Leaderboard

Hiflier, good to see you posting. It does seem that if you are going to solve this that you will have to do it yourself. IMO that is the only way to resolve the existence thing unless you just encounter dumb luck that tips you off. I had an encounter in Colorado a long time ago and it told me several things: 1) there are things that exist that we are told do not 2) here's one that should be in California or the PNW, but instead here it is in Colorado. Thinking back, when I was a kid I heard of a sighting of a white BF in northern Minnesota, the only detail being that it was taller than the stop sign beside it. The Colorado experience allowed me to accept that they could possibly be in the area. Once I allowed for that things started to click. Turns out I have friends with cabins that must have BF neighbors at least part of the year. There is a lot of information on this site regarding habituation. I think quite a lot of it is useful. As you can probably ascertain, proving their existence is not important to me. Right now I am a lot more curious about who and what they really are (other than being a physical bipedal being with a lot of smarts that also knows how to use them). The Indians say that once you know they are there, then its a lot easier to find them/see them (it might be best approached as 'you don't find BF, BF finds you'). If you arrive at the point where existence is no longer the question, you will immediately encounter a bigger issue: being skeptical enough so that every sound and event in the forest does not become BF activity. All I can say there is you will know actual phenomena when you encounter it- when it happens its likely that sometimes there will be alternative explanations but that won't work all the time. Its those other times that you find you are on to something. IMO its best to treat the whole thing as amusement and a hobby. Go for a camping trip in a Squatchy area- usually such places are really nice all by themselves. If you have an encounter, just be respectful. No cameras, no nothing just you and BF. Maybe scary, maybe not, certainly awesome.

http://psychology.about.com/od/biopsychology/a/10-percent-of-brain-myth.htm "You know, you're only using 10 percent of your brain. Just imagine what you could accomplish if you used the other 90 percent!" Chances are high that you have heard someone make a similar comment at some time or another. The popularly and widely spread belief that we only use or have access to 10 percent of our brain's power is often used to speculate about the extent of human abilities if only we could utilize our brain's full capacity. In reality, this claim is 100 percent myth. We use all of our brain. The only instances where there are unused regions of the brain are those in which brain damage or disease has destroyed certain regions. The Origins of the MythResearchers suggest that this popular urban legend has existed since at least the early 1900s. It may have been influenced by people misunderstanding or misinterpreting neurological research. The 10 percent myth may have emerged from the writings of psychologist and philosopher William James. In his 1908 book, The Energies of Men, he wrote, "We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources." The myth has perpetuated much like other urban legends. Movies depict characters capable of remarkable feats when the supposedly unused 90 percent of their brains are "unlocked." Well-intentioned people such as motivational speakers or teachers often cite the 10 percent myth as a way to demonstrate that all people should strive to live up to their full potential. Unfortunately, less well-meaning people have also used the myth to promote and sell products and services that they claim will unlock your brain's hidden abilities.

OK - Everything's been said, so this thread is done. It is now closed.

There are exceptions to the rule for sure, but I disagree there is no relation. But more importantly we had a trackway of the film subject. They measured length of track, stride and depth. That is real data that can be mined, that gives us an idea of the size of the film subject. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KD3H9ZQqcDA/UczefpGtU9I/AAAAAAAC4B4/aeJr9uV9wKg/s420/patty+1.jpg If we know in this case the size of the foot? That gives us scale in any photo that shows a upturned foot. I believe but not positive that the film subjects track length was 17 inches. I'll have to do some more digging on the sizes. But Iam simply putting it out there that Meldrum could be using other methods to come up with Patty's height than just Munns work. Absolutely they have. But a hoax like that has never perpetrated on film with a ape suit on that Iam aware of. The PGF film site was well documented and people could see not only Patty's trackway. But also the horses, Gimlin and Pattersons as well. How do you replicate a giant trackway as a man while looking fluid on film? I've thought maybe there was a film site and then a separate stomper site.....but mcclarin was following Patty's trackway and the backgrounds line up on film.. Dunno, but it's not that easy.

^^ And once again instead of actually trying to explain a position, you just blurt out that you understand science better than anyone else while ironically demonstrating exactly the opposite.

Note to self: Do NOT allow your horse to lie down and sleep anywhere near this thread.

Very few scientists, including Sykes who I consider a main stream science skeptic, have devoted any significant field time. They have day jobs teaching or researching other areas. In some cases field biologists that work for the State have had encounters. But when the states they work for deny existence, they keep their mouth shut to keep their jobs. I contend that if a well funded scientist spent the better part of a year in a field study in the right area they might not have the required proof at the end of the year but they would know BF exists and most likely be a witness. But without the vindicating proof (body), they are just like the rest of us who are witnesses without proof. To get funding, risk the rest of your professional career, and take a year off to conduct BF research is more that most pragmatic scientists are willing to risk. A long term researcher in Oregon related an experience to a group of us this weekend he had with two scientists who he took camping in BF country. One was a PHD candidate in biology who was nearly done with his doctorate. The PHD candidate had a daytime sighting that lasted long enough for him to draw the BF. He refused to allow the drawing to be reproduced because, in his words, "He did not want his career to end before it started." That is the kind of professional pressure that exists for scientists to consider before they research BF even privately. Non scientists just don't understand those pressures because it directly impacts a scientists ability to get and hold jobs.

A brief summary: David NC says I accused NAWAC of illegal weapons. Is there a post number that can be cited? David NC says I accused NAWAC of illegal ammunition. I stated that the ammunition (00 Buck) used by Mr. Colyer was not legal for any game animal in Oklahoma (www.wildlifedepartment.com) and while the rifled/foster style slugs were legal for whitetail deer, there is no legal deer season in July for Oklahoma. Drew (post #229) made reference to statutes regarding fireams and discharge circumstances. zenmonkey has made multiple posts alluding that Area "X" is not on Mr. Branson's property. When asked to affirm such posts via a direct question...the silence is deafening. Now, Norseman is saying Area "X" is some vast area encompassing basically the entire region. Problem for zenmonkey and Norseman is the landowner (Mr. Branson) has gone on public record as stating Area "X" is his property. The 10 acre plot is the only parcel listed in his name per the official land records (tax roll) for LeFlore county Oklahoma. So far, I have not found any property listed in his name for the adjacent counties (Latimer, McCurtain & Pushmataha) in the Kiamichi region. Bipto (post #545) makes mention of the cabins (enhancements built onto it) on this place, as their base of operations. In a possible effort to create plausible deniability, Norseman is now regurgitating information from anonymous sources within NAWAC. If...NAWAC is operating and has permission to trespass on parcels adjacent to the Branson place, that's all well and good, as long as they shoot to the south and not in the direction of the lease. If...NAWAC is operating in other areas, such as public access land, which is distant from the lease, bully for them as at least someone else is possibly having to deal with errant rounds flying around. The above two comments derive their basis from the written Echo Incident report and video evidence, as publicly offered by NAWAC and/or it's operatives. IMO, those incidents involve participants losing composure and firing off rounds in a fashion that could be construed as unprofessional (at best, especially considering Mr. Coyler has military experience) and/or reckless (at worst) by a reasonable person. Again, IMO, the hardcopy and video evidence I have observed regarding NAWAC's operations, appear to indicate a high level of rank amateur behavior despite being cloaked in military jargon. Outside of some catchy military style titles, I see little that seperates them from the other (publicly known) groups trying to accomplish the same end.

They're doing fine, still feeding their families and mostly avoiding the hairless warlike folk.

The more and more I learn about efforts made to find the creature the more depressed I become. As the saying goes "I want to believe". That's becoming more and more diffcult. I've not had an experience of my own and do not know anyone that has. Habituation claims with no proof, failed DNA tests, and con men trying to seperate people from their hard earned cash have all made me disillusioned. I have become convinced that if you claim you have the evidence but it has to remain secret then you're part of the problem and not worth listening to.