hiflier Posted July 23, 2016 Posted July 23, 2016 Plussed you for the post Cisco. This is only my opinion but something is fishy here. It's about athe number of reports that has come in say in the last ten years or so. In case you or anyone else in interested in the "phenomenon" of the increase in reports my take is that they are being fabricated to generate interest in the subject and keep folks (believers) on the hook so to speak. I find it more than coincidental that the increase parallels the finding Bigfoot series on Animal Planet.. And NO I do NOT think it's because more folks are watching for the creature when they go into the out of doors. What I mean is that yes more folks ARE probably watching for the animal but it doesn't mean they are actually seeing them. I think that the Finding Bigfoot has created a "safe" atmosphere in which to submit fake reports. Why? I think it creates what would amount to a positive feedback loop when thr number of reports get padded by fabricated ones. There may indeed be sightings but many come in as anonymous. The UFO scene is up to their necks in thousands of reports submitted anonymously and the Bigfoot scene is following suit. The result is that it fattens up the subject for nice profits. I and most other members KNOW FOR A FACT that a long time acquaintance of the head of the BFRO (Finding Bigfoot) as well as the head of the Pennsylvania Bigfoot Society was a top Bigfoot organizer who lied about his own personal encounter. That being the case what's to stop anyone from bulking up the recent report pile with hundreds of "new reports" that are anything but true? I've suspected this for some time now though I cannot prove any of it. It just seems fishy that's all. I just DO NOT trust that what we are reading lately are true reports. If that was the case we'd be mowing these creatures down on the highway every day like Moose. My last comment is about Bigfoot itself. If it's such an amazing creature why has it been shoved onto a TV channel called "ANIMAL Planet. If it is truly a creature that is more Human than ape then being pigeonholed onto Animal Planet sends the wrong message to the public at large. All of this is my own opinion. Just lobbing my two rocks into the camp so to speak.
FarArcher Posted July 23, 2016 Posted July 23, 2016 (edited) On 6/28/2016 at 10:14 AM, Crowlogic said: If bigfoot were real this paragraph would never have needed to be written. "I do not think that the data we have at the moment – this includes tracks, hairs, vocalisations, photos, and the innumerable eyewitness accounts – provides support for the contention that Bigfoot is real, and have come to the conclusion that it is a sociocultural phenomenon: that people are seeing all manner of different things, combining it with ideas, memes and preconceptions they hold in their minds, and interpreting them as encounters with a monstrous, human-like biped." The problem with this guy's argument that "it is a sociocultural phenomenon" is that cultures separated by continents and millennia seem to all be having the same "sociocultural phenomenon." I wish he'd have been with me a while back. He'd have soiled himself from a "sociocultural phenomenon." Edited July 23, 2016 by FarArcher 4
Incorrigible1 Posted July 23, 2016 Author Posted July 23, 2016 Cameras seem to ward off the soiling oneself phenomenon. Let me guess: Worked in your instance, too.
guyzonthropus Posted July 23, 2016 Posted July 23, 2016 MIB- I would have +'d your "two rocks" reference but I'm out for the day! Would that make the person throwing them a "two rock lobster"?
hiflier Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 MIB? LOL! Anyway, YES, a two rock lobster sounds about right
Guest magnum peditum Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 Cisco, your post articulates much of my thoughts on the issue.
guyzonthropus Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 Doh! Guess I got too involved with the joke to not make one of myself! Sorry about that!
JDL Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 Apologies if this has already been posted..... We have, in the past, discussed bigfoot physiology based on witness accounts. One of the arguments for bigfoot is that we witnesses describe a creature that is physiologically consistent with what one would come up with if one were to describe a niche and a set of capabilities, then engineer a creature with those capabilities to fit that niche. For example, we have discussed why bigfoot have so much neck musculature that they appear not to have a neck. My argument on this count has been that during male mating competition, a bigfoot neck is a vulnerable point against the incredible strength of a bigfoot rival. Having a strong, muscular neck keeps your rival, Og, from twisting your head off and taking your girl. In this article, scientists have engineered a human to withstand the forces one experiences in a violent situation, an automobile crash. Subtitute a bigfoot skull for the human one in this model and the neck muscles are proportional for a bigfoot. Found it interesting. http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/07/21/scientists-design-car-crash-proof-human/
ShadowBorn Posted July 24, 2016 Moderator Posted July 24, 2016 Quote My last comment is about Bigfoot itself. If it's such an amazing creature why has it been shoved onto a TV channel called "ANIMAL Planet. If it is truly a creature that is more Human than ape then being pigeonholed onto Animal Planet sends the wrong message to the public at large. Just because it has been placed on animal planet does not make it and animal nor does it make a man either. Hence "creature" since this best describes what it could be. Again Incorrigible1 has chosen a title for this thread that reads " if Bigfoot were real " . Which has nothing to do about the title but has everything to do with an article that was written in a science blog. It does not matter if bigfoot is real or not and why should it matter. Until there is a body on a slab then that's is when it should matter when it is real. Until then it is all opinions and we all know how that goes. Opinions are a dime a dozen and we all have them. Proof comes from action and action alone and I sure as heck am not one to soil my self when confronted with them. But as INC1 says " carry on " with your opinions just as I do.
Incorrigible1 Posted July 24, 2016 Author Posted July 24, 2016 27 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said: Again Incorrigible1 has chosen a title for this thread that reads " if Bigfoot were real " . Really? Amazing that I would choose a thread title that was precisely the thread title from the quoted magazine article. Maye it was telepathy.
ShadowBorn Posted July 24, 2016 Moderator Posted July 24, 2016 (edited) You know Incorrigible I do not have a problem of being wrong with how the you posted this title of this thread. But there is a problem with the acceptance of telepathy that you your self has brought up on this thread that does have to do with these creatures. Telepathy is an issue with them and if you do not want to accept this well then I am ok with that . I cannot read your mind and there is no way I can prove this since us humans do not have these capabilities. But there must be a reason why people keep seeing these creatures and yet no creature laying on a slab. I personally cannot accept the theory that they do not exist since I have personally seen them with my own two eyes. So I cannot deny their existences and nor can those who have seen them as well. You have every right to accept that they do not exist and I am not denying you of that right. My acceptance comes from what I have witnessed and have experienced. It is up to you to make your own judgment not mine. My argument is that the article mocks those with PHD's who have placed hours of study on this creature and have come to grips with a living entity. These people with PHD's who have put countless field work of understanding of the truth. ( Now notice on how I have stayed away from the issue of telepathy except for now. It seems that the power to be do not want to hear about it. Maybe it is not a comfortable subject or a bit scary. But if people are actively hunting them could this be a reason why they have not been able to capture one or even killed one. ) I have no quarrels with you Incorrigible not what so ever. Peace out. Edited July 24, 2016 by ShadowBorn 1
Lake County Bigfooot Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) What is interesting about eyewitness reports, is that on the whole, their is little correlation as to the type of individuals making the reports, excepting perhaps they live or commute near forested areas, and otherwise vary in age, social environment, vocational backgrounds, and outdoor awareness. If you want to de-bunk eyewitness reports, you have two choices, firstly they misidentified the creature. Well that is certainly bound to be the case in some instances, but the level of description of many of the reports defies that possibility. Then you couple the commonality of those descriptions and the geographic commonalities, you have a whole lot more to discount. That leaves a whole lot of eyewitness reports without some other explanation sitting in your lap. The logical conclusion is to admit they are seeing something uncommon, because many are experienced in the outdoors and readily able to identify common creatures. You see it is not at all easy to just toss out the eyewitness reports. While you might be able to toss out some percentage, there still remains a convincing body of reports that cannot be simply discounted, to surmise that this is some type of sociological phenomena is ludicrous, if that were the case the geographical data would not be so correlated to the rainfall and forested areas of the country, it would be more dispersed, it is not a sociological phenomena but rather a geographical phenomena as plotting reports will show you rather quickly, but some will argue that people is such geographical areas are predisposed to such beliefs, that would work if all the people reporting these sightings were residing in such areas, but many reports come from individuals visiting such areas from other areas of the country with no predisposition, that is not adequate enough to discount the reports either. Edited July 25, 2016 by Lake County Bigfooot 1
Lake County Bigfooot Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) With that being said, we are left to look at the physical evidence in the form of video, photos, and footprints or handprints. This is a whole lot easier to weed out, many prove to be hoaxed and can easily be distinguished from non-hoaxed instances. For example the PG film, while suspicious on the basis of who was involved, it has yet to be proven a hoax, regardless of arguments to the contrary, so an open minded individual has to account for the possibility of such a creature. Foot print finds that show anatomical morphing as the foot is interacting with the soil, as was the case when Meldrum went to visit Paul Freeman and was taken to a track way, could anyone have been more disposed to judge the possibility of hoaxing those tracks than Meldrum, and this is what he sites as a turning point in his belief in the creatures existence. I could throw out those two instances and produce another 20 similar points of evidence, ones very hard to debunk, and that corroborate the eyewitness reports. But the list is far greater and the body of evidence is growing by the day, so to disprove the creatures existence, one has to disprove a great amount of substantial evidence suggesting they indeed exist. While I understand the skepticism of individuals, I still deem it more logical to be open minded to their existence, rather they say they do not exist, simply because we have not proven they exist. Edited July 25, 2016 by Lake County Bigfooot 1
Incorrigible1 Posted July 25, 2016 Author Posted July 25, 2016 Good stuff, LCB. And yet there's that nagging issue with zilch in the way of fossil evidence, physical remains, or that body on a slab. A perplexing conundrum.
hiflier Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) It IS good stuff- BY BOTH OF YOU! The dilemma rests in somehow correlating or arriving at some consensus that doesn't lie in one extreme or the other if it's at all possible. For some on both sides there is a severity that creates a perpetual loggerhead. Yes Inc1 everything you mentioned is true. But LCB has brought up several fine points as well. Is there a solution? A meeting of the minds so to speak? Probably not but defining the points of discussion is always a good thing as it keeps clarified what should be targeted in the pursuit of an answer of some kind. That answer is as evasive as the possibility of the creature's existence is. AND it's as evasive as the proof that it's non-existence is. An answer that can only be resolved in the field with NO help from official sources. And the field isn't without resources it simply needs to be funded properly which means only funding those who have shown some progress in the way the subject is being investigated. It's not something where support goes to the field simply because someone is in the field. There must be some good focus or type of approach that is beyond what could be called "Bigfoot Mainstream". That takes creativity and a careful analysis of ALL data. A strong idea in how to approach the field when investigating cannot be overlooked and even though older accounts paint the picture it is the CURRENT status of the habitat in all aspects that must be better understood. And that takes some doing but there are those here in the membership that are quite capable of offering different approaches to the problem. In the meantime the discussions continue without a finding but in a way we try top keep each other honest in those discussions. And that again, is a good thing. Edited July 25, 2016 by hiflier
Recommended Posts