MIB Posted May 31, 2015 Moderator Share Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) Pretty insightful. What we expect NOT happening, as it mostly does not, puts our assumptions about what they must be in conflict with our assumptions about what such a thing must do. Something is wrong with one assumption or the other. ... I can't honestly add the qualifier "if they exist" because I have seen two for certain and almost as certainly (by elimination rather than positive identification) a third. That tells me something is wrong with our assumptions about what they are -or- something is wrong with our assumptions about the necessary behaviors of what we assume they are. MIB Edited May 31, 2015 by MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) If no one knows then whose saying the false hood? People talk about Pitbulls being such a deadly dog. Oh they will just rip you a apart first chance they get. I have known several and none of them save one was vicious (that one only was vicious after it went blind and got bad hips). known plenty of cocker spaniels that would bite you fast as look at you same with beagles and poodles. Yet all 3 of those breeds are great for family dogs. Heck people who say don't but a pitbull are all for a person owning a lion. Those are known those are false hoods. If we don't have a working defined platform to work with than who is saying the false hood? If people want to throw out most of the reports of the thing being aggressive or dangerous then isn't that the same? Natives didn't mark this as an always friendly creature. So why is it now that we are all hey its a friendly forest giant. If we don't know 100% what it is, is it real, then who can be saying the falsehood? ruling out one idea or report because it doesn't fit the mold we want is also a falsehood. We aren't debating, though, whether or not bigfoot are or can be violent. I'm certain they can be. We're debating the veracity of a particular claim of Bob Garrett's that was communicated through his YouTube channel and the SasChron podcast about finding a particular campsite destroyed by, and campers killed by, a rampaging bigfoot. Edited May 31, 2015 by Bonehead74 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 I don't need to say too much more, Woodslore, Chele and Bonehead said it all. I will reiterate, though, that it's wrong to promote a story as authentic to make money for yourself by taking advantage of the gullible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 If no one knows then whose saying the false hood? People talk about Pitbulls being such a deadly dog. Oh they will just rip you a apart first chance they get. I have known several and none of them save one was vicious (that one only was vicious after it went blind and got bad hips). known plenty of cocker spaniels that would bite you fast as look at you same with beagles and poodles. Yet all 3 of those breeds are great for family dogs. Heck people who say don't but a pitbull are all for a person owning a lion. Those are known those are false hoods. If we don't have a working defined platform to work with than who is saying the false hood? If people want to throw out most of the reports of the thing being aggressive or dangerous then isn't that the same? Natives didn't mark this as an always friendly creature. So why is it now that we are all hey its a friendly forest giant. If we don't know 100% what it is, is it real, then who can be saying the falsehood? ruling out one idea or report because it doesn't fit the mold we want is also a falsehood. Like stepping on peanut shells when you’re trying to be stealthy this demonstrates one of the curious things about Bigfoot topic. Thank you for that impressive collection of cautionary observations, all of which have borne out in your post. I understand your point, excellent analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Like stepping on peanut shells when you’re trying to be stealthy... More like ships passing in the night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted May 31, 2015 Moderator Share Posted May 31, 2015 I don't need to say too much more, Woodslore, Chele and Bonehead said it all. I will reiterate, though, that it's wrong to promote a story as authentic to make money for yourself by taking advantage of the gullible. I agree totally ! You tell the gullible anything and they will just sck it al all in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) I agree totally ! You tell the gullible anything and they will just sck it al all in. @ Shadow Born were you present there alongside Bob Garrett when this allegedly occurred? I'll admit I wasn't there. In so far as I am aware neither Chele nor Divergent were there with Bob Garrett either, so that is their expressed opinion. I get that. It doesn’t lend any more or less credence to solving the question. Therefore either somebody who was there is here and not disclosing it, or somebody has falling prey to their own bias and telling the story as they wish ending should be in which case I’m all eyes and ears. I am certainly not a fair weather participant to the discussion just sitting here like a potted plant deciding which way the wind blows before determining what I believe. I think everyone done a pretty good job of explaining what's on the table, and what isn't. I don't think I altered my opinion to avoid contrarian views, but I can see why people would. I absolutely identify with confusion over what may or may not have occurred, but I will not resort to labeling people or calling names. Cynicism is a mindset of unwilling to cooperate by rejecting everything, skepticism are people that want evidential proof. I can ensure you there are no weak kneed gullible naïve people here being played like a penny whistle and led astray by crafty talkers either. The central issue is this: I do not know if the event was true or false, I cannot say one hundred percent certainty either way because I was not there. Can you say that? Whether the event is true or not is certainly debatable evident by the traffic this thread has generated in less than six months. .. Edited May 31, 2015 by Gumshoeye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) Circumstantial evidence says it isn't true. There are no records of a murder investigation. It is disingenuous to state it's a cover up, that's a belief as opposed to what is available in the way of written documentation. I base my opinion on what's there, the other fact is that these people have a pay per view site. An unvalidated story, used to bait the gullible into paying for more of the same is a con. Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade. Edited May 31, 2015 by Divergent1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted May 31, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted May 31, 2015 I don't need to say too much more, Woodslore, Chele and Bonehead said it all. I will reiterate, though, that it's wrong to promote a story as authentic to make money for yourself by taking advantage of the gullible. The TV and entertainment industry has been making billions for years by doing exactly that. TV News, talk shows, documentaries, News Magazines, are basically means to promote political and other agendas to the gullible and mostly uniformed masses and make money doing it at the same time. It may be wrong but it is part of modern life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 I don't pay to see the news on TV, I pay for a cable package which includes news channels, history channels, etc.....Most of what you see on TV is fictional, but you know that going in when you get caught up in a Lifetime Movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diana swampbooger Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Brandon Garrett of the Texas Unified Natural Research posted another YT yesterday showing more booger footprints in their research area which is interesting considering it's monsoon season in E Tx & they had to investigate in between downpours... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) http://www.codylundin.com/ If you look at Cody Lundins Face-book page (not posted), he talks about the producers of the show wanting more ''dramatic'' nonsense, that pushed the boundries of his integrity, and blah blah that is why he got fired from the show, if anyone watches it, its on Discovery Channel. So it gives a good insight at what the people who market to the masses are going after, DRAMA DRAMA DRAMA. Which is why when concerning the BF arena which is at Peak Saturation at this point, stories have to be questioned more intently. Interestingly, the UFO/Alien arena had a huge hoax perpetrated with the mummy baby-alien nonsense that was built up over a YEAR, and had hundreds of SUCKERS flying into MEXICO a few weeks ago to see the magic just found in the attic 2 count em 2 slides of the alien baby which in a few hours on the web was identified and clarified to be a huge HOAX. but people TRAVELED TO MEXICO to get burned. So the BF arena is not the only one. Also, the ''Crystal Skulls of Montezuma'' turned out to be a manufactured HOAX, that was a year or so ago that came out. As Garrett seems to be quickly joining the ranks of Standing, Dyer, Sas Chron, anything he says is going to be taken with a giant salt grain, given his iffy association with Sas Chron, in the absence of Jevings. People who HOAX the ''true believers'', such as people on this site, need to be reminded that we are not a cattle car of chum-chum to be milked with piles of BS GARBAGE. The more nonsense piles up, the more credibility you will loose, and once its gone, its GONE. Edited May 31, 2015 by Wag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodslore Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Uhm, this might be a sore point but being mad because they have a pay to view site is kind of well hypocritical. I mean SC yes has a pay to view site as well as free (Youtube) and well don't we here at the Bigfootforums have a pay to view section via premium membership? So isn't it kind of the same thing? Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) Not sure who is mad at SC for having a pay site, sort of skips the whole gigantic entire argument of what is being discussed. Which is fakery, and for biggies sake, a self-promotor is on the thread trying to badly promote what appears to be another hoaxer. These are the relevant issues, but you can see why the clown show persists. Oh, forgot about the DOE-DOE bird project, or Clown-Show project, formerly known as the ''Falcon Project''. That Clown show had people streaming in from all over the USA, sorry, had SUCKERS streaming in from all over the USA, even though I warned about it, gee whizz bangers, free advice from the one and only Wag) which paralleled the FAKE ALIEN PHOTO clown show held in Mexico. So there is obviously NO LACK OF CAHOONAHS with these Giant Clown Show People, having no qualms about JANKING people royally, over, of course, UFO's, Bigfootsi, what have you... Maybe it should be called Ricky Tricky Dyer Syndrom? Its all a bunch of NONSENSE at this point. Oh, Justin Smeja also, whats up with that one? Can't keep up.... Squatch Onterio just went down. Its all a show, Its all SHOW-BIZ. Its all a giant pile of Panda Poo. But maybe I should correct myself Woodsi, Not everyone is chum-chum to be milked and misled by these hoaxing clowns. some people want to be fooled, and Barnum knew that BEST. Edited May 31, 2015 by Wag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkGlasgow Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Uhm, this might be a sore point but being mad because they have a pay to view site is kind of well hypocritical. I mean SC yes has a pay to view site as well as free (Youtube) and well don't we here at the Bigfootforums have a pay to view section via premium membership? So isn't it kind of the same thing? Just saying. Is it the same thing? Does the $20 BFF fee go directly into an individuals wallet? Perhaps Admin would like to step in and outline the potential differences between funds directed to this site and the Sas Chronicles one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts