• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Moneymakin'! The BFRO Bigfoot Expeditions Thread.

Hallucinations are influenced by the surroundings.
Someone might hallucinate a Bigfoot knocking on the window of their Mobile Home.

They are not going to report seeing a Bigfoot in their house, no other Bigfooters would believe that.
 
William Parcher said:
Hallucinations can happen anywhere. Do you think many of these people hallucinate Bigfoot inside their home or at the office? Do they have hallucinations of Bigfoot giving their wife a bath and scrubbing her back?

Or do the visions only present themselves as a stealthy ape hiding in the woods?
Click to expand...

Well, some folk see 'em peeping into family rooms and boudiors.
 
William Parcher said:
Or do the visions only present themselves as a stealthy ape hiding in the woods?
Click to expand...

How many visions are of Stealthy Apes?

They are only stealthy when the TV shows and Scientists get out in the Woods.

Almost every sighting, is a giant monster ripping leaves off of branches, hucking boulders at cabins, howling like a coyote, chasing cars on Indian Reservations, laying down in the road while they drive up to them in their truck.

Nothing stealthy about them, unless you are a TV show out trying to look for them.
 
Hallucinators can be hoaxers sometimes.

1. Hallucinate a Bigfoot.
2. Know you hallucinated a Bigfoot.
3. Report or tell about seeing a genuine Bigfoot.

You be a hoaxer.
 
I prefer to think of them as deliberate misidentifications. Someone with bigfoot on the brain goes out into the woods and sees some branches rustle or a fleeting glimpse of the back of a bear, or raccoon, or moose, or take your pic. Then that person has a brief internal dialogue where the rational voice says I don't know exactly what that was but it probably wasn't a bigfoot, or I cannot certainly says for a fact it was, and then the " I so badly want to see a bigfoot!" voice campaigns against that and the next thing you know you have a Class A footie sighting in the BFRO. And, more importantly, a new "knower". The person goes from could have been a bigfoot to most definitely was a bigfoot. This is the currency that gets them into the cult.
 
Hallucinators can be hoaxers sometimes.

1. Hallucinate a dark hairy object in the woods
2. Report or tell about seeing a genuine Bigfoot.
3. Embellish the report with things that will make your report seem important and/or help you become a Footer.



The above would be my short version
 
Reading dmaker's last post, I am reminded of Chris from KY who was briefly here awhile ago. He seemed to be a "knower" with pictures of inanimate objects offered as proof. I think it illustrates the mindset of those that can decieve themselves and not understand why the rest of us simply can't see it. In the old Mary Tyler Moore show I would get the feeling that Ted the anchorman was about to say something so clueless that I would be embarrassed for him. That is the vision I have for the club meetings bigfoot enthusiasts must have to discuss their 'sightings' and whatnot and figure a way to cook the books to make the evidence fit.
 
I think it is worth pointing out that it takes a certain mind set to even be in a position for a deliberate misidentification to happen. You would have to be firmly in the bigfoot is possible camp. The rest of us would simply wonder was that a bear, or a raccoon, or the wind? Never once having the slightest moment of pause to consider if what we just caught a glimpse of was an 8ft unclassified ape.

When you have already bought into the myth to the degree that you seriously believe bigfoot is possible then I think it is only a matter of time for some of those people before they transform a perfectly normal event into their own, personal ( yet can't wait to share it) bigfoot story. If they do not do this, then they must start to accept that maybe bigfoot is not real. This is like some sort of belief system self defense.
 
Last edited:
dmaker said:
I think it is worth pointing out that it takes a certain mind set to even be in a position for a deliberate misidentification to happen. You would have to be firmly in the bigfoot is possible camp. The rest of us would simply wonder was that a bear, or a raccoon, or the wind? Never once having the slightest moment of pause to consider if what we just caught a glimpse of was an 8ft unclassified ape.

When you have already bought into the myth to the degree that you seriously believe bigfoot is possible then I think it is only a matter of time for some of those people before they transform a perfectly normal event into their own, personal ( yet can't wait to share it) bigfoot story. If they do not do this, then they must start to accept that maybe bigfoot is not real. This is like some sort of belief system self defense.
Click to expand...

And of course, once you're a knower, there's no admitting that you're sighting might have been due to some cognitive error or bias.

Wouldn't be much of a knower, otherwise.
 
^^ No, of course not. One does not want to join the ranks of bigfoot apostates.

It is this difficult to detect line between full on delusional and deliberate con-artist that I find interesting to observe. It's one thing to claim you saw a bigfoot. It's a whole other thing to say and here's a picture and then offer a picture of nothing but trees, or burnt stumps, or a blurry "something". At this moment how do you ascertain whether the person truly believes they are showing clear photographic proof of bigfoot, or they are trying to show you scenery props hoping this will help sell you their story? In either case the end result is that the rational person sees no bigfoot in the picture and the delusional person and/or con-artist sniffs and emphatically points them out--usually with red crayon circles.

How do you tell them apart? I suppose other than the potential psychological insights to be learned there is no tangible benefit to telling them apart, nor is there any chance of moving them off of their position by pointing out the stunning lack of bigfoots in the photograph.
 
Last edited:
dmaker said:
^^ No, of course not. One does not want to join the ranks of bigfoot apostates.

It is this difficult to detect line between full on delusional and deliberate con-artist that I find interesting to observe. It's one thing to claim you saw a bigfoot. It's a whole other thing to say and here's a picture and then offer a picture of nothing but trees, or burnt stumps, or a blurry "something". At this moment how do you ascertain whether the person truly believes they are showing clear photographic proof of bigfoot, or they are trying to show you scenery props hoping this will help sell you their story? In either case the end result is that the rational person sees no bigfoot in the picture and the delusional person and/or con-artist sniffs and emphatically points them out--usually with red crayon circles.

How do you tell them apart? I suppose other than the potential psychological insights to be learned there is no tangible benefit to telling them apart, nor is there any chance of moving them off of their position by pointing out the stunning lack of bigfoots in the photograph.
Click to expand...

Makes one pine for the average bigfoot bs-er with his/her campfire stories about "dem boogers." Of course extra points for the Annapolis instructor with special forces sniper training, a top-secret security clearance, and a license to kill.

Of course that's more to remember.
 
We really are missing the confessions and explanations coming from the hoaxers. We never see anything like "How I fooled the BFRO with a completely fabricated sighting report." Or "Confessions of a Bigfoot track maker".

We have not heard the hows and whys of the Bigfoot hoaxer in their own words.
 
William Parcher said:
We really are missing the confessions and explanations coming from the hoaxers. We never see anything like "How I fooled the BFRO with a completely fabricated sighting report." Or "Confessions of a Bigfoot track maker".

We have not heard the hows and whys of the Bigfoot hoaxer in their own words.
Click to expand...

Didn't Dyer make some noises to that effect recently?
 
That is not a confession when you say "Hank is a fake but I really did shoot a real Bigfoot."

He's not confessing to his Bigfoot lying.
 
William Parcher said:
We really are missing the confessions and explanations coming from the hoaxers. We never see anything like "How I fooled the BFRO with a completely fabricated sighting report." Or "Confessions of a Bigfoot track maker".

We have not heard the hows and whys of the Bigfoot hoaxer in their own words.
Click to expand...

Is it perhaps because of : Hoaxers = Investigators
 
Bob H tried, and they butchered him.
Ray Wallace tried and they butchered his memory.

You think Gimlin doesn't see how they reacted to that, and give pause about confessing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom