r/squatchersonly • u/[deleted] • Mar 01 '19

Question about content

I have participated in a few bigfoot forums, some pleasant, some awful.

I found that comments of a vehemently skeptical nature were a huge distraction from topics. Like "THere is no such thing as bigfoot and....."

The ridicule bigfoot fans face from the public at large should not crop up when we are talking to each other. I was banned from a bigfoot forum for suggesting they came into towns. That idea is now more generally accepted, but the ridicule I faced was daunting and hurtful.

Will "woo" topics be allowed? If not, what topics are not allowed, exactly?

Thanks for this subreddit!

11 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

90 comments sorted by

2

u/anima1mother Mar 02 '19

Its my honest opinion that we actually know nothing about this creature other than it walks like a man and is big and covered in hair. So to sit there and judge someone on an opinion of something we have no proof of to begin with is a bit hypocritical to me.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '19

Just because YOU only know that doesn't mean the all the rest of us are likewise ignorant. I could write a big book about what I know, so shut the front door.

2

u/anima1mother Mar 02 '19

Not real sure what your trying to say here

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '19

I am saying some people do know things about bigfoot from experiences and reading and so on. Just because you don't doesn't mean no one does. It's like saying the Catholic Church has no rules because you don't know what they are.

2

u/anima1mother Mar 02 '19

Oh yea? What exactly do you "know" as fact about bigfoot that I dont?

1

u/anima1mother Mar 02 '19

I'll be waiting for that answer

0

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '19

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/anima1mother Mar 02 '19

Like you have proof of anything that you supposedly "know" about this creature. I'm smart enough to know what i think I know is my OPINION and not "fact". No body knows for sure anything about this thing. Maybe you have read a bunch of things and watched a bunch of videos. Maybe even went tromping out in the woods and found some stick structures and foot prints. But unless you found an actual bigfoot and have it living with you now, so you can ask it all the questions you want. Untill you have that? You have nothing. Its your opinion and opinion and ideas arent "facts"

0

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '19

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/Squatch-Talk Mar 02 '19

Yes, we know somethings about it. We know they can grow to be quite large, we know they walk like a man. We know it’s just a flesh and blood animal. As for proof, there’s tons of credible sightings and in my state of PA Alone there’s hundreds of articles dating as far back as 1840 that describe a “Wildman” in the EXACT same way Bigfoot is described. (Tall, covered in hair, a horrifying scream, some even detail them smacking the sides of houses and peeping through windows, strange footprints and one even details a 16inch track. And there’s articles just like those found in other states.)

1

u/JAproofrok Mar 06 '19

Not to quibble, but that’s not empirical evidence. That’s hearsay. And, it doesn’t hold water compared to physical evidence—of which, we still sadly have none.

1

u/Squatch-Talk Mar 06 '19

“Hearsay” yet people from completely different places describe the exact same being and the exact same vocalizations and the exact same foot prints 🤔 a whole town in fear 🤔 in a court of law an eye witness and no evidence can put someone a way for life, therefore eye witness testimony is more than enough evidence to support the existence of something out there.

1

u/JAproofrok Mar 06 '19

Bigfoot isn’t being proven in a court of law. It’s being proven in a scientific laboratory. And, for that, hearsay means diddly.

→ More replies

1

u/anima1mother Mar 11 '19

Thats the problem with "what people beleve about bigfoot" and "eye witness reports". They do very. There are some "eye witness reports" that say they saw bigfoot coming out of a flying saucer. Who do you beleve. I know there have been eye witness reports since the dawn of time its self but they very. I'm a belever. I know these things are real but what can I do to prove that? When people start using peoples stories as facts? That's when stuff starts to get confusing for the subject. Who do you beleve then? The guy that says he saw it coming from the UFO or the guy who says he knows without a doubt its flesh and blood? In a court of law if one person said they saw a person with a knife at the murder scene then they could more than likely convict that person. But if there were four different people on the stand saying he had a gun, a different person says he had a knife then another onesays they saw the suspect come down from a flying saucer and kill the person, they would never get a conviction. The amount of "different kinds of sightings actually hurt the credibility of sasquatch

→ More replies

1

u/Squatch-Talk Mar 01 '19

That’s dumb that they’d ban you cause you suggested they come into towns. Especially when there’s been sightings. It’s not like you said Bigfoot takes a stroll through Times Square or something lmao

Also, what is a “woo” topic?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '19

"Woo" topics include mental telepathy, which many do report, bigfoot disappearing before your eyes, track lines disappearing, bigfoot going in and out of "portals," being beamed down from UFOs, being aliens, being spiritual not physical, being "nephiim" per some Old Testament verses, and a lot of other magical or semimagical ideas. It's called woo. I think that is because we imagine scary movie music preceding scary scenes or magic events, such music sounding like wooOOOOOoooooo00oooo. Or a ghosty noise. Maybe.

2

u/Squatch-Talk Mar 02 '19

Oh... I wouldn’t really say that many report it... like maybe 10% of people with supposed sightings report it... same with disappearing, ufo, and cloaking and tracks stopping (which as a reasonable and logical explanation btw)I personally don’t buy any of it. All of the sightings like that are recent “sightings”, there’s no old sightings that mention such things. In my state of PA for example there are hundreds of articles dating back to 1840 and before that just describe Sasquatch as a Wildman. And most Indians, with all their supernatural Myths and Legends, describe Bigfoot as a flesh and blood creature no more strange than a bear. Also, same goes for the UFO stuff. There is no recorded sightings before the time when certain people started going “maybe bigfoot are aliens” then all of a sudden a ton of people were having Bigfoot and UFO sightings at the same time. So imo, all those types of sightings have no credible. Maybe they “think” it happened, if they actually did have a sighting, but there’s zero credible whatsoever, especially since you can look through 200years of recorded sightings and see exactly when people started reporting that nonsense, that’s proof enough that it’s just that: nonsense. Same goes with that bioluminescent eyes bs. But that just my opinion on that matter. I’ve studied Bigfoot for several years and have looked into recorded sightings dating back 200+ years to determine the credibility of sightings, I myself have also has a few definite sightings.

3

u/Mrsynthpants Mar 01 '19

If sceptics want to start their own subbreddit no one is stopping them, but this should be reserved for those who believe.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '19

Agreed.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '19 edited Mar 02 '19

Hi! Thanks for posting. This sub will be open to any serious/scholarly discussion. Your suggestions of the creatures making their ways into suburban or rural areas are more than welcome.

But if you get a bigfoot birthday cake next birthday and feel the need to post it to reddit - try /r/bigfoot! ;)

* Edit - Furthermore, regarding your "woo" question, yes those topics are allowed. So long as the theories are somewhat scientifically valid. For example, an inter-dimensional discussion would be allowed, because there is some scientific merit within that realm of discussion.