Why wouldn't bigfoot hunt humans?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jodie said:
Really? Since when did all of you get to be so subjective about evidence? Photos, but from where? Videos, yeah, so what? Bear skins, yeah, but who shot the bear? I mean what is the difference in his "evidence" versus bigfoot evidence.
Click to expand...
His assertions aren't concerning a here-to-fore uncatalogued species of bi-pedal North American ape that has eluded all attempts at reliable documentation for 15,000 years.

That's the difference.
 
tsig said:
The best way to keep someone from shoving something down your throat is to shut your mouth.
Click to expand...

You can forget about that, the hypocrisy is too rampant to ignore. You might be OK with shredding proponent testimony and turning a blind eye to a pot calling a kettle black, but I'm not.
 
Hellbound said:
Bear with me for a moment.

Let's say ABP is making up everything. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that all his evidence comes from other peoples experiences. Someone else shot the bears, was attacked, etc, etc, etc.

How does that actually change the argument? Sure, you might get internet points because you've proved something about your latest obsession target, but how does that relate to the dearth of Bigfoot evidence?

The fact that there are bear attacks, that large and reclusive animals are routinely found, that every other animal leave evidence of it's existence, etc, etc, etc...all argue that Bigfoot is nothing but a myth.

I don't care about internet psychology, whoever does it. I care about evidence. And Bigfoot doesn't fit with evidence.

Both sides of your argument are massive red herrings. The psychology doesn't matter in determining the truth of Bigfoot claims. The evidence does.

Since when did you focus on irrelevencies instead of the main argument?

Oh, wait, nevermind.
Click to expand...

It gets back to that old saying that people who live in glass houses ought not throw stones.
 
carlitos said:
As others have mentioned, bears actually exist. So there's that key difference. Clear, unambiguous photos of actual skins, an actual moose, etc.
Click to expand...

I think your just making up excuses for his questionable claims. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence.
 
Much like Bigfoot when a camera comes out, 25 posts in this thread have just disappeared.

The topic of this thread is not other posters, past or present. It is not a reminiscence of old friends long gone. It is not a dissection of the psychology of one's opponents.

Please adhere to the Membership Agreement and stay on topic.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader
 
Jodie said:
I think your just making up excuses for his questionable claims. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence.
Click to expand...


Questionable claims about things that exist > questionable claims about things that don't exist.

Are you just pretending not to understand this?
 
If something doesn't exist, whether it is an action or something concrete, what is the difference?
 
If I bowl a 200, but say that I bowled a 230, I am embellishing a bit. Human nature.

If I tell you that a giant monkey man threw a bowling ball at my camper, I'm indulging in fantasy.

Again, I'm skeptical that you don't see the difference between the two. Things that exist, exist. Pilots, hunters, bears, planes, guns, Alaska, trees.

Things that don't exist -- unicorns, the tooth fairy, Bigfoot, Santa Claus -- those things don't exist. They are fantasy, fiction, stories, folklore. Telling stories about those things is by definition "story telling" and not reality.
 
Last edited:
He could have said that three unicorns charged him and it wouldn't have made any difference in the truthfulness of his story. Also, why would someone feel the need to make up a story to argue against the possibility that Bigfoot could be real?
 
http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=45818

I was driving to go fishing with my son, at a local fishing spot. The place is on the Cass county side of Lake Wright Patman. We were around a mile or so from the lake I would say. As I topped a hill and a slight bend I spotted a big black bear in the road. I stopped because bear in the area are rare. I had never seen one in the area but heard stories of them. I was excited because not only I was getting to see it but my son as well. Then very quickly the bear stood and turned toward us and to my shock it was not a bear at all. It was a huge thing not a bear. The thing was I would say between eight to ten feet tall, three and a half to four feet wide at the chest and shoulders. It had a large head with dark eyes either dark brown or black, a big flat nose and the face was a little lighter brown than the body. It was not black as I first thought but a dark brown almost black and its fur or hair was around four inches long. It looked like a guy who spends all his time in the gym. It had fists around the size of a canned ham, I say this because one hand was closed in to a fist and had something in it. I think it may have been male, because it had no breasts and might have had a bulge in the crotch area, but I wasn't focused on that. I am a religious man and have the light of God in my heart and Jesus is my lord. I immediately believed I was looking at a demon. I question that now, after talking to people who seem to know a lot about these things, and reading a lot over it since I saw it. Think me mad if you will but I slammed the vehicle in park, jumped out and started preaching gospel at the thing. I don't know if it is a demon for sure or not but either it is and the word of God hurt it or it just didn't know what to make of me, because it roared at me so loud and deep I could feel its vibration, like a teen's car radio. It threw what it had in its hand, it flew a few feet above us and a good long way back up the road, then it turned and ran with otherworldly speed. This all happened very fast, I could not say how fast but from the time I stopped till it was up and gone was not long at all. I stood there a moment longer thinking I just saw a demon. I got back in the vehicle to drive back and see what it threw at me. It was part of a cotton mouth with its head and who knows how much of it missing. I chunked it in the back and went home. During all of this my son had been screaming at me to get back in and let's go and he was freaked. He did not want me to stop when I turned around and was pushing me to go as fast as I could. I was not scared because a demon not dare confront a man of God. Yet now I'm not so sure that it was a demon.
Click to expand...

These BFRO Class A reports are a hoot!

And it's another case of a bigfoot in the middle of the road, yet they never get hit/killed by a vehicle.

Also a bigfoot that doesn't seem to be bothered much by humans.
 
Last edited:
Not only in the middle of the road, but sitting, hunching or squatting in the middle of the road.

"Then very quickly the bear stood and turned toward us ..." So if it wasn't already standing, it must have been squatting or something. So this bigfoot decides to stop in the middle of the road to sit down and eat its snake snack? Uhm, ok.
 
I was not scared because a demon not dare confront a man of God. Yet now I'm not so sure that it was a demon.
Click to expand...
Should this man of god be making **** up? Should he be including his son? Should he stop using hallucinogenics?

All of this on the next Maury.
 
carlitos said:
Again, I'm skeptical that you don't see the difference between the two. Things that exist, exist. Pilots, hunters, bears, planes, guns, Alaska, trees.

Things that don't exist -- unicorns, the tooth fairy, Bigfoot, Santa Claus -- those things don't exist. They are fantasy, fiction, stories, folklore. Telling stories about those things is by definition "story telling" and not reality.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is one of the harmful things about University of Bigfoot.

Once you learn how to play the bigfoot game of selective attention, evasion, diversion, denial, lying by omission and by inclusion of extraneous misleading information, guilt-tripping, shaming, playing the victim, projection, etc...

The behavior is too easily transferred to any exchanges with other people. Putting a pretend belief in bigfoot down does not mean giving up all of the tactics you learned.

We make a mistake in thinking this is about convincing people to give up belief in bigfoot. Because the real insight is correcting behavior: to stop using logical fallacies, to stop using emotional attacks, etc. - and that too transfers to all our other relationships as an improvement in our social conduct.

Being a scientist about things actually makes you a nicer person. It is very aggravating to have someone deny a distinction that is so obvious a three year old can understand. That ought to tell you what the motivation is for denying the distinction - it gets under people's skin. When they tell you explicitly that they despise someone, and you see this conduct, then you ought give up trying to convince them to accept the distinction. Because they already know. So yes, you are skeptical about the right thing here.
 
Last edited:
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Exactly. This is one of the harmful things about University of Bigfoot.



Once you learn how to play the bigfoot game of selective attention, evasion, diversion, denial, lying by omission and by inclusion of extraneous misleading information, guilt-tripping, shaming, playing the victim, projection, etc...



The behavior is too easily transferred to any exchanges with other people. Putting a pretend belief in bigfoot down does not mean giving up all of the tactics you learned.



We make a mistake in thinking this is about convincing people to give up belief in bigfoot. Because the real insight is correcting behavior: to stop using logical fallacies, to stop using emotional attacks, etc. - and that too transfers to all our other relationships as an improvement in our social conduct.



Being a scientist about things actually makes you a nicer person. It is very aggravating to have someone deny a distinction that is so obvious a three year old can understand. That ought to tell you what the motivation is for denying the distinction - it gets under people's skin. When they tell you explicitly that they despise someone, and you see this conduct, then you ought give up trying to convince them to accept the distinction. Because they already know. So yes, you are skeptical about the right thing here.
Click to expand...


Thanks. Jodie's reply to my post was very special. "It was a joke." Ha ha.
 
Jodie said:
You can forget about that, the hypocrisy is too rampant to ignore. You might be OK with shredding proponent testimony and turning a blind eye to a pot calling a kettle black, but I'm not.
Click to expand...

Ahhh working the high ground.....maybe you should start a thread for this drivel and not clog up our fun;)
 
OntarioSquatch said:
He could have said that three unicorns charged him and it wouldn't have made any difference in the truthfulness of his story. Also, why would someone feel the need to make up a story to argue against the possibility that Bigfoot could be real?
Click to expand...

Negatory OS just as with Bigfoot there's no evidence unicorns exist that would be the difference.
We know bears are real...but again you know this as well just playing the game are ya?
 
Both OS and Jodie are pretending that unicorns, bigfoot and bear stories are all the same. Weird. Maybe they could PM me the rules for this game, because in the real world, imaginary things are different from real things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom