Guest Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/03/fisherman-saw-bigfoot-bathing_n_6407272.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592 just one more reason why that grant money isn't coming through Edited January 4, 2015 by mbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 My sighting was not a hoax either, who would run around on a rutted dirt road dressed up as a Dogman, and hope someone comes by so they can be pranked? Respectfully, how do you know that? Your sighting was momentary, as your vehicle bolted away from the situation. You didn't enjoy any sort of an extended encounter. How can you know it wasn't a hoax? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I figure scientific funding would be there if the proof was offered..... what scientist wouldn't want to be the lead on what would be a cutting edge discovery. but so far, the PGF is still being debated ( a bazillion posts just here ) and the rest of it so far adds up to hoaxers, cool stories and a lot of good folks that saw / heard something odd that leaves us with with more ?s than answers. .... iow, it does seem something solid enough to interest more folks than just meldrum and sykes would've surfaced by now, but with out that body, bone, whatever all were probably going to get is more ketchums and folks trying to cash in on the community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Respectfully, how do you know that? Your sighting was momentary, as your vehicle bolted away from the situation. You didn't enjoy any sort of an extended encounter. How can you know it wasn't a hoax? Respectfully, how do you know you didn't see a turkey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Because you weren't there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 And neither were you. Always cool when it can be cleared up that easily. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 And neither were you. Always cool when it can be cleared up that easily. Thanks. You're referring to my reported sighting of a thunderbird. And you dismiss it. Wonderful. Classy. In your report-reading like the wind, do you ever come across any thunderbird sightings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) No. Which is how I know you didn't see one, and the person you are questioning (CLASSY!!!!!!!!!) saw a sasquatch. Reality works in cool yet obvious ways. See, when people don't see something, they don't report it. Now do they. I mean I am not even getting into the nerve it takes to question something for which the evidence is closer to proof than anything in history for which we don't have it yet (and the reasons are laughingly obvious), while asserting something that most assuredly AIN'T REAL and somehow expecting to have one's hallucination held to a different standard. So innerstin, I've always found that, so innerstin. Edited January 4, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) You believe dogman is real? Awesome. Keep reading those reports, bucko. Read those reports like the wind! And the reprehensible misreporting of my report is amazing. Simply amazing, for one that reads reports like the very wind. Edited January 4, 2015 by Incorrigible1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweatyYeti Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 MIB wrote: You can get a grant to study zebra fish or the eye color of fruit flies or any number of silly things but you can't get a grant to study the big kids in the woods next door. Or....you can get a grant to study zebra fish or the eye color of fruit flies or any number of silly things but you can't get a grant to study the near-Human....or possibly Human beings, in the woods. Heck, why should a government which wastes money by the trainload waste any more money on the potential existence of...Human Beings?? http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/10/17/the-10-dumbest-ways-the-government-wasted-taxpayer.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) You believe dogman is real? Awesome. Keep reading those reports, bucko. Read those reports like the wind! And the reprehensible misreporting of my report is amazing. Simply amazing, for one that reads reports like the very wind. You may choose to pay attention any time you wish. (Cherrypicking, the great crippler of bigfoot skeptics. I don't even know what a dogman is and neither do you. Learn to suss out strawmen and you read reports like a scientist. (Should.) So? Stop reprehensibly misreporting stuff! Problem solved. See, it's not reading reports "like the wind." (We keep identifying your research issues.) It's bringing the cold, incisive yet questing youthful and joyous mind of the pure scientist to a topic. Might try it sometime. Edited January 4, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted January 4, 2015 Author Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) I think if you accept eyewitness testimony of any kind when it comes to reports, then you would have to accept that certain individuals, some very credible, have seen a dog like bipedal figure, exactly what that is I have no idea, so to be consistent you would have to discredit all eyewitness testimony...so where do you draw the line? I think it is dependent on that testimony, the individual themselves, the circumstances surrounding that testimony. To have a daylight sighting of less than 100 feet that last more that 30 seconds is pretty convincing, and I have heard such testimonies several times from what I would deem to be credible witnesses. Edited January 4, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) Scientists search around the middle of that normal curve - to which sightings and footprint finds conform, and which don't add up to ape/human body, dog head. People will report what they see. When they have no referent from prior experience, they may exaggerate features. But I'm not seeing anywhere near a large, consistent volume of dogman reports. If someone would show one to me, I could look at it. But I have read very very few, and I have read a LOT of these. One is strictly conjoined against tossing babies out with bath water, in all areas of life, science most particularly. One looks for consistencies. One does not have to toss outliers. But it is contrary to good scientific practice to search on them. As to this: "To have a daylight sighting of less than 100 feet that last more that 30 seconds is pretty convincing, and I have heard such testimonies several times from what I would deem to be credible witnesses." There could be many sightings of one anomalous (deformed?) individual. Or they could be something else...like somebody temporarily unhinged by what they saw. One of the things that is most underrated by both proponents and skeptics is what happens when one sees, in the flesh, something that one absolutely knows - knew - isn't real. It's gonna distort perceptions, if the person seeing it is absolutely unprepared to see it. This is what those of us understanding the power of report consistency see that others don't: there is no way one gets this kind of consistency with thousands of unhinged people, and it is even less likely with a random concatenation of unhinged, jokers, liars, and the innocently misinformed (who insist, loudly, on their innocent misinformation as utter fact, something people generally just do not do.) Edited January 4, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) They knew it was a crock of crap just like every right thinking person did. There are a number of instances of 'officials' trying to hush things up. You have no way of knowing that for sure. ^^^^^^ This is just one instance of government not only “trying to suppress†information of “Unknown Primate†Bigfoot, but they raked the area clean too. 2002 Mississippi USDA employees conducting a timber survey come upon a carcass of a half-eaten dog surrounded by large tracks. National Forest employees were instructed to “deny any knowledge†of the creature or hunt “the creature that made the tracks that ate dog.†The Anthropology Department from nearby University of Southern Mississippi was enlisted to help with identification purposes. USDA employees were notified the “tracks were from an unknown and undocumented primate.†Local authorities with FBI wrapped the area, made casts, photographed and the scene was raked clean of the tracks. Note: Follow the link and read the entire report http://www.gcbro.com/MSstone0003.html Edited January 5, 2015 by Gumshoeye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted January 6, 2015 Author Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) Well I would have to say that what is true for the goose is true for the gander, or whatever waterfowl you prefer, but if you can cite consistencies as a point of authenticity when it comes to Sasquatch sightings, then the same would also hold true for Dogmen. DWA, I do not know where most of your reports come from, but here in the upper Midwest (I live 20 miles from Bray Road) there is a small number of sightings of Dogmen that have consistencies not unlike what I find with Sasquatch, and knowing the type of individuals that make up these reports, salt of earth, honest as the day is long, Midwesterners more conservative than practically any other, well that says a whole lot toward there authenticity. Edited January 6, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts