Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
I have no evidence that natives didnt know about gorillas before 1847. That i didnt claim. I claimed that Homo Sapiens recognized the gorillas existence for 1000's of years, and catalogued the First known species of gorilla in 1847.
That is true but you also said man has known about the lowland gorilla since 1847.
I said humans recognized gorillas for thousands of years. The discovery of the Mountain Gorilla in 1902 is cited as the discovery of the first gorilla species according to some Cryptozoologists, which is completely false, since Man has known about the Lowland Gorilla since 1847.
My question to you is; why do you say that man first learned about the lowland gorilla in 1847? Please keep in mind that the African natives most likely knew about them for hundreds of years prior to that.
That is true but you also said man has known about the lowland gorilla since 1847.
My question to you is; why do you say that man first learned about the lowland gorilla in 1847? Please keep in mind that the African natives most likely knew about them for hundreds of years prior to that.
I said humans recognized gorillas for thousands of years. The discovery of the Mountain Gorilla in 1902 is cited as the discovery of the first gorilla species according to some Cryptozoologists, which is completely false, since Man has known about the Lowland Gorilla since 1847.
I have no evidence that natives didnt know about gorillas before 1847. That i didnt claim. I claimed that Homo Sapiens recognized the gorillas existence for 1000's of years, and catalogued the First known species of gorilla in 1847.
The Carthaginian sailor Hanno the Navigator first described the gorilla in about 480 BCE. A type specimen was not recovered for the benefit of modern Western science until 1847, but the animal was well-known and well-attested for 2000 years prior to its taxonomic classification.
Surprise! Mayaka is and has been correct, more or less, about this all along. Still it would be helpful if Mayaka could be more specific and accurate with his information in the future.
Did you know they named a physical phenomenom after Correa Neto? Yes, they did. You know when you're having your popcorn and at the bottom is all the junky kernels and bits? Yeah, that's the Brazil nut effect.
I was so glad to have found this thread.
My views on bf have run the gamut over time. From staunch defender to laughing my head off.
I started out on the pro sites gobbling it all up until one day I allowed myself to think and let the questions pour in. The more I read critically the more easily the patterns emerged. Doubt crept in faster than I was comfortable with and I strangely felt guilty at first. I eventually hit the skeptical forums which I had previously not known existed as they weren’t linked on the pro sites. Can’t imagine why? I also met some very nice hand-holders who privately walked me patiently through my dilemma while exposing what I knew to be true. Yet, I found some of the skeptics’ points not well supported and I could still dance around them.
So, then I took on a new view blaming all the problems with the “evidence” and claims (pseudoscience facts) on man, not Bigfoot (he did exist). So it was at this point that I found jref and have been reading and reading and reading extensively. Excellent!!! Should be required reading for all on both sides. I especially appreciate Vortigern’s intelligence, extreme patience and good fight coupled with an open mind! And of course the obvious excellent rebuttal from the regulars that hit home for me. You guys are spot on!
So, finally, I have concluded with complete resolution, the reason I have a problem with man’s claims and “evidence” is not because he’s built a bad case on lousy methods and conclusions but rather that he has no choice, he has nothing to work with, because there is in all likelihood no present-day beast as described! Bfers are building a case on nothing because there is nothing to build on.
So, I do give kudos to the proponents for inciting thousands upon thousands of pages of pure pro information, pure con information and a mix (debate) ALL FROM NOTHING! So, anyway I was pleased to find this highly informative thread. Sealing the deal and finally allowing me some peace!
I’m still wondering why science hasn’t tapped into the obvious X-Men among us with their unbelievable eyesight and night vision capabilities as is so evident in so many sighting reports and televised re-enactments.
On second thought, I guess my peace over the issue is a relative term, as after having read so many pro-threads I find it more than uncomfortably bizarre the number of adult individuals seeing 8-10 foot hairy giants as well as the number of adult individuals sitting in woods talking to singing to and …well you know where I am going.
I am so thankful Cousteau wasn't a chicken in a wetsuit.
Great first post ... You did a good job of sifting through the evidence and coming to a logical conclusion..
As with any case, we can't prove the negative - " There is no Bigfoot . ", but the lack of good evidence makes this the most likely answer ..
Atpeace, welcome to the JREF forums. I'm glad you've found the discussion up to this point of some use to you, as I know I did when I joined back in March. Prior to my discovery of this and the PGF thread, I held on to my belief that bigfoot was a real undiscovered primate, lurking in the millions of acres of undeveloped forests of NA. The evidence, and/or the lack of it, says otherwise, as I've been fortunate enough to find out.
OK, footers. What's the deal? Why are there no unambiguous photos or videos of Bigfoot? Why can't I see an unambiguous video of Bigfoot on youtube. You would have us believe these creatures live all over North America (as well as other continents like Asia and Australia) and that there are over 400+ sightings a year. If you try to argue just for a specific area, show how you were able to dismiss others areas.
What is the precedent for a massive land mammal living across major industrialized nations with a viable breeding population and no reliable evidence, unambiguous photos or videos, or type specimen. It is ludicrous and insane. Will you please try and honestly confront this problem? Don't talk to me about remote wilderness. That's not the way Bigfoot is reported. Don't talk to me about only the PNW. Over 2/3 of reports come from outside it. Don't talk to me about eastern cougars. I linked videos of Florida panthers.
Any excuses or apologism will be dismantled. Can you handle this question?
1)Considering all the tricks one can do with film/video/photos these days,(Gary Sinise as Lieutenant Dan in "Forrest Gump" is a prime example of what can be done with video) can there be a video or photo of an undocumented species that isn't considered unambiguous by skeptics? I think not. Wouldn't Occams Razor dictate that since the creature in the photo or video isn't a documented animal, then it's most likely a fake? That's why, in my opinion, a camera or video camera is only necessary for photographing possible evidence such as tracks, hairs, etc... before it's collected or cast.
1)Considering all the tricks one can do with film/video/photos these days,(Gary Sinise as Lieutenant Dan in "Forrest Gump" is a prime example of what can be done with video) can there be a video or photo of an undocumented species that isn't considered unambiguous by skeptics?
Get a clear picture like those we get of every other non-mythical creature, and we'll go from there. It's not like we have a problem with undocumented creatures being documented. It would be cool as hell if bigfoot were real. Something like the following would be a good start:
No, just the ones that no one can find after 200 plus years, or that look like a man in a suit.
That's why, in my opinion, a camera or video camera is only necessary for photographing possible evidence such as tracks, hairs, etc... before it's collected or cast.
Yeah, that makes sense. Skeptics would never be skeptical of those pics/vids, lol. Cuz..you know....those things couldn't be faked with today's video technology.....or a piece of wood, and a hair from the wife's hairbrush.
*Linda Richman* I'm getting a little verklempt! Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic - the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire. Discuss. *Linda Richman*
That was an awesome first post. A big hearty welcome to the JREF!
Posts like yours are so awesome to read and make all the effort put into the topic feel worth it. Whenever someone decloaks and talks about how they've benefited from reading the information found here I get stoked. There are some very smart people here who are crazy enough to take an interest in Bigfootery who make great contributions. I remember when I finally let go of that part that wanted to hold on to a belief in Bigfoot I had that same kind of feeling as you. I found that I could still enjoy the myth without compromising my objectivity and critical thinking abilities. Please feel free to jump into the mix with us and share your perspectives.
Get a clear picture like those we get of every other non-mythical creature, and we'll go from there. It's not like we have a problem with undocumented creatures being documented. It would be cool as hell if bigfoot were real. Something like the following would be a good start:
Then you aren't thinking.
No, just the ones that no one can find after 200 plus years, or that look like a man in a suit.
Yeah, that makes sense. Skeptics would never be skeptical of those pics/vids, lol. Cuz..you know....those things couldn't be faked with today's video technology.....or a piece of wood, and a hair from the wife's hairbrush.
The photos of potential evidence are only to document exactly where it's found in case it turns out to be something & to document the type of area it's found in etc... I also think videoing the collection process is a good idea so if some DNA is found that indicates a primate, human contamination can be ruled out
1)Considering all the tricks one can do with film/video/photos these days,(Gary Sinise as Lieutenant Dan in "Forrest Gump" is a prime example of what can be done with video) can there be a video or photo of an undocumented species that isn't considered unambiguous by skeptics? I think not.
Absolutely yes, Steven. Look at anyone of the videos in the OP that you quoted. Look at the video that xblade posted for you. Those creatures are rarer and in many cases more elusive and harder to photograph than Bigfoot is supposed to be and yet we have those unambiguous images.
It's in the interest of you as a person who runs a Bigfoot organization (West Virginia Bigfoot Investigations Group) to create the excuses that any video would be considered a hoax. It gives you the out to not be expected to actually get footage of the animal you think is in the area you are searching.
Wouldn't Occams Razor dictate that since the creature in the photo or video isn't a documented animal, then it's most likely a fake?
No. Absolutely not. Let's say you get a video of an unknown type of squid on video from a submersible. You think just because we haven't seen it before scientists will look and say, "Nope. That's fake,"? You're just making excuses, man. There is absolutely no good reason why we don't have unambigous images of a massive relatively slow-moving upright land mammal that is breeding all across the North American continent and by your belief living in West Virginia. People who aren't addled by the desire to believe in boogeymen and manbeasts can figure out by themselves what the reason for that is. Maybe oneday if you ever get tired of playing the adult role-playing game of Woods & Wildmen you might give your head a shake and think about honestly to yourself.
That's why, in my opinion, a camera or video camera is only necessary for photographing possible evidence such as tracks, hairs, etc... before it's collected or cast.
ROFL! Yeah, that's better! And thus you've given yourself the excuse necessary to post worthless video and pretend it means something significant and thereby garner more attention for your little Bigfoot playgroup.
Steven, I have a clarification I need to make. In the now tossed MABRC thread I noted who you were as head of W.V.B.I.G. but I mistakenly said that you were the MABRC state director for WV. I was wrong. Here's that post:
His name is Rick and he has a message he hopes we get at the JREF on his site:
Rick@West Virginia Bigfoot said:
JREF Have had a few visitors from the JREF forums. Apparently I am not welcome there as I have had my account removed twice now without even making a post.Wonder what they are afraid of. I simply was going to post the following then leave them alone. So I will post it here and maybe one of the members there will see this and pass it on.
There apparently has been some confusion as to who owns this blog. As soon as I am approved to post on JREF I will straighten it out there. But in case some of the members come here I want to make it clear that I am not Steven Tichnell. Mr Tichnell owns the WVBIG group which I am a member hence the banner. Also he is not a member of the MABRC as some have stated. I am the W Va state director for the MABRC and anyone can readily find my posts and first name on the forums. I wish not to get into an argument either about the subject.It would do nothing but hurt my research.Any negative comments here will be deleted.I cant do anything about comments on the JREF except ignore them and move on so go for it. Thank you for visiting and hope you will return although I suspect many wont.
Thank you for the clarification, Rick. I promise you there is nothing any Bigfoot enthusiast has to say that is going to cause the JREF forum administration to be scared. I have heard a number of times about people having a problem registering on this forum. It may be you have computer issues or something wrong with the registration process.
Thank you Kitakaze, Vortigern, and Skep Greg. It’s sure a refreshing pleasure to be here!
Now, what to do with all this garlic…………. Aha! vamp-----never mind
ap
The photos of potential evidence are only to document exactly where it's found in case it turns out to be something & to document the type of area it's found in etc... I also think videoing the collection process is a good idea so if some DNA is found that indicates a primate, human contamination can be ruled out
I don't have a problem with documenting these things, my issue is that you said/implied video of the creature itself would hold no weight, yet then claimed video of the evidence somehow does. It doesn't make sense. Who cares if you have video of a footprint if you can provide video, or a live specimen of the foot itelf? Find the creature already, and you'll have all the dna, footprints, scat, pig carcases and vocal recordings you can stand.
And as someone trained in Hominid physiology, I'd jump to a claim that some films show a non-human femur/fibula ratio, but I'm left with the clearer, forced to be more hominid, claims that the films are faked, and have to wait for better evidence.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
