Bf Sightings By Wildlife Biologists

[Guest]

Dmaker, maybe a bit harsh ?

 

I don't know much about how BFRO investigates witness statements but you'd think checking out the guy to see if he is who he says he is should be somewhere at the top of "things to do". Otherwise what use is that organisation.

 

I did notice though that the report is anonymous.

 

ROD

[Guest]

Dmaker,

 

Since your default position on bigfoot is it doesn't exist because it doesn't exist, why on earth would we expect you to put any stock into ANY report?

[dmaker]

Fair enough point stinky, but just because you believe bigfoot does, or could, exist you turn a blind eye to obvious crap like this report? 

 

This report is ridiculous imo. "College level courses on bear"? Give me a break. What college offers undergraduate courses on "bear"? Let me tell you, none most likely. Also the follow up investigator has the usual BFRO credentials. Allow me to summarize:

 

So and so has been into bigfoot most of his/her life. So and so has attended 5 BFRO expeditions!  

 

And the results of their follow up investigation? They spent a night at the spot and found the night "eerily quiet".   That is some solid corroboration there, let me tell you.  So much science my head hurts...

 

 

This report should be tossed for the tripe that it is, instead it gets praised.   This is a classic example of how easy it is to get garbage into the BFRO database. 

 

It's shameful.

Edited May 14, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest keninsc]

That's the thing, a report needs to be based on what was seen and what happened. Granted, most sighting happen when people are usually least prepared to make the most of it. They go out, the last thing on their mind is a Bigfoot encounter and suddenly something happens, then all you have is what they say happened. That's simply all you have and that's what you have to go on. Then they say, "I'm a biologist" in an effort to make themselves sound more believable, but are they saying that to avoid being questioned or are they saying it to give you some of their background?

 

I'm an engineer, woodsman, hiker, former hunter, I have experience in wildlife in the wild, but that doesn't make me an expert and where Bigfoots are concerned then we have people with varying degrees of expertise. Now I do know the difference between most animals however, it's been my experience that animals don't always act the way we might expect them to and that can confuse us, and I include myself in that as well. I once encountered a fox making the most bizarre sounds I'd ever heard, had no idea what it was but managed to see it making the sounds and I couldn't believe it. A very high pitched squeal the like of which I've never heard before or since. Could I have been confused by it, hell I was, had no clue what it was but I managed to locate it and solve the mystery for myself. Now, have become frightened and left then who knows what images my mind might have filled in the blanks with over time. 

[NathanFooter]

 Dmaker, I will state it again just in case you missed it, I contacted the investigator and received verification that the person in the report is indeed a biologist as stated in the report.  The investigator visited with the witness several times both in and out of his place of work.

 

 Your deduction on the validity of the report is unfounded.

[dmaker]

You were there? And how did the investigator confirm the person was a biologist?  I'm still not buying it Nathan.

[NathanFooter]

 LOL, I was not there, I spoke with the investigator on some of the details, I do not want to get any more specific than saying that he works as the biologist for a large business witch was verified both by official records from the business, visitation at the work place while on the clock and in a personal meeting in his office.  

 

 The investigator did a fantastic job looking into the witnesses reputation and credentials.

Edited May 15, 2014 by NathanFooter

[Guest DWA]

Keninsc:  Nope.  You are seeing in my posts the application of scientific thinking.  You just haven't gotten the hang of doing that with this subject, thanks to preconceptions that are prohibiting you from getting where I am on it.  That simple.

[Guest keninsc]

Keninsc:  Nope.  You are seeing in my posts the application of scientific thinking.  You just haven't gotten the hang of doing that with this subject, thanks to preconceptions that are prohibiting you from getting where I am on it.  That simple.

 

Really? In what parallel universe?

 

And just for the record I hope and pray never to get where you are on this subject, just so we understand each other.

[Guest keninsc]

 LOL, I was not there, I spoke with the investigator on some of the details, I do not want to get any more specific than saying that he works as the biologist for a large business witch was verified both by official records from the business, visitation at the work place while on the clock and in a personal meeting in his office.  

 

 The investigator did a fantastic job looking into the witnesses reputation and credentials.

 

Ok Nat. you spoke to the investigator. Fantastic, that's better than about ninety percent of people, so kudos on that, however there's always more to it than meets the eye. Ok, let's say this person is a biologist, just for giggles, further, let's say this person is a "wildlife" biologist. What kind? There are more than just one kind. For instance Renae (can never remember how to spell her name) on "Finding Bigfoot" is a state certified field biologist complete with a degree and the whole nine yards, however her field is in fish, So if you want to know how the salmon are spawning, she's your go to girl......anything else and she's no more qualified than I am to comment. You see the point? Not only that but this person is a "zoo" biologist, or so they themselves said in the report. Not a field biologist and we still don't have a clue what their actual field of expertise is in, they might specialize in reptiles for all we know.

 

Wish you'd have thought to ask while you were conversing with them.

[BobbyO]

Surely that's missing the point though Ken ?

Surely the point is regarding the credibility of the witness, ie this be being a Wildlife Biologist ?

I may be wrong but I thought this specific report was just used as an example of the point the OP was trying to make.

Of course however, if it's just dismissed as completely made up and pure fabrication as some would undoubtedly think, then the fact that the witness was a Wildlife Biologist doesn't matter at all anyway.

With regards to the dmeister ( dmaker ), there really is no other option than " I don't believe this one because......) in his world, no matter what details or lack of details are in the report anyway.

There really is no point whatsoever in arguing or showing x or y to that mentality so don't drive yourself mad trying to do so people.

[NathanFooter]

 I did not feel comfortable asking for information that far into the mans specific field as that is nearing the borderline of breaking confidentiality and personal information agreements between the witness and the investigator, I take this matter very seriously when taking and investigating reports.

 

 I will say that no matter what field he is specifically focused in it would not make him an expert in Bigfoot, in the report he states that he has several degrees ranging from wildlife management to wildlife biology, he has taught college level courses on black bear, is an avid birdwatcher and wildlife photographer. If one has taught college level classes on black bear certainly one can tell the difference between a bear and a bigfoot in daylight at the location of the event. Also stated in the report is his habit of taking very long hikes into the area to photograph wildlife and various things in the forest.

 

 It is very plain that he has good knowledge of the wildlife in the area, in fact he states in the report that he is extremely knowledgeable about the wildlife in Florida.   This mans word certainly holds more value than the average persons when it comes species identification or exclusion.

 

 To narrow it down a bit further, what he seen was a biped that did not resemble a bear and was certainly not a person. I will add that there has been some mention in the past that chimps may be surviving in the Florida swamps so really we are left with either a massive chimp or a sasquatch.

[Guest keninsc]

Surely that's missing the point though Ken ?

Surely the point is regarding the credibility of the witness, ie this be being a Wildlife Biologist ?

I may be wrong but I thought this specific report was just used as an example of the point the OP was trying to make.

Of course however, if it's just dismissed as completely made up and pure fabrication as some would undoubtedly think, then the fact that the witness was a Wildlife Biologist doesn't matter at all anyway.

With regards to the dmeister ( dmaker ), there really is no other option than " I don't believe this one because......) in his world, no matter what details or lack of details are in the report anyway.

There really is no point whatsoever in arguing or showing x or y to that mentality so don't drive yourself mad trying to do so people.

 

Actually, that is the point. This is a report and should be taken on the merits of the report. My only issue is that for some reason this is being held up as being the "Holy Grail" of reports because this person was a biologist. It's not a matter of belief or disbelief, the report is the report and stands on it's own merits. Now had this person been a field biologist with a major in primates then I might well consider them to be a more informed witness than the average. Apparently, it's been verified this person is a biologist in a zoo, but we still don't know what field of expertise they have or if they have or what area they specialize. As I stated before they could be experts in reptiles for all we know.

 

Just because someone is a "biologist" is only a beginning. And after reading the report I really see nothing that give me a warm fuzzy about the manner in which they handled the encounter. They had a camera but took no pictures. They are a trained biologist but looked for no hair samples or any other things like footprints or spoor. So in this case I'd give the report the same consideration that I'd give a report taken from some guy who was out in the woods and had an encounter. Nothing more.

[NathanFooter]

 It certainly is not a ,, Holy Grail ,, among reports, I believe there is a few better ones out there, I shall find them and post them in the morning.

 

 I am not terribly surprised he did not have a detailed enough presence of mind to look for hair and or tracks, I am sure he was not sure if it would come back or if it was even still there in the brush. However, he did take a photo with his tripod for scale where it reentered the brush and sent in his report very quickly.

[Guest keninsc]

 I did not feel comfortable asking for information that far into the mans specific field as that is nearing the borderline of breaking confidentiality and personal information agreements between the witness and the investigator, I take this matter very seriously when taking and investigating reports.

 

 I will say that no matter what field he is specifically focused in it would not make him an expert in Bigfoot, in the report he states that he has several degrees ranging from wildlife management to wildlife biology, he has taught college level courses on black bear, is an avid birdwatcher and wildlife photographer. If one has taught college level classes on black bear certainly one can tell the difference between a bear and a bigfoot in daylight at the location of the event. Also stated in the report is his habit of taking very long hikes into the area to photograph wildlife and various things in the forest.

 

 It is very plain that he has good knowledge of the wildlife in the area, in fact he states in the report that he is extremely knowledgeable about the wildlife in Florida.   This mans word certainly holds more value than the average persons when it comes species identification or exclusion.

 

 To narrow it down a bit further, what he seen was a biped that did not resemble a bear and was certainly not a person. I will add that there has been some mention in the past that chimps may be surviving in the Florida swamps so really we are left with either a massive chimp or a sasquatch.

That is true, Florida does have a wild introduced population of various wild apes that have gotten loose due to hurricanes and neglectful owners, pythons, anacondas and various lizards as well, so while it might not have been a bear, it could have been one of these.

 

As I have stated before, I would consider the report on it's own merits because I don't know the exact back ground of the person, however if they are making the claim about their back ground then they have opened the door to broaching the subject in greater detail. It's like asking a follow up question when something is revealed by a previous statement at a press conference. I'm not going to ignore the fact that this person does get out in the wildness not am I going to discount their back ground, but by the same token I'm not going to hold it up as some super-duper revelation come from the Gods themselves. 

 

The thing that really sort of bothers me about this is that this person made little effort to do anything to gather more data, take a picture, find some hair or footprints and then they claim to be a biologist. It stands to reason that would be paramount in their mind, "I have to get proof." Only they didn't, and that is telling, because this person is supposed to be trained and educated in the scientific method and know the need for proof and unless they have been living under a rock for the last forty years, they should know that proof positive evidence that a Bigfoot was real would send their career into the stratosphere. Only, they just didn't do any of that.........you starting to see the point? 

 

Yes, I will give it due consideration, but the more I think about and the more you keep telling me leads me the think this person didn't have a clue to have been the so called expert that I am being asked to believe they are. Sadly, I have known engineers who could no more design their way out of a wet paper sack than some kid fresh out of a high school shop class......in fact, the kid might have more of an advantage because they're hands on. It's just the more I hear about this person the less I find them to be a reliable witness.

 It certainly is not a ,, Holy Grail ,, among reports, I believe there is a few better ones out there, I shall find them and post them in the morning.

 

 I am not terribly surprised he did not have a detailed enough presence of mind to look for hair and or tracks, I am sure he was not sure if it would come back or if it was even still there in the brush. However, he did take a photo with his tripod for scale where it reentered the brush and sent in his report very quickly.

 But the whole crux of this was that this person was a "BIOLOGIST", and as Iu just stated the more I learn from you about this person the less impressed I am with them and their report.