JDL Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Perhaps, but you can't tar us all with the same brush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 ^^^ I tar anyone with the same brush that lays claim to detailed, up close bigfoot encounters. There are only two possible explanations: dishonesty or delusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarArcher Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 ^^^ I tar anyone with the same brush that lays claim to detailed, up close bigfoot encounters. There are only two possible explanations: dishonesty or delusion. Curious. Why are you here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 You need to get a little less prickly Dmaker, I'd suggest. I think the point is pretty clear though. And no, you missed it. It being this: The internet and all associated with that has continued to give us the (I would say mistaken) impression that most things, even "every"thing is reported to us, and if not, it didn't happen. I say this is skewing our perception more than a little, and will continue to. This is hardly an original thought on my part, but if you've not considered it, I think you might mull it for a minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 It's got nothing to do with reported or not. There is a stunning lack of bigfoot evidence where there should be an abundance. This has nothing to do with the 6 PM news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted March 21, 2016 Moderator Share Posted March 21, 2016 Here's the rub about working the field so to speak. The field never produces solid results that matter. I continue to wade through the video accountings of those in the field and I see time and time again what constitutes evidence. Once again it all comes down to pebbles and pine cones being tossed or vague foot prints and or a distant wood knock. All of this can be fabricated or simply happen on it's own. But we don't see the undeniable. We never have. So when you go off into the field armed with the expectations of what passes for credible you are essentially going off with bundles of straw that gets exchanged as OMG BF activity in the form of pine cones, pebbles, hoots and hollers. If I were to go off into the field with a seasoned "researcher" in a hot spot and all I got were pine cones and pebbles I'd be pretty quick to dismiss the researcher and the activity Crow Yes, but when your brain says that it is poo and that poo is out there announcing it self , what do you do? blow it off as a hoax or investigate it further and find out what made that poo. I mean a noise is a noise but unless you know what made that noise it is just a noise and that's how it will be. But you have to go out and investigate what made that noise, was it an owl or was it not an owl. Was it it wood knock or was it not wood knock made by these creatures. No you are not going to sit back wondering if it was a hoax on you , no you are going to do what you can to figure out what made that noise. It is when you find out that changes you and the way you think and believe. There is nothing out there that is going to change the way that you now view this world after you see these creatures Crow and what they are capable of well ,This is something that you are just going to have to find out on your own. Some of us have tried to explain to you but you have flat our refused to understand. They are real and they live among our forest and they choose when they want to reveal themselves. This is there way and how they live and I some how tend to believe that they live by this law.IMO They choose their victims after they have been observed for awhile. You can choose in what ever you choose to believe about these creatures , I know and have encountered them and this is some thing that can not be taken for me. It was not a hallucination, nor was I dreaming, and there was evidence left after the encounters. This is just how most encounters tend to be , where evidence has been found on the scene of the sighting. The victim is usually frighten and gripped with heart pounding fear. Some are with curiosity and a wanting to know what they saw just like myself, always having this question of what this thing is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 (edited) ^^^ I tar anyone with the same brush that lays claim to detailed, up close bigfoot encounters. There are only two possible explanations: dishonesty or delusion. You miss the third and actual explanation. You're flat wrong. ^^^ I tar anyone with the same brush that lays claim to detailed, up close bigfoot encounters. There are only two possible explanations: dishonesty or delusion. A rather skewed perspective, but I've got to hand it to you, you're not shy about insulting folks. You're so entrenched and invested in your narrative that I think you may actually be more traumatized by the eventual public recognition of bigfoot than other folks have been by face to face encounters. Edited March 23, 2016 by salubrious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 It's got nothing to do with reported or not. There is a stunning lack of bigfoot evidence where there should be an abundance. This has nothing to do with the 6 PM news. You sure about that? Because implicit in your assumption is that you certainly would have been notified of it if it had happened. I'm proposing this is a rash assumption on your part. If you've only known a digital, interconnected world, it makes it somewhat harder to suppress that idea. I'm just here to suggest another perspective you might be overlooking. It is not peculiar to only those who are interested in BF evidence. I see it in many different aspects of our lives these days. That, and a tendency to expect that all of our curiosity will be satisfied if we just stay on-line long enough. Like I said, far from an original observation on my part, but worth considering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 (edited) A rather skewed perspective, but I've got to hand it to you, you're not shy about insulting folks. You're so entrenched and invested in your narrative that I think you may actually be more traumatized by the eventual public recognition of bigfoot than other folks have been by face to face encounters. LOL. Yeah, I'm real worried about that one. If bigfoot was revealed to the world as a flesh and blood animal, that would be great. I would not be traumatized in the least. I would be shocked that such a creature managed to avoid detection and leave absolutely zero objective, biological evidence behind for so long. But since bigfoot is imaginary, I'm not holding my breath that is ever going to happen. Edited March 23, 2016 by salubrious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 A little translation is in order here, to help us all... When a skoftic says something like, "Absolutely zero objective, biological evidence....", you should know what this really means. It means: "I really don't have any demonstrated skills in parsing good evidence from bad evidence, and I'm too entrenched in my argument to start now." ("Even if it arrived addressed to me in a certified letter I wouldn't...") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 21, 2016 Admin Share Posted March 21, 2016 Its going to take a body or a portion thereof to get them to budge..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarArcher Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Its going to take a body or a portion thereof to get them to budge..... Aye, and on that day, history as we know it will have to be re-written. It's odd. I don't believe in all this alien stuff, but I don't hang out on sites of UFO/Alien groups, and practice my skeptic comments. It seems a contradiction in my beliefs. I don't go there because I don't believe that, and therefore, I have no interest in even wasting my time there. Methinks some are trying too hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 21, 2016 Admin Share Posted March 21, 2016 ^^^^ I agree. I'm not a member of a unicorn forum to make fun of unicorn believers. And if I had not seen a trackway I would not be here either. To each there own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted March 21, 2016 Moderator Share Posted March 21, 2016 ^^^ I tar anyone with the same brush that lays claim to detailed, up close bigfoot encounters. There are only two possible explanations: dishonesty or delusion. Well you might as well as tar me since I have had my up-close in my face encounters. You did leave one other explanation and that is that those of us who have seen them are telling the truth and you do not want to face it , and are in denial. Acceptance with out proof but by word is hard to swallow yet there are people who do it all the time. But I know you are not one of those right ! Either way it does not matter for the ones that know we know for sure. That's the thing a skeptic does not have to prove anything but be a skeptic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Walker Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 You act like the PGF is the only film we have of a unidentified biped, surely films like these are MORE worthy of understanding than a bunch of obvious stumps and bushes? And I'm not directing my skeptic critique at you. Here is a film that predates the PGF that was taken by a BSA leader. http://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/1962-colorado-mystery-film-footage/ I think that evidence is more in line with my position on Bigfoot than it is with yours. It looks and moves exactly like a regular person but is sincerely believed to be Bigfoot. It's not like scout leaders have never had fun by telling stories to the kids - they would be less likely to sneak out of camp unsupervised if they suspected some dangerous mysterious creature lurking in the woods... My direct encounters were nothing like the photos above. In 1972 I, my brother, and my friend were directly confronted by an adult male bigfoot. It came out of a dry wash where it had been concealed and stood directly in front of us for over 45 seconds. There was nothing between it and me but sagebrush that was shin high on the bigfoot. My friend, David was within arm's reach of it, rooted to the ground in shock looking up at it with his mouth wide open. My brother was 20 feet from it. I was thirty feet away. Middle of the afternoon, middle of August, not a cloud in the sky. I was closer to it than Patterson was to Patty. It was standing still. I was standing still. There were no shadows from any forest canopy, no trees at all within a quarter mile. And we stood there staring at each other for 45 seconds. In 1974, the pregnant female wasn't as close, maybe forty yards away across the end of a small lake. Middle of the afternoon, middle of June. Bright sunny day, but she was not in direct sunlight on the other side of the lake from me. Still, she was clearly visible and I could make out her facial features, she clearly had facial hair and her chest anatomy (I was 14 and quite impressed by its size) was visibly covered in hair. She was crouching on the edge of the bank watching me fish and she was more than ten feet from the closest tree. Not a single bit of vegetation or any other object obstructed my view. I viewed her directly for over thirty seconds before waving at her, saying "Hi" and attempting to approach her across the small dam at that end of the lake. That was when she turned carefully (she was gravid), and went straight up a deer trail that came down to where she was watching. You can't assume that all encounters are at a distance where the bigfoot is mostly concealed. I know that this assumption neatly fits your rationalizations, but this is not always the case. Memory, too, is not infallible. It does not work like a video recording where you can go back and faithfully review what happened unchanged for ever more. Memory is a creative process that can be greatly influenced by external events and images. We are often unaware at how much particular memories have been altered over time because often all we have to compare them with are those very same creatively reconstructed memories. That is why it is important to write down the details of any significant event as soon as possible... preferably within 24 hours... Your sightings happened over 40 years ago. When did you get around to documenting these sightings in writing? I'd be interested to read your original thoughts on these... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts