Merged Bigfoot follies

Status
Not open for further replies.
OntarioSquatch said:
Denial in psychology : a condition in which someone will not admit that something sad, painful, etc., is true or real

You don't have to feel embarrassed about the truth to be in denial about it. A lot of people who are in denial about certain things aren't embarrassed at all, but instead subconsciously choose denial because reality is either too painful or gives them too much anxiety. It's basically a defense mechanism and it's one that's seen here in bigfoot-devoted "skeptics".
Click to expand...


Actually OS, it's a little sad that you fail to see (or you enjoy trolling the forum) that the bigfooters are the ones in denial. Literally, bigfoot does not exist. Look it up in the catalogs of taxonomy. If you still have a problem understanding, and insist that your myth is real - all real creatures leave DNA all over the place in their environments. That's how we keep up with a lot of rare animals these days without ever spotting the actual animal. If it were to be out there, its DNA would be all over the place. Please explain why in the year 2015 no bigfoot has been discovered? Yet people keep reporting sightings right? It must be real! Hilarious... because people report seeing all kinds of human constructs, or made up things all over the country in about the same distribution as bigfoot sightings! Miraculous isn't it?

Also, there is no "proof" of other human constructs existence, other than the evidence that has lead to proof of hoaxes/stories/lies. (and the other two categories I've listed) We can prove exactly what all of that claimed evidence lead to. You know as well as I do, that it lead to those three categories list. That is what the phenomenon is made up of, not a new apelike human.

Guess what, there is no vampire out there waiting on the faerie either. However, the trolls here are quite real. :cool:

Denial:
: a statement saying that something is not true or real : a statement in which someone denies something

psychology : a condition in which someone will not admit that something sad, painful, etc., is true or real

: the act of not allowing someone to have something
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
It has been well documented that the governing bodies of the forests will not let out bigfoot data. If some government scientist brings in some DNA they say "no thank you bigfoot doesn't exist do it again and you'll be serving corn dogs to senior citizens at the park if you try a stunt again".
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Denial in psychology : a condition in which someone will not admit that something sad, painful, etc., is true or real

You don't have to feel embarrassed about the truth to be in denial about it. A lot of people who are in denial about certain things aren't embarrassed at all, but instead subconsciously choose denial because reality is either too painful or gives them too much anxiety. It's basically a defense mechanism and it's one that's seen here in bigfoot-devoted "skeptics".
Click to expand...


As many, many others have told you, if Bigfoot were a real thing, that would be cool. Why on earth would a monkey living in the woods be painful or cause me anxiety?

Since you're googling psychological terms, try "projection."
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Denial in psychology : a condition in which someone will not admit that something sad, painful, etc., is true or real

You don't have to feel embarrassed about the truth to be in denial about it. A lot of people who are in denial about certain things aren't embarrassed at all, but instead subconsciously choose denial because reality is either too painful or gives them too much anxiety. It's basically a defense mechanism and it's one that's seen here in bigfoot-devoted "skeptics".
Click to expand...

There's nothing to be in denial of, no pics, body or DNA, nada.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Denial in psychology : a condition in which someone will not admit that something sad, painful, etc., is true or real

You don't have to feel embarrassed about the truth to be in denial about it. A lot of people who are in denial about certain things aren't embarrassed at all, but instead subconsciously choose denial because reality is either too painful or gives them too much anxiety. It's basically a defense mechanism and it's one that's seen here in bigfoot-devoted "skeptics".
Click to expand...

OS I only changed two words.....the first and last ;)

I don't have to feel embarrassed about the truth to be in denial about it. A lot of people who are in denial about certain things aren't embarrassed at all, but instead subconsciously choose denial because reality is either too painful or gives them too much anxiety. It's basically a defense mechanism and it's one that's seen here in bigfoot-devoted believers.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Denial in psychology : a condition in which someone will not admit that something sad, painful, etc., is true or real
Click to expand...

In order to be in denial, someone would have to not admit something personal. This doesn't apply to non-inclusive things.

For example, suppose I was a bigfoot but wouldn't admit it. That would be denial. Suppose I had a friend who was a bigfoot but I wouldn't admit it. That would be denial. Suppose I was a member of a club or organization that I strongly identified with. If they had members who were bigfoot but I wouldn't admit it that would be denial.

Many people would have a hard time admitting that rabbits pass their food twice because the idea of an animal eating its own poop doesn't fit with the image of rabbits as cute and furry. However, this fact has been well documented.

There is nothing about bigfoot that involves denial. To make this case, you would have to show me the bigfoot that I know that I'm not admitting is a bigfoot. I assume you are aware that you can't do this.

The next level would be a claim of being in denial about prejudice against bigfoot. In other words, if I were using different conditions or requirements for proof of bigfoot than I accepted for other things but didn't want to admit this then you could say that I was in denial about being anti-bigfoot. Feel free to point out any inconsistencies in evidence that I've had.
 
Maybe there are members of society who experience pain and anxiety at the thought of there not being any hairy giant apemen living in American forests.
 
William Parcher said:
Maybe there are members of society who experience pain and anxiety at the thought of there not being any hairy giant apemen living in American forests.
Click to expand...

They would probably gather in like minded forums and tell each other tales.
 
Urkelbot said:
It has been well documented that the governing bodies of the forests will not let out bigfoot data. If some government scientist brings in some DNA they say "no thank you bigfoot doesn't exist do it again and you'll be serving corn dogs to senior citizens at the park if you try a stunt again".
Click to expand...

I would love to know your definition of "well documented". lol
 
Urkelbot said:
It has been well documented that the governing bodies of the forests will not let out bigfoot data. If some government scientist brings in some DNA they say "no thank you bigfoot doesn't exist do it again and you'll be serving corn dogs to senior citizens at the park if you try a stunt again".
Click to expand...

Those aren't corn dogs.
 
Urkelbot said:
It has been well documented that the governing bodies of the forests will not let out bigfoot data. If some government scientist brings in some DNA they say "no thank you bigfoot doesn't exist do it again and you'll be serving corn dogs to senior citizens at the park if you try a stunt again".
Click to expand...

Translated:

We have no evidence for Bigfoot because there is a conspiracy to suppress the evidence and the evidence for the conspiracy is that we have no evidence for Bigfoot.
 
I would expect that if a government were going to be nefariously conspiratorial that it would claim the existence of a creature (incorrectly) rather than claim the non existence of a creature (incorrectly). This is primarily because it is too easy for the citizenry to show that the government is wrong by presenting a body of the creature.

It is straightforwardly simple to show the existence of a creature, but it is more complicated and potentially controversial to show the non existence of a creature.
 
Don't pretend you never heard about NSA's black helicopters with EMP weapons that can erase data from cds and dvds.
 
Cervelo said:
Actually it was great weather and a wonderful setting IMO, I found what they were doing kinda cool and charming. They obviously were familar with the trail/road and knew where they were going.
Sure it was twilight/dark....big deal... hanging out in the woods roasting some hot dogs and marshmallows on a fall evening sounds like a kids dream come true!

As I've said before Chris IMO you displayed all the hallmarks of someone who has spent little or no time in the woods. Insecure and feeling the need to carry a weapon on a pedestrian "hike" that your supposedly familar with
Extremely out of shape
Hyper-sensitive to ones surroundings
Hears things "behind us" that I didn't that just happen to be from the area of your sighting
Mistaking a tree stump for something other than a tree stump
Afraid of being in the woods after dark

Sorry to be so blunt Chris but ya kinda creeped me out and that's why I went my own way after our meeting and did my own thing the rest of the week.
You obviously believe or are pretending you've experienced something extrordinary many times in your life. It apparently compels you to conduct yourself in the manner that you do, but your behavior that day/evening and subsequent here on this forum are consistent with someone being very disingenuous IMO.
But hey you seem to enjoy it so keep bringing it and we'll keep "taking out the trash" in a manner of speaking ;)
Click to expand...

I see, well I'm fully aware of a deer when I see one, and you do not, until later. So yes, I suppose being "hyper aware" does have it's advantages.

I'm fully aware of a turkey feather when I see one, and you are not.

I'm fully aware of a deer scrape when I see one, and you seem curious about what it is and what it's used for, requiring explanation.

You seemed like a good guy cervelo but just because you go on camp outs doesn't mean you're a woodsman. Further, you are absolutely not qualified to make any determination about others until you stop making misidentifications of the most simple things in nature such as common bird feathers and learn a little more about deer hunting and deer sign. There's much more to it than seeing a few tracks and a little scat. I understand why you didn't know, I didn't make a big deal out of it. I even further explained why you had mistaken the feather for a red tail hawk, but rather than taking it with understanding, you seem offended. It's not a sin to not know something and learn, even if the learning comes from a "hillbilly" that you feel you are above.

I'm sorry to hear I "creeped you out", personally I had considered you wished to keep your movements secret while in the area as to insure no "locals" or myself would be bothering you at night with "strange or hoaxing activities" which is why I thought it was a good idea you went your own way. Whatever you experienced here, if anything, was your own.

You keep alluding to my physical condition for some reason? Yes, I am not physically active on a daily basis. I usually spend several months between trekking seasons and have much time to soften. The first 3 or 4 treks are very rough on me until I recondition myself to the physical activity again. It's the same every time so it's nothing I'm ashamed of. Perhaps you are trying to portray that I claim to be out in the woods physically active every day of the year? I do not and have not claimed that, ever.

Your push for acceptance among your peers seems to be your downfall. Making much out of nothing in some cases, or most cases depending, without looking at yourself or portraying yourself honestly. I don't have a problem with honesty. I can say that as I don't have to impress anyone here.
Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Isn't that called "Bob Heronimous Syndrone"?
Chris B.
Click to expand...
It's just disgusting what Heironimus did to the Patterson family. He knew full well that they would have absolutely no way to prove that Roger was an honest man.

What BH did is exactly what that baby monkey did to that baby pig. He not only rode it, he rode it backwards. That is some seriously sick stuff. The Patterson family can't do a damn thing about it. They are only left to hope that super good people like you will blast a Bigfoot and show that it's real instead of a beloved and traditional American myth.

Never forget that the baby monkey is still riding that baby pig. There ought to be a law with prison sentences for that kind of thing.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I see, well I'm fully aware of a deer when I see one, and you do not, until later. So yes, I suppose being "hyper aware" does have it's advantages.

I'm fully aware of a turkey feather when I see one, and you are not.

I'm fully aware of a deer scrape when I see one, and you seem curious about what it is and what it's used for, requiring explanation.

You seemed like a good guy cervelo but just because you go on camp outs doesn't mean you're a woodsman. Further, you are absolutely not qualified to make any determination about others until you stop making misidentifications of the most simple things in nature such as common bird feathers and learn a little more about deer hunting and deer sign. There's much more to it than seeing a few tracks and a little scat. I understand why you didn't know, I didn't make a big deal out of it. I even further explained why you had mistaken the feather for a red tail hawk, but rather than taking it with understanding, you seem offended. It's not a sin to not know something and learn, even if the learning comes from a "hillbilly" that you feel you are above.

I'm sorry to hear I "creeped you out", personally I had considered you wished to keep your movements secret while in the area as to insure no "locals" or myself would be bothering you at night with "strange or hoaxing activities" which is why I thought it was a good idea you went your own way. Whatever you experienced here, if anything, was your own.

You keep alluding to my physical condition for some reason? Yes, I am not physically active on a daily basis. I usually spend several months between trekking seasons and have much time to soften. The first 3 or 4 treks are very rough on me until I recondition myself to the physical activity again. It's the same every time so it's nothing I'm ashamed of. Perhaps you are trying to portray that I claim to be out in the woods physically active every day of the year? I do not and have not claimed that, ever.

Your push for acceptance among your peers seems to be your downfall. Making much out of nothing in some cases, or most cases depending, without looking at yourself or portraying yourself honestly. I don't have a problem with honesty. I can say that as I don't have to impress anyone here.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

Chris,
You might consider that people sometimes ask questions they already know the answers to as a way of gauging another's knowledge :)

I make no claims to my woodsmen resume, other than I'm not afraid of the dark and know a stump when I see one ;)

You on the other hand have made great claims that you can't back up and based on my time spent with you...I can't imagine you have spent any significant time outdoors or have had any credible outdoor experience at all.
We took a rather pedestrian hike on a very easy trail at a very leisurely pace, how many times did you have to stop 2-3 times....these are not indications of someone who spends time outdoors or doing anything physical 2-3 times a week.

Combine that with your posts here and I can only question your sincerity and/or your ability of interpretation with your limited experience in a woodland environment.

Again as I've stated....
You felt compelled to bring not just one weapon but two...one for me which I found bizzare to say the least, on a hike in an area that may as well have been a local park...which we actually experienced with a family on the way out
You heard things I didn't
You stopped dead in your tracks to ID a stump you should have seen numerous times, if you visit this site as often as you claim
And now you want to give a family outing the homage of some sort of ghost busters adventure into the spooky woods of Kentucky!

You seem to always claim some moral high ground in regards to honesty, for someone making the claims you do without backing them up that seems to be a precarious perch to take.

At this point I can only consider you an Internet footer playing the same game on a different day for what reason...who knows....you are fun to take to task though...so consider yourself cerved once again and we look forward to cerving you in the future :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom