrons. Nope, I also have face, and body gestures.
Guest Cowlitz2 Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 Concerning DWA's: "That's just your opinion". You should be called on this back and forth stuff by a moderator. Of course all this debate is "opinion". If it was fact then The Bigfoot Forum would not exist. You sound like someone that has to have their way, or else. 1
Guest wild eyed willy Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 What I don't understand is why the DNA is no good, when you see all of the time how cold cases are solved many years in the future by DNA evidence. There are also cases of wrongfull convictions being overturned by DNA evidence many years after the fact.. DNA can be recovered from exhummed corpses and even mummys. so why can't these people get any DNA from a hair sample no more than a year or two old? I just don't get it.
Recommended Posts