Been an interesting thread, but I have to say I remain very skeptical. I've lived in rural and even isolated, mountain areas for all my life, and I've heard noises in the woods that would scare you to death. My current house is set right up against a large section of forestland, and the other night I was awakened by sounds that made the hair stand up on the back of my neck.
I couldn't readily identify it - but I know that animals like screech owls, bobcats and cougars can make some incredible noises in the night woods. Even insects and smaller birds. The woods are very often a noisy place.
We know that a good deal of the Bigfoot evidence was a total hoax perpetrated by one of the early Bigfoot hunters. That all came out a few years ago. It's the complete lack of hard evidence for a creature supposedly located in highly trafficed areas that makes me extremely wary of Bigfoot siteings.
If that pile of Bigfoot poop was really that, your son should have taken samples - that's one of the most important lines of direct evidence. Scatology is a pretty well established science. They're using it to identify if the Eastern Cougar has re-established itself here in Vermont. That being said, it's not always easy to identify scat by sight. A bear who's been eating grubs might have quite different scat from when it has been gorging itself on berries!
I also know what tricks the mind and eye can play on a person - my own have screwed with me on many occasions! I'm in no way calling your son a liar - not at all. I just require more evidence than that. I hope he finds more.
S4
Mr. Flipper's Son Hears and Sees Bigfoot- I'm Serious, Not Joking
by flipper 97 Replies latest jw friends
-
Seeker4
-
flipper
ABADDON- In all due respect, I agree with you on the fact that there have been some people, maybe more than a few who have pulled hoaxes and put on fake monkey suits. That's common knowledge. You aren't telling me something I don't know. That being said, there are thousands of substantiated reports of eyewitnesses seeing large primate type creatures, whatever you want to call them, in the forests of North America, Alaska, and Canada. And yes there were some large bones found on an island near the great lakes in the last few years, and they were researching them to see what they might be.
And as you say people have seen spirits, ghosts, aliens, ufo's, and how do we know for sure people have not seen some of these things? We don't. Are you really so insecure Abaddon, that it rocks your world so much, and disturbs your inner peace so much that you have to lash out verbally in a aggressive way towards people who have experienced something you never have ? There are people who swear up and down that only one person killed president Kennedy. There are others who think differently outside the box, that 2 or 3 others were in on it too. At this point, 40 something years removed from it, who cares ? It won't bring him back. Hey, I'm saying let people have their theories , it might be proven true with hard evidence , maybe sooner than later. May I ask how that affects the serenity of your own life Abaddon. I don't think it does.
One of the posters who saw this animal private mailed me and said, " I wish some of the people who are doubting this is real would have been with me when I saw this animal. They would have $hit their pants. " So, would you like to take a trip with the person and see it soon? Hey, it was his words, not mine. So, you have your take and you are certainly welcome to that, but let others have their takes too. Peace to you, Mr. Flipper
SEEKER4- Thanks for your respectful reply. I certainly can understand how you like others may doubt the authenticity of alleged Bigfoot sightings. I understand you have lived in the mountains for years. I have too for about 12 to 13 years. I have also backpacked all over the Sierra for over 30 years in some remote areas. In all those years of hiking, I never saw one bear in the backcountry. You know where I did see bears? Only 2 times. Once in 1989 driving my truck after cutting firewood, running across the road 2 young ones near a mountain lake at 5,000 ft. The other time was in a campground in 2003, when I took my teenage girls and their boyfriends camping. That's it. And only one time in all these years did I see a mountain lion, up driving in Trinity county a forested remote area cutting firewood, back in 1987. So my point is even common animals are very adept at not being seen at times, especially mountain lions, who are very reclusive. What would prevent a large primate from doing so ?
There have been thousands of substantiated reports of sightings of this animal, and many viable resposible citizens have claimed to see it. Some of them were, before seeing it, very much doubters of it's existence, however once they themselves experienced it, they became believers, quick ! We are talking doctors, ex policemen, firefighters fighting fires in the forest, white collar workers, blue collar workers, who had nothing to gain from sharing their experiences, except perhaps the ridicule that might come their way from sharing their experiences.
But, with that in mind though, I agree with you that , yes, there have been more than a few with strange motives involved, pranksters who have attained the ape costumes and pulled hoaxes. But that cannot account for the thousands of other sightings that have occured. There have been voice vocalizations that have been recorded of a large creature . I too have heard bear, mtn. lions,screech owls, and yes they do make bizarre noises at times. But people reporting the deep roar and howl of this animal say it's nothing like they have ever heard before.
One of the guys who private mailed me said to me, " I wish I could take some who doubt this into the forest with me and they could hear or see this thing. I really think they would $hit their pants!" So those were his words, not mine. he does live in a remote area also, so he has no reason to come forward. I do know there are a lot of things on this planet we don't understand, and many like you have their doubts, and their beliefs. I respect that , fair enough. That being said, there has been a lot of documentaries on this, other film footage that wasn't a hoax, and if you look at BFRO.com it will actually give out reports all acroos america where sightings have occured, it gives out the persons experience and the Bigfoot investigator describes his interview with the person and what happened with each sighting. It is pretty interesting stuff. Hey, I used to doubt this too, I'm not easy. But something is occurring in forests across the United States, Canada, and Alaska. Time will tell what it is. Peace to you, Mr. Flipper
-
Abaddon
Flipper
ABADDON- In all due respect, I agree with you on the fact that there have been some people, maybe more than a few who have pulled hoaxes and put on fake monkey suits. That's common knowledge. You aren't telling me something I don't know. That being said, there are thousands of substantiated reports
Define substanciated; I think you mean, you can ring 'em up and they'll say "yup, that's right, I saw him". That means nothing. I could claim that of people who saw angels; that their claims were substanciated as I'd be able to produce someone who had ade the claim.
But, unless there is hard evidence, even if I have the person who saw 'it' telling me so in all sincerity, if they are claiming something extraordinary (seeing Jesus, angels, spooks, aliens, bigfoot etc.), it is more likely that they are mad, malevolent or mistaken than they saw what they thought they saw.
And yes there were some large bones found on an island near the great lakes in the last few years, and they were researching them to see what they might be.
Sorry Flip, this is just another vauge unsubstanciated claim. If you really want to have such claims taken seriously then the least you coud do is go to the trouble of supporting your own argument; these bones; where, who, when? Why shoud I go to the effort of researching your vauge claims if you can;t be bothered yourself? ARe ybou going to make it my fault you can;t back up your claims? That is (traditionally) the next stage in this sort of discussion.
And as you say people have seen spirits, ghosts, aliens, ufo's, and how do we know for sure people have not seen some of these things? We don't.
And your default setting for extraordinary claims is 'believe', and mine is 'disbelieve'. And I think given your life experienece you being so damn trusting is remarkable and naieve, massively so.
You know people can believe stuff to the point they experience things that are not there, or claim as such. Yet you show no sign of using this knoiwledge in your everyday life.
Are you really so insecure Abaddon, that it rocks your world so much, and disturbs your inner peace so much that you have to lash out verbally in a aggressive way towards people who have experienced something you never have ?
Ah, I knew it would be my fault. LOL. You make an extraordinary claim and provide no hard evidenece. Despite the absence of evidence being your (or your son's) 'fault', you blame me for lack of effort/luck in proving what you so obviously desperately me want to accept with admiring cries and open-mouthed credulity.
Sorry, no chance. If you can't prove something you believe to a reasonable level of certainty in it is your responsibility if people point this out and doubt you. It's about time you realise that.
Don't blame me for your poor standards of evidence.
There are people who swear up and down that only one person killed president Kennedy. There are others who think differently outside the box, that 2 or 3 others were in on it too.
See my last new topic about how and why people go on believing myths. The latest ballistical analyses put together from 3D models of the Plaza confirm there was only one gunman and explain what previous erroneous analysis claimed was a bullet that turned a corner (and ths spawned the two gunman theories). When there is clear unambiguous evidence supporting an official version of an event it is not closed minded to aeccept the official version. It is closed minded to carry on believing discredited theories. Thinking differently in the JFK case is nowadays a case of thinking poorly and accepting rubbish discredited years ago. Big it up as 'thinking out the boxt; lack of vidence an poor science is only lack of evidence and poor sceince, not thinking out the box.
At this point, 40 something years removed from it, who cares ?
I care about whether something happened or noth quite a lot.
It won't bring him back. Hey, I'm saying let people have their theories , it might be proven true with hard evidence , maybe sooner than later. May I ask how that affects the serenity of your own life Abaddon. I don't think it does.
They can have their theories; theories have some form of evdenmce and credibility. But treating conspiracy hypothesis, urban myths and supersticion with respect is something I could never do and I am amazed you'd even ask. We all come from an environment where we all failed in exercising critical thinking. If someone wants to exercise their freedom continuing to do so they can, but I will exercise my freedom in pointing this out.
I'm quite happy for people to peddle nonsense, but I don't know why they object to having their claims labelled as such or why they blame other people when they are not able to make their claims believable (apart from to other believers who als o have no evidence).
One of the posters who saw this animal private mailed me and said, " I wish some of the people who are doubting this is real would have been with me when I saw this animal. They would have $hit their pants. " So, would you like to take a trip with the person and see it soon? Hey, it was his words, not mine. So, you have your take and you are certainly welcome to that, but let others have their takes too. Peace to you, Mr. Flipper
LOL. Funny, if it were so easy to prove Bigfoot it would have been proved. The idea someone could prove Bigfoot by taking me on a walk in the woods is just so absurd and you suggesting it shows how poorly you analyse the reality of such claims.
Yup, obviously those dumb scientists just need to go for a walk in the woods...
-
flipper
ABBADON- Bigfoot sightings have been substantiated by many researchers and scientists, with or without my and your input, period. I'm not going to debate this with you, it's a waste of my time and yours. Peace out , Mr. Flipper . Have a good day.
-
FreedomFrog
You know people can believe stuff to the point they experience things that are not there, or claim as such. Yet you show no sign of using this knoiwledge in your everyday life.
I find this interesting because this also goes the other way too. I asked my ex one time that if he experienced a supernatural experience would he then believe? He said no because he'd feel he was going "crazy" and he'd run off to a shrink and get his head examined. So really, people who don't believe, showing proof wouldn't really matter no matter how much evidence could be shown...there will always be a reason why it couldn't and wouldn't have happened even to the point of making the person out to be "crazy".
I haven't had any experiences with Bigfoot but I have with supernatural which I will not go into because of too many critics. I just think it's interesting that even if a non-believer actually experienced stuff like this, they still wouldn't believe.
-
flipper
FREEDOM FROG- Yes. I know. You can debate with people all day long, and to me it's a waste of time. I have a full life and better things to do. Like working to help provide for my wife and me. And look for Bigfoot!! WHEW hoo!!! Anyway, I totally agree with you
-
funkyderek
Mr. flipper:
Bigfoot sightings have been substantiated by many researchers and scientists
I didn't realise that. What's the Linnaean nomenclature for Bigfoot?
-
Abaddon
Flipper
Don't get your flukes in a twist.
You can debate with people all day long, and to me it's a waste of time.
What, you mean they don't agree with you? Yup, clearly a waste of time.
Why do you have to have me believe you to not think a debate is a waste of time?
I don't care if you don't agree with me but don't see debate as a waste of time if you carry on believing stuff that doesn't have one shred of poof.
I'd say debating something with someone who makes wild claims like "Bigfoot sightings have been substantiated by many researchers and scientists" (this is simply not true - there is no hard evidence of Bigfoot's existence) and doesn't bother to back up their statements with any references or evidence is a little dull, but I live in hope. I try not to assume the next thread where people make wild claims will not be full of people behaving like people normally behave when they make wild claims, and that instead of indignation and evasion I get considered and convincing responses, even if I still disagreed with them.
FreedomFrog
I find this interesting because this also goes the other way too. I asked my ex one time that if he experienced a supernatural experience would he then believe? He said no because he'd feel he was going "crazy" and he'd run off to a shrink and get his head examined. So really, people who don't believe, showing proof wouldn't really matter no matter how much evidence could be shown...there will always be a reason why it couldn't and wouldn't have happened even to the point of making the person out to be "crazy".
I disagree, but need to clarify why.
If I saw a ghost but was unable to prove it I would assume that as I know humans are poor observers and eye witnesses, I must be mistaken or mad.
On the other hand if I had hard evidence ghosts or Bigfoot or Nessie or the Tooth-fairy existed I would be mad for NOT believing in them.
It is proven humans are poor observers and eyewitnesses and can unconsciously synthesize experiences and memories. It is not proven that any sighting of a ghost was of anything other than a figment of the imagination.
I think assuming a subjective experience overrules the above objective facts is unfounded, unwise and possibly even arrogant.
To me it seems more likely that I am mad or mistaken than that a form of entity that people have made claims about for Milena and never proved suddenly becomes real because of my subjective experience.
I haven't had any experiences with Bigfoot but I have with supernatural which I will not go into because of too many critics.
*sigh* Because you don't feel comfortable doing something unless you have 100% agreement and validation? That's sad. I can have a discussion about evolution with naysayers and critics hanging off the rafters - their disbelief doesn't bother me because I have sound scientific arguments and reams of evidence supporting what I think happened.
Maybe that - sound scientific arguments and reams of evidence - is why I feel secure discussing a subject and is why you don't? As I've said above, 'believers' blaming the skeptics for not believing is a traditional part of these discussions, as this thread proves again. Us skeptics are so bad and nasty the ghost-whisperers can't bear to even talk to us. Fortunately there are plenty of bulletin boards where such discussions would be accepted uncritically.
I just think it's interesting that even if a non-believer actually experienced stuff like this, they still wouldn't believe.
I think if you actually discuss this further with your partner you will find he would believe in ghosts if someone proved they existed. You'd also find until then he will not believe in them even if he has a 'ghost' experience, as he will not think his subjective and perhaps wholly internal experience defines external objective reality for exactly the same reason he believes others subjective possibly wholly internal experiences define subjective external reality.
But you seem to take comfort in a false characterisation of a skeptical viewpoint.
-
FreedomFrog
Hey Abaddon,
I respect you and others opinions. I might not totally agree with the reasoning but I respect each persons views. I also don't mind going into a debate at what I personally experienced but I do mind it when the other person becomes offensive. I haven't debated what I experienced with anyone for a long time and that's because last time I did debate it, the skeptic wanted to continue with me being delusional or "crazy".
Someone suggested (when I've debated this before) that it may have been some sort of Alien. I can not disprove or prove that but I'm open to that idea. I just know that it wasn't of this world at what we are accustomed to.
You asked a question...could we provide "hard" proof? I have "hard" proof for me and that was through my personal experience. Unless the person has the ability to see through my eyes and experience what I experienced, that person can not tell me it's not "hard" proof.
-
funkyderek
FreedomFrog:
Unless the person has the ability to see through my eyes and experience what I experienced, that person can not tell me it's not "hard" proof.
You've got that the wrong way around. Because another person can't see through your eyes and experience what you experienced, what you have is not hard proof. Basically, if you had hard proof they wouldn't need to see things through your eyes, they'd have the hard proof - you know the kind of thing, photographs, videotape, hair, bones, fossils, DNA, etc.
That doesn't mean to say that what you claim to have experienced didn't happen - just that your claim in itself is no reason for anyone but you to believe it did.