Guest Posted July 5, 2014 Posted July 5, 2014 Leaf, I agree there is nothing life or death on this topic..my cancer example was only that, an example. I also attempt to put no pressure on those that wish to keep their evidence out of the public eye. If that's someone's choice why do they then speak of it often and base things off of it? One particular example that drives me nuts is the phantom Oklahoma casino dumpster footage.
Sunflower Posted July 5, 2014 Posted July 5, 2014 Well, it wasn't a phantom, it was a security video of the grease pit location. An employee found out about the video and exposed it to the public on a blog. I remember actually reading this blog and the guy put his phone number on it. He described the video and said that a very, very tall hairy man was digging in the grease pit. Now, the tribe owns that casino and it was a wise decision IMO to either destroy the tape or lock it away in a safe deposit box (whatever) because the hairy man to them means way more than it does to a bunch of people who need the enigma exposed. It may drive you nuts but sometimes you just gotta let go.
LeafTalker Posted July 5, 2014 Posted July 5, 2014 "It may drive you nuts but sometimes you just gotta let go." Such simple, powerful words. Great, great advice, Sunflower. You just saved me from typing a loooooooot of sentences on this topic........................................ THANK YOU!
See-Te-Cah NC Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 Sorry, I just don't buy the tale of the video. In this day and age of technology, that puppy would have hit the web and been available to someone, somewhere, yet nary a peep out of anyone. Besides, if the tribe can facilitate gambling and alcohol consumption, surely they could tolerate providing evidence of a unknown creature sorting through a dumpster filled with grease. If keeping the video secret outweighs the well-being of those that benefit from all of the cash made at the expense of the lives of others, it's just sad. One tribal asset (land for a casino) being less sacred that the exposure of the Hairy Man just makes no sense to me.
norseman Posted July 6, 2014 Admin Posted July 6, 2014 Sorry you feel this way, but what would you say if someone here had a pic, posted it and the next thing they heard was increased traffic at their home, stalking, out of state license plates on trucks with guys and guns in those trucks? Your peace and security at your home has now been exposed to crazies who would love to bag one???? Meanwhile your family and you have now been jeopardized and threatened because your security and peace is no more. I will say what I please about photos and never will I apologize for not showing what does not belong to me except without their permission. Not taking this personally but thought I'd bring it up again................... First of all? I resent the heck out of your blatant stereotyping.........I'm not crazy, I have a wife and family like everyone else. I've just accepted the fact that collecting a type specimen is the only sure fire way to prove this species exists. Second of all? If the Squatch hunt is happening in your back yard? They ain't much for hunters........and you control what does or does not happen on your own property..........call the cops or buy a gun.
Sunflower Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 (edited) Not my backyard, the lady did call the cops, there were gun shots from the guys in those trucks. It is not responsible people who do these dastardly acts like trespassing and shooting in the dark and I've never accused you of such a thing. But there are those out there that have no respect whatsoever and those who didn't think twice about who may have been killed. Hairless or hairy people....... It didn't happen in your neighborhood or mine but it did happen. She was terrorized for several days and nights, lost sleep and felt like a prisoner. She did not feel comfortable shooting at anything that moved and was extremely concerned about hurting anyone. And this is not stereotyping, I am simply stating my case for not divulging the location of encounters. NWAC has decided to shoot one (and they aren't telling their location either) but that's for them to decide. And yes I reserve the right to call them (hotheads with guns) "crazies" because they are out of control, lost their minds, whatever you want to call them, take your pick. It's no secret that I am "no kill" and I won't give out info on locations, period. Please don't take this personally....this has nothing to do with your character. Edited July 6, 2014 by Sunflower
Sasfooty Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 And what about the helicopters that were flying around over her house, Sunflower? I think the cops might have taken a dim view of shooting at them.
ShadowBorn Posted July 6, 2014 Moderator Posted July 6, 2014 When these creatures feel threaten in any way they move and find a place with better concealment. So it should make no difference when and where to show photo's. No one will know where the photo was taken anyhow if scanned properly. I was asked to destroy my photo's and I did in the way I was asked too. In my view or opinion I see nothing wrong with showing a photo of them. Where these creatures get upset is when you pounce on their turf so to speak, that is where the problem is. Leave them alone and let them be. 1
Guest Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 pro: footprints compelling eye witness testimony grainy photos and video unknown origin hair samples Indian folklore world wide wildmen con: hoaxes no specimen misidentification possibility I think there might be something to it, that's why I'm here
Guest Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Sorry, I just don't buy the tale of the video. In this day and age of technology, that puppy would have hit the web and been available to someone, somewhere, yet nary a peep out of anyone. Besides, if the tribe can facilitate gambling and alcohol consumption, surely they could tolerate providing evidence of a unknown creature sorting through a dumpster filled with grease. If keeping the video secret outweighs the well-being of those that benefit from all of the cash made at the expense of the lives of others, it's just sad. One tribal asset (land for a casino) being less sacred that the exposure of the Hairy Man just makes no sense to me. logical and rational thinking plus
Terry Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Hopefully more folks with integrity and honour will see and somehow record something that looks believable. Otherwise we are mostly left with the reports, myths and claims of less than desirable people who are either living in their own little fantasy world or who really get a kick out of hoaxing and lying. t.
Squatchy McSquatch Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 I am 100% sure there is no Bigfoot. Just FigBooTerY. A social construct that has brought us to this Discussion Point and no more. Great Topic though. Roger was a true pioneer. I am also 100% certain not a single one of you can counter my claims with a picture, track, measurement or anecdote. That's how certain I am and how it is right now. Feel free to prove me wrong though. This is after all a bigfoot forum and open to differing opinions... 2
sheri Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Squatchy, why in the world would you waste your time on a bigfoot forum if your 100% sure they are not real ? What's the purpose ? I know if I was sure they didn't exist, i could find a lot better things to do with my time. I know I wouldn't be wasting it here. 1
Guest Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 let's say he enjoys reading and responding to BF topics on this forum for whatever reason. Why would that be a waste of time compared to a believer who enjoys it as well? The truth is that all of us could probably do many better things than spending time here though.
Recommended Posts