Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

Status
Not open for further replies.
AttorneyTom said:
I had a squirrel run into the road in front of me yesterday. It stopped in the middle of the road not sure which way to go .. then reversed course toward what I am sure must have been the source of its willingness for enternal peril ?
Click to expand...
parnassus said:
according to Moneymaker, bigfoot chases deer in front of vehicles: the lazy way to get a kill.
Click to expand...

Probably a juvenile doing like daddy.
 
captain koolaid said:
Not until the 1960's though. In fact, probably not until after 1967. Maybe not until 1970. Why Bigfoot? If Woollybooger was good enough for 1942, why wasn't it good enough for 1970? If someone had a convincing Woollybooger encounter, why wouldn't he stick to the name until 1970? Is Woollybooger not glamourous enough for 1970? Woollybooger didn't get a spot on TV? Would have thought that if one had a face to face run in with a Woollybooger, they'd be pretty damn sure it was a Woollybooger. That they'd be confident enough to remain adamant it was a Woollybooger, despite the 1970 movie star status of Bigfoot.

I hope those are rhetorical questions. At any rate, I don;t have the answers.

Was Patty that close to a Woollybooger, it was obviously one and the same? It doesn't seem like it. And if the description is vague enough to include Bigfoot, how certain can they be that they ran into Woollyboogers in the first place? I'd be more impressed by the story if the old timers had told you- "It was a Woollybooger. Dunno what this newfangled hippie Bigfoot thing is supposed to be. Probably some b******* made up by some drunk west coast cowboys. But, Woollyboogers... they're real. We've seem them."
Click to expand...

It is what they called them, like it or not.
 
parnassus said:
This may not be the right place to discuss this, but I'll raise it anyway.
What is the typical behavior of a lapsed cult member? Seek to maintain relationships in the cult? Seek support from non-believers? become an active denouncer?
eh?
?
Click to expand...

I liken it to ex-smokers, they are absolutely the most adamant that you don't smoke anywhere at anytime around them.

The only way to stay off the wagon is to avoid the other smokers, or at least the two pack per day smokers. Social smokers have other interests that allow you to maintain some kind of connection other than hanging out in the smoking area.

I think seeking support from non smokers is the only way to go if you want to be successful.

Most ex-smokers are active denouncers.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Wow, great question parn. I don't know the answer. But I sure think this productive ground to plow!

Grief is involved for sure so you probably have elements of the Kübler-Ross model (five stages of grief) or other grief models. There are some long-time posters here that were 'footers before so we do have some examples. The most recent - I am uneasy about.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming he is talking about me. Unless someone shoots one or I run into one on the highway, I don't anticipate my interest ever reviving to the extent that it was in the past.

Let's see, I've been snapping on people at the BFF for about a year now, getting frustrated in general, so I would say I've gone through the angry part. I was holding other proponents responsible for not validating my family bull crap and holding up the fantasy because no one ever provided any kind of proof that I could believe in.

I have resentment issues over the family's attitude but since everyone is dead now it's a moot point, no sense in wasting energy in that direction. The only one left to be mad at is me for being silly and stupid. So I think I'm pretty clear about where I am at with things, I'm waiting on the resignation stage to set in.
 
Jodie,

I am thinking you might be a prime candidate for a "Forever Lazy Snuggie thing"? and a bowl of popcorn and a movie ? The footies are free for a limited time ?!

Seriously though, resentment issues are never a moot point. That was a long held family belief. These things take time to work their way through.
 
Correa Neto said:
Jodie, you (actually we all) must be very careful regarding confirmation bias and memory (the interpretation of memories, to be more precise).

Woollybooger, for example, sounds more like a term used for a particulary frightening or ugly-looking wanderer, boogeyman. Something children must stay away from. In my childhood, here in Brazil, it was the "homem-do-saco" (man with the sack). An unkempt vagabond that would kidnap children, carrying them in the sack. Seems a similar tale, with a similar role. Shadow people are a different sort of lore. So, I think you should entertain the possibility of being wrong in you interpretation of the whole thing.

That may be true, I guess if all of it is fantasy it really doesn't matter. I just feel dumb for believing it. I spoke with my siblings, one was a proponent like myself, the other ambivalent. But both had the same impression about what the older generation thought about things. Of course we were all kids we may have reinforced each other's memories of the stories over the years.

As for Simcha's ideas... Well, I believe here we have a nice example, a nice case of something where one must use critical thinking. Yes, its OT but the principles can and should be applied to bigfootery.

I agree, it's similar, vague point B connects to vague point C to come up with something that can't or won't be proven.

He's been involved with some interesting documentaries, but I have the impression that in some cases he's relying way too much on some Biblical accounts being real and exact. Then he looks at the archeological data and picks the bits (quite often tiny) he believes that match with his interpretations. The link between Akrotiri eruption and the Exodus, as well as his Spanish Atlantis are, IMHO, examples of this.

I can honestly say the "giant" story was really the only thing he ever discussed that stuck with me. From a non supernatural perspective, it made sense to me as a possibility.

It seems a similar thing is happening regarding the Neanderthal-Nephilim link, but I must say that everything I know about it are second-hand accounts found after a quick googling. Assuming his point on the translations is correct, there are some very big problems.

There are problems with the translations on more than just this issue, but no one can seem to agree on what the original intent or meaning was of some words or phrases.

First, its based on something very weak- the Nephilim being real, having existed and not being antyhing other than pure myth. It also requires the Nephilim (actually their legend) having been native to what is nowadays Israel and not a bit of lore from somewhere else, an older bit of lore inherited from another older civilization, from another part of the Middle East, as it happened with the Deluge myth. Second, it ignores the fact that Neanderthals lived in the Levant tens of thousands of years before the first cities were built there. It also requires some cultural continuity betwee these early people and the proto-Israeli people and AFAIK, there are no good evidences for this. Thus the Nephilim-Neanderthal link seems to be built on belief and wishful-thinking. Sure, I may be completely mistaken, but if you want to dig deeper on this, I suggest you to ask about it to the forum's resident expert on Levant-related stuff, Marduk. But, if I am correct, once you look deeper in to it, its nothing but a castle of cards. Like many things in bigfootery.
Click to expand...

If the first occupation of humans came from Africa, there maybe no precursor to hang a name until they encountered them in Israel and the middle east. As with many occupations, I figure it's not as simple as one type moving out and then the next type moving in, there was probably overlap to some extent even for a short while.

I do know the Nephilim are mentioned in the Torah and The Qu'ran and those stories were borrowed from the Medians and Zoroastrians, at least that is my understanding of it. I'll ask this Marduk for more details, but yes, like bigfoot stories, truth can be hijacked for reality. I can buy into a Neandertal a bit more than I can a supernatural or alien creature as an explanation for the Nephilim stories.
 
Jodie said:
If the first occupation of humans came from Africa, there maybe no precursor to hang a name until they encountered them in Israel and the middle east. As with many occupations, I figure it's not as simple as one type moving out and then the next type moving in, there was probably overlap to some extent even for a short while.

I do know the Nephilim are mentioned in the Torah and The Qu'ran and those stories were borrowed from the Medians and Zoroastrians, at least that is my understanding of it. I'll ask this Marduk for more details, but yes, like bigfoot stories, truth can be hijacked for reality. I can buy into a Neandertal a bit more than I can a supernatural or alien creature as an explanation for the Nephilim stories.
Click to expand...

Jodie, why give some credit (or any credit at all) to an explanation of a Biblical myth wich requires a lot of wishful thinking, "what ifs", shaky evidence, assumptions and a highly unlikely chain of events when there's another one available, one wich is simple and straightforward - "it was all made up"?

Could it be because the source is considered accurate, reliable and authoritative by you? Compare the situation with the tale about woolyboogers you heard from your family. The way I see it, the only difference here is that the Bible (just like any other religious text) has been told to be true by generations upon generations of rabbis, priests, pastors, etc. People we all were told to rely at certain points of our lives.

Im my opinion, this is one of the reasons why quite often some proponents of fringe subjects seek and claim to find (cherry-pick and distort, actually) evidence to back their beliefs (UFOs, bigfoot, Atlantis, etc.) in the Bible. They are appealing to and seeking shelter at a source considered accurate, reliable and authoritative by most people. Something few will dare challenging and as soon as you question it, the odds are many will raise to defend it, quite often with passion. Its the ultimate appeal to authority, for you are questioning the word of god...
 
Jodie said:
I'm assuming he is talking about me. Unless someone shoots one or I run into one on the highway, I don't anticipate my interest ever reviving to the extent that it was in the past.

Let's see, I've been snapping on people at the BFF for about a year now, getting frustrated in general, so I would say I've gone through the angry part. I was holding other proponents responsible for not validating my family bull crap and holding up the fantasy because no one ever provided any kind of proof that I could believe in.

I have resentment issues over the family's attitude but since everyone is dead now it's a moot point, no sense in wasting energy in that direction. The only one left to be mad at is me for being silly and stupid. So I think I'm pretty clear about where I am at with things, I'm waiting on the resignation stage to set in.
Click to expand...

Assuming this model to be applicable, I guess there was a bargaining stage.
 
Correa Neto said:
Jodie, why give some credit (or any credit at all) to an explanation of a Biblical myth wich requires a lot of wishful thinking, "what ifs", shaky evidence, assumptions and a highly unlikely chain of events when there's another one available, one wich is simple and straightforward - "it was all made up"?

Could it be because the source is considered accurate, reliable and authoritative by you? Compare the situation with the tale about woolyboogers you heard from your family. The way I see it, the only difference here is that the Bible (just like any other religious text) has been told to be true by generations upon generations of rabbis, priests, pastors, etc. People we all were told to rely at certain points of our lives.

Im my opinion, this is one of the reasons why quite often some proponents of fringe subjects seek and claim to find (cherry-pick and distort, actually) evidence to back their beliefs (UFOs, bigfoot, Atlantis, etc.) in the Bible. They are appealing to and seeking shelter at a source considered accurate, reliable and authoritative by most people. Something few will dare challenging and as soon as you question it, the odds are many will raise to defend it, quite often with passion. Its the ultimate appeal to authority, for you are questioning the word of god...
Click to expand...

Yes, invoking folklore to validate folklore is lame. Native American folklore, like that contained in religions, seems to have a certain cachet.

Having said that, I continue to be impressed with certain bleevers' breadth of knowledge (and occasionally the depth) related to ancient hominids. While it has nothing to do with whether bigfoot is a flesh and blood creature, it is at least something real.
 
Jodie said:
If the first occupation of humans came from Africa, there maybe no precursor to hang a name until they encountered them in Israel and the middle east. As with many occupations, I figure it's not as simple as one type moving out and then the next type moving in, there was probably overlap to some extent even for a short while.

I do know the Nephilim are mentioned in the Torah and The Qu'ran and those stories were borrowed from the Medians and Zoroastrians, at least that is my understanding of it. I'll ask this Marduk for more details, but yes, like bigfoot stories, truth can be hijacked for reality. I can buy into a Neandertal a bit more than I can a supernatural or alien creature as an explanation for the Nephilim stories.
Click to expand...

Hi Jodie,

Please stop answering posts by placing bold into other people's quotes.

If you want to reply to multiple parts of a post, just chop it up manually.

You can copy the QUOTE=Jodie;8352756] part (with the first bracket) and just make a quote bubble by hitting the quote button and replace the plain
with the QUOTE=Jodie;8352756] or whatever. If you can't figure this out, then find where someone else did this successfully, and "forward their post via PM" using the icon at the bottom left. Then you can see exactly how they formatted their post.

Sorry for interrupting.
Click to expand...
 
May i interupt for a Hovey condensation?

Sorry to jump into the middle of the current micturition contest, but can anyone point me in the direction, or give me the readers digest version of the Hovey supposed back hair photo? (assuming I have put together all of the pieces), there are 3 big and I mean Big BF threads, tough to search through, is anyone willing and able to give me a shot at a quick primer?

thanks
CWB
 
parnassus said:
Assuming this model to be applicable, I guess there was a bargaining stage.
Click to expand...

Maybe that would be where I was holding both skeptics and proponents responsible for proving something to me. It's not exactly bargaining with a deity but a lot of "what if?" questions and "if only" statements that go along with that stage.

With the proponents it was , " Are you really serious? Well if you are why are you doing it like this, or this, and did you ever think of doing it this way? I think you are in this for other reasons" because they refused to deliver.

With the skeptics, I asked for my father's story to be pulled apart. That was the only thing I had a firm belief in regarding bigfoot. All though it may seem harsh, I think it was necessary to have that discussion to tip my perspective in the direction where it was already heading.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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