Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[Twist]

Communication is not some people's strong point, especially when behind a keyboard.  To effectively communicate and engage in discussion one should be open to dialogue both for and against their point.  You don't have to change your stance on a subject to understand someone's alternative point of view.  

 

Some come here to explore and learn while some come to preach and scream, all the while plugging their own ears with their fingers.  I guess it takes all kinds! 

[Guest DWA]

^^^^I'm counting eight blue lines.  Are they *upset*??

Edited June 16, 2017 by DWA

[dmaker]

It should be a social cue to someone who sees nothing but blue lines. Sadly, it will only be seen as a victory by this one. 

[Twist]

Make another notch on the ol' BF belt boys!  Roasted another carcass!!! 

[dmaker]

19 minutes ago, Twist said:

To effectively communicate and engage in discussion one should be open to dialogue both for and against their point.

Good point. I could be better at it, I think. Things escalate quickly because my position generates angst in those that believe. Simply asking for evidence is seen as "contributing nothing to the forum". They would be much happier to never have to confront a questioning, or skeptical, viewpoint. 

 

2 minutes ago, Twist said:

 Roasted another carcass!!! 

Roasted, son! I say, roasted!

[Incorrigible1]

^^^^I'm counting eight blue lines.  Are they *upset*??

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Incorrigible1

[dmaker]

^

lol

[Twist]

6 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Good point. I could be better at it, I think. Things escalate quickly because my position generates angst in those that believe. Simply asking for evidence is seen as "contributing nothing to the forum". They would be much happier to never have to confront a questioning, or skeptical, viewpoint. 

 

Roasted, son! I say, roasted!

 

I as well often get caught up in the angst surrounding this forum/topic, usually after a couple beers lol. Debate is healthy and I love seeing the other side of the coin, it gains one perspective.  Just keep it about BF and or the appropriate topic and it's all fun.  

Edited June 16, 2017 by Twist

[hiflier]

13 hours ago, hiflier said:

What's say we all go back to first post launching BFF 1.0 and all of us begin again.

 

With all due respect ShadowBorn the above quote is out of context. Going back to BFF 1.0 wasn't the point.

 

13 hours ago, hiflier said:

I'm sure if we do then.......NAH......everything will just end up where it is now so why bother

 

That quote was immediately followed by the second quote and what is bolded IS the point. Which is in six or seven years, no matter the dialogue, the subject is still at square one: No scientific proof. And it's not because there's no ideas for getting proof- those same ideas were around back then too. It tells me folks need to take a very hard look at what they are or are not doing. I foresee a future BFF 3.0 resulting in digging up threads from not only BFF 1.0 but BFF 2.0 as well. That was the point of my post regarding BFF being like Ground Hog Day.

 

With well over a hundred BF websites, blogs, and every other thing BF including TV for the last say, ten years? One would think that the thousands of members/ex-members, hundreds of which go to BF conferences still, one would think there might have a different tack decided upon for producing proof of existence. I've not seen it beyond trying new field techniques on an ever increasingly batch of reasons the new techniques aren't working. The answers just reflect a creature that circles it wagons tighter and tighter against discovery at the level of proof that would get science involved. Strange that. Bottom line? Boots on the ground with guns.

 

Throw away the trail cams, throw away the thermals, throw away the plaster, throw away the guillie suits, throw away the hair traps, and just institute a massive physical search of known habitat. Surround a wildfire, patrol the roads (anytime actually), and look for carcasses and dead bodies in the spring. And even though I've presented these cheap options they are not my ideas, I've only re-presented them over the last few years. I have invented the BF wheel for discovery but I have kept the methods for discovery alive and, more importantly, simple. ANYONE can do this stuff. I do it which means it pretty danged simple even though I own NV and trailcams.

 

Regardless of all of it though the subject REMAINS at BFF 1.0 if not before and that was my point.

[Guest Starling]

1 hour ago, DWA said:

But a large volume of consistent stories?  They flat scream LOOK HERE, STUPID!  To believe anything else is to infer that the entire human population consists of severe mental cripples. 

 

 

 

DWA, in all seriousness, how can you complain that people are not looking at the evidence, especially when you're saying no other unproven subject has a higher volume of consistent stories than Bigfoot...then completely ignore them when they point at this...?

I'll wager there is much more documented 'evidence' as it's coalesced around the existence of Greys than there is Bigfoot. The details in modern abduction stories going back to, say, the Betty Hill case of the 1960s has just as much consistency and exists in (I'll wager) higher volumes

than sasquatch sightings. But when this is pointed out to you, you refuse to even look, saying it's not applicable. Why not? State your case for this or you don't have one.

 

You continue to make your hackneyed claim that there's no other 'unproven' etc...you don't want to look at this other mythology as what it is: counter-evidence to your demonstrably false claim and supporting evidence for mine. Those blinders you're wearing have left you blind.   

[ShadowBorn]

Well I sure as heck do not want to be condescending to anyone. But I am willing to learn to be a better person. As one who has seen these creatures it is hard to be skeptical and takes a lot of work to place myself in those shoes.  So sure I can get a slap in the back of the head every so often every so often. Every print or tree formation that I find I have to ask my self if it was done by these creatures or if was hoaxed . It is a process that I hate going through every time. I have to consider if I have been followed by some one or if this is the real deal.  One does not know what goes on in ones head when they are alone in the woods and find these things .

 

So when one post pictures of evidence of their presence it has been thoroughly thought out. So one has to place themselves on the other side of the mirror to understand. Now I do not have a strong skill in communicating what needs to be said at times and will leave things cut short. But you can understand why folks might get upset about their evidence that they have posted. If they are like myself then it might be due to it being well thought out before posting this evidence. 

[hiflier]

53 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Whereas, others go out of their way to be arrogant and condescending. 

 

Some read reports and say, "Yep, Bigfoot is real." Other read reports and say, "Yep, Bigfoot isn't real." I try my best and have tried many times to skip that whole ball of wax and focus instead on working out how to move the subject to a final conclusion. Remarkable that for the most part that approach isn't very well received. Debating 'exists or doesn't exist' never gets old for many for some reason. Why more aren't developing a way forward is beyond me- opponents and proponents alike.  It would be the one (and perhaps ONLY) common ground the two sides could work together on. The resistance to such a concept is 'curious' at the very least; and I say that because 'suspicious' is too strong a word. Adults? Methinks not.

Edited June 16, 2017 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

 

21 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

Well I sure as heck do not want to be condescending to anyone. But I am willing to learn to be a better person. ...

...But you can understand why folks might get upset about their evidence that they have posted. If they are like myself then it might be due to it being well thought out before posting this evidence. 

 

That key phrase there, SB:  "well thought out."

 

Since I started putting the people contributing zero to the discussion on Ignore, I've noted an interesting phenomenon.  I'll put up a post, then...seven or eight blue lines.  Then I'll put one up *straight poking fun,* and...seven or eight blue lines.

 

Not only have I found, every single time I have opened one, something that I almost knew I would see (and that's not good there, it indicates that I've responded to you ten times and you still aren't even addressing it), but it frequently is something *apoplectic.*

 

So, you have these people who come here to tell silly fools they're wrong.  Their very arguments are not only not arguments, because one must base an argument on evidence, but so silly they can't be taken seriously by anyone who has thought at significant length about this, much less someone who has seen one.  But boy do they take themselves *very seriously.* Zealots, they are.

(Um, nope, there, I am just talking about the evidence and about arrogant people who don't treat adults like adults...but expect adult treatment.  Is there a name for that?)

People who go HAHA BIGFOOT! and walk away?  Get that totally.  They're just uninformed and moving on.

 

But these seven or eight blue lines?  Something very ...unenviable...going on there.

 

26 minutes ago, Starling said:

 

DWA, in all seriousness, how can you complain that people are not looking at the evidence, especially when you're saying no other unproven subject has a higher volume of consistent stories than Bigfoot...then completely ignore them when they point at this...?

I'll wager there is much more documented 'evidence' as it's coalesced around the existence of Greys than there is Bigfoot. The details in modern abduction stories going back to, say, the Betty Hill case of the 1960s has just as much consistency and exists in (I'll wager) higher volumes

than sasquatch sightings. But when this is pointed out to you, you refuse to even look, saying it's not applicable. Why not? State your case for this or you don't have one.

 

You continue to make your hackneyed claim that there's no other 'unproven' etc...you don't want to look at this other mythology as what it is: counter-evidence to your demonstrably false claim and supporting evidence for mine. Those blinders you're wearing have left you blind.   

 

 

[takes lid off pot]

 

For one thing, we already know you lack standing to tell anyone they don't have a case.  Psychotic sociability, whatever, I'm not taking cues from you. Try a thesis not thoroughly contradicted by the evidence next time, mmmmmmmmmmmm?

(Why do they keep thinking I care about what they think, when I have empirical evidence I don't need to?)

 

Your FORENSIC EVIDENCE for Greys...and abductions...whenever you got a minute.

 

And of course, who would not expect this?  You never even ask me about what I think about Greys!  Why not, mmmmmmmmm?

 

Cool story.  Wide open to whatever it means.  When I have reason to be.  Could it be?  Ah sure.  No reason it couldn't, seriously. For now, it's like unicorns and relativity.  Cool; when they impact my life I'll let you know, but no reason to care about either at the moment.

 

[lid back on pot]

Edited June 16, 2017 by DWA

[ShadowBorn]

DWA

It's not that I am not addressing you personally but it is that you have a personal agenda going on. Not sure what your agenda is ? But I am trying to figure it out so that I can learn from it , just like I am trying to learn from others.  We are all different and our thoughts are not the same as Humans. I cannot make no one believe what I saw and have experience. All I can do is write about it and hope that others have experience the same as I have, If science is to work then it must be duplicated else where in the same process in order for it to be true. I can only explain what has happen in my case but to use the scientific method  which states :

Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...

• Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
• Form a Hypothesis. ...
• Conduct an Experiment. ...
• Analyze the Data and Draw a Conclusion.

This is the only way of proving that they are real. So far I have done all four of those methods and have come to a conclusion. But I do not have a degree or a doctrine that will prove these creatures existences. So for my self it will take a body and I am pretty sure the world is not ready for it. It is like what Fararcher has already communicated already that Darpa  or some government Agency would take the body and use it for some type of Military use. Some things is best said on said. I have no one on ignore. Just that I have my own troubles that I am dealing with. I have not been out in the field like I use too. But am planning on going back out with my son. I hope that you find the answers that you are searching for and if I can help in any way let me know.  

[dmaker]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Why more aren't developing a way forward is beyond me- opponents and proponents alike.

How would someone who believes bigfoot to be a social construct move "forward"? Proponents will never accept that bigfoot is not real.  I truly do not understand when people point to skeptics and proponents alike to solve the mystery. What mystery? There is myth, but no mystery. For me, at least. I understand that is different for others, most particularly curious proponents like yourself and Twist. 

 

Attempting to demonstrate how bigfoot fits more as a myth than a living creature, I guess, does contribute to solving the mystery. But that requires one to accept myth as the most likely explanation. That does not happen all that often, I don't think.

Edited June 16, 2017 by dmaker