A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Bodhi]

They would have had a whole room full of people yesterday at the Portland Hopsquatch town hall event yesterday to insult in person. Probably a dozen people gave accounts of sightings, some within 10 or 15 feet, and in a couple of cases people have had more than one encounter. Of course this is not in New York state which is not exactly a sighting hot spot. I would have delighted to have any of our resident skeptics get up in that crowd and tell the witnesses what they saw was a bear or their imagination. Myself and a lot of people there, did not report our encounters just because of time limitations. Quite frankly I would rather listen to other people than myself. About half the people there had raised their hand when asked who had encounters at the start.

I'd have no problem with that swwa, or are you suggesting that these "witnesses" are violent types and I'd be in a fight for merely suggesting misidenification?

[southernyahoo]

I'm sure there would be an awkward silence, and you'd have few witnesses to talk to after that. Not an honest approach to a witness you don't know. You'd come off like an arrogant you know what.

[Guest Crowlogic]

I'm reminded of college philosophy class when we discussed the difference between being and seeming.  A good report can seem to be  a valid "being" but without hard evidence all a report can ever be is a "seeming."  Thart's just the way it is anybody can say anything and anyone can be wrong about what they are claiming they saw.  They can even have not seen anything at all but simply want to engage in the moment.  And I'm reminded of the kid who worked in my office that sent me down to visit the identical vintage Jaguar that I had.  The kid meant well he was adamant and trustworthy but he'd gotten it 90% wrong even color.  But enough of the tell tale details were present in the wrong ID such as chrome wire wheels, certain body proportions etc.  If it had been a bigfoot sighting the kid may have seen a bear and by the time he got to the office he was sure he saw bigfoot and knowing I was the bigfooter in the office told me.  Difference being of course I was able to go and recon it my self and found the kid mistaken.

[beerhunter]

I'd have no problem with that swwa, or are you suggesting that these "witnesses" are violent types and I'd be in a fight for merely suggesting misidentification?

 

Perhaps he is alluding to the internet mask skeptics use to hide behind to belittle and insult folks with BF experiences. I'm only guessing this based on the fact they(skeptics) logically wouldn't hover on a site devoted to something they don't believe in.

Edited July 20, 2015 by beerhunter

[Guest DWA]

They would have had a whole room full of people yesterday at the Portland Hopsquatch town hall event yesterday to insult in person. Probably a dozen people gave accounts of sightings, some within 10 or 15 feet, and in a couple of cases people have had more than one encounter. Of course this is not in New York state which is not exactly a sighting hot spot. I would have delighted to have any of our resident skeptics get up in that crowd and tell the witnesses what they saw was a bear or their imagination. Myself and a lot of people there, did not report our encounters just because of time limitations. Quite frankly I would rather listen to other people than myself. About half the people there had raised their hand when asked who had encounters at the start.

Bigfoot skepticism is pretty divorced from reality.  

 

All we are seeing here is what happens at the extreme cutting edge of every science.  The discovery is consistently made long before the society acknowledges it.  What bigfoot skeptics manage to do - because most of the society thinks what they think, which again is par for the course at this stage - is ignore a scenario that they are backing which, if they ever were honest enough with themselves to acknowledge it, would have them thinking, pretty quickly:  there's no way people are doing this.  People don't do stuff like this in the real world.

 

I can see the kneejerk reaction of people who never think about this one way or the other.  But the CrowBodkanis of the world, really, have not excuse one.  They're obsessing over this topic.  And know nothing about it.

I'd have no problem with that swwa, or are you suggesting that these "witnesses" are violent types and I'd be in a fight for merely suggesting misidenification?

Well, were I one of the witnesses, I wouldn't have to hit you.  I would simply suggest someone is pretty stupid to insist that X happened to me and not Y...when Y happened to me, and I was there.

And thousands of others have had Y happen to them...and scientists - every one who has ever seriously looked at this - vouch for Y...and what do you like to hang around people like us indulging your pathological denial for, hmmmmm...?

[Bodhi]

I'd have no problem with that swwa, or are you suggesting that these "witnesses" are violent types and I'd be in a fight for merely suggesting misidentification?

 

Perhaps he is alluding to the internet mask skeptics use to hide behind to belittle and insult folks with BF experiences. I'm only guessing this based on the fact they(skeptics) logically wouldn't hover on a site devoted to something they don't believe in.

Being a skeptic doesn't mean one isn't interested in a topic and I've noticed a number of members here are also members at the Jref/ISF forums too so I don't think your position is correct. One can be a skeptic and be engaged in a topic of which he/she is skeptical and vice versa.

[Guest DWA]

"also members at the Jref/ISF forums..".  A bona fide indicator of zero interest in the topic.  All they are about over there is pathological denial.

[Guest diana swampbooger]

"also members at the Jref/ISF forums..".  A bona fide indicator of zero interest in the topic.  All they are about over there is pathological denial.

Ewww. I was wondering why all of Bohdi's arguments seemed as though all you had to do was take out one noun & insert another noun. No passion, just recitation.

So, Bondi, what do you get: points, prize, cash, cars, killer résumé, adoration, ...lol, somebody stop me!

[Branco]

So I'll drop a bomb on the bigfoot world.  When I was in the Adirondacks in 1981 I did see a bigfoot, I even saw the tracks it left on the lake side I was there to research.  I of course dutifully reported the event to my thought to be open minded   PHD boss and my boss rather sternly told me to cease and desist any such talk of that nature.  We had funding to procure and keep procuring so I zipped my lip.  Yes bigfoot is all over and yes there is a government run conspiracy to keep it from the people.  Any you know what I'll leave it for the reader to decide if my confession is the real deal.  Bigfoot is a singular thing you know.

Load another'en in the bomb bay; that'en was a dud.  

[Bodhi]

Ewww. I was wondering why all of Bohdi's arguments seemed as though all you had to do was take out one noun & insert another noun. No passion, just recitation.

So, Bondi, what do you get: points, prize, cash, cars, killer résumé, adoration, ...lol, somebody stop me!

I'm reimbursed in gold the joy of reading your hilarious "wooooooo" postings. Please carry on.

[Guest DWA]

 

 

 

So I'll drop a bomb on the bigfoot world.  When I was in the Adirondacks in 1981 I did see a bigfoot, I even saw the tracks it left on the lake side I was there to research.  I of course dutifully reported the event to my thought to be open minded   PHD boss and my boss rather sternly told me to cease and desist any such talk of that nature.  We had funding to procure and keep procuring so I zipped my lip.  Yes bigfoot is all over and yes there is a government run conspiracy to keep it from the people.  Any you know what I'll leave it for the reader to decide if my confession is the real deal.  Bigfoot is a singular thing you know.

This gets better all the time.  DUDE!  If you're saying it's real, duh!  Ship sailed, dude!  If you think we are gonna muse over this for four seconds...think again.

I haven't included "extreme narcissism" among the bigfoot-skeptic traits.  Should have added it long ago.  "Forget about thousands of witnesses!  * I SAY....*"

[Bodhi]

"also members at the Jref/ISF forums..".  A bona fide indicator of zero interest in the topic.  All they are about over there is pathological denial.

The member to which I was referring is Ontario Squatch. He is a member of the JREF/ISF forum. Are you going to be the one who tells him he has zero interest in the topic?

 

I'm not a member, but I'm going to join up now.

[Guest DWA]

He just likes to take bullying farther than I do.  

[Bodhi]

He just likes to take bullying farther than I do.    

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Most of the guys who post on the ISF in the Bigfoot threads there aren't skeptics. Skepticism is about suspending belief, not desperately trying to convince yourself that Sasquatch aren't real and attacking those who follow the evidence.