Guest DWA Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 ^^^[makes bioluminescent "MM just heard you go low profile" signal w/eyes]
Guest Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 ^Kind of makes you wonder about MM et al, no? About the only one I sort of agree with is Renae, she's the only reason I even watch the show to be frank.
Drew Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Sometimes I wonder if we're looking for the same animal. Some of us are looking for a biological, flesh and blood animal, and some people seem to be looking for some kind of supernatural cartoon character. Therein lies the problem. If it was just a normal animal, it would have been caught by now right? One would have been clobbered by a Freightliner, or had a heart attack as it was on the side of a cliff and fallen into a trailhead at the bottom of the mountain, or one would have eaten too many fermented berries and stumbled into a farmer's field and dispatched accordingly. It really has to be a cartoon character for it not to have been found. I mean it's not like it is the most remote areas, it get's seen in Rest Areas, crossing 4 lane highways, laying down on roads, raiding dog kennels, it's not like it's ONLY found in the middle of the forest areas.
Guest Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 If you guys havent seen the episode in question, Moneymaker said that the bioluminescent eyes are used to signal to other individuals and identify themselves as the same species. It really seemed like something he pulled out of the air to try to make sense of what the witness claimed to have seen. So they're supposed to be Go'auld hosts now?
Rockape Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 It really has to be a cartoon character for it not to have been found. I mean it's not like it is the most remote areas, it get's seen in Rest Areas, crossing 4 lane highways, laying down on roads, raiding dog kennels, it's not like it's ONLY found in the middle of the forest areas. If you believe all the stories and fall into the Finding Bigfoot "there's one behind every tree" camp. If they do indeed exist, they are very rare and obviously smarter than your average wild animal.
Guest Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 If you believe all the stories and fall into the Finding Bigfoot "there's one behind every tree" camp. If they do indeed exist, they are very rare and obviously smarter than your average wild animal. How rare is rare though? I ask for you to quantify it because there is a number of individuals a species need to keep it sustainable, which is why there are such things as endangered species. If the number is too low then the species would be functionally extinct.
Rockape Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 I believe the number is very low if they do indeed exist, and might possibly already be extinct or on the verge of it. I can see isolated pockets of BF scattered around the country, with an occasional nomad, but I believe many sightings are not true. If there were that many, they would have been proven to exist by now.
Guest DWA Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 If you believe all the stories and fall into the Finding Bigfoot "there's one behind every tree" camp. If they do indeed exist, they are very rare and obviously smarter than your average wild animal. The biggest "bigfoot skeptic" fail is that where skepticism is truly required - separating one proponent from another - they are incapable of doing it. They swallow everything whole. NOT skeptical. And of course, all those things that Drew has bigfoot doing, every animal known to NA has done, and like bigfoot, been seen doing it.
Rockape Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 I'd say those people are more scofftics/denialists than skeptics. They lump everything bigfoot into one big ball. To them, if you believe bigfoot exists, then you also have to believe they shape-shift, teleport, have psychic ability, you name it. Take eyeglow for example, I can see BF having eye-shine, as in reflecting light the way many animals do, but I just have a hard time with the eye-glow, that is, they can create eye glow on their own. I'm not one to toss it completely aside, I suppose maybe they can, I just don't find it likely. 1
Guest Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 If you believe all the stories and fall into the Finding Bigfoot "there's one behind every tree" camp. If they do indeed exist, they are very rare and obviously smarter than your average wild animal. ^This. I think some people who are looking for Bigfoot think they are trying to find a video game enemy, like Bigfoot randomly spawns where there is enough forest.
Cotter Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Agreed, blindly absorbing the wheat AND the chaff, then making conclusions based on all of it....well...
Guest Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) ^This. I think some people who are looking for Bigfoot think they are trying to find a video game enemy, like Bigfoot randomly spawns where there is enough forest. Hahah, they should be careful of being telefraged then! Edited January 31, 2014 by Leftfoot
Guest DWA Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 I'd say those people are more scofftics/denialists than skeptics. They lump everything bigfoot into one big ball. To them, if you believe bigfoot exists, then you also have to believe they shape-shift, teleport, have psychic ability, you name it. This is why you always see me use the phrase "bigfoot skeptics." I'm labeling a skepticism that isn't skeptical, that has attached itself with particular ferocity to this topic. Take eyeglow for example, I can see BF having eye-shine, as in reflecting light the way many animals do, but I just have a hard time with the eye-glow, that is, they can create eye glow on their own. I'm not one to toss it completely aside, I suppose maybe they can, I just don't find it likely. I'm not betting on it either; but I know that just because there aren't any known examples doesn't mean there are no examples. Holding open possibilities is the difference between denial and skepticism.
salubrious Posted January 31, 2014 Moderator Posted January 31, 2014 Moderator Statement: Gentlemen, the topic here is questioning bio-luminescent eyes, not the existence of Bigfoot. Please debate that on another thread.
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 I didn't see the episode you are referring to, so I will ask whether you are certain he stated this as being his belief, or whether he stated it as a possibility? I can see him doing either. Animals do not emit light from their eyes, at least any that I've ever seen. Many things are possible, but I just don't see sasquatch actually emitting light from their eyes, thus causing a glowing color that is often reported. Honestly, while I don't think many witnesses misidentify known animals as sasquatch, at least not during the day when they have a clear view, and are relatively close...and quite a number of sightings meet those criteria...I do think that at night things get a little less clear. It is much, much harder to have a sighting in the dark, the main reason being lack of visibility. So it stands to reason that there is a higher chance of misidentifying another animal as bigfoot, especially if one is just going off of noises heard or vocalizations. From the reports I have read it seems that often times "glowing eyes" are reported, but the witness did not definitively see a sasquatch. So depending on how many glowing eyes cases are present in the database, and what percentage of those were actually accompanied by a clear bigfoot sighting, I would state that there possibly is not enough of a correlation to link random eyeshine with sasquatch. I could be wrong, and if there are many of these eyeshine reports that are accompanied by a visual sighting, then I probably am wrong, but when you can't see what is causing the eyeshine then the odds are it isn't a bigfoot. Red eyes are reported often, and I personally do not believe that bigfoot has the capability of producing eyeshine at all, let alone red eyeshine, as that is not as common from what I understand. I believe there is at least one species of owl in North America that reflects red light back at the viewer, and given that owls perch in trees, red eyeshine may often be seen off the ground, and thus people assume that whatever they're seeing is quite tall... I just think it is important to realize that if there is no corroborating evidence to accompany eyeshine, then someone should not state that it was a sasquatch producing the eyeshine. The truth is that it possibly could have been a sasquatch, but it also could have been some other animal, since, as I said it is much more common for someone to misidentify something during the night.
Recommended Posts