Guest LarryP Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 In fact, cinnamon brown is a quite common color for black bears in Northern California. The BF I clearly saw in North Carolina while I was Trout fishing was also a reddish brown. But he didn't look anything like a Bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 @DWA, hmmm, interesting that he doesn't mention those bigfoot-like attributes until the followup questioning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Some guys you just gotta pat on the head. No, that means nothing, although bigfoot skeptics, preferring to go back to sleep, want you to think it does. Real-world reasons it means squat: 1) Most people aren't Shakespeare; and 2) Most people aren't gonna waste a ton of time on the initial report, for reasons you'd know if you read enough of them, so I'm not gonna waste my time. I find the whole attitude "stop the report, right there, I got what I wanted, NO DON'T SAY ANYTHING ELSE...!" just, you know, enlightening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 ....or maybe further questioning can lead people into the description they want. But yeah, that doesn't happen because..... you say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 No, it doesn't happen because I'm tired of people saying it does and not lifting a finger to substantiate it because...they say so. And going back to sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 BFRO follow up investigations do nothing to add to the report in my opinion. They display bias and lead the reporter. I am most keenly interested in what the person initially reported without the biased BFRO coaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) Once again: bigfoot isn't real...so...ummmmmmm...errrrrrr...THIS is what's happening is a total absolute nonstarter. You are being held to the same standards as the proponents. But at least the proponents are gathering copious metric tonnes of evidence. Kinda lends them, you know, credibility. Edited April 21, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 And you're doing the opposite. Bigfoot is real, therefore this can't be happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) Oh heck, let's help here. And yes, this is from that there very report: "He stated it had neatly maintained hair four to six inches long" (NOT A BEAR) "It had very broad shoulders" (NOT A BEAR) "and had to be very tall due to the steepness of the embankment" (I am six feet; any black bear taller than me is a giant) "Its facial features were human like" (a frequently noted feature of bears, uh hunh) "but the nose was described as not flat like an ape, and had a slight bridge" (oh DEFUHNUTLEY a bear there) Will this kill this silly thread now that we know what the problem is? The guess at the hair length is not out of the norm for black bears. A bear with 4 inch hair is pretty normal. The facial features while glimpsed for only a few seconds, at night, while driving are the biggest thing here really that stand out from possible bear. What I find interesting is that the single most distinguishing details of the sighting--the facial features--were not mentioned in the original report? Seriously?? The witness never thought it worth mentioning that this thing that, aside from color, could have been a bear, had human facial features? That is highly suspicious and reeks of BFRO coaching. Edited April 21, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Dood! I'd be embarrassed. STOP now. Sorry. But "nope, it has to be in the place in the report I demand it!" is a total absolute nonstarter. But auger away... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) In other words, don't challenge sacred scripture. Edited April 21, 2014 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 ^^^...and we're done. Can we talk about something else now that we're done with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) Once again: bigfoot isn't real...so...ummmmmmm...errrrrrr...THIS is what's happening is a total absolute nonstarter. You are being held to the same standards as the proponents. But at least the proponents are gathering copious metric tonnes of evidence. Kinda lends them, you know, credibility. Could you please explain this emphasis you place on the quantity of evidence for bigfoot? What makes you think quantity matters over quality? The current quality of bigfoot evidence is NEVER going to prove the case. So why continue to point out how that pile of evidence keeps growing? As if that is supposed to mean something significant? Anecdotes can never be used to prove the existence of bigfoot. No matter how much you really, really, really wish that they could--they never will. Accept that. What is the point of endlessly pointing out how big the pile of evidence is when not very much of it is very useful? It's not quantity that you need here, you have metric tonnes of that, you need quality. The type of physical evidence that can be scientifically analyzed. Stamping your feet and pointing to a mountain of anecdotes does nothing, and never will, to move the case forward one inch. Speaking of a metric tonne of evidence, perhaps you could share with us the numerous primate dna results that were found while examining alleged sasquatch samples? Since you are bragging about the weight of sasquatch evidence out there, this would seem a good time to enlighten us all and substantiate your previous claims. That would be a fantastic example of the type of evidence that is needed in this field. I would be most interested in reading about these fabulous results you claim have happened numerous times and surely must be part of the metric tonne of evidence that you mentioned. Edited April 21, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 BFRO follow up investigations do nothing to add to the report in my opinion. They display bias and lead the reporter. I am most keenly interested in what the person initially reported without the biased BFRO coaching. Speaking of being "biased". That's a very disingenuous and blanket statement in light of the fact that there are a lot of different people who do the follow up investigations for BFRO. Can you provide data from the BFRO to back that up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 ^^^^You of all people should know that "a lot of different people" can have the same bias and agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts