Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If 9 foot tall and 5 foot wide bipeds are roaming the GDS undetected, then there are probably elephants running around undetected in there too. Both would leave similar sign of their presence in the woods...
 
John, I'm not a psychologist, but I sometimes pretend to be one at work. :D

I don't understanding the horrible fear you felt after your bigfoot encounter. It's not like bigfoot waved a hairy paw/hand in your direction, beams of light shot out of its eyes, and you were suddenly and involuntarily thrown down in a fetal position. From what you've described, it was just some critter sitting there, minding its business, munching on some bushes. Granted, it wasn't an animal you recognized or expected, but it made no threatening gestures in your direction, no roars of rage, no beating of the chest, nothing. Yet you have obviously been deeply affected by the events that day.

I guess I'm scratching my head wondering why? What is it that you found so terrifying about the incident?

RayG
 
WGBH said:
Why are my logical faculties impaired? Just because I disagree with your opinion? So, that is your opinion of anyone who disagrees with you? Classic.
Click to expand...

Straw man. I declare my opinion that your, specifically your own, logical faculties are impaired based on your bewildering inability to comprehend the difference between "the ethics of every person in the scientific community" (your phrase) and "the career-making opportunities available to those who provide concrete evidence for BF" (my position), and you accuse me of applying this same diagnosis to "anyone who disagrees" with me. What, pray tell, is the basis for this sweeping generalization? Do you have some evidence to back this up, some other instance of my declaring someone's logical faculties impaired? I'm speaking to you and no one else, WGBH. Your logical faculties are impaired. You are not employing critical thinking processes to distinguish truth from fantasy. You are dismissing reasonable alternatives to your fantasy that a 9 foot beast dwells undetected in the swamplands and forests of the eastern US. A. There is no objective evidence for this creature. B. Hallucination is known and studied, esp. given the symptoms you describe. Somehow, for you A + B = "I saw a bigfoot." Ergo, your logical faculties are impaired. Awaken from your dream, I implore you in the name of reason!
 
Well, I knew that this thread wouldn't take long to get ugly for you, John. I am telling you, buddy, you can't argue BF with a skeptic. Remember my Christians vs. Atheist example?

I really believe that "some" people are hallucinating that they are psychiatrist's.

And that "some" people are hallucinating that all of their worldly experience, especially in the woods, plus their "age" makes them so knowledgeable that a BF-like creature couldn't exist. Well, I had those same "hallucinations" about my ability as a woodsman, too......until I had my own "encounters" with BF-like creatures, in those same East Texas woods.

Those of us that have enough "experience" to know that these creatures exist will never be able to prove it to those that disbelieve. It is a waste of time trying. That doesn't mean that we are not out trying to get concrete evidence of our claims. Some day, hopefully, someone will be able to provide the proof.

The best thing for us to do, John, is not join a BF discussion with a bunch of skeptics. Especially with the lack of information and experience that you have. It will only raise your blood pressure. ;) I could tell you that you don't want to be using or quoting Meldrum, Krantz, Bendernagle or Fahrenbach in your debates. (Those turkeys don't know their ass from a hole in the ground concerning BF research.)

Just walk away, John. You know what you know. You can't prove it here. :)
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
He clearly does not know what he saw that day. His description matches nothing exactly, not even bigfoot. If he knew what he saw, there would be nothing to discuss.
Click to expand...

I know what I saw. I saw a Bigfoot. There have been plenty of encounter stories I have read and heard where the description matches what I saw.
 
Note that in John's original report he ridicules the people who were with him by calling them "manly" men of the woods. Apparently because they thought it was a bear.

The experienced people on the scene apparently thought it was a bear.
 
Pywacket said:
Well, I had those same "hallucinations" about my ability as a woodsman, too......until I had my own "encounters" with BF-like creatures, in those same East Texas woods.
Click to expand...


You, and plenty of others.


482c1418.gif
 
LTC8K6 said:
Please report anything ugly in this thread to the moderators. If you direct me to such posts, I will gladly report them.
Click to expand...

I dont need to report anything. I can just ignore them.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Note that in John's original report he ridicules the people who were with him by calling them "manly" men of the woods. Apparently because they thought it was a bear.

The experienced people on the scene apparently thought it was a bear.
Click to expand...

And? I was probably also drunk when I made my original report. The experienced person. The other was my friend who was younger then I was and he was just following the lead of his father.
 
79347244d109e9af.jpg



That Biggie is too narrow for the 9x5 template (shown here). He's a shrimp in the 9x6 template.


4f7e3881.jpg
 
Pywacket said:
Well, I knew that this thread wouldn't take long to get ugly for you, John. I am telling you, buddy, you can't argue BF with a skeptic. Remember my Christians vs. Atheist example?

I really believe that "some" people are hallucinating that they are psychiatrist's.

And that "some" people are hallucinating that all of their worldly experience, especially in the woods, plus their "age" makes them so knowledgeable that a BF-like creature couldn't exist. Well, I had those same "hallucinations" about my ability as a woodsman, too......until I had my own "encounters" with BF-like creatures, in those same East Texas woods.

Those of us that have enough "experience" to know that these creatures exist will never be able to prove it to those that disbelieve. It is a waste of time trying. That doesn't mean that we are not out trying to get concrete evidence of our claims. Some day, hopefully, someone will be able to provide the proof.

The best thing for us to do, John, is not join a BF discussion with a bunch of skeptics. Especially with the lack of information and experience that you have. It will only raise your blood pressure. ;) I could tell you that you don't want to be using or quoting Meldrum, Krantz, Bendernagle or Fahrenbach in your debates. (Those turkeys don't know their ass from a hole in the ground concerning BF research.)

Just walk away, John. You know what you know. You can't prove it here. :)
Click to expand...

Py,

First of all, I appreciate your advise and kindness. My blood preassure is fine. I am not mad. I was asked to come here and answer questions and I have nothing to hide. I do not lose sleep over who believes my story anymore. I lose sleep from my nightmares. Sure it would be nice to get more kindness, but I can only control myself.

Yes, the so called "experts" in this field have definately been a big dissapointment. I guess I just had higher expectations.
 
There has been much discussion of the science (or lack thereof) regarding this endeavour.

To that end, I would ask this of everyone...when is science..truly science?

Not being a wisearse, but I recall a couple on instances where the "science" itself became suspect because of the scientists involved.

The first involved revelations in the national mainstream news media (60 minutes, et. al.) that several of the scientists working at the NIHS were also on the payroll of pharmaceutical companies. While that was not necessarily an infraction of the rules, does anyone truly think the prospect of bias (in their work) could be completely ruled out?

Another example involved use of a wildlife management tool (hunting) to help alleviate the overpopulation crisis caused by a certain species of waterfowl. The HSUS filed a lawsuit to stop the hunting and employed the testimony of their own expert witness a scientist/biologist they had hired. However, his testimony failed to pass muster when compared to the ~30 years of scientific data/findings compiled by the government scientists and was (HSUS position) was subsequently relegated to the status of junk science.

The first example was money driven and the second based upon more emotions/feelings than anything else.

My point is not to be skeptical of science but it might be wise to check out the "scientists" especially with reference as to exactly who is signing their paychecks.

Are any of the people in positions of authority/influence that are scoffing at the possibility "something" exists also maintaining a relationship/affinity with any entities (gov't/business, etc.) that are stakeholders in the economics that may be in play?

Make sure the person with all the sheepskin and laurels does not have feet of clay.
 
William Parcher said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/79347244d109e9af.jpg[/qimg]


That Biggie is too narrow for the 9x5 template (shown here). He's a shrimp in the 9x6 template.


[qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/4f7e3881.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Nice picture !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom