Guest Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 That is the annoying thought. When or if the species is discovered it'll be the folks who have done all the hard work that will be pushed aside while those who scoffed or ignored will come to the forefront and take over. That sucks monkey nuts. what if the discovery happens by accident? Like a Bigfoot being hit by a truck or hikers finding a random dead BF. Caring about getting credit probably isn't important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted December 30, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted December 30, 2014 As far as if BF habitat stays open or is closed, unfortunately our present executive government seems to like to emulate the "enlightened ones" that live off shore. China has already established a reserve for their version of BF. Entry requires government approval. We have designated wilderness areas that have all kinds of restrictions. What may happen, might depend on who is President and running the show when existence is proven. Money talks. Forest products companies are the big player there but they seem to be loosing influence due to environmental issues. Again that depends on the current administration policies and leanings. State and Federal forests are treated differently. State Forests in Washington State are being heavily logged and destroying my close research area as a result. Federal Forest logging is at an all time low due to environmental interests. There are a lot of factors at play. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 we've never even founda dead one. I doubt they'll be closing the forests for their protection. Seems like they are doing fine on their own... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 (edited) what if the discovery happens by accident? Like a Bigfoot being hit by a truck or hikers finding a random dead BF. Caring about getting credit probably isn't important. I would suggest that if a sasquatch was found in such and such an area the 'professionals' (who previously scoffed or ignored) would step in and take over and everyone in the public will be listening to them and the amateurs off on weekend hunts will fade even more into the background than before. Grover Krantz made that point years ago and I agree with him. They will not close off habitat to recreation. Hmm not so sure myself, with regards to the actual location the creature was found at least. It would be a MASSIVE thing. That much I do know. The likes of which we have not seen yet. It's not an owl or a woodpecker, nor a known quantity like a bear. I would assume one of the first things professional science and forest officials 'may' have to establish are the behaviour patterns and how much of a threat/danger they pose to recreational visitors. Maybe the officials might even get out their lists of missing people in National Parks and see if there is a correlation. Its going to be a major major thing. I'm not confident in predicting what will or wont happen, except I do know those who scoffed or ignored will be the ones taking over. Edited December 31, 2014 by Neanderfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted December 31, 2014 Author Share Posted December 31, 2014 Just listening to a M.K. DAVIS interview where he describes the Patty situation as a massacre, has that been tackled on these forums? Supposedly another film existed that showed 5 or so creatures that had been hunted down by dogs and horses and killed, rendered, buried, and that Patty was actually returning to find her young, but the young was among the dead, then subsequently, perhaps even at the time of the film Patty was also killed. Well I had not heard this version of the events till now, or had dismissed it without hearing the possible evidence. So as far as such a claim, how do you make such a claim without having the evidence in hand? If M.K. wanted to believe such it is his choice, I find it difficult to entertain such conspiracies that surround most everything we think we know as fact. The Kennedy assassination is one exception, that smells of conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 They seem extremely difficult to locate. I can't imagine th I would suggest that if a sasquatch was found in such and such an area the 'professionals' (who previously scoffed or ignored) would step in and take over and everyone in the public will be listening to them and the amateurs off on weekend hunts will fade even more into the background than before. Grover Krantz made that point years ago and I agree with him. . I would expect that as well. I can't see anything wrong though. Just listening to a M.K. DAVIS interview where he describes the Patty situation as a massacre, has that been tackled on these forums? Supposedly another film existed that showed 5 or so creatures that had been hunted down by dogs and horses and killed, rendered, buried, and that Patty was actually returning to find her young, but the young was among the dead, then subsequently, perhaps even at the time of the film Patty was also killed. Well I had not heard this version of the events till now, or had dismissed it without hearing the possible evidence. So as far as such a claim, how do you make such a claim without having the evidence in hand? If M.K. wanted to believe such it is his choice, I find it difficult to entertain such conspiracies that surround most everything we think we know as fact. The Kennedy assassination is one exception, that smells of conspiracy. it's been discussed That's an insane story with no supporting evidence from what I can tell. How can we blame anyone for not wanting to seriously study the subject of BF when it's full of such outlandish claims? *cue DWA post I will have to ignore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 So as far as such a claim, how do you make such a claim without having the evidence in hand? Isn't that the bottom line to a LOT of the bull that's thrown around in bigfooting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted December 31, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted December 31, 2014 we've never even founda dead one. I doubt they'll be closing the forests for their protection. Seems like they are doing fine on their own... How do you know that we have not found a dead one? I have read several witness reports that indicate the contrary. Mt. St Helens eruption, forest fire in Oregon, one hit and killed by a large truck in Montana. In every case some government agency arrived, picked up the body, and hauled it off. If one of these cases is true your statement is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 How do you know that we have not found a dead one? I have read several witness reports that indicate the contrary. Mt. St Helens eruption, forest fire in Oregon, one hit and killed by a large truck in Montana. In every case some government agency arrived, picked up the body, and hauled it off. Which makes it nothing more than urban legend. If one of these cases is true your statement is false. In the absence of fact, it remains true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 (edited) Wrong; and a real problem in this field. Come on guys. In the absence of proof acceptable to the society, those cases remain unaddressed. If they happened, they are true regardless what anyone thinks. Don't feel too bad, though. Most scientists don't seem to understand this either. Edited December 31, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 My reading retention use-by date gets shorter every year, but I recall that Bill Munns discredited M.K. Davis' theory in about two sentences in his recent book, "When Roger Met Patty." To that extent, maybe it does not even get dignified with the "unaddressed" label? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 I would suggest that if a sasquatch was found in such and such an area the 'professionals' (who previously scoffed or ignored) would step in and take over and everyone in the public will be listening to them and the amateurs off on weekend hunts will fade even more into the background than before. Grover Krantz made that point years ago and I agree with him. Hmm not so sure myself, with regards to the actual location the creature was found at least. It would be a MASSIVE thing. That much I do know. The likes of which we have not seen yet. It's not an owl or a woodpecker, nor a known quantity like a bear. I would assume one of the first things professional science and forest officials 'may' have to establish are the behaviour patterns and how much of a threat/danger they pose to recreational visitors. Maybe the officials might even get out their lists of missing people in National Parks and see if there is a correlation. Its going to be a major major thing. I'm not confident in predicting what will or wont happen, except I do know those who scoffed or ignored will be the ones taking over. Why is it any different than Grizzly bear habitat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 (edited) good point I'm guessing the answer would be: They are closer to human-like or extremely endangered. How do you know that we have not found a dead one? I have read several witness reports that indicate the contrary. Mt. St Helens eruption, forest fire in Oregon, one hit and killed by a large truck in Montana. In every case some government agency arrived, picked up the body, and hauled it off. If one of these cases is true your statement is false.we're at an impasse with this. I'm not buying into the govt conspiracy idea but this debate doesn't ever work. Edited December 31, 2014 by mbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted December 31, 2014 Author Share Posted December 31, 2014 (edited) WSA, I just got my Kindle Version of "When Roger Met Patty" and in the intro he describes M.K.s diversion into tabloid sensationalism, well that is certainly what is lacking in this field or community, he throws Roger and Bob under the bus, and John Green for that matter, and then produces little more than recollections as evidence to substantiate such claims, well that is not science, research, or anything of the kind. We can be grateful for someone like Bill Munn's to set the story straight! Edited December 31, 2014 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Wrong; and a real problem in this field. Come on guys. In the absence of proof acceptable to the society, those cases remain unaddressed. If they happened, they are true regardless what anyone thinks. Don't feel too bad, though. Most scientists don't seem to understand this either. If they happened, they are true regardless what anyone thinks? This statement means nothing. I could say "If they didn't happen, they are untrue regardless what anyone thinks", and be just as captain obvious. The 800 lbs gorilla in the room is the first word "IF"! Is there any collaborating evidence short of a body? Is there evidence of a government cover up as in the Dennis Martin case? Anyhow we cannot just make blanket statements about things, we need to dig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts