WGBH
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,141
No, I had no health issues when I was 17. I was a young healthy state and college level athlete. Not a fat old man like I am now.
- Status
No, I had no health issues when I was 17. I was a young healthy state and college level athlete. Not a fat old man like I am now.
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,719
No, I had no health issues when I was 17. I was a young healthy state and college level athlete. Not a fat old man like I am now.
Is this doctor you have talked to, either a psychiatrist or a psychologist?
If not, have you considered talking to one, and telling them about the Bigfoot encounter? Perhaps they would be able to offer you a solution, or explanation you'd be more willing to accept.
WGBH
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,141
Considered it yes, followed through no. I am not lookin for an explanation, just rest.
WGHB, did you expect to come in here and think people would believe you really did see a bf, which currently is non-existent and breaks many rules of nature, instead of hallucinations or misidentifications, both well known phenomona studied and documented. If you know what you saw, then it isnt worth getting angry because Kitz doesnt accept your explanation for your sighting. You just need to provide better evidence my friend.
WGBH
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,141
I do know what I saw. I am not angry that he does not believe what I saw, I just have better things to do then be insulted. I am trying to get evidence, but you are making the error of thinking I am trying to get it for you.
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
WGBH, you appear to be caught up in kit's opinion that belief in BF, especially in this manicured park, is "silly" and "insane". You're hypersensitive to insult and derogation. As a result, you're missing the line of logic and reasoning that has led him to the conclusion that these beliefs are "silly". You're not accepting his valid points that bears have a variety of physiological tools to help them acquire nutrition, and that a giant primate, lacking these features, cannot realistically obtain the caloric intake required to fuel its body throughout the year. No scat. No bones. No hair. No independently verified sightings. This after 5 decades of an avid, nationwide search by hundreds if not thousands of individuals, year after year after year. Someone calling the belief "silly" is an understatement. If it offends you you may wish to consider examining the line of reasoning which led to the insult, to see if the term has any merit.
Why do you pick the most unlikely explanation (Bigfoot) over more plausible explanations that actually exist?
WGBH
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,141
I am not hypersensitive to it Vort. I just dont care. I don't have listen to the insults. I understand completely the ideas he and you are putting out there. You are just going about it differently.
You dont get mad when, over at the bff, members accept your sighting as genuine, yet you get mad over here when people, while still considering bigfoot, think that your sighting was unlikely to be of a bigfoot.
WGBH
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,141
Members at the BFF accept my sighting?Have you been reading this thread at all?
What I meant to say was that Most
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
John, I can't help but be confused by this statement when trying to reconcile it with your past statements:
Many of the things you've written above seem contradictory to me. You aren't looking for answers/you are only looking for answers. You need some answers/you don't care about answers. You undeniably saw Bigfoot/it's possible you were wrong.
You say you are willing to consider other ideas but then you show that you are quite unwilling to consider other ideas. You consider the 9 x 6 ft monster wood ape to be the simplest answer and show no hope of revising the stance when people give you proof that people can strongly believe they experienced something vividly that they did not. You are provided with alternative explanations which you show interest in and when asked to provide some silver bullet against them, you provide an argument that isn't supported by the facts and show no hope of revising your thinking.
As I said before, I've explored two ways to approach your experience. One is to proceed under the premise that you did not see what you think you saw because 9 x 6 ft monster wood apes larger than grizzly bears do not exist in the swamps of NC and that one of the known human phenomena that can lead to faulty perceptions need to be explored. It was something that while indicating some superficial willingness to consider, you had already decided from the outset was unacceptable. It's as if any words you write in consideration are simply going through the motions of being open to possibilities but in actuality you've completely closed your mind to any human phenomena explanation.
Hmmm... Anything is possible but it seems unlikely to me.
It's like there's just this major cognitive dissonance going on making this huge misfire happen. Something that happened in 1982 that you didn't report until 1998 and you said you were probably drunk when you did it is a scenario that doesn't lend itself to arguments against the infallibility of human memory and perception. It beeing told in a highly expanded version later after becoming involved with Bigfoot enthusiasts doesn't help either.
The other way I explored was to proceed under the premise that you did see what you thought you saw and to try and work out a functioning model for how that can be made to reconcile with reality. That's where the arguments for what can realistically be expected to exist in certain environments come in. You may not think it is silly for a species of just truly immense upright mammals to be in places like Salt Fork or sharing the woods with hunters in NC uncatalogued by science but there are many perfectly valid reasons to think the idea to be highly implausible if not impossible.
I think for the benefit of your future discussions here things need to be made totally clear about the limitations of your open-mindedness. If you are only willing to superficially consider human phenomena, then people here should get the forthrightness from you to let them know any real consideration of anything other than "I saw what I saw. I know what I saw and I saw Bigfoot." At least that way they have some idea of what they're up against and can properly consider whether or not it's worth the effort to engage you on the posibility of you being mistaken about what you think you saw.
WGBH
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,141
Kit,
You could have saved yourself a ton of quoting. I was talking about explanations from a Doctor about my Bigfoot encounter, as Drew asked. The thousand things you quoted about my looking for answers were from field work and yes even research suggestions here. It had nothing to do with seeing a Doctor about my sleep problems.
I am not looking for a Doctor to explain what happened to me. Because, no matter if I am crazy, day dreaming, or I really saw a Bigfoot. It would all be conjecture. I would be looking for help in dealing with the after effects, not the sighting.
Last edited:
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
I somewhat disagree with this and will provide what I think is the evidence to the contrary. I don't think "hypersensitive" is the right word. I think it would be better to say you are sensitive and sometimes over-defensive based upon past experiences unrelated to this board.
Let's review. Before we got into this discussion in this thread you said the following about the prospect of being questioned by members here:
So we see there the expression of having a good stiff upper lip and a stoic resolve. Sounds like a guy who an handle the environment he's in and isn't afraid to get in the mix. Let's see how things actually turned out...
What? So soon? He's outta he? Why? What happened? Ohhh... right. Xblade and dafydd expressed the inevitable idea that John might not be telling the complete truth about what he saw. That's two. Two people expressing natural doubt was all it took at the immediate outset of the discussion to send John packing.
But he did not stay gone. People like myself, mikeyx, longtabber, William Parcher, and many others were defending him and offering words of support. John decided not to leave and continued the discussion. And then this happened...
Two more guys made John get up from the table and head for the door again (though it was really just one). Black Dog was expressing skepticism over the reason John said he was tossed from the BFF and that if he wasn't being accurate about that, there was the possibility that he wasn't being accurate about his sighting, as well. Rockinkt had his own opinion that John misremembered something but expressed that BD's opinion shouldn't be unduly dismissed.
I tried to explain to John what I thought was the reasoning for that and while offering support encouraged him not to take it to personally. Boom - he went for the door. Then on this page we have the following...
Say what? Liar? Does John have no idea who RayG is? RayG will tell you that you are a liar if he thinks so. In a way I thought was very clear Ray said that seeing something and believing it to be something does not equate that it is fact actually what you think you saw. What I think is kneejerk defensiveness from John made him suspect Ray was calling him a liar. I think he's just had a rough time apparently in places like the BFF so he easily thinks people will call him liars here. I've seen basically a whopping total of 3 people who intimated that John might not be telling the truth. The overwhelming reception of him here has been completely supportive and with people genuinely wanting to offer assistance.
And here is John bailing from a lively yet civil debate with me more centered on whether or not there might be Bigfoots in Salt Fork...
I haven't seen any attempt to qualify the accusation I am being harsh and personal. I see him saying that I am being insulting but when I look I see many compliments to John and words of support for him and his peers. I completely disagree with their reasonings on certain subjects and make what I think is a good effort to illustrate exactly why I think so and where I'm coming from. Yeah, I think it's silly to think there are Bigfoots in Salt Fork and I've given many thus far unrefuted reasons to think so.
Saying I think it is silly, insane, and impossible for there to be Bigfoots in SFSP is a conclusion I have reached after assessing the facts available to me. I have made it perfectly clear that either myself or John and his group of friends may not have all the facts. I could be wrong. John has made the intimation that I can't really know anything about Salt Fork without actually having been there myself (which is odd when he refutes the observations of people who have been there much more than he has). I welcome the attempt to show that. If I'm wrong, I revise. That is what a skeptic does. I don't think John and the ABS were drivelling idiots for squatching in Salt Fork. By John's own admission there were other factors in play that were out of there control. That and the fact that this new Bigfoot enthusiast club was committed to getting together and by their reasonings SFSP was not an unreasonable place for them to do it. I would think the ABS collectively was deeply stupid if they returned to SFSP with the facts as I know them. If there are more pertinent facts in support of Bigfoots in SFSP, I would certainly be open to them and change my stance based on them.
John tells me I am criticizing others for junk internet science while employing it myself. I want to know where I do this so I can fix it. I don't think I've done it but I'm open to being proven wrong. I think John is maybe wound up a bit tight and needs to employ a bit more of that stoicism he showed in that first quote above. I think if John remembers that people don't need to be supportive of Bigfoot to be supportive of him and his search for answers and peace of mind, he won't be so quick to walk away from the discussions.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Oh noes... Woops, did I have some kind of brainfart? So you would seek professional help to deal with the effects of PTSD but you wouldn't seriously consider the possibility that they could show you that your memory was distorted? OK, I understand.
I am going to switch focus back from trying to get you to reconsider the sensibility of thinking Bigfoot could be hiding a species in SFSP to approaching your experience as a memory and do so in a way that is not insulting to you. It would really help me if we could keep in mind that I don't think you are an idiot or that your Bigfoot group is a bunch of idiots. I don't want to have to sugarcoat everything I say because if I do, I'll feel like I'm talking to Melissa (which can be a chore when she makes up half of what you're saying). I really want you to seek professional help and to talk to experts in NC but maybe we can see what conjecture can bear out.
RayG
Master Poster
Not in the least. I'm saying the brain interprets things that the eyes see. Sometimes it gets them right, sometimes it doesn't. That's why optical illusions work.
Just because we see something, and think it to be one thing, doesn't mean it is. I once had an instance while driving where a horse-sized white goat ran across the road in front of my moving vehicle. There was no goat. There was no horse. What my tired brain interpreted was a white tissue in the corner of the dash that was blowing in the breeze.
On another occasion, while sitting in the passenger seat of a moving vehicle, I saw up ahead, a large bipedal, dark figure walking along the side of the road. It turned out to be a tree-like bush, but had our vehicle turned off the road prior to getting to the object, I would have thought it was a large human walking along the side of the road. Someone with more romantic thoughts might have chalked it up to a bigfoot sighting had they not driven right past it.
In both instances my brain was fooled into thinking one thing, when in fact, that's not the thing my brain thought it was.
So... in both these instances, seeing + believing did not equate to the truth.
Hope that clarified.
I would also urge you seek professional help in dealing with the nightmares and unreasonable fear. Professionals are there to help not make fun of you, and what you have described is nothing to be ashamed of.
RayG
RayG
Master Poster
WGBH, I just wanted to illustrate another example of eyewitness accounts that were incorrect.
Remember the London subway rider that was killed by London police a few years ago because they were convinced he was a terrorist? Eyewitness accounts of the incident were quite unreliable:
Some said he was Asian - he was Brazilian
Some said he jumped over the subway turnstile - he went through the gate in a normal fashion
Some said he was wearing a winter coat - it was a denim jacket
Some said he was wearing a bomb with wire hanging down from it - he was not
Some said he tripped and fell getting on the train - the police caused him to fall
Some said the police challenged/warned him prior to shots being fired - they did not
Some said passengers were told to get off the train prior to the shooting - they were not
Some said he was shot 4, 5, 6, 8 or 11 times (actually 11 in total)
How could both police and eyewitnesses be so mistaken? Surely the police are cool-headed, better trained, and have greater observational skills than regular civilians? Surely the witnesses were credible people, well-educated, not on drugs, not blind, not lying, and not mentally challenged? Why were these mistakes made?
Because our memories and perceptions are not perfect.
RayG
Remember the London subway rider that was killed by London police a few years ago because they were convinced he was a terrorist? Eyewitness accounts of the incident were quite unreliable:
Some said he was Asian - he was Brazilian
Some said he jumped over the subway turnstile - he went through the gate in a normal fashion
Some said he was wearing a winter coat - it was a denim jacket
Some said he was wearing a bomb with wire hanging down from it - he was not
Some said he tripped and fell getting on the train - the police caused him to fall
Some said the police challenged/warned him prior to shots being fired - they did not
Some said passengers were told to get off the train prior to the shooting - they were not
Some said he was shot 4, 5, 6, 8 or 11 times (actually 11 in total)
How could both police and eyewitnesses be so mistaken? Surely the police are cool-headed, better trained, and have greater observational skills than regular civilians? Surely the witnesses were credible people, well-educated, not on drugs, not blind, not lying, and not mentally challenged? Why were these mistakes made?
Because our memories and perceptions are not perfect.
RayG
Tricky
Briefly immortal
A few bickery off-topicky posts sent to AAH. Please don't be bickery and off-topicky.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Tricky
ElectricVoodoo
Scholar
- Joined
- May 31, 2009
- Messages
- 118
If you presented your thoughts in a clear and coherent manner perhaps there would be no frustration. You talk daggers in one liners.
- Status