I guess you could say I have been lurking for years upon this forum . . . and perhaps it has been to verify that I was not nuts . . . but truth be told, an encounter horrifies the heck out you and screws you up a bit, challenging fact vs. fiction, an at the very least challenges what has been taught to most of us in school. Its striking effect upon the individual of course is distinct, and not something we can pigeonhole . . . but I am glade that its being brought up and discussed here. I know that I could not enter the woods for years . . . I was that frightened.

Just wanted to add that it doesn't only have to be an encounter with BF that can mess you up. I know a person that enjoyed snorkeling until he encountered a huge grouper. He was swimming near a drop off and it came up out of the dark, deep water below him. His thought was that if it had wanted to, it could have just grabbed him and swam back down into the dark. He would have been done for. He came up to the surface, took off his gear and never went back in. Time for a new hobby. I don't know that I would call that PTSD, but the reaction is the same as many describe after seeing BF.

I don't think it is always about seeing something unknown to science or "that shouldn't be there". Maybe it's just the realization that we aren't always the top of the food chain and "in control" that scares us. Whether combat, or a car accident, crime, or unusual encounter, it is the helpless and uncontrolable part that many find so hard.

Ultimately, I could tell my friend that there shouldn't have been a fish that size there, that he made it all up, that it wouldn't have hurt him, or that he shouldn't have been afraid at all, but that doesn't change the fact that he was and that fear was powerful enough to change him somehow. Maybe he saw such a fish or maybe he didn't. We have no proof either way. What can be seen is that whatever he saw, or even perceived he saw, affected him strongly and I have no right to try to say it didn't. I might not agree with what he said happened, but he has every right to feel however he feels.

So how do our feelings and perceptions fit into the science? They don't and that is both the fall and salvation of the scientific process. Sometimes we perceive things that aren't true, and sometimes things we know to be true can't be proven at all. That is the problem we wrestle with, not only in Squatchdom, but many areas of life.

17x7

Huntor-
When, Where and Under what conditions did you have your sighting?

It may not be as traumatic as you think.

Exactly how early do you have to get up each morning to BE this obnoxious? When, Where and Under what conditions did you learn this character flaw?

I mean, you're obnoxious in most other threads too, but presuming that you can say whether or not this is as traumatic as he thinks takes the cake. You think you can better quantify this mans experience by questioning him to death and then dismissing his testimony? That's beyond arrogant. Did you not read the posts by Lea and Wolftrax?

Are you an expert in PTSD? Maybe (actually more than maybe) you need to take a chill pill on how you address people here. Just an FYI.


.

Great thread!

Personally, denial worked well for a long time but then I found some BF websites! Got all excited but then realized that the majority of the "evidence" was BS. I think that denial is looking more inviting again...unless someone actually gets some decent evidence.

Fear...ya being a man I don't like to use that word but I will say:

- I don't hunt anymore
- I don't camp solo anymore
- I don't go into the woods without a gun

My biggest concern (see didn't use the word fear) is being close to an animal that does not exist, yet is obviously right there in front of me, is PO'd at me and obviously physically equipped to quickly and easily kill me. I did not feel comfortable with the aggressive behavior that was displayed and the stalking afterward...knowing what was behind me just out of sight made me feel a bit uncomfortable as I wondered if it was debating whether or not to attack.

Anywho...back to denial.

You're angry that I'm trying to help someone? Your desire to believe in Bigfoot is making you attack me for wanting to help someone who may be suffering from something other than seeing a Big GIANT hairy beast?

No, I am not angry because you are trying to "help" someone, I'm angry because you are an armchair quarterback and have to be an expert on everything posted in these forums. And you don't know what he's suffering from and what he saw or did not. He said "im going to type up a report for you all to read." Let him post and quit dogging him about it like you do in other threads.

No results found for "drew PTSD counselor".

Give people some breathing room already! If this guy says he saw a BF ordering a burger through interpretive dance, just let him be. You don't have to be a subject matter expert on everything, no matter what your guise is. Are you aware that there are people here that are afraid to post because of a few of the "wolf pack"? Stop being that guy. People should be able to post without having to answer a slew of questions by you and endure an interrogation or demeaning remarks. "It may not be as traumatic as you think."

And buddy, if you view this as an attack, I encourage you to take the morning off and read your own posts for a while.

"help help im being repressed"
Monty Python.

like what ?

I've typed up my encounter anyway.When can I make a thread ?
Its a long read.

Hi Huntor, your PM in My Controls > is disabled, just FYI.

You can post here by region : http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showforum=2 > Sightings & Encounters Subforums

Some people post over at BFRO : http://www.bfro.net/GDB/submitfm.asp

Cheers




.

Look, you're talking about a man that hunts grizzly bear alone. He is very comfortable in the bush. It is the 1950's and bigfoot has not been described, its not in everyone's consciousness like now. He at first takes it for a grizzly based on the fur he sees and the possible size. Then he thinks its an actor. Neither of those things provoke fear. Then he realizes it is some unknown creature, and by now his curiosity is activated. The sasquatch is a female, and non-agressive. It's not threatening him, just eating. When it finally sees him it immediately leaves. What about this scenario is puzzling? Maybe because you'd be afraid, you think he has to be afraid too. Well, he wasn't. I think it is a classic and very interesting sighting.

I'd be interested in anyone's sighting they have had. I take everyone's word for what it is unless I have just cause to label someone a liar. I have friends that are ritual abuse survivors. There is a whole movement out there in the world of Psychology of not believing the victim and it started all the way back with Freud doubting the stories of the women and girls who were describing the sexual abuse they endured and the damage and harm it did to them. Really it is a form of denial in the therapist! Terrible things happen and denying it doesn't help. Facing up to fears and confronting wrong-doers, bringing them to justice and achieving inner peace and healing begins with being able to believe your own emotions and not labeling yourself as crazy. It begins with self trust. As long as you were not on drugs, were lucid (not dreaming, for instance), and you are healthy and truthful as a person, then your story is true. The only other thing to think about is could you have been mistaken, could you have taken a bear or stump or something for a sasquatch. And that depends totally on the length of encounter, the light levels, how close you were, externals like that.

If you have really had an encounter, then lucky you! If fear is a factor, it needs to be overcome. There is no need to stop doing the things you enjoy just because there is another creature out there. They are not everywhere, their numbers are too small, like cougars in the PNW, or elephants and lions in Africa. You can still hunt and camp without seeing BF every time, maybe even for the rest of your life, because they are really very rare.

If you think about it there is an element of danger in every activity, even just getting into your car and driving to the mall. There is risk involved in traveling, working, loving, in having children, and in everything that is worthwhile doing in life! If you hold yourself back from experience because of fear only you will be the poorer.

I just checked it says: disable private messge =no

Just as yesterday I can't start a thread, international or otherwise.



I did think it was an odd thing to say by him, but im not offended and just shruged it off.

I can understand how it could rub some new people the wrong way.

so you cannot post your story? what the hell.... why not?

Huntor, you have been moved to the member's group. You should now be able to start a new thread with your story. Just please, start it in the correct part of the forum....here....

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showforum=2

Hi

Huntor ~ you will be able to send messages and start threads after a few more posts,

Night Stalker ~ Some of the words you have used to rebuff ~ Drews ~ Posts ain't helping anything that i can see, He has been around a while and knows the ropes so to speak, Although not always Mr friendly he brings a side that keeps this forum in the right direction, Settle down a bit and learn how it works around here, You will find that anyone that has been posting here and lasted for a while has some very good input and should at least be respected for what they know,

There are threads in the BFF that are protected for new members to post and get started, Always a good choice for any new member to read the guidelines and take advantage of the help that is offered

Peace
Tim

thanks for the help JayleeD.

I posted my account here if anyone wants a look:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=26313

EDIT: yeah I heave read the new members sections and they are helpful

I am a human behavior professional with an advanced degree and appropriate credentials (I will make my CV available to admins on request). I am agnostic about the reality of an uncatalogued North American primate. I have been aware of this phenomenon since about 2003. I have been following it off and on since then, mostly on BFF, although I seldom post. I have little of significance to contribute to the general conversation and most topics since my expertise is on another primate, us.

Although the cryptid issue is intriguing, I am also interested – maybe more so -- in the human side of the phenomenon—witnesses, searchers, hoaxers, skeptics, debunkers, believers, entrepreneurs, group behavior, and so on. I am particularly interested in the experiences of witnesses. I have been impressed by many posted comments in this thread and others about reactions during and following encounters, including traumatization.

Because psychological trauma, PTSD, and healing lie within my professional domain, I offer here some background information that some may find useful. Others in this forum have made some good points, but there have been views I disagree with as well, so I want to present an informed and unified perspective -- a sort of primer. I am sorry this is so long and dense. I hope it is reasonably clear. Please understand that I have limited ability to respond to questions or comments in a public forum, especially on matters of a personal nature. I will do what I can but I apologize in advance for any shortcomings.

1) Negative events that are experienced as overwhelming can have harmful effects on people. It is as if some highly stressful experiences exceed our human design capacity to assimilate them, rather like an engine revved way past the red line or a non-waterproof item soaked out of adjustment. Calibration of various cognitive and emotional functions gets out of wack. Subjectively this can be very unpleasant and can interfere with various everyday activities and relationships. The effects vary in kind and extent—from mild to highly disruptive.

2) Although there are common factors in the sorts of events most likely to result in psychological trauma and common factors in the ensuing symptoms, each instance is a one-of-a-kind interaction between specific situational events and a specific individual at a specific time. What will be traumatizing, who will be harmed and to what extent, and what the symptoms will be are rather individual and somewhat unpredictable. There are many factors involved.

3) The standard psychiatric diagnostic system is useful to professionals but imperfect in descriptive accuracy and narrow in function. Using this map, most people who are significantly traumatized display symptoms that meet criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD, but not always, and other conditions also occur and other diagnoses may apply. Also, symptoms, and therefore diagnoses, can change over time. Diagnosis as a process is a formal professional procedure with specific limited uses, a tool of the trade with no practical value outside of its professional context -- the person and the treatment provider. (Professionals also use them when we talk among ourselves -- it's shorthand.)

4) A diagnostic label is never identical with the experiences or condition of any real person -- people and circumstances are much too complicated for that. Also note that individuals may have one or more symptoms characteristic of one or more diagnostic categories without having enough specific symptoms or enough negative effect on their everyday lives to be assigned a diagnosis. This is common across the full range of psychiatric conditions—some symptoms without a full diagnosis. It’s largely a matter of degree.

5) The response of others to the person who has been traumatized can be healing or harmful. It is generally helpful if the person is believed, at least provisionally, and symptoms accepted, respected, and soothed rather than laughed at or the traumatizing experience disbelieved or minimized. It seems that when we are traumatized we naturally look for validation from others in order to help us heal -- we find healing in connection with others who understand us.

6) Rejection blocks the goal of healing through validation/connection, and often “refreshes” the original damaging experience –- this effect varies from person to person. A rejecting response can take many forms and can -- worst case -- significantly worsen the effects of trauma. There is a long history of victims of domestic violence or sexual assault and also combat veterans enduring such re-traumatization or secondary trauma. Any forensic investigation of events must be done with sensitivity and professionalism.

7) PTSD and related conditions often can be treated successfully by a variety of therapeutic methods. Treatment can be complicated by factors specific to the trauma and specific to the individual. An example of factors specific to the trauma: Human inflicted traumas tend to have stronger effects than accidents or natural disasters. Two examples of factors specific to the person: A history of past trauma, unhealed, makes additional trauma more likely in future adverse conditions; also, some may be more vulnerable due to genetics. Note that these effects are probabilistic, not deterministic. Every case is different.

8) Although sharing stories of personal traumatic experiences and their aftereffects can be helpful in many cases (probably from acceptance or validation -- see #5 above), a public forum has some disadvantages for this—acceptance is not guaranteed and rejection is common. As a general principle self-disclosure of sensitive personal information on the internet should be regarded as carrying some psychological risk, including re-traumatization. In other words, if people derive benefit in such circumstances they are fortunate and ill effects are possible.

9) In the mainstream, ”best practices” view, recommended treatment for psychological trauma is provided by licensed professionals with appropriate training and experience to individuals in person. In some situations group sessions or telephone consultations may provide benefits. Medication may be useful in some cases. Many factors pertain and professional judgment must be applied. Individuals and situations differ, and change occurs over time.

10) In my view, for the best chance of successful treatment of adverse psychological effects subsequent to an encounter with a biological anomaly or cryptid, the treatment provider would have to be at least agnostic in regard to its existence. Without this factor there is an increased risk of re-traumatization. Belief in the cryptid is not necessary, only open-mindedness regarding the events of the experience. Many if not most professional treatment providers should be capable of this. It is important to determine this when choosing a provider.

11) Psychological trauma or its absence subsequent to an experienced encounter with a cryptid does not constitute support or disproof of the creature’s existence. Treatment cannot establish the literal reality or identity of whatever physically objective events contributed to the traumatizing experience. These are different goals with largely different methods, hence the need for sensitivity. Treatment can help clarify and integrate the person’s subjective experience and reduce negative psychological effects, often to a very large degree, but will accomplish nothing more regarding larger issues.

12) Individuals of our species are generally rather sturdy and resilient. We tend to bounce back. In cases of ill effects from psychological trauma, improvement often occurs over time, especially in the presence of benign, constructive factors in one’s life and the absence of further extreme stressors. Making sense of what has happened and integrating it effectively into one’s own ongoing story of one’s life experience and how the world works seems to be central to healing. Another way of looking at it is taking the sting out of the memory. Those who know what they are doing can facilitate the process.

13) Professional treatment can be a useful adjunct to what is at base a natural process of recovery—coming back to baseline functioning after being stretched out of shape. Treatment often can be helpful but it is not always necessary. It all depends. Also, it may be something to consider if a condition hard to live with goes on and on with little improvement. However, when symptoms and suffering are severe and circumstances highly adverse, treatment can be critical, even life saving.

C LeKanth

Wonderful post, C LeKanth (great user name, btw). I would be very interested to know your feelings and experiences with EMDR--the method has always intrigued me.

I know you mean well, I like your participation here and your reply is judicious and tactful, but respectfully, He DOESN'T know, that's the point. C LeKanth knows, he has an advanced degree in this field. I spent 5 years in clinical psych working with the emotionally conflicted and schizophrenics, that doesn't qualify me to know if someone has PTSD or not either.

This double standard where a few members here can play armchair quarterback and every time anyone posts something they don't agree with, they all chime in with "You don't know and you don't have any proof". That's all they have, that statement, they don't know anything either. 99% of this whole field is speculation and most of what people believe is what we have found on our own research or learned from the big names in the field.

So excuse me if I fail to see where he or others in this brat pack actually have any authentic contributions or or should be respected for what "they know". There are some members here that I really respect, like vilnoori, she obviously has experience and knows a lot but she doesn't jump on new members and ask them nonsensical cryptic questions. As for how it works here, it works the same as a lot of other forums, new members and wolf packs. I stand by my post at 9:22am and think new members should have some breathing room and not be interrogated or dismissed.

I'll take the opinions of a C LeKanth with a PSY.D or PH.D and tenure in their field over these armchair quarterbacks any day. Maybe the mods should pay a little more attention to the pack posters here, just a thought. It's clearly spelled out in the rules. Any takers?



.

This is a pretty open forum, but like most forums, everyone has different approches to others.
Some questions are easy/laid back, while others are swift and to the point. Nothing should be taken personally, if it gets personal, then they don't last. Not everyone is as "hard core" as you with this subject.

Actually I'm still a newbie too, I have no right to jump on anyone. I'm just a great theorist I would LOVE to have more experience!

What you describe here is NOTHING like how some of the skeptics in this forum conduct themselves, their opinions are welcomed and necessary but the manner that some of them go about it such as continually trying to get under posters skin with their baiting and condescending style should not be.

My feeling is some of them by nature are bullies and teasers and find this forum easy pickings to satisfy their sad urges, I have no respect for them and feel they give the good well intentioned skeptics in this forum a bad name.

I agree, but you will find that on all forums. If you let them get to you, they win. After being here awhile, you start to figure who is what, and how to respond to them.

with this too!

I hear you man, my only concern is it does drive away newbies who could bring positive contributions to this forum, in fact I have seen it happen and that gets me more worked up 100x more than how they might treat my views. Their pompous attitudes towards me is something I can deal with.

Hi

~ ~ You guys all know we have a wonderful PM system and it should be used, I have talked to many of the folks that are in this thread ( The good The Bad And The Ugly If you want to call them that. I have found the real person behind the posts in most cases and there just like everyone else but have a need for facts ~ Truth ~ Respect . . . . Lets all remember we need to keep up a good forum guard along with a good manner, That includes the new folks coming in here too, They need to understand you can't just open the welcome door and barge in.

Peace
Tim

SWEET, now where's that group hug?

I love how you try to tell the mods how to do their job. I'm sure they've got a handle on things much more than you realize.

The specific guideline dealing with "hunting in packs" was created to do just that - to actually stem the practice of "hunting in packs" on this forum, not to single-out and stifle certain posters simply for who they are, or because of their particular point of view. Nor is it applied to certain posters simply because their point of view happens to align closely with others who choose to post in the same thread.

But since you're so adamant about this, how about giving some specific examples of these "pack posters" that you're referring to? Not just "Well, there are some here". It's easy to simply elude to a mysterious set of "pack posters" without naming them specifically, but not so easy when you have to actually name them and risk having an open debate with them about their positions. If you did, you'd probably find out fairly quickly that your "pack posters" comment is way off base.

It's obvious that you have a severe problem with Skeptics, possibly because their presence here is seen as a hindrance to your own belief system. I for one welcome their participation and input, it helps to keep the BS from going unchecked and spreading like wildfire.


Sorry Wick, can't do the group hug just yet.

Hi


( Sorry Wick, can't do the group hug just yet )

Then how about a hand shake and a cup of coffee ?

Peace
Tim

Hell, I would settle for a head nod now

I agree with most of what you said Volsquatch. We NEED skeptics for a multitude of reasons, even if their belief system doesn't align with my belief system or yours. But unfortunately I have seen the pack poster mentality many times on this site since I have been here. Yes, sometimes the pack gets a hold of a genuine hoaxer and either exposes them as such or asks enough hard questions that they leave of their own accord, but sometimes they get a hold of a newbie and rip him/her to pieces because this person wasn't nearly as knowledgable as themselves in this subject and they were new here or because their belief system didn't mesh with a lot of the others.
I'm not going to name any names as I don't really feel like getting into a flame war and probably getting myself banned, but I think you have to admit this thing does happen once in a while on the forum, and you know what, it's going to happen again and again. Why? Because it's human nature to align yourself with someone that has the same belief system as yourself, whether you are a romantic Bigfoot believer or you are a complete Bigfoot skeptic. If you do that, then most people feel obligated to defend their friends and unfortunately that is when the pack mentality sets in.
Do I completely agree with Nightstalker? No, what he said was uncalled for and against forum rules, but in the same sense, some of what he said is true. Did I see a pack mentality on this thread? Not really. Do I dislike skeptics? Not in the slightest, but I will also defend my own belief system, even if it is totally flawed, especially when someone acts condescending towards me, and this has happened. But hey, what would I know, I'm just a hollow headed romantic here on the BFF.

Fair enough, that is your opinion, but this constant referral to the "pack posters" without naming any specific offenders is starting to sound like one of Aesop's Fables.

I just get so tired of seeing people constantly pull out the "wolf pack" card and elude to some clandestine movement to squash any and all 'pro' points of view regarding sasquatch using rudeness and condescension. To me it looks like this card is being unnecessarily pulled every time someone feels like their side is "losing" somehow, or whenever they've had their fill of the skeptical point of view regarding some 'truth' they hold dear only to themselves. This isn't an exclusive treehouse for the 'True Believers Club' to hang out in, complete with a makeshift sign over the door reading "No Skeptics Allowed!". In reality, *both* points of view should be welcome here, as long as they stay within the guidelines.

Openly complaining about a certain group of people that you feel are a detriment to the forum without naming anyone specifically isn't very constructive. If you truly feel that there's a problem with "pack posters" on this forum, you should practice some diligence in reporting the offending post using the "Report" button, which is located at the bottom of every post. Just remember, you cannot see or hear the person on the other end making the post, so it's very hard to determine someone's attitude simply from reading their words on a computer screen. Sometimes it is better to PM the person first and speak with them privately about your concerns so as to make sure you're reading their intentions correctly.

FWIW and IMHO, as a "pack" we (myslef included) completely shredded each new poster that came in offering an opinion other than "bear" on the jacobs photos. Does that count?

I'm not arguing that these so called "Pack Posters", a term I never should of used but did because it was the term nightstalker was using, are a major problem on the site, let alone a small one. I am just acknowledging that these things do happen and that they will continue to happen.
Not only that, but it isn't just skeptics who do it, but believers as well. Let's just say a Sasqiatcj body came in tomorrow and it was scientifically validated by the government or whoever you trust to validate it, do you think all the believers will keep their mouth shuts? No of course not, there is gonna be a lot of "na na na na na's" "neener neener neener's" "In your face's" and last but certainly not least "We told you so's!" Just like I expect the skeptics to do the same everytime a piece of so called Sasquatch evidence is proven to be fake, hoaxed, etc.
I highly doubt all the skeptics are pm'ing each other saying join me in this fight with this dumb believer, I don't think so. I believe there are opposing views and beliefs and that is going to translate into opposing groups once in a while where it is going to look like a certain member or group of members are taking a lot of flack from a larger group. Hey it happens, I expect it to happen and I am not going to complain about it or report someone, I just wanted to acknowledge that yes it does happen on here from time to time. There really is no way around it. There I'm done talking about it.

You know ! who really cares if they are on these so call pack posting, it really does not matter.What matters is that they are here and have interest like all the rest in knowing that might exist. If they want to make fun of the people who have seen these creatures well it does not matter one bit to me.I know where i stand I on this subject and i know what i seen ,I cannot explain the actions of these creatures but at least I know that they are real .

Believe me when i say i have been through the gauntlet and yes it was like a pact of wolves but i have stood my ground and my view has stayed the same. But Volsquatch has it right with the skeptics and there has to be a balance among the believers and the skeptics. I can care less if no one likes me or whatever that does not matter to me because what matters now is these creatures and what i have learned over the years has been through this forum.Sure enough i do not have many post but who cares .I have seen my share of what ever on this forum through the years and it has never changed it's tune thats why i stay So if there are wolves on this forum well let them roam away it does not matter or even bother me one bit .