Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
William Parcher said:
When MK Davis visited the PGF film site he brought big pictures of Patty and tacked them to trees. The idea was so that any Bigfoots in the area might see the pictures and recognize her. I don't know what was supposed to happen after that.
Click to expand...

Love and little bigfoots.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Titmus apparently raided rest stop bathrooms for used tampons to hang as bigfoot attractants...
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Oh that is so gross......I wonder what would have happened if the police or security discovered him doing that, is that a crime?
 
Jodie said:
Are you serious? Oh that is so gross......I wonder what would have happened if the police or security discovered him doing that, is that a crime?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is, or was, a fairly common belief among footers that bigfoot was attracted to menstruating humans.

http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2011_08_04_archive.html

John Green left the project shortly thereafter due to personal conflicts and arguments about such subjects as Titmus hanging up used tampons that he'd fished out of service station rest rooms in trees around the area of Louse Camp.
Click to expand...

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2008/10/everythings-bigfoot-in-texas

when Paulides made the disturbing revelation that Bigfoot might be drawn to menstruating women, and has been observed digging though garbage cans, looking for used tampons.
Click to expand...

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/...uatch-encounters-youve-readheard/#entry113482
 
Like Jodie, i think we both got our laugh for the day. Gol. I was just about splitting a gut. Yet, the logic behind all this is pretty good. So as the sig quote goes...show me the monkey. Surely proper bait should have attracted them. And i mean THEM. Surely there isnt just like one rogue Bigfoot every hundreds of miles. Like, they do need a mate, and little ones to carry on the family name. There would be colonies of these things, you`d think. If planes or helicopters fly over the Amazon, are monkeys this elusive? Back to the posters, tampons and all that...brings back fond memories of watching Peppy or LePeaux the skunk (or whatever its name was) cartoons and it spot a hot female CAT that got a stripe painted on its back, and he`d go chasing after her. Lol.
 
Black bear is probably the first thing a bigfooter will swear up and down was NOT the subject of some encounter, yet the similarities in distribution, habitat, diet, behavior, etc. are uncanny. It's kind of like a group of people who swear they've witnessed athletes in pads and helmets chasing an oblong ball around a field marked off in 5-yrd increments and scoring touchdowns and field goals on crisp autumn afternoons . . . but it's NOT FOOTBALL.
 
No, it isn't though. It's not a good metaphor because they THINK they saw it, and it was different in as many ways as it was similar. I know you're frustrated by the idiocy shown on BFF, and that is understandable. But if you use sloppy metaphors to try and make them out to be idiots, it doesn't help.

You can't argue with fools like DWA, You can't argue with them because they don't have arguments to begin with. You can expose their illogicality in the sure knowledge that they will, while knowing they are wrong, change the subject and pretend they are not wrong with some cracker barrel idiocy that appeals to those even more stupid than them But don't tar everyone with the same brush, and try not to laugh at people who are just plain stupid, I think that is beneath you. It's not beneath a lot of people on this forum, many of whom get off on a sense of superiority over others for not believing in fairies and come here to be simply to be in the majority and bully. But it is beneath you.
 
Look Pan, After awhile it gets hard/tiresome/futile (pick the adjective that best applies)to parse out what is meanness, stupid, or just pure crazy on the BFF. If you hang with such then expect some paint splatters to fly your way.
 
The Great God Pan said:
No, it isn't though. It's not a good metaphor because they THINK they saw it, and it was different in as many ways as it was similar. I know you're frustrated by the idiocy shown on BFF, and that is understandable. But if you use sloppy metaphors to try and make them out to be idiots, it doesn't help.

You can't argue with fools like DWA, You can't argue with them because they don't have arguments to begin with. You can expose their illogicality in the sure knowledge that they will, while knowing they are wrong, change the subject and pretend they are not wrong with some cracker barrel idiocy that appeals to those even more stupid than them But don't tar everyone with the same brush, and try not to laugh at people who are just plain stupid, I think that is beneath you. It's not beneath a lot of people on this forum, many of whom get off on a sense of superiority over others for not believing in fairies and come here to be simply to be in the majority and bully. But it is beneath you.
Click to expand...

We also serve who only stand and snark.

I see you've found a way to have a "sense of superiority" over both sides.


(I hate preaching, no matter the dogma spewing from the pulpit)
 
The Great God Pan said:
No, it isn't though. It's not a good metaphor because they THINK they saw it, and it was different in as many ways as it was similar. I know you're frustrated by the idiocy shown on BFF, and that is understandable. But if you use sloppy metaphors to try and make them out to be idiots, it doesn't help.

You can't argue with fools like DWA, You can't argue with them because they don't have arguments to begin with. You can expose their illogicality in the sure knowledge that they will, while knowing they are wrong, change the subject and pretend they are not wrong with some cracker barrel idiocy that appeals to those even more stupid than them But don't tar everyone with the same brush, and try not to laugh at people who are just plain stupid, I think that is beneath you. It's not beneath a lot of people on this forum, many of whom get off on a sense of superiority over others for not believing in fairies and come here to be simply to be in the majority and bully. But it is beneath you.
Click to expand...
Complaining about how others post is against the rules.
 
I have a lot of respect for Shrike, I don't think he is bullying anyone, he is simply stating an opinion based on years of exposure to such nonsense.

I just recently derailed a thread by discussing something similar, like choosing to ignore the more over the top claims like Dyer's and those trolls that float over here in defense of his bigfoot in a box story.

I don't think everyone that comes over here is that far gone, but knowing what to expect here, and coming here to post anyway says a lot about the individual. You see the same superiority act on the BFF just as well. If someone is that convinced that bigfoot is real why waste the time here?

You can't truly be bullied on an internet forum, that is just a fragile ego talking. However, I do see flagrant violation of debate tactics used here despite claims otherwise, that's always been my criticism of JREF.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate your high opinion of my moral standing Pan; I assume you're someone familiar with my posts as Saskeptic from the BFF.

First let me point out that my comment about bigfoots being bears was not directed at the people who might honestly catch a glimpse of something in the woods that for whatever reason registers as "bigfoot" instead of "bear" in the gray matter. That was directed at the Bindernagels, Fahernbachs, Meldrums, and other pundits who [should] darn well know better. These are the people who know about niche overlap, competitive exclusion, biogeography, minimum viable populations, etc., and still they ignore the black bear-sized-and-shaped elephant in the room when discussing bigfoot.

Next, after my years of interaction with people on the BFF, I came to realize that the rap I had here at the JREF was pretty accurate: I had been way too soft on the people at the BFF. I made the first error in critical thinking which was to accept the central premise of bigfootery that a great many people think they're seen a bigfoot. We can quibble about what percentage of reports are complete fabrications versus honest representations of what people think they've experienced, but early on I was willing to accept that most reports came from people who really thought they had seen real bigfoots and some reports were bald-faced lies. We can never really know how such things play out, but these days I'm inclined to see the majority of reports as lies and a minority of reports as honest misidentifications.

I used to think that the people best equipped to evaluate bigfooty claims were wildlife biologists like me; now I realize that people who specialize in personality profiling are in a much better position to call a spade a spade when it comes to bigfootery.
 
Amen, crazy comes in all shapes, sizes, to varying degrees, and covers a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds. I disagree with ABP in always trotting out the psych perspective simply because we aren't certified to make a diagnosis but my pet theory is that most that have sightings fall along a spectrum for Disassociative Identity Disorder or DID:

The "alters" or different identities have their own age, sex, or race. Each has his or her own postures, gestures, and distinct way of talking. Sometimes the alters are imaginary people; sometimes they are animals. As each personality reveals itself and controls the individuals' behavior and thoughts, it's called "switching." Switching can take seconds to minutes to days. When under hypnosis, the person's different "alters" or identities may be very responsive to the therapist's requests.

They are out in the woods or habituating an alter ego of themselves, if they aren't outright lying for gain.
 
Last edited:
Jodie said:
Amen, crazy comes in all shapes, sizes, to varying degrees, and covers a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds. I disagree with ABP in always trotting out the psych perspective simply because we aren't certified to make a diagnosis but my pet theory is that most that have sightings fall along a spectrum for Disassociative Identity Disorder or DID:

The "alters" or different identities have their own age, sex, or race. Each has his or her own postures, gestures, and distinct way of talking. Sometimes the alters are imaginary people; sometimes they are animals. As each personality reveals itself and controls the individuals' behavior and thoughts, it's called "switching." Switching can take seconds to minutes to days. When under hypnosis, the person's different "alters" or identities may be very responsive to the therapist's requests.

They are out in the woods or habituating an alter ego of themselves, if they aren't outright lying for gain.
Click to expand...

Jodie,

Your point illustrated: http://fuhsfooter.com/home.html
 
That's really sad, and scary at the same time to think one's mind is capable of betraying the individual in such a way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom