Leaderboard

Then, like many others out there, you've got no grasp on what it takes for them to "exist" in places. *They* are *here*. Maybe not in great numbers, but here none-the-less.

Hello BipedalCurious, With your attitude "BECAUSE" is all you get. Try something positive for a change. A positive move is getting John Green's database opened up for anyone who wants it. A positive move is trying to accomplish the same thing through contact with the BFRO. Anyone else doing that? NO. It's challenging enough without more challenges from you. I don't meant to be unkind here but I'm have difficulty understanding your combative approach.

With caps? For as long as the sponsors are happy, which could be a looooooong time, yeah. Those folks have "taken back" objectivity to the point of being re-****-a-loose. Bulldogging this back to something like on-topic: I do think the NAWAC is very ably keeping the idea of private vs. public proof in the forefront of what they are trying to do. They have gone over that line where most who have had a personal encounter stop short with a "I've got mine, who cares about you?" stance. In this regard, I think they are one-upping those scientific minds who really should be clamoring for their research data RIGHT NOW!! But as far as I know, they are not. I can't imagine anything more thankless than laboring for public proof without public support or acknowledgment that your efforts are meaningful...especially an indifference from those who should know better. When/if public proof comes from them, I only trust those same scientific minds will have the grace and good manners to acknowledge the favor they were doing now for all of us...whether some knew it or not. Unless I miss my guess too, these NAWAC researchers are not the types inclined to indulge in "I told you so's" unnecessarily. (This might be what we used to call "class.") For that, some might later be thankful. And if they fail spectacularly in trying to reach their goal? Classy just the same. So, as I see it, they are on the high road, no matter which way it turns.

You are right TT. Sasquatch - being the "other tribe" as described by many NA tribes - without question followed the major rivers flowing east and southeast off the great divide just as the NAs did. All one has to do to see that statement is true is pull up a map of the country's river system, then a plot of the locations of the old major NA communities and camps. Now plot the Sasquatch sighting reports on that map. You will notice that most of the sighting reports of Sasquatch come from the same areas that was once home to vast populations of NAs. (Sasquatch was not forced to move to less habitable less sustaining areas and reservations.) When NAs and Sasquatch reached the south and southeastern coasts and could go no further, the populations of both increased to the point that many followed the rivers back upstream and began settling along the larger creeks and river forks. The NA's of course were forced to stop doing that hundreds of years ago; but Sasquatch still do that. That is why they are often seen passing through large cities which have major rivers passing though or beside them. As a result, most of the south/southeastern states have areas in which the population density of Sasquatch per land area exceeds any other such area in the PNW. One state that is a good example of that is Texas.

I do think your guest is a very articulate and intelligent individual Bipto. There is just an E-quotient missing in her view of witness accounts. I think most of the ill feelings that develop between witnesses and their accounts and skeptics is the fact they have very different goals. Science wants, as it were, to use the personal account as a step towards proof, but can't or won't. The witness usually has no goal along those lines, as he/she has already arrived at a very satisfactory level of personal proof. This public v. personal proof collision fuels a lot of the misunderstanding. It is not helped by how someone is likely to resent having their sensory experience chalked up to hallucination, as she apparently does. And there is this too: You asked (to paraphrase)...What is the harm if someone chooses to believe in something that doesn't exist? (Great question, BTW). She could only toss out some lame examples of how govt. resources would be wasted (Yeah, THAT never happens otherwise,right?) or misguiding your children. What her failure to articulate anything really detrimental tells me is there is a resentment at work there. The source of that resentment, I believe, is the idea that somebody may be having an experience she and her chosen discipline can't share in. What else is there left to do but tell everyone else they are not having as much fun as they think they are? Very parental and so not useful.

But that's the very problem people like Meldrum (and other authoritative figures) have with understanding the issue(s). They create broad brush concepts of "wilderness" to define where they can only be, and everyone else fills in the blanks. It isn't about how many roads do or don't line the way to or thru where they live. It's about overall lack of human population present in areas where BF *can* live if they choose to. *If it's not "wilderness" the BF can't be there*.... again, shows a lack of simple understanding how complex the real issues are.