A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Martin]

Sometimes its not evidence but an area. These are called Hot Spots. Exclusive access can be granted. GCBRO has Monster Central and NAWAC has Area X and many others all complete with woo names.

''''''''''

Carnie barkers got to eat too, and this field has more than its share, I grant you that. ......................

 

When you been around enough you will realize only the sophistication varies... The evidence never changes just the spin. 

[Guest]

92.  How many bigfoot are you or your cohorts going to deliver to science this week Neanderfoot?

 

I'm not out looking for bigfoot and have never said I'm hoping to find one. I don't live anywhere near 'bigfoot country' and personally I don't care too much if bigfoot isn't delivered to science. It doesn't stop me from having an interest in this subject and bigfoot isn't going away, regardless of no body. You should get used to that.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[SWWASAS]

I'm very new to this forum, so I'm sure I've not read enough to have much to say yet. But, I do have one question that keeps popping up in my head. Why do skeptics come on these boards and repeatedly post argumentatively? I'd understand if it was a particular point they wanted to make refuting a point about evidence or a subject. But, to seemingly make it their life's purpose to convince others that Bigfoot isn't real seems sort of sad. I don't believe in werewolves, but I don't find it useful or rewarding to lurk on the werewolf forums telling those people again and again that they're wrong. 

 

It seems a case of "thou dost protest too much"...meaning the habitual skeptics on this forum are trying to convince themselves that they don't believe in BF, or maybe they've chosen this subject to exercise their sense of self-superiority. It's like that guy from Skeptic Magazine (Shermer?) I think he's the most negative, condescending, shallow, sad caricature of a closed-minded man I've ever seen. He, like many overly-vocal skeptics, seems to get his joy from telling others that they're wrong, rather than from proving the actual truth. Who would start a magazine that's sole purpose is to say, "I DON'T believe this and I DON'T believe that or that or that or THAT!"

You may only have 6 posts but you are very perceptive.      As others point out there is a difference in being a skeptic that seeks to understand and learn and many that we see here that claim "not one shred of evidence exists"  that supports existence of BF     There is a lot of evidence, much is not very good, but the body of evidence at least should persuade any open minded skeptic to keep the possibility open.     Those that you see that are frequent posters claim adamantly that BF does not exist, not even one, anywhere in the world.     Now that is someone who claims powers far beyond normal human to "know" something that is not knowable.       You perhaps have detailed why they are here, certainly your analysis is as good as any.      I don't know their motivations but whatever they are, they are strong enough to keep them here and arguing for years in a forum about a subject they claim not to believe in.      

92.  How many bigfoot are you or your cohorts going to deliver to science this week Neanderfoot?

Could I have a list of the 92 names you have converted?      If I had made such a statement you would have asked the same thing.   Waiting for the list.  

[Guest]

 

This, pretty much.  At the 2009 Texas Bigfoot Conference...not one skeptic.  (Who.Said.Anything.)

 

 

And that is the way it is. And will be.

[SWWASAS]

I'm not out looking for bigfoot and have never said I'm hoping to find one. I don't live anywhere near 'bigfoot country' and personally I don't care too much if bigfoot isn't delivered to science. It doesn't stop me from having an interest in this subject.

If you want to travel and change that, I am sure we could work out an expedition in Washington State.     No promises on any BF contact as they are in control of that.      The Portland Oregon area is becoming a foreign tourist destination so that could be part of any trip you make.  

[Guest]

One of these days I'll get out there. Thank you for the offer. I had fun in east Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana a couple years ago but never expected or even hoped to come across anything.

Washington State and Oregon are definitely on my bucket list. 

Cheers!!

[Guest DWA]

When you been around enough you will realize only the sophistication varies... The evidence never changes just the spin. 

Spoken like someone who hasn't been around enough.  (WSA's "around" would make yours look like a trip to the bathroom from the bedroom.) How many times does it have to be repeated?  if you insist on The Daily Bigfoot Follies, then follies you will get.  Some of us are better able to discern...because we have an actual interest in the topic.

Edited July 31, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

I'm not out looking for bigfoot and have never said I'm hoping to find one. I don't live anywhere near 'bigfoot country' and personally I don't care too much if bigfoot isn't delivered to science. It doesn't stop me from having an interest in this subject and bigfoot isn't going away, regardless of no body. You should get used to that.

Then don't play a numbers game with me.

You may only have 6 posts but you are very perceptive.      As others point out there is a difference in being a skeptic that seeks to understand and learn and many that we see here that claim "not one shred of evidence exists"  that supports existence of BF     There is a lot of evidence, much is not very good, but the body of evidence at least should persuade any open minded skeptic to keep the possibility open.     Those that you see that are frequent posters claim adamantly that BF does not exist, not even one, anywhere in the world.     Now that is someone who claims powers far beyond normal human to "know" something that is not knowable.       You perhaps have detailed why they are here, certainly your analysis is as good as any.      I don't know their motivations but whatever they are, they are strong enough to keep them here and arguing for years in a forum about a subject they claim not to believe in.      

Could I have a list of the 92 names you have converted?      If I had made such a statement you would have asked the same thing.   Waiting for the list.  

No you can't that's as privileged information as much as the bigfoot proof you're sitting on or the bigfoot proof anyone else is sitting on. 

[Guest DWA]

^^^Not an actual interest in the topic

[Bodhi]

Every once in a while someone goes off of the reservation and we get a glimpse into the inner circle of evidence. Moneymaker touted "Matilda" as possibly the best ever and even assigned his bigfeet to have canine facial features. 

 

Then we all got a look at "Matilda" which was actually a Chewbacca mask and thanks to Bill M. was quickly debunked. 

 

As long as "Matilda" was held in confidence by a small group they could all tout the woo about what they had been priviledged to see.... They use inner circle infomation as a carrot to build loyalty within their groups. People feel special when they are have "inside information".  

 

When things become public the con-men lose control of the narrative. That's why bigfoot almost always boils down to unverifiable or secret evidence.

 

All of these groups have different standards in acceptable evidence and attract like minded people. 

 

We see claims of multiple species. This seems to primarily come from the various group-centric unverifiable evidence they accept.

Same thing occurs in the alien cryptid/paranormal field. It's a staple of the carnival sideshow that is far too prevalent with both aliens and sasquatch. The most recent example of a matilda like failure is the "Roswell Slides" debacle perpetrated by Jaime Maussan. These slides were a big deal, and a profitable one. The backstory on the slides is great fun. Found inside a secret compartment in the lid of a box which contained other slides, these were two slides supposedly showing an alien in a glass case. The photos were taken in the late 40's so they were dubbed the Roswell Slides. A small group of "researchers" were recruited to investigate the slides and they, honest to goodness, worked on these two slides for something like 5 years. It was one of those "loud" sort of secrets, where everyone knew that there were these slides and they were "compelling" but not a lot more - (very ketchumequse). Anyway, after all this work there was a huge unveiling in Mexico; and that's where the payoff came. Mr. Maussan held the event in a very large auditorium/theater thing which netted a nice sum PLUS offered a livestream of the whole thing for a lesser price, ($20 u.s. dollars I think).

At the event the photos were finally made public and once that occurred the mystery was solved in about 18 hrs. The photos showed a mummified child, nothing extraterrestrial about it. The experts who had worked on the project for the 5 years before the event were left with egg on their faces and Maussan picked up a very nice payday.

 

These closed groups who make big but veiled claims and then ask for money to review their results should, IMO, been seen as particularly suspect.

[SWWASAS]

Bigfoot skeptics are not likely to waste time and money at a bigfoot conference.  Exactly what did skeptics do to Patterson & Gimlin?  Bob Gimlin has continued to live a healthy and long life showing no signs of checking out any time soon.  He makes a few $$$$ from his appearances too.   Roger has been dead for decades.  Roger got what he wanted out of bigfoot, he didn't get his cure for Hodgkin's which is what he really wanted.,   Sorry your straw man has just burst into flames DWA.  If you think rational people have to kneel down and worship at the alter of a myth steeped in hoaxing and tall tales you're as mistaken as you are about your belief in this subject.

I have run into skeptics at every Sasquatch conference I have attended.    How many conferences have you attended?       At some conferences the master of ceremonies asks for a hand count of skeptics present.      Sometimes they are 20 to 30% of the attendees.      However they are honest skeptics not deniers on a mission to convert.   These skeptics want to be exposed to the information and make up their own minds.    A common comment I hear is that after attending  the conference they are more open to the possibility of existence.     Then again, you likely make such judgments that they would not attend, because you have not yourself.  .

Edited July 31, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Bodhi]

I don't watch Finding Bigfoot very often. But the times I have I couldn't help but notice that anytime they would capture evidence, they never let the viewers hear, or see, what was captured. Then it dawned on me that when they do get something interesting it becomes the property of the BFRO. It's hard to say for a fact what evidences they've accumulated over the years.

My understanding is that, while M.M. is BFRO the show doesn't belong to the BFRO, M.M. is simply paid "talent". I don't think that cliff of renae are BFRO and I believe the production company owns the show.

[Guest DWA]

I have run into skeptics at every Sasquatch conference I have attended.    How many conferences have you attended?       At some conferences the master of ceremonies asks for a hand count of skeptics present.      Sometimes they are 20 to 30% of the attendees.      However they are honest skeptics not deniers on a mission to convert.   These skeptics want to be exposed to the information and make up their own minds.    A common comment I hear is that after attending  the conference they are more open to the possibility of existence.     Then again, you likely make such judgments that they would not attend, because you have not yourself.  .

What you responded to was impressive; it was cooked up entirely in Crow's head with no interference from annoying "information."

Edited July 31, 2015 by DWA

[Bodhi]

What you responded to was impressive; it was cooked up entirely in Crow's head with no interference from annoying "information."

Anti-social?

[WSA]

To tell the truth Martin, I pay very little attention to the cavalcade of clowns out there. They are useful only to emphasize those who are going about it in a wholly different way. I like them only for entertainment value, and even for that purpose my gag reflex doesn't let me keep my attention there for long. We have folks though (you?) who can't tell one from the other. This must make the ability to tell good evidence from bad very hard.