Yowiehunters Forum

Gavin, I think we need to first differentiate between strange noises heard by a witness and strange noises recorded on a digital audio recorder, and the behaviour of birds and animals as observed by a witness and the behaviour of birds and animals as recorded on a video camera. I take it with the latter you are referring to everything going strangely quiet, like being inside a bubble. As a witness I've experienced the latter. If there is a recording of bush noises in the bush which suddenly ceases, please direct me to it.

With tree breaks and stick tee pees, the jury is still out, because quite simply, in all the bigfoot and yowie reports, I'm sure there is not even one report where a bigfoot is observed breaking one of these branches or building a stick tee pee! Footprints are the white elephant for sure. But having said that, there is no consistency with the footprints as one might expect from a creature that can create footprints.

I disagree they don't all follow a textbook setting. I believe they do. In the example of a hairy man running across a road, I think in 100% of cases where such a report is made, we're not talking about a brightly lit road in the middle of a housing estate with houses lining both sides of the road, are we? We're talking about a road cutting through a rural setting with bush or forest on either side. Generally speaking, the Great Western Highway up through the Blue Mountains is one such road. For the most part, the driver is treated to nature on either side with the exception of passing though town areas.

The article suggests thousands of people live with low level dissociation which is consistent with thousands of hairy man sightings. What isn't consistent with thousands of hairy man sightings, is the glaring lack of thousands of photos of the hairy men in the sightings. To imagine not one of those witnesses had the nounce to take a snappy happy shot, IS a bigger stretch. I'm one of those in fact who has seen one run across the road in front of me while driving, in broad daylight. But I'm behind the times and don't have a dashboard camera in my car. If I had of, would the camera have recorded what I saw or recorded an absence of what I saw? The jury is still out yet again.

I'm of the opinion that as our technology improves the hairy man will get photographed. Dashboard cameras, as you say, will prove the theory one way or another.

What's going to happen if someone with a working dashboard camera sees a bigfoot cross the road in front of his/her car/truck? The first thing they are going to do later is review the footage. Now, what's going to happen if the dashboard camera records no bigfoot in the footage as recalled by the Witness?

Will that Witness come forward and even bother reporting it? Maybe, but most likely not! So thereby, unless a dashboard camera actually records an entity as per the Witness recollection, yowie and bigfoot research is going to have another dark figure of reports. Unreported reports for that very reason!

Scarts wrote:Gavin, I think we need to first differentiate between strange noises heard by a witness and strange noises recorded on a digital audio recorder, and the behaviour of birds and animals as observed by a witness and the behaviour of birds and animals as recorded on a video camera. I take it with the latter you are referring to everything going strangely quiet, like being inside a bubble. As a witness I've experienced the latter. If there is a recording of bush noises in the bush which suddenly ceases, please direct me to it.

With tree breaks and stick tee pees, the jury is still out, because quite simply, in all the bigfoot and yowie reports, I'm sure there is not even one report where a bigfoot is observed breaking one of these branches or building a stick tee pee! Footprints are the white elephant for sure. But having said that, there is no consistency with the footprints as one might expect from a creature that can create footprints.

I disagree they don't all follow a textbook setting. I believe they do. In the example of a hairy man running across a road, I think in 100% of cases where such a report is made, we're not talking about a brightly lit road in the middle of a housing estate with houses lining both sides of the road, are we? We're talking about a road cutting through a rural setting with bush or forest on either side. Generally speaking, the Great Western Highway up through the Blue Mountains is one such road. For the most part, the driver is treated to nature on either side with the exception of passing though town areas.

The article suggests thousands of people live with low level dissociation which is consistent with thousands of hairy man sightings. What isn't consistent with thousands of hairy man sightings, is the glaring lack of thousands of photos of the hairy men in the sightings. To imagine not one of those witnesses had the nounce to take a snappy happy shot, IS a bigger stretch. I'm one of those in fact who has seen one run across the road in front of me while driving, in broad daylight. But I'm behind the times and don't have a dashboard camera in my car. If I had of, would the camera have recorded what I saw or recorded an absence of what I saw? The jury is still out yet again.

To adapt to what Professore Meldrum has stated before, it is more preposterous to believe that all (more than 10,000) witnesses have imagined that they saw a Sasquatch, than to believe that the Sasquatch do not exist.

The article remains poorly researched and a conglomeration of false proclamations of events in order to reach false conclusions, upon which Scarts just cannot let go of. Both the article and Scarts claim no happy shot, so they are both throwing out the Patterson Gimlin film, and the USFS Freeman footage, because it fails to support the false proclamation that Scarts is repeating. Tthe jury is not still out on whether Scarts saw a Sasquatch since he did not have a camera, it is out as to whether Scarts has deliberately manufactured this event in order to make himself an instant authority on the subject matter. Scarts has also stated elsewhere that BIGFOOT IS NOT REAL. He can't have it both ways. Which tends to make for a contradiction, leading one to believe that he is making a false statement about something.

Scarts appears to be jerking everyones chain by repeatedly seeking to keep this nonsensical article alive, by presenting absurd scenarios for the amusement of those who are living in denial of the existence of the Yowie/Bigfoot. Scarts is suggesting that he maybe nuts, so that he can then conclude that everyone else is nuts as well, despite the existence of corroborating hard evidence. Scarts claims that there is no corroborating evidence. Which makes further discussion pointless.

How'd you score in that dissociation scale test, Manfromglad?

This is a controversial thread for sure, but witness testimony and footprints are not strong evidence. In fact, they are the weakest kind of evidence of an objective event. Please don't tell me you advocate Todd Standing's spectacular photos as hard evidence? You do realise that every passing day that Bigfoot or Sasquatch isn't captured or photographed properly, makes the reality of bigfoot as an independent living creature less likely? Tomorrow never comes.

Why not step outside the box and see where this path of inquiry leads? We may all learn something about ourselves and each other. Remember, the only thing to be afraid of Manfromglad, is fear itself!

Scarts wrote:How'd you score in that dissociation scale test, Manfromglad?

This is a controversial thread for sure, but witness testimony and footprints are not strong evidence. In fact, they are the weakest kind of evidence of an objective event. Please don't tell me you advocate Todd Standing's spectacular photos as hard evidence? You do realise that every passing day that Bigfoot or Sasquatch isn't captured or photographed properly, makes the reality of bigfoot as an independent living creature less likely? Tomorrow never comes.

Why not step outside the box and see where this path of inquiry leads? We may all learn something about ourselves and each other. Remember, the only thing to be afraid of Manfromglad, is fear itself!

Stanton Friedman’s 4 rules of Fraudulent Debunkers are:
1. “What the public doesn’t know, I won’t tell them.”
2. “Do not bother me with the facts, because my mind is made up.”
3. “If you can’t attack the data, then attack the messenger, it’s easier”.
4. “Do your research by proclamation, because investigation is too much trouble”.

It doesn't do anybody any good to discuss this with you because your mind is already made up. Since you can't attack the data supporting positions different than yours, you simply proclaim that it isn't real. You do your research by proclamation because investigation is too much trouble. You proclaim that witness testimony and footprints are not strong evidence. You proclaim as a fact that witness testimony and footprints are the weakest kind of evidence of an objective event. That's completely absurd. You proclaim that a bigfoot must be captured or photographed properly, in order for them to be real. That's complete B.S. Using that pseudo logic, then the Bigfoot did not exist until they were either captued or photographed. Which is completely ridiculous. Apparently for you, there is no proper photograph. How conveeeeniant. You define the evidence out of existence, so that the only conclusion remaining is that Yowie/Bigfoot does not exist. Yet you claim to have seen them. This tells me that you either have multiple personality syndrome or you are lieing or you are just yanking everyone's chain here. This isn't controversy. This is pure unadultered MIND GAMES.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b5aW08ivHU

Themanfromglad. I really like how you complain about yourself being talked to in a manner which you dont like but then have the hide to target anybody who doesnt believe in (using your own word here) your own "diatribe" and then make them out to be an idiot for not doing so. You are entitled to your beliefs but as I have stated numerous times dont be upset when people ask questions of you or disagree. I dont know anybody from these forums on a personal basis and neither do you so stop making your idiotic claims about what they have or have not done in regards to research.

I honestly dont know how you get away with labelling people as personal attackers of yourself only to do the very same to people who doubt you. Now at the risk of getting banned, (and I probably will but that doesnt matter as I am sick of your double standards and your trash talking to doubters of your theories and wild claims) , you are an idiot.

I was going to say "you Sir are an idiot" but you dont warrant that respective title. You profess to have an open mind , but you are closed to anyone but yourself.

Grow up, get checked out by a professional and stop being so damned defensive.

And thanks AYR for my time here.

Rastus

I wont ban you but please keep the personal insults out of it.

Both Scarts and the Manfromglad are not making a lot of sense from their posts IMO,

I am still wondering on the motive of Scarts for posting his initial controversial post?

And Themanfromglad is still making not much sense either.

Manfromglad, clearly I have upset you. Regarding your last post, firstly, my mind is not made up. This is an academic psychological explanation. I can attack the data supporting different positions to this one (which aren't my ideas) because I have done extensive research and had experiences, and happen to know a lot about physical evidence. You fail to grasp the term real can be used in many different ways. The experience is always real for the Witness. Whether a bigfoot has any objective reality is yet to be proven. I wish it did, but imagine for a second of your life it doesn't and if it doesn't then what are all these witnesses telling us?

The simple fact is Witness testimony and footprints are not strong evidence and are the weakest evidence of an objective event. If they haven't been photographed in all the time since the camera has been invented let alone captured for study, in what, over 100 years, what does that say about their reality? You repeatedly allude to them being invisible beings, so what type of beings are you saying they are? Astral beings, beings from the Etheric plane, beings from some other parallel dimension, or physical beings that are the world champions of hide and seek?

Yeah, this line of enquiry is what if bigfoot doesn't exist outside the minds, imaginations, and beliefs of us humans. I know this concept is confronting. I have seen a yowie. So thereby, from this psychological approach, what does that mean? It doesn't mean I have multiple personalities at all or that I am lying.

Dion, are you able to articulate what I have said that doesn't make sense to you so that I may elaborate?

Rastus, I appreciate your input, and would be extremely disappointed if you were reprimanded in any way in this thread. This section is designed for heated debate specifically, as it is the controversial section and Manfromglad has already suggested I am messing with everyone's minds here, or have MPD, or am a liar.

I feel the archetypal explanation linked into the psychological approach is well worth discussion. If this has any merit, then what does this mean for the physical evidence?

Scarts states, "Whether a bigfoot has any objective reality is yet to be proven".

Scarts,

Please provide the evidence that Bigfoot is yet to be proven to everyone on the face of the planet. If you can't produce that evidence, then your statement is a complete falsehood. Bigfoot is proven to me and I make audio recordings of my experiences. So right there, you already will have a problem in proving that my audio recordings are hallucinations by a piece of electrical equipment. Furthermore, the U.S. Government has proven that they exist by capturing them and filming them in holding cells. I was a student of the professors that participated as observers in that U.S. Government study. I can't imagine that those professors would lie to me about that when they had nothing to gain and everything to lose. Then you have President Carter who has stated that Bigfoot is real. As have TV news caster Dan Rather and two Oregon Governors. Then you have legislation against harming them in Skamania County Washington, US.

So please, don't let me stop you from proving that Bigfoot is yet to be proven to everyone on the face of the planet. Of course, you always have that psychological observation defect to fall back on and claim that everyone is simply imagining it, and their videos are some sort of supernatural manipulation of film and pixels. Which then would help clarify that you really don't have any evidence for your proclamations.

Themanfromglad,
I thought this discussion was about interpretations from a psychologists point of view not a mad rambling about Scart's beliefs. I mean really? Why no-one has told you to pull your head in yet is most surprising. ( with all due respect of course).

Manfromglad, you are asking me to prove a negative. You, sir, have hit the nail on the head by saying, "Bigfoot is proven to me........" Good for you, but the onus is on you to prove your audio recordings are of bigfoot, not for me to prove you haven't hallucinated. Your next problem is you "can't imagine that those professors would lie to me about that when they had nothing to gain and everything to lose". Umm, your imagination tells you bigfoot can be invisible yet you can't imagine professors lying? Seriously? Stretch that imagination of yours just a little bit to the left! Please, it's poor form already we talk religion here at times, but politics? A president is a politician, Manfromglad. Are you implying none of your presidents have lied or been misled? News casters and Governors are also subject to the same forces that shape everyone else's beliefs. Bigfoot may be real to you Manfromglad, but has not yet been proven to be a flesh and blood creature to the rest of the planet.

Manfromglad, clearly no one here is going to tell you to pull your head in, but can you give it a rest and stay on topic? I don't want to respond to your hurt feelings anymore. If you wish to contribute further in this thread, could you do that dissociation test? There's more I want to talk about regarding this.....

Scarts,
Please define "yet to be proven", in your phrase "Whether a bigfoot has any objective reality is yet to be proven". If you mean that the governments are in general are keeping Yowie/Bigfoot top secret and not informing their citizens of their existence, therefore the proof is not acknowledged by the respective governments, is this your definition of "yet to be proven"? You further failed to complete your sentence "yet to be proven by..............." Once you give us that, then we will be better able to see how narrowly or widely you define proof.

When you have thoroughly answered that question,

then in your statement, "If they haven't been photographed in all the time since the camera has been invented let alone captured for study, in what, over 100 years, what does that say about their reality?", Scarts please describe exactly how the Patterson-Gimlin film and the USFS Freeman footage, do not qualify as photographs". Since they appear to qualify as photographs, then the entire purpose elludes me for your philosophical question that is based on a falsehood, "what does that say about their reality". It says to me that you don't know what is real.

There is no question that you can have 10 people witness an event and the 10 people will not decribe the event in exactly the same way. That is called "interpretation". Yet, that does not mean that the event did not happen. You however appear to be arguing that the differences in interpretation means that the event did not happen to begin with.

You further state elsewhere, that absolutely no witnessed events occured during full daylight hours, yet the Patterson-Gimlin film proves that they do occur during full daylight hours. There appears to be no end to your false ascertions and misrepresentations in this thread, in order to question the reality of tens of thousans of events.

So please continue with your thoughts as you were saying that you intend to expound on your discussion, where significant witnessed events are not as they appear, despite say the record showing multiple trained observers like law enforcement personnel having witnessed Bigfoot during daylight hours, for instance ...................

Before I continue with the psychological interpretation, Manfromglad, I thought you might be interested in the response received by a bigfoot researcher in New York after he wrote a letter requesting legislation be draft to protect the local bigfoot in the area:

http://www.skamaniacounty.org/ordinance/Ord_1984-2.pdf

http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council/199 ... 92-043.pdf

“WHEREAS, publicity attendant upon such real or imagined findings and other evidence have resulted in an influx of scientific investigators as well as casual hunters, most of which are armed with lethal weapons; and

WHEREAS, the absence of specific national and state laws restricting the taking of specimens has created a dangerous state of affairs within this county with regard to firearms and other deadly devices used to hunt the yeti and poses a clear and present danger to the safety and well-being of persons living or travelling within boundaries of this county as well as to the Giant Hairy Apes themselves”

Manfromglad, this is a quote from your first article on a Sasquatch protection law passed. If you re-read the quote you will clearly see the reason this law was passed is to prevent or greatly reduce the weekend warriors and their guns, which presented a dangerous situation for all persons in the area. Note it also acknowledges "real or imagined findings". Note also the date the law was passed being 1969, a year or so after the Patterson Gimlin footage aired, when public interest in Bigfoot was at a peak. The second article of a law passed in 1992, again makes it a crime to shoot a Sasquatch, presumably because that government didn't want any humans accidentally killed by an excited hunter with a trigger happy finger, either. Neither article decrees Bigfoot or Sasquatch definitely exist, and the laws passed are to protect citizens. I would say both laws have not been repealed due to the fact Bigfoot publicity comes and goes in waves and the laws offer protection to citizens by being a strong deterrent for Bigfoot trophy hunters.

Now that this has been sorted out, can we get back to highly relevant psychological explanations? I'm still interested to know how you went on that dissociation test, Manfromglad. You got a high score didn't you? Please tell us about your very first sighting of a bigfoot and whether the psychological explanation which is the subject of this thread, could hold any water for you.

Scarts,
Just as I thought. You failed to clarify the question regarding what constitutes proven. You further failed to clarify why Patterson-Gimlin and the Freeman footage, do not constutute photographs. You could not even expound on your new thoughts on why everyone is imagining the same thing. Instead, you attempt to deflect being caught playing mind games, and are now throwing questions back at me so that you can take the offensive again and start further arguements. Sorry, I am not going to take the bait.

In the states, we would label you as a JREF paid scoftic many of which are spooks, because all they do all day long, is refute all evidence of Bigfoot/Yowie, and then they attack the persons who have brought that evidence to light. Stop by James Randi forums and see how the professionals go at it. Take careful notes for future reference. Of course, they like to gang up on people who are foolish enough to visit there. They always have the advantage of numbers. But I don't see who your backup is yet.

Manfromglad, I've grown weary of your ridiculousness. You want to address the Patterson footage, be my guest. I created a new thread on that very topic. I won't be entertaining any more of your derailing ridiculousness here in this thread though. The next time to attempt a diversion or derailment, I will simply ignore you and whatever ridiculousness you choose to offer. Address the topic of the thread, Manfromglad, or you will be as invisible in this thread as one of your invisible bigfoots.

The following blog deals directly with the phenomenon of invisibility as it applies to some Bigfoot and Yowie reports, from a Psychological Perspective. Another excellent read, and one I can relate to, having experienced the invisible aspect myself. One of the replies even ties in dissociation.

Enjoy!

http://txsasquatch.blogspot.com.au/2006 ... ology.html

Wow, holly s#@t.

Scarts wrote:The following blog deals directly with the phenomenon of invisibility as it applies to some Bigfoot and Yowie reports, from a Psychological Perspective. Another excellent read, and one I can relate to, having experienced the invisible aspect myself. One of the replies even ties in dissociation.

Enjoy!

http://txsasquatch.blogspot.com.au/2006 ... ology.html

Melissa Hovey, the card carrying conservative who wrote that diatribe on invisibility, has virtually no solo Bigfooting experience. She is a female. Females do not go anywhere at night in the woods, if they are thinking about receiving social security someday. Bigfoot only comes close enough at night to prove that he is invisible, when the human is by himself, when they trust him, and when he has mentally demonstrated a desire to meet a Bigfoot. Period.

The capability of invisibility by the Bigfoot, was taught by UC Berkeley professors and the high school teachers in Oregon's Beaverton School District 48, when they participated in the congressional study of how Bigfoot knowledge is received by 4th through 12th graders. There is no question whatsoever, that they have that capability. If the Bigfoot do not trust you, and you are not unusually observant, then you will never figure out that they have that capability. For the rest who do not fall on that list, they can rationalize away that trait all they want. It still does not change reality.

Scarts should practice what he preaches and get back on topic, because this thread was originally about "seeing a Bigfoot", not about "not seeing an invisible Bigfoot".

Scarts wrote:Another excellent read, and one I can relate to, having experienced the invisible aspect myself.

Scarts I remember you telling me personally of this experience at location, if this is the case you must have had an episode of dissociation or hallucination. Would this be correct?

I know you have had a belief also in the Yowie and that it may be spiritual in nature, as we have had the converstaion before about the topic, Tell me...... are you still a believer in the Yowie, or do you not believe at all anymore because of being mislead by a Hoaxer?

In regards to the article that Melissa wrote on Psychology someone should tell her that she suffers from dissociation and or hallucination herself for believing in Flesh and Blood Bigfoot.

I read the comments below the article as well and the first one from PsychDegree it reads:

"The psychologial phenomenon you are referring to is "repressed memories." It is a symptom of a Disassociative Disorder.

It is important to note that the very existance of disassociative disorders is HIGLY debatable among the psychological community.

There is simply not enough empirical evidence collected to date to either prove or disprove the theories.

The percentages you give in your article may very well turn out to be wildly inaccurate; this is a topic that is still undergoing research. The reason I am commenting is because it bugs me to see people making up percentages for things when there is no actual research or statistics to back it up. It is a pet peeve of mine.

Disassociation, if it even exists at all, is thought to be a part of the "Fight-or-Flight' mechanism in the brain (fueled by the brain chemical norepinephrine), which enables us to temporarily 'shut down' in order to focus solely on escaping from a situation perceived as threatening or dangerous.

When the memories later emerge under safe conditions, it is generally over time and comes in small flashes and images.

Again, I stress that this phenomenon is still being researched in the scientific community."

PsychDegree also stated in one of the comments the He/She is doing a Psych Degree, I am not sure as to what kind of essay you are doing Scarts, it may be worth your while to get into contact and discuss with him/her. Just a thought.

Excuse me , but do you guys live in the bush......!

My feeling here is that there are many armchair computer IT's, thinking they know everything....?

Live deep in the bush, listen and you can hear everything, apart from your key board tapping....

wellymon wrote:Excuse me , but do you guys live in the bush......!

My feeling here is that there are many armchair computer IT's, thinking they know everything....?

Live deep in the bush, listen and you can hear everything, apart from your key board tapping....

Who are you talking to Wellymon?

You could ask the same question to the people who have written the Articles posted by Scarts?

I for one have had a sighting of a hairy man, and dont need some armchair PHD skeptic to tell me or many other witnesses or indigenous cultures that they are in a state of dissociation or hallucination.

Just my take.

This thread is involved with the psychological approach to Bigfoot. That blog is appropriate, as it deals with the invisible bigfoot who crops up in some reports, and in Manfromglad's case, every personal encounter. It offers up an explanation that for that individual, sighting of such a fantastic creature is information overload, and the mind blocks it out. It is irrespective whether a real creature was really there or not. And yes, one of the replies offers dissociation and repressed memories as good bed fellows!

Dion, if the psychological explanation holds any weight, then yes, the psychological explanation alludes to me having had an episode of dissociation. Not a hallucination, mind you. There is a suggestion in one of those replies that over time, the person will have flashes of that which couldn't initially be remembered, but that hasn't happened to me. If there is nothing to this, Dion, then explain something to me. That area in the bush which is such a hotspot we've been to - you know the one. I've spoken with the farmer and his wife who actually live there, and both travel the hills and valleys every single day, and sleep there every single night. Why haven't either of them seen something unusual? Are you suggesting they just don't talk about it, and keep it to themselves?

I don't know why you're making this personal, Dion? I'm simply staying on topic. The one constant in life is change. If my view on this topic is broadening, or I am looking at things from different perspectives, then how is that a bad thing? One thing I cannot tolerate is stagnation. Tell me, how far has the flesh and blood approach progressed in the past ten years on this site? For that matter, how far has the paranormal approach progressed? Both are exactly where they were at ten years ago, and even fifteen years ago. There has been no progress on either front, has there?

No, wellymom, I don't live in the bush. So, what?

Manfromglad, thank-you for your enlightening sexist insight into females and research.
I can't argue with your rationale regarding the rest of your post. How can I argue with that? So many wild propositions candidly referred to as common evertday facts and knowledge.

Scarts wrote:If there is nothing to this, Dion, then explain something to me. That area in the bush which is such a hotspot we've been to - you know the one. I've spoken with the farmer and his wife who actually live there, and both travel the hills and valleys every single day, and sleep there every single night. Why haven't either of them seen something unusual? Are you suggesting they just don't talk about it, and keep it to themselves?

Its a hard one maybe they are not open to the idea therefore they block out anything that has to do with the phenomenon. ???

Scarts wrote:I don't know why you're making this personal, Dion? I'm simply staying on topic. The one constant in life is change. If my view on this topic is broadening, or I am looking at things from different perspectives, then how is that a bad thing? One thing I cannot tolerate is stagnation. Tell me, how far has the flesh and blood approach progressed in the past ten years on this site? For that matter, how far has the paranormal approach progressed? Both are exactly where they were at ten years ago, and even fifteen years ago. There has been no progress on either front, has there?

I am not offended by anything written here, I wouldnt say it personal either its only a discussion after all, although I dont agree with the dissociation aspect I can understand where you may be coming from. In a way I have become much of a "believing or knowing" skeptic, I say that because of my own personal sighting and then knowing they are out there I look around and find much of the Yowie/Bigfoot research that does go on to be a load of Codswallop, full of mistruths and hoaxing, people who just have to see things which arent there (I am talking about videos and photos in Yowie/Bigfoot research). This probably goes on because there is no one doing good research and those that are, getting back to what you are saying, have made no progress over the years therefore they cling to hope, hoaxing and blobsquatches.

I totally agree with you, Dion! I know that your very own sighting drives you quite strongly and that you are sensible.

The fact is, this site is Australian Yowie Research, yet we have never had a yowie to study!

All we have are reports from people. Those reports may include footprint finds and photos. We can analyse and evaluate the reports and we can analyse and evaluate the people. We can also analyse and evaluate the footprints and photos. Of the footprints and photos, there is no consistency with data.

This psychological approach therefore deals specifically with the person. As a site, we should not be taking any reports at face value, yet we do, in an attempt to be supportive towards the witness. That's all very well, but as far as research is concerned, that approach keeps our wheels spinning. Perhaps witnesses deserve more credit, and can take a more brutal interrogation?

Dion, you and I collected a series of about seven footprint casts one morning in the presence of a particular researcher. You still have those footprint casts, right? Has your interpretation of those footprints changed over the years, at all?

Exactly Scarts, you don't live in the bush champ, thats my response.
Keep on living in the burbs champ, tap those key boards and I hope you finish your thesis on Trauma

Dion wrote:

wellymon wrote:Excuse me , but do you guys live in the bush......!

My feeling here is that there are many armchair computer IT's, thinking they know everything....?

Live deep in the bush, listen and you can hear everything, apart from your key board tapping....

Who are you talking to Wellymon?

You could ask the same question to the people who have written the Articles posted by Scarts?

I for one have had a sighting of a hairy man, and dont need some armchair PHD skeptic to tell me or many other witnesses or indigenous cultures that they are in a state of dissociation or hallucination.

Just my take.

So Dion are you saying here that Scarts is an armchair PHD skeptic.....?

I keep noticing that Scarts just keeps making up c**p and slipping it in as fact, in order to appear that he knows what he is talking about and/or to take the offensive in more arguements.

Examples:

1. Of the footprints and photos, there is no consistency with data.

Reply: Trackways are supposed to differ slightly from print to print, as the foot molds to the contour of the ground, but that does not make them inconsistent. There are footpint studies in the book "Legend Meets Science", that prove there is consistency of size range, width of heel verses length, and lack of an arch. So Scarts statement is false as he is hallucinating his own facts. You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts.

2. That blog is appropriate, as it deals with the invisible bigfoot who crops up in some reports, and in Manfromglad's case, every personal encounter

Reply: This is an hallucination by Scarts. I have never stated nor implied that my every personal Bigfoot encounter is with an invisible Bigfoot.

3. Manfromglad, thank-you for your enlightening sexist insight into females and research

Reply: Nothing sexist about implying that females are wise to not venture out alone into a forest, if they hope to keep on living in the dimension where they can collect retirement. Scarts is hallucinating a "sexist" tone to the learned observation. This appears to be a typical personal attack by an immature contributor. For instance, a 20 something female disappeared in Washington just last summer, and the dogs could not follow her tracks as they disappeared into thin air. She went on a spirit quest during broad daylight, butt naked, and still has not come back. Hundreds of people searched for her.

4. I can't argue with your rationale regarding the rest of your post. How can I argue with that? So many wild propositions candidly referred to as common evertday facts and knowledge.

Reply: I did not refer to my experience learned from dozens and dozens of events, as "common everyday facts and knowledge. Scarts is hallucinating this. Few people are lucky enough to observe invisibility.

5. Manfromglad, I've grown weary of your ridiculousness....I won't be entertaining any more of your derailing ridiculousness here in this thread though

Reply: Scarts continously refused to clarify what he meant by "yet to be proven", but having been caught in a blatant misrepresentation, he attempts to retake the offensive and labels simple questions about his statements as "ridiculousness" and "derailing". Derailing would be if I asked him a question about something that he did not state. Since he stated the phrase and I asked him for his definition of it, he hallucinated a derailment in an attempt to retake the offensive.

In conclusion, it would appear that now is a good time to call in the men in white suits who can place Scarts in a tight fitting straight jacket, before he does real harm to either himself or others via his repeated tendancy to hallucinate.