Merged Bigfoot follies

[Resume]

No, that wasn't me. I've never had one there but I know of several that have. Hoping to when I get out there in September

Well, there's no footie in the Chequamegon. I've checked the Cheq and it's a no go. Of course there's bear, whitetail, elk, some moose, bobcat, snowshoe hare, pine marten, wolves, barred owl, turkey, rufffed grouse . . . all kinds of stuff that never tossed a Good-n-Plenty. Or a pig.

I'll be there again in a couple weeks and I'll look around, but I'm afraid it's a footie-free zone.

BTW: The million plus acres of the Cheq/Nicolet are almost entirely second-growth (not unlike your imagined wilderness in Minnesota) which means every inch of those millions had those imfamous boots on the ground. Again, where be Footie?

 

[Northern Lights]

Excellent. Playing the victim. By using a false framing.

The choices were basically being a loon or being a liar. He's ruled them innocent of being a loon until proven otherwise. But with the magic of manipulative rhetoric you framed it as innocence or guilt of a criminal charge.

That's the skill in BLAARGing, and why I object to it as something to pass on to children: it is a toolbag of dirty tricks.

Remember how you've defended yourself because you have been "polite". Well, no - this is not polite at all. It's cunning, yeah - and subtle. But polite? lol.

Gawd, this is getting really old. Okay, I get it, I'm a bad person, bad parent, and all around awful citizen. Am I playing the victim card correctly, or not polite enough, which is actually being cunning, so again, bad manipulative NL.

You've basically taken everything I've posted and spun it so I'm persona non grata. Well, guess what? I'm not going anywhere, and I honestly couldn't care less about your personal views toward me, so go right ahead, flame away. I haven't reported your posts, nor will I put you on ignore because you do have good insight on many things and do want to continue reading them.

I'm just here to talk about Sasquatch and hear opinions and critiques on things I've experienced. If you want to dive deeper into the psychology of what I do and need me as a test subject, then I'm more than willing to participate. I have, and always will be, truthful in every aspect of what I post. I will continue to do my best to document and gather evidence and have no issue offering it up for scrutiny.

I do have more experiences which I haven't posted, but will do so in the future. Stay tuned to this bat channel. Take care.
NL

 

[Drewbot]

Northern Lights, did you read the History Logging in Northern Minnesota that I posted?

Do you want to restate your description of the second or third growth forest that you are planning your expeditions in?

Or do you just want to let that become part of the New History Of Logging in Northern Minnesota- Bigfoot Revision

Here is the link again. http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/voya/logging_era.pdf

 

[Northern Lights]

Drewbot-I've only read a small piece but intend to read the whole thing and will be back to you. Thanks

 

[Correa Neto]

Well, bigfoots are smart, mobile and logging has not happened everywhere at the same time. When they were logging here, bigfoots moved to there. When they started deforestation there, bigfoots moved to over there. When logging started over there, trees had already started to grow back here and bigfoots returned.

Since there were no Zagnut bars back then, bigfoots had little if any interests in logging camps other than occasionally stealing a bean can. Little interaction with humans means few changes of one being killed.

See? Explained.

Now, for a small fee you can attend my bigfoot lectures and field trips. You WILL experience activity and see evidence first hand (or foot)! Maybe even you'll have a sighting of your own! Sure, no skeptics will attend. They are afraid of the truth which is out there.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

You've basically taken everything I've posted and spun it

Let's be exacting instead of accusing without the evidence in front of us.

We are discussing the choice between a bigfoot whopper being told by someone being a kook vs. telling a tall tale.

The tall tale default was spun by YOU into this "guilty until proven innocent" canard.

"Everything" and "Always" are defense mechanisms used by children. For example if you scold them for taking cookies the defense is "you always criticize everything I do". Which is an attempt to change the subject from cookie-theft happening before our eyes by the perpetrator to the parent needing to defend themselves. The diversion tactic.

Gawd, this is getting really old. Okay, I get it, I'm a bad person, bad parent, and all around awful citizen. Am I playing the victim card correctly, or not polite enough, which is actually being cunning, so again, bad manipulative NL. so I'm persona non grata.

Right. Keep playing that victim card as opposed to dealing with the specifics of whether in this exact instance you were being manipulative. Changing "Kook vs. tall- tale-teller" to "assumed guilty before proven innocent"

Care to actually address that instead of hand-waving generalities? It's a central question to this subject - whether you are BLAARGing or delusional.

Well, guess what? I'm not going anywhere, and I honestly couldn't care less about your personal views toward me, so go right ahead, flame away. I haven't reported your posts, nor will I put you on ignore because you do have good insight on many things and do want to continue reading them.

I'm just here to talk about Sasquatch and hear opinions and critiques on things I've experienced. If you want to dive deeper into the psychology of what I do and need me as a test subject, then I'm more than willing to participate. I have, and always will be, truthful in every aspect of what I post. I will continue to do my best to document and gather evidence and have no issue offering it up for scrutiny.

I do have more experiences which I haven't posted, but will do so in the future. Stay tuned to this bat channel. Take care.
NL

Blah blah blah. Another way to measure this is number of words spent on the subject vs. number of words on the extraneous. Mathematically, if we try to form the ratio of Extraneous-to-relevant, we would be dividing by zero so technically it is undefined although in the limit it approaches infinity.

This is science. A noise-to-subject ratio of infinity is important evidence.

 

[Pterodactyl]

Not to take attention away from the guy who claims to "always be truthful in every aspect" of what he posts after claiming to believe a bigfoot threw a Good'NPlenty at someone in his campfire circle (when obviously no sane person would believe this), but I want to get back to the whole LARPing aspect of this.

If we're to the point of labeling anyone who actively participates in bigfootery and claims belief as a liar, don't we owe the same treatment to the other woo's (aliens, ghosts, dowsing, etc)? What sets bigfooters apart?

Don't get me wrong, I think plenty of folks are just playing along. It's a good point. I'm just not so sure belief in bigfoot is really any different from other paranormal beliefs. Taken to its logical conclusion, shouldn't we just be saying that anyone who doesn't self-identify as a stone cold rationalist and skeptic is a liar?

 

[Resume]

You make it sound like every living creature and every piece of timber was eradicated from the entire state. The way you make is sound, Minnesota was basically equivalent to the moon, when in fact there were a total of 6000 people in the entire state in the 1850's. It's a pretty big state.

Yeah, I had to revisit this reply because something about it bugged me and now I know what it is.

When you say 6000 people, you don't seem to be including the Ojibwe and Dakota Sioux, of which there were considerably more than 6000

Ojibwe
Lake Superior 500 (1850)
Saint Croix 800 (1850)
Mississippi 1100 (1850)
Pillagers 1050 (1850)
Northern/Red Lake 1200 (1850)
Bois Forts 800 (1850)
Dakota Sioux
Mdewakanton 2200 (1849)
Wahpekute 800 (1849)
Wahpetonwan 1500 (1849)
Sisseton 3800 (1849)
Yankton 3200 (1849)
Yanktonai 4000 (1849)
Teton 6000 (1849)
Others
Winnebago (Ho-Chunk) 2500 (1849)
Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara 2253 (1853

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_era_of_Minnesota

These were people too, right NL?

None of whom, it should be noted, had a single bigfoot robe or rug in their lodges.

 

[The Shrike]

NL, if you desire to be taken seriously, you'll need to make a better attempt at rational thought. Now your thermal bigfoot is something we can't really address: it could just be you telling a tall tale or you could have actually seen something (e.g., a human) on a thermal that you are convinced was a bigfoot. The Good & Plenty thing though, come on. Do you seriously think that the best explanation for that event (if it happened at all) was that a bigfoot 1) existed, 2) stalked your camp, 3) found the Good & Plenty, 4) carried it around for a few hours, 5) threw it at the dude who dropped it?

If you find that explanation more plausible than that the guy who found it dropped it himself (whether intentionally or unintentionally) then you're either willfully selecting the less plausible explanation because it's what you want to believe or you're suffering from some deficiency in recognizing the vast plausibility gulf between those two explanations.

 

[William Parcher]

If we're to the point of labeling anyone who actively participates in bigfootery and claims belief as a liar, don't we owe the same treatment to the other woo's (aliens, ghosts, dowsing, etc)? What sets bigfooters apart?

Don't get me wrong, I think plenty of folks are just playing along. It's a good point. I'm just not so sure belief in bigfoot is really any different from other paranormal beliefs. Taken to its logical conclusion, shouldn't we just be saying that anyone who doesn't self-identify as a stone cold rationalist and skeptic is a liar?

Personally, I don't pay very much attention to other forms of woo. But they do all seem to have dishonest people in the mix.

I don't claim that all Bigfooters are liars as it only seems that most are. I think that the most common lie in Bigfootery is about personal belief followed by personal encounters...

Most common lie: "I believe that Bigfoot exists" and "I believe that Bigfoot probably exists" and "I know that Bigfoot exists". The person doesn't actually believe but instead they pretend to believe.

Second most common lie: "I saw a Bigfoot". The person didn't see a Bigfoot and knows that they didn't see a Bigfoot but they pretend that they did see a Bigfoot.

Putting that aside, I think that some do genuinely believe in Bigfoot and some do genuinely believe that they saw a Bigfoot. Those people are in the minority, IMO.

There may be other genres of paranormal woo that have higher percentages of genuine belief but I just don't pay enough attention to speak of them. One thing that may "set Bigfooters apart" from other woo is that Bigfoot is a physical flesh-and-blood Earth animal which must be more obtainable than something that is ephemeral, transitory or from another galaxy. IMO, it's certainly different to say that "I believe that there are alien civilizations" than it is to say that "I believe that Bigfoot lives in Ohio".

 

[William Parcher]

We have submitted previous recordings to wolf experts (not Mech),

What are their credentials?

and their response was (and I'm paraphrasing); it doesn't sound like a wolf, but since there isn't anything else out there that makes those type of calls, it must be a wolf, just doesn't sound like one.

Was the word "Bigfoot" used at all in your inquiry or communication with the wolf experts?

Regarding the 2012 recordings, they will be featured in a new show along with expert analysis. I will keep you posted on when it airs.

The question "what is making that sound?" cannot be properly examined out of context. IMO, you must include the information that "we were Bigfooters out in the woods looking for Bigfoot" when you make the general inquiry. You are in a position to take advantage of scientists and apply confirmation bias to their answers. The reason is because scientists are going to automatically treat the audio evidence as being presented in good faith and without questionable circumstances. The realm of Bigfootery opens a door to hoaxing and lies and they won't be able to give a good answer is they are deprived of that context.

IOW, of course it doesn't sound like a wolf or any other Minnesota animal. But it does sound like a guy trying to sound like a Bigfoot. A scientist doesn't generally include Bigfoot Hoaxer in his list of native Minnesota creatures.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...

If we're to the point of labeling anyone who actively participates in bigfootery and claims belief as a liar, don't we owe the same treatment to the other woo's (aliens, ghosts, dowsing, etc)? What sets bigfooters apart?

...snip...

Woos (religious folks included) are a mixed bunch. Cultural indoctrination, lies, delusion, hoaxes, ignorance and the-IPU-only-knows-what-else-and-at-which-grades are the things that build the public of any woo belief or fringe subject if you will.

Bigfootery is no different. Personally I suspect the higher the person is at bigfootery hierarchy and/or the higher the person wants to climb it, the higher are the odds of not actually believing.

Same with other woos.

They are only in it for the money and attention.

 

[Pterodactyl]

Parcher, Neto,

Thanks for the thoughts. I'm basically on the same page. Since joining this forum I've been somewhat surprised to see the entire phenomenon reduced to a single, uninteresting explanation that ignores the nuance that initially captivated me. That means it's probably true, but I really am fascinated with the crazy folks, scammers, hoaxers, history of the whole thing. I prefer to believe that it's as much about crazy as it is about lies, I guess.

 

[carlitos]

.... your thermal bigfoot.....

...is a good band name. Unlike "your lie," "your make-believe story," or "dude standing on a thing."

I was reading about how hunters use FLIR and they can see and record great detail, like the eyes of rabbits and birds. It's too bad that bigfeets prevent people from using the record function on these devices.

 

[Resume]

Parcher, Neto,

Thanks for the thoughts. I'm basically on the same page. Since joining this forum I've been somewhat surprised to see the entire phenomenon reduced to a single, uninteresting explanation that ignores the nuance that initially captivated me. That means it's probably true, but I really am fascinated with the crazy folks, scammers, hoaxers, history of the whole thing. I prefer to believe that it's as much about crazy as it is about lies, I guess.

The thing is, it's not (in most cases) crazy but simply childish. To actually believe in bigfoot requires a childlike suspension of disbelief, a lack of moral seriousness and a willingness to twist, and ultimately abandon science in an effort to make a big ape appear where it isn't and hasn't ever been.

Mostly, they're just making it up.

 

[tsig]

...is a good band name. Unlike "your lie," "your make-believe story," or "dude standing on a thing."

I was reading about how hunters use FLIR and they can see and record great detail, like the eyes of rabbits and birds. It's too bad that bigfeets prevent people from using the record function on these devices.

From the very beginning footers have been plagued with bad luck and technical incompetence, what are the odds that on a trip to find bigfoot you'd only see big foot when you have a few seconds of film let in the camera?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I do bring Snickers, but those are for me. In my experience, baiting has not been successful so I don't do it.

You should leave him some British chocolate, might I suggest a Fruit 'n' Nut Dairy Milk? That'd blow his mind. How does Bigfoot unwrap a chocolate bar, anyway?

 

[desertyeti]

Wispa bars. They rock.

 

[Drewbot]

A Good N Plenty getting tossed at your head, that's no way to die. But a Marathon Bar circa 1977, tossed at your head? that is a way to die.

 

[William Parcher]

The beauty and genius of throwing a piece of candy as a Bigfoot hoax is that nobody would accuse you of being a Bigfoot hoaxer even if you were caught in the act. I wasn't pretending to be Bigfoot I was just throwing candy for fun. You could then ridicule anyone accusing you of hoaxing because it's so absurd.