World's Only 24/7 Bigfoot News Blog: Encouraging readers to draw their own conclusions from the evidence and arguments.
Here we have yet another dated story by a witness who gives no name with no collaborating evidence to back it up. Really what good are these? They mainly reinforce the opinion of those who already believe and do nothing to change the minds of those that don't. I suppose the entertainment value counts for something but there just seems to be no way to check the validity of stories such as this one. We are totally dependent on the witness telling the truth. People will often interpret things they see and hear to fit a preconceived idea. Let me give you an example.In an earlier thread comment I wrote that in Dr. Syke's book The Nature of the Beast he recounts the story of how a claim was made by Lori Simmons (daughter of the late Bigfoot research Donald Wallace) of a Sasquatch which apparently was believed to be living underground under a tree and communicating by wood knocks. Now Sykes did indeed hear the wood knocks and was genuinely intrigued by this. He went back later along with a park ranger and they discovered the wood knocks were being made by a side branch fifty feet above the base rubbing against another and was amplified by the hollow trunk at the base which made it sound like it was coming from under the tree. The hairs he collected at the site turned out to be deer and one long hair he determined to be Lori's herself.She obviously was so enthralled about a Bigfoot communicating with her than she did not even perform a rudimentary investigation to it being something else. The park ranger who accompanied Dr.Sykes back to the tree figured it out in one short visit.If one had the opportunity to dig into these stories and not accept them at face value I think we would discover that there is little to support them. I myself did this down in Tennessee at the Carter Farm site and quickly discovered Janice Carter's stories fell apart under close scrutiny. People can believe as they choose but if they ever want to be believed then they have to back it up with something that can support their claims. People will lie (look at our current and previous US presidents) to back up and support their position. It's up to all of us - believer and skeptic alike, to question their story before taking it at face value.
Thumbs up !
Question for you Curious; if you had the finer details of this eyewitness report, would that make any difference to your attitude towards its authenticity? I think that drawing a comparison from a woodknocking tree (with no actual sighting) to some of the very highly detailed, full frontal reports sometimes made by multiple eyewitnesses at one time (at times accompanied by physical evidence in tracks), is quite frankly a serious leap to fit a preconceived idea. There are also many reports from rural households being pestered by large bipeds that have corroborating physical evidence, that are dismissed out of hand because "surely people wouldn't have all those sightings and no proof?" I agree in general with the sentiment that things shouldn't be taken at face value, but I would find that a little difficult to take from a lot of people who butcher the definition of scepticism all too frequently.
Finding out the "finer details" as you call them always results in the witness(es) being discovered as lying psychopaths seeking attention in their meaningless lives. That's something with which you are intimately familiar I'm sure.
Of course Stuey! For thousands of years, there has been a culture hopping secret society of gorilla suit wearing psychopaths all out to lie and of course risk total ridicule! These cultures of different psychos, though finding each others customs undesirable and spanning from a time when they didn't even know what a non-human primate looked like, have also guessed the same made up foot morphology, encompassing total accuracy regarding bipedal evolution that only a very small percentage of the general population's academics understand. These liars have also managed to place such fake tracks in places where some people might not trek for many decades, but guessing when someone stumbles across them out of miles and miles of wilderness! Go figure!! https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists
So by stating that the fictional hoaxers of the past would have to wear "gorilla suits," you're acknowledging that what people have supposedly seen looks like a gorilla. Apparently, you're too stupid to realize that that totally contradicts your constant claim that Bigfoot is human. I guess dishonest psychopaths can't even keep their own dumb lies straight!
I would not quite put it so harshly as my doppelganger above has commented. The answer to your question lktomi would be - it depends. If the eyewitness report was seen by multiple witnesses in an open area in broad daylight backed up by evidence supported by a multitude of experts and supported by a scientific paper than I would have no choice but to accept it as authentic. As a small boy I seen a UFO at an estimated 200 - 300 yards in broad daylight. Yes, to me it was real but can I prove it? To this day there is no proof of UFO's (in the classic sense) and plenty of explanations for them. All I have is my story and I certainly don't expect anyone to take that on my word alone. So it probably is with Bigfoot witnesses. They may actually, truly believe they DID see what they call a Bigfoot but when it comes down to a story - it is just that.
I'll check in again in a couple of hours. I do have something I wish to expound on but no time right now.
dont bother coming back mate we dont nead pillocks like you hear .Joe
"Fictional hoaxers of the past", what's that supposed to mean Einstein? Are you suggesting (and contradicting yourself) that people weren't psychopathic liars in the past and that what they were reporting was genuine? From a distance, Sasq'ets look like non-human primates. The vast depictions of having wide jaws, sagittal crests, etc, have been reported with consistency for a very long time and are extremely compelling considering anthropologists and primatologists only knew of these anatomical features in non-human primates since the early 1900's, when popular culture depicted none of these traits.And even if I WAS contradicting myself, how does that suddenly provide you with that extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim? That's one heck of a burden there, Stuey!https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists
Fictional hoarders is a double negativeStuey never paid attention in school and it shows
You must be hoarding stupidity.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stuey never paid attention to efforts at rehabilitating him in jail either.
Stuey has a record alright. And a place in bubbas heart
When did Bigfoot change from looking like a gorilla to appearing human?
Mr Curious, I for one would have no issue with believing your UFO report (and in fact would like to read that one time), and for lack of science publication I draw upon the innumerable corroborating reports that have decades of track impressions in substantiation. It's interesting that you should bring up the UFO phenomenon too, because as everyone is generally more accepting of UFO's today due to pop culture and the many eyewitnesses & such, I also feel that in time it too will be the case for this subject. As time goes on, the subject is only accumulating more enthusiasm from reputable minds, not the opposite, with the same comparison being drawn from UFO's and alien life since the 1980's."Therefore Agassiz says, when a new doctrine is proposed, it goes through three stages. First, people say it is not true; then, that it is against religion; and in the third stage, that it was long known."- German embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer (1792–1876)
Stuey, it didn't. Native Americans have for thousands of years referred to them as a tribe of ancient humans (with a select few referring to them as neither animal or human). Reports in North America before the 20th century largely described "wild men". It was only with more depictions of gorillas in 20th century pop culture that the reports generally started to describe a non-human primate.
... And with the internet came the exchanging of ideas and more people being able to come forward and report what they were seeing. It's inevitable that in time, people will wake up to Sasq'ets being human.
So there are consistent reports that Bigfoot has a sagital crest, huh? That feature disappeared from human anscestors over two million years ago! How does that jive with your claim that Bigfoot is an "archaic human" that branched off from modern humans only 100,000 years ago? Do you even think before you type?
"Our theories of human evolution are based on surprisingly little evidence. Perhaps 200 skulls, half a dozen skeletons and a confusing pile of fossil fragments. All we have to explain 7 million years of evolution."- The Hobbit Enigma For starters, I've never claimed that Bigfoot branched off from modern humans 100,000 years ago, I've stated that some type of extant hominin could quite easily fit Sykes' theory as to a subspecies of homo Sapien that lived contemporary to anatomically modern humans, LEAVING Africa at that time. Secondly, there are two widely reported types of Sasq'ets being reported in North America; the Patty type and the more Native American type. Also the saggital crest could quite easily be a misidentification of something that looks much more like this;http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/enlarge/image_1474_3e-Dmanisi.jpg... All of which come under the classification of HOMO erectus.
And you're still in sockpuppet mode even though the real Curious outed you comments ago? Anyone would think you don't even think before you type?https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists
^ it could be it might be it possibly isthere again - maybe none of "it" is anything other than your fantasy
IktomiJoe`s avatar just about sums him up An image of an imbecilic chimp..or in his case a chump........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................he`s a berk,ain`t `e.
When the hominin I'm theorising about is being shown to exist via the physical evidence it leaves, I'm excused such terminology. All the while, that big fat burden of yours remains unshifted by a sheer lack of intellectual creativity coming through those big fat sausage fingers of yours.
The "consistent reports" are now a "misidentifications." Keep typing, you're making my argument better than I can!
Um no... You see, if eyewitnesses make missidentifications regarding key information of an incident, they rarely make missidentifications of the actual incident. For example, multiple witnesses to a giant hairy human stepping out from behind a tree may make missidentifications regarding weight, height, whether it had hair on its face, rounded head, coned head... But not that the giant hairy human stepped out from behind a tree.Furthermore, you missed the boat. There are two widely reported hominins in North America. The Patty type (coned head), and the Native American type (rounded head).
Anyway, I have to sleep. I'll be back tomorrow to respond to any comments left here.
I'll continue this conversation with your various sock puppets while you're "sleeping."
I getting behind on my personal affairs (and also threads here) so I will save my original thoughts for when I have more time to devote to it. No one likes to be called a liar or disbelieved and I take no pleasure in doing so however I also reserve the right to question when I feel the tale stretches credibility. I have no doubt that many are sincere when they say they have seen a Bigfoot. Unfortunately as we all realize only some biological evidence will suffice for absolute proof. One quick question:Has there EVER been an animal proven to exist without some form of physical evidence?
I am one of your comment readers as such keep up the Great work Curious!UNO who
Curious, you do realise that track impressions are physical evidence, right?
So like when you trip and fall on your clumsy face??BUT THEN GO ON WITH YOUR THESIS!!
Ya know... It's fun sitting back and watching you act like a cry baby about the place. : )
Here's a link to a documentary called Bigfoot's Reflection. Please take note from the 7:20mins mark, and particularly what John Bindernagle has to say from the 9mins mark; https://youtu.be/HyJEdUz2i28
I realize that that evidence was totally debunked over five years ago and that only morons like you continue to cite it.
Cool! Care to show where the evidence has been debunked? I'd love to read it.
No way !
CHICK RULES !!!!!The toothpick jerkin stuey droolsLOL
Haa haaa!! <3 <3 <3 11:00 :) !!!!
Ha ha my ass,^ You typed 11:00Chick or yer moron friend jotomi......DINGBAT'S x2!
You're right about them all being the same person AC!
The more you're here, the more you pick up on it!