Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Since joining this forum the likelihood that Bigfoot exists for me is getting less and less. The believers do not help this. With all the past build ups I've now read about, it amazes me that people are so quick to defend this study when there has yet to be any evidence. It would help Bigfoot proponents if they were a little bit skeptical rather than clinging on to every little statement as if this is the be all and end all in Bigfoot research. I and I am sure most Bigfoot skeptics would love Bigfoot to be real. I feel exactly the same way. The red flags on this study are numerous. Just because I am a skeptic about the Ketchup Paper does not make me a skeptic about bigfoot. And for the life of me, I can't understand why some people think there are skeptics on this forum with some type of hidden agenda or some type of malevolent goal of disproving bigfoot. It doesn't help the cause to see bigfoot in every picture of an owl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter O. Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 ^^ ditto for me about Bipedal Ape's increasing skepticism. And that stupid back photo Melissa Hovey "released" today isn't doing much for me either. If only I had the $500 bucks so BFRO could let me hear some deadfall through an audio 'scope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 There WILL be a "crow pickin", all you can eat. Bring your own bib, it's gonna be sloppy! No knives and forks allowed!! The serving platter is being loaded as I speak! LOL You'll see.-Knuck I'll say this - If you can believe some of the people that I've interviewed near my one site (near Knuck), you can believe that there's something to this BF stuff. I have had the privilege to talk with some very good people with no reason to lie... right next to my research site and within a 2 mile area. I've even found some of the folks that made BFRO reports. They swear that their stories are true. I'm not saying that this is proof of BF's existence, but I have shared cigars and good conversation with these folks. Many of them are hunters, so they have had experience with identifying animals. One person is a woman in her 80's, two witnesses - father and son - that have seen a BF-type creature and a witness that rents a house on the other side of my site... the opposite side from the father described above. Good folks, all. They may be mistaken, but they're not liars. That's where I come in. Maybe some day soon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Yes, maybe soon. That is why I really don't post that much...just awaiten' and watching. My own personal decades long search has concluded with BF not being real. But I'm on the fringes of the whole thing, hoping to be very wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) For myself, I'd probably fall more on the intrigued but skeptical side if a close family friend (whom for me is beyond reproach) had a very detailed encounter which I can not find any other explanation for (out fishing with a friend deep in Nor Cal woods, and saw a very tall, very bipeadal brown hairy creature walk across the river upstream about 20 yards from them). This raises the likelyhood for its reality for me in this sphere considerably, although still, it is not proof. Same with me. My cousin watched something through his spotting scope years ago and he is still adamant about what he saw today. He is a life long woodsman and he refuses to accept it was anything other than a Sasquatch (or someone pretending to be one). While I do not have much faith in this pending report (based of my own thoughts about the FB page and the zero interest outside the bigfoot universe), I do consider myself a skeptical believer. I've been following this mystery for a long time, and although I only recently rekindled my interest, I have noticed these buildups come and go in the past. If something does come of this, and I still think they need more than just inconclusive DNA without a known sample so compare it to, I too will be making a few calls to old friends about a little taste of crow. But not until there is absolute proof. In the meantime, I will still enjoy the backcountry and wonder what might be around the bend. I think most skeptics would welcome proof, but it is good to be skeptical about 'evidence'. Cheers Lanny Edited February 24, 2012 by summitwalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) I also know an eyewitness. He is reluctant to speak of the matter. In fact he says it ruined his life. It's hard for me to look him in the eye and call him a liar. Does that prove anything? Not really. But it makes me reluctant to throw someone's character in the fire just because proof is hard to come by. These witnesses that everyone is sure are crazy lying kooks are real people. I think its important to keep that in mind when accusing them. It is not a small thing to call a man a liar, and it should not be done without justification. Edited February 24, 2012 by exnihilo 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 You've expressed it perfectly, Exnihilo. +1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) I'm sure this has been asked on this thread already but am I the only one who reads her facebook posts and can't help but notice in her responses she all but comes out and says they are real? I wonder if you have really comprehended what DNA is and does? This woman has studied the DNA for the last 2 or 3 years. If you have DNA that is different from all other DNA, you have an animal which is different from all other animals. It is impossible to have different never-seen-before DNA and not have a "new" or undiscovered species. She really doesn't need to have seen a living sasquatch to know that it is out there and very real, as she has seen that by looking through her microscope and looking at her computer screen. To those who have watched "these build-ups come and go in the past" I ask this. Has science ever taken the subject so seriously before? Mike Edited February 24, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Why is this of any importance Ray? They have made a choice to hang on to everything until publication day. Is that a big deal? Then they appoint a spokesperson so that they're ready to cope with the torrents of requests for information that they'll get. Is that a big deal? They answer what questions they feel they can in terms of their own decision not to release any of the contents of the report prior to publication. Again, is this a big deal? I really don't understand the importance of this line of questioning which you pursue so rigourously. Mike Simple...he knows it generates a lot of doubt and he doesn't have to back anyting up by chasing it. The more times the Skeptics get the "something's wrong here" meme out there, the more likely it is to stick in the collective minds of the readership so that when the results DO come out, they will have a Pavlovian "something's wrong here" response. Yeah, and the danger there is that by the time the study is finally released, those with that attitude will have thrown so much mud and leaning questions that the study will already be tainted for them and others, who won't be able to meet it on its own terms. This. Says. It. ALL. I'm 100% with Bill on this. If this paper contains what it's lead author claims it contains, this is going to the first item on the National News, I seriously doubt that. Oh, it'll get mentioned, but we have 8+ million people unemployed, gov't debt that is eating us alive, etc. Far far more important than a monkey in the woods. Edited February 24, 2012 by See-Te-Cah NC To remove political content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 When David Attenborough says they are real then I will believe it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Not sure if this was already mentioned - re David Attenborough and at least his thoughts on the Yeti : http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/yeti_evidence_is__convincing__.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Hopefully he will take an interest then if this report comes out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I wonder if you have really comprehended what DNA is and does? This woman has studied the DNA for the last 2 or 3 years. If you have DNA that is different from all other DNA, you have an animal which is different from all other animals. It is impossible to have different never-seen-before DNA and not have a "new" or undiscovered species. She really doesn't need to have seen a living sasquatch to know that it is out there and very real, as she has seen that by looking through her microscope and looking at her computer screen. To those who have watched "these build-ups come and go in the past" I ask this. Has science ever taken the subject so seriously before? Mike Yes I do comprehend what dna is and does, thats why I am so excited! I have an account on facebook to keep track of family and friends but honestly never hardly get on there so I had not seen the Dr's facebook page untill recently so I wasn't aware of what was on it. I guess I was under the impression the when the results were released we would find out what her findings were weather positive or negative, because of the NDA. I know the results are out yet but just the fact that she has written what she has and claimed to have seen one herself renews my waining interest in her study. To be honest with all the waiting I had for the most part lost interest and figured that maybe it will be released, maybe it won't. With her postings about the nonproffit being set up and Sally posting warnings about the copyright on the actuall paper I can't help but get excited again. Your totally correct about science not taking studies on sas very seriously untill now. I really hope this is the proof that so many have been waiting on for such a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Did anyone notice on the Facebook page that Sally mentioned the Smithsonian? Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 These witnesses that everyone is sure are crazy lying kooks are real people. I'm glad to see that it's situation normal for the BFF - many "pluses" for this blatant strawman statement. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts