• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

Actually, Jodie, BF was the son of Cain or maybe IS Cain.

As for God not wanting us to confirm BF, it's because then we'd have to be pissed at God over one more thing - allowing Cain, a murderer, to survive and become so popular...oh hell, I even lost myself on that one.

As for the Meyer Briggs test, that thread has words like woo and Jung and violates ADA, etc.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
But I would go on to say that this is not garden variety dishonesty.
Click to expand...

This is pretty easy to see as a general character disorder. The works I am best familiar with actually do call this character disorder rather than personality disorder.

Don't stop with the superficial level of having a sighting. Try to engage the person as we have so many times with 'footers here and you get lie by omission, lie by inclusion of irrelevant material, evasion, diversion, selective attention, guilt-tripping, shaming, playing the victim, playing dumb - it is a whole panapopy of manipulative deceit with them rather than just a simple "misidentification".
 
Jodie said:
Oh no, I think it has to do with that biblical story of Esau and Jacob.Bigfoot is descended from Esau.
Click to expand...

Guess I am behind on the news. When I used to read "Creation-Science" stuff, the Gish-Morris pseudo-science, there was an occasional mention of the dinosaur in the lake (Loch Ness), as if verified, but nothing about Bigfoot.

There is a weirdly interesting book about sasquatch apparently written by a maverick who uses creationist "scientific" sources. He argues for some kind of vertical, limited evolution that has produced, from new world monkeys, a large anthropoid monkey. This monkey-type migrated from South America and is the basis for most sasquatch stories (except for the stories based on neanderthals that migrated from Asia via the land bridge. I kid you not.)

I haven't decided if the author is sincere, or a brilliant satirist. Here is my review at BFF: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/2191-a-radical-new-view-of-bigfootsasquatch/
 
William Parcher said:
Well I'd speculate a few things.

God created Bigfoot and everything else. We have not scientifically confirmed Bigfoot because God apparently doesn't want that, at least not yet. He may also only allow some people to observe Bigfoot. It may be God's way of showing that human experience ALWAYS trumps science... even though our experience may sometimes include science. IOW, Bigfoot is God's way of saying that science isn't everything.

Or, Bigfoot is simply a token used by these people to push against the erosion of American Tradition and Family Values. What American tradition? Bigfoot.

I don't know.
Click to expand...

I would point out that there is a competing vision of Bigfoot, a new-age, green version, that symbolises sasquatch as some sort of ecological savior, a hopeful harbinger. Tall order for an ape.
 
jerrywayne said:
I would point out that there is a competing vision of Bigfoot, a new-age, green version, that symbolises sasquatch as some sort of ecological savior, a hopeful harbinger. Tall order for an ape.
Click to expand...

Yes, Bigfoot is majestic. And if you were to meet Bigfoot eye-to-eye he would tilt his head upwards and gaze above your head towards the sky. Why? He is majestic and represents higher things.
 
I found this posting on Crytomundo.

Okay, to apparently win his argument from the start, Nick appears to set up an argument by defining cryptozoology in a way that ignores the discoveries that have been made. This is a technique I noticed from zoologists and naturalists in the 1960s, as a way to challenge cryptozoology by ignoring past successes and always ask, “But what of the Bigfoot, Yeti, or Nessie, the celebrity cryptids?,” they would ask.

You see, if you ignore the fact that animals are found all the time that have, by definition, been historically cryptids, then you have created a difficult wall to climb. Look, reports of a cryptid, a giant lizard said to be climbing trees in the Philippines was discussed by natives but not investigated by scientists until 2003. How could the biologists missed it until verified in 2010? It is brightly and beautifully colored with intricate golden spots running down its otherwise black back, and climbs trees to eat fruit. But the lizard was new to science even though the local tribespeople – the Agta and Ilongot – knew about it for centuries. Their name for the giant monitor, bitatawa, is now part of its official species name – Varanus bitatawa. The same can be said for so many discoveries, I don’t want to bore the frequent readers here. But you know the list, peppered with former cryptids that turned out to be what today we known as the giant squid, the okapi, the mountain gorilla, the soala, the snub-nosed monkey, and more.
Click to expand...

Okay, does anybody know if cryptozoologists were talking about the saola, snub-nosed monkey, bitatawa, ect before they were officially discovered and classified?
 
Last edited:
No they weren't, and no cryptozoologist ever discovered or rediscovered a cryptid species.
 
Man I am late to this party. Two of my favorite BS subjects " God & Bigfoot "
This is like waking up after a night partying at the Playboy Mansion in a Bed full of Reese's Cups.
 
jerrywayne said:
Guess I am behind on the news. When I used to read "Creation-Science" stuff, the Gish-Morris pseudo-science, there was an occasional mention of the dinosaur in the lake (Loch Ness), as if verified, but nothing about Bigfoot.

There is a weirdly interesting book about sasquatch apparently written by a maverick who uses creationist "scientific" sources. He argues for some kind of vertical, limited evolution that has produced, from new world monkeys, a large anthropoid monkey. This monkey-type migrated from South America and is the basis for most sasquatch stories (except for the stories based on neanderthals that migrated from Asia via the land bridge. I kid you not.)

I haven't decided if the author is sincere, or a brilliant satirist. Here is my review at BFF: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/2191-a-radical-new-view-of-bigfootsasquatch/
Click to expand...

There's a branch of bigfootery that supports the "more than one species" theory to explain the difference in tracks and reports. I remember reading your review then but never read the book. The creation scientist aspect put me off.

If bigfoot ever existed it never made sense that there would be only one kind if you took into account the lower levels of the sea during the several different ice ages that would have allowed more than one route to the Americas for different primates/marsupials and proto humans via ice or island hopping/floating, yet no fossils.

I also have the same questions about Pangaea. If you find fossils of cynodonts in South Africa and Antartica going that far back why not in SA? It should be the same shouldn't it?

I would think the more types you have migrating here, the more likely you would be to find some fossil evidence to support the hypothesis. I don't know how logical it is to think of it in terms of "all" or "nothing" but that's where I am at with it.
 
Slocie's said:
Man I am late to this party. Two of my favorite BS subjects " God & Bigfoot "
This is like waking up after a night partying at the Playboy Mansion in a Bed full of Reese's Cups.
Click to expand...

**** man, I need to hang out with you
 
Not directly related to this thread, but Ketchum has issued a press release stating that her DNA report will show that sasquatch are hybrids of humans and "novel non-humans," not archaic hominins and not apes.

Here is link: http://dnadiagnostics.com/press.html
 
Last edited:
and you should hear the mob on the BE blog! lol, they think that it's a conspiracy by the legit science people to repress her paper!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Like the legit science community cares about any of this stuff.

If her data was legit and verifiable they would be fighting each other to be first to publish.


But footers don't get that. Cuz they are nuts (hence why no cryptozoologist has ever found, ya know, a new animal. they are crazy people with no scientific ability)
 
Bigfoot Lives Near Me, You, and Everyone

In her introduction to her 1974 book, On the Track of Bigfoot, Marian T. Place makes this observation about Bigfoot: ...you won't come upon this creature near cities or parks or crowded forest recreation areas. (p. xii)

How times have changed. We live in the age of the ubiquitous Bigfoot. It's here, there, and everywhere, including near cities and in parks or forest recreation areas. Ms. Place would be amazed.

I like to point this out. I live in a major city, Dallas, Texas. I can skip over to the freeway and drive south, in maybe 45 minutes, to this Bigfoot sighting location: http://www.texlaresearch.com/tx_ellis_incident01.htm

Or I can drive north, instead, and 45 minutes later see this older location of two Bigfoot sightings: http://www.texasbigfoot.com/reports/report/county?county=Collin&state=TX

Yes, things have changed since the old days. Next thing, they'll tell us, Bigfoot has been sighted in New York's Central Park.

Oh, wait....http://www.ghosttheory.com/2009/11/11/creature-in-central-park
 
Well, I found the witnesses to be articulate and insightful, with an impressive knowledge of local flora and fauna.

:)
 
William Parcher said:
I was wondering....

You fairly recently stopped believing in Bigfoot and began to deny. Did you also find that your personality made a switch from introversion to extroversion at the same time?
Click to expand...

From my little hobby horse view the question is whether they go from nasty, underhanded, deceitful, manipulative charletans to decent people.

They can be superficially charming of course, or maintain the cover of "passive" character but the tools they have picked up in this arena are antisocial, ie nasty.

After one drops the bigfoot belief, do they still retain that whole tool box to pull out with playing dumb, selective attention/inattention, evasion, diversion, and all the manipulative emotional attacks? Are they still a nasty person?

One has to have the revelation that it is bad character to act that way, and this is the primary theme of James Randi's exposure of these cretins. The spoon benders and card readers and faith healers are all smiles and sweetness while performing their black arts. So if you give up spoon bending, does that mean you give up being a charletan altogether?

That's why I still use ignore in cases where despite giving up on bigfoot, it is all too easy for some of them to pull out the same offensive tactics for fun and jollies. Accepting the scientific method actually makes you into a much more pleasant person. It isn't enough to give up on bigfoot. You have to embrace the scientific method as a means of interaction with others.
 
Man, I so want to believe in Bigfoot. I really do.

Here's the problem...

It's not just the glaring lack of physical evidence (blood, hair, scat, skeletal remains, etc). It's not the lack of quality video or photographic evidence even though quality trail-cameras have been out on the boondocks for fifteen years or more.

It's the lack of consistency of the sightings, and the inconsistency of locations of those sightings. The best example is the lack of sightings in eastern Russia. The idea that Gigantopithecus migrated across the land bridge between Asia, and North America would be acceptable were it not for the lack of archaeological evidence that he made it over here. Siberia shares everything else with central Asia like people, plants, and animals. Yet there are no Bigfoot sightings there. Certainly not at the level of the Pacific Northwest.

The next problem I have is how the Bigfoot folks are so comfortable moving their own goal-posts when facts become uncomfortable for them.

The big problem I have is that a Sasquatch is find-able. Bears, Elk, Mountain Lions, Tigers, and dozens of other creatures can be tracked down (hence pictures, film, video, and their presence in zoos). Hell, they know where to look for the Coelacanth now that they know it's still around.

I hike. I'm sure experienced outdoors people see things they can't explain because I have too. However I have made the effort many times to figure out what I've seen, and each time I have found a number of natural factors to explain those incidents.
 
Axxman300 said:
The idea that Gigantopithecus migrated across the land bridge between Asia, and North America would be acceptable were it not for the lack of archaeological evidence that he made it over here. Siberia shares everything else with central Asia like people, plants, and animals. Yet there are no Bigfoot sightings there. Certainly not at the level of the Pacific Northwest.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that mean bigfoot fled from totalitarianism? :p
 
Nope. Bigfoots still live under a totalitarian regime - total absolute lack of reliable evidence. And they brought this to America! See now why the govenment hides the truth about their existence?

Uncle Jo's man/ape hybrid soldiers infiltrated back in the Cold War times... The perfect sleeper agents, silently hiding in the woods everywhere in America, waiting for the order. Ever wondered why the Russians never stopped to send that radio signal? As soon as it stops, the bigfoots will attack America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom