• Announcements

    • masterbarber

      T shirt fund drive   07/17/2018

      norseman has designed a t shirt and started a fund drive on custom ink. He is going to split the proceeds between the BFF and Project Grendel.  "We all owe this website a tremendous debt of gratitude. Our community and history would not exist without it. As far as the Project Grendel proceeds, I would like to see it go towards the purchase of a thermal scope."
      -norseman     https://www.customink.com/fundraising/sasquatch-hunter
hiflier

A Plan For Presenting Sasquatch To Science

303 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, SweatyYeti said:

that alone provides "good reason" for a close examination of the evidence

 

But they need evidence for that. The PGF and footprint casts are not testable evidence.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Hiflier I may have you confused with another poster. Did you not publish a book or field guide on Sasquatch some time ago?

 

Correct.

 

3 hours ago, Rockape said:

Seems to me he's saying he's going to ask them about bigfoot without asking them about bigfoot. Not sure how that works but good luck.

 

Correct. And thanks.

 

2 hours ago, dmaker said:

Not giving all the relevant information seems to you to be a decent approach?

 

Correct.

 

2 hours ago, dmaker said:

You think that somehow withholding circumstances and context will help you piece together some pro-bigfoot conclusion that you have so obviously already reached?

 

Incorrect.

 

2 hours ago, dmaker said:

That does not seem exactly above board or fair.

 

That is because you don't understand the end goal (not my fault). Let's put it into perspective. Eye rolling and snickering by the media. Fair? 1,000 books on Sasquatch/Bigfoot with no answers. Fair? Decades of conferences and speakers with no answers. Fair? A government that will not say, "No Sasquatch", Bigfoot authors are a farce, and conferences are a waste of time and money" Fair? Blobsquatches. Fair? Hoaxing. Fair?

 

BUT I go and correspond with scientists on details like a tooth, get a scientific response, and it isn't somehow fair because I didn't mention Bigfoot? The tooth is/was real. I wanted to find out whether or not it was Human thinking it might be related to another real fossil find. That inquiry might have come back with, "Gee, it looks Human but it sure is big". If that had happened then, after some additional back and forth, I would have opened up the unthinkable. But it didn't go that way sooooooo.....why would I? 

 

IDK, sounds pretty fair to me when stacked up against most of the items listed in the first paragraph.

  

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

43 minutes ago, Rockape said:

 

The PGF and footprint casts are not testable evidence.

 

 

The Patterson Film is very testable. Just look at a person wearing a suit...and the differences are easy to see.  :) 

 

Even hard-core skeptics can see the difference. That's why they have nothing to say, about them. See? ;) 

 

But, nonetheless....all that is needed, for something to qualify as "evidence".....is some degree of probability of the proposition being true. 'Proof' is not required, for something to be considered 'evidence'. 

 

And....(the point I made, in my previous post).... considering that this proposition involves potential "humanity".....even a small degree of probability is all that should be needed, in order for people to make the effort to search...and to further analyze the evidence. 

Edited by SweatyYeti
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dmaker said:

Not giving all the relevant information seems to you to be a decent approach? You think that somehow withholding circumstances and context will help you piece together some pro-bigfoot conclusion that you have so obviously already reached?

 

That does not seem exactly above board or fair. 

 

 

 

 

 I did that with the USFW. I asked them if I needed a permit or anything to go looking for a new species. They were dumbfounded at first. 

 

Basically the answer I got back was that I could either buy a tag and license in the state I was in for game species. Or I could buy a permit to study existing species if I was an accredited scientist on USFW lands. There was nothing in between.

 

I was also shocked to discover that they do not administer BLM or USFS lands. It would seem each Federal agency had its own bureaucratic process of hoops to jump through. Or it was left to the state.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hiflier said:

A government that will not say, "No Sasquatch",

Why would you expect the government to weigh in on sasquatch?

8 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

Just look at a person wearing a suit...and the differences are easy to see

That sounds highly subjective. Not the best start for something that is supposed to be testable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

41 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Why would you expect the government to weigh in on sasquatch?

 

Stop the game playing, I expect nothing. Besides, why would it not weigh in?

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Why would it weigh in? What would compel the government to declare that bigfoot does not exist? I really don't understand that line of thinking and that expectation. Do you expect the government to declare the non existence of everything that is lacking in proof but not believers? That would be a long laundry list of proclamations. And to what point? 

 

That is just silly. 

 

And besides, statements of non existence are not, technically speaking, strictly scientific. There is certainly no reason to think bigfoot exists, given the lack of bigfoot evidence, but that does not mean that 0.01% chance cannot be proven true some day. Highly unlikely, sure, but what is the point of the government declaring non existence? Besides, conspiracy theory enthusiasts would just shake their pitchfork and say the gubmint was trying to hide the existence by declaring non existence. 

 

Ridiculous.

 

Edited by dmaker
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What a load of whining worthless rubbish. Meaningless babble. Assumptions, speculations, projections, and opinions. Why no positive suggestions on how to address the Sasquatch issue? Why no positive suggestions on how to deal with academia? Why no positive suggestions on how to talk respectfully to members of this Forum? Why always a stick in the eye? Sad. 

 

Nope. Not you. Slash and burn, poke holes in people's character, belittle their efforts, twist words, and generally run an negative agenda that consists of little more than outright criticism. Lose the chip off your shoulder and talk like an adult instead of a member of a grade school debate team. You couldn't pry information out of me so now you try to insult me by instituting your typical attempts at poking holes in my integrity. Good luck with that :) 

 

And that's the last word you will get from me.

 

I would also like to know why the title of this thread was changed.  

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norseman...I would have guessed there is no permit or license needed to go on public land and observe, as long as you are employing LNT principles and not running afoul of any other regs.  For instance, can I erect a permanent structure on public lands for this purpose? Well, no, you can't, regardless of the purpose. Can I take my off-road vehicle across open country and disrupt breeding areas of game animals, if I'm looking for evidence of a new species? Again, no, not for any purpose.   So what they were telling you, I think was, "Have at it".    (This leaves aside the possibility of some wanting to run a paying "guide" service on public lands. I recall that has been discussed here a time or two, and that is a whole different kettle of fish).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dmaker said:

Why would it weigh in? What would compel the government to declare that bigfoot does not exist?

Highly unlikely, sure, but what is the point of the government declaring non existence?

 

How about to avoid frivolous lawsuits that tie up our judicial system resources and taxpayer money?
 

Seems to me a fine reason to declare it non-existent.  

 

p-

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly, Cotter. Frivolous lawsuits can be filed for just about anything. 

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

What a load of whining worthless rubbish. Meaningless babble. Assumptions, speculations, projections, and opinions. Why no positive suggestions on how to address the Sasquatch issue? Why no positive suggestions on how to deal with academia? Why no positive suggestions on how to talk respectfully to members of this Forum? Why always a stick in the eye? Sad. 

 

Nope. Not you. Slash and burn, poke holes in people's character, belittle their efforts, twist words, and generally run an negative agenda that consists of little more than outright criticism. Lose the chip off your shoulder and talk like an adult instead of a member of a grade school debate team. You couldn't pry information out of me so now you try to insult me by instituting your typical attempts at poking holes in my integrity. Good luck with that :) 

 

And that's the last word you will get from me.

 

I would also like to know why the title of this thread was changed.  

Not sure where you read so much ill intent in my post. But I guess blustering and raging is better than answering my question as to why, exactly, do you think the government should feel obligated to make a pronouncement about sasquatch?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Cotter said:

How about to avoid frivolous lawsuits that tie up our judicial system resources and taxpayer money?
 

Seems to me a fine reason to declare it non-existent.

 

Indeed it is. To actually officially state that Sasquatch does not exist would be a dangerously huge mistake. It would force the government to address and investigate ALL things, and all things even related to, Sasquatch. The burden of proving non-existence would be upon it which would mean giving science the opportunity to thoroughly research the subject in its entirety including every tiny morsel of the PGF with expert analysis demanded. The amount of time would be astronomical and the amount of dollars in the millions of dollars.

 

Field work, current interviews with people that have claimed sightings right up to the present, the search in ALL records under the purview of the DOI, FS, F&W, Park Service, BLM, military base records, and anything else to support the government's claim of non-existence- everything would have to looked at and publicly revealed- even to include investigating the Oregon nest site and doing and funding any and all DNA testing. It would be a nightmare for them to ever go on record saying Sasquatch does not exist- even if it does not ;) 

 

This is everything that I saw as a possibility in the San Bernardino Bigfoot lawsuit initially filed by Claudia Ackley. And, boy, did I get a lot of flak in THAT thread LOL. To which there are no updates since March that I have been able to find.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 minutes ago, hiflier said:

To actually officially state that Sasquatch does not exist would be a dangerously huge mistake. It would force the government to address and investigate ALL things, and all things even related to, Sasquatch. The burden of proving non-existence would be upon it which would mean giving science the opportunity to thoroughly research the subject in its entirety including every tiny morsel of the PGF with expert analysis demanded.

It would be nice if just once you actually knew what you were talking about. 

 

The best the government, or anyone, could do is to say that based on the current evidence, they do not believe bigfoot exists. That's it. You are never going to get a non existence proclamation so that you can bait the government into some childish "prove it" trap. 

 

Grow up.

 

Edited by dmaker
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dmaker said:

It would be nice if just once you actually knew what you were talking about. 

 

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

Why always a stick in the eye? Sad

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WSA said:

Norseman...I would have guessed there is no permit or license needed to go on public land and observe, as long as you are employing LNT principles and not running afoul of any other regs.  For instance, can I erect a permanent structure on public lands for this purpose? Well, no, you can't, regardless of the purpose. Can I take my off-road vehicle across open country and disrupt breeding areas of game animals, if I'm looking for evidence of a new species? Again, no, not for any purpose.   So what they were telling you, I think was, "Have at it".    (This leaves aside the possibility of some wanting to run a paying "guide" service on public lands. I recall that has been discussed here a time or two, and that is a whole different kettle of fish).

 

What I got from it was that while on BLM or FS ground your going to contend with a state game warden..... On USFW ground then you would face them, except for endangered species, that falls under their purview.

43 minutes ago, dmaker said:

It would be nice if just once you actually knew what you were talking about. 

 

The best the government, or anyone, could do is to say that based on the current evidence, they do not believe bigfoot exists. That's it. You are never going to get a non existence proclamation so that you can bait the government into some childish "prove it" trap. 

 

Grow up.

 

 

Do you speak for all of academia?

 

While I agree with your sentiments about how science views this subject. I also support Hiflier’s right to petition his government and/or scientists.

 

Thats not childish..... that is the right of a taxpayer.

 

He is fishing....and no matter how unlikely he may catch a fish. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites