Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[dmaker]

Although it would be bad for my eyes, I can stand and stare at the sun all day and make a personal assessment of what I have been told regarding its nature. I can then choose to accept those findings or not.

Now where can I go to get even a fleeting glimpse of a BF? Is there one in captivity? Nope. Is there a stuffed one in a prestigious museum somewhere? Nope. Well that makes it troublesome. Until something other than reports and tracks and bear hair is available for scrutiny, I'm going to remain steadfast in my opinion that the current evidence points to something else, not a Bigfoot. You are, of course, free to feel otherwise. And who knows, maybe this unbeknownst effort will show the skeptics to be wrong. That would be great. I'm pretty sure I could handle the reality of the knowledge just fine my friend.

[Guest DWA]

And we've been here before; and all I can say is: oh, OK.

[Drew]

I said "i would not shoot one", please don't put words in my mouth.

If I saw one hit by a car, or hit one with mine, I would totally become a believer. If one attacked me, and I stuck it with my Kbar between the ribs, I'd become a believer.

If I saw one running up on a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, I would not become a believer.

If I saw one running up on a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, and it had a heart attack, or broke it's leg, I would totally become a believer.

If I saw one running up a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, I would not tell anyone that I saw a Bigfoot.

If I saw one running up a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, and it collapsed, I would totally tell everyone I saw a Bigfoot.

and the reason u wouldnt shoot one if u had a face to face encounter?

i didnt think i was putting words in your mouth drew but thanks for clarifying

i personally feel like i could tell the difference between a guy in a suit and a squatch at fifty feet just by looking at it

If I was being attacked by something I would shoot it. But that would be irrelevant whether it was a Bigfoot or a Man, or a man in a suit.

I was saying, if I saw a 'Bigfoot' I would not shoot it, because I would be afraid it was a guy in a suit. If I was being attacked I would plug it, but like I said, at that point, it wouldn't matter if it was a man in a suit, it's self - defense. Your scenario did not offer self-defense shooting as the method.

[norseman]

I said "i would not shoot one", please don't put words in my mouth.

If I saw one hit by a car, or hit one with mine, I would totally become a believer. If one attacked me, and I stuck it with my Kbar between the ribs, I'd become a believer.

If I saw one running up on a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, I would not become a believer.

If I saw one running up on a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, and it had a heart attack, or broke it's leg, I would totally become a believer.

If I saw one running up a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, I would not tell anyone that I saw a Bigfoot.

If I saw one running up a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, and it collapsed, I would totally tell everyone I saw a Bigfoot.

and the reason u wouldnt shoot one if u had a face to face encounter?

i didnt think i was putting words in your mouth drew but thanks for clarifying

i personally feel like i could tell the difference between a guy in a suit and a squatch at fifty feet just by looking at it

If I was being attacked by something I would shoot it. But that would be irrelevant whether it was a Bigfoot or a Man, or a man in a suit.

I was saying, if I saw a 'Bigfoot' I would not shoot it, because I would be afraid it was a guy in a suit. If I was being attacked I would plug it, but like I said, at that point, it wouldn't matter if it was a man in a suit, it's self - defense. Your scenario did not offer self-defense shooting as the method.

correct , the point iam making is that you dont feel comfortable shootin one because you are not capable of discerning a hoax at close range. you feel comfortable defending ur life because obviously it doesnt matter whats attacking u man or beast......your justified in ur actions at that point......hopefully.

i find your honest assessment of this hypothetical situation interesting because the vast majority of proponents feel that we just need better video evidence to push this mystery over the top of the hill into reality.

i would counter that if a person is not willing to trust their own eyes in a close encounter? bfro hd super duper film footage is just like spitting in the wind.

again though drew i do not blame you for your feelings..... one can never bring a bullet back. and its a issue i have thought of often.

[BobbyO]

i personally feel like i could tell the difference between a guy in a suit and a squatch at fifty feet just by looking at it

You can, of course you can.

It's why I devote so much of my time to this **** subject..

[Guest]

This is a real powder keg topic. Everyone want to be right or loud or both, but we all know that mainstream science won't accept anything less than a specimen or a good size piece of a specimen. In Grover Krantz's book Big Foot Prints, he said, "Once I discovered dermal ridges in some footprint casts I thought well that's it, it's over. But it wasn't" Their is more physical and circumstantial evidence for the existence of this creature than there is holding many men in prison. Not good enough though. A live one or a dead one is all that will suffice.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Afraid you're right.

Science has accepted a photo as proof; we have a movie of this one, nothing contradicting its provenance in over 45 years. Plus copious footprint evidence and encounter literature that supports the film.

But given the mainstream's attitude, nope, Grover, dermals aren't cutting it. Maybe this is what they mean by "extraordinary evidence."

[dmaker]

You have a movie claiming to show one. Don't act like it's a proven, uncontested fact. It is clearly not.

[Guest DWA]

Um hum, yep, got it, been here before, got it, yadayada....

I mean, if you need to hold on to that fading hope that something for which not a jot of evidence has been found in almost five decades somehow is true, nothing I can really do about that, is there...?

[Guest Cervelo]

Your talking about proof that Bigfoot exists right...wow glad to see ya come around DWA!

[Guest DWA]

Nope, talking about evidence that P/G was faked. But you knew that.

[Guest Cervelo]

Yes I know it's fake

[Sunflower]

^^Got the suit? Prove it with the "suit"

[Guest DWA]

The failure of the bigfoot skeptics (they ain't skeptical if they swallow this) to duplicate Patty, or show how it was done, in over 45 years is a flat indictment of their position. It indeed lowers that position to the level of True Belief. Might as well wait in a field for the Great Pumpkin.

[Sunflower]

Personally, I'd like to see the mask that has the moving parts on it, you know, like eyelids moving, mouth moving. That suit must have been one dynamic piece of technology for 1967.

Oh and the toes, they moved too WTH? Who designed that suit?

And where is the suit? Kit?