43 replies to this topic

[keninsc]

I thought I'd heard of most everything but this critter......demonic spirit.....whatever it is.....has eluded me. I'll have to read up on it and see what I can learn. I do enjoy learning new things, even strange and "out there" things. That's why I love this place so much. I learn something new almost every week.

[orangepeaceful79]

DieChecker, on 23 January 2013 - 02:17 AM, said:

Super dangerous. All the intellegence of a human, with an animal cunning, immorally violent, and a hunger for human flesh and blood on top of that. It is the whole reason werewolves are scary, because they are a lot more dangerous then us.

The windigo also has many of the characteristics of a classical vampire. They eat humans, but are gaunt and thin and pale, never able to eat enough, and are virtually immortal.

You forgot to mention imaginary, DC...just thought I should throw that in.  

[QuiteContrary]

Sounds like the Superhero of Monsters!
Does it have a big M carved into it's chest?

[DieChecker]

orangepeaceful79, on 23 January 2013 - 02:42 AM, said:

You forgot to mention imaginary, DC...just thought I should throw that in.  

Well, it is as real as Bigfoot, or chupacabra, or the Chupafoot... errr.... chupasquatch... whatever....

I got all this useless knowledge so, I feel I gotta share...

Might Cthulu demands it....

[DieChecker]

QuiteContrary, on 23 January 2013 - 02:59 AM, said:

Sounds like the Superhero of Monsters!
Does it have a big M carved into it's chest?

According to the Marvel Universe it is a Hulk sized creature, with white hair and a long tail. With Hulk level strength and Wolverine level healing. But, when it settles down (like the Hulk.... strangely), it reverts back into a squishy human. I think it was the product of a curse, and there was only one at a time, but it would move to the next most likely host if it was killed. So it was defeatable, but always returned...

Reference Marvel Comics... Hulk and Wolverine... multiple issue for both.

More useless esoteric knowledge.... Damn...

[Night Walker]

Tia, on 22 January 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

Did I say that they were superior? I said the show (well all up I may have watched 20 minutes of it) was crap. All I ever saw was I think 4 people at night looking **** scared making calls and then when they possibly get some movement/ sound they thrash about like idiots running directly for the spot rather than shutting up and listening for further activity which could be anything (I don't know the wildlife in the US, only Australia).

So once again I'll repeat I'm not saying anything I've put forward is superior and if people want to feel what I say is crap feel free, it doesn't bother me.

Ok, so how do you know your HG (Hairy Guy) experiences are real and Finding Bigfoot's are simply "crap" particularly when you acknowledge that your claims and evidence are no better than theirs?

I know you don't care what people think but I am interested in understanding why you believe and how you differentiate between what is an authentic HG encounter and what is not...

Edited by Night Walker, 23 January 2013 - 06:06 AM.

[coolguy]

Sarah Bigfoot is real,its in the ape family

[orangepeaceful79]

 33769018.jpeg   60.2K   10 downloads

[DieChecker]

orangepeaceful79, on 23 January 2013 - 11:15 PM, said:

33769018.jpeg

Come on Jean Luc... You've seen hundreds of non-physical creatures that previously had not evidence of their existance.   

[Night Walker]

Why believe in a creature for which there is no physical evidence? Because we all trust our senses and memories. Even when they lead us astray...

[Antilles]

I lost it at the chupasasquatch.

It's a Mexican wrestler looking for his promoter!

[Tia]

Night Walker, on 23 January 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

Ok, so how do you know your HG (Hairy Guy) experiences are real and Finding Bigfoot's are simply "crap" particularly when you acknowledge that your claims and evidence are no better than theirs?

I know you don't care what people think but I am interested in understanding why you believe and how you differentiate between what is an authentic HG encounter and what is not...

Who was it that wrote a report about a certain Aussie researcher and debunked his attack NW? The BF team are connected to this guy, they have top dollar equipment at their sides don't they and yet can't get anything or have they? Sorry don't watch the show.

Like I said the few bits I saw showed them carrying on like little girls and doing what any half brained researcher wouldn't do. Maybe they have showed evidence/ experiences, I can't comment on any comparisons there as I have never watched more then a total of 20 minutes as I said before, due to what I posted at the start of this paragraph.

My experiences have lasted years, one of the last major ones included 5 of us, one who didn't believe or had never been out with any of us before. I guess I trust my instincts, luckily I have had at least one person with me on most occasions who experienced the same things other wise I may begin to question whether my mind was making it up as I understand it must be even harder for a non- believer to understand.

So how do I judge what encounters are more likely to be real, once again I don't watch the show but if I was to talk to someone and be able to do a full blown research project with good equipment I think I have enough field experience to hazard an answer at least.

[Night Walker]

Tia, on 24 January 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

Who was it that wrote a report about a certain Aussie researcher and debunked his attack NW? The BF team are connected to this guy, they have top dollar equipment at their sides don't they and yet can't get anything or have they? Sorry don't watch the show.

Like I said the few bits I saw showed them carrying on like little girls and doing what any half brained researcher wouldn't do. Maybe they have showed evidence/ experiences, I can't comment on any comparisons there as I have never watched more then a total of 20 minutes as I said before, due to what I posted at the start of this paragraph.

I'd like to point out that YOU were also associated with this prominent hoaxer and his crew for several years and that you did not acknowledge their fakery until AFTER you had a falling-out with them last year. Why did you not question their motives before?

You have also previously stated that you learnt much from them - if you now acknowledge they are fakers then what did you learn from them?

Tia, on 24 January 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

My experiences have lasted years, one of the last major ones included 5 of us, one who didn't believe or had never been out with any of us before. I guess I trust my instincts, luckily I have had at least one person with me on most occasions who experienced the same things other wise I may begin to question whether my mind was making it up as I understand it must be even harder for a non- believer to understand.

Similarly, the hoaxer and his crew have claimed encounters for years also supposedly in the presence of previous "non-believers'. They at least make a poor showing at documenting reports whereas you seem to document nothing. How can you consider your claims to be genuine whereas theirs are not? What is the difference? I want to understand...

[Night Walker]

Tia, on 24 January 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

So how do I judge what encounters are more likely to be real, once again I don't watch the show but if I was to talk to someone and be able to do a full blown research project with good equipment I think I have enough field experience to hazard an answer at least.

If you can see these creatures clear-as-day on multiple occasions then all you really need is an inexpensive digital camera with a flash.

Doesn't your "field experience" with the faker and his crew (above) indicate that you are easily duped? That your desire to believe often overrides your logic? There's no shame in that - everyone is susceptible to illusions.

Everyone (even scientists and trained observers) can be mislead by their instincts (perceptions, emotions, cognitions, memories) while not be aware that they have been mislead. It is just part and parcel of the human experience. If you rely solely on "instinct" then is it not likely that your instincts have been erroneous especially considering the complete lack of objective supporting evidence?