Guest Orygun Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 What did or didn't happen in 1967 doesn't change what my son saw in 2003 and what I saw in 2009. Odd. I'm open minded, but I never put any hope, faith or trust in any of those 3 things. They don't define or explain the phenomenon. What I mean by open minded is that you don't seem to be open to the possibility that you didn't see what you think you saw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 What did or didn't happen in 1967 doesn't change what my son saw in 2003 and what I saw in 2009. I think Orygun would say that you mistakenly saw what you saw because of the PGF. It's not your fault per se. The vision just seeped in your brain. In short, you don't know what you saw, he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 I saw ET when I was a child, I don't cry out UFO every time I see flashing lights in the sky. Trying to dismiss people's reports because of the PGF alone is extremely far-fetched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Orygun Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 I think Orygun would say that you mistakenly saw what you saw because of the PGF. It's not your fault per se. The vision just seeped in your brain. In short, you don't know what you saw, he does. Of course I didn't saw I know what he saw. But thanks for putting those words in. I'm open to it being a creature or a construction of a creature. As has been discussed on the forum many times (and also elsewhere) that human eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, for a variety of reasons. Singularly relying on eyewitness reports (without scientific evidence, which means repeatable results) is the biggest failing of the BF field. Too remain open minded means you have to consider all options until there is overwhelming evidence. Sadly that is lacking around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 there is only one thing to do, ... just keep on squatchin', regardless of the TV shows, the DNA studies, and the Rick Dyers of this world, somebody will come up trumps eventually (assuming BFs are indeed real beings). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steenburg Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 I never left square #1, Thomas Steenburg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 It seems all of our hopes for finally seeing a creature being proven have (or currently are) going down in flames. What have we been banking on that fell through recently? Sierra kills-bear. Ketchum study-joke not taken seriously by anyone credible. Daisy in a box- hoax. Dyer has a body- c'mon it's Dyer. Hoax. Erickson centerpiece "Matilda"- a Wookie mask hoax I think that is a very simplistic explanation for complicated events. Erickson hasn't been proven to be a mask and the Sierra Kills haven't been proven not to have been bigfoot, just that a dead bear happened to be in the same area weeks later. Didja really think a DNA project would be allowed to prove bigfoots' existence? Really? It surprises you that it turned out to be a train wreck? I'm not the least bit surprised, except maybe to be surprised that others are surprised. Like someone (Bobby?) said, human beings just aren't that great. And some are untalented, corrupt, morally bankrupt, greedy, ignorant and more interested in the almighty dollar than in truth. I think THAT is what we are seeing here, more than a disapproval of the existence of a creature many here have seen and encountered. It's not "back to square one" for everyone. For some, it's in the negative. For others, they just don't care about the shenanigans and hooligans. Through all of this, it does look like there is some good information coming from this - who might be reputable labs, who in the scientific community might be willing to look into this more, more community building amongst researchers on this site, more cooperation in the reputable outfits - regardless of what it looks like "on the outside" looking in. It's the whole iceberg analogy - the tip of the ice berg is the scammers and hoaxers and glory hounds. Underneath are serious researchers, honest folks having experiences and maybe hope for another day. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 For me the bottom line is this: all the studies can prove (or not prove) whatever, as long as our section of woodland still provides unknown noises and strange occurances, we'll be out there listening from time to time. And enjoying ourselves and the great outdoors as well. I just didn't put a lot of hope in anything after it was dragged on for a long time. Like someone said earlier we'll be mainstream after we wake up one morning and the body is plastered all over the media. Well, a picture of the body anyway, plastering the actual body would be messy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 What I mean by open minded is that you don't seem to be open to the possibility that you didn't see what you think you saw. And with no ill-will intended with this comment, but you would then apparently not be open minded to the possibility that there is *absolute truth* and that I can be completely correct with my observations. Fair enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 I speak for myself , nothing can bring me back to square one, unless you carved it out of the ground and carried it to me. In other words....nothing can bring me back to square one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Orygun Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 And with no ill-will intended with this comment, but you would then apparently not be open minded to the possibility that there is *absolute truth* and that I can be completely correct with my observations. Fair enough? I never said that you did or didn't see a BF. I suggested that you may not have see what you thought you saw. The truth is out there but it hasn't been confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 26, 2013 Admin Share Posted February 26, 2013 When a ship sinks, there is panic, confusion, choas, then next thing you know it's going down in a hurry and is gone. Welcome to the shipwreck in the Bigfoot community known as February 2013! It seems all of our hopes for finally seeing a creature being proven have (or currently are) going down in flames. What have we been banking on that fell through recently? Sierra kills-bear. Ketchum study-joke not taken seriously by anyone credible. Daisy in a box- hoax. Dyer has a body- c'mon it's Dyer. Hoax. Erickson centerpiece "Matilda"- a Wookie mask hoax. We have one more hurdle to trip over and we are back to square 1. Square 1 is pointing to pgf as proof with no hope in the near future to best it. That last hurdle is Sykes. And as I have stated before, he did not set out to prove a yeti exists when starting his testing. I would suggest not holding your breath on that one. It's back to what we have known for years- it'll take a body. Live, dead, rotted corpse, bones etc. Period. No other way around it. No wild claims without proof either. Wake up one morning and it's footage of a body splashed all over every news outlet. No other way around it folks. It's time we prove they exist, and if it takes going from no-kill to pro-kill, that needs to be considered. It will take 1 body. You called? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djj Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 (edited) I think the key to proving bigfoot to the unbelieving is just what Norseman is saying. Unless a habituator convinces one to come in and be examined, alive- As crazy unlikely that is... There is no glory, no money, no ego boost proving bigfoot. I don't think there is a big payday at the end of the bigfoot rainbow.. There is only ridicule until there is absolute proof. Humility is needed in dealing with bigfoot. Humility is needed when dealing with the unknown. Ego gets us nowhere. Bigfoot finds you. Edited February 26, 2013 by Djj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 26, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted February 26, 2013 If the PGF is proven to be a hoax I wonder how many eyewitnesses will reconsider what they saw. In other words how much did viewing the PGF have on shaping what they saw. There is obviously a percentage of witnesses and "believers" that have minds that can't accept anything but what they have perceived to have seen. The brain is like that. It creates a reality and that reality is not easy to change. A lot of hope was put on Ketchum, Erickson and Sierra Kills. They are all gone now. At least for open minded people. PGF is next. And then there are those believer/knower/witnesses that have absolutely corraled a sighting for their individual proof, and got it by ignoring the blood thirst for a body. Re: PGF: It was cool but in answer to question: Not I, the show I was treated to, was better than ten PGF's except at night! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Orygun Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 It's actually worse than square one. Ketchum had gotten her "press releases" out to the public. It was on your nightly news. It was covered in many places. In a while when the DNA hoax surfaces at that level think about the poor next soul who comes along with actual proof? It's going to be rough going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts