Incorrigible1 Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) Many, many stories and points of contention. Some (not all) proponents believe bigfoot communicates with them through telepathy, and are able to "zap" humans with infrasound. That bigfoot has pets and proxies, such as coyotes, wolves, crows, and ravens. Some proponents believe bigfoot has near supernatural ability, that it somehow knows what a human in the area is thinking or their intentions. How can anyone imagine such ability from an animal not confirmed to even exist? Edited October 18, 2014 by Incorrigible1 1
Bonehead74 Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) Just speaking for myself here, but I'd find it even stranger if those claims were made about an animal that was already confirmed to exist. Edited October 18, 2014 by Bonehead74 3
Incorrigible1 Posted October 18, 2014 Author Posted October 18, 2014 Oh, some here claim intimate inside knowledge, and know all about the creatures. Even that they're not nearing extinction, but are overrunning areas of Tennessee. Your mileage may vary. Some claiming inside knowledge profess there are three or more unidentified species. Some claim bigfoot ride trains, smoke tobacco, and wear clothing or pelts. Lotsa claims, damned little verification. But hey, bring some garlic to the table and let's be happy with the woo. 1
Patterson-Gimlin Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 You should not be surprised. If one is to believe in mythical creatures might as well take it to the next level.
Guest ChrisBFRPKY Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 I'm of the opinion that it would be counter productive to accept every claim as 100% accurate. Each researcher or investigator must determine what is correct and what's not based on their own research and findings. That's why someone studies something, to learn more about it. If one doesn't take the time to do the research and investigation, I can see how maddening it would seem to accept that an unknown creature can perform all these reported tasks. Fact is they can't and don't do everything that has been reported. How does one come to this conclusion? Again, research and investigation. It would be foolish to assume that since a proponent accepts the existence of a large unknown primate then they must also accept the primate travels in UFO's, that's nonsense. Some skeptics tend to skip out on the research and simply band every reported behavior together in one statement. Mistakenly thinking that in order for Bigfoot to exist, it must perform every reported task that has been attributed to it. (No matter how odd those reported behaviors are) That's sort of a nonsensical way of looking at the subject. Proponents are skeptical too but based on their own findings. Are some reports out and out lies? Certainly, but more are probably the result of a mistake of perception made during an encounter.. Some have reported "Bigfoot just disappeared" but in actuality, it probably just made a quick 3 step getaway and was gone in a very short space of time, rather than physically dematerializing. I've spoken to one researcher whom I consider to be doing good work in the field, about one of their claims. This researcher was certain the Bigfoot could read their mind. Here's the reasoning,: The researcher was out and had an encounter. The creature stepped back out of view. In their mind, the researcher thought to the creature: "I'm not going to hurt you, step out so I can see you." at that moment the creature stepped back out into view. So, the researcher was convinced the Bigfoot had read their mind. My thoughts are: could it have been a coincidence? Of course it could. Some people lie, some people are mistaken and some are absolutely 100% accurate. Doing the research and investigation is the only way to help one make informed decisions. Chris B.
Guest Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 There are a lot of fake things out there that one can believe in if one chooses. Common sense tells when all the samples and evidence turn out fake or in question without any hard facts that it‘s most likely not real. The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanation of complex facts. The easiest answer is usually the correct one: Bigfoot does not exist. Enjoy the fantasy but don’t let it fool you.
Terry Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 It seems to me that women are the main proponent of bf being the friendly forest fellow who hangs around the front yard and is mystical. Men appear to favour the YouTube/wilderness creature who throws rocks and follows you to your truck. t.
Wingman1 Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 Hey ChrisBFRPKY your post was one of the most thoughtful and well written posts that I have seen in quite some time! I could not agree with you more. Plussed for that!
dmaker Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 It seems to me that women are the main proponent of bf being the friendly forest fellow who hangs around the front yard and is mystical. Men appear to favour the YouTube/wilderness creature who throws rocks and follows you to your truck. t. That rings fairly true actually. And if so, is very damning data that points precisely to what bigfoot is: a social construct. Women imagine it different than men. This does not happen with real animals.
Guest ChrisBFRPKY Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) There are a lot of fake things out there that one can believe in if one chooses. Common sense tells when all the samples and evidence turn out fake or in question without any hard facts that it‘s most likely not real. The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanation of complex facts. The easiest answer is usually the correct one: Bigfoot does not exist. Enjoy the fantasy but don’t let it fool you. I suppose your research and findings support your observation. Hey ChrisBFRPKY your post was one of the most thoughtful and well written posts that I have seen in quite some time! I could not agree with you more. Plussed for that! Thank you. That rings fairly true actually. And if so, is very damning data that points precisely to what bigfoot is: a social construct. Women imagine it different than men. This does not happen with real animals. It's interesting that you accept an opinion as "damning data" to conclude that bigfoot is "a social construct". This does not happen in real science. Chris B. Edited October 18, 2014 by ChrisBFRPKY
norseman Posted October 18, 2014 Admin Posted October 18, 2014 That rings fairly true actually. And if so, is very damning data that points precisely to what bigfoot is: a social construct. Women imagine it different than men. This does not happen with real animals. Oh yes it does........ http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Treadwell I've watched Tim film himself trying to pet a brown bear fishing in a river. Tim used a high cut bank to pat the bear on the head as he stood out of the water. When the bear growled in alarm, Tim chastised the bear verbally as you would a lap dog. I agree that many woman see Bigfoot as some sort of fuzzy bunny. Just as Tim saw bears, but it doesn't always follow gender. But I would agree that females generally have a greater capacity for empathy than men do. But absolutely it happens with real animals and sometimes with dire consequences for the human who doesn't give it proper respect. 1
Guest Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 I don't think I have read of any skeptic claiming a sighting. Proponents, on the other hand, may have had a profound experience like a daylight encounter that changed their whole world. Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it's not there!
dmaker Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 Oh yes it does........ http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Treadwell I've watched Tim film himself trying to pet a brown bear fishing in a river. Tim used a high cut bank to pat the bear on the head as he stood out of the water. When the bear growled in alarm, Tim chastised the bear verbally as you would a lap dog. I agree that many woman see Bigfoot as some sort of fuzzy bunny. Just as Tim saw bears, but it doesn't always follow gender. But I would agree that females generally have a greater capacity for empathy than men do. But absolutely it happens with real animals and sometimes with dire consequences for the human who doesn't give it proper respect. I'm talking about reported behavior vs actual documented behavior. In the case of the bear, and other known animals, we have the benefit of observing the actual animals behavior. When dealing with purely imaginary animals, it is interesting to note the differences in reported behavior based on gender of the witness. 1
norseman Posted October 18, 2014 Admin Posted October 18, 2014 I'm talking about reported behavior vs actual documented behavior. In the case of the bear, and other known animals, we have the benefit of observing the actual animals behavior. When dealing with purely imaginary animals, it is interesting to note the differences in reported behavior based on gender of the witness. Thats the point I'am making...... Observed behavior can be perceived how ever the human mind wants to perceive it. In the case of Tim petting a wild brown bear? He never perceived it's growl as a lethal threat, only as the bear being "cranky" with him for a moment. Seems ludicrous to me but made perfect sense to Timothy. The only difference between reported and documented behavior is that a biologist has been able to study a creature and assign the species with traits. That doesn't change the fact that generally speaking men want to kill everything in the forest and women want to cuddle and nurture it. Sasquatch being a real creature or not has nothing to do with generalized gender perceptions. 3
Guest Crowlogic Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 Last evening/night I spent 9 hours watching every Bigfoot documentary that I could find. I had no idea until then that there are so many. Yes Monsterquest did invest a lot of time in the subject as did others. As usual these programs leave the viewer with more questions than answers. As usual they come up empty handed. The proponent has a tough row to hoe especially when decrying that there hasn't been money or science put into the chase. I certainly saw a lot of scientists in those 9 hours and I saw a lot of scientific equipment and expertise in play. IMO it is safe to assume that science and money has indeed been invested in the debate. Furthermore the effort has been not only invested in the America's but globally as well. In those 9 hours I saw many different things I hadn't seen before but I saw nothing new. That is to say it is the same as it was 30 years ago only there are more "toys and gadgets" in play these days. These toys and gadgets BTW are capable of adding many many man hours to the search whereas previously research was done mostly in real time. Trail cameras and sonic recorders can run for days or longer recording a targeted area. I was especially interested in one effort where the camera was encased in an artificial rock to disguise it's location in a stream bed. Darn clever those scientists and that counts as true effort. I think we can drop the tired pretense that science and technology ignores the issue. I didn't come away with that idea at all. Certainly all of the bedrock issues and cases were covered and there was no shortage of testimony, but then there never is. However the one major absentee contingent was the habitation contingent. I found that troubling and for good reason. If you are doing a documentary on Bigfoot why not approach those who have a relationship with them? Is each and every habituator closed to the sharing of their knowledge? Or is there simply no habituation actually happening? Or maybe these shows don't want to offer the real proof so they can make more shows and bait more viewers? After all once there is proof the game is over. At some point with all questions it becomes clear as to the true nature of the issue in question. The issue of Bigfoot has had a good long run but it remains active more out of the romance of the subject than the possibility of the subject being real. Proponents indeed have a tough row to hoe.
Recommended Posts