Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

Status
Not open for further replies.
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Alder yeah, very good for smoking salmon.

"Baker Bob" buried over 30 women he flew out this way in his supercub, then hunted them down and killed them mostly with a .223. Robert Hansen. I think they only found a couple dozen or so, but he had marked over 30 X's on an aviation map of this region, indicating where he had landed and engaged in his serial killing fetish.
Click to expand...

This sounds like an episode of "Criminal Minds" ? Good thing BF was not available to be found !

:)
 
Jodie's gone? too bad, I would have been happy to know how many bigfoot lived in Mississippi in 1932 according to the Mississippi Wildlife page.
 
Last edited:
I am Bigfoot said:
And your attempt at a reasonable explanation seems more contorted than your hobo.
Click to expand...

Kaptain Koolaid started the crack in this dam, observing a "bigfoot" story from 30 years before "bigfoot" existed.

Remember how the story started with a claim about someone who was so trusted in the family telling a bigfoot story to her?

Which changed to a ten year old's story...
Being told not to her but overheard by her as an eight year old child...
that wasn't even about a bigfoot...

Thanks shrike, and what is important to me about the kids is not that bigfoot doesn't exist - but that there are people who exist that use bigfoot as a platform to operate from. It isn't their belief in bigfoot that is important, because nobody knows better than a person like moneymaker that they don't exist. It is the cover from which they practice lie by omission, lie by inclusion of extraneous irrelevant information, circular reasoning, red herrings, playing dumb, evasion, diversion, and all the rest of the toolkit in the black art of deception.

We learn that all people resort to these as "defense mechanisms": to avoid harm. The charitable view of Jodie's tenure here is the use of defense mechanisms to avoid popping this childhood bubble.
 
The story was told more than once but I remember first hearing about it when I was 8 years old.

I believed what my family believed because I trusted their perception of the events. If you can't trust what your family reports then you surely can't trust a stranger's sighting report without deeper investigation, the same given here. In that case, it's all just a figment of everyone's imagination once you really pull the details apart.

I'm not gone, I'm interested in the DNA story lines since that's a bit more concrete for me. I'm not dealing with a big "what if" or "maybe" , it either is or isn't something depending on whether either person ever publishes any results. To me, the rest of the discussion is just kind of pointless if it doesn't exist.

I'm not going to bash proponents because there are many reasons that lead up to why a person takes that POV, I can certainly relate to that. Trusting people just isn't a good reason for me to continue to believe anymore, and that's all there is to it at this point. A good bit of these proponents put me off for the same reasons they do all of you.

I think there is a misconception that being a proponent is an all or nothing stance. It isn't, you'll find that proponents fall all long that line of belief versus disbelief which is why they are quick to turn on each other arguing over whose supposition is more right about the myth.

Bush, I am sorry you feel the way you do about all of this, I really don't understand the animosity. I don't feel that way towards you simply because I don't know you. I'm still not clear on why you think I'm disagreeing with you. You've posted overall good reasons to support your premise. I was sincere in my "agenda" in seeing it through no matter what you might think or how you perceive it to be, all of you were a big help.
 
Castro said:
Jodie's gone? too bad, I would have been happy to know how many bigfoot lived in Mississippi in 1932 according to the Mississippi Wildlife page.
Click to expand...

Heh.

The tactic is called "selective attention/inattention": paying scrupulous attention to professional wildlife enumerators when it is to their advantage. But in a breath before or a breath after, suddenly there is a litany of reasons wildlife enumerators are idiots. They don't know the difference between bear poop and bunny poop, they don't cover every square inch of forest, their publications support bigfoot somewhere in imaginary footnotes, etc.

I used to think that I was "slow" because I didn't have the blinding speed switching between, in this case, accepting them as the supreme authority and rejecting them as morons. But it turns out what matters is your conscience. If your conscience bothers you in doing that to others, then it isn't an easy thing to do. But if you have no conscience about treating others fairly (both the enumerators and the other discussants) then there is nothing to slow you down.

You wouldn't even understand why it would be an issue. Doesn't everyone look upon people as objects to use as means to an end? And you would say to them that they mean absolutely nothing to you so please accept my apology that you have a conscience about treating others fairly. Just because they are humans, whether you know them or not.
 
Well in other news...

No Bigfoot spotted here (again) this past week or so. Just multiple sightings of "Woody" the Land Beaver who really is gaining some weight with all the new "woody food" sprouting up in the backyard.

We also had a person come to the office the other week who wanted a Trust for the benefit of his 50+ cats. This seems to be a new trend in estate planning btw... I am getting prepared for the potential that someone will want to do the same for the "Big Guy" at some point. Not sure how I would handle that one ?

That is pretty much the news. No Bigfoot sightings...
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Heh.


I used to think that I was "slow" because I didn't have the blinding speed switching between, in this case, accepting them as the supreme authority and rejecting them as morons.

I don't think you are a moron

You wouldn't even understand why it would be an issue. Doesn't everyone look upon people as objects to use as means to an end? And you would say to them that they mean absolutely nothing to you so please accept my apology that you have a conscience about treating others fairly. Just because they are humans, whether you know them or not.
Click to expand...

I apologize to you if I offended you in anyway, but I can't take responsibility for things I didn't say.
 
Jodie said:
I apologize to you if I offended you in anyway, but I can't take responsibility for things I didn't say.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask for an apology. The three stages of the non-apology are:

1) express disbelief any offense was given (the mark is unreasonable)
2) Give a nonspecific self-invalidated statement (sorry "if", or that you "feel" offended. The "if" and "feel" are the invalidators, reminding the mark it is him with the problem.)
3) Pretend not to understand an apology is an unqualified acknowledgment of a specific act and make the mark write it down verbatim so it can be read back as a hollow parroting or with sarcastic tone telling the mark how unreasonable he is for explaining what an apology is.


********************************

The irony you have missed is that when you need wildlife enumerators to tell you how many real animals (eg bears) there are, their expertise and methods are accepted without question. You don't even care how they do it.

But when it is an imaginary animal like bigfoot we need to promote, then we need to question their methods and ability to distinguish one kind of poop from another - which is calling THEM morons. Phrasing it as a question (how can they tell one poop from another?) is the tactic of plausible deniability. You aren't really being unreasonable, you just don't know, and aren't going to bother finding out.

It's pretty clear that we're just going to have more of my zealotry on my hobby horse of manipulative tactics along with your use of them so for the sake of the forum I'm going to put you on ignore for a while. A lot of the guys are glad you've dropped bigfoot, especially the "sighting" underpinning your belief which is germane to the thread title so good on you for that and it's over and out from me for now.
 
I know I'm very late to the party but I just wanted to echo the OP. I have no idea why anyone in their right mind would think Bigfoot exists.

Drop Bears on the other hand...
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
I didn't ask for an apology. The three stages of the non-apology are:

1) express disbelief any offense was given (the mark is unreasonable)
2) Give a nonspecific self-invalidated statement (sorry "if", or that you "feel" offended. The "if" and "feel" are the invalidators, reminding the mark it is him with the problem.)
3) Pretend not to understand an apology is an unqualified acknowledgment of a specific act and make the mark write it down verbatim so it can be read back as a hollow parroting or with sarcastic tone telling the mark how unreasonable he is for explaining what an apology is.

I seriously don't know why you would be offended by anything I said.

********************************

The irony you have missed is that when you need wildlife enumerators to tell you how many real animals (eg bears) there are, their expertise and methods are accepted without question. You don't even care how they do it.

Each state has different budgets and priorities. Mississippi is flat with easily accessible areas. Having lived there, I can't think of anywhere you couldn't get to on foot easily enough. I imagine if they wanted to grid walk the parks they could do it although I found nothing specific that said that was the method used for counts.

I work for a state agency so I simply asked a colleague who works in the department of natural resources how counts in NC were done. The topography doesn't allow grid walking in the mountains because of the expense involved. But they perform other methods to get a handle on wildlife populations and was directed to the site for which i provided the link.

I think the issue here is that I found a couple of your points to be incorrect, which to me is no big deal, if you don't live here I wouldn't expect you to know it. Evidently your ego was a bit bruised by that and for that I apologize, but my intent was to try to understand the details, not humiliate you or insinuate that you or anyone else is a moron.

But when it is an imaginary animal like bigfoot we need to promote, then we need to question their methods and ability to distinguish one kind of poop from another - which is calling THEM morons. Phrasing it as a question (how can they tell one poop from another?) is the tactic of plausible deniability. You aren't really being unreasonable, you just don't know, and aren't going to bother finding out.

My poop question was a legitimate question. I was wondering how they could tell the animal from human/dog poop apart in a park with that many visitors each year as I imagine not everyone is using the bathrooms. I believe I said that, but if I need to say it again, there you have it.

It's pretty clear that we're just going to have more of my zealotry on my hobby horse of manipulative tactics along with your use of them so for the sake of the forum I'm going to put you on ignore for a while. A lot of the guys are glad you've dropped bigfoot, especially the "sighting" underpinning your belief which is germane to the thread title so good on you for that and it's over and out from me for now.
Click to expand...


I came here to talk out that sighting, without it, my belief in bigfoot would be null and void. I was already half way there when I got here and one of the reasons I left the BFF. If any of these serious researchers have viable evidence I haven't seen it, until they produce it, I can't believe in it any more than I can in a paranormal creature.

I think if I upset anyone that much, it is probably in their best interests to put me on ignore. I have a sneaking feeling you will probably read every word I post although that might be a tad of hubris on my part.

 
Jodie said:
I came here to talk out that sighting, without it, my belief in bigfoot would be null and void.
Click to expand...

Just to nit pick, basing your belief on a story of a sighting makes your belief null and void (since anecdotal evidence is not sufficient for belief in something as fantastical as bigfoot).
 
I am Bigfoot said:
Just to nit pick, basing your belief on a story of a sighting makes your belief null and void (since anecdotal evidence is not sufficient for belief in something as fantastical as bigfoot).
Click to expand...

That's not even remotely accurate.
A belief can be based on anything, even something as minor as one story heard many years ago.
 
GT/CS said:
That's not even remotely accurate.
A belief can be based on anything, even something as minor as one story heard many years ago.
Click to expand...

I'm aware, but I guess I stand corrected. Perhaps I misunderstood Jodie or something.
 
I don't understand the prickly reception Jodie's had here at the JREF.

From where I sit, she's answered questions honestly and acknowledged where her biases led her to build belief on the flimsiest of evidence. I wouldn't expect someone like Jodie to do a complete 180 on her lifelong bigfoot belief just because she came to the JREF and someone wrote something that was a convincing logical argument against bigfoot belief. She's already seen those arguments on the BFF - I know 'cause I'm one of the people writing them! Dislodging a long-held belief in something is a process, not an event. Probably took me 25 years to finally acknowledge my atheism.

ABP, I enjoy your talent for picking apart language and inferring motivation. Do you acknowledge that some people really do believe in bigfoot because they think the evidence points that way, or do you think all the sane folk expressing that belief are being manipulative about it? I think there are a lot more "dupe-ees" than "dupe-ers" in bigfootery. Do you agree?
 
Jodie said:
Correa, the story was told as if they all believed it and this was my main reason for my belief that bigfoot once existed, if not still today. My grandfather and parents were not uneducated people so I don't know why they wouldn't question it more, maybe for the same reason I never did, I don't know. Now I think it was just a person that frightened my Dad.
Click to expand...
Yes, you wrote about how important it is or was for you. What I am trying to point is how much you invested on it and how little substance it has, how weak it actually is.

Bear, wanderer, a fabrication. There's no way to actually know what it was. We know, however, one of the things it was not- bigfoot.
 
I am Bigfoot said:
Just to nit pick, basing your belief on a story of a sighting makes your belief null and void (since anecdotal evidence is not sufficient for belief in something as fantastical as bigfoot).
Click to expand...

Yes, when you remove the emotional connection, or trust factor out of it, step back, look at this like you never heard the story before it doesn't add up to bigfoot.

It actually makes me angry because if I were a parent and my son told me this story I would have handled the situation a lot differently. It's almost negligent IMO in the way it got pushed off onto a myth. I never bothered to look at it from that perspective before, I just took it on faith that they knew what they were talking about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom