Guest Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 you don't believe in bf , so why should you believe this. and how does it contradict the story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 If they were in it for monetary gain then they wouldn't have left a million dollar Bigfoot in the woods. And yes if they actually shot a Bigfoot they would have known exactly what it was what it would be worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Right with the first half BA, but wrong with the second. They didn't have a clue what they shot, and thought they may have committed a murder.........according to the reports, anyway. Not everyone has heard of Sasquatch, and even most of those who have heard of it dismiss is as a myth. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I think hunters would have definately heard about bigfoots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted March 12, 2012 Author Share Posted March 12, 2012 ^^^^ Who says they haven't? I've heard of multiple accounts of hunters who have had encounters. Now if you are saying they aren't telling the truth or made a misidentification...well that's another discussion all together. I hunt all the time, but I've never seen a cougar....but I know they are there. My brother and I were hunting and he observed big cat tracks, reported it to the game warden, and they didn't believe him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 do a survey in america, asking have you heard of bigfoots. wait, lets narrow that survey down to just hunters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Posted Today, 11:13 AM I'm guessing the book and other goodies won't be free The point I was getting at is that the story contained in the book or "goodies" is no more or no less true based on what it may cost. Back in the day, encyclopedias cost plenty, and the information contained within them was certainly trusted and accurate. A Driver's Handbook is provided at no cost to the individul, yet it is a true synopsis of the rules and regulations of the state's roadways. I just don't see how the cost of a book is a factor. Let me ask you a question, Bipedal Ape: Why should someone not profit from an experience they've had if they have taken the time to write a book about it, or if someone wants to step forward with a business proposition and publish said manuscript? Yet somehow the fact that someone may profit from a book seems to determine whether the information it contains is true or not, or that the value of the contents are somehow diminished because it was expected to profit the author. I am aghast when I hear someone make a statement like the one quoted above. I really don't see what the problem is with someone taking monetary advantage of a situation they've experienced, nor do I understand why someone would expect to be able to obtain something someone worked hard to produce, taking literally months to compose, free of charge. That's their property. They've worked hard to make it happen, converting their experience or intellectual property into a medium to sell. Nobody has a right to benefit from another's hard work without paying a fee for it, whether it be a book, a DVD, an MP-3 download or a day's labor. Call me crazy, but I thought that's the way it has always been. I believe - regardless of cost - that the book's contents and the information within the "goodies" should be evaluated on their own merit and judged by their own validity. Cost is only meant to cloud the issue that the information may or may not be believable by those that imply their own disbelief. The information is either true or it isn't, and cost has nothing to do with it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Cost has a lot to do with it, especially when it comes to the huge history of hoaxes within bigfooting. Make up a story about bigfoot with absolutely no evidence and a whole bunch of believers will believe it and will even go out of their way to defend your story to the skeptics! Its crazy and it really is blind faith sometimes - Hang on theres money to be made here! Its no secret that there have been many hoaxers and liers when it comes to bigfooting. ...and anyway how much longer can they drag this story out to make it into a book? Well I guess the youtube interview was a nice little teaser to warm up the punters. The only money I will be spending on bigfooting is on an HD documentary about the species presented by David Attenborough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 As is your right. However, you've already formed your opinion, and you're simply using the fact that someone that's lying might profit to bolster your opinion. That's the difference here. Using your logic, every book that has ever been sold would have to be strictly non-fiction and completely verifiable insofar as the contents are concerned. The book could be based on a true event, or it could be based on a made up story. Regardless, it's up to the reader to decide, firstly by making the purchase of the "goodies" and secondly by weighing the information it contains. If it is a lie, people will figure it out and sales will plummet. If true, sales could skyrocket or it could still bomb. Sorry, I still see no basis for you to bring cost into the argument. Why are you uncomfortable letting others form their own opinions? Why do you feel that you have to promote your opinion that it is a lie before it is even published? I would think that someone would want this to be published so they can determine if it's true based on it's content, not a pre-conceived opinion that it is a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BackInAction Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) If they were in it for monetary gain then they wouldn't have left a million dollar Bigfoot in the woods. And yes if they actually shot a Bigfoot they would have known exactly what it was what it would be worth. I've been "aware" BF since a child; however, until a few weeks ago, when I starting following BF news online, I would have never, ever thought there was "money" in BF. Had I hit a BF with my car 6 months ago and watched it run off into a field and collapse, I would not have stopped to take pictures, collect the body, etc. I would have reported that I hit a deer and kept the "truth" to myself. What makes anyone think a hunter might have done the same? Only later to realize there are a bunch of crazy BF'ers in the world that might pay for the story so you write a book? That doesn't make the report any less valid. Edited March 12, 2012 by BackInAction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 this guy shot one and had a baby bigfoot in his hands, and not even a cell phone pic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I didn't say I did or didn't believe him. I just asked what charging for the book had to do with anything. I'm not in disagreement with your opinion necessarily, only that we wait for the book to come out before we make judgement regardless of what it costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 OK fair enough. For me its just another red flag but that's just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BackInAction Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 ^^^That I can agree with. However, I am not surprised they didn't take photos or a "trophy". As they have had several interviews (both live and 2nd hand) in which they claim nothing was collected during the original encounter. If the "book" claims to have "new evidence" such as photos, I would be more inclined to believe it is a hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I haven't really gotten caught up in this whole shooting thing, but I would like to offer some of my opinions really quickly. To start with, I think that discrepancies could very well arise if the shooter was attempting to alter details so that he would not be portrayed as someone who simply killed this animal for no reason. I personally do not understand how some who do not believe they are real can get upset over the killing of a non-existent creature. The ONLY travesty of this whole situation, in my opinion, is that the body itself was not recovered, or at least a large enough piece of it for later identification. I have talked before about whether it is right or wrong to shoot one of these animals, and I believe that not everyone is cut out for it, but someone should do it if certain criteria are met. If this actually happened, this person should not be scolded for pulling the trigger, because someone needed to do it, when viewing this from a purely scientific point of view. Whether or not you think this is the case, I think it is very true. The only thing he should be scolded for is not recovering the body, as I said, because the killing was in fact pointless. What can we learn from this? I say that anyone who ever finds themselves in a similar position, and wants to know if they should shoot or not, should first ask themselves if they are willing to recover it. As I said, not everyone can even pull the trigger, understandably, but if one is able to, and can get the body or parts of it out of the woods, I think they should go for it. If anything other than a body was able to conclusively prove bigfoot's existence, it would have been proven by now. Even with DNA, and no subsequent body parts, it is a coin flip imo. The only definitive proof is a body, and if the shooter would have brought one in, we wouldn't be discussing this right now. So anyone can get upset at what happened, if it indeed occurred, but until you are in that position yourself, you have no idea. And if you say that shooting one is unnecessary, I say you are failing to grasp the right understanding of the situation we are in. Once you understand that proving the animal's existence is imperative for THEIR survival, in the long run, you too will condone shooting one as soon as possible, as long as it gets recognized scientifically. Every day that the species goes undiscovered by mainstream science is another day that we are dooming bigfoot to suffering and possible extinction. How you ask? I have answered this question in other threads. Maybe I am wrong, but from an objective point of view, that is how I grasp the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts