[Merged] Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one? [Archive] - Page 6

kitakaze

3rd August 2009, 02:13 AM

Just finished watching an episode. Not many make it to the finish line and tonight was no exception.

You want bigfoot found, call Mantracker.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2324a76643c5c9c1.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17111)

RayG

Exactly. The thing is that the very few that do make it to the finish line never completely elude Mantracker. Now just imagine if instead of Mantracker's job being to pursue you and catch you on horseback, what if we said "just go shoot them or whatever it is you need to do to make them dead". I love when I come of from Japan to Canada and can catch Mantracker on TV but one thing just shouts out to me when I watch the show. It's like you take for example Survivorman's Les Stroud where he shows you the level of difficulty he has to go through to make it a week in the wild and shoot it all himself. Then you have Mantracker where there's a shot of a guy hiding in the grass on the side of a hill with Mantracker at the top of the hill. We're being told to think that Mantracker can not see the guy hiding and you're sitting there in front of the TV yelling at it "what about the *bleep*ing cameraman standing right there next to the guy in the grass pointing a *bleeping* camera at the guy hiding!?"

I have doubts about that show but no doubts about Mantracker's skills. The thing I really like about shows like that is that anytime they're out in the various terrains of Canada, they have the potential to get on tape these monster wood apes that respond often aggressively to the presence of humans. Why doesn't the BFRO or some other similar group hire Mantracker to track monster wood apes for them? Is it possible that they don't really think he'd find anything?

mikeyx

3rd August 2009, 02:40 PM

[quote=makaya325;4959751]Very well then:

1. Every living organism, from Elephants to bacteria, leaves it own ecological impact on the environment. EX: a new predator is introduced into a large area full of deer. As time goes on, the deer population will start to decrease, due to the predator consuming them. Bigfoot, however, does not leave any ecological impact on its environment. There is no decrease in deer, elk, bear, plants, etc population, which you would expect if there was a breeding population of monstrous apes, which in reality there is no such thing.

But would wandering small hunter/ gatherer groups leave that much impact in the far northern reaches of Canada. Did the Indians deplete the buffalo?

flimsy considering many consider them to be omnivorous or opportunists or vegitarian, your assumption is pretty narrow, next.....

2. Lack of remains- Every Animal, no matter how rare, has to leave remains behind. Scientists have no trouble finding a new species of insect in the remote, unaccessible areas of the Congo, yet no one can seem to find a population of hairy titans living in such close perimeters to people. The fact that nearly all of NA has been mapped and developed, yet not one finding of any large ape remains, makes the likelyhood of bigfoot plummet extremely low.

But if they buried, burned or even ate their dead, that would make the likelhood of finding remains of small tribes slim

You just potentially refuted yourself, next.....

3. Lack of tools- If bigfoot has evaded man for all of these centuries, you would certainly expect tools and culture from such a smart species. The fact that bigfoot is never found, yet is described as smart as a bag of dirt, does not support consistency for it being a real species.

Maybe for some reason they are terrified out of their wits of man and avoid him at all costs. Do apes have tools and "cities"? Its not hard to elude man. Its his dogs that are hard to hide from. Ask Mr Cougar

That made no sense. next.....

4. Every mammal, when giving birth, would be experiencing so much pain, which would make them scream their heads off. A sasquatch would require a huge voicebox, and if ever in a painful situation, its voice would certainly be heard for miles and miles.

you're serious.....?

5. Not all forests remote- Even the Dark, mysterious forests of the PNW are surveyed and mapped to death. Wildlife biologists and park rangers do travel great distances and cover so much land that any large species would be found by now.

best one so far, still flimsy.

6. Why so few sightings?- If this thing is real, it has to have an MVP (Minimum viable population) of around 4000. If this were the case, people would be running into these things daily, not once in every blue moon.

also flimsy

7. No consistent behavior- No one has ever reported seeing a bigfoot give birth, mate, or fight with each other, all of which you would see in a real population of a REAL species.

assumption, and a flimsy one

8. Bigfoot is reported in all 50 states, yet not one sighting has ever lead to good evidence.

Most of the sightings, if not all, in the lower 48 are hoaxes. They don't count. And really? They have been reported in Hawaii??

That wasn't coherent

9. Where the tracks lead to- A couple 1000 of these Hairy giants would certainly leave trackways behind. Don't you think that at least one trackway would lead you to your grand prize?

Your best efforts weren't that great. As I said in the beginning, presenting opinion as fact, FAIL.

makaya325

3rd August 2009, 02:43 PM

flimsy considering many consider them to be omnivorous or opportunists or vegitarian, your assumption is pretty narrow, next.....

Is that your best one? :rolleyes:

JcR

20th August 2009, 01:04 AM

I didn't notice anything too out of the ordinary, other than the extra bite the wind had today.
A mimicking Bigfoot just had to come along and throw in a new twist.
Not to spoil the party...No! Not at all. Bigfoot would raise the party bar here, add a
few more goose bumps... Goose bumps you never knew you had.
The coo,coo,coo, of the mourning dove, or a shuffling Bigfoot, trying with all it's
"staying still powers" to elude me.
What puzzles me though, is why it would mimic all it's fellow creatures anyways.
A survival skill I suppose. Why not hoot like an owl when those pesky campers stroll by.
This could be warning sounds to other Bigfoots in the area, incoming at 5 oclock
Get your whoops and stones ready.
How this method has worked for so many years, has me in total awe.
I can't even tie my own boot laces, without getting noticed. Yet this Bigfoot...

I thought my mind was far and away from this hairy biped, as I meandered through
My woods, a walk which sometimes resembles that of a wood duck waddle, short steps.
I was thinking of paying more attention to some of the finer details.
Though I am quite intimate with my woods, there is always an old story turning over and over
with the whiff of a new theme filtering in, percolating like my morning coffee.
The wind playing "on and off" with the branches. All those in between intermissions.
Always assured of more parts to follow. Never quite the same tune playing out here.
These woods have more than enough "Nuances and little quirks"
to fill that nature hungry space between one's ears.

In one of those temporary lulls, I was lured into thinking about the deciduous trees.
Getting ready to put out all they have in store for fall colors. A vibrant show only to then rid themselves
of these colorful blankets like yesterday's fad.
An out of place hoot, or an unfamiliar smell was all it would take to drag out Bigfoot...
Front and center again. Why I can't resist sometimes.
I filled all of my lungs with as much air as I dared to intake, then let out a great "whoooooop!"
I'm sure all that was heard in the woods today, just might have been the most pathetic attempt
at a "whoop" that was ever heard... In all of time... On all this green earth has ever had to offer.
But I felt like I took the words right out of Bigfoot's mouth.
http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt53/JchristopherR_photos/My-old-Pal.jpg
My Old Pal.

kitakaze

20th August 2009, 02:07 AM

(snip)

My Old Pal.

So, so, so very deservingly nominated (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5025119#post5025119)

JcR chases my mak attack blues away.

Thank you.:)

Drewbot

20th August 2009, 08:48 AM

Kitakaze, I think perhaps we should start a Bigfoot Fiction thread. Where our Bigfoot literary poems, stories, etc... could be published for the world to see.

I have been working on a Hemingway-esqe Bigfoot story, and I also have a screenplay in the works that could possibly turn into a short movie, or a short story in a horror movie.

Tell me what you think.

Here is an example of a poem I've been working on.

Bigfoot on mah mind, oil-sprayed gravel road a-drivin'
There in the mirage-level distance, something stiffly-shuffles across.

Dirt Black color, furry?, I'd say 'yes indeed!'
Hit the gas, engine hesitates, blow a stop-sign, closing the distance.

Slap me twice and call me 'Susan!' it IS Bigfoot!
No... wait... it is an old man in a well-worn parka, checking his mail.

I shant mention this to anyone.

wicked_ways

20th August 2009, 06:11 PM

Bigfoot on mah mind, oil-sprayed gravel road a-drivin'
There in the mirage-level distance, something stiffly-shuffles across.

Dirt Black color, furry?, I'd say 'yes indeed!'
Hit the gas, engine hesitates, blow a stop-sign, closing the distance.

Slap me twice and call me 'Susan!' it IS Bigfoot!
No... wait... it is an old man in a well-worn parka, checking his mail.

I shant mention this to anyone.

Oil sprayed road driving....oh I know it well.
While driving, I look for changes.
A tiny amount of orange and yellow whispers the beginning.
Soon the trees will be resplendent with fire-like colors.
Autumn, fall whatever you like to call it,
I call it Michigan. I call Michigan home. :blush:

wicked_ways

20th August 2009, 06:16 PM

kitakaze

20th August 2009, 07:18 PM

Hemingway would be great. Who else has the voice to tell the tale of the elusive Bigfoot, and the lost dreams that come with it? Wonderful idea Drewbot.

Hey Kitakaze, a thread for stories is a novel idea! (oh i am so clever!):D

I have an even better idea. We already have the uber-cool Dog Switcher Fan Club (http://forums.randi.org/group.php?groupid=31). Any JREF Bigfoot skeptic who isn't on that I promise you wears sandals with big white socks pulled right up to the knees and thinks Bill O'Reilly and Fox News are the voice for the people.

What we need is to organize. We need to be a mass. We need a Bigfoot/crypto weirdness, fiction, poetry, satire group and to have an outlet for it, preferably Community. There I can roll in reverie for my lost M.O.H.A.I.R., Susan. JcR can bust whoops and prose. Drew can bust foot ryhmes. William can discuss elusive downed plane sightings. It will be like always but with more cowbell.

I have been tossing names around in my head. I was thinking the Goony Goo Goo's á la Eddie Murphy but there are many possibilities. Anybody who likes the idea, feel free to drop a suggestion.

JcR

20th August 2009, 07:39 PM

I'm just checking my drawers to see if I have any big white socks.
Many thanks Kitakaze. :)

Correa Neto

21st August 2009, 05:57 AM

Can I write bigfoot porn?

LTC8K6

21st August 2009, 07:55 AM

We'd need a sample to say for sure...

Drewbot

21st August 2009, 07:56 AM

Correa Neto

21st August 2009, 08:21 AM

We'd need a sample to say for sure...
Of bigfoot porn?

Well, you can find some of the material I'll use as "inspiration" source at the MRP and SFB threads...

I can guarantee you there will be plenty of whoops and yells in the woods.

Drewbot

21st August 2009, 12:15 PM

kitakaze

21st August 2009, 12:56 PM

I don't know, I think we need a separate thread for the Bigfoot Poetry/Fiction/ Bigfoot Pron, that Dogswitcher place is for Tom Burnette fans.

Kitakaze please start a thread for that. Dogswitcher Club does not correspond with a Limerick about Bigfoot's eating habits.

Yeah, that's what I was saying. The Tom Burnette fan club is a social club for the appreciation of just one marvelous Bigfooter hillbilly. I was suggesting we have a separate JREF social group with it's own thread in Community for Bigfoot/crypto-related weirdness. This would be the place where I would like to quote over something like this just for fun...

If crashed planes moved around the forest and encountered people just like Bigfoot does... we might find all of them.

Breaking News: A missing plane was found yesterday in Alaska when it tried to cross a highway and was smashed by a big rig. Last month, another missing plane was found when a hunter shot it. Lamar Declipompsky from California said, "I knew my shot was good and it wasn't a case of mistaken identity. This plane was sneaking around behind some trees and was watching me. Obviously, it was one of those crashed planes because the non-missing ones are all up in the sky or parked at some airport. I took the shot. This kind of closure is important."

I nominated that. That's exactly the kind of creative reaction I like seeing to crypto-screwballery. It's like Gary Larson on 11. I was glad we had pith awards because otherwise it would be a weird nomination. Even so, I think when most people are looking at that, it's like, Man, those Bigfoot skeptic people are bizarre! Is "Declipompsky" even a real name??

I would bring over stuff like that and contribute whatever my whim at the time is. I know I wouldn't focus on it. Context is everything. Here's another good one...

Yes. Never drowns or has an accident or plays, etc.

I've said this before. Bigfoot never does anything but walk straight from nowhere to nowhere.

He never does anything like stand around and contemplate the view, or kick pine cones, or skip and hop, or dance with happiness, or anything that would leave anything other than a line of tracks.

He's never walking along, and then runs like crazy for 20 feet just to be running on a nice summer day.

Two of them never race each other to the river to see who is fastest.

He never gets mad and stomps around in a circle in frustration.

He never gets in a fist fight with the guy in the next valley.

He never does a left-face.

His kids never run around in circles in the mud getting filthy.

They never climb a tree and fall out, or get stuck up there and holler for mama.

They never hang around in unruly groups and misbehave, or draw things in the dirt.

Whatever the thread or social group would be, it would be a place where Bigfoot throwing pig lovers of the world could unite and take over. Mmmm... That came out all wrong, didn't it? Anyways, you get the point. Yes, I'll get on that. More social group name suggestions, please.

Drewbot

21st August 2009, 01:05 PM

I think Corea Neto and My "BIGFOOT IS..." Tshirt is probably worthy then.http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_197054a8eefea5ceeb.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17370)

kitakaze

21st August 2009, 01:13 PM

I am writing a couple of Bigfoot related Punk Rock songs.

One in the style of the Ramones titled: Sasquatch is a Punk Rocker To the tune of "Sheena Is A Punk Rocker" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af8yzAoCYIM&feature=PlayList&p=C1A67FFE4CE7CA60&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=8

and another more in the Genre of Suicidal Tendencies, My Mom Buys Her Drugs From Bigfoot.

COOL!

I would do it to Joy Division's Transmission (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flVEoNuEYgE).

Bigfoot mind transmission.
Bigfoot mind transmission.

Listen to the wail, let it ring on.
Eyes, bright red lenses frightened of the sun.
We would have a fine time screaming in the night,
Infrasound destruction,
Waiting for our sight.

kitakaze

21st August 2009, 01:28 PM

Oh my goodness, I can't believe I missed this...

My name is Clare,

I enjoy starry nights and walking in rivers,
I also enjoy screaming and scaring the crap out of humans.

If you're looking for a good time I can be contacted at
www.williamparcherdatingservice.com

Hope to here from you soon.

Clare County Clare

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_82644a85a01406b57.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17268)

I am not her pimp!

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/fa9b6451.jpg

At this point, forget Goony Goo Goo. There is really no other choice than the Cheap A Simps for a social group and thread.

William Parcher

21st August 2009, 01:41 PM

That is a good name. But I would drop the "s", and just call it Cheap A Simp. Do you remember the origin of that brand new figure of speech? I do.

JcR

21st August 2009, 01:50 PM

Great! we can have thefirstbabybigfoot

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt53/JchristopherR_photos/TheFisrtBf.jpg

Drewbot

21st August 2009, 02:10 PM

I just had a REWRITE on Sasquatch is a Punk Rocker.

It is now called "SASQUATCH is a Stump Knocker"

Put this in the wrong place before.

kitakaze

21st August 2009, 03:42 PM

That is a good name. But I would drop the "s", and just call it Cheap A Simp. Do you remember the origin of that brand new figure of speech? I do.

Because it is a social group of people I thought it best to add an "s". Though, the Cheap a Simps sounds like a Bigfoot skeptic band name would be if there ever was such a horrible thing. The Cheap A Simp JREF social group? That may work better. Anyone have a preference? Just right out of nowhere but I had also considered The Dead Bigfoots Society. That one is good, too.

It's funny but when I tried to think and remember the origin of cheap a simp, I had it mixed up in my head with this old thing I picked up from tube that he got from Volsquatch at BFF about the use of a misspelling "pner". I had to dig for it and came back to the Parcher on MK...

2) The soundtrack has fascinating lyrics like...

We control the datamatics
We control the big deek
We control the gofreads
We're control the traffic lights
We control the puterglife
We control the cheap a simp...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2765838&postcount=5858

Sadly, that youtube link is down.

kitakaze

21st August 2009, 03:44 PM

Great! we can have thefirstbabybigfoot

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt53/JchristopherR_photos/TheFisrtBf.jpg

I fell down.

JcR just made our logo.

William Parcher

21st August 2009, 04:09 PM

Because it is a social group of people I thought it best to add an "s". Though, the Cheap a Simps sounds like a Bigfoot skeptic band name would be if there ever was such a horrible thing. The Cheap A Simp JREF social group?

I don't like the "s" because it sounds like the club members are Cheap A Simps. But (coming from the guy that actually made the term) CAS maybe ought not used as a pronoun or name for anything in particular. It's an ambiguous term for stupid or meaningless, but it isn't used to describe anything specific. Of course, anybody can use it any way they want... but I would only use it as the complete phrase, "We control the cheap a simp."

Improper usage: "I saw a baby Bigfoot sitting on a limb." Response from audience - "That's a cheap a simp baby Bigfoot." or "That baby Bigfoot is a cheap a simp."

Proper usage: "I saw a baby Bigfoot sitting on a limb." Response from audience - "We control the cheap a simp."

I had to dig for it and came back to the Parcher on MK...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2765838&postcount=5858

Sadly, that youtube link is down.

Well, you know I had never heard the song being played in that MK Davis YT clip. It was LTC that told me it was by Neil Young.

Here (http://www.actionext.com/names_n/neil_young_lyrics/we_r_in_control.html) you can hear the song and see the lyrics. Did Neil Young borrow Peter Frampton's voicebox?

kitakaze

21st August 2009, 05:07 PM

I don't like the "s" because it sounds like the club members are Cheap A Simps. But (coming from the guy that actually made the term) CAS maybe ought not used as a pronoun or name for anything in particular. It's an ambiguous term for stupid or meaningless, but it isn't used to describe anything specific. Of course, anybody can use it any way they want... but I would only use it as the complete phrase, "We control the cheap a simp."

Improper usage: "I saw a baby Bigfoot sitting on a limb." Response from audience - "That's a cheap a simp baby Bigfoot." or "That baby Bigfoot is a cheap a simp."

Proper usage: "I saw a baby Bigfoot sitting on a limb." Response from audience - "We control the cheap a simp."

I think you are correct about this. My intention was rather simple in simply recognizing that cheap a simp can be representative of humour and sense of people that spend time making Bigfoot/cryptoweirdness but cheap a simp is not unlike Susan (as in "don't be a Susan") in that I would not want to refer to myself as a cheap a simp or a Susan. I think We Control The Cheap A Simp is more appropriate name for a group of people that like to write Bigfoot/crypto observational weirdness.

Well, you know I had never heard the song being played in that MK Davis YT clip. It was LTC that told me it was by Neil Young.

Here (http://www.actionext.com/names_n/neil_young_lyrics/we_r_in_control.html) you can hear the song and see the lyrics. Did Neil Young borrow Peter Frampton's voicebox?

Tonight, when I am DJing in the club for my VOX (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4979017&postcount=46) night, I am going to play We R In Control. I will control the cheap a simp.

atpeace

25th August 2009, 04:06 AM

...I promise you wears sandals with big white socks pulled right up to the knees

I'm afraid you might be shunning your muse. It would explain the lack of a preponderance of footprints relative to the large number of sightings
ap

William Parcher

25th August 2009, 08:44 AM

BigTex and the Kill Zone - A BFF Adventure (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=24208)

Bigfoot is on the loose in the Texas backcountry. BigTex is on the scene with regular updates. It seems that Bigfoot has made some kind of hobby out of killing just about every kind of animal around and putting them in one small area. Maybe it isn’t Bigfoot. Anyway, all creatures great and small are found in uneaten and busted-up states of decomposition. Lots of pictures in the thread. It’s a real mystery all right.

I'm just a guy who has spent many years hiking in the woods with a good eye for detail, and a good working knowledge of the wild life. Of course, my one sighting of a Bigfoot, and what I would term as several 'near misses', has caused me to look at things a bit different, but like to stay more objective in this forum.

VERY dangerous customer, and just like people, their mood can be effected by many things at any given moment. It's just my opinion, but the Southern species seems quite a bit more aggressive, and apey, than their Pacific NW cousin. Plus they have been shot at plenty down here – that's the mentality in the South - shoot first, ask questions later. If you are looking for them, you will get a different and aggressive response than you would them seeking you out for curiousity sake. They can also seek you out over territorial matters, and more aggression. If I catch some fool sneaking over my back fence, they will get a totally different side of me than the UPS guy ringing the door bell.......same for our hairy friend.........try not to PISS HIM OFF!

I went to the 'Kill Zone' yesterday, referred to in earlier posts, and for the first time since May. From what I could tell, there were 3 new dead Deer, and this poor dog pictured below. Teeth were not used to kill this poor fellow, and appeared to be beaten to death, like something had it by the back legs, and beat it up & down on the ground. It was torn in half, the neck was twisted around, the lower jaw was pulled back at 180 degrees and dislocated. This was somebodies pet, and far from home. Has anyone seen anything like this?

They got a Dogsmasher running around.

Damn, that's exactly what King Kong did to the T-Rex. That dog bit off more than he could chew.

Man, you better get a high powered "go team" down there BigTex, you are hot onto something big, bad, and primed to tango. Sounds like high-tech and high caliber is the only way to go. Know any good INS people with a predator drone, this bears watching from a distance? Could you check for organ placement in the dog to see if anything was missing? Where was the other half? How about the condition of the deer? Worthy of checking organs or not?

makaya325

25th August 2009, 08:47 AM

I thought this was a skeptic forum, not a "let me look and laugh at some one else's" forum. Grow up and get back to serious discussion, WP.

LONGTABBER PE

25th August 2009, 08:55 AM

I thought this was a skeptic forum, not a "let me look and laugh at some one else's" forum. Grow up and get back to serious discussion, WP.

Take your own advice

LONGTABBER PE

25th August 2009, 09:02 AM

captain koolaid

25th August 2009, 10:25 AM

desertyeti

25th August 2009, 10:29 AM

Only in the hottest years this happens. And this year, it grows hot.

If it bleeds...we can kill it...

makaya325

25th August 2009, 10:31 AM

If it bleeds...we can kill it...

Nu uh, bigfoot can turn invisible and shapeshift! He is also intelligent enough to cover his own tracks! :rolleyes:

JcR

25th August 2009, 03:14 PM

They got a Dogsmasher running around.

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt53/JchristopherR_photos/CtoCGW.jpg

William Parcher

25th September 2009, 09:51 AM

Guys were seeing them in Vietnam?

BFF thread on Vietnam Rock Apes (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=27726).

Various quotes...

The rock apes in Nam used to throw rocks at us, thats why we were very careful with grenades, they would through them back!

When I heard the stories of the *Jungle People*, I showed Bounpheng the Patterson-Gimlin film. His exact response was, "Looks like same thing but ours not fat." He also said that often when his group was camping in mountainous regions, their sleep would be interrupted by rocks being thrown into their campsite.

There are also accounts of groups of them being mistaken for VC at night and drawing fire

...he quickly said that we saw Rock Apes all the time. Sometimes they would throw rocks at us. He described them as being brown in color and between four and five feet tall.

Was visiting with a neighbor the other day... he shared several encounters with an animal he called 'the ape'. Not gorillas or chimps or spider monkeys, these were slightly larger than a man, covered with a long black hair, and were reportedly very intelligent. When provoked, they attacked both the VC as well as our GI's, and they were apparently reasonably plentiful in country.

My neighbor was telling me the apes would occasionally sneak into camp and hideout in the latrine, actually killed a GI there, and then the squad went out and killed the ape - just buried it - no real curiousity about what it was - too busy trying to survive.

Next night the camp was attacked by rocks from the treeline which the guys assumed to have been a learned behavior - when the airstrip was being put in the GI's threw rocks to clear the Apes out the treeline. Of course we now know that rock throwing is an established behavior - but the whole story and how it came up was fascinating.

The Navy SEALs made regular contact with the Rock Apes in VN. We didnt bother them and they didnt bother us. If one was wounded by a mine the others hauled him away, no one left behind, that got our respect.

He stated that out of all the things that scared him in Vietnam, these "Rock Apes" were at the very top. He stated that from what he remembers, these apes were not overly large; about the size of a small adult. What he could not get over was how SMART and STRONG these animals were.

My uncle stated that throughout his tour, some soldiers had shot some of these animals; sometimes killing them and sometimes wounding them. He stated that a couple of times soldiers did this on purpose, but a couple of times it occurred by accident. My uncle stated that when a shooting occured purposefully, the animals' family/companions were able to remember exactly which solider killed or wounded an animal and would attack that exact solider at night in his sleeping bag. He stated that a couple of soldiers were ripped to pieces and a couple of soldiers were able to fend off the attacks, but were wounded badly. My uncle emphasized that the attacks only occurred, when the shooting was done intentionally. With that being said, my uncle firmly believes these animals were capable of at least 3 things, which involve fairly high cognitive abilities - the ability to remember another primate, the ability to plan, and the ability to determine intent. Finally, my uncle stated that he never got a REALLY good look at one of these things because they were for the most part very nocturnal.

SweatyYeti

25th September 2009, 10:11 AM

Apparently.....allegedly....Adam Davies' team members just saw an Orang Pendek...:)...and, gathered up some physical evidence...

I’m on my way to Tyler…but I just received this…so I’ll post it quickly:

“Yeti sighted in Jungle !!!! Two team members have sighted the Yeti while we were in the jungle. I heard a large animal moving towards us. Subsequently the creature was then sighted by team member Dave Archer and Sahar Didmus, a forest ranger. I have a sworn affadavit from Sahar to that effect. It hid from us by a tree, before moving rapidly and bipedally through the jungle. Dave describes the OP [Orang Pendek] as looking almost chimpanzee-like. Sahar was so upset and disturbed he began sobbing, and I had to comfort him. We have taken hair samples found at the site, and bagged some rattan which it was eating. We will have these analysed by Todd Disotell. Numerous tracks also found……………!!!!!!!!” ~ Adam Davies (enroute out of Indonesia via Singapore)

Link:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/op-sighted/

Drewbot

25th September 2009, 10:20 AM

My neighbor was telling me the apes would occasionally sneak into camp and hideout in the latrine, actually killed a GI there, and then the squad went out and killed the ape - just buried it - no real curiousity about what it was - too busy trying to survive.

Too busy trying to survive... But not too busy to dig a hole and bury it.

LTC8K6

25th September 2009, 10:22 AM

Bigfoot has been sighted and evidence gathered far more often than the OP has...

jhunter1163

26th September 2009, 05:29 PM

Doesn't anyone think a Bigfoot killing a GI would make the news?

makaya325

26th September 2009, 05:42 PM

Doesn't anyone think a Bigfoot killing a GI would make the news?

Maybe in America, But not in Vietnam. Heck, in those Jungles, any weird description of an unknown ape would not surprise me.

captain koolaid

26th September 2009, 07:58 PM

Guys were seeing them in Vietnam?

BFF thread on Vietnam Rock Apes (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=27726).

Various quotes...

Never heard about the killer monster ape squads. But then, I never asked. All for the best, really. If they told me, they probably would have had to kill me.

I Am He

27th September 2009, 12:19 AM

Maybe in America, But not in Vietnam. Heck, in those Jungles, any weird description of an unknown ape would not surprise me. May I ask you a question, Mak? What if anything do you know about Nam?

I Am He

makaya325

27th September 2009, 12:36 AM

May I ask you a question, Mak? What if anything do you know about Nam?

I Am He

That is irrelevant.

Ravenwood

27th September 2009, 07:06 AM

makaya325

27th September 2009, 09:54 AM

They found all of these critters, but nary a sign of GI killing rock apes...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/09/26/mekong.species/
http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~vern/species.html
http://scorpion-files.blogspot.com/2009/08/new-heterometrus-species-from-vietnam.html
http://english.vietnamnet.vn/tech/2009/04/840704/
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3161/150811008X414809

This could be the tip of the iceberg. Parts of Vietnam, unlike North America, have not really been thoroughly explored yet. It is not unreasonable to expect a new species of small primate, such as the Orang Pendek, or perhaps a 5-6ft Yeren

I Am He

29th September 2009, 12:08 AM

That is irrelevant.
Would you please elaborate on "That's irrelevant."? You seem to insinuate you know quite a bit.

I Am He

makaya325

29th September 2009, 12:10 AM

Would you please elaborate on "That's irrelevant."? You seem to insinuate you know quite a bit.

I Am He

What does my individual knowledge on the History of Vietnam. Many people know that Vietnam is remote, just as they know parts of South America and Africa are remote. There is no further Individual knowledge needed here. I have never claimed to know much about Vietnam, only that some parts of it are remote and unexplored

Ravenwood

29th September 2009, 02:44 AM

I had a talk with the old man tonight (he spent a while in Vietnam, living with with the hill tribes known as the Montagnards, as he likes to say "swapping lies, swatting flies & firing the odd shot or two") & he cannot recall them having any wildman legends or hearing of "rock apes" or anything like it. He said their big boogeyman was different forest spirits (non-corporeal & invisible critters that liked to make your life hell if you did not appease them) He also said that the big components of their religion seemed to center around dodrip (a nasty rice beer) & sacrificing animals from chickens to water buffalo, depending on how much you ticked the spirits off (as the size of the sacrifice grew, so did the amount of beer you had to give the shaman to appease the spirits...) I showed him the story about the rock apes & he swears that the closest thing he saw to that description were drunk marines on "I&I" in Saigon...

makaya325

29th September 2009, 07:37 AM

EHocking

29th September 2009, 10:08 AM

Interesting anecdote. Do you know if any of his other companions can corroborate his account?Flipside, can anyone find any Vietnamese myths or legends regarding a bigfoot/yeti type of creature. A quick Google doesn't cough up anything interesting.

So at the moment, we have
a. No mythology in the country on Rock Apes or similar
b. a native of the country that confirms to a Westerner that no such mythology exists
c. unconfirmed anecdotes from GIs in an unfamiliar country, whilst underfire.
d. no bodies, photos, hair samples or footprints from the stories in c.

In my opinion, anecdote b doen't require much corroboration when in the context of "fact" a, whereas c and d are - well, just stories...

makaya325

29th September 2009, 10:19 AM

Flipside, can anyone find any Vietnamese myths or legends regarding a bigfoot/yeti type of creature. A quick Google doesn't cough up anything interesting.

Not everything is found on the Internet. Sometimes, it requires actually talking to the people

So at the moment, we have

a. No mythology in the country on Rock Apes or similar

According to what? One source?

b. a native of the country that confirms to a Westerner that no such mythology exists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batutut

In his 2001 Ballantine book Very Crazy G.I. - Strange but True Stories of the Vietnam War, veteran Kregg P.J. Jorgenson relates a sighting of such a creature by a team of LRRPs. The men refer to it as a "Rock Ape" reporting it as being small in stature, about 5 feet tall, and having a reddish tinge to its fur.[6]

A professor Tran Hong Viet of Pedagogic University of Hanoi, a researcher of Người Rừng, reported in 1982 finding similar footprints to those of MacKinnon in 1970, measuring 28x16 cm., of which he made casts.[7] He had been making an extensive post-war inventory of natural resources, and while collecting specimens near Chu Mo Ray in Sa Thay District, he came across the prints. A photo of the cast of the print was later published by Fortean News of the World (Japan Fortean Information Society).[8]

Explain that

c. unconfirmed anecdotes from GIs in an unfamiliar country, whilst underfire.

Ok, but you consider a doubters anecdote? Hypocrite

d. no bodies, photos, hair samples or footprints from the stories in c.

Hey, we are not talking about looking in Time square. No, we are talking about the remote jungles of Vietnam

In my opinion, anecdote b doen't require much corroboration

Oh yes it does, since there have been sightings of the creature in Vietnam

makaya325

29th September 2009, 10:32 AM

Also, take a look at this

http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~vern/wildman.html

Reports of 'wildman' vary from large to small, with body hair from grey to brown or black and may be alone or with others. But always they are said to walk bipedally. They go by many names among highlands minority people, most are terms of respect. The Vietnamese name is Nguoi Rung - "Forest People". This is the direct equivalent of the name for an ape we do know from Indonesia, the Orang Utan. The minority people of Kontum are certain that the forest people existed in their forests in the very recent past. They differentiate their forest people from forest spirits or genies, some of which they also describe as hairy bipeds. Mr Vu Ngoc Thanh visiting areas near the Laotian border, discovered another local term 'Khi Trau, literally 'buffalo monkey' or 'big monkey'

tsig

29th September 2009, 10:38 PM

Never heard about the killer monster ape squads. But then, I never asked. All for the best, really. If they told me, they probably would have had to kill me.

I knew secrets so secret that i would have to kill myself for just knowing them.:eye-poppi

I Am He

29th September 2009, 11:30 PM

What does my individual knowledge on the History of Vietnam.If you don't know, little boy, then you'll never get it. The rest of the BS I snipped because it's nothing more then a waste of my reading time as is with the rest of what you've been posting about this subject. You are just not making any sense.

I Am He

captain koolaid

30th September 2009, 04:03 AM

It's all true. Seriously.

Corroborated. Bam! Take that scoftic losers...

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b352/Hollerbach/35-1.jpg

EHocking

30th September 2009, 06:58 AM

Not everything is found on the Internet. Sometimes, it requires actually talking to the peopleThe Vietnamese folklore history is not totally verbal, a simple Google on "Vietnam legend myth" is adequate for the moment to get an insight into their native myths and legends, just as has been done for native Americans. None of the links I found that outlined known Vietnamese myths and legends hinted at a jungle wildman or yeti equivalent.
So at the moment, we have

According to what? One source?What the www is now "one source"? It's exactly what it ISN'T. There are books as well as scans of articles, encyclopedia entries to be found out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batutut

Explain thatThat is a link to a Vietnamese Bigfooter.

Quite irrelevant to the point you responded to.
Read it again - point b. local man says that Vietnamese do not have a mythology on wildmen/yetis.
b. a native of the country that confirms to a Westerner that no such mythology exists.Quoting modern Footer, sorry, cryptozoologists that "discovered" a footprint in 1970, is NOT discussing underlying myths and legends.

Explained.
Ok, but you consider a doubters anecdote? Hypocritead hom aside, how about replying to my post in context - which I actually spelled out later in my post.

To recap my points
a. there is not indication that bf is in Vietnamese mythology
b. anecdote from a discussion with a Vietnamese person who supports the evidence in statement a.
Hey, we are not talking about looking in Time square. No, we are talking about the remote jungles of VietnamThem jungles aren't as remote as you'd like to believe and in comparison to the GNW, a tiny area.

The country is 3% the size of the USA and it's population density is 8 times that of the USA. Granted, this is not uniform throughout the entire area, but "remote" in this sense is subjective.

In my opinion, anecdote b doen't require much corroborationOh yes it does, since there have been sightings of the creature in VietnamSightings of a creature has nothing to do with points a and b - that you and I can not find evidence of such a creature in Vietnamese mythology.

Take a deep breath and read the posts before responding in a knee-jerk fashion and missing the points being posted by others on the Forum.

EHocking

30th September 2009, 06:59 AM

It's all true. Seriously.

Corroborated. Bam! Take that scoftic losers...

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b352/Hollerbach/35-1.jpgA remarkable coincidence that this issue appears to have been first published in March 1975?

EHocking

30th September 2009, 07:10 AM

Also, take a look at this

http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~vern/wildman.htmlit does not address the point that, as far as we know, the Vietnames people do not have a hairy man/yeti legend in their mythology.

The above is merely an article on modern "discoveries" of the usual blobsquatch evidence put together by bf proponents.

Why is it that the ONLY sources on this alleged wildman are from cryptozoology proponent sites and none from anthropological sites discussing Vietnamese myths and legends? I find that very telling.

makaya325

30th September 2009, 09:10 PM

it does not address the point that, as far as we know, the Vietnames people do not have a hairy man/yeti legend in their mythology.

The above is merely an article on modern "discoveries" of the usual blobsquatch evidence put together by bf proponents.

They are simply Collecting Vietnamese stories to suggest it may be possible that there is something to this mystery after all.

Why is it that the ONLY sources on this alleged wildman are from cryptozoology proponent sites and none from anthropological sites discussing Vietnamese myths and legends? I find that very telling

Take it or leave it. Bigfoot encounters is not all a Proponent site. That is an unnecessary Assumption. You have Daegling's paper on the site, Radford's articles, etc. and others. So get off of the idea that it is a "Proponent site"

http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~vern/wildman/j-fis.html

Take a look at that track

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/296044ac41d9f81c4c.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17711)

makaya325

30th September 2009, 09:37 PM

http://ambergriscaye.com/25years/elsisimito.html

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/creatures/pj.htm

Educate yourself about Those two articles, each describing a similar creature over 1000 miles away

EHocking

1st October 2009, 06:38 AM

They are simply Collecting Vietnamese stories to suggest it may be possible that there is something to this mystery after all. A proponents page. All the related web pages point to bf of cryptozoological pages.

VIETNAM CRYPTOZOIC AND RARE ANIMALS RESEARCH CENTRE (CRARC)
Cryptozoology Personalities
Fossil Evidence for Human Evolution in China
From the Teeth of the Dragon - Gigantopithecus blacki by Eric Pettifor
UnMuseum argues against reality of the 'Iceman'
Sur les traces du BIG FOOT
Western Bigfoot Society
Institut Virtuel de Cryptozoologie or Virtual Institute of Cryptozoology
Cryptozoology Zone
Anomalies

Take it or leave it. Bigfoot encounters is not all a Proponent site.Non sequitur, we weren't even discussing that site, but since you insist, That is an unnecessary Assumption. You have Daegling's paper on the site, Radford's articles, etc. and others. So get off of the idea that it is a "Proponent site"Read the home page,

"This website attempts to provide the interested reader or research student with a general overview of the biology of the sasquatch to the same degree that one would expect from, say, a bear website.
...
I have tried very hard to provide plausible solutions to the prevailing tendency of journalists to treat the North American sasquatch or bigfoot as a near surreal phenomenon. It is unfortunate that tabloid journalism created a pattern that has driven the entire subject of these creatures into disrepute.
...
In view of the massive amount of evidence in the form of sightings, footprints, nesting sites and other artifacts, the sasquatch is viewed as a species of a very large, living, hirsute bipedal hominid. "

It's a proponents site, no assumption on my part necessary
Take a look at that track
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/296044ac41d9f81c4c.gif
Asian Black Bear range to Vietnam and have five toes on fore and hind feet.

Colour me unimpressed.

EHocking

1st October 2009, 06:39 AM

http://ambergriscaye.com/25years/elsisimito.html

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/creatures/pj.htm

Educate yourself about Those two articles, each describing a similar creature over 1000 miles awaySo have absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion of bf "sightings" in Vietnam.

SweatyYeti

1st October 2009, 08:43 AM

Here's an update from Adam Davies, on the alleged Orang Pendek sighting...

Wed, Sep 30 2009 01:57 | Permalink (http://www.extreme-expeditions.com/journal/journal.php?id=6139626791866939117)
I had a look at Cryptomundo last night, and the evidence we found, or certainly the nature of it, seem to be causing a lively debate! Soon I will write up a more detialed account of the expedition and publish it on the blog. What I will do today is stick to the facts on what we actually got , and what I intend to do next in terms of analyising that evidence.

1/ We have got both Rattan that the animal was probably chewing, and hair .

The Rattan + 1 hair was found at the location where Dave Archer and Sahar Didmus saw the Orang-Pendek. This was in a place I specifically choseto go, after finding tracks there on previous occcasions , including the cast of the footprint I found in 2001.

2/ We also have numerous hairs found on a tree . This ran parallell to another Orang-Pendek track I found on the other side of the Lake.

3/ We found two seperate Orang-Pendek trails which I photographed. These were identified by the Forest Rangers as originating from the OP. In terms of size and other specifics etc, they match the print I found in 2001.

4/We have two eyewitnesses, and I also have a sworn affadavit from forest ranger Sahar Didmus as to what he saw. We do not have a photo.

What next? The hair and Rattan will now be subject to scientific analysis by Professor Todd Disotell, from New York University. Whilst I cannot be sure they are from the OP, I can be confident they were gathered in the best possible manner they could be in the field, using sterilised tweezers, with no cross human contamination. They are now stored in ethanol. I will of course, make that information public. https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2011084735337030882-6139626791866939117?l=extremeexpeditions.blogspot. com
Adam Davies

Link:

http://www.extreme-expeditions.com/journal/journal.php?id=6139626791866939117

William Parcher

1st October 2009, 09:17 AM

Drewbot

1st October 2009, 10:20 AM

Sahar- the guy who gave the affidavit in Sweaty's link above , may be a Bigfooter. Is he the same Sahar with the gap-tooth as can be found in the links below? In one photo his ASH from his cigarette is falling into the evidence.

Both trips anchored by the Center for Fortean Zoology.
Both trips include Sahar, the guide who gave the sworn affidavit.
Is he calling him a Park Ranger to add authority to his statement?
Why is he called a guide in the other picture? If he is the Sumatran equivalent of a Bigfooter, is his affidavit any good?

4/We have two eyewitnesses, and I also have a sworn affadavit from forest ranger Sahar Didmus as to what he saw. We do not have a photo.

Can he be found here on this 2003 Trip. http://www.cfz.org.uk/expeditions/03sumatra/sumatra-pics.htm ?

Sahar, the native guide, who helped the team to unlock the secrets of the unforgiving jungle

Did this same Sahar work with Richard Freeman on the 2003 expedition?
Richard Freeman is the Zoological Directorat the Center for Fortean Zoology.

Here is Sahar Didmus with the 2009 Trip.
http://www.ghosttheory.com/2009/09/29/cfz-sumatra-orang-pendek-press-release

Adam Davies discusses Sahar in this pre 2009 expedition trip, blog
http://cfzsumatra09.blogspot.com/2009/09/adam-davies-his-hopes-for-expedition.html

And just to give you some background on Adam Davies: Here he is writing about the Mongolian Death Worm. Yes, the MDW is the Electricity Generating, Acid spray shooting worm that lives under the sand of the Gobi Desert. http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/158/death_worm.html
Well, despite our lack of success, and the fact that we found no scientific proof of its existence, I really believe that it’s out there somewhere. The habitat and remoteness of the area are consistent with a creature of this kind, the ecosystem could support it, and the vast and remote regions in which it is said to live might explain why it has remained unknown to science. Most impressive, though, were the many eyewitness statements from people living many, many miles apart, all having a high degree of consistency in their descriptions and details.

Drewbot

1st October 2009, 10:53 AM

Indeed, Sahar the Local Guide, and Sahar the Park Ranger are used interchangeably in describing their sighting on the 2009 expedition.

Google search this: "sahar" orang pendek

And you will find several blogs or articles referencing the same sighting.

William Parcher

1st October 2009, 11:27 AM

And just to give you some background on Adam Davies: Here he is writing about the Mongolian Death Worm. Yes, the MDW is the Electricity Generating, Acid spray shooting worm that lives under the sand of the Gobi Desert. http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/158/death_worm.html

His website is a marketing tool for himself. It looks like it was designed by MonsterQuest.

Check out the carving of the Death Worm.

The carving of a Death Worm made by a local eyewitness and now on display in a museum. Image: Adam Davies

It has almond eyes with pupils and lids. The eyes, snout and mouth make it look mammalian. This is what Davies calls an eyewitness? This is supposed to be a worm? It's the equivalent of a witness drawing a Bigfoot sketch with wings and feathers. Sure, why not?

William Parcher

1st October 2009, 11:30 AM

Is Sahar being paid to bring the Orang Pendek to the attention of the world, or at least to those who are paying him?

Is he the Sumatran equivalent of Bob Titmus?

Drewbot

1st October 2009, 11:58 AM

Is Sahar being paid to bring the Orang Pendek to the attention of the world, or at least to those who are paying him?

Is he the Sumatran equivalent of Bob Titmus?

Or the equivalent of Manuel Elizalde?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasaday_controversy

Manuel Elizalde was the head of PANAMIN, the Philippine government agency created in 1968 to protect the interests of cultural minorities. He was the son of a wealthy father of Spanish lineage and an American mother. Some found it unusual that a notorious playboy would have interest in a group of primitive people. He took credit for discovering the Tasaday, which he did on June 7, shortly after a local barefoot Blit hunter told him of a sporadic contact over the years with a handful of primitive forest dwellers. He released this to the media a month later, and many excited people began the long task of clearing the thickest forest in the world. Weeks later, visitors were only three hours away when their way was blocked by the PANAMIN guards, who only answered to Elizalde. Elizalde allowed only a handful of the "most important visitors" to meet them.

makaya325

1st October 2009, 12:10 PM

From Cryptomundo: Orang Pendek Track Photo Released (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/op-track-09/)

The red circle is supposed to be an OP footprint. I found canid and/or felid prints, and circled them in blue.

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/9e80285e.jpg

What in the hell would any kind of Canine be doing in Borneo?

makaya325

1st October 2009, 12:13 PM

It is unfortunate that tabloid journalism created a pattern that has driven the entire subject of these creatures into disrepute

No wonder why they get mad!

Correa Neto

1st October 2009, 12:19 PM

His website is a marketing tool for himself. It looks like it was designed by MonsterQuest.

Check out the carving of the Death Worm.

It has almond eyes with pupils and lids. The eyes, snout and mouth make it look mammalian. This is what Davies calls an eyewitness? This is supposed to be a worm? It's the equivalent of a witness drawing a Bigfoot sketch with wings and feathers. Sure, why not?
You know bigfoot threads came down to their lowest point ever when someone posts the pic of a carved wood dildo...

William Parcher

1st October 2009, 12:32 PM

What in the hell would any kind of Canine be doing in Borneo?

First of all, this is Sumatra, not Borneo. Secondly, you could have at least engaged a few brain cells to know that domestic dogs are going to be on that island. Besides that, the Dhole lives on Sumatra.

makaya325

1st October 2009, 01:20 PM

From Cryptomundo: Orang Pendek Track Photo Released (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/op-track-09/)

The red circle is supposed to be an OP footprint. I found canid and/or felid prints, and circled them in blue.

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/9e80285e.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/296044ac500f61a0f5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17716)

What about this track?

William Parcher

1st October 2009, 01:43 PM

What about this track?

It doesn't look like a sack of rice or a Gucci watch. But that is just my opinion.

Cuddles

2nd October 2009, 04:13 AM

Let's try to keep it vaguely on topic and civil please.

makaya325

2nd October 2009, 11:35 AM

It doesn't look like a sack of rice or a Gucci watch. But that is just my opinion.

Ok, but what is your opinion on the track, assuming it is genuine? Sunbear?

GT/CS

2nd October 2009, 01:14 PM

Ok, but what is your opinion on the track, assuming it is genuine? Sunbear?

What basis do we have to assume it's genuine?

makaya325

2nd October 2009, 02:20 PM

What basis do we have to assume it's genuine?

What basis do have to assume it is fake? Same logic. I am not claiming it is real, only creating a hypothetical scenario

I Am He

2nd October 2009, 11:02 PM

"hypothetical" Are you sure you're using the right word there, Mak? Are you sure it don't start with a "T" ? :rolleyes:

I Am He

makaya325

2nd October 2009, 11:20 PM

"hypothetical" Are you sure you're using the right word there, Mak? :

I Am He

Yes, I am sure. At least the Orang Pendek has a realistic chance of existing, unlike the other mega-cryptids

Are you sure it don't start with a "T" ? :rolleyes

Wow, please, Do not start this kind of crap again.

Akhenaten

3rd October 2009, 04:15 AM

http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Aves.jpg

GT/CS

3rd October 2009, 06:24 AM

Yes, I am sure. At least the Orang Pendek has a realistic chance of existing, unlike the other mega-cryptids

So at least one of the Maks is saying the American bigfoot has no realistic chance of existing?

Akhenaten

4th October 2009, 09:54 AM

So at least one of the Maks is saying the American bigfoot has no realistic chance of existing?

The entire charade seems to be an attempt to one day portray either a BF bleever who has seen the light or a hardened sceptic who can no longer ignore the "evidence" that BF really does exist.

The fact that it's impossible to tell which it is speaks to the quality of the arguments presented.

My personal opinion is that if you sit on a fence for too long, you'll end up with a paling in your posterior, which tends to upset one's thought processes a bit.

makaya325

4th October 2009, 02:42 PM

So at least one of the Maks is saying the American bigfoot has no realistic chance of existing?

There is only ONE of me, you lugnut! I sometimes swing back and forth on the idea of bigfoot, due to Romanticism.

Akhenaten

4th October 2009, 04:04 PM

There is only ONE of me, you lugnut! I sometimes swing back and forth on the idea of bigfoot, due to Romanticism.

How about my theory? Score out of 10?

makaya325

4th October 2009, 04:14 PM

How about my theory? Score out of 10?

Sorry, I did not hear your theory. Please feel free to share

GT/CS

4th October 2009, 05:36 PM

There is only ONE of me, you lugnut! I sometimes swing back and forth on the idea of bigfoot, due to Romanticism.

Sure you do.

makaya325

4th October 2009, 08:43 PM

Sure you do.

Yep, I am glad you agree with me. There is nothing wrong on swinging from one camp to another, especially after researching and acquiring new information.

Vortigern99

4th October 2009, 08:54 PM

makaya325

4th October 2009, 08:57 PM

I sometimes swing back and forth on the idea of bigfoot, due to Romanticism.

There is nothing wrong on swinging from one camp to another, especially after researching and acquiring new information.

That's one unique definition of "romanticism".

I am romantic about the Idea of Bigfoot's Existence, because I really do want the big guy to turn out real, yet I can not let Hopes get in the way with the laws of nature

Marduk

4th October 2009, 08:59 PM

I am romantic about the Idea of Bigfoot's Existence,

ewwwww
:p

Akhenaten

5th October 2009, 11:55 AM

I am romantic about the Idea of Bigfoot's Existence

<snippy>

ewwwww
:p

Takes things to a whole new level, doesn't it? I don't think I want to go there, really.

;)

makaya325

5th October 2009, 02:26 PM

Takes things to a whole new level, doesn't it? I don't think I want to go there, really.

;)

I think you misunderstood me, Marduk. No offense to the Sasquatch race, but I just dont you like guys in that kind of way. Romantic can mean someone who is hopeful of something, even though that something is highly unlikely. I am aware that, currently, the evidence for bigfoot is lacking, and the best thing i can do is hope it turns up

Akhenaten

5th October 2009, 03:57 PM

I think you misunderstood me, Marduk. No offense to the Sasquatch race, but I just dont you like guys in that kind of way. Romantic can mean someone who is hopeful of something, even though that something is highly unlikely. I am aware that, currently, the evidence for bigfoot is lacking, and the best thing i can do is hope it turns up

Marduk is the ugly one. I'm the one with the funny hat.

Marduk

5th October 2009, 03:58 PM

I think you misunderstood me, Marduk. No offense to the Sasquatch race, but I just dont you like guys in that kind of way. Romantic can mean someone who is hopeful of something, even though that something is highly unlikely. I am aware that, currently, the evidence for bigfoot is lacking, and the best thing i can do is hope it turns up

again

ewwww
:p
other posters may find this handy
http://surfsafeonline.com/toreportapredator.aspx
:D

makaya325

5th October 2009, 04:02 PM

again

ewwww
:p
other posters may find this handy
http://surfsafeonline.com/toreportapredator.aspx
:D

Come on, Mar! I don't have a thing for young Bigfoot! I don't got a problem!

Marduk

5th October 2009, 04:11 PM

Marduk is the ugly one. .
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_haNrL6jGB7Q/SIYTc8vnKOI/AAAAAAAAABc/TKCP_2LAoWQ/s400/Bigfoot_loves_kids.jpg

I'm the one with the funny hat.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/bighat.jpg
:D

William Parcher

5th November 2009, 05:06 PM

BigTex and the Kill Zone - A BFF Adventure (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=24208)

This Bigfooter guy is batcrap crazy and now we have him on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB7hZdHadIY). He mounted a camera in his hat to film Bigfoot. Let him tell you all about it and also of his hunt for Bigfoot.

I added this eagle feather to hide it.

Isn't it illegal to have an eagle feather in your hat? Yeah. It's a turkey feather, you turkey.

GT/CS

5th November 2009, 06:03 PM

Come on, Mar! I don't have a thing for young Bigfoot! I don't got a problem!

Mak, have you told us, in this thread, about your bigfoot experiences?

William Parcher

18th November 2009, 02:45 PM

Zack Hamilton saw one (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=9775&st=33&start=33) and took a picture. But it takes an old new dude to bring out the details. The poster "AtlantiS" joined BFF on Feb 20, 2007 and has only made 28 posts. I guess it was worth waiting for all of his posts.

Then you have "Digger44" (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=28075&st=132&start=132) who is another sleeper poster who joined on Feb 28, 2007 and has only made 30 posts. He makes a big detailed post on the Yeti DNA thing.

Weird.

HarryHenderson

18th November 2009, 09:48 PM

The actual 'story' of that Bert's Bigfoot Suit Rental™ photo is only a little bit more interesting than it suggests in that the producers/purveyors of it are notorious BF 'celebrities'. In my formerly nicotine stained fingers is a an actual Dec/73 issue of Saga™ magazine (60 cents) which contains the article where that famous 'I-didn't-believe-it-was-a-photo-of-a-real-Bigfoot-then-and-I-was-only-12-in-1973' photo was initially unveiled to the public. Its parents were none other than Ivan Marx and Tom Biscardi. Such a surprise! Two Bigfoot knuckleheads. The necessary, but misleading title of the article is 'THE MOST SENSATIONAL BIGFOOT PICTURES EVER TAKEN!'. There are actually two PBF (Purported Bigfoot™) pictures in the story, shown below.

Some selected quotes (in the story) by Tom 'BS Isn't Just For Bulls Anymore' Biscardi:

"Ivan Marx took those early one morning, near dawn. He shot them at 280 yards with a telephoto lens."
"You're looking at the clearest pictures of a Sasquatch ever taken."
"You take Patterson and his movie. The man had experts view it and analyze it. He was getting too close - and he was struck down."

Wha?

Independent of the CTs and the 'clear photos', the article is as if it were written yesterday (at least in the context of Bigfoot). Or maybe more like what was written yesterday is the same as this stuff written 36 years ago. It's sooo funny to me that whatever Bigfoot is, in the last 36 years it's yet to become even a molecule 'clearer' than it was in 1973. Amazing! And that's with Tom Biscardi 'on the case' the entire time.

kitakaze

18th November 2009, 09:59 PM

Very interesting, Harry. Thanks for sharing. You've been too scarce, BTW. :)

kitakaze

18th November 2009, 10:02 PM

"You take Patterson and his movie. The man had experts view it and analyze it. He was getting too close - and he was struck down."

Wha?

No kidding. Which is weird, because he tells people the PGF is fake. I love Biscardispeak. Say "off the hook", Tom. SAY IT!

kitakaze

19th November 2009, 09:49 AM

Responding to a post of Melissa's from the MRP thread here where it is appropriate...

Part of the reason for that would be mainly due to reports of sightings or whatnot in these types of areas. Yes, our group went to Salt Fork, but we were honest about that. Yes, there were other researchers in the area, but we were honest about that. Yes, we collected audio and tracks, but we were honest about that and have not called any of these items collected proof of the animals existence in Salt Fork State park, and we have not asked for the world to offer an opinion as to what the evidence is that we collected. We have not even uploaded the audio for discussion or debate. The audio is most likely other researchers, which we said. Big difference in how we handled ourselves.

And yet Billy Willard clearly indicated that your group felt they had the track of a littlefoot. He never "what I think it is", rather, "what we think it is."

I can not say this enough. I am a bigfoot researcher. People may find that silly or whatever, but responding to witness sightings is what I do, regardless of where the sighting happened (within reason). I will not investigate a sighting at the local Walmart in isle 9. :)

The 23 square mile recreational Salt Fork State Park in Ohio is not within reason as a place for Bigfoot to be existing unconfirmed by modern science. It's every bit as silly as aisle 9 at Walmart. Aisle 9 is not reasonable because there are people everywhere. SFSP is just as ludicrous. There are people everywhere and massive wood apes making a niche for themselves where even bears do not in a manicured McPark is foo foo talk.

In fact, scratch that. Walmart is a far better place for Bigfoot to blend in. (http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/)

John has not provided me with "evidence" of an encounter. John has provided me with information about an encounter he states he has had. I analyze statements different from actual evidence (which is the proper way of handling information witnesses) I do not know what John seen that day. I think he did in fact see something, what he seen for sure, I do not know because I was not there.

I believe John did see something that shook him to the core. But, I have never even told John that I "believe he seen a bigfoot". I believe he had an encounter of some kind, what exactly I can not say. That is as honest as I can be.

But you know, John does not need or want me to "believe" him. He would rather I have a sighting of my own. I think that will be his vindication. :)

1) I may not know what John did or didn't see, but I can say with all confidence he did not see a 9x6 ft behemoth sasquatch. I can say that because there is no such thing. I can say it just like I can say it for someone who says they saw Jesus, a Grey, whatever. Why can I say they don't exist? Because if there were giant wood apes roaming about in Ohio, North Carolina, etc, they would be confirmed as one of the largest North American fauna. They don't get to be special and screw with everything we know about biology, zoology, etc.

2) I really want to help you with just a little thing, Melissa. What is the object that can be seen here (http://www.kwtool.com/catalog/images/handsaw.jpg)?

WGBH

19th November 2009, 12:08 PM

1) I may not know what John did or didn't see, but I can say with all confidence he did not see a 9x6 ft behemoth sasquatch. I can say that because there is no such thing. I can say it just like I can say it for someone who says they saw Jesus, a Grey, whatever. Why can I say they don't exist? Because if there were giant wood apes roaming about in Ohio, North Carolina, etc, they would be confirmed as one of the largest North American fauna. They don't get to be special and screw with everything we know about biology, zoology, etc.

color][/URL]?

You can say what you THINK I did or did not see, but you cannot prove that I am lying anymore then I can prove I am not. You want to pay for a lie detector test? Drop the money down and I will be there. Who made you my moral compass? You get your jollies from calling people names on a internet message board. Please keep my name out of your conversations.

kitakaze

19th November 2009, 12:22 PM

You can say what you THINK I did or did not see, but you cannot prove that I am lying anymore then I can prove I am not. You want to pay for a lie detector test? Drop the money down and I will be there. Who made you my moral compass? You get your jollies from calling people names on a internet message board. Please keep my name out of your conversations.

Easy now. I did not say you were lying. Nor did I call you or anyone else names. I said though I do not know what you did or did not see, I am confident you did not see a 9x6ft sasquatch in North Carolina. I will surely never know what you did or didn't see back in 1982. It isn't much of a mystery to me. I don't need to prove you are lying about saying you saw Bigfoot. I don't know if you are or not. I can point to the no Bigfoots in America, Canada, or anywhere else in the world to assure me you did not see Bigfoot. I can point to people who swear they saw Reptoids, Jesus, Greys, whatever and again point out the no Reptoids, Jesus, or Greys anywhere.

Bigfoot does not exist in North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio or anywhere else because it is a myth. Real animals are not myths. Real animals we can examine and study. There is no precedent ever for a massive land mammal living across a continent in two of the world's most industrialized nations without a type specimen. People believing they saw something that does not exist is very easy to explain. Bigfoot is real but no type specimen is not.

Chupacabra is winning.

William Parcher

19th November 2009, 01:07 PM

kitakaze

20th November 2009, 01:13 PM

Attention Dogswitcher Fan Club members....

Tom Burnette has just created a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bar5eIoX6E) of himself describing his Bigfoot encounters. He will show you some pictures and you get an invitation to come visit and stay in the cabin on his property - but only if you have a gentle spirit. Macho types stay away. Nobody likes that including Bigfoot.

"they will disable a frog..." says the Dogswitcher when mentioning the behavior of his resident Bigfoots.

Oh Sweet Zombie Jesus.

I always thought this was him (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mmBw3uzPnJI/SdaQezm80jI/AAAAAAAAjyI/lae9CNr2h-w/s400/redneck_toilet.jpg) calling in on the various Bigfoot blogtalk shows. If Johnny Wintercrack there rolled up to me in his ride (http://itlookslegit.com/images/free_candy.jpg), I'd run till my shoes fell off. :boxedin:

kitakaze

20th November 2009, 01:40 PM

Dogswitcher video highlights...

- Picture of a bear's ass.

- "If you do the research into Gigantopithesis, the hands and the feet are exactly the same."

- Huge pixel photo could-not-even-be-called-pareidolia Teaberryeagle-style insanity.

- "I always refuse the frog."

- "They found out I like feathers."

- "I will take you on a guided tour into the mountains, but don't bring any guns." :boxedin:

- "We want people who are interested in some of the mysteries in life."

Umm... Mr. Dogswitcher, would one of those mysteries involve putting lotion in a basket?

Vortigern99

20th November 2009, 01:42 PM

You can say what you THINK I did or did not see, but you cannot prove that I am lying anymore then I can prove I am not. You want to pay for a lie detector test? Drop the money down and I will be there. Who made you my moral compass? You get your jollies from calling people names on a internet message board. Please keep my name out of your conversations.

Neither kitakaze nor anyone else here has ever called you a liar. You maintain you saw a creature that simply cannot exist according to everything we know about North American forestry and zoology... but that doesn't mean you're lying.

Hallucination is a known, studied and documented phenomenon, and your written account of your sighting is typical of dream-state hallucinations experienced by otherwise normal, healthy and sane people the world over (including kitakaze, by his own admission, and my wife!).

That you refuse to acknowledge this scientifically valid phenomenon as descriptive of your experience indicates an unwillingness to let go of an emotion-based belief system... but it does not mean you're lying.

wicked_ways

20th November 2009, 03:37 PM

Attention Dogswitcher Fan Club members....

Tom Burnette has just created a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bar5eIoX6E) of himself describing his Bigfoot encounters. He will show you some pictures and you get an invitation to come visit and stay in the cabin on his property - but only if you have a gentle spirit. Macho types stay away. Nobody likes that including Bigfoot.

"they will disable a frog..." says the Dogswitcher when mentioning the behavior of his resident Bigfoots.

since i am a female, do i qualify as non-macho? (i guess mentioning my time in the military might make me less than a gentle spirit.)
disable the poor frogs? i am against this completely!
what if bigfoot tries to disable me? do i stand there and wait for it, or shoot to kill? hmmm, so many decisions so little time. :D

makaya325

20th November 2009, 06:47 PM

Neither kitakaze nor anyone else here has ever called you a liar. You maintain you saw a creature that simply cannot exist according to everything we know about North American forestry and zoology... but that doesn't mean you're lying.

Everything YOU know. I am quite sure that there are members of Fish & Game who have seen things that simply do not fit into known zoology.

GT/CS

25th November 2009, 12:07 PM

CORed

25th November 2009, 12:58 PM

I was driving down a country road late on a foggy night when I saw something about seven feet high shambling along the opposite edge of the road, coming in my direction. It was a kind of dark brown, and it had a weird, tiny head for its height.

Then something clicked and I saw that it was a guy with a kid riding on his shoulders. They had a long dark raincoat draped over the kid's shoulders and hanging down open, framing the guy's face. But for a second there--well, you know.

I've had enough misperceptions, including a contrail at sunset that, for several seconds, looked like a metallic flying saucer seen edge on, that I have to attribute a lot of sightings of bigfoot, lake monsters, UFO's ghosts or whatever to people simply misinterpreting something else that they saw. I would also note that every hunting season in Colorado, there is at least one incident of a hunter shooting a moose because he thought it was an elk. Moose and elk resemble each other only in that both are big and brown (and very different shades of brown, and a moose is quite a bit bigger), have four legs, and the males of both species have antlers (but radically different antlers). If somebody can think a moose is an elk, I have no difficulty with the idea that somebody can think a bear is a bigfoot.

CORed

25th November 2009, 01:20 PM

GT/CS

25th November 2009, 02:02 PM

It's interesting. Before watching that video, I "knew" that bears rarely walked bipedally, and were pretty clumsy when doing so. It looks like it was one of those things that I know that ain't so.

Most bears probably are clumsy when walking on 2 lets but since this one lost a foot it probably found that walking on 2 legs easier than walking on 3.

I wonder if the cub will learn that behavior, pass it on, and in a few dozen generations we'll have hundreds or thousands of bears walking on 2 legs. That would create quite a spike in bigfoot sightings.

WGBH

25th November 2009, 02:58 PM

I think you are a liar. You lied then and you are lying now.

Vort, as you can see people here have called me a liar and right here in this thread.

kitakaze

25th November 2009, 03:09 PM

Vort, as you can see people here have called me a liar and right here in this thread.

A single person whose statement was isolated. No one who was seriously examining your claimed Bigfoot sighting such as Vort or myself called you a liar. Getting defensive about thinking people are calling you a liar is neither necessary nor constructive. I simply stated that while I don't know what you did or didn't see, I am quite sure you didn't see Bigfoot in 1982 in North Carolina given that there is not now nor ever was any Bigfoots there to be seen. Bigfoot is not a real animal and therefore you can not see a real Bigfoot.

Vortigern99

25th November 2009, 05:51 PM

Everything YOU know. I am quite sure that there are members of Fish & Game who have seen things that simply do not fit into known zoology.

Would you care to support this contention with evidence? A link? A quote? Anything apart from your mistaken, unsupported, unsupportable, uneducated, foot-in-mouth assertions time and time and time again?

GT/CS

25th November 2009, 05:55 PM

Would you care to support this contention with evidence? A link? A quote? Anything apart from your mistaken, unsupported, unsupportable, uneducated, foot-in-mouth assertions time and time and time again?

He still has another week in time out.

Vortigern99

25th November 2009, 05:56 PM

Vort, as you can see people here have called me a liar and right here in this thread.

I stand corrected. Allow me to amend the statement:

No one but tsig has called you a liar.

You're still not addressing the probability that dream-state hallucination -- a known and documented phenomenon whose characteristics match your experience on a one-to-one basis -- is at the root of your sighting.

HarryHenderson

25th November 2009, 08:30 PM

This (http://www.aventure-chasse-peche-video.com/video/978/Ours-presque-humain#addfavour) could certainly be mis-identified as a bigfoot. Wait for the 2nd half of the video. Absolutely amazing.
BTW, the mosquito is part of the video; it's not buzzing your head.

The Bigfoot Breakthroughs™ just never seem to stop here at 'TINBYDSOB Central'. Once again someone has single-handedly reversed 50+ years of Bigfoot 'speculation' with a simple example of 'something-that-it's-a-lot-more-likely-to-be-than-a-real-live-Bigfoot'. I'm guessin' 3 legged bears are pretty rare, but they're obviously more abundant than Bigfoot given that just this one video is more 'conclusive evidence' of something than the entire to-date collection of 'Bigfoot evidence'. I so wanna say 'mystery solved'. ;)

...There is not now nor ever was any Bigfoots there to be seen. Bigfoot is not a real animal and therefore you can not see a real Bigfoot.
:D So yer sayin' there's still a chance?

Actually, a signature worthy (and vital) factoid.

154

25th November 2009, 11:58 PM

Bigfoot is not a real animal and therefore you can not see a real Bigfoot.
It is. I did.

Driving slowly along a washboard dirt road at 11pm, I saw it step out from the brush on the left, walk across right in front of me, fully illuminated at the the leading edge of the "hotspot" of my headlights, and duck into the cover on the right side.

9/11 Chewy Defense

26th November 2009, 01:17 AM

Hey Chewbacca's real! Here's photographic proof of him throwing a baseball:

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa203/Drunk741/chewbaca.jpg

I'm pulling your leg! I don't believe in Bigfoot, just the truck!

rockinkt

26th November 2009, 01:42 AM

Vortigern99

26th November 2009, 07:33 AM

It is. I did.

Driving slowly along a washboard dirt road at 11pm, I saw it step out from the brush on the left, walk across right in front of me, fully illuminated at the the leading edge of the "hotspot" of my headlights, and duck into the cover on the right side.

There are many possibilities to consider before we arrive at the conclusion that that you saw an undiscovered, bipedal North American primate that requires 8000+ calories a day to survive but has never been catalogued, captured or unambiguously photographed, despite the forests of this continent being combed over on a daily basis by biologists, wildlife researchers, hunters, hikers, campers, birdwatchers, state and federal employees, and people actively looking for "bigfoot".

Here are some other possibilities you might want to consider first:

A hunter in a gilly suit:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2562/3722758387_aa30bb2935.jpg

An intentional hoaxer in a costume:

http://www.mcavenedesigns.com/Bigfoot/bigfoot_photo2.jpg

A bear up on two feet:

http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/932/bear.jpg

A hallucination, which is a known, studied and documented phenomenon of the human mind, which sometimes occurs in situations precisely like you've described: driving on a lonely road late at night. (There are several examples of this in the preceding pages of this thread.)

Hypnagogia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogic_hallucination

These hallucinations occur just before falling asleep, and affect a surprisingly high proportion of the population. The hallucinations can last from seconds to minutes, all the while the subject usually remains aware of the true nature of the images. These are usually associated with narcolepsy, but can also affect normal minds.

I'm certain there are other possibilities that I've missed. If you have real curiosity about your experience and are not prone to leaping to conclusions based on a lack of information, you'll look into this more deeply.

WGBH

26th November 2009, 08:02 AM

mikeyx

26th November 2009, 10:37 AM

I agree. When the bear is moving through the trees obscured, that video would be on youtube titled Bigfoot video. BUT, when the poor bear is walking on the road, you can clearly identify it. Thanks for finding that.

BTW, Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.

Clearly doctored, clearly a bear

154

26th November 2009, 02:22 PM

Any details as to what you did to substantiate your alleged sighting?I did nothing but be stunned and immediately make note it in my journal. Apart from looking for and photographing tracks which surely would have been there, but which did not occur to me at the moment, there is nothing I did or could have done to substantiate my change-my-life sighting.

There are many possibilities to consider before we arrive at the conclusion that that you saw an undiscovered, bipedal North American primate that requires 8000+ calories a day to survive but has never been catalogued, captured or unambiguously photographed, despite the forests of this continent being combed over on a daily basis by biologists, wildlife researchers, hunters, hikers, campers, birdwatchers, state and federal employees, and people actively looking for "bigfoot".

Here are some other possibilities you might want to consider first:

A hunter in a gilly suit:

An intentional hoaxer in a costume:

A bear up on two feet:

A hallucination, which is a known, studied and documented phenomenon of the human mind, which sometimes occurs in situations precisely like you've described: driving on a lonely road late at night. (There are several examples of this in the preceding pages of this thread.)

I'm certain there are other possibilities that I've missed. If you have real curiosity about your experience and are not prone to leaping to conclusions based on a lack of information, you'll look into this more deeply.
I'm not stupid Vortigern99. I saw it fully illuminated in my headlights immediately in front of me. It was not a hunter in a ghillie suit. It was not a hoaxing person. It was not a bear stumbling on two feet across the road immediately in front of a vehicle. I did not hallucinate.

You're wrong. It exists. Eventually, you will know.

Driving just a little faster and I would have hit it or, more likely, it would not have crossed and I never would have seen it.

kitakaze

26th November 2009, 02:56 PM

I'm not stupid Vortigern99. I saw it fully illuminated in my headlights immediately in front of me. It was not a hunter in a ghillie suit. It was not a hoaxing person. It was not a bear stumbling on two feet across the road immediately in front of a vehicle. I did not hallucinate.

You're wrong. It exists. Eventually, you will know.

Driving just a little faster and I would have hit it or, more likely, it would not have crossed and I never would have seen it.

I don't think you're stupid, 154, but I'm sure you did not see a Bigfoot crossing the road in front of you. A big animal, regardless of how smart you think they are, that hangs around human roads and often appears in front of motorists will be an animal that we have a type specimen for. You may feel strongly that you did see Bigfoot with your own eyes. You could really believe that or make the claim simply for sociological reasons. Yes, that means you could be lying, and no, that does not mean I'm calling you a liar. I can also very easily show you people who will swear they saw Grey aliens, Reptoids, Jesus, etc.

You haven't given us any reason why we can't rule out the suggestions Vort made. How can I be sure that you are neither mistaken nor deceiving us?

WGBH

26th November 2009, 05:52 PM

Welcome to the JREF 154. I am very interested in hearing the specifics of your sighting. If you would feel more comfortable talking in private, you can PM me. Thanks for sharing with us.

rockinkt

26th November 2009, 06:28 PM

I did nothing but be stunned and immediately make note it in my journal. Apart from looking for and photographing tracks which surely would have been there, but which did not occur to me at the moment, there is nothing I did or could have done to substantiate my change-my-life sighting.
<snip>

Actually - you could have backed up and re-driven the last 150 feet or so of your route and tried to see if there was a shadow effect that caused you to think you saw a mythical creature.
You could have stopped your vehicle and turned off the engine and tried to hear it move through the foliage.
You could have looked for hair or scat using your car headlights as illumination if you had no flashlight.

Of course - doing nothing is the easiest way to confirm your own story in your own mind.

I also echo Kitakaze's point about these animals always seeming to cross the road just ahead of cars. That makes them no smarter than your average (i.e. very stupid) mule deer and completely eliminates the idea that they are super stealthy and smart at avoiding human detection.
Can't have it both ways.;)

Howie Felterbush

26th November 2009, 06:34 PM

Next time you see one, blow the horn and hit the gas as if you are trying to run it down.

That should produce some scat. (Unless it's the 'Squatch that stole WGBH's underpants!)

All kidding aside, I am a Bigfoot fence-sitter. I take your story at face value. You saw something, and it's not for me or anyone else to say what it was. We can speculate, but that's all.

decojuicer

26th November 2009, 06:42 PM

154,

From one newbie to another, welcome.

This is one example of how people can misconstrue something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdbRcxVYWSY

If I remember correctly, it's a bit later in the video. This person unintentionally hoaxed several people.

People see things that aren't there all the time, or things that aren't what they think. Ours minds just fill in the blanks.

LTC8K6

26th November 2009, 08:10 PM

And yet a 'foot is never hit by a car...

154

26th November 2009, 08:56 PM

I really hate when I take the time to write an in-depth response to several other posters... and then find that I timed out or whatever and it's all gone...

... but I'm sure you did not see a Bigfoot crossing the road in front of you.You may feel strongly that I did not see see a bigfoot crossing the road in front of me but you cannot know that and regardless of how sure you think you are, you do not know that.
A big animal, regardless of how smart you think they are, that hangs around human roads and often appears in front of motorists will be an animal that we have a type specimen for.I'm now aware of a few reported but unpublicized incidents that, if true, indicate that specimens have been hit, killed and recovered. If true, that only opens inquiry to other questions. You may feel strongly that you did see Bigfoot with your own eyes. You could really believe that....I emphatically do. ...or make the claim simply for sociological reasons. Yes, that means you could be lying, and no, that does not mean I'm calling you a liar.I couldn't care less about possible sociological reasons for claiming to see a bigfoot myself, but understand and have personally dealt with and dismissed accounts of others for such reasons. I am not lying. I do not lie. Truth is always my priority. I have zero interest in misleading or deceiving myself or others. Your questioning of me cannot exceed my own. I can also very easily show you people who will swear they saw Grey aliens, Reptoids, Jesus, etc.Okay, I know and do not disagree.
You haven't given us any reason why we can't rule out the suggestions Vort made. How can I be sure that you are neither mistaken nor deceiving us?I'm well aware there is absolutely no way that I can satisfy this objection. I don't care. I have zero need to convince you or anyone and am well aware that, for all practical purposes, I am wasting my time here, but I share freely and am more than experienced with the skepticism and mockery that usually follows. I now know. I did not care previously. I know as well as you that nothing I could say will make you sure.

154

26th November 2009, 09:24 PM

2nd try.

Actually - you could have backed up and re-driven the last 150 feet or so of your route and tried to see if there was a shadow effect that caused you to think you saw a mythical creature.What I watched walk across the road in front of me for several seconds, fully illuminated in my headlights, was not a shadow effect. What I watched bend over to duck behind the first available cover (which was almost comical given that it was just so fully-exposed) off the other side of the road was not a shadow effect. I didn't think that I saw anything. It was jaw-droppingly, literally, overwhelming, obvious and undeniable. There was no room for argument and I was forced to come to terms with what I had just seen. In seconds, I went from no particular interest and not caring to case-closed convinced. You would have also.
You could have stopped your vehicle and turned off the engine and tried to hear it move through the foliage.I absolutely could have and in the thousands of times that I have re-played the incident in my own mind since, I certainly wish I would have done so. More than that, I wish I would have gotten out to look for the at-least slight tracks that surely would have been there. Unfortunately, hindsight is 20-20 and there are no do-overs.
You could have looked for hair or scat using your car headlights as illumination if you had no flashlight.Immediately searching for possible bigfoot scat or fallen or snagged hairs in the vicinity for forensic substantiation, corroboration and confirmation did not occur to me at the time. That's simply all there is to it. In addition, while I was not and had no reason to be particularly fearful as a result, I had no desire to remain in the immediate area.
Of course - doing nothing is the easiest way to confirm your own story in your own mind.I have no interest in ever misleading myself in any way. If you think that I had or have any interest in convincing myself, then or now, something was what it was not... well then.. what can I say other than you're wrong.

I also echo Kitakaze's point about these animals always seeming to cross the road just ahead of cars. That makes them no smarter than your average (i.e. very stupid) mule deer and completely eliminates the idea that they are super stealthy and smart at avoiding human detection.
Can't have it both ways.;)I disagree. People walk across the road in front of cars for any number of reasons and even get hit sometimes. Most people are also smarter than mule deer. This notion completely eliminates nothing and is even readily understandable if we were to discuss the matter more in-depth, to which even you would agree.

GT/CS

26th November 2009, 09:43 PM

<snip>
I'm now aware of a few reported but unpublicized incidents that, if true, indicate that specimens have been hit, killed and recovered.
<snip>

This sentence completely discredits your entire post.

If you can't back it up you're better off not stating it.

rockinkt

27th November 2009, 01:21 AM

What I watched walk across the road in front of me for several seconds, fully illuminated in my headlights, was not a shadow effect. What I watched bend over to duck behind the first available cover (which was almost comical given that it was just so fully-exposed) off the other side of the road was not a shadow effect. I didn't think that I saw anything. It was jaw-droppingly, literally, overwhelming, obvious and undeniable. There was no room for argument and I was forced to come to terms with what I had just seen. In seconds, I went from no particular interest and not caring to case-closed convinced. You would have also.

Nope. I know from a professional and personal standpoint how the eyes and mind can fool a person into conjuring visions and memories about things that did not happen or never existed.
People see things that are not there. People generate memories based on non-factual input or preconceived notions.
People also exaggerate, fabricate, and simply lie about seeing mythical creatures for many reasons.
I would have had to have some very strong corroborating physical evidence to convince me that I was not mistaken about what I saw. Therefore, I would have looked long and hard for it if I was so certain I had seen what I thought I had seen.
The only thing that would have stopped me from driving on would have been my belief that I had not seen anything of worth.

I have no interest in ever misleading myself in any way. If you think that I had or have any interest in convincing myself, then or now, something was what it was not... well then.. what can I say other than you're wrong.

People unconsciously mislead themselves and then convince themselves that the new memories are the old, original memories.
Your statement "the thousands of times that I have re-played the incident in my own mind since..." make me wonder about such happening in your case.

I disagree. People walk across the road in front of cars for any number of reasons and even get hit sometimes. Most people are also smarter than mule deer. This notion completely eliminates nothing and is even readily understandable if we were to discuss the matter more in-depth, to which even you would agree.

I have discussed such things in depth and understand that it is an apples and oranges argument that you put forward.
How many of the French Underground were accidentally hit by cars while they were secretly moving about the French countryside in WW2?

People generally get hit by cars because there is no fear and avoidance factor working at that moment. Why? Because they are so much a part of the daily fabric of life in North America. We know and understand cars and the noise they make becomes background noise. It is lack of attention or deliberately doing something dangerous that accounts for people getting hit by vehicles. (the preceeding refers to the pedestrian being at fault - not the driver)
If a person was under the impression that they must avoid vehicles at all costs or something bad was certainly going to befall him - he wouldn't even go near a road - much less cross immediately in front of a vehicle when he could hear and see the lights from a distance.

rockinkt

27th November 2009, 01:31 AM

This sentence completely discredits your entire post.

If you can't back it up you're better off not stating it.

Good point.

I'm also more than a little concerned about this...

<snip> I do not lie. <snip>

154

27th November 2009, 09:37 AM

I'm well aware there is absolutely no way that I can satisfy this objection. I don't care. I have zero need to convince you or anyone and am well aware that, for all practical purposes, I am wasting my time here, but I share freely and am more than experienced with the skepticism and mockery that usually follows. I now know. I did not care previously. I know as well as you that nothing I could say will make you sure.As I said.

William Parcher

27th November 2009, 09:46 AM

I have zero need to convince you or anyone...

I am wasting my time here...

How long do you think you will be making the Bigfoot talk at JREF? Are you feeling like a new permanent?

154

27th November 2009, 09:59 AM

This sentence completely discredits your entire post. If you can't back it up you're better off not stating it.I said "if true" twice. I didn't say I accepted it unconditionally. But if you say so, as you wish.

Nope. I know from a professional and personal standpoint how the eyes and mind can fool a person into conjuring visions and memories about things that did not happen or never existed.
People see things that are not there. People generate memories based on non-factual input or preconceived notions.
People also exaggerate, fabricate, and simply lie about seeing mythical creatures for many reasons.
I would have had to have some very strong corroborating physical evidence to convince me that I was not mistaken about what I saw. Therefore, I would have looked long and hard for it if I was so certain I had seen what I thought I had seen.
The only thing that would have stopped me from driving on would have been my belief that I had not seen anything of worth.

People unconsciously mislead themselves and then convince themselves that the new memories are the old, original memories.
Your statement "the thousands of times that I have re-played the incident in my own mind since..." make me wonder about such happening in your case.

I have discussed such things in depth and understand that it is an apples and oranges argument that you put forward.
How many of the French Underground were accidentally hit by cars while they were secretly moving about the French countryside in WW2?

People generally get hit by cars because there is no fear and avoidance factor working at that moment. Why? Because they are so much a part of the daily fabric of life in North America. We know and understand cars and the noise they make becomes background noise. It is lack of attention or deliberately doing something dangerous that accounts for people getting hit by vehicles. (the preceeding refers to the pedestrian being at fault - not the driver)
If a person was under the impression that they must avoid vehicles at all costs or something bad was certainly going to befall him - he wouldn't even go near a road - much less cross immediately in front of a vehicle when he could hear and see the lights from a distance.I understand your points, generally agree with them, and while I could make some additional points in speculation, I also understand that I can do nothing to sufficiently counter them to your satisfaction.

I'm also more than a little concerned about this...Okay, I understand this also. To be precisely correct, I wouldn't say that I have never, ever lied, of course. As a personal standard I try to maintain for reasons that would also be mocked and dismissed on this forum, I will speak truthfully, or perhaps partially, or not speak, but I will not intentionally mislead myself or others. But I am not lying about this. I have not devoted an inordinate amount of my time and limited resources in further study and research efforts regarding this subject because of self-delusion but because of my certainty as a result. But, again, I understand that I cannot necessarily convince anyone of this. So be it.

How long do you think you will be making the Bigfoot talk at JREF? Are you feeling like a new permanent?"Making the bigfoot talk," LOL.

I don't know, we'll see. Bigfoot talk could get much more prominent here sometime soon. Who knows? How long will it keep your attention?

WGBH

27th November 2009, 10:05 AM

2nd try.

What I watched walk across the road in front of me for several seconds, fully illuminated in my headlights, was not a shadow effect. What I watched bend over to duck behind the first available cover (which was almost comical given that it was just so fully-exposed) off the other side of the road was not a shadow effect. I didn't think that I saw anything. It was jaw-droppingly, literally, overwhelming, obvious and undeniable. There was no room for argument and I was forced to come to terms with what I had just seen. In seconds, I went from no particular interest and not caring to case-closed convinced. You would have also.

Well said.

I absolutely could have and in the thousands of times that I have re-played the incident in my own mind since, I certainly wish I would have done so. More than that, I wish I would have gotten out to look for the at-least slight tracks that surely would have been there. Unfortunately, hindsight is 20-20 and there are no do-overs.

They have no way of knowing of how they would react if they witnessed what you did. We all react differently to each situation.

Immediately searching for possible bigfoot scat or fallen or snagged hairs in the vicinity for forensic substantiation, corroboration and confirmation did not occur to me at the time. That's simply all there is to it. In addition, while I was not and had no reason to be particularly fearful as a result, I had no desire to remain in the immediate area.

If you would have found scat or hair it would not have made a difference here at the JREF, they would have torn that apart also.

I have no interest in ever misleading myself in any way. If you think that I had or have any interest in convincing myself, then or now, something was what it was not... well then.. what can I say other than you're wrong.

They have also tried to get me to admit I hallucinated what I heard, smelled and stared at for 5 mins. Not going to happen. I don't know you 154, you could be lying to us. But, I would not make leaps like that about your character. I do not know you. Thank you for sharing your encounter with me.

Vortigern99

27th November 2009, 10:33 AM

If you would have found scat or hair it would not have made a difference here at the JREF, they would have torn that apart also.

This is absolutely incorrect. Scat or hair that have been analyzed by a team of biologists, anthropologists and/or zoologists, and determined to belong to an as-yet undiscovered species of primate, would constitute hard evidence in support of the contention that bigfoot exists. Since no such evidence is forthcoming, after decades (some say centuries) of investigation, the scientific and skeptical position must logically be that the animal does not exist.

I have no interest in ever misleading myself in any way. If you think that I had or have any interest in convincing myself, then or now, something was what it was not... well then.. what can I say other than you're wrong.
They have also tried to get me to admit I hallucinated what I heard, smelled and stared at for 5 mins. Not going to happen.

Your refusal to allow that hallucination is a known, documented phenomenon that happens to normal, sane, healthy people (including several JREF members, as recorded in the earlier pages of this very thread), and often consists of seemingly real and actual sensory perceptions including sight, sound and smell, does nothing to dispel the conclusion that you and 154 are True Believers for whom no amount of scientific analysis, or evidence to the contrary, will ever convince you that what you saw was not real.

Skeptics and scientists, on the other hand, only require evidence to convince us.

What do you think skepticism and the scientific method are? Some kind of cabal assembled to oppose the dissemination of truth? To refute your truthful and legitimate reports at every turn, out of spite, malice or some hidden agenda?

"Show us the evidence" is a succinct description of our demands. If you fail to grasp this then here is nothing more that can be said.

William Parcher

27th November 2009, 11:02 AM

Bigfoot talk could get much more prominent here sometime soon. Who knows?

I see you are branching out to discussion of dead cattle (so-called mutilation) now.

At best, all that can be assumed or presumed is that unusual occurrences have been noted here.

"We do not know" is a simple and valid conclusion at this point. I believe something has been happening in this regard, but do not believe that it is by "extraterrestrial aliens that travelled millions of light years to get here."

Bigfoot exists: Check.
Some cattle deaths have no natural or normal explanation: Check.

Looks like you will bring the woo for more than one topic.

I don't know you 154...

I do not know you.

You might, unless you have privately confirmed that 154 is not a Bigfooter that you already know (of).

154

27th November 2009, 11:15 AM

I see you are branching out to discussion of dead cattle (so-called mutilation) now.

Bigfoot exists: Check.
Some cattle deaths have no natural or normal explanation: Check.

Looks like you will bring the woo for more than one topic.What "woo" did I bring? Did I say anything there that you find unreasonable or unacceptable in any way? Point it out there. Like most people, and certainly like most people here, I have a wide range of interests and attentions. Of course, skepticism should always be a guiding principle in objective analysis- I have no problem with that- but skeptics often leap to unjustified conclusions themselves, but I'm sure you don't think that you ever do.

William Parcher

27th November 2009, 11:38 AM

What "woo" did I bring?

1) Bigfoot exists.
2) Some cattle deaths have no natural or normal explanation.

WGBH

27th November 2009, 12:06 PM

This is absolutely incorrect. Scat or hair that have been analyzed by a team of biologists, anthropologists and/or zoologists, and determined to belong to an as-yet undiscovered species of primate, would constitute hard evidence in support of the contention that bigfoot exists. Since no such evidence is forthcoming, after decades (some say centuries) of investigation, the scientific and skeptical position must logically be that the animal does not exist.

It is my understanding that hairs have been found, examined and been determined to belong to an as-yet undiscovered species of primate. Such as the ones on a recent episode of destination truth. Not much has occurred as a result.

Your refusal to allow that hallucination is a known, documented phenomenon that happens to normal, sane, healthy people (including several JREF members, as recorded in the earlier pages of this very thread), and often consists of seemingly real and actual sensory perceptions including sight, sound and smell, does nothing to dispel the conclusion that you and 154 are True Believers for whom no amount of scientific analysis, or evidence to the contrary, will ever convince you that what you saw was not real.

I never refused that hallucinations happen. I refused to let it be pidgeon-holed into my encounter. You take issue with that, get over it.

Skeptics and scientists, on the other hand, only require evidence to convince us.

As I mentioned, the body on a slab.

What do you think skepticism and the scientific method are? Some kind of cabal assembled to oppose the dissemination of truth? To refute your truthful and legitimate reports at every turn, out of spite, malice or some hidden agenda?

Not for true scientists.

"Show us the evidence" is a succinct description of our demands. If you fail to grasp this then here is nothing more that can be said.

Working on that. Much to your amusement and chagrin.

WGBH

27th November 2009, 12:10 PM

You might, unless you have privately confirmed that 154 is not a Bigfooter that you already know (of).

I have not confirmed anything about 154. If he is someone I would be familiar with, he has not revealed that.

Vortigern99

27th November 2009, 12:40 PM

It is my understanding that hairs have been found, examined and been determined to belong to an as-yet undiscovered species of primate. Such as the ones on a recent episode of destination truth.

Please provide a link so I can avail myself of this exciting new revelation in primatology.

I never refused that hallucinations happen. I refused to let it be pidgeon-holed into my encounter. You take issue with that, get over it.

Translation: "Hallucination happens to millions of people, under a variety of sleep-deprived and/or stress-related circumstances, but not to me during my sleep-deprived, stess-related circumstance, because I'm special and what I saw was real. Other people throughout history and right up to the present moment hallucinate; my mind, however, perceives only actual, objectively real, existing objects and beings, because I am special and deserve special consideration."

In other words, please take your own advice and "get over it."

As I mentioned, the body on a slab.

I don't know what you're referencing, but if you mean that scientific methodology requires a dead body before it will recognize the existence of bigfoot, you're mistaken. A live one will suffice.

What do you think skepticism and the scientific method are? Some kind of cabal assembled to oppose the dissemination of truth? To refute your truthful and legitimate reports at every turn, out of spite, malice or some hidden agenda?

Not for true scientists.

Nor for true skeptics.

"Show us the evidence" is a succinct description of our demands. If you fail to grasp this then here is nothing more that can be said.
Working on that. Much to your amusement and chagrin. Working on that. Much to your amusement and chagrin.

"Amusement" and "chagrin" are opposite terms, so it may interest you to know that your statement is nonsense. Meanwhile, as an amateur anthropologist I would love for bigfoot to be real, so when and if you discover some evidence of its existence apart from your over-active imagination, please bring it forward.

154

27th November 2009, 12:54 PM

1) Bigfoot exists.Yes.
2) Some cattle deaths have no natural or normal explanation.No. I say "may have" and "I do not know."

WGBH

27th November 2009, 01:25 PM

Meanwhile, as an amateur anthropologist I would love for bigfoot to be real, so when and if you discover some evidence of its existence apart from your over-active imagination, please bring it forward.

Amateur anthropologist huh? I guess you want to dabble in amateur psychology also? Let's discuss this shall we? What is it that made you think I would imagine a Bigfoot?

kitakaze

27th November 2009, 01:47 PM

I really hate when I take the time to write an in-depth response to several other posters... and then find that I timed out or whatever and it's all gone...

154, always before submitting a post that took some time to compose, highlight and right click copy the entire post so that should you get timed out, you can simply go back to the thread, go down and hit reply, and then paste the whole thing in a fresh post.

Skeptical Greg

27th November 2009, 02:10 PM

Amateur anthropologist huh? I guess you want to dabble in amateur psychology also? Let's discuss this shall we? What is it that made you think I would imagine a Bigfoot?May I try ?

Because there are no Bigfoots ?

That said, mis-identification isn't necessarily imagination ...

kitakaze

27th November 2009, 02:52 PM

You may feel strongly that I did not see see a bigfoot crossing the road in front of me but you cannot know that and regardless of how sure you think you are, you do not know that.

154, I am absolutely willing to consider that you actually saw what you claim you saw, so let's get into it. I am going to ask you a series of simple questions regarding your alleged sighting and I will assume your answers to be truthful.

1) Where did your sighting occur? What province or state and county?

2) What time of night was it? What year was it? About what date was it?

3) Where were you coming from?

4) Please describe in detail the creature you say you saw.

5) You described yourself as a Bigfoot researcher. Do you belong to any Bigfoot enthusiast organization? if so, which one?

6) In what province or state and county do you normally do you search for Bigfoot?

I'm now aware of a few reported but unpublicized incidents that, if true, indicate that specimens have been hit, killed and recovered. If true, that only opens inquiry to other questions.

Secret dead Bigfoots obtained, unsubmitted to scientific examination. How unfortunate for science and mankind. Where did these claims come from?

I couldn't care less about possible sociological reasons for claiming to see a bigfoot myself, but understand and have personally dealt with and dismissed accounts of others for such reasons. I am not lying. I do not lie. Truth is always my priority. I have zero interest in misleading or deceiving myself or others. Your questioning of me cannot exceed my own.Okay, I know and do not disagree.

The unfortunate thing, 154, is that we've had a number of liars, hoaxer, and nuts come here and make various claims regarding seeing Bigfoot. All of them protested at the notion they were lying. We can only try and submit your tale to critical scrutiny to establish how plausible it might be. For myself, I am starting from the position that you were either hoaxed or are yourself lying about or embellishing something you saw.

kitakaze

27th November 2009, 02:57 PM

They have also tried to get me to admit I hallucinated what I heard, smelled and stared at for 5 mins. Not going to happen.

I don't think anyone tried to make you admit you had a hallucination. I myself only wanted you to give it serious consideration that you had a sleep-related experience. That you don't is unfortunate, considering that you said you had been disoriented and very groggy at the time.

kitakaze

27th November 2009, 03:12 PM

Amateur anthropologist huh? I guess you want to dabble in amateur psychology also? Let's discuss this shall we? What is it that made you think I would imagine a Bigfoot?

This (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4771274&postcount=162).

Highlights...

"Then I felt like a static electricity shock, it felt like, and kind of.. have you been shocked before, it’s like your just frozen? All the hairs on your body are standing up, and you’re just stuck there, I guess."

"And then I started having some kind of muscle spasms or nervous spasms, really bad, and I kind of slumped down on the floor of the deer stand, and curled up in the fetal position."

"I was really groggy and kind of getting myself back together. I sat back up, and was like, what the hell was that? And I started to look out the deer stand again. Then all the sudden I started hearing something, like footsteps, like branches breaking, like leaves crunching, like bushes rattling. Like something was moving through the forest."

WGBH

27th November 2009, 03:16 PM

May I try ?

Because there are no Bigfoots ?

That said, mis-identification isn't necessarily imagination ...

OK Greg, I will play along with your there are no real Bigfoot. Why a Bigfoot? I Barely knew what a Bigfoot was. BTW, the word Bigfoot is the same singular or plural.

WGBH

27th November 2009, 03:22 PM

This (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4771274&postcount=162).

Highlights...

"Then I felt like a static electricity shock, it felt like, and kind of.. have you been shocked before, it’s like your just frozen? All the hairs on your body are standing up, and you’re just stuck there, I guess."

"And then I started having some kind of muscle spasms or nervous spasms, really bad, and I kind of slumped down on the floor of the deer stand, and curled up in the fetal position."

"I was really groggy and kind of getting myself back together. I sat back up, and was like, what the hell was that? And I started to look out the deer stand again. Then all the sudden I started hearing something, like footsteps, like branches breaking, like leaves crunching, like bushes rattling. Like something was moving through the forest."

Yes, something walloped me physically before the sighting. What it was, I have no idea.

Kit you are still not understanding the question I posed. I apologize for not being clear. The question is not HOW I could see a Bigfoot. What I mean is WHY a Bigfoot? Why not an alien, or werewolf or vampire?

kitakaze

27th November 2009, 03:39 PM

Yes, something walloped me physically before the sighting. What it was, I have no idea.

Kit you are still not understanding the question I posed. I apologize for not being clear. The question is not HOW I could see a Bigfoot. What I mean is WHY a Bigfoot? Why not an alien, or werewolf or vampire?

Why this in your sleep-related experience and not a vampire, alien, or werewolf?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=1133

Does it matter? Does it somehow affect the major indicators of a sleep-related experience? A 9x6 ft monster ape is too weird for the mind to come up with? Why is that you think because something your mind came up with was not a Hollywood movie monster, it makes your mind coming up with it unlikely?

John, there doesn't need to be any stimulus at all. OTOH, you could have gotten a minor stimulus and completely not remembered it. The mind does these things. It was 1982. The fact is that as you describe the events, there is very good reason to think that what you were experiencing was inside you and not outside.

William Parcher

27th November 2009, 03:42 PM

Until I went in the Army, all Robin would do is deer hunt or bird hunt in open field and never went without an arsenal. He refused to even discuss it. ( even with me)

I moved and havent seen or heard from him since I left so cant say.

But you were never in the Army. (http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies575.htm) Your Army camp Bigfoot sighting is a complete fabrication. The duck hunting Bigfoot sighting is a complete fabrication too.

If anyone wants to know what entirely fictitious Bigfoot encounters sound like, look like, smell like, and feel like - they can check out your posts here and on the BFF. How can you tell when somebody is lying about their Bigfoot encounter? Check out Longtabber PE for your example. Uh oh. Pretty tough to distinguish from a real Bigfoot encounter, eh?

No, not difficult to distinguish at all, and it never was difficult. There are no real Bigfoot encounters. You see... Bigfoot does not exist.

drapier

27th November 2009, 03:56 PM

But you were never in the Army. (http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies575.htm)

More about it here (http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=90453).

sugarb

27th November 2009, 04:21 PM

Kitakaze, hello. I have been fighting with myself for several days about taking part in this discussion. Two reasons...one, anyone who claims to see this...thing...is thought of as nuts, and two, what my husband and I saw doesn't match the descriptions of most other sightings. I'm not a bigfoot researcher. But we did see something. The frustrating part, for me, is that I really don't have a lot to say about it, so I'm going to follow your questions that you asked of someone else to get started.

1) Where did your sighting occur? What province or state and county?

Arkansas, Lee County (possibly St. Francis just before hitting Lee...the area was unfamiliar to us...but it was before we'd come into Marianna).

2) What time of night was it? What year was it? About what date was it?

2006, December, 22nd or 23rd? Just a few days before Christmas, about 7ish pm (close to 7:30)

3) Where were you coming from?

My husband and I were travelling to my sisters new home in Arkansas from our home in Kentucky. We came across the Mississippi on 40 and then turned onto 79 (? I'm pretty sure that's the road) headed toward Marianna. My husband and I weren't married then, but my sister had been in the hospital and was being released that evening and so he accompanied me for a quick trip to help her with some Christmas things.

4) Please describe in detail the creature you say you saw.

What both of us saw at the same time was...something, on two legs, running toward us in the opposite lane. Our headlights were on...it wasn't late, but it was dark due to the time of year. It was covered in longish (but not excessively long) hair, and when it passed us in the opposite lane, it appeared to be only a bit taller than the cab of our truck (stock F150, '97 model). I would guesstimate about 7', maybe a few inches taller. It was hard to judge its height, because it was running with a kind of forward slant and didn't appear to have a neck. Neither of us saw a pointed head, either...just a plain old head covered in hair (I'm sure it *had* a neck, but it wasn't visible to us). It had arms longer than a human that swung down at its sides as it ran, not bent at the elbow like a person would run. We did not see any definite facial features, but...it simply wasn't "massive" as most reports would indicate. We have a few friends that are close to 7' in height, and aside from all the hair, this thing didn't appear to be proportioned much differently than a person. The only thing that appeared much different was the lack of a neck, which kind of gave it a squater appearance. It just wasn't "massive" though. We couldn't even determine the color really, it happened so quickly. It just looked a dirty brownish grayish color.

5) You described yourself as a Bigfoot researcher. Do you belong to any Bigfoot enthusiast organization? if so, which one?

Not a bigfoot researcher. I did join another website about a year later but made only a few posts before I realized that what other people were seeing and describing didn't at all seem like the thing we saw. There wasn't anything spiritual or paranormal or anything like that about it. Didn't feel any psychic connection or real kinship, the only emotion on my part was immediate fear and on husband's part was a desire to turn around and see if we could get a better look (which I refused to do...it scared me).

6) In what province or state and county do you normally do you search for Bigfoot?
We don't, and I don't think I want to, though my husband from time to time mentions that he'd like to see "it" again. Not me.

Honestly? It was just shocking. It seemed to not even notice us, our vehicle, our lights...didn't turn its head, nothing. It just kept running, like most other animals would probably do (except deer, which seem to like to stop in the middle of the road).

I do not know, nor does my husband, and we've discussed this a few times, what it was. If it was a "bigfoot", it looked nothing like the illustrations I have seen. Someone might be tempted to say it was a "juvenile" bigfoot, but...honestly, I don't know how anyone could determine that, and even if it was...it did not appear that it would have grown into anything almost as wide as it was tall.

That's a rather dull sighting. I don't know what it was. My husband doesn't know what it was. He was angry with me for not wanting to try to get another look at it though, until he realized that I really was scared. I don't have any other information to give.

The area was rural (maybe someone from Arkansas knows the road I'm talking about...it was the only time I've been on it and we were both sure we were lost because there simply wasn't any traffic...we came home a different way, down through West Helena, I think it was, past Lexa, where she now lives). There were fields, some what appeared to be abandoned houses, the trees were actually pretty far back from the road. I'm not sure if the fields were cotton or bean, but I remember seeing one of those small signs indicating they may have been corporate farms? I'm not sure about that, but when I say farms, I don't mean with barns and houses and all that, I mean mainly just fields with a dirt access road and gate.

I also admit that I do not know what types of wildlife are normally found in that area. I don't know if "bigfoot" is real or not, but that thing was, whatever it was.

WGBH

27th November 2009, 04:33 PM

Why this in your sleep-related experience and not a vampire, alien, or werewolf?

Does it matter?

Absolutely

Does it somehow affect the major indicators of a sleep-related experience? A 9x6 ft monster ape is too weird for the mind to come up with?

What major indicators?

Why is that you think because something your mind came up with was not a Hollywood movie monster, it makes your mind coming up with it unlikely?

I am not that creative.

John, there doesn't need to be any stimulus at all. OTOH, you could have gotten a minor stimulus and completely not remembered it. The mind does these things. It was 1982. The fact is that as you describe the events, there is very good reason to think that what you were experiencing was inside you and not outside.

Not the case.

kitakaze

27th November 2009, 04:38 PM

sugarb

27th November 2009, 04:42 PM

Sugarb, I just wanted to let you know that I'm taking a very good look at your post and will be getting deep into it. That looks to me to be one of the most interesting things I've heard in a long time.

Kitakaze, if you do happen to find wildlife in that area that we could have possibly seen that would match that description, please do let me know.

I should probably also mention that before our encounter we had passed a prison of some kind, if that would help with the location in any way.

kitakaze

27th November 2009, 05:02 PM

John, it would be really great if you could properly multi-quote. It's really hard to respond to the colored text in my quoted post thing. Thanks.

Does it matter?

Absolutely

How? In what way is it relevant? How does the relative uniqueness of what you might have considered Bigfoot to be rule out the intricacies of the human mind? Once again, you need no stimulus for your mind to make something up. I have seen crazy vivid things dreaming or in a dreamlike state that I have never seen ever in my life before. The mind can concoct some wild things. Also, as I already said, the stimulus could have been very minor and not remembered by you whenever it occured previous to your 1982 experience. It really seems that you don't want to take the problems of human memory and cognition into consideration.

Does it somehow affect the major indicators of a sleep-related experience? A 9x6 ft monster ape is too weird for the mind to come up with?

What major indicators?

Post #1422. I don't know how more clearly it could be spelled out. Feel like you can't move? Curled up in a fetal position? Really groggy? Yeah, that's a problem.

Why is that you think because something your mind came up with was not a Hollywood movie monster, it makes your mind coming up with it unlikely?

I am not that creative.

Your subjective opinion of how creative you are as a person has nothing at all to do with involuntary processes of the mind. You do know this, right?

John, there doesn't need to be any stimulus at all. OTOH, you could have gotten a minor stimulus and completely not remembered it. The mind does these things. It was 1982. The fact is that as you describe the events, there is very good reason to think that what you were experiencing was inside you and not outside.

Not the case.

This is a really offhand and vague refusal to discuss the details as presented. What's up with that? Was it not 1982? Did you not describe feeling like you had a static electric shock that froze you ? Did you not then describe having spasms and slumping to the floor and curling in a fetal position? Did you not describe felling really groggy and hearing what you perceived to be footsteps?

I have really good reasons to be thinking about an internal experience, but if you want to wave ot away, that's fine. I know what everone else will be thinking, though, and it's not I think he really did see a Bigfoot.

kitakaze

27th November 2009, 05:08 PM

Kitakaze, if you do happen to find wildlife in that area that we could have possibly seen that would match that description, please do let me know.

I should probably also mention that before our encounter we had passed a prison of some kind, if that would help with the location in any way.

That's very helpful. Just from my first look at this, this is the most interesting account I've heard in a while. I will be sinking my teeth into this. First I will try to pinpoint the area and look at it on Google Earth. I will look for similar accounts in the area and look for possible matches. I will look at the wildlife of the area and see if anything could match. I will look for any activities that were happening at the time and the possibility that a person in a suit was to blame.

I will put your account under the best scrutiny I can come up with. Everything about your account demands it. I might not be making that post today, but definitely by sometime tomorrow.

William Parcher

27th November 2009, 05:09 PM

I did join another website about a year later (2007) but made only a few posts before I realized that what other people were seeing and describing didn't at all seem like the thing we saw.

Please provide a link to that Bigfoot forum so that we can see what you wrote and what they said about it.

WGBH

27th November 2009, 05:10 PM

John, it would be really great if you could properly multi-quote. It's really hard to respond to the colored text in my quoted post thing. Thanks.

How? In what way is it relevant? How does the relative uniqueness of what you might have considered Bigfoot to be rule out the intricacies of the human mind? Once again, you need no stimulus for your mind to make something up. I have seen crazy vivid things dreaming or in a dreamlike state that I have never seen ever in my life before. The mind can concoct some wild things. Also, as I already said, the stimulus could have been very minor and not remembered by you whenever it occured previous to your 1982 experience. It really seems that you don't want to take the problems of human memory and cognition into consideration.

Post #1422. I don't know how more clearly it could be spelled out. Feel like you can't move? Curled up in a fetal position? Really groggy? Yeah, that's a problem.

Your subjective opinion of how creative you are as a person has nothing at all to do with involuntary processes of the mind. You do know this, right?

This is a really offhand and vague refusal to discuss the details as presented. What's up with that? Was it not 1982? Did you not describe feeling like you had a static electric shock that froze you ? Did you not then describe having spasms and slumping to the floor and curling in a fetal position? Did you not describe felling really groggy and hearing what you perceived to be footsteps?

I have really good reasons to be thinking about an internal experience, but if you want to wave to away, that's fine. I know what everone else will be thinking, though, and it's not I think he really did see a Bigfoot.

Yes, that is what I described it felt like because that is what happened to me.

I was not groggy when I heard something moving through the woods. The sounds started a few minutes after I sat back up.

I am fine with people not believing what I saw. Do you think I have a choice?

Vortigern99

27th November 2009, 05:13 PM

The question is not HOW I could see a Bigfoot. What I mean is WHY a Bigfoot? Why not an alien, or werewolf or vampire?

I don't understand why you think there has to be a reason that you, or anyone, might hallucinate one specific image over another. Why does kitkaze sometimes hallucinate a demonic entity trying to strangle him in his bed? Why do people hallucinate short gray beings abducting them and/or performing odd medical experiments on them? Why have other JREF members seen any number of weird figures crossing the road as they drive late at night on lonely roads? Why did medieval nuns sometimes hallucinate that the devil was visiting them in their bed at night to suck the life out of them and/or rape them?

These are fascinating questions worthy of inquiry, but that there is a mystery involved does not point towards the objective reality of the object or personage that is being hallucinated.

Hallucination is a waking dream. You're not responsible for the imagery being projected from your subconscious during a dream; as I'm sure you well know, on any given night you might dream any number of bizarre events/characters/images that may or may not have any relationship to the people or events you've encountered in your waking life.

So it is with hallucination. There is no reason for the images being projected, so far as we know; what's important is simply that they occur.

sugarb

27th November 2009, 05:14 PM

Please provide a link to that Bigfoot forum so that we can see what you wrote and what they said about it.

William Parcher, hello. I'm not sure if, due to the warnings about the bigfoot thread participants, we're supposed to cross forums, so if it is okay with you I will pm you.

William Parcher

27th November 2009, 05:16 PM

There is no problem with providing a link to your conversation on a Bigfoot forum.

sugarb

27th November 2009, 05:20 PM

There is no problem with providing a link to your conversation on a Bigfoot forum.

Okay, I'll go find the thread.

kitakaze

27th November 2009, 05:20 PM

Please provide a link to that Bigfoot forum so that we can see what you wrote and what they said about it.

While waiting for that, here is what sugarb has said previously here. Here are the only prior two posts of sugarb's in which she mentions Bigfoot...

I don't really want to argue as to the existence of bigfoot (although I certainly don't dismiss it), however, there is a flaw in the argument about nearly impassable terrain/chasms being proof that it doesn't exist. Before rail and roads, certainly not only animals but people moved across that exact same terrain. Perhaps as folks moved West, they found bodies of other people at the bottom of those chasms, but I seriously, seriously doubt they found it littered with dead animals that just couldn't make the climb/leap. Not meaning to argue, I'm just sayin'...if a bigfoot does exist, I find it hard to believe it would be closer to human than animal, therefore, if I were considering the movement of a bigfoot across terrain, I'd think more in terms of animals or people pre-road and rail than in terms of how people generally migrate in the modern world.

This one from the roadkill thread is the most interesting to me...

No, I doubt that you are wrong at all, actually. :) I was kind of thinking in text, mainly. I realize that many sightings seem to be along roadways, for example. It's just that I tend to think that if bigfoot does exist, even with those sightings on roadways, it's more reasonable to assume they as a general rule wouldn't use the routes we would--or surely we'd have proof by now OF bigfoots existing. What I mean is, absence of "road kill" doesn't necessarily mean absence of bigfoot, although granted, "road kill" would certainly be something people determined to prove bigfoot's existence should look forward to.

That was Feb 2009. I'm confused as to why sugarb made such a specific reference to thinking Bigfoot's would often use roads when oh, BTW, I forgot to mention me and my husband saw Bigfoot in 2006 running towards us down the opposite lane of our truck. That would seem like a pertinent detail to mention.

Sugarb, why no mention then?

sugarb

27th November 2009, 05:24 PM

William Parcher, here it is.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=20439&hl=

kitakaze

27th November 2009, 05:26 PM

Why did medieval nuns sometimes hallucinate that the devil was visiting them in their bed at night to suck the life out of them and/or rape them?

Not enough action.

ZING!

:scarper:

sugarb

27th November 2009, 05:27 PM

While waiting for that, here is what sugarb has said previously here. Here are the only prior two posts of sugarb's in which she mentions Bigfoot...

This one from the roadkill thread is the most interesting to me...

That was Feb 2009. I'm confused as to why sugarb made such a specific reference to thinking Bigfoot's would often use roads when oh, BTW, I forgot to mention me and my husband saw Bigfoot in 2006 running towards us down the opposite lane of our truck. That would seem like a pertinent detail to mention.

Sugarb, why no mention then?

I don't know if what we saw was "bigfoot". Initially, I learned of this forum from the other forum, so I came here to read the threads and still the descriptions were so different, I frankly thought that there must have been some other explanation. In other words, Kitakaze, I felt foolish, which should be understandable. I still do, actually.

kitakaze

27th November 2009, 05:33 PM

William Parcher, here it is.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=20439&hl=

Sugar's handle at the BFF was "footies". She made only 16 posts at the BFF. Here is her account from the third page, post #81 of the linked thread...

TXBIGFOOT, I am not entirely sure that this will be at all helpful, but here goes. It was almost a year ago now, December of 2006, it was the 22nd or 23rd, I could check my gas receipts to be certain of the date. I was in unfamiliar territory, as a companion and I were going to Arkansas to see my sister, who had been in the hospital and was being released that day. It was just a quick trip, one day down, back the next day. We had come through TN on 40, and turned onto 79, heading toward Marianna. I'm pretty sure we were already in Lee County, on 79. It was fairly early in the evening, around 7, 7:30 perhaps, and we had just passed a prison of some kind. I had never been in this part of Arkansas before, and was struck by how few cars we did see. In fact, I was sure we were lost. We stopped at a gas station (I can't remember the name of it, but somewhere I do have all the papers with scribbled directions. I saved them in case I had to go back by myself.) Anyway, we continued on 79 after being assured we weren't lost yet (lol), and it was on this long stretch of road, with open areas on either side, that we saw "it" coming toward us, in our headlights, up from a short ditch to the left (driver's side). "It" ran in the other lane, toward us, until reaching the front of our vehicle and veering back down the same ditch line.

This left me more unsure than I ever had been in my thoughts about what a bigfoot was--because I suppose in truth, I was guilty of humanizing something that I hadn't even seen before, which isn't all that surprising. We humans have a tendency to do that, I think. At the closest, from my perspective in the passenger side, it was probably 10 feet (somewhere there about--whatever the distance would be figuring the length of the hood of the truck plus a couple of feet). Human-like qualities though? Aside from running upright and basic shape, I can't say I felt any kind of kinship with this creature, if that's how we define human-like. It didn't even run like people run. You know how people run with their arms up, bent at the elbow? This creature didn't do that. It's arms were at it's sides. They appeared to only sway--and although it was running upright, it appeared to lean more forward than a person would. In thinking about that lean, perhaps it is propelling it's arms, even though it didn't look like it (because of how I'm familiar with running upright) and balance would dictate leaving them down instead of raising them--I don't know, but for some reason that is something I find interesting and think about quite often. Particularly on such flat ground. And I can't imagine a person getting so close to a moving vehicle, either. I was actually left with the impression that, even with headlamps on, it wasn't fully aware of a vehicle in the road. Kind of like how rabbits will run out in the road and immediately veer away (hopefully in time) before impact. Or squirrels. Not at all like deer, which tend to freeze in lights or run directly into vehicles.

It didn't stop to look at us, didn't turn it's head in our direction at all that I could notice, and it scared me to death. I tried to find ways to explain what I saw..."well, maybe it was a deer", "deer don't run upright and aren't covered in hair" "maybe it was an inmate", "inmates have clothes on and aren't covered in hair, and would run like other humans run--and surely wouldn't be running BACK to prison (lol)"...and I did this, I think, because to say it was "bigfoot" didn't seem to fit the idea I had of a reclusive creature living under the cover of deep woods.

I do not know how to classify this animal. I do not know what to compare it to. I don't know how apes run. I don't know if they run distances upright or on all fours. I know how people run, but the way this creature was running didn't fit that, either. And I don't know what falls between ape and person. I'm not that knowledgeable. All I do know was that it left me with more questions, and it defied everything I had previously thought I knew. Humanoid, I'd feel comfortable saying, because of it's body structure (shape) and locomotion (bi-pedal). Beyond that, I just don't know. I just honestly don't know. I will say, though, that I've felt for quite some time in my adult life that we spend more time trying to distance "humans" from animals than is realistic. As someone else said in this thread, humans act more on instincts than they perhaps care to acknowledge. We're just animals, too, really...only animals that for some reason are incapable (or believe ourselves incapable) of surviving as our wild friends do. We need cars and houses and grocery stores--and call that "superior". I'm not at all sure anymore that I agree with that. Nonetheless, that's irrelevant to the topic.

I fear this may be the exact opposite of what you were looking for. In my own mind, prior to this, as I said, I was thinking that whatever "bigfoot" was, it was close to "human". After this, though...after seeing it, or at least some version of it, since I don't know what "it" is, really, I'm no longer comfortable with the "human" idea. For myself, that is. Other people's experiences and perceptions may be totally different, and my own could have been a result of the fear that I did experience. It was just so strange that the truth is, I can't even say I'm comfortable talking about it. Weird, because, when I had it in my head that "bigfoot" was something close to human, I would talk about it constantly, to my friends, family...but now I just can't seem to do it. I felt so sure when I hadn't seen it and never honestly expected to...and seeing it took all that certainty away, if that makes any sense.

William Parcher

27th November 2009, 05:35 PM

William Parcher, here it is.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=20439&hl=

Thanks. Your name on BFF is "footies".

What I mean is, absence of "road kill" doesn't necessarily mean absence of bigfoot, although granted, "road kill" would certainly be something people determined to prove bigfoot's existence should look forward to.

The absence of Bigfoot roadkill is extremely powerful evidence that Bigfoot does not exist. Folks have been driving cars and other vehicles across North America for a very long time now. Trains have not produced Bigfoot railkill either.

sugarb

27th November 2009, 05:36 PM

Thank you for posting that, Kitakaze.

William Parcher

27th November 2009, 05:40 PM

sugarb

27th November 2009, 05:42 PM

Thanks. Your name on BFF is "footie".

The absence of Bigfoot roadkill is extremely powerful evidence that Bigfoot does not exist. Folks have been driving cars and other vehicles across North America for a very long time now. Trains have not produced Bigfoot railkill either.

William Parcher, I see what you mean. Again, I'm not even "sure" that what we saw was a "bigfoot". It really wasn't as big as everything I've read has indicated, nor did it look as though it ever would be, you know? I have wondered from time to time about the "wildman" reports I've read, but even at that...I don't know. I just have no idea. My hands are shaking just thinking about it. And really? If I'd been alone, or if my husband had not seen it, I'd probably write myself off as just crazy or imagining things. Actually, when we do talk about it, I ask him all the time if maybe we just imagined it. I'd like to have imagined it. I know that sounds dumb.

There are bears in Arkansas, I think, but I do not know if bears are capable of running much distance on their hind legs. If it *was* a bear, and they can run short distances on their hind legs, then I can easily see how both of our minds might not say "bear", simply because it wasn't on four legs.

kitakaze

27th November 2009, 05:44 PM

I don't know if what we saw was "bigfoot". Initially, I learned of this forum from the other forum, so I came here to read the threads and still the descriptions were so different, I frankly thought that there must have been some other explanation. In other words, Kitakaze, I felt foolish, which should be understandable. I still do, actually.

Well, don't feel foolish. So you found the JREF via the BFF, made two posts about Bigfoot, mentioned that you don't think Bigfoots often use roadways but not that you may have seen something that could have been Bigfoot, and went on to become a regular JREF member that never discussed Bigfoot again until now? That seems a little weird to me that you would talk about Bigfoot and how you think they wouldn't often use roadways but sit on the giant whopper of a story you have. I'm not saying I don't believe you, just that that's strange.

sugarb

27th November 2009, 05:48 PM

It's a little more of a challenge to find your BFF posts when I don't have a membership there. I used Google to find other threads you posted in (besides the one KKZ just posted).

Four Categories of Bigfoot (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=20581)

Any Smart Guys Here? (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=20289)

That was the only thread about what we saw. I think one of the others was about something you all have talked about...seeing things that aren't really there when you're tired or driving? And then another was about, paraphrasing, how it would be categorized, as ape or human or whatever. Many of the people there seemed very smart, and in the classification discussions, I was interested in how some people considered them "human like" or "ape like". I'm not a hunter, nor do I want to be...but I do like to read other people's stories (as I think I've said here before) about different things, so it wasn't long before I realized I wouldn't be able to settle it in my mind, so I mainly just read. Like here kind of.

Reading these threads, though, they're a bit different, so maybe there will be an answer that makes sense to me.

sugarb

27th November 2009, 05:55 PM

Well, don't feel foolish. So you found the JREF via the BFF, made two posts about Bigfoot, mentioned that you don't think Bigfoots often use roadways but not that you may have seen something that could have been Bigfoot, and went on to become a regular JREF member that never discussed Bigfoot again until now? That seems a little weird to me that you would talk about Bigfoot and how you think they wouldn't often use roadways but sit on the giant whopper of a story you have. I'm not saying I don't believe you, just that that's strange.

I've read along...but I cannot help but feel foolish, kitakaze. This past year, I've been dealing with some deaths and then some anxiety and panic disorders, so...it may sound strange, but I really couldn't afford to let my mind get too deep into this. I'm handling things better now, and I've been following along on this thread and others, and really your posts are why I finally worked the nerve up to bring this up. I *do* want it resolved in my mind, and really I *do* hope there is an animal it could have been. If there is, then it seems to me that this will be the place to find out. If there isn't, then I don't have to feel "crazy" about this particular thing anymore. Seems a win/win, even if it makes me feel dumb.

rockinkt

27th November 2009, 06:59 PM

sugarb

27th November 2009, 07:16 PM

My condolences for your losses. I hope you get feeling better real soon.

I also hope that these claims of yours are true because what I am now seeing is classic behavior from hoaxers.

You made a claim forgetting about your original posts or thought no-one would go to the trouble of finding them. Then - when you are asked to explain some time-line issues as to why you made no previous mention of your sighting - you hit the oft repeated excuses like deaths and panic attacks causing you to not be able to think clearly at the time you made your original posts.

Like I said - I hope you are not hoaxing us; However, my spidey senses are tingling

Rockinkt, I am sorry to have set off your spidey senses. And no, I really wasn't thinking clearly earlier this year. My mother passed away in January after having gone into liver failure the previous August. My husband's grandfather passed away the December before that. More importantly (though I appreciate your condolences) in February of this year my mother in law was in a mental hospital and we had to find her nursing home placement. None of that is "making excuses". It is, unfortunately, reality. It is no secret elsewhere on the forum that I had problems thereafter that led to being forced to the hospital and now being under care.

That is alright though that you feel I am hoaxing (though I have no idea what benefit there could be to it, since as I said, I am not a "bigfoot researcher"). I fully expected that, and it isn't something I intend to argue about.

Um...I also never claimed to have forgotten my original posts? Do you mean on this forum or the other forum? I hadn't forgotten either, I don't know why you say that. I said I felt foolish.

Drewbot

27th November 2009, 08:22 PM

SugarB I presume you are taking anti anxiety medication.

Do you have any other neurological disorders or sleep-disorders?

sugarb

27th November 2009, 08:39 PM

SugarB I presume you are taking anti anxiety medication.

Do you have any other neurological disorders or sleep-disorders?

Drewbot, hello, thank you for asking and I understand why you would. I am currently taking three medications...in May I was diagnosed with ptsd. I never took any medications before, so it is taking some getting used to, but yes, I am currently taking two anti-depressants (one of those is for a sleep disorder...don't know if we're supposed to discuss medications but it is trazadone and thus far it has successfully helped me manage nightmares) and a mild anxiety medication...it is similar to benadryl I think, vistaril?...that was supposed to help stop the tremors, but we are discussing changing that medication as it has recently been ineffective.

And yes, I have experienced nightmares most of my life, which may be relevant as well. At this time this happened I was not on any medications...but as I understand it (it's recent so I'm still learning), the ptsd was there long before then. Which now I understand is why I was immediately so scared.

No, I have no other neurological disorders.

William Parcher

28th November 2009, 09:37 AM

Again, I'm not even "sure" that what we saw was a "bigfoot". It really wasn't as big as everything I've read has indicated, nor did it look as though it ever would be, you know? I have wondered from time to time about the "wildman" reports I've read, but even at that...I don't know. I just have no idea.

I've condensed your description of this thing...

About 7', maybe a few inches taller.
It was covered in longish hair.
Plain head covered in hair.
Didn't appear to have a neck.
Didn't appear proportioned much differently than a person.
Wasn't "massive".
Arms longer than a human that swung down at its sides as it ran, not bent at the elbow like a person.
It was running with a kind of forward slant.

I did join another website about a year later but made only a few posts before I realized that what other people were seeing and describing didn't at all seem like the thing we saw.

Actually, your description is not much different from many of the reported descriptions. Quite a few describe something a lot like a human form but covered in hair. Some witnesses say the Bigfoot was slender or not "body builder massive". I noticed in the BFF thread that you did not get into the appearance details that you did yesterday here. No mention of the height on BFF. Also nobody over there seemed skeptical or dismissive of your sighting, and some may have wondered why you suddenly stopped posting.

sugarb

28th November 2009, 09:49 AM

I've condensed your description of this thing...

About 7', maybe a few inches taller.
It was covered in longish hair.
Plain head covered in hair.
Didn't appear to have a neck.
Didn't appear proportioned much differently than a person.
Wasn't "massive".
Arms longer than a human that swung down at its sides as it ran, not bent at the elbow like a person.
It was running with a kind of forward slant.

Actually, your description is not much different from many of the reported descriptions. Quite a few describe something a lot like a human form but covered in hair. Some witnesses say the Bigfoot was slender or not "body builder massive". I noticed in the BFF thread that you did not get into the appearance details that you did yesterday here. No mention of the height on BFF. Also nobody over there seemed skeptical or dismissive of your sighting, and some may have wondered why you suddenly stopped posting.

Hello, William Parcher. No, no one there was ever in any way rude to me. They were very nice, actually. I didn't mean to give the impression that anyone was rude, and if I did, I'm sorry.

Vortigern99

28th November 2009, 10:18 AM

William Parcher

28th November 2009, 10:24 AM

sugarb

28th November 2009, 10:31 AM

Sugarb, may I ask whether you've considered the following mundane explanations for what you saw?:

A hunter in a gilly/ghille suit:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2562/3722758387_aa30bb2935.jpg

An intentional hoaxer in a costume:

http://www.mcavenedesigns.com/Bigfoot/bigfoot_photo2.jpg

A bear up on two feet:

http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/932/bear.jpg

A hallucination, which is a known, studied and documented phenomenon of the human mind, which sometimes occurs in situations precisely like you've described: driving on a lonely road late at night. (There are several first-hand examples of this given by JREF skeptics in the preceding pages of this thread.)

Hypnagogia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogic_hallucination

... Any or all of which might phenomena have been enhanced or distorted through the known and studied phenomenon of confabulation (the confusion of imagination with memory): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation

Vortigern99, hello. I have actually considered a few possibilities, if you don't mind my sharing them with you.

The hunter in that suit, no...unless there are suits with much shorter...what would you call it? Camoflauge? (spelling)

A bear on two legs, yes...which is why I asked if bears could run distances on their hind legs, and if so do they carry their front paws down at their sides? I would perfectly understand, if it was a bear on hind legs, why my mind wouldn't automatically think "bear".

The hallucination, that's an interesting one, and there is one possibility that I have considered. At first I dismissed it because, as I said, we both saw it. In fact, we both at the same time acknowledged what we were seeing. However...given the recognition recently of other problems, I did a few days ago start wondering about the possibility of my husband simply...I guess you'd say "humoring" what I said I saw. I find it unlikely, given that we both acknowledged it and I actually tried to explain it away immediately...and I have asked him if that's what he was doing and he denies it...but...I know him and he wouldn't do anything that he would think might cause me to further question myself, so that is a possibility that I won't dismiss, yes.

sugarb

28th November 2009, 10:37 AM

No, you didn't give me the impression that they were rude. I'm saying that your departure from BFF was a non sequiter. IOW, it doesn't make sense why you stopped conversing with the Bigfooters at BFF. You say it was because "your Bigfoot" wasn't like "their Bigfoot". But that isn't even true. You never even gave anyone a chance to say something like "Gosh, your road runner thing doesn't really sound like a Bigfoot". No, in fact, listing the physical characteristics as above (7'+, fully hairy body, running biped) - I would bet anything that virtually all of the Bigfooters would have insisted that you did see a Bigfoot. It would make no difference if you said it was more ape-like than human-like or vice-versa. A nocturnal seven foot hairy running biped is going to be Bigfoot as far as they are concerned.

William Parcher, perhaps they would have immediately confirmed it was a "bigfoot" as far as they were concerned, but I was trying to *not* automatically see it as a "bigfoot". It was something, it was alive...it was on two legs, but, it *could have been* something else. Like I said, I'm not a "bigfooter". I more consider the probability that it *was* something else, but have been unable to dismiss the possibility that it could have been what is commonly referred to as a bigfoot. Maybe that doesn't make sense.

Oh, and Vortigern99, I hadn't considered a hoaxer but yes, there's no way I could dismiss that possibility either. (Sorry, forgot to add that)

decojuicer

28th November 2009, 10:45 AM

The hallucination, that's an interesting one, and there is one possibility that I have considered. At first I dismissed it because, as I said, we both saw it. In fact, we both at the same time acknowledged what we were seeing. However...given the recognition recently of other problems, I did a few days ago start wondering about the possibility of my husband simply...I guess you'd say "humoring" what I said I saw. I find it unlikely, given that we both acknowledged it and I actually tried to explain it away immediately...and I have asked him if that's what he was doing and he denies it...but...I know him and he wouldn't do anything that he would think might cause me to further question myself, so that is a possibility that I won't dismiss, yes.

Here is another thought. During a crime scene investigation, the most important thing that first responders have to do is to separate the witnesses and contain the scene.

The reason for this is that witnesses will actually convince each other of what they saw. One witness sees a white male in a red shirt and blue jeans that committed the crime. Another witness believes that he saw a Hispanic male in a blue shirt and tan pants commit the crime. By the time that they are done talking, the suspect becomes a Hispanic male wearing a red shirt and tan pants. It doesn't matter who is actually right, the point is that they convince each other of what they didn't see. They actually become so convinced that they can take a polygraph and answer the questions "truthfully".

In many relationships, the person with the stronger personality will often be the one to dictate what was seen. If you believe that you saw a bigfoot and your husband wasn't sure what he saw, then he might readily agree with you because your assertion is so strong. The thought might be, "Well, I did see something, but I'm not sure what I saw, but she is sure what she saw, so she must have gotten a clearer view.

It only takes a few moments for those beliefs to solidify, and after that, they can be unshakable.

William Parcher

28th November 2009, 10:47 AM

sugarb

28th November 2009, 10:51 AM

Here is another thought. During a crime scene investigation, the most important thing that first responders have to do is to separate the witnesses and contain the scene.

The reason for this is that witnesses will actually convince each other of what they saw. One witness sees a white male in a red shirt and blue jeans that committed the crime. Another witness believes that he saw a Hispanic male in a blue shirt and tan pants commit the crime. By the time that they are done talking, the suspect becomes a Hispanic male wearing a red shirt and tan pants. It doesn't matter who is actually right, the point is that they convince each other of what they didn't see. They actually become so convinced that they can take a polygraph and answer the questions "truthfully".

In many relationships, the person with the stronger personality will often be the one to dictate what was seen. If you believe that you saw a bigfoot and your husband wasn't sure what he saw, then he might readily agree with you because your assertion is so strong. The thought might be, "Well, I did see something, but I'm not sure what I saw, but she is sure what she saw, so she must have gotten a clearer view.

It only takes a few moments for those beliefs to solidify, and after that, they can be unshakable.

Decojuicer, hello. That is true! In our relationship, he is definitely the stronger personality though...I'm a fairly insecure person...but yes, you described better than I could what I'd been recently thinking about. Wondering about, I guess. Thank you.

sugarb

28th November 2009, 10:57 AM

Bears don't really run on their hind legs, if anything it might look like a hurried walk if they tried to move quickly bipedally. But an upright bear that is only 10 feet away walking towards you and fully illuminated by headlamps is still going to look like an upright bear.

How long did you actually have your eyeballs on it? Did you turn your head or rotate in your seat to look at it as it was alongside and then behind the vehicle?

William Parcher, I would doubt it was even a full minute. I would say that it felt longer than that, but I think that's probably a common sense that unusual things seem to last longer than they actually do. I was in the passenger seat, with my seatbelt on, but yes, I did sort of rotate my body (not fully) as it came up alongside the vehicle and saw it veer over to the ditchline on the opposite side of the road (drivers side).

I was *not*, by the way, wearing my glasses, which I do need to drive, and I'll right away admit that I cannot see long distances without them. From the front, I could because of the illumination (though I couldn't see it clearly). From the rear, when it was to the side and behind, my vision wouldn't allow me to see very far at all. Once it went down the ditchline, that was it for me.

ETA: when a passenger, I only wear my glasses when watching for a correct turnoff or sign, and then I take them off again. This is only relevant because we stopped to make sure we were not lost, and so I *had* had my glasses on. Sometimes after taking them off my vision is a bit blurrier than usual, just to fully disclose. I don't have good vision.

decojuicer

28th November 2009, 11:01 AM

By the way, they do make Ghillie suits with smaller threads. In fact, many hunters will make their own Ghillie suits in order to blend in better with their environment. Camoflauge isn't something you buy, it's something that you do.;)

ETA: By the way, if you ever saw me coming out of the woods after a long day of hunting, you might think I was a bigfoot. Tired, shoulders slumped, walking with a different gait because of all of the crap that I am wearing, I'm 6'1" and over 300lbs, it's dark, and you're moving quickly. When I'm walking a road, I always step off the road when the car gets close, because I don't want to get hit by a careless driver. I find that having a few thick trees between them and me gives me a sense of security. So when you add all of these things up, I could very well be misconstrued as a bigfoot. Go back and watch the video that I linked to earlier in this thread. That guy might be taken for a bigfoot in broad daylight in the middle of a grocery store. He inadvertently hoaxed a bunch of people.

wicked_ways

28th November 2009, 11:40 AM

But you were never in the Army. (http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies575.htm) Your Army camp Bigfoot sighting is a complete fabrication. The duck hunting Bigfoot sighting is a complete fabrication too.

If anyone wants to know what entirely fictitious Bigfoot encounters sound like, look like, smell like, and feel like - they can check out your posts here and on the BFF. How can you tell when somebody is lying about their Bigfoot encounter? Check out Longtabber PE for your example. Uh oh. Pretty tough to distinguish from a real Bigfoot encounter, eh?

No, not difficult to distinguish at all, and it never was difficult. There are no real Bigfoot encounters. You see... Bigfoot does not exist.

Wow, William Parcher, i was sure taken for a fool. i believed longtabber.

I was a dependent, a family member, and active duty for eight years in the Army.

My father was an infantry officer who served two tours in Viet Nam.

My mother was an Army nurse who had two years active duty and six years in the reserves.

The paternal side of my family covers every branch of the United States military.

My father, grandfather, two great uncles, and a great aunt whom i was named after are buried in Arlington National Cemetary.

For this imposter to come here and spout his non-knowledge from his "sandbox" is the lowest of the low.

He disgraces every real soldier, sailor and marine with his lies. Looks like over on Bullshido, they will pin him down like the bug he is. dammit.

kitakaze

28th November 2009, 02:50 PM

I've read along...but I cannot help but feel foolish, kitakaze. This past year, I've been dealing with some deaths and then some anxiety and panic disorders, so...it may sound strange, but I really couldn't afford to let my mind get too deep into this. I'm handling things better now, and I've been following along on this thread and others, and really your posts are why I finally worked the nerve up to bring this up.

It is no secret elsewhere on the forum that I had problems thereafter that led to being forced to the hospital and now being under care.

Sugar, ideally, I would go deep into the details you have posted about your account with the road runner, as WP called it. I'd post great big posts full of links, reports, studies, charts, what have you. The thing is that I'm having a hard time with devoting the time and effort that such research takes due to certain socio factors. Let me be blunt, I'm thinking about the possibility of you either making everything up or just deluding yourself. I don't want to embarrass you by posting quotes here in this thread, but I am going to clue in other people as to where my reservations are coming from. Some of that is from your post here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4991227&postcount=166).

The other thing is that while you said you felt foolish, it still doesn't make sense to me that as person would come into a conversation in February 2009 and talk about how they don't think Bigfoot would often use roads and not drop the bomb that HFS, my husband and I saw one running towards us while driving and I was ten feet away from it. I'm not saying I'm dismissing you, but here is what I'm looking at...

- HFS, Bigfoot is real.

- Bigfoot lives in Arkansas.

- Bigfoots hang around roads in Arkansas.

- Bigfoots cross roads in Arkansas.

- Bigfoot actually gets on the road and starts running down it, showing total disinterest in a large motor vehicle with noise and bright lights bearing down on it.

- Bigfoot did that gob-smackingly amazing thing and was seen by a person who has a inauspiciously has a history of getting delirious.

You see where I'm coming from right?

What I need for you to do before I get all over this thing is tell me exactly what you saw, such as the face, and where you saw it. I want you to tell me enough detail that I can go and show people this place from overhead on Google.

Most importantly, your husband (ex?). I would like with the claim of two witnesses to hear from the other witness. How about having your husband register an account here at the JREF and talk to us. We would need to verify that it is not you making a sock, which might be harder if you live with your husband. That would certainly start getting my motivation running for researching your claim in detail. Right now I'm feeling like I don't want to give time that could be in the pool for a claim that may not even need to be looked into deeply.

kitakaze

28th November 2009, 03:07 PM

For this imposter to come here and spout his non-knowledge from his "sandbox" is the lowest of the low.

He disgraces every real soldier, sailor and marine with his lies. Looks like over on Bullshido, they will pin him down like the bug he is. dammit.

That is some nutty stuff. All that time with all those unreadable usenet style posts and PM's talking about busting Bill Munns and completely making up deep, deep foo foo about being in the military and seeing Bigfoot. I PMed Longtabber some time ago to get his words on what I thought might have been a mistake by Joey Donuts, whom I also know, and I had no response. Then I saw in a PM from someone else the proof that he was making it all up. I know he saw the PM because...

LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster

Last Activity: 5th October 2009 08:56 AM

Dude liked to make deep foo foo.

Bigfoot encounter?

:nope:

Military spec ops?

:nope:

Elaborate bull$#!%?

:toiletpap:thumbsup:

Longtabber, why, man? Why?

9/11 Chewy Defense

28th November 2009, 03:15 PM

Hi, I'm Chewy! I'm must be here so I must be a Bigfoot!

Naw, I'm kiddin! :p

wicked_ways

28th November 2009, 03:48 PM

That is some nutty stuff. All that time with all those unreadable usenet style posts and PM's talking about busting Bill Munns and completely making up deep, deep foo foo about being in the military and seeing Bigfoot. I PMed Longtabber some time ago to get his words on what I thought might have been a mistake by Joey Donuts, whom I also know, and I had no response. Then I saw in a PM from someone else the proof that he was making it all up. I know he saw the PM because...

LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster

Last Activity: 5th October 2009 08:56 AM

Dude liked to make deep foo foo.

Bigfoot encounter?

:nope:

Military spec ops?

:nope:

Elaborate bull$#!%?

:toiletpap:thumbsup:

Longtabber, why, man? Why?

Yes, why? Of course, it seems obvious now. Who would have the time to write all that crap on a battlefield? Man, I was never on a battlefield, but just training some new lieutenants, I was busy all the time. Bigfoot discussions? Uh, no. Longtabber is now on my expungement list. :D

kitakaze

28th November 2009, 03:58 PM

Hi, I'm Chewy! I'm must be here so I must be a Bigfoot!

Naw, I'm kiddin! :p

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=1376

Man, quit yo jibba jabba!

Everybody knows Chewie is dead (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/5/58/Chew45.jpg).

Anakin calculated Dobido would collide with Sernpidal in seven hours. This event, unbeknownst to them, was a result of the Yuuzhan Vong tactic, Yo'gand's Core. As the winds picked up, Anakin was knocked into the distance, causing Chewie to run after him. Chewie was able to bring Anakin to safety on the Falcon, but another blast of wind knocked him out of reach. Anakin piloted the Falcon, while his father stood on the entrance ramp hoping to lift Chewie up, but was forced to flee from Sernpidal when he realized it was too late to save Chewie. The Wookiee stood in the moon's trajectory, howling defiantly, and was crushed to death with those Sernpidalians who could not escape. His death drove Han to a resentment of his son Anakin. Han eventually recovered and forgave his son, but the death of his battle-brother and dearest companion would stick with him forever.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Chewbacca

And it's Chewie, not "Chewy". Chewy is something I did in the dirt with my Kuwahara BMX when I was a kid.

sugarb

28th November 2009, 06:14 PM

Sugar, ideally, I would go deep into the details you have posted about your account with the road runner, as WP called it. I'd post great big posts full of links, reports, studies, charts, what have you. The thing is that I'm having a hard time with devoting the time and effort that such research takes due to certain socio factors. Let me be blunt, I'm thinking about the possibility of you either making everything up or just deluding yourself. I don't want to embarrass you by posting quotes here in this thread, but I am going to clue in other people as to where my reservations are coming from. Some of that is from your post here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4991227&postcount=166).

The other thing is that while you said you felt foolish, it still doesn't make sense to me that as person would come into a conversation in February 2009 and talk about how they don't think Bigfoot would often use roads and not drop the bomb that HFS, my husband and I saw one running towards us while driving and I was ten feet away from it. I'm not saying I'm dismissing you, but here is what I'm looking at...

- HFS, Bigfoot is real.

- Bigfoot lives in Arkansas.

- Bigfoots hang around roads in Arkansas.

- Bigfoots cross roads in Arkansas.

- Bigfoot actually gets on the road and starts running down it, showing total disinterest in a large motor vehicle with noise and bright lights bearing down on it.

- Bigfoot did that gob-smackingly amazing thing and was seen by a person who has a inauspiciously has a history of getting delirious.

You see where I'm coming from right?

What I need for you to do before I get all over this thing is tell me exactly what you saw, such as the face, and where you saw it. I want you to tell me enough detail that I can go and show people this place from overhead on Google.

Most importantly, your husband (ex?). I would like with the claim of two witnesses to hear from the other witness. How about having your husband register an account here at the JREF and talk to us. We would need to verify that it is not you making a sock, which might be harder if you live with your husband. That would certainly start getting my motivation running for researching your claim in detail. Right now I'm feeling like I don't want to give time that could be in the pool for a claim that may not even need to be looked into deeply.

My breakdown earlier this year...for anyone that didn't follow the link.

Yeah. Can I ask why you think that means I am deluding myself? I told you earlier, it was no secret. Yes...that is very insulting. You think I'm crazy. Thanks.

By the way, I don't have "a history of getting delirious". I did not have those problems until watching my mom die, but again, thanks. Nice assumption. Nice phrasing. Nice misleading. And the "critical thought" in that is where, exactly???

Yes, I understand. Completely.

WGBH

28th November 2009, 06:30 PM

Sugarb,

You said you had been reading this thread. This caught you by surprise?

kitakaze

28th November 2009, 06:34 PM

My breakdown earlier this year...for anyone that didn't follow the link.

Yeah. Can I ask why you think that means I am deluding myself? I told you earlier, it was no secret. Yes...that is very insulting. You think I'm crazy. Thanks.

By the way, I don't have "a history of getting delirious". I did not have those problems until watching my mom die, but again, thanks. Nice assumption. Nice phrasing. Nice misleading. And the "critical thought" in that is where, exactly???

Yes, I understand. Completely.

Sugar, I'm sorry for offending you. That was not my intention. Also, I offer you my deepest condolences for the untimely passing of your mother. I recently had a loss in my immediate family, as well.

I really don't want to bring up the ugly details of your mental breakdown here, but suffice it to say, you are not crazy. Your breakdown earlier this year would acurately be called becoming delirious. You were in a severe mental state due to chemical imbalances and other factors related to stress and anxiety. That sucks. Many millions of people battle against anxiety disorders and they are not crazy.

The thing is that I think you're understanding enough to see what some of the initial doubts might be. Road runner Bigfoot in Arkansas is quite a thing to contemplate. I want to eliminate to my satisfaction that you aren't making anything up. That isn't meant to insult you, it's just a matter of course with a claim such as yours. You can understand that, yes? I would like to get on with really getting into researching your claim. I would like to get a few things going first.

How about talking to the second witness? How about getting me location details so I can pinpoint the are I will study? How about giving me a detailed description of what you saw and what you were doing before and after the event?

Again, I apologize, but my critical thinking is fine. People make up elaborate things and we've seen it here countless times from people who seem very rational. If you are telling the truth, I want to help you find some answers.

sugarb

28th November 2009, 06:43 PM

Sugarb,

You said you had been reading this thread. This caught you by surprise?

WGBH, no, not really. I do find it insulting...particularly the last little parting shot about how he'd have to prove I wouldn't create a "sock puppet" since I, shock of all shocks, LIVE with my husband. And people wonder why these threads go bad? And why someone would be very hesitant to take part? I guess it did surprise me in that after the warning about these threads I figured it might be a different atmosphere. I was wrong. I admit that too when it happens (which is often).

Thank you, though, WGBH. I don't know why he implied that my husband was an "ex" either. My "ex" is dead. So that was another lovely little nicety.

What surprised me, as if it matters, is that it is pretty clear that no matter how honest a person is about anything and everything that may raise questions, it will be forever held against them and automatically make anything they say pointless.

I know that if I played this game...and my husband wants to register by the way, but he'd just be suspended immediately LOL...my husband would just be called my delirious sock puppet and then it would be demanded that we find another computer in another house and post simultaneously to "prove" something that would make whatever worth whoevers time.

(and *I'm* paranoid?)

The funny part of this is, my husband is the one that encouraged me to finally post about this. I told him I was afraid to, that it would be stupid to, especially because I've freely talked about my other problems, but HE said that the people here would understand those things. So I thought...maybe.

At any rate, there's nothing else to add anyway. I was going to mention a discussion we had tonight on our way to visit relatives and a slight difference in our memory of it, but what's the point?

No, I guess I'm not surprised...but then again I am, too. (you like that? See? My multiple personalities that don't exist refuse to agree!)Eh, doesn't matter.

kitakaze

28th November 2009, 06:44 PM

Sugarb,

You said you had been reading this thread. This caught you by surprise?

Eliminating circumstances such seeing things that aren't actually there or a person making things up or embellishing them is a matter of course. As a person who calls themselves an investigator, you really should be more diligent about this than the average person. In your case, there has been not a single reason to dismiss any of the strong indicators of a sleep-related experience when you were a teenager. Why would my mind create Bigfoot? is certainly not one of them.

In Sugar's case, we're just getting started and removing the issue of lying is important. Should we be lax or something? She says there is a second witness and that it is her husband. Does he not live with her? Are his fingers broken and he can't sit down and type? Sugar mentioned a divorce but I think she also mentioned being currently married. Do you want to take a crack at this? Be my guest. Shall we adopt the cool-story-I-believe-you method? I would think that a person with personal experience of hoaxing would be more judicious.

kitakaze

28th November 2009, 06:52 PM

WGBH, no, not really. I do find it insulting...particularly the last little parting shot about how he'd have to prove I wouldn't create a "sock puppet" since I, shock of all shocks, LIVE with my husband. And people wonder why these threads go bad? And why someone would be very hesitant to take part? I guess it did surprise me in that after the warning about these threads I figured it might be a different atmosphere. I was wrong. I admit that too when it happens (which is often).

Thank you, though, WGBH. I don't know why he implied that my husband was an "ex" either. My "ex" is dead. So that was another lovely little nicety.

What surprised me, as if it matters, is that it is pretty clear that no matter how honest a person is about anything and everything that may raise questions, it will be forever held against them and automatically make anything they say pointless.

I know that if I played this game...and my husband wants to register by the way, but he'd just be suspended immediately LOL...my husband would just be called my delirious sock puppet and then it would be demanded that we find another computer in another house and post simultaneously to "prove" something that would make whatever worth whoevers time.

(and *I'm* paranoid?)

The funny part of this is, my husband is the one that encouraged me to finally post about this. I told him I was afraid to, that it would be stupid to, especially because I've freely talked about my other problems, but HE said that the people here would understand those things. So I thought...maybe.

At any rate, there's nothing else to add anyway. I was going to mention a discussion we had tonight on our way to visit relatives and a slight difference in our memory of it, but what's the point?

No, I guess I'm not surprised...but then again I am, too. (you like that? See? My multiple personalities that don't exist refuse to agree!)Eh, doesn't matter.

Sugar, I don't think I'm being unfair or harsh in any way. Try not to get too defensive and read insults that aren't there. In looking back through some of your posts, I saw a mention of divorce. I did not know if that was in reference to your husband now or someone before. I didn't see anything about your ex being deceased. I did not absorb through osmosis the entirety of knowledge of your 800+ posts since last night. There's a lot about your circumstances I was seeking to clear up. I'm certainly not interested in taking shots at you. You have an incredible story, and it could prove very interesting to look into once we set aside doubts about making it up. People do that.

So you live with your husband and he wants to talk. That's fantastic. This will be the first time we've had multiple credible witnesses here. By all means, please ask your husband to join us here. We have good sock detectors here, and if it is you making a sock, I'm confident we would know. I think you're telling the truth, but let's make sure first. Fair enough?

GT/CS

28th November 2009, 06:56 PM

Plus, anyone who has followed the bigfoot threads should understand our problem with nonsense posts and posters. And please don't forget that this is a skeptic's site, and there are a number of reasons to be skeptical with this story, so thick skin will be required.

kitakaze

28th November 2009, 07:00 PM

I know that if I played this game...and my husband wants to register by the way, but he'd just be suspended immediately LOL...my husband would just be called my delirious sock puppet and then it would be demanded that we find another computer in another house and post simultaneously to "prove" something that would make whatever worth whoevers time.

Why would he be immediately suspended? JREF members are not supposed to call other people socks. If we think that to be the case, we report the person and let administration deal with it. You can't be suspended because someone else pointed a finger at you. I can be suspended for your husband registering and me calling him your sock. When Erik Beckjord was still alive and socking here, his last one was active for quite some time while numerous people brought forward various evidence showing that the sock was Beckjord. Admins didn't ban him until they were sure. A married couple being on the JREF and using the same compter is quite normal also. We have lots of people like that here.

Again, please extend my personal invitation to your husband to join us. Don't read it as an insult but rather the most basic request. Say there was two witnesses? Let's talk to two witnesses, yes?

WGBH

28th November 2009, 07:03 PM

Eliminating circumstances such seeing things that aren't actually there or a person making things up or embellishing them is a matter of course. As a person who calls themselves an investigator, you really should be more diligent about this than the average person. In your case, there has been not a single reason to dismiss any of the strong indicators of a sleep-related experience when you were a teenager. Why would my mind create Bigfoot? is certainly not one of them.

In Sugar's case, we're just getting started and removing the issue of lying is important. Should we be lax or something? She says there is a second witness and that it is her husband. Does he not live with her? Are his fingers broken and he can't sit down and type? Sugar mentioned a divorce but I think she also mentioned being currently married. Do you want to take a crack at this? Be my guest. Shall we adopt the cool-story-I-believe-you method? I would think that a person with personal experience of hoaxing would be more judicious.

Feeling guilty? It was not a shot at you or your line of questioning. I really find it difficult to believe that she would not see it coming.

As for your sleep-related experience theory, still did not happen.

kitakaze

28th November 2009, 07:13 PM

Feeling guilty?

Not in the slightest. Should I?

It was not a shot at you or your line of questioning. I really find it difficult to believe that she would not see it coming.

Your response to Sugar's strong offence by my questioning carried the implication that she is being unreasonably treated and that she should have known because she read the thread and it happened to you. But the thing is you have not been treated unreasonably or been beat down for saying you saw Bigfoot. Your story has been addressed and it really looks like you did not actually see Bigfoot. Your continued insistance without addressing the issues directly isn't changing anything. That's just the way it goes.

As for your sleep-related experience theory, still did not happen.

Really? Let's have some good reasons to think so. Once again, incredulity at your mind coming up with Bigfoot is not one at all.

WGBH

28th November 2009, 07:54 PM

Not in the slightest. Should I?

Your response to Sugar's strong offence by my questioning carried the implication that she is being unreasonably treated and that she should have know because she read the thread and it happened to you. But the thing is you have not been treated unreasonably or been beat down for saying you saw Bigfoot. Your story has been addressed and it really looks like you did not actually see Bigfoot. Your continued insistance without addressing the issues directly isn't changing anything. That's just the way it goes.

Really? Let's have some good reasons to think so. Once again, incredulity at your mind coming up with Bigfoot is not one at all.

For those questions, no.

No, the implication is that she should expect tough questions from the scoftics if she had truly been following the thread.

kitakaze

28th November 2009, 08:16 PM

For those questions, no.

For what then should I feel guilty?

No, the implication is that she should expect tough questions from the scoftics if she had truly been following the thread.

That is unfortunate that you feel the need to use that silly, tired out word. I am the one asking these questions to which Sugar was offended and thus it is I that you are referring to as a "scoftic". How am I scoffing, John? What am I scoffing at? I have not unfairly dismissed anything. I have not unfairly dismissed that you saw a 9x6 ft Bigfoot in North Carolina in a human inhabited area or that Sugar and her husband saw a 7 footer running towards them in the opposite lane to which they were driving in Arkansas.

I asked for you good reasons not to think you didn't actually see Bigfoot. I asked to give us something to work with why you didn't have some form of sleep-related experience in 1982. All I'm getting is cheesy insults and sidesteps. Why? I've lost count of how many times I've asked, but I've pointed out some major reasons to think that you didn't really see Bigfoot. Once again, anything of substance to abandon those reasons?

Drewbot

28th November 2009, 08:32 PM

Kit:
JC is clearly rationalizing what he saw that day. He is afraid to admit that he had a sleep hallucination. He is of the false belief that having a hallucination means you are crazy, and therefore, is replacing the hallucination idea with 'Bigfoot'. He has convinced himself he saw bigfoot as a therapeutic response to knowing he had a hallucination.

JC is a well-publicized example of why I think most people who have 'seen' Bigfoot, have sleep disorders, or have been deprived of sleep for an inordinate amount of time.

AtomicMysteryMonster

28th November 2009, 08:56 PM

I know someone already posted a "bear walking on its hind legs" video, but I still want to recommend interested parties to look up "cougar vs. bear" on Youtube.

WGBH

28th November 2009, 09:11 PM

Kit:
JC is clearly rationalizing what he saw that day.

I rationalize that I saw Bigfoot.

He is afraid to admit that he had a sleep hallucination.

I do not admit to things that did not happen.

He is of the false belief that having a hallucination means you are crazy, and therefore, is replacing the hallucination idea with 'Bigfoot'. He has convinced himself he saw bigfoot as a therapeutic response to knowing he had a hallucination.

Nope, wrong again. If that is what happened, I would have had no problem with it.

Admitting to seeing a Bigfoot is therapeutic?:jaw-dropp No, admitting that I DID NOT see a Bigfoot would have been therapeutic.

JC is a well-publicized example of why I think most people who have 'seen' Bigfoot, have sleep disorders, or have been deprived of sleep for an inordinate amount of time.

And you are a well-publicized example of not knowing jack about what happened that day. Please verify that I had a sleep disorder or was deprived of sleep before my sighting. It was not the case.

WGBH

28th November 2009, 09:21 PM

I asked for you good reasons not to think you didn't actually see Bigfoot. I asked to give us something to work with why you didn't have some form of sleep-related experience in 1982. All I'm getting is cheesy insults and sidesteps. Why? I've lost count of how many times I've asked, but I've pointed out some major reasons to think that you didn't really see Bigfoot. Once again, anything of substance to abandon those reasons?

I gave you good reasons. I was wide awake. I heard, smelled and watched the animal for 5 minutes. I was not hallucinating or having a sleep-related experience. I was not misidentifying a bear.

You pointed out reasons for sure, but not major reasons and they do not apply to what I experienced.

Óðinn

28th November 2009, 10:21 PM

WGBH

28th November 2009, 10:33 PM

I think you have to be a glutton for punishment to claim you saw a bigfoot on the JREF.

Nope, I am not scared at all.

This place is founded on scoffing.

Not according to Kit.:D

We assume that you must be lying or "sleep hallucinating" :rolleyes: because we start with the premise that bigfoot does not exist. We can then scoff at your claim and dismiss it, because of course you CAN'T be telling the truth, unless you dreamt it.

Good luck with that. ;)

That is a ton of assumptions. But of course I am at a disadvantage because of the lack of proof. Thanks for being nice.

154

29th November 2009, 12:02 AM

kitakaze

29th November 2009, 03:50 AM

kitikaze, based on my limited attention here, my experience with Vortigern and Parcher only makes me respect you and your approach more. Could you remind me and direct me to your exchange with MM a year or two ago?

I appreciate your compliment, 154. In return, I would offer one to both Vort and WP. Vort is the single best example I can think of why Bigfoot skepticism is not useless. He is the best example of intellectual honesty prevailing over the desire to believe that I can think of where the thing we call Bigfoot is concerned.

As for WP - there can only be one. WP is my very most bestest favouritist experience at the JREF. I often find myself laughing ridiculously to something WP wrote, even months before. I think it is very fitting that WP's handle comes from the name of a character in the film A Beautiful Mind (Ed Harris). I think with happiness about his Christmas cards and eat up his musings. I think WP and I have similar brains, at least where humour and Bigfoot are concerned. If WP ever fell under a bus or some such thing, I would find my JREF time exponentially diminished.

As for the MM reference, I can only assume you are referring to when Bigfoot INC conglomerate Matthew Moneymaker vowed to sue me to next Tuesday. Moneymaker hates me because I expose him as a sheister and would often talk about him and his weiner Bigfoot enthusiast pals scamming people. I don't believe for a second that Moneymaker actually believes Bigfoot exists. If you want to see more Moneymaker/kitakaze controversy, which I think was relatively minor, just google "Moneymaker kitakaze". It's not that exciting, I think, and I fear legal action from pretend-a-lawyer Moneymaker about as much as I fear Bigfoot incidences while camping.

sugarb

29th November 2009, 09:18 AM

Kitakaze, good morning. Allow me to explain to you the reason for my offense, and there are probably two that stand out most to me. One, I read a post you made recently in which you stated that you wanted to "help" people who were troubled by their experience. Well, I have a professional that evaluates my mental and emotional status and treats any problems that arise. She knows my history, my family history, every issue that culminated into the reaction I ultimately had...and she does a very good job at what she does.

Now, I do not know if others who have seen this thing, whatever it is, have mental/emotional issues that they do not disclose...but if they do, I can just about promise you that them believing in "bigfoot" is much less harmful than you basically diagnosing their problems that may or may not exist. This is a skeptic's forum (and I don't like nor do I use the word "scoftic" or however it is spelled). I take that to mean reasonable, thoughtful folks. You should realize the harm you could cause in some of the things you say, particularly if you really really believe someone is having mental issues. That is not "help".

I admitted my problems. I am more than aware of them. Were I to be in some kind of denial or hallucinatory state, I doubt that I would admit my problems or even be aware of them. Were I to want to pull off a "hoax" (I think that word is used a bit loosely), or to lie, I seriously doubt that I would be willing to acknowledge other possibilites, as well as openly admitting things that could falsify my claims, if claims is what we are calling them. Maybe I would, I don't know...because I don't know how mentally ill people who are unaware they are mentally ill behave. My experience with those kinds of people is limited to only two.

To clear up the marital confusion, I was married before. He died a few short months after our divorce, and in fact he had failed to change the beneficiary on one of his policies so I had to straighten that mess out so that his new wife would get the money instead of me. No, wait. I didn't *have* to do that. I did because it was the right thing to do. Were I a person prone to lying and manipulating others for whatever reason, I again am fairly certain that wouldn't be something I would just automatically do.

As to critical thought, I have made no immediate assumptions, even after these few years have passed, as to what it is that we saw. I am still, to this day, questioning it. On the other hand, you and others immediately assumed "lie" or "hoax". One of you has the paranormal ability of spidey senses that apparently got set off. Whatever reasoning is used to justify that, regardless of past experiences with other people, you may disagree but I believe that all people are worthy of more dignity than that. Yes, that is offensive. Yes, that is insulting. No, that has nothing to do with my problems of the past year. That is simply my belief system...although in today's world perhaps that *would* qualify as a mentally unstable belief given how people seem to treat one another.

I have no other details to add. What I saw is limited to what I have already written. As to the precise area, I also wrote the truth about that...we had never been there before and haven't been there since. It was a poor choice of routes to get where we were going, but we didn't know that at the time, obviously. As for there being "bigfoot" in Arkansas of all places, it would be as much a surprise to me as it would be to anyone else, I would suppose. Arkansas.

I grew up right here, and have always remained, in the tri-state area of KY, OH, WV. I have traipsed the woods of just about every state and national forest...even some that have reported sightings before I knew they existed. I have been reading about the sightings in Ohio, and having explored something as big as the Wayne National Forest, I'd never seen or heard or experienced anything that would lead me to believe a "bigfoot" existed there. I had assumed, growing up, that if there were "bigfoot", they would be elusive creatures and so the depths of those woods would perhaps be an ideal place. What we saw on a road coming toward headlights and a moving vehicle at once altered everything I thought I was so sure of.

My husband is at work today (he is a paramedic, 24 hour shifts), and tomorrow we have to go to Pike County to take his mother to an appointment. I will talk to him about registering again, after he has calmed down. He was angry that I was upset. I have worked very hard on dealing with my problems, and when something or someone throws me back into doubt about how well I am doing, he does get angry. I think he was more upset because he had encouraged me to finally discuss this here, too. As it stands, I am to take a break from the internet period. Limit my time. He asks me to do that sometimes because I take too many things to heart...another failing on my part. At any rate, he has a short vacation coming up very soon and that would be a good time if he's interested for him to share what he saw with you. He is not an "internet person", fair warning. He doesn't like talking to people he cannot see and has little patience with forums and online communities, so I wouldn't expect his participation to be long-lived.

I know that I am noone to you, but I seriously suggest that you take into consideration what I have said about mental/emotional disturbances. If a person truly is mentally ill, and hallucinating, and unaware of it, the methods that seem to be favored here will only further drive them toward their own idea of reality. I am, I realize fully, one of the lucky ones. I have help. Professional help. I have insurance, so even though copays and deductibles add up, I can afford to get absolutely fantastic help. It has saved my life. I am also very aware of that. I have some wonderful family members that support me. But again I stress, I am one of the lucky ones. Not everyone has that. There is nothing about my mental status you could question that I don't question each and every day. But I only do so because I am aware and being treated and am making every effort to make sure that treatment works. Not everyone has that, or even has the opportunity to become aware of that. If you truly want to help people you seriously believe are deluded, you may want to consider that.

WGBH

29th November 2009, 09:35 AM

I agree with 154. The work being done at the JREF to expose the "undesirables" in the Bigfoot field is outstanding. I define undesirables as hoaxers, profiteers, and the inept scientific processes. The field is full of them. As WOO as you all may think it is, there are honest people in this field simply out looking for answers. That you do not believe my sighting or do not condone the attempts at investigating the phenomenon does not bother me or deter me. You do not know me, pay my bills or live my life. None of you deal with the personal and professional problems going public about my encounter has caused me. I realize I will not change your minds on the topic and that is not why I am here. You should also be reminded that you will not change my mind and that I am a honest person with no agenda except looking for answers.

Vortigern99

29th November 2009, 10:04 AM

kitikaze, based on my limited attention here, my experience with Vortigern and Parcher only makes me respect you and your approach more. Could you remind me and direct me to your exchange with MM a year or two ago?

It's unfortunate that you've found your experience with skeptical analysis and critical thinking on a skeptic message board so unpleasant.

You may wish to consider, in the future, the potential consequences of posting your opinion that an undiscovered primate, for which there is not a shred of hard evidence, is absolutely, unquestionably real, on a skeptic message board.

I further recommend some reading on the subject of the scientific method and the process of critical thought. Sagan's Demon-Haunted World is a good start. Otherwise you're likely to go through life accepting any ludicrous claim that comes your way, such as that unknown phenomena beyond the workings of the natural world are responsible for bovine decomposition.

Vortigern99

29th November 2009, 10:09 AM

I think you have to be a glutton for punishment to claim you saw a bigfoot on the JREF. This place is founded on scoffing. We assume that you must be lying or "sleep hallucinating" :rolleyes: because we start with the premise that bigfoot does not exist. We can then scoff at your claim and dismiss it, because of course you CAN'T be telling the truth, unless you dreamt it.

Good luck with that. ;)

Note that the :rolleyes: icon is the very symbol of scoffery. This is called irony. Also, before you dismiss "sleep hallucinating" (sic) as a probable or likely explanation of WGBH, 154 and sugarb's claims, you may wish to read up on the subjects of hypnagogia, hallucination and confabulation. These are known, studied and documented phenomena of the human mind, the application of which as an explanation is consistent with the details of each of their sightings. Bigfoot, on the other hand, is not a known, studied or documented animal.

Óðinn

29th November 2009, 10:49 AM

Note that the :rolleyes: icon is the very symbol of scoffery. This is called irony. Also, before you dismiss "sleep hallucinating" (sic) as a probable or likely explanation of WGBH, 154 and sugarb's claims, you may wish to read up on the subjects of hypnagogia, hallucination and confabulation. These are known, studied and documented phenomena of the human mind, the application of which as an explanation is consistent with the details of each of their sightings. Bigfoot, on the other hand, is not a known, studied or documented animal.

I scoff when warranted, and not just at woo. I know 1st hand how hallucinations can blend with reality, but somehow I doubt this explains a substantial amount of BF sightings. At least for those who must have been hallucinating for extended periods to explain what they saw. Since you seem to be an expert on hypnagogia, hallucination and confabulation, what percentage of the 100,000+ sightings over the centuries were imagined? Personally, I think it's negligible. IMO the vast majority of sightings are either hoaxing/lying or misidentification. Hallucinations seem like a convenient way to dismiss "clear and extended" sightings without outright calling someone a liar. JMHO.

sugarb

29th November 2009, 11:16 AM

Note that the :rolleyes: icon is the very symbol of scoffery. This is called irony. Also, before you dismiss "sleep hallucinating" (sic) as a probable or likely explanation of WGBH, 154 and sugarb's claims, you may wish to read up on the subjects of hypnagogia, hallucination and confabulation. These are known, studied and documented phenomena of the human mind, the application of which as an explanation is consistent with the details of each of their sightings. Bigfoot, on the other hand, is not a known, studied or documented animal.

Right. I think "bigfoot" is studied, though, based on things I have read. It seems that there are quite a few people who really do devote a big part of their lives to "bigfoot", including spending a lot of money on "expeditions".

The most interesting thread on the other forum to me was the one about hallucinating while driving. I know that happens. People, especially driving long distances, can do weird things. I've been a passenger in a car before where the driver fell asleep...and didn't even realize he had fallen asleep. That was even a very short drive, maybe a half hour! Clearly it is a very serious issue, and I have been pleased to see, in newer cars, the instrument panels being moved to the middle instead of being right in front of the driver's eyes. It seems reasonable to me that could very well make a difference in safer driving, and is much easier on the eyes during night driving...in my opinion, anyway.

Vortigern99

29th November 2009, 12:36 PM

You should also be reminded that you will not change my mind and that I am a honest person with no agenda except looking for answers.

I accept that you're an honest person looking for answers. However, your assertion "you will not change my mind" is telling. You've made your decision that bigfoot exists; you saw one, and that's the end of the discussion for you, as far as finding a reasonable explanation for what you experienced. This is the very antithesis of skepticism.

Please be aware that I came to these forums a bigfoot believer, as did Kitikaze and others. Our open-mindedness to the data and evidence (or lack thereof) have convinced us otherwise. We did not come here with an a priori opinion, asserting that "you will not change my mind!"; instead, we investigated the facts and made our conclusions based on those facts.

You may be, and probably are as far as I know, "an honest person with no agenda looking for answers". But whether you realize it or not, your mind is closed to answers that do not fit your preconceived conclusions -- namely that bigfoot is a real, extant animal somehow obtaining 8000+ calories a day in winter without being unambiguously photographed, captured, or leaving scat or bones.

It may be "honest" thinking, but it's magical, uncritical thinking that operates under fixed and inflexible preconceptions.