hiflier

It's Time to confront zoologists and anthropologists WRT our Hairy Friend

167 posts in this topic

Should we petition our governments to pronounce the Tooth Fairy fake?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

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

 

It's really not because at the end of the day it could still simply be a well made suit.

 

That no one has been able to duplicate it is pretty strong evidence it's not a guy in a suit, but the best that would get you is convincing a scientist to look into it further. That has what has kept me open minded about it but science is more demanding. I don't believe you can get a consensus of scientist to sign off on it being proof or even solid evidence.

 

Sasquatch is such a polarizing subject that it is going to require DNA evidence of an unknown species for science to take it seriously.

 

I would like to see a well accredited study of the possibility Sasquatch does exist, but in my opinion if these creatures actually exist they are the rarest of the rare and it is literally trying to find a needle in a haystack. It would require at least a decade of committed research save someone getting lucky and a dedication to thorough, stringent attempts to study and search for evidence that would provide proof. It would require a great deal of money and unfortunately most research facilities, be they public or private, have limited funds to devote to any efforts.

 

Hiflier seems to be saying he is attempting to find someone with said interest who would use funds to undertake such a study. Good luck to him but I find it highly doubtful with what we have available to convince anyone to take the bait.

14 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Should we petition our governments to pronounce the Tooth Fairy fake?

 

I get your point Dmaker but you are attacking a strawman. As far as I know, no one has ever claimed to see the Tooth Fairy or presented film, footprints, etc. Be they worthless or not there has been actual evidence presented for the existence of BF. That you put it in the same category as the Tooth fairy does not negate the possibility BF actually exists.

0

Share this post


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

Should we petition our governments to pronounce the Tooth Fairy fake?

 

It is your right as a tax payer. They work for you. Your hard earned dollars pays for their existence, and grants for universities as well.

 

Well....you are a subject of the crown. Im not sure how that works for you? 

 

Either way? Academia not willing to address “stupid” questions by the very layman who pay for their existence? Is wrong. Yes? Even if its a cordial letter explaining why the Tooth Fairy doesnt exist..... 

 

I dont know if you have noticed Dmaker, but humans as a whole are a very superstitious lot. The human mind is superb at filling in the blanks of knowledge with fanciful myths and legends. Its just that sometimes? Those myths and legends are based on real observations of creatures unknown to western science. Ebu Gogo = Hobbit. Even Gorillas were a myth at one point. 

 

There is no harm in what Hiflier is doing. Even if I do not believe its going to add up to much.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

41 minutes ago, Rockape said:

Hiflier seems to be saying he is attempting to find someone with said interest who would use funds to undertake such a study.

 

My goals are actually way short of that. I actually have little if any hope of that ever happening. I am just looking for someone to clear up some details that I have had questions about. Because that is my more immediate intent I have been able to pretty much close the book on the supposed Meganthropus tooth. That thread was left dangling over a year ago and was one of those things that I thought needed resolution. I am 95% OK with the outcome but it is always good practice to seek a second opinion.

 

It was good for me to settle this issue and I think anyone who was around and reading that thread more than likely would have liked a definitive answer as well. Just leaving things hanging in the Bigfoot camp is not a proper way to conduct research. Got a question? Have an unknown? As adults the right thing to do is just go get an answer. That's what I did. Period. So what if it wasn't Sasquatch, so what if it wasn't 130,000 years old and got linked to that era of suspected hominid presence. What mattered was getting an answer to who or what that tooth belonged to. The only way to do that was to present the tooth. JUST THE TOOTH and nothing else. I knew the tooth would stand on its own and did not need me to show bias about anything. It stood on its own and was evaluated without context or me leading the scientist who evaluated it.

 

I brought up how it was found and where it was found and that was it. There is no other way to do this kind of thing. If whatever detail is presented cannot hold up being the only focus, without adding something else to it, then one is presenting the wrong kind of evidence. Sometimes evidence thought to be one thing turns out to be something else entirely. The only way to find out it to get the question out there.

 

I did it with a Moon mystery that I had a question about (no resolution) and I did it with a supposed UFO/aircraft collision mystery (resolved!). Why WOULDN'T someone seek answers to their questions from professional scientists? Truth is, people do it all the time.     

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, norseman said:

There is no harm in what Hiflier is doing. Even if I do not believe its going to add up to much.

There is nothing wrong with approaching scientists and asking questions. Bemoaning the fact that your government has not pronounced on the existence of bigfoot is just ridiculous. Why anyone would think such a thing should even have happened is beyond me. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You seem to be attacking strawmen again Dmaker. I don't believe anyone is saying the government should or should not make a statement on the existence of bigfoot. Norse is merely making the point it is the right of a citizen to petition the government to do so, if they wish.

 

I've had some time to read through the thread and have a better understanding of what hiflier is doing. I think it's quite brilliant and not dishonest at all. Take the supposed Meganthropus tooth, he merely inquired as to an opinion about it from an expert as to what animal it came from. Certainly nothing wrong with that.

Edited by Rockape
1

Share this post


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

There is nothing wrong with approaching scientists and asking questions. Bemoaning the fact that your government has not pronounced on the existence of bigfoot is just ridiculous. Why anyone would think such a thing should even have happened is beyond me. 

 

As a pro kill proponent I agree whole heartedly. We need physical proof. Nothing less will resolve anything.

 

But I will say that shady stuff happens with the USFW and Washington state fish and game. Its political. So if they play politics with Gizzly bears, Wolves and Cougars? I cannot say that it would not play out with a undocumented species..... Especially something like Bigfoot. 

 

Lets just say for the sake of argument that Bigfoot exists and the government is hiding their knowledge of its existence. Why would they do that? (Not saying they are mind you) How would the government tell people that there is a species of giant ape men living in our nations forests that they have no control over? I think that it would be problematic. Really no different than if we still had wild Indians still roaming our forests, that they had no control over. Governments generally do not like to admit they do not have control over things. And instead of admitting there is a problem, they tend to sweep it under the rug.......

 

I think there is some bizarre stuff in the 411 books. Im not saying its Gingantopethicus come to life. But wild humans? Something on two legs and opposable thumbs? Something that packs stolen children over their shoulder? Dunno.

 

I had a buddy who was a SERE instructor for the USAF. He swore they had “wolf people” in thier AO. (Tacoma creek survival school) I scoffed at him and told him I did not believe in Werewolves. He adamantly countered that they were just crazy feral people who acted like Wolves. And that they would find barefoot prints in snow in the dead of winter. 

 

Mick Dodge dons Bigfoot costumes and scares hikers and campers away from his areas he prowls in the Olympics. Watched him do it on TV.

 

I do not think it would be any easier if the government had to tell people that Bigfoot does not exist, but in reality wild people use the myth to scare people out of the woods. Its the same problem for them.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norseman,  I realize now you were talking about actively hunting a BF on public land, of course.  Sorry. Yes, I could see how the firearm complicates the whole question. Still, it does come down to a question of intent, or lack thereof. I guess though if you were sitting on a stand over a food plot, holding a firearm out of elk season it might be a tough sell to convince the GW you were hunting BF instead!  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find its better to beg forgiveness than ask permission with bureaucratic red tape. Everyone in government is afraid to step up and give answers in gray areas.

1

Share this post


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

 

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

 

 

How else does one start testing the differences between Patty, and a guy in a suit???  :wacko:   By not looking???  :lol:  

 

OH...I forgot....you from Jref.....dat's what you guys do.....(close your eyes, and your mind).  ;)  

 

 

3 hours ago, Rockape said:

 

It's really not because at the end of the day it could still simply be a well made suit.

 

 

 

At the "end of what day"??   A day with your brain shut-down...and a Lollipop in your mouth??   kittypop1.jpg

 

 

The day that you can show me a 'man in a suit' which even comes close to replicating all, or most, of the realistic features on Patty....is the day I will agree with you 100%, Rockape.  

 

You go for it...I'll wait.  :popcorn:  

 

 

Quote

That no one has been able to duplicate it is pretty strong evidence it's not a guy in a suit, but the best that would get you is convincing a scientist to look into it further. 

 

 

That is precisely what Hiflier, and myself, have been calling for/talking about.

 

Thank you for agreeing with us, Rock. :drinks:  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, SweatyYeti said:

At the "end of what day"??   A day with your brain shut-down...and a Lollipop in your mouth??   

 

Yes, quite. Only a brain dead imbecile could look at the PGF and think it is anything but an actual bigfoot. SMH.

 

1 hour ago, SweatyYeti said:

The day that you can show me a 'man in a suit' which even comes close to replicating all, or most, of the realistic features on Patty....is the day I will agree with you 100%, Rockape.  

 

You go for it...I'll wait. 

 

I do believe I said no one has been able to replicate the PGF? Did I just imagine I typed that and see it on my screen or is it actually there?

 

1 hour ago, SweatyYeti said:

That is precisely what Hiflier, and myself, have been calling for/talking about.

 

I believe, in the context of the PGF, that is the exact opposite of what hiflier is talking about. He's not contacting anyone and saying "this is bigfoot, agree with me". He's presenting some objects collected, or at least aspects of these articles, and asking for opinion about what it actually is.

 

That is why I said I thought it is quite brilliant what he is doing, he is looking for honest opinions without adding the prejudice of whether or not it's bigfoot. He's willing to accept those opinions whether they point to bigfoot or not. The PGF is not something that anyone could ask for opinions about without the subject of bigfoot, yea or nay, being the issue.

Edited by Rockape
1

Share this post


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

It's really not because at the end of the day it could still simply be a well made suit.

 

You did say it. I think it got interpreted incorrectly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hiflier said:

 

You did say it. I think it got interpreted incorrectly.

 

I said that in the context of the PGF being provable as a real BF, not in the context of anyone having replicated it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, gotcha, thanks

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Four pages. 

 

4 pages. 

 

SMH too...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites