Is " Bf Burn" A Factor In Discussions ?

[SWWASAS]

Chelefoot:  My experience is that the more contact I have the less I know about BF reasoning and why they do things.    Some of it just does not make sense at this point.      So I really agree with you about people thinking they know what BF are thinking and understand behaviors.    I have been counseled many times by people who "know" what they cannot know.    I avidly read encounter reports,    trying to glean patterns of behavior from witness accounts.     Sometimes patterns are evident but are they based on the witnesses preconception of what BF is or were they suggested by the investigators questions?    

 

 For those who have yet to become witnesses and have your own proof, the questions do not end there.    They change in form.   In my case the questions are directed at BF.      What did I do differently then to have an encounter than I am doing today?     Do you know about my hidden camera?     Why don't you like to be photographed?    Why did you zap me when you could have just let me walk past?     I know you are there,  I can hear you,  you must know by my reaction that I know you are there,  so why don't you just step out and let me have a look?    Can you read minds like some people claim?    When I talk to you, do you know what I am saying?    Was I a novelty at first and now you find me annoying?    Am I in danger if I keep looking for you?    So instead of having less questions with contact I have more.   That could be my burn out point. 

Edited August 6, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest DWA]

Thanks y'all. I knew there are many here who have this exact same approach to it. You are two I would have put on that list.    

Well, you just have a way of putting it.  

 

If I saw one, I saw one, dangit, I trust the evidence of my senses over scientific pronouncements, and I stand against all of mankind  [exceptions to which, noted] as Enlightened and I Know.

 

Or, you know, I had one of those experiences I'd like to have before I croak, whatever kind it was.

 

I prefer the latter.  When you put it that way.

Edited August 6, 2014 by DWA

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I honestly am at a loss to explain what occurs most of the time. What I mean is that, having seen one, I cannot accept that they aren't real. So when time passes and nothing gets done, nothing new arises, my brain hurts trying to process why this is the case. I can look for explanations to account for these discrepancies but what you are often left with is an explanation that seems a bit too convenient. Non-believers will use that as ammunition. They will say "oh, it just REALLY elusive...right." Or other things of that nature. I completely understand how strange some explanations sound, and I admit that if I did not know they were out there I would start to doubt. But from my point of view I cannot see any other explanation. The blanket statement that they aren't real, which would explain a lot, just doesn't fit with my world-view.

[WSA]

The consideration of why you have seen one Jiggy, while I have not, and why  so many others who look for them have not, should always include the possibility that you have a better ability to perceive them (smell, sound, vision, etc.) than all of us. It happens. We are all not the same. Some can pick the bass line out of the mix, some can taste that the garlic was old, some can't hear the frequency the cat likes. All of these things contribute to awareness and perception.  Then there are those abilities not as easy to describe or quantify...introduce THOSE possibilities and you get on really uncertain ground, very fast. But it is foolish to discount those abilities in humans, I have always believed.   

[Guest DWA]

I think that the key to totally avoiding BF burn is to stop being so dam certain about stuff.  The entire history of science cautions against it.

 

"THOSE possibilities" may just be things we can't - or haven't figured out how to - test yet.

 

When one is looking for Proof in every single story one reads, one is setting oneself up, routinely, like a pin in a bowling alley, for disappointment.

 

When one reads up on this one recognizes that science is moving at its normal pace for stuff like this, and one just waits and assesses, never assuming, always assessing the body of evidence.

[Incorrigible1]

I think that the key to totally avoiding BF burn is to stop being so dam certain about stuff.

DWA, are you "certain" mainstream science is at fault for not accepting bigfoot existence nor being more proactive in conducting evidential searching for the creature? It seems to me, from your scores or hundreds of postings regarding precisely such, that you might be overly certain of that dam (sic) conjecture.

 

Looking forward to many, many more postings from you, each a mirror image/nearly identical point, about your imagined issue with the scientific community.

[Guest DWA]

Someone seems dissatisfied.  Someone could do something about that, but someone does not appear to want to.  And has expressed that 6,504 times.

[Incorrigible1]

Ah, but DWA, my postings are rarely a carbon-copy of the other. Yours, on the other hand?

[Guest DWA]

Endlessly new.  Probing.  Cogent.  Incisive.  Yeah, I like them too.

[Rockape]

Someone is full of themself.

[Guest DWA]

[and the carbon copier runs off ANOTHER one]

 

I could say something similar about somebody who pronounces conclusions about NAWAC as if he were, you know, there.

[Incorrigible1]

And how much time have you spent in Oklahoma/Texas, DWA? As if you were, you know, there?

[Guest DWA]

Enough to know that NAWAC is selling straight.  That is the betting proposition.  And you?  You haven't been in Nebraska enough.  How 'bout these two?

[Rockape]

So, you've been to Area X? That means you are a NAWAC member?

[Incorrigible1]

Enough to know that NAWAC is selling straight.

You know that how? By reading reports?