Guest DWA Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 ^^^You're clutch! Always count on you to miss the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I didn't miss the point. I was using a bit of humor. Did you really think that I thought he was off to a unicorn forum? geeesh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 ^^^Except that your posts show that you actually consider bigfoot and unicorns to be the precise same exact thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I didn't bring up unicorns in the first place, so you might be better served if you pointed that at someone else. And they are not the same thing. One has a horn. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 ^^^And the evidence - given proper critical review - says one of them's real. Forgot that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Technically incorrect. Mutations do occasionally occur where horses are born with a horn, or deer with only a single antler (and on an on). There's your unicorn right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 You're forgetting that Bigfoot testimony is not subject to perjury- there are no legal ramifications to insure the truth is being told. And you're forgetting that the vast majority of the people who actually make reports have absolutely nothing to gain and potentially a good deal to lose by doing so. As a result, they have absolutely no reason not to tell the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 How many reports end up with the claimant being harassed or ostracized? Just curious. I don't think I've heard of any although I've heard possibly Patterson and Gimlin might have had some grief over their report but they weren't ruined by it. I'd read some of that material. Now, calling the cops and reporting bigfoot is probably not a smart move but what is the BFRO going to do about people who make false reports? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Technically incorrect. Mutations do occasionally occur where horses are born with a horn, or deer with only a single antler (and on an on). There's your unicorn right there. Right. So like he said, one of them is real Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 And you're forgetting that the vast majority of the people who actually make reports have absolutely nothing to gain and potentially a good deal to lose by doing so. As a result, they have absolutely no reason not to tell the truth. There is no way you can say that with any accuracy beyond a guess. People have, indeed, profited from bigfoot and beside that how can you know what may motivate someone to be less than truthful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 How many reports end up with the claimant being harassed or ostracized? Just curious. I don't think I've heard of any although I've heard possibly Patterson and Gimlin might have had some grief over their report but they weren't ruined by it. I'd read some of that material. Now, calling the cops and reporting bigfoot is probably not a smart move but what is the BFRO going to do about people who make false reports? Those are some very ironic questions coming from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I love all the abuse that gets heaped on sasquatch reports by people here who then look all around, Mr. Innocent, and go: huh? What abuse? Hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Yeah let's see. They're either lying (dishonest crooks) , hallucinating (drugs), or guilty of misidentification (idiots). And then the scoffers spend all of their time scoffing at them. What could anyone possibly be concerned about when making a BF report? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) It's a total staple of the bigfoot-skeptic schtick. They consider the very idea ridiculous. They make fun of it. But no, people who see them are everyday normal people doing an every day normal thing that, you know, all their friends do. Please. It's a transparent nonstarter. When you see a sasquatch, your world has been utterly rocked, and you risk destroying your reputation by breathing a word to anyone, right down to the people you trust most in life. It's a fact; it's proven; and denying it is, well, just not healthy. Edited April 25, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 (edited) Yeah let's see. They're either lying (dishonest crooks) , hallucinating (drugs), or guilty of misidentification (idiots). And then the scoffers spend all of their time scoffing at them. What could anyone possibly be concerned about when making a BF report? Bigfoot reports are generally anonymous so what's the concern? Motivation could be purely for entertainment value, getting a good laugh watching people taking it seriously. Zero ramifications, lots of potential laughs. I would think a person's only concern would be worrying about what they should wear if they get on TV. Smeja got on TV, so did Dyer and a lot of others. Did these guys seem concerned at all to you? Tontar sure got a good laugh, and his only concern seemed to be getting kicked off the forum. That's a big difference from testifying under oath facing a penalty of perjury. Edited April 26, 2014 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts