masterbarber Posted July 31, 2015 Admin Share Posted July 31, 2015 Please continue the discussion here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SoFla Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I'm back and for information's sake the subject of this original thread will be a guest on SC this Sunday night if anyone is interested or feels the need to see for themselves the kind of people we are all talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) I'm back and for information's sake the subject of this original thread will be a guest on SC this Sunday night if anyone is interested or feels the need to see for themselves the kind of people we are all talking about. Welcome back SoFla., I am wondering if Wes or somebody over there would broach this discussion from another angle, an angle not often discussed and that is does society or public have right to know or a need to know what may or may not lurk out there and does society have a duty or obligation to make us feel safe? Warnings and advisories stretch across all facets of our busy lives. We have cigarette warnings, automotive, sugar and food advisories and warnings and even warnings against feeding or being too close to wild animals. All of these are purpose driven examples are designed wholly or in part to avoid death, injury or safeguard our health and emotional well-being. What meaningful difference can there be that we have public warnings from automotive or weather to cigarette or sugars in food or even film ratings and not advising the public of things lurking that may or may not be detrimental to people? Edited July 31, 2015 by Gumshoeye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I'm not trying to be a smart-eleck Gum when I say "run that up a flag pole and see who salutes it". My point is, it is going to have to be proven BF actually exists before anything like that happens. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) ^^^ Yes I do agree with that too, many people do not believe or are convinced the thing exist but I am hoping to see how people react to the idea of warnings or advisories on something may or not harm us. Remember though, not all vehicles harm me or you but some people obviously had misfortunate harm come to them from cars thus all the warnings. We know many more people use tobacco than the number of people stricken with cancer and we also see large numbers of very skinny people consuming large amounts of sugar in foods who don’t suffer obesity as many do. Once again, not everybody is attacked by bear, wolves or Moose or Elk and they continue to feed these creatures but somebody has and I believe far less people have been killed or eaten by wild creatures we know than all the Bigfoot/ Sasquatch reported sightings and yet, we see these posted warnings in State or National Parks and not for Bigfoot/ Sasquatch. Edited July 31, 2015 by Gumshoeye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SoFla Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Welcome back SoFla., I am wondering if Wes or somebody over there would broach this discussion from another angle, an angle not often discussed and that is does society or public have right to know or a need to know what may or may not lurk out there and does society have a duty or obligation to make us feel safe? Warnings and advisories stretch across all facets of our busy lives. We have cigarette warnings, automotive, sugar and food advisories and warnings and even warnings against feeding or being too close to wild animals. All of these are purpose driven examples are designed wholly or in part to avoid death, injury or safeguard our health and emotional well-being. What meaningful difference can there be that we have public warnings from automotive or weather to cigarette or sugars in food or even film ratings and not advising the public of things lurking that may or may not be detrimental to people? Hey Gum-thanks for the welcome back. I have nothing to do with what goes on at Wes' site, he has never even answered an email I've sent him. I think what he's doing over there IS a public service. By having the scores of eyewitnesses on the show week after week, and the many differing experiences described, well maybe some of these guys who are in denial are in the right - falling under the ignorance is bliss category because for people to go out into the woods without any protection is really asking for trouble-this according to the many dangerous and close calls that we have heard just on SC. Even scarier are the people of the 411 books who will never have a chance to tell their stories-because they are dead. I know that some people still want to act like the creatures don't exist, but the common knowledge among those who seriously think about it, study it, research it, watch it, read as much as we do about it, and in your case to have actually SEEN them well it's a moot point-we already KNOW they exist. Now as to your warning idea Gum, That is the major point that my friend Mark Zaskey has been making, we need to have the government and scientific communities publically acknowledge their existence, so as to PROTECT the people who have no idea that there are some beings out there who, like the crazy and evil HUMANS who are imprisoned for having done violent and evil things to their fellow man/woman/child, there are also some rogue bigfoots out there who are a serious danger to the outdoorsman. If there was a prison for them they'd be in it. Instead from what I have been able to glean, the evil "imprisoned" rogue males are cast out from the clan and left to their own devices, these are the ones that I have no qualms about harvesting for scientific research. There are countless reports of these very types being killed throughout history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 I imagine that it would be easier to take the rogue's out rather than admit that the species exists if they can't coexist with humans, meaning that we are a threat to each other. Acknowledgement would probably create more confrontation than we already have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 I see that everyone who is personally invested in Big Foot and Bob Garrett not only posted through the weekend, but also managed to get the thread closed. Anyhow on friday, the dentist said I should floss more and the girl who does my nails said I should take better care of my cuticles. And FYI for those who do not know, I'm a lady, not a guy, and I got Chasing Rabbits from the Jefferson Airplane song "White Rabbit". Regarding posted warnings on public lands, there is a responsibility to inform the public of potential dangers, particularly if that area is known for a danger. For example, I live near a river which has a very strong undercurrent and people drown in it yearly. There are posted signs along the public access points and trail (people still ignore the signs and still drown). But the public should know too, that forests and woods are not danger free zones. Over the weekend, I was walking in a park area when a man with children approached me and asked if I worked there because there were 3 copperhead snakes lying on rocks along side of the pond near a trail head. I told him to tell the naturalist in the visitor center. PS, I didn't see the snakes when I passed by the pond. But this guy seemed less concerned that venomous snakes are in a place were people go (albeit it the people walk on an elevated walkway above the pond), and more offended that venomous snakes are allowed in that park area at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Owl Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 I know folks will doubt something very incredible if they have not personally experienced it for themselves, that's just human nature. With that said, I have been fortunate enough to have observed these highly elusive subjects on multiple occasions and not once did I feel personally threatened ( Was growled at once and backed off). Their activity expressed a level of cognitive thinking and intellect much like ours. That being said, there are the good, the bad and ugly in our social structure and places in our cities where you wouldn't want to be even in the daylight. If these subjects are as close to us as I personally feel they are, there are places in our wooded areas you have no business being in plain and simple. Even well armed hunters who don't believe these subjects exist have been driven out of areas and couldn't understand exactly what was going on at that time. If it doesn't feel right out there, it probably isn't is my two cents on this... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Thank you Night Owl, I know you say those words from the heart and you have had some exceptional experiences as we discussed so many times before over hours of hearty bantering. Some of those things we covered of which we cannot discuss here but comparing rogue creatures like this with similar human behavior is completely accurate as you know firsthand … You are a wealth of information NO, I am pleased to see you back my friend. Check your PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 I think we're putting the cart ahead of the horse on this one... If Sasquatch exist, they could be potentially dangerous. However, first they must be acknowledged to exist, before signs can be posted of any potential danger. Of course, since Bob Garret and the SC team are so set on making us aware of the dramatically dangerous nature of these creatures, they should be willing to provide the public with some video of these animals, to help prove their existence. After all, Bob has claimed to have captured fantastic video, which was subsequently stolen by federal agents. However, now that he's wise to the Feds craftiness, he should be able to capture video again and share it with the rest of the world, before it's once again stolen from his computer. I've listened to many of his interviews and he's constantly running into Sasquatch so it should not take very long to get more video... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 I think we're putting the cart ahead of the horse on this one... If Sasquatch exist, they could be potentially dangerous. However, first they must be acknowledged to exist, before signs can be posted of any potential danger. Of course, since Bob Garret and the SC team are so set on making us aware of the dramatically dangerous nature of these creatures, they should be willing to provide the public with some video of these animals, to help prove their existence. After all, Bob has claimed to have captured fantastic video, which was subsequently stolen by federal agents. However, now that he's wise to the Feds craftiness, he should be able to capture video again and share it with the rest of the world, before it's once again stolen from his computer. I've listened to many of his interviews and he's constantly running into Sasquatch so it should not take very long to get more video... Now that is a witty post^^^^ well done! I too am looking forward to the video! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 I see that everyone who is personally invested in Big Foot and Bob Garrett not only posted through the weekend, but also managed to get the thread closed. No one "got the thread closed". This is the same thread, the admins do this at times to threads that get too large. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 No one "got the thread closed". This is the same thread, the admins do this at times to threads that get too large. thanks for that info, Rockape. I didn't know that the admins do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 Yep, once a thread starts approaching the 1800-2000 post mark, a new thread is started in its place. I suppose it so that the forum doesn't have to load all those posts each time someone opens the thread (that is a completely uneducated guess). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts