Guest Crowlogic Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 What you also have to understand is the hunt organizer had little if any scientific motive for this event. He conveyed to me/us the body was to be offered for sale to local timber companies (GP & Weyerheuser had facilities in the area) for seven figures of cash and a NDA. Wow another amazing bigfoot story. Another big secret that nobody can be told. Oh come on why the heck would a timber company want a dead biogfoot body in the first place? What were they going to do with it? But that's just the tip of the bigfoot toe so to speak. Let's see there were blood samples analyzed and nobody was ever told what it was and conveniently it disappeared with the hunt leader. Exactly how gullible is a thinking person supposed to be and exactly how gullible is a bigfoot proponent supposed to be? A bit of a history lesson is in order. All a person has to do is sift through a couple of dozen hair/blood and tissue stories to know that the sample comes back negative/unknown or most likely disappears mysteriously. It would be one thing if this type of stuff was brand new but it's not . It's old and getting older. There is truly a circular argument about bigfoot until you step off of the bigfoot merry go round. Once off the it's not too difficult to appreciate the mechanics of that merry go round. There's a type of brinkmanship concerning evidence. Acquire/create evidence and create a stir with it without ever having to deliver the goods. It keeps the game going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Crow, I understand your disillusionment and have been in such a camp since ~2004 as this merry-go-round has now evolved to cable TV as the profit motivations continue to amp up. I was furnishing a historical context (previous posts) in response to requests for such information. Personally, the day these entities are "discovered" will be the beginning of their demise as one has only to look to NA history for a baseline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Crowlogic...btw, did you know also that there is no definition of "gullible" in the Webster's dictionary? True, although amazing it is to realize that. But, on that same point, from a different direction, some attention needs to be paid to discern good evidence from the bad. What I see happening most often is people lose the enthusiasm for the effort, for whatever reason. This is not the fault of the evidence, although it frequently takes the fall. Signal vs. noise. Always a necessary triage to have to make. Those who rely exclusively on others' interpretation of Websters have the most difficulty with this, and then they swing way too far in the other direction. A body can self-induce whiplash if they aren't careful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Crow, I understand your disillusionment and have been in such a camp since ~2004 as this merry-go-round has now evolved to cable TV as the profit motivations continue to amp up. I was furnishing a historical context (previous posts) in response to requests for such information. Personally, the day these entities are "discovered" will be the beginning of their demise as one has only to look to NA history for a baseline. If it exists and one is eventually brought in all that's going to be discovered is it's genetic makeup and where it fits in the tree of life. If it's dead few of it's habits will be known and it will remain as elusive as ever. Having bagged one does not mean a second third or tenth will be brought in. So far there is no reliable system of knowing where the animal will appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) A bit of a history lesson is in order. All a person has to do is sift through a couple of dozen hair/blood and tissue stories to know that the sample comes back negative/unknown or most likely disappears mysteriously. It would be one thing if this type of stuff was brand new but it's not . It's old and getting older. Right. Gets very old when people continually say 'this can't exist so we will pretend it doesn't.' Very old, in fact, and for a scientist, dereliction of duty. There is truly a circular argument about bigfoot until you step off of the bigfoot merry go round. Once off the it's not too difficult to appreciate the mechanics of that merry go round. There's a type of brinkmanship concerning evidence. Acquire/create evidence and create a stir with it without ever having to deliver the goods. It keeps the game going. The way to avoid the circular argument is to assess the evidence. This is unfortunately not the way most of the people talking about this topic choose to go; it's too booooo-rriiiiiing for them. But in science it is the only way to go. Those of us who know the way through the maze defuse the latest stir within about a minute or so, and go on assessing the live evidence. The stir is not where the game is. But people who don't understand much about animals or the outdoors can't see this. They're trained to view this as a circus. The circus has nothing to do with what's really happening with the animal. Less than nothing. Crowlogic...btw, did you know also that there is no definition of "gullible" in the Webster's dictionary? True, although amazing it is to realize that. But, on that same point, from a different direction, some attention needs to be paid to discern good evidence from the bad. What I see happening most often is people lose the enthusiasm for the effort, for whatever reason. This is not the fault of the evidence, although it frequently takes the fall. Signal vs. noise. Always a necessary triage to have to make. Those who rely exclusively on others' interpretation of Websters have the most difficulty with this, and then they swing way too far in the other direction. A body can self-induce whiplash if they aren't careful. What I see, waaaaaayyy too often, is one of two things: 1) A Disgruntled True Believer who didn't get instant gratification and who doesn't understand how to assess evidence; and 2) People who are Just So Sure This is Crap that they can't be bothered. Not getting anywhere that way. Edited March 16, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 The shooter's defense might have problems because of that. If you intend to shoot one you best provoke it first, at least that way you can claim self defense. Naw... anyone willing to kill something they don't know what is, will have no problem just killing it then lie on the witness stand to protect themselves anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 That's quite an insinuation there, Guy, backhandedly implying pro-kill BFF members are inherently liars. Bravo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 DWA : It is a fallacy to say that people who reject bigfoot haven't assessed the evidence. The evidence does get assessed. I've been assessing the evidence once again for the past several weeks. I haven't seen anything that drew me to the edge of the chair and lead me to scream holy cow. Once again where is this great evidence? It's not in the people filling the town hall meetings on Finding Bigfoot. It's not in the sketchy videos and photos. It's not even in the cutting edge of DNA analysis. It's not with Tod Standing and it's not in any of the presentations I've seen. Perhaps I need the secret handshake to get the real good stuff? But it doesn't stop there. The great evidence isn't showing up from the habitation locations. If anything habitation is the Rolls Royce of non disclosure. It's a fabulously grand thing to say in the bigfoot world that a person is in regular predictable touch with the beast. Yet not surprisingly to me it's all word play, not even a fish story. At least with a fish story you can go to the lake and actually see or catch real fish. I don't associate with bigfoot people since I'm not is a suitable region. But I do ferret out the evidence that is available and unless I am wrong what the interested person can find is not much different than the "good evidence" I suspect. Is there anything good enough for a critical thinking scientist to mount an expedition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 No.... not at all back handed or implying. Just a simple statement that if a person can suspend moral judgement to act in a way which is in itself potentially lacking in good moral judgement, it's merely a hop-skip-and-a-jump to protecting ones self in a court of law out of fear of the legal consequences. It's actually quite understandable... but to my knowledge, no one here has done that, have they? I've accused no one here of such behavior. If you believe I have, please hit that report button ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 That's quite an insinuation there, Guy, backhandedly implying pro-kill BFF members are inherently liars. Bravo. I think it goes way beyond that, they are actually calling us murderers first and foremost. If the mountain gorilla was still undiscovered? They would be extinct today...... Instead conservancy agencies and the government draw world attention to the plight of the mountain gorilla, and in pours money and support. So if your for Sasquatch remaining a myth? Who is really the murderer here? And not just one individual but a whole species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 So if your for Sasquatch remaining a myth? Who is really the murderer here? And not just one individual but a whole species. What an extraordinary leap in hyperbole and logic... but if rationalization and justification helps you cope with your plans to kill something unnecessarily, bless you. Now back to the topic of Sasquatch Science in 2015. It's likely to be a very slow year given that the field has learned so little from it's past. (That's an observation with opinion.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) Leap? Ask any biologist if a Grizzly Bear is better under the endangered species act or without!!! In fact with no species recognition and scientific study we cannot even have a educated discussion about it. Numbers? habitat? Breeding pairs? Health? Threats? All we can do at this point is take someone's word on it that they are doing fine cuz they heard wood knocks last Saturday. If that gives you warm and fuzzies? Have at it. What's going to happen in 2015? Well if the consensus is that the creature should remain undiscovered and left to its own devices for survival? Who cares right? Edited March 16, 2015 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Really? Grizzly bears have a reputation of being bad for humans as does the wolf. Been a while since I've heard of a UHS stalking, killing and eating a homo sapien. Your analogies are exceeded only by your leaps in logic. However, you aren't the first pro-killer to initiate a reactionary response when asked pointed questions of challenged to think in a non-linear fashion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 The wolf? I think there is only one case in the history of North America of human predation. But not the issue at hand.......as we are not discussing "danger" to humans. We are discussing what is good for the species as a whole. My stance is squarely on a scientific foundation while yours is based in knee jerk reaction ism. I suggest we move this party to my other thread titled "collection of voucher specimen". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 The wolf? I think there is only one case in the history of North America of human predation. But not the issue at hand.......as we are not discussing "danger" to humans. We are discussing what is good for the species as a whole. My stance is squarely on a scientific foundation while yours is based in knee jerk reaction ism. I suggest we move this party to my other thread titled "collection of voucher specimen". And, exactly how many "scientists" are there, now out in the woods trying to kill one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts