How widely do you share findings?

[norseman]

It's easy to become cynical. But we must remember that without content? This forum dies.....

 

Its a Bigfoot forum, so yah....some of the content Is going to be beyond the pale. We should expect that. And we have taken measures to contain much of it.

 

But if people take it on faith Bigfoot builds stick structures? And they wanna talk about it? So be it. It's what the BFF is here for. It's not worm holes or telekinesis.....right? Apes do play with sticks right?

 

I think it's important we strike a balance here and respect others POV's to our best ability, which can be hard at times and at that point the ignore feature is your best friend.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Sharing experiences, and analyzing those experiences is largely what this forum is designed and maintained for. Two of the biggest obstacles that block progression in these online discussions are:

 

1. Fake researchers fabricating their experiences, and

2. Individuals in denial, who aren't capable of properly handling the subject matter

 

Together, they often outnumber honest and reasonable individuals within discussions, but the good thing is that there's still a great deal of info that can be used to gain insight into the actual phenomenon that we're supposed to be dealing with.

 

 

 

 

 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

20 hours ago, Martin said:

People sharing wood knocks, stick teepees and random animal noises have bigfoot living within minutes of just about everyone in the USA. Many people don't even have to leave their back porch.

 

Research is supposed to narrow down possibilities and hone in "successful" techniques. Bigfoot "research" expands the bigfootery infinitely.

 

Just what kind of "findings" are being shared?

 

 

You already described it quite well. 

There is nothing new to report. Same old same 

 

[ioyza]

12 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

1. Fake researchers fabricating their experiences

 

 

 

 

 

Do you really think there are that many of those here? Or any, for that matter? If so, what is your litmus test for those folks, how can you tell?

 

And PG, I think the value in sharing the "same old" stuff is twofold: they are data points that at the bare minimum have a time and location associated with them, which helps others know when and where to look; and if you look carefully at the contextual minutiae, you often find details that are NOT the same old stuff. If you'll indulge me in an analogy, I sometimes feel like there's one group of us studying slides under a microscope, and another group watching with beers and arms crossed saying "Yep another piece of glass with some gunk on it, same old."

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I somewhat agree with the data points and the analogy . I do like the reports. The same old same comes from this is obviously not working to prove the existence of the creature.  A more  scientific approach with government backed expeditions and research seems more plausible for the increased chances of discovery if the creature exists.