Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 I should add: no kouprey has been seen since 1988 (thousand pound cow!) and it's still considered possibly extant.
kitakaze Posted January 8, 2014 Author Posted January 8, 2014 Um... because...they....didn't? Good answer? I thought so. So? I'm dismissing the evidence because 40 cameras - think about how little those cameras are actually covering, now, and add that we know next to nothing about this animal's travel patterns - just happened not to come up with something? No more than I'm dismissing a person's existence because I haven't seen her. A big dumb rhino science knows all about went ten years in a tiny corner of Borneo before they got video. So? Terrible comparison. 16 cameras in place only three months get more than NAWAC with 5 years and forty cameras. 34 cameras in Oregon also get three individuals in less than a year from first being set up. Travel patterns? LOL They put the cameras where they reported the sightings and the activity, did they not? 5 years and nothing.
Guest LarryP Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Simple Larry, I put it to the same test as I do Patty-- I look at it. Does it look real to me or fake to me? It is really that simple. I am not on a crusade to prove to you that the groundhog pics are real. Look at them and make up your own mind. I could not care less what you think of them. Just as I'm not on a crusade to prove to you that PGF and BF is real. But you made a very clear declaration that you can always tell that a film or photo is genuine because it's a film or photo of a "real" animal, not a "fake" animal. Now you've just admitted (in your own way) that you don't really know if the Groundhog is real, you just think it looks real. So that's nothing more than a subjective opinion. As opposed to the absolute declaration you made a short while ago. All of which puts you in quite a "You can't prove a negative", quandary. The summation of which is that in reality you really have no idea whether Patty or the Groundhog are real or fake.
Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Perfect comparison. So perfect I'm gonna go home and just watch myself in the mirror all evening. But one needs to understand why; and I get the feeling that understanding doesn't reside among bigfoot skeptics. (Evidence supports that.) Terrible comparison. 16 cameras in place only three months get more than NAWAC with 5 years and forty cameras. 34 cameras in Oregon also get three individuals in less than a year from first being set up. Travel patterns? LOL They put the cameras where they reported the sightings and the activity, did they not? 5 years and nothing.
Guest LarryP Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 It's not a law but anyone interacting with bears, lions, gorillas, Bigfoot should be able to produce some verifiable evidence of it. The keyword there being "should".
Guest Grifter9931 Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 DWA, WSA, tell you what? Rather than split hairs about rodent species, how about you provide some equally clear photos of large, bipedal primates in North America and we can then discuss species identification issues? C'mon man, You can't see BF in all of the pictures provided so far? "Its" Cleary there, I say "its" because I want to respect his/her BF privacy... There's a plethora of evidence both physical and anecdotal, why would any of these reputable folks report things that are not true? Someone vetted the people who are reporting these sightings, we should just except their stories/reports to be true... The mental gymnastics that you have to apply to some of the "reasonings" on BF is always interesting...
Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 But not as interesting as simply having to believe in a continent-wide complex of biologically-aligning lies, hoaxes and hallucinations. Or having to believe in people posting this much about something they simply can't be bothered to inform themselves about. Those are real stumpers. dmaker: in accordance with your request, here are a bunch of photos. See, I asked them to smile at you in Photo #4! [photos attached/just click here]
kitakaze Posted January 8, 2014 Author Posted January 8, 2014 OK. Well, he is apparently wrong, and not surprising, given that the estimates he's using are derived from WAGs in turn developed from SWAGs...about an animal that common sense would dictate that the vast majority of people encountering one don't report. LOL, pretending you actually read and comprehended that. What particularly do you find to be wrong? What specifically do you think were wild guesses? What control factors were errantly applied? From the turn of the century until now there have been countless thousands of hours of motion triggered cameras running all over the PNW which have documented every extant large mammal living there down to single individuals documented over vast distances. And Bigfootery gives us this... Perfect comparison. So perfect I'm gonna go home and just watch myself in the mirror all evening. But one needs to understand why; and I get the feeling that understanding doesn't reside among bigfoot skeptics. (Evidence supports that.) Ah, it's a perfect pride-worthy comparison, it's just it's too difficult to explain to a skeptic. Close your eyes, pretend I believe, and try actually explaining why comparing 16 cameras in place for three months capturing three images of a large animal believed to be extinct in that area is a meaningful comparison to 40 cameras in place five years strategically located based on alleged sightings and encounters failing even once to record an image of creatures that by their accounts had been there all along. I get the feeling that explanation does not reside within you and bizarre posturing will be forthcoming instead. 1
Guest LarryP Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) What specifically do you think were wild guesses? "Nothing is conclusive given that I am using theoretical models and extrapolation of correlations generated with other mammal species" = wild guesses. I hope that answers your question.. Edited January 8, 2014 by LarryP
WSA Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Ha! Charlie Wharton. Now there was a character. Had many a drink with the man, while forcing him to accompany me on his 5-string to exhaust my entire repertoire of sea chanteys and railroad ballads. Went on for hours there Tallulah-side. (Late Joel Laird's ashes looking on with approval you know) Despite being considered the Frank Buck of the Phillippines in his day, he was an exceedingly humble guy and I miss him a lot. Late in his career he took to catching salamanders in #10 can traps, which he never considered a step down at all from whacking vines in a rakish bush hat. Regret we never got around to the subject of BF as I was somewhat in my formative period, you understand. Still, I've not much doubt what an old school man of the world like him would say on this topic to a bunch of whistle britches of our ilk. Egads Kitikaze, have some mercy buddy. It gives me cataracts if I stare too long. Edited January 8, 2014 by WSA
Guest Grifter9931 Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 But not as interesting as simply having to believe in a continent-wide complex of biologically-aligning lies, hoaxes and hallucinations. Or having to believe in people posting this much about something they simply can't be bothered to inform themselves about. Those are real stumpers. dmaker: in accordance with your request, here are a bunch of photos. See, I asked them to smile at you in Photo #4! [photos attached/just click he But not as interesting as simply having to believe in a continent-wide complex of biologically-aligning lies, hoaxes and hallucinations. Or having to believe in people posting this much about something they simply can't be bothered to inform themselves about. Those are real stumpers. dmaker: in accordance with your request, here are a bunch of photos. See, I asked them to smile at you in Photo #4! [photos attached/just click here] Same song & dance... "I" need to take various sightings on "faith/belief". "I" am uninformed because I don't believe what you believe. "Everyone" who has a differing view is unreasonable. A 7-8 foot Bi-pedal creature who can weigh in excess of 7-800lbs, is seen by what is reported on BFF consistently in areas populated by human beings with technology. Is some how only detectable by not paying attention and waving a camera around there by capturing his/her essence on happenstance or by bumping into this very stealthy creature while on a leisurely stroll through the backcountry/edge of the tree line on particular properties... Can communicate with people, can train animals to be pets, throws rocks, knocks on trees, and has impeccable sense of smell and can track human beings for up to 50 miles in an urban setting.. Can scream so loud it can fracture ice on a lake. Has eyes like a build a bear... According to the pictures.. Avoids still camera's, surveillance camera's and even thermal camera's ... BTW none of these things look anything alike, but some how, some way BF knows what they are and what they do.. Also likes to throw pebbles at night time at houses or RV's because "Its" bored... Likes snickers, peanut butter, apples, train rides, shopping sprees at Macy's..
Guest Urkelbot Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 I should add: no kouprey has been seen since 1988 (thousand pound cow!) and it's still considered possibly extant. They are considered extinct. A Paris zoo had a specimen in 1940 and Wharton got film of 6 different groups in a 2 month expedition. Scientists have the DNA and uncovered the phylogeny relatively recently.
kitakaze Posted January 8, 2014 Author Posted January 8, 2014 "Nothing is conclusive given that I am using theoretical models and extrapolation of correlations generated with other mammal species" = wild guesses. I hope that answers your question.. No, it doesn't. Prefacing a study by saying it's not conclusive because you are comparing theoretical models such as weight variances and different dietary modes and extrapolating based on correlations with known mammal species such as bears and cougars by no means equates making wild guesses. What specifically was a wild guess? What specifically was a flawed in trying to determine the mathematical probabilities that Bigfoot could be captured on a remote camera?
WSA Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 O.K., it might have been the wine not talking, but Charlie never said anything of the kind. Don't know what he thought of dots on maps. But groundhogs he positively loathed, I can tell you, like any vegetable farmer would. Neutral on prarie dogs, it being N. Ga. You know...to stay on topic and all.
Guest LarryP Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 No, it doesn't. Prefacing a study by saying it's not conclusive because you are comparing theoretical models such as weight variances and different dietary modes and extrapolating based on correlations with known mammal species such as bears and cougars by no means equates making wild guesses. What specifically was a wild guess? What specifically was a flawed in trying to determine the mathematical probabilities that Bigfoot could be captured on a remote camera? Yes it does. Explorer clearly stated that it was "theoretical" and therefore not "conclusive". All that leaves is an exercise regarding how "wild" his "guesses" were. You've obviously come to believe that because there have been no BF captured on trail cams (that we know of) that BF does not exist. However, I can tell you unequivocally that BF does exist and the reason they have not been captured on any trail cams (that we know of) is because they don't want to be captured on trail cams. There is nothing theoretical or non-conclusive about that reality.
Recommended Posts