Jump to content

My Philosophy Regarding Bigfoot ? What's Your's ?


Guest Lesmore

Recommended Posts

Guest Cervelo

Info in general or the habituation info? I'm not sure who you were responding to. As I stated, you should listen to everything, with a filter. In my own humble opinion, it's that filter thingey that is crucial, it keeps you from missing some vital piece because you dismiss it and it keeps you from discerning every snapped twig, odd noise, etc,etc,etc as squatchy.....

That really should lesson one when getting into the subject. The Tao of the Monkey hunt if you will.

Pretty much all the above it's those eyeball to eyeball accounts that got me to snooping around and really I'm just hunting without a gun. Just being outside in remote areas is what I enjoy. Theres so much more to see out there if I happen to see something odd or hear somthing odd, all the better. But to your point if I go on a witch hunt I will find witches:)

Edited by Cervelo
per author request, see next post
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cervelo

And once again I have managed to drop my response into the middle of a qoute my response begins with "pretty much" and ends with" witches:)"

Any mods feel free to fix it thx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/philosophy

I went with the Oxford Dictionary's defination. In line with Lensmore's question, I enjoy looking for patterns in Bigfoot population movements & Bigfoot's observed/experienced behaviors. In addition I find it facinating that reports globally seem to all contain such simularities. I prefer to focus on what all the reports have in common rather than "self-proclaimed Bigfoot Researchers" percieved differences.

That is what I call the "*There is Too much Smoke for their *not* to be a fire somewhere.

Once again, soldiers/Marines on night maneuvers have run into BFs in California, and some other place. It was sorta funny to see battle tested warriors frightened, but they had no weapons to defend them selves with, I'd die of a heart attack, so a gun would not help, even though I am a good shooter, under stress like that, who knows what someone would hit? :blush::ph34r: ( Mr. Policeman, I was shooting at the BF, not my hubby) Yeah, that'd fly in court.Sentence:Life :huh: )

The history of early America found in books and newspapers, stories based on fact since America began telling stories about the big ape man they shot and killed. Too bad we don't know where they buried him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm here at this point...........

sorry :unsure:

Mikani, That's okay. I understand.

I sorta believed one day, then not sure the next, but now I'm firmly(mostly) believing..... :blush::blink: Tonight! JK, I truly do believe in BF.

I've been convinced. Now if hubby would just listen to me he may at least stop thinking BF is silly. :blink:

It is so nice to meet you. You are fairly new here, and I'm so happy to say hello, and let's be friends, If you wish too. Welcome :D

Edited by Susiq2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSR Team

I am not interested in more philosophy regarding Bigfoot. 40 years of it is enough. I am more interested in what someone KNOWS about Bigfoot.

No one knows anything.

You don't know that for sure John..

Juts because it isn't public doesn't mean that no one knows anything.. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For most of my life I thought Bigfoot probably existed. Now, I doubt it exists. I'm still interested, however, and I believe I'm reasonably open minded.

As a phenomena, we should explore all the possibilities, including the possibility Bigfoot does not exist. This is where I part ways with most advocates. They will not explore this possibility; to my way of thinking, they are closed-minded.

I submit that the phenomena may seem more "real" and supported than it really is. For instance, the question of eyewitness reports. How can so many people be wrong? Are they liars? Crazy?

The eyewitness phenomena seems like powerful evidence because it is located in the apparent mundane: people see an animal in the woods or crossing the road and swear to it. Thus, such events are mere wildlife encounters, just like someone seeing an elk crossing the road or a bear in the woods. Why the skepticism?

I suggest it may profit us to look at such events differently. Let's remove the Bigfoot phenomena from its alleged moorings in nature and biology and move it over to the "paranormal" category. If we do so, then the "sightings" are less impressive. Why? Because now Bigfoot doesn't stand in line with elk and bear as a member of mundane nature; instead, it stands in line with dragons, vampires, werewolves, chupacobras, space aliens, fairies, mermaids, ghosts, etc. and other "fabulous" entities. In this context, it may come as a surprise to Bigfoot advocates, but our ape/manimal is an impoverished mystery in the sense it does not have near the catalog of "sightings" that many of the fantastic entities of folklore do.

Doubt mermaids exist? My granduncle saw one---plain as day (a woman with a fish's body, brushing her long blond hair). Ghosts don't exist? Sorry, I've known far more people who have seen ghosts than ever saw a Bigfoot. Don't tell me you think centaurs are not real. I questioned a young man I worked with who gave me a detailed and sincere account of his centaur sighting in broad daylight. Is he a liar!? No gargoyles? Well, an ex-girlfriend of mine swore to me she saw a snarling, wide mouthed dog fall from the sky, its wings clear to see! Werewolves are so Old Europe and Hollywood? Get real----read any of the books lately that "document" werewolf sightings in the same woodlands that our ape lives? (Makes one wonder: can giant bipedal apes live alongside giant bipedal werewolves in peace and prosperity?)

Unless you are a Fortean who believes the world of folklore may be as real as the everyday world, sincere sightings of anomalies may be less impressive than they are sometimes presented.

As I said, I believe I'm open-minded. I just think we should be open to discussing explanations that do not involve a literal animal behind the phenomena. Maybe Bigfoot exist. Maybe. But the evidence is larger in quantity than quality. Simply put---Bigfoot's existence is not a sure thing. And it doesn't hurt to say so.

Edited by jerrywayne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, Lets back up a bit there JerryWayne. Please tell me about the great uncle's mermaid sighting. I want details, time, place, his health....yada yada yadaa. Just PM me so I don't high jack thread.

My philosophy- if you know it exists it's not philosophy.

Edited by Jodie
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cervelo

Whew maybe the smartest thing Ive ever read here! Well said Jerry

Edited by Cervelo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, I heard a spring chorus of frogs, tonight. Somehow, I didn't think it was the big guy......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Patron
I just think we should be open to discussing explanations that do not involve a literal animal behind the phenomena.

So your philosophy is to change the BFF mission statement and prologue re: flesh and blood?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that statement a little hard to believe. There are a lot of people that know a lot, but when they try to tell even a tiny bit of what they know, they are shouted down until most of them stop even admitting that they have seen one.

Ever think that showing beats telling, especially when the telling pushes the envelope of believability?

Almost nobody wants to hear the truth.

I want nothing but the truth:

–noun, plural truths  

[troothz, trooths] Show IPA

1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.

2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.

3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.

Verify it, and I'll accept it. Don't verify it, and I'll accept or reject it in accordance with my BS meter.

It's funny how I can picture some people with their fingers in their ears, singing Kumbaya.

No Kumbaya here, and no fingers in the ears. Just requests for verification of your fantastic claims, and none are given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many subscribe to my philosophy about Bigfoot.....which is:

I don't think it's very likely that Bigfoot exists, but I do think it would be fascinating if indeed Bigfoot did exist. It's also a lot of fun being out in the wilderness, keeping an eye open for Bigfoot.

Well that's my philosophy regarding Bigfoot ?

What's your's ?

noun (plural philosophies)

1 [mass noun] the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. See also natural philosophy

[count noun] a particular system of philosophical thought:

the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle

the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience:

the philosophy of science

2 a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour:

Wow....this was the OP. So far I've seen a whole lot of questions that WEREN"T ASKED commented on. I've also seen a lot of questioning and opinions given on other poster's Philosophies. I was under the impression everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and beliefs. No where in the OP do I see how a critique of BF philosophies was asked for.

Philosophy is the study of something...the original question was refering to how we as individuals approach the "Study of Bigfoot", or actually just "Study Bigfoot" Not what we think of how others proceed in the endevor.

Just my 2 cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...