Wingman1

Sésquac
  • Content count

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

43 Fair

About Wingman1

  • Rank
    Wildman

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    The mystery of Bigfoot, Sports, Hiking, Camping,
    Astronomy,and cruising/racing my 69 Pro Street
    SS Camaro on weekends,and renting a Cessna 182RG
    and fly to Port Aransas on the TX Gulf Coast for
    the day in the summertime.

Contact Methods

  • Have you ever had an encounter with a sasquatch-like creature?
    Not sure
  1. Gumshoe and Squatchy, I too am sorry for the loss you have both experienced. I just lost my Mother this past May, so I know how you both feel. If you have been around as long as I have I'm sure that you now realize that time doesn't necessarily heal all wounds, but it does temper the pain. Hang in there my friends, and I hope this causes no offense but I will keep you in my prayers.
  2. It would not be a bad idea to look into them. One could learn some useful information about how the hoax was perpetrated, and what was used to create the physical aspects of the hoax. The more one learns how the hoaxers are accomplishing their dastardly deeds, the easier they will be to spot in the future. I have noticed a tendency in the BF to cry out - "That's a Hoax" without doing any real investigation. The BF community has enough to deal with as it is and hoaxers are just throwing a bigger monkey (no pun intended) wrench into the works. What has been learned about them can be categorized as miniscule in the grander scheme of things, and the last thing we need are boneheads running around out there creating hoaxes. Learning what the enemy does and how he does it makes the work he left behind easier to spot. So yeah, investigating the hoaxes would not be a bad thing to do if one has the time. Unfortunately as with many endeavors undertaken by the researchers out there, this sort of thing takes a lot of time and money far beyond some of our capabilities. If they are discovered it will be by some stroke of miraculous luck, but just like the lottery, it will be a 1 in 175 million chance.
  3. And here I was beginning to think that you wouldn't be coming to DWA's rescue. You should try keeping a towel next to your keyboard from now on. So my opinion yanks your chain huh! Well what can I say. I get the point you are trying to make here, albeit a pedantic one. I was a Captain in the USAF and flew an A-10 in Desert Storm and Operation Southern Watch so I have a pretty good handle on science and physics! Oh! and just to clarify, I am 52 not twenty-something. You are right that science has provided all of us a way to manage our lives better in some form or another. The tools of science allows one to pursue knowledge, and try to further understand ones surroundings. The scientific tools and processes are out there for everyone to take advantage of. The simple fact is that not everyone sees it as important as you do, and that seems to rub you the wrong way. If you think that makes you better than me, then you are sadly mistaken. I am fully cognizant of the importance of the sciences, I just don't live and breathe it like some here do. Science is not responsible for my wife and I falling in love, it is not responsible for the success and longevity of our marriage, and it is not responsible for the dreams that we share. This is what I mean when I said science is not responsible for my accomplishments in life if that is too hard for you to comprehend, then I don't know what to tell you. I do not hold the power judge anyone, especially those that I know nothing about and I respect everyone's opinion and beliefs and never try to force mine on someone else either. If you could go to some of the places I have been and experienced some of the things I have seen, you will quickly realize that there is plenty of "A World of Hurt" to go around. I normally don't feel the need to explain myself to anyone WSA, in fact this is the first and last time I will, but I actually like your posts and what you bring to the table here, so I deviated from my normal flightpath a bit to try and clarify it for you. Hope it worked! My apologies to the OP for temporarily derailing your thread and this is my final post here.
  4. First off, I do not dispute the fact that the evidence supports the existence of Sasquatch. You know I have always respected your opinions even though I disagree with some them, but it appears that you have no desire to reciprocate that trust. That's fine though, and won't be losing any sleep over it. Since day one when I joined this forum, I have read most of your posts and I agree with most of them. I still do, for that matter but I see that I will have to reappraise that position now. You made a comment about people with dreams and I simply replied to it, and you disagree with my view, but again that is fine with me and I respect your views on this. Not paying attention? I am assuming that you mean I need to pay attention to you because you are way ahead of the rest us when it comes to science. Well, you go ahead and hang on to that one pal, because there is absolutely no way that I will follow you around to read your posts. I think someone needs to come down from that proverbial high horse now. This is where I get off the train because I have no use for someone that does not respect a person's opinions, and then expect all of us to respect theirs because they deem themselves to have a higher intellect. Here is the funny part, I still respect your opinions regardless.
  5. Websters Dictionary defines the word Intellectual, as a someone possessing a highly developed intellect. I am humble enough to say that I have not reached that level, and since you mentioned it, I have to assume that is the platform you speak from, so please bear with me here. Unlike practically everybody who believes in lots of stuff, *I don't deny any possibility*. If a person that believes in lots of stuff doesn't think it is possible to achieve their dreams, then what's the point of having a dream. I'm not gonna go around accepting as real things I have no evidence are real. I am fine with the evidence coming around in its own good time. Good for you! it is certainly your prerogative to follow that path. You even have patience now as well, Bravo! That's really the best place to be, intellectually. See Blue Quote below. That is nothing more and nothing less than your own opinion! Well not exactly your own opinion, since it appears you are using the opinion stated by someone in the blue quote. That's me, all the way...and it's the only way to be. If that's how you want to be, Great! I Hope that works for ya, but as for it being the only way to be, well again that is just your own personal opinion/belief. I enjoy reading your posts, but must admit that nowadays it is only for the entertainment factor than for any other reason. I do applaud your affinity for science, although sometimes you confuse the hell out me! At times you seem to be some sort champion for science, and at other times you ridicule it and those that practice it, so I never really know what direction on the compass you are coming from. I've said in previous posts that for me, science is no. 99 on my list of the 100 most important things in this life for me. I am healthy, happily married for 28 yrs, and own a successful business, and that is because I followed my dreams to fruition. Was I certain that it would turn out great? absolutely not, but I did dream that it would someday be possible! Science contributed nothing to that. I am not anti-science, as I love astronomy because out there in space is where the real discoveries await. I have always been open to and willing to explore all possibilities, but I also know that I or anyone else for that matter will never understand everything. But that is just MY opinion. I'm finished here - Moving on to another thread now.
  6. Really? That's a pretty bold statement you made there, and who made that determination! Humanity would not be where it is today without the various peoples out there fulfilling the dreams they believed in! You don't believe in anything? Why doesn't that surprise me. Show you the evidence? Funny, it seems that you believe we need to show you evidence doesn't it. Try not to speak with a forked tongue, it tends to make one look silly!
  7. There have been numerous BF related TV shows such Monster Quest, In Search of, and everyone's favorite, Finding Bigfoot. Now add in the various radio talk programs and you get the perfect vehicle to de-sensitize the public. Regarding the OP's question of should I tell family members, or anyone else for that matter is a tough one. My general one size fits all answer that is the least problematic, is to say No, you shouldn't bring it up. If you do bring it up, be prepared for anything and focus on what it is that makes you believer. BF is not real high on my list of important things which to concern myself with, but the following approach is a how I test the water before diving in kind of thing. It seems to work pretty good so far and it goes like this - Hey Joe, did you see that Monster Quest show last week about Bigfoot? Yes, well what did you think? If Joe laughs right here and begins to go on about there is no way they exist and people that believe in it are nuts! Then drop it right there. If you get a positive reaction from Joe, then continue on until you get to a point where you feel comfortable about opening up about your personal view on the subject. This approach keeps you in control of the situation and allows you to bail out wthout any significant repercussion!
  8. Hey Sal and BCW, I don't doubt you guys at all! If my post above somehow offended you in anyway, then I definitely apologize because that was not my intent at all. The post was aimed at the people I like to call radical skeptics, and the denialists. I believe that when someone comes across BF at less than 50 yards or so, it is almost impossible to misidentify something. I have read that bears are the no. 1 animals misidentified as a Sasquatch, and that may well be the case at distances over 150 yards, but at 50 yards or less there is virtually no way to misidentify what is standing in front you. At that range, one can easily distinguish between the two. I am not going to do what a lot of others do, and that is asking you to substantiate your claims. That comes awfully close to insulting you both. I have read both of your posts for quite some time now and I see in no way whatsoever that you are being disingenuous! Do I give everyone a "Get out of jail free" card, absolutely not! Your posts, personalities, and beliefs tells me you two are pretty much above reproach in this regard. That could change of course, but highly unlikely IMO. I'll tell you this, I can't even begin to imagine what went through your minds during that encounter. For me that would have been very cool, very scary, but still cool! It is just that there seems to be a problem of distinguishing reports from proof. To say that an anecdote cannot be verified by the current scientific method should be obvious! Sightings reports are really nothing more than one person telling another something, but the value of reports is that they do contain important information. The information can then be used to build a case so to speak. Reports only indicate things, not prove them. Now I have to mention the fact that somehow both sides of that argument have put forth some valid points, but I don't know if that is progress, or just an anomaly. It is beyond me that this subject is argued back and forth between many people here for well over 8 pages in many different threads! Will this behavior ever stop? probably not! I guessing at this point we need to realize that you just can't fix stupid! It seems that some are born to argue and get the last word in no matter what! At first the arguing was a little irritating, but now I see it as an entertainment factor and it definitely makes me laugh! There are some very good discussions that I think benefit quite a few people, and it's a shame they all can't hit that same mark.
  9. I'm curious now, Is there any evidence that lends credence to the idea that BF beheads. I have a feeling that most will will point to the David Paulides 411 books. There are many inherent dangers in the wilderness, but if you are cautious and observant you can mitigate that danger. Awareness in the wild is essential while in the in the forests. There are many other known animals out there that would see no problem having you for lunch. The first one that comes to mind are bears, but there are other animals out there that can really mess up your day. Anything else is pure conjecture, and from what I have heard about Paulides, he does not specifically state the missing persons are a result of BF aggression. Could they behead a human? I'm sure they could, and very easily due to the strength they possess. There is currently nothing on the table at this point that conclusively states that they behead people. For now, personal belief is the only thing driving this discussion. Now as for me, I worry more about bears eating me. It is well documented that bears will attack and maul a human so that behavior can be referred to now as fact. Not so for BF. One thing for sure is that caution and awareness should be at your side when out there. The only real way to solve this would be by seeing a BF beheading someone. it is human nature to fear the unknown, and it is a built-in preservation mechanism. It always amazes me how some people like to demonize them without one shred of physical evidence to the contrary. I have never really feared them, but I definitely respect them. I think this behavior might stem from angering one of them for some unperceived reason. I just don't see them as being that aggressive. The general consensus is that they are very intelligent, so they may realize that this behavior would expose them. That is only conjecture at this point though. In a nutshell, there is not enough evidence to prove this with any certainty, and I could totally wrong! Nevertheless, I would still be cautious and constantly be checking my six.
  10. My feelings here are that it is really counter-productive to discount any report until it is found that there is reason to do so. I understand that many people after analyzing a report are left with many different conclusions, but applying the correct amount of due-diligence to the analysis will undoubtedly allow any researcher to determine which reports have merit, and which ones don't. Now there are also those that continue to re-iterate their point that reports can be hoaxed and are therefore unreliable. I am sure there hoaxed reports submitted, but to say that they all are hoaxes is a bit Disingenuous. If one wishes to continue with this negative mindset, well good luck with that. I think Dr. Meldrum said it best - "The sheer amount of reports and the evidence that has been garnered certainly SUGGESTS that there is an undiscovered type of bi-pedal primate in our forests." Which makes sense. This unfortunately is where the problems start. In science there has been a distinction made between the conduct of science and the spirit of exploration. This bolsters Scientists of today to mostly wait at their lab benches, not exerting any effort to see if there really is something to the legend. They will however be happy to examine any good evidence, especially a body if we bring one in. This is where science shoots itself in the foot, because the fact is that if there is a large ape-like entity alive and kicking in our midst that has not been recognized and classified, it will be a profound blow to the credibility of modern anthropology. It is because of this fact according to Dr. Meldrum that many sensible scientists now leave the door of unbelief cracked open a tiny bit. Can anyone say "Tenure" Yes, It is correct that reports can't analyzed, tested, and falsified by the standard scientific process in use today. It is somewhat beyond me that anyone would or even could dispute that fact. Reports are not evidence either. Calm down DWA and hear me out! A report is a retelling of an experience told by someone to someone else. The content of that report is what needs to be brought into focus. Reports can be data-mined for ton of useful and workable information, such as: *location and physical layout of the area to help determine if the area is a transit route or an area theywould remain in for a period of time due the abundance of food sources and water that is there. *Description of the entity (Height, weight, and color) coupled with any type of behavior. *Activity - What was it doing? was it foraging, or just walking in a certain direction. *Interview the witness which can go a long way in establishing an amount of credibility. *Determine if this report compares with other reports from the same area. Commonalities, and trends need to be identified if possible. Now the researcher can go to the area of the sighting, and this is where you will find trace evidence! If you find that there is an enormous amount of forest duff on the ground, you may not find any tracks, especially if the substrate is hard packed. In that case one must focus on the other targets such as hair, scat, etc... and this one gets overlooked due to unfamiliarity, but always try to zero in on anything that seems out of place. The lack of this kind of investigation has in a large part dictated the conditions that we find ourselves' in today. So, are these reports more than just stories? Can the persistent and remarkably consistent accounts by eyewitnesses from all walks of life be simply dismissed as a product of mass hysteria, hallucinations, or delusion? It is one thing to casually dismiss a report from the comfort of their armchair, but it is quite another thing to look into the eyes of an experienced outdoors-man and tell him he/she is mistaken, or worse yet a Liar! I for one am definitely not comfortable doing that. Many see this as a betrayal of scientific principles to decline to examine and consider evidence because after all, creatures like the BF "Cannot exist, therefore they Do Not exist" so why be bothered with questionable evidence. It is quite sad that in 2015 this atmosphere continues to exist in some scientific circles. And yes! there a fair amount of mis-identifications that happen and are reported. It happens! No one is perfect, not by a long shot. I know it can be hard for some to swallow that big humility pill, but it has to be done if we ever really intend to solve this so called mystery. Now suffer no delusions here folks, this will never be solved on this forum! It will be the researchers in the field spending countless hours and dollars that will win the day! For those here that think they have this all figured out, (We don't really have any of those here do we?) well just sit down with a glass of milk and take that big ol humility pill and you'll feel better in the morning. Oh yeah! How about this guy huh! Swedish biologist Dr. Carl Linnaeus in the 18th century set out to catalog the whole of nature, laying the foundation for the modern scientific discipline of Taxonomy. From his excursions throughout the known world he was able to identify a myriad of new species, but it was the persistent stories of unusual and elusive animals that got his attention. He set out on mission to try and discover them. Now can anyone guess how he did that? Yep, he went to the various jungle tribes in South America and gathered every eyewitness report, or story if you will that he could find since he was smart enough to realize the underlying importance of these indigenous peoples accounts. He was able to document many of the animals that we know today as the Orangutan, the Chimpanzee, and the Baboon. And all by relying on those pesky, supposedly unreliable anecdotal stories from jungle tribesmen. Who'd have thunk it! Carry on................
  11. I had a feeling we bump heads over this post! So by your logic? An animal that we have yet proved to exist to science is doing just great? On what data do you rest your opinion on? Data? There is no real substantiated data available for either of our opinions! As for their well being? well, since bodies of expired Sasquatches are not turning up in the forests, and there is only a small amount of reports describing emaciated ones, I'd say they seem to be getting along just fine. You don't need logic to understand that, common sense works just fine. I sense that you think you have this all figured out, or at least to a large degree. You don't, no one does! Killing one is not based on our "curiosity" I can't speak for everyone, but I think a majority of in this community wants to find out what they really are, and that sure sounds like curiosity to me. Science was born out of man's innate curiosity! But my position is scientifically sound I am assuming that you are referring to the process of taxonomy. Science is continually evolving and is providing new solutions to old problems like harvesting a specimen to prove it's existence. That worked fine in the years past, but just like all other archaic processes there comes a time to retire them and find a better way. Patience is needed regardless of how long it has been. My position is faith based? Well of course it is faith based, and there is nothing wrong at all with that, and I don't remember ever waving my hand around and loudly proclaiming that they are fine. I simply made a statement that you don't agree with. Why the hurry? There is no real need to As for the Gorillas in your bookstore analogy, how do you know that they would be extinct now if not for their protection. That is nothing more than conjecture. Unless you are psychic, but I'm pretty sure you don't believe in that nonsense. Don't send me any of the Wiki or Google links you seem to be so fond of because I will never read them. Look, I realize that you come to these conclusions based on your own logic and reasoning, which is fine, but it still does not alter the fact that none of this can be proclaimed with absolute certainty. Frustrating as that may be, it is the hand that we were dealt and it has placed one hell of a quandary in our laps. No preserve, no rangers patrolling, no government protections and no global fund to fight for their right to exist. They have none of that now but appear to doing fine. How different of a world would we be living in today in today if Bob Gimlin had pulled the trigger roughly 50 years ago? It would be pretty much the same as it stands now, with the exception that there is large bipedal ape in our forests. Nothing earth shattering about that all. I think you'll find that their discovery (while important to you and many others on this forum) It is not a big deal to the average John or Jane Doe out there. After a week or two it's back to business as usual with no residual aftershocks. Instead of a tired old cliche the pro kill stance is a fresh look at a 50 year old decision to rely on a grainy film versus giving scientists what they have been asking for all along HARD EVIDENCE. Fresh Look? People have been trying to harvest one for over now. Fresh Look, hardly. You are just putting forth your own opinion. If they want hard evidence, then they should make an effort to attain it themselves. After all, it is their job but if you want to see it like that, I'll play along! Besides, I will be playing golf on Mars before you or someone manages to kill one, and you will never convince me that they need our protection. Their habitat (whatever that turns out to be) is not going away any time soon, and they already have the right to exist, just not in your field of view. I simply don't see the need nor have the desire to prove their existence! If I get lucky and see one up close some day that, great! If I never see one, no big deal. As I have said in the past, science is number 99 on my list of the 100 most important things in my life! I am pretty much done with this discussion and have no inclination to continue any further. Norse, you seem to be an intelligent, all around good guy and I respect you and your opinions, we just don't see eye to eye on this topic that's all. Best wishes and Good luck with your endeavor, you're going to need it.
  12. Yeah, and that's my problem, I don't post very often so when I do everything stored in the old brain case tends to come flooding out. Isn't it funny that it comes down to something so simple - Seek and ye shall find! what a concept. I steer clear of arguing with the more skeptical crowd, it's just pointless. I would have better luck arguing with a brick wall than with some of those folks. I really do not have the time nor inclination for that stuff anymore. Life is way too short! Hell, I haven't won an argument here at home in the 25 years my wife and I have been married! Even the ones that I start I still lose. I swear that woman is professional arguer. Hey thanks Incorrigible, I really appreciate that. Any time this old goofball can put a smile on someones face it is a good day! Take care my friend! Hey that reminds me, I need to shave before going back to work tomorrow. I have been on vacation since 18 Dec.
  13. 2015 The state of Sasquatch Research I honestly think that the current state is about the same as last year, and from what I can tell, it has been stagnant for sometime now. I see more back and forth arguing than I see any sharing of useful information. That is not to say there are no intelligent discussions, because there certainly has been. Sasquatch will not be proven on a forum, and that should be blatantly obvious. It's the researchers out in the field that have the best chance of success. There are larger more organized groups out there, but are basically the same as most others - A lot of talk and very little action and/or evidence. I do still hold a bit of faith that they will turn that around. What really aggravates me regarding a couple of these groups is that anything and everything that they say is automatically taken to be true by many of the members here. I mean shouldn't these groups be held to the same standards as the rest of us. Whatever happened to extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence or proof? When anyone else makes an extraordinary claim they get pounced on like free pizza at an anime convention! There is something wrong with that picture. I don't want it seem that I am bashing these groups, on the contrary I actually applaud their efforts. Although there is one group out there that when I hear or read their name - I instantly think Keystone Cops! This is mostly said in jest, but I do think they still need to be held to the same standards as the rest of us, I detest any use of double standards. Another thing, why is it so difficult for many members to understand what sightings reports really are! The simplest way to explain their place in BF research is that they are a means to an end! Think about it, if no reports had ever been submitted, we wouldn't know that BF are out there. Now are all reports hoaxed? of course not! and that is because I doubt there is anyone or any group out there smart enough to perpetrate a hoax of that magnitude! I'm sure there is a fair number of hoaxed reports out there, but not as many as some people think, but that is purely conjecture on my part. There seems to be this belief out there that if something has been hoaxed in the past, it therefore becomes unreliable or unbelievable, and tossed into the trash can.That negative belief seems to be applied to all of the evidence as well. For me It's Innocent until proven guilty! or in more relative terms - Reports are relevant until proven otherwise! You will never accomplish anything with a negative mindset. It's no wonder the state of affairs has become stagnant! I'm quite certain that we may well have overlooked reports and evidence that would have lead us to the promised land so to speak. It is such a simple process, Read and analyze the report, apply your knowledge to determine validity while weeding out inconsistencies, Use what you have found, if it makes sense to you at this point, then form your hypotheses and apply it to your research effort and move forward. You can then enjoy the satisfaction that due diligence has been done and then activate your plan. It really is simple. If you come to a report and read it only to dismiss it out of hand, and classify it as an interesting anecdote, you will get out of it what you put into it - Nothing! The statement that reports do not allow the scientific method to be applied comes up a lot, well no kidding Einstein! Reports are tools used to gather pertinent information for the research effort. What does a detective always do at a murder scene. He/She canvases the area for witnesses, take in every bit of information that is available, and then uses that information to identify suspects, build a case, ascertain motives, and mobilizes assets to search for and apprehend the suspect/s - Roughly the same process can be done on sightings reports, but for our purposes, just change the word suspect to Bigfoot Are sightings reports proof? of course not! If they were we would not be here on this forum, and this is where the USS Bigfoot ship runs aground! I think Dr. Meldrum said it best "The sheer amount of reports and the evidence certainly SUGGESTS that there is an undiscovered type of bi-pedal ape in our forest's and swamps! and I completely agree! Reports are an integral part of the research effort. Reports can be data mined for useful information and passed on to those in the field. A few examples of what can be gained - Trends, commonalities, behaviors, and here is the big one, Location, Location, Location! The credibility to a certain degree of the witness can be determined. It really does not take much to read a report and determine which pile to toss it on, the good pile or the trash pile. It also doesn't take much effort to differentiate the good reports from the BS reports. Here is an example - If you read a report that someone claims they saw a 25 ft. tall blue and yellow hairy creature knocking on their backdoor asking to borrow their checkerboard for family night back at the cave! Well it shouldn't be too hard to realize what pile to toss that one on. When will science becoming fully vested in the research? Not in our lifetime! and you are living in an alternate dimension if you think otherwise! Unfortunately much of the scientific community (at least some quarters of it) have made the distinction between the conduct of good science and the spirit of exploration. Anyone care to guess which of these two they practice these days Why won't the scientific community actively pursue the evidence to wherever it leads. The paragraph above certainly applies here, but for a more simple answer - They don't need to and why should they. They know there are plenty of lapdogs in the BF community that have heard their "Go Fetch" command. If you have Go-Fer's in your back pocket, you don't need to get your hands dirty! That way any failures will not fall in their laps, they will fall squarely in our laps. Until some of the geniuses in their own minds around here can find a way to change whose lap the crap falls in, we will continue to be the ones thrown under the bus. Exactly how that will happen is anybody's guess at this point. Here is another reason/example why BF research is not taken seriously - I was looking through the older threads and found a couple of them that almost made me spew my beer on my monitor! One thread was titled "Do Bigfoot's Kiss" No joke! another one asked "What do Bigfoot's think about us" I couldn't think of any reply other than - How the hell should I know, you'll need go ask a Bigfoot to get an answer for those questions! Come on, Really? And we wonder why people think we're all goofy. I am not going to bother addressing the Scofftic's and their wonderful demeanor, but I found a definition for Scofftic's that hit's the bullseye! Scofftics, which actually isn't a real word, but here is the the perfect definition by the Editor of a Skeptical website who is a P.G., EdM, and is also a geologist with a specialty in science and society and public outreach for science. A “Scofftic†is described as follows: “the programmed skeptic who is defined more by a pre-determined mindset than the results of any thoughtful probing of the evidenceâ€; “a cranky skepticâ€; one who displays “unhealthy skepticismâ€; “someone who…gives witness testimony no weight whatsoever, on ideological grounds, and who asserts numerous other bits of unreasonable dogma, such as that the quantity of reports is insignificantâ€; one who exhibits “fanaticism behind a pose of reasonableness†and who uses “fine print†and/or “qualifiers†when considering evidence. Sound like anyone you know? The position of Pro-Kill I do understand the reasoning behind it, but it just doesn't sit right with me. I definitely don't buy into the protection reasoning either. Why? well it should be obvious, they don't need it. Then what about protecting their habitat? Okay, does anyone really know what constitutes BF habitat with absolute certainty? didn't think so. When it comes to this topic we must deal with certainty, not speculation. For me personally, I have no desire for proof and would much rather see them left alone. Funny, they seem to want the same thing don't they. Why the big hurry? and no more tired old cliches either. That dog don't hunt no more! The terms ego and bragging rights come to mind during any discussion on Pro-Kill. It is a sad state of affairs to want to end the life of one these beings in order to satisfy one's curiosity under the guise of conservancy. I was curious if Dr. Meldrum's viewpoint on this issue had changed, so I emailed him my query and he replied the next day, and it hasn't changed at all. I do give credit to those that at least acknowledge their true motives. Although I don't agree with this mindset, I do respect your rights and beliefs on this issue. Here is his reply........ I have said that the conventions of zoological taxonomy require a type specimen as the basis of acknowledgement and naming of a new species. I have also been very clear that my objective in the field has been to secure tissue (hair, scat, blood, skin) for DNA analysis. While there is no precedent for recognizing a new species on the basis of DNA alone, there are those who advocate this in the case of rare and endangered species. Sasquatch would be an important test case in this regard. Jeff Meldrum, PhD Professor of Anatomy & Anthropology Dept. of Biological Sciences Idaho State University 921 S. 8th Ave., Stop 8007 Pocatello, ID 83209-8007 208-282-4379 I couldn't agree more! It is definitely time to set a new precedent for discovery through DNA. So in a nutshell for me, until there is some kind of monumental game changer found and implemented, and don't kid yourself because a game changer is exactly what is needed otherwise we will continue to chase our own tails until 2016. It will take nothing short of a miracle to solve this mystery and I doubt that most will live to see it happen. As for me, I am enjoying the chase because it is always better than the catch! Hey, did anybody see where I left my beer! Aha, never mind I found it. Hey Incorrigible, you may have already heard but the A-10 Warthog won't be going to bone yard after all. It was given the old last second reprieve by congress. I have a couple of videos of me in the Hog doing the engine start process and taxi, and I think I still have some gun camera footage as well. I just have to find where I put them. When I do, I'll shoot em over to you.
  14. I totally agree with both of you! My dogs are part of our family, so if anything or anyone hurts them - they will get hurt back! I would say you could ask an old neighbor of mine, but they moved away shortly after the incident! A plus to you ShadowBorn and to you as well ItsAsquatch!
  15. Hi Susi, Sorry it took so long to get back to you regarding your question. Yes I am aware that Coonbo had some scary encounters with BF's, and that some of his animals have been attacked and killed. I can understand your frustration of whether to be totally afraid of the BF's, be cautious of them, or continue to see them as being friendly forest giants. Those feelings are shaped by whatever personal encounters you have had with them, and even by the stories that you have heard or read about. I personally would suggest to err on the side of caution if you see or sense they are nearby. I don't think it is a stretch to say they are doing the same thing towards you when they see you. Using bears as an example (although they are not the same thing) I tend to be very cautious in an area where bears are known roam. They can be pretty unpredictable at times so extreme caution is most definitely called for. Not enough is known about BF behavior to state with any certainty whether or not they are always dangerous, sometimes dangerous depending on the situation, or not dangerous at all. I use the sometimes dangerous scenario when I am out in an area where they might be. This is the stance to CYA if they or it does become hostile to your presence. I used to have friends ask if saw anything moving on the ground that I was sure were the bad guys while flying Combat Air Patrol or patrolling a assigned Kill boxes in Iraq, and my answer was yes! until I could discern otherwise! There is an old saying that if your suspected target sees you coming and runs, they are the enemy! If they see you and do not run, they are a well disciplined enemy! The point here is be cautious of something that you have very little intelligence of. I mean intelligence in the militaristic sense! not your own personal intelligence! Just want to make that clear. As for the photo you posted above, I find it somewhat interesting even though it is unclear and a bit blurry. At first look it appears to be pretty tall if use the light pole behind it as a gauge. I can't say for sure since I don't what the height of the light pole is, or what the elevation of the ground the pole is mounted in is, but if the pole it is standing next to is the same in height and elevation, I would would have to guess that it is one tall critter standing there. I don't know what the width of the light pole is but it looks like it would take at least 3 poles to cover the chest area alone. I can't say for sure but the visible leg does seem to have the canine type shape and very large thigh. It seems to be slumped forward in stature as well and the arms outward to maintain balance while standing still. It would probably look similar when walking as well. Look up a video of a circus dog walking on it's hind legs and you'll get the picture. This is all conjecture on my part from what I see in the photo, you and others may see something quite different. In my previous career I had to judge things but what I was seeing through a sometimes clear canopy and my cockpit FLIR displays before bring the rain and the pain down on them. Lets just say that if I saw that in my FLIR and it was harassing a family in a nearby home, I would have unleashed some rain and pain down on that light pole!!