I am going to post some controversial topics Comment if you have an opinion or theory

Kel wrote:

StankApe wrote:contentious? so you are saying that an opposition idea to something unverified like telepathy or a video that allegedly shows an animal is "being contentious?. That's not how it works bub. If I post that a video looks suspect, you have every right to post why you suspect it's real. In that case would you be being "contentious"???

Like I said before, if a claim cannot hold up to scrutiny, it has no value.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I THINK this thread was set up specifically for "believers" (or should I type Believers) to discuss some of the different beliefs (if you will) among THEMSELVES. Sort of like Christian factions ~ there's a mighty wide gulf between, say, Mormons and Catholics, yet they agree on the same starting point of belief in Jesus. I personally saw that line drawn in the sand for discussion HERE IN THIS THREAD ONLY. There are other threads to debate from a skeptical standpoint. I'm a skeptic myself, but am tired of seeing every thread here devolve into an "existence" debate. I want to read other viewpoints and not be bogged down by that endless crap.

Back away and accept that sometimes your opinions just aren't welcome because they muddy up the discussion.

StankApe wrote:I wasn't making an existence statement at all. But I think it goes against the principle of public forums to say that "this thread is here for no dissenting opinions" but this one over here is.... see what I mean?

It would be one thing if someone had said "Bigfoot doesn't exist so these claims are stupid" but I don't think I stirred the pot or anything. I just said that if it exists, I don't see it as very likely at has any fancy superpowers. But just a natural ability to blend in with the surroundings. (then I listed the zebra example)

If that isn't rational,even tempered discourse, what is? (the fact that others chose to make claims of contention have no bearing on the fact that my statement was not intended ,nor worded to incite a nasty argument)

GT3Paul wrote:Its OK we still are going in the right direction. I have talked to Freeman alot, and he has a lot of cool ideas. He believes ( I dont) that Bigfoot can source light from its eyes. I think the eyeshine is just eye shine from reflected light. I dont know if the red or green thing has anything to do with stuff. Some one said a Red eye is a predator and a green eye is prey. But I have 3 massive trained killer attack dogs and two of them are green reflect and one of them is Red reflect.
Freeman postulates that BF can communicate through frequency. Through intensity and just by on and off. I havent see any evidence of this yet in video or
pics so I dont know whats true on that but really interesting ideas since we do it mechanically, with all kinds of lights.

Eyeshine occurs in a wide variety of colors including white, blue, green, yellow, pink and red. However, since eyeshine leads to iridescence, the color varies slightly with the angle at which it is seen and the color of the source light.
White eyeshine occurs in many fish, especially walleye; blue eyeshine occurs in many mammals such as horses; green eyeshine occurs in mammals such as cats, dogs, and raccoons; and red eyeshine occurs in rodents, opossums and birds

Cats and dogs with blue eyes (see eye color) may display both eyeshine and red-eye effect. Both species have a tapetum lucidum, so their pupils may display eyeshine. In flash color photographs, however, individuals with blue eyes may also display a distinctive red eyeshine. Individuals with heterochromia may display red eyeshine in the blue eye and "normal" yellow / green / blue / white eyeshine in the other eye. These include odd-eyed cats and bi-eyed dogs. The red-eye effect is independent of the eyeshine: in some photographs of individuals with a tapetum lucidum and heterochromia, the eyeshine is dim yet the pupil of the blue eye still appears red. This is most apparent when the individual is not looking into the camera, because the tapetum lucidum is far less extensive than the retina.