Sasquatchery Grouping

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

I'm in the group that believes that no animal 50 years after the watershed film introduces a logical conundrum.

There should almost certainly have been a discovery by now if it was real, but there hasn't and that, to me defies predictive logic.

Yet I assume the film is real for very good reasons, events have the ring of truth or they don't and I am satisfied that this was the real thing.

 

This conundrum cannot be explained by any available logic, and that makes it interesting.

 

The dynamic tension between two irreconcilable opposites.

 

I think all humans interested in the subject, for the rest of eternity, will drop dead waiting for the other shoe to drop...

 

So it becomes a zen koan.

 

The logical mind must stop and an intuitive flash or truth realization must occur.

 

As for Gigantor, ask and you shall receive...

 

You asked so the answer's on it's way

 

So I guess Bigfoot is a stand in for the almighty until we grasp the fundamental challenge of consciousness.

 

And that's my group, if you figure it out...

 

 

Edited September 19, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[Guest giantman]

2 hours ago, Yuchi1 said:

I am in no way insecure about these beings and not antagonistic toward skeptics/skofftics as you shouldn't hate people because of their ignorance and lack of applied experience. I do get to a degree of frustration with those parroting the same echo chamber platitudes as they only focus the light on their own irrelevance.

 

The sin lies not in being ignorant rather, in being content with staying ignorant.

I am new here and dont have direct experience with Bigfoot- I do have what I think are POSSIBLE encounters though.  I do have certain knowledge about a different but similar subject akin to Bigfoot.  I no longer feel frustrated by people who dont have experience and who do not believe.  Honestly how can I blame them if they do not have direct experience?  If someone cannot take my word for something then conversation that is interesting to me is somewhat limited.  Debate about the existence of something I know is real but cannot prove is real is absolutely not interesting at all.  How could it be?

 

I dont care at all if the scientific community discovers these kinds of things and wont be waiting on them to do so before I explore as fully as I can.  It is easy to detach from that community and needing them to understand or know something as yet unproven.  It's a little harder when it is someone you know and care about that cannot take you at your word-- but still totally doable.

 

For me live and let live is the motto to follow in these instances.  I cannot afford to be invested in someone else seeing things the way I do or else I am just asking for disappointment.   I still do get invested sometimes and it never leads me anywhere good.

[Yuchi1]

Gigantor,

 

First, cease being a wisearse and then get out from behind your computer and into the field.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Yuchi1

[ShadowBorn]

Sometimes being a part of a group is good when you are in the field a lot. It helps to keep the hoaxing down or maybe keep the hoaxing up. I come here to the BFF for one reason and one reason. The BFF does not take no crap and does get to the truth because of people like us who love this subject. I do remember when there were little groupings of people that would pounce on you. Sure that was not fare , but it was a gauntlet that one had to pass through since encounters require proof.

 

[norseman]

17 hours ago, Yuchi1 said:

Gigantor,

 

First, cease being a wisearse and then get out from behind your computer and into the field.

 

He already does that, and does a dang nice job of documenting it as well I think.

 

His research section is full of photos, video and audio from the field.

 

And let's not forget his tireless work with the SSR, as well as the BFF.

 

Gigantor is one of the most important unsung person this subject has.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2016 by norseman

[Yuchi1]

^^^ IMO, no need for you to be his apologist.

 

If he (Gigantor) had a personal encounter, I seriously doubt his referenced post would have even been generated as (from that point forward) he would have truly understood.

[Twist]

If you claim gigantor needs to get in the field and Norseman claims that he is in fact in the field and documenting it, how is that being an apologist ?

 

But now he needs a sighting ?

 

[norseman]

I'm just stating facts...your statement that he should get out into field and away from his computer is a low blow.

 

Here. You can peruse his work to your heart's content.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/forum/137-west-virginia-trail-cam-project/

 

 

Edited September 20, 2016 by norseman

[Guest DWA]

This appears to miss the category "people who have been intrigued by the evidence; examined it; and come to a sound conclusion as to what it represents."

 

Krantz, Meldrum, Bindernagel, Mionczynski and DWA, among others, tend to fall into that category.

 

One fatal flaw, in my experience, tends to apply to the other categories listed in the OP:  they tend to dismiss, outright, the observations of the vast majority of people who have had encounters.

Edited September 20, 2016 by DWA

[Yuchi1]

On ‎9‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 11:13 PM, gigantor said:

^^^ I don't want to be ignorant, please tell me how I can be enlightened. What should I do to overcome my ignorance.

 

I'm willing to overcome it, please help me!

 

 

IMO, Wisenheimer post.

 

My response(s) were precipitated to that direction.

 

He needs a personal encounter to overcome his (admitted) skepticism.

 

I'm not denigrating his research rather, commented of the futility (aka: results) of such and suggesting a new approach might be in order.

 

Same could be applicable for Norseman's efforts.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Yuchi1
sentence structure

[Old Dog]

14 minutes ago, Yuchi1 said:

 

IMO, Wisenheimer post.

 

My response(s) were precipitated to that direction.

 

He needs a personal encounter to overcome his (admitted) skepticism.

 

I'm not denigrating his research rather, commented of the futility (aka: results) of such and suggesting a new approach might be in order.

 

Same could be applicable for Norseman's efforts.

 

You do not appear to have a very finely tuned sarcasm meter.

[norseman]

 

 

Yuchi? You do realize that your the elitist jerk you rail on about? I don't care if you make fun of me but Gigantor does not deserve your wrath. Nor is he a incompetent desk jockey.

 

Praise him for being a skeptic who rolls up his shirt sleeves and helps this community out daily! He could be over at the JREF cracking jokes at our expense instead....

 

 

[Guest DWA]

On ‎9‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 0:26 AM, Cryptic Megafauna said:

I'm in the group that believes that no animal 50 years after the watershed film introduces a logical conundrum.

There should almost certainly have been a discovery by now if it was real, but there hasn't and that, to me defies predictive logic.

Not really.  As I've asked a thousand times on various websites (at least half of those on this one):  Since P and G, who has really looked? I mean, the way scientists look for something they are confident they will find?  No field effort has been what could charitably  be called part time...and yet many of them have yielded tantalizing evidence, right in line with other evidence reported.  They just haven't brought back a specimen...and given the time devoted, count me unsurprised.  The efforts have been almost without exception sneered at by the mainstream; the result has been zero followup, again of the kind one would expect for people expecting to find something when they looked.

 

On ‎9‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 0:26 AM, Cryptic Megafauna said:

This conundrum cannot be explained by any available logic, and that makes it interesting.

 

It is precisely what I'd logically expect given the above.  Barring of course a stroke of luck no one could foresee.

 

[Yuchi1]

3 hours ago, Old Dog said:

 

You do not appear to have a very finely tuned sarcasm meter.

 

OD,

 

You could be right.

 

Mea Culpa, Gigantor.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

4 hours ago, DWA said:

 

 

It seems you need an Indian guide who can run pack horses, someone good with a video camera.

The Indian guide may be good with a gun but he may not shoot the specimen.

And a decade or two of subject matter expertise and a month or two and a few thousand dollars to spend during warmer weather and an ear to the ground for current credible sightings or footprints.

 

Does not seem the formula has been improved on from the lack of result.

 

I think cold camping upcountry for months at a time and living off the land might be the most productive but would require someone with serious recon and survival skills, resupply by bush plane every month or two.