Leaderboard

....ooooor the BF thing has ran its course and they're in the process of rolling out DMRO and "Finding Dogman" ::duck and exit stage right::

Still waiting on that forensic evidence that any scientist has shown to be from Bigfoot... You haven't ever, in 5 years of people asking, provided one report to show this.

DWA: The evidence could not be clearer on this: as far as the society is concerned, part-timers aren't working. To say that isn't the problem is firmly contradicted by the evidence. Oh. if "What's going on here?" isn't immediately followed by "I know, even though I've not done any research or thinking! It's all this," then it's a start. I’m not thinking? Come on – be fair. Your logic is unusual to me but I don’t accuse you of not thinking… The part-timer researchers are experiencing Bigfoot quite frequently – even claiming to establish habituation sites. They are always oh-so close. Yet still no objective evidence. They are either encountering a real unidentified species which does not yield tangible evidence or they are not – they just believe (or make-believe) that they are. If they are not really encountering Bigfoot, if all these people can be wrong, mistaken, lead astray by their beliefs, or whatever on multiple occasions then that just might be what Bigfoot really is… DWA: And here's the difference between me and you: I am not coming to conclusions. I am asking: OK. So what is generating those reports? And I am not accepting ungrounded assumptions as my answer. Not when a bunch of iguanas are told by a storm one day to colonize an island 200 miles away. Couldn't happen with yowie? Really? Ask yourself how many opps happened over the course of a couple million years. And stop engaging that "can't happen" kneejerk, a characteristic of people paying insufficient attention to what does happen. You reach no conclusions other than Bigfoot is real, right? Do possibilities take precedents over probabilities? Where has possibilities taken the search for Bigfoot? Dogmen, Bigfoot in the ‘burbs, psychic Sasquatch, etc – sure, why not? Anything is possible… Iguanas again? I’m not saying that a creature larger than a rat could survive crossing the Wallace line by floating on debris – there is just no evidence that that has happened (and, coincidentally, no evidence of the Yowie either - just claims)... DWA: All the made-up claims are over here [points without looking], in that dark corner I never look at. They are of zero consequence. They have been firmly moved aside. Anyone who uses them as an excuse not to take this seriously I immediately know is not doing their homework. The ones I am talking about are that huge pile that no one can tell me is made up, because they have no evidence of that, and once again! I don't consign people to the loony bin or the liar bin without the evidence's permission. If no-one can tell you that any claims from a huge pile of claims without supporting evidence might be made up then so be it. Who is not doing their homework here, then? It is good that you are able to separate some claims without evidence from other claims without evidence to support your opinion. I prefer to examine it all. If proof of a giant man-ape eventuates then we will surely both rejoice… I don’t “consign people to the loony bin or the liar bin without the evidence's permission†either as I have already stated so please stop misrepresenting my position. DWA: ...and like most humans they see stuff that's real. The experience most of us have in our daily lives should be sufficient to tell us that anything with this volume and pattern of evidence can't simply be chalked up to lies and mistakes and impairment and let's all go home now. And when scientists are vouching for it - and scientists vouch for yeti, yowie and sasquatch - and they are, clearly and demonstrably, the only scientists even barely doing due diligence, not to pay attention is not to apply critical thinking, period. I for one am getting tired of people telling me "it's not real because I have never seen one," when most of what they accept is not what they know but what they have been told. Humans also see and experience stuff that is not “realâ€. Imagination is a wonderful thing – one of the joys of being human. Memory, also, does not work like a video recording – it is reconstructive and imaginative. How many Australian scientists have shown an interest in the Yowie? I can think of 6 off the top of my head but only one “vouches†for the Yowie as an undiscovered species. What do you think scientists have to explain? It’s people claiming to see things without any supporting objective evidence… For the record: I have not said that the Yowie is not real because I’ve never seen one. Again, please stop misrepresenting my position… DWA: And that's clearly why we don't have proof sufficient for the society; and no other "excuse" need be made. Indeed, it's the "skeptics" who are making 100% of the excuses, and move the goalposts every time they talk. What did Tom Slick's fully funded expeditions yield? Shenanigans. The Finding Bigfoot team are fully funded and they are oh-so close to finding Bigfoot every episode. Only a matter of time… DWA: I don't care to. I don't need to; the evidence - of which I have made the study that few scientists have, and their words make it plain - tells me they are out there and that is sufficient. I get outside a lot; and the evidence tells me to be on the lookout. You'd be amazed how well that can substitute for looking. Most researchers don't know the volume and depth of the evidence, which is why they behave like extreme skeptics about anything in which they are not personally involved, like yowie and yeti, for instance. (One of Grover Krantz's several missteps - understandable but missteps nonetheless - was not taking yeti seriously.) I see a lot of internecine warfare in the field. I prefer to step back and look at the big picture, which says: there is more than one other species of habitually bipedal primate. (Never mind that all the known apes spend much more of their time on two legs than anyone not intimately acquainted with them thinks.) Congratulations on solving the Bigfoot mystery to your satisfaction… DWA: It's probably sufficient for them, I'd hope. I never get over what a sore spot it is for so many researchers that there isn't proof yet. Is there proof of Bigfoot or is there not? You just said that you have studied the proof (evidence) which, along with the claims, was sufficient to tell you that they exist. It must be frustrating for you that so few are equally impressed. I sympathize with your plight… DWA: FB is not research. It is television. Three days in a place running around hooting won't find a fox, people. In fact, decades of trying says: it drives everything away. Now NAWAC, they understand this. That's why they're getting results; and anyone who doesn't think that "every researcher has seen one in the field" is results doesn't understand the word. The society be hanged; if they don't wanna know, forget 'em. And if you think they are lying: no they are not. I know them personally. And no they are not. Now anyone who questions that? There's someone I question. I admire your devotion to your friends… DWA: And as to this. Not getting what I am saying here, which is: just given what the reports tell us, your average researcher will be lucky if he sees what your average person filing a report does. Which hasn't amounted to proof sufficient for the society, has it. Given that the average sighting gives pretty much zero time for photo video or gunshot, well, do that math. Let’s examine “Residential Incidents Experiences & Encounters†from Michigan. 188 separate incidents of which 70 are sightings (not including 30 which are partial sightings), 9 of these presented an opportunity to take a picture (from a camera or mobile phone) or to shoot: Dark green helicopter with no markings hovers low following Bigfoot from yard into woods Family sat and watched 9.5 ft. male Bigfoot on their 10 acre property Heard something looked outside and saw a big hairy animal drinking from the swimming pool Hears dogs barking sees huge hairy Bigfoot animal walk into a grain shed and grabbed his gun Homeowner retreats to house when upright Bigfoot animal and it started walking towards him People watch Bigfoot on road near their house Sees Bigfoot creature around her property Students flee indoors when they see Bigfoot in the woods near High School Three teen girls on their porch watched a Bigfoot creature come out of the woods Between 9% and 12.86% of sightings had an opportunity to secure objective evidence but still nothing? Not even showing up on CCTV in built-up areas… Let's now consider footprints - 70 of the 188 reports mention an unspecified number of footprints (291 footprints minimum) having been found. Where are they documented (measured, photographed, cast)? Were they documented? If so, where? Did anyone other than the claimants see the footprints? Were they footprints? Did those footprints ever even exist? ... and you don't? You're not one of those "Do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" types, are you? Conspiracy? For the same reason that Icelanders rally together to stop a road being built through a fairy habitat and the Danish government is currently funding research into Trolls. Do they really exist? Do the Scandinavians really believe fairies and Trolls are flesh-and-blood creatures or are you missing something simple yet important about the nature of folk-belief? Then there's also that whole tourism niche-market thing - a little mystery goes a long way, you know... Who are these "World's Top Experts" who conclude Sasquatch exists? The same old faces touting the same old lines like the Skookum cast... oh dear. But good for you if you believe... I have no bone to pick - just my opinion to share just like you. You seem to forget that you, too, are implying that you know what is in people's hearts when they claim to have seen Bigfoot - ie that what is described is exactly what happened. If that was the case the evidence for Bigfoot should be overwhelming rather than nonexistent...

Stillwater, it wasn't meant to be funny or sarcastic, just rational conversation. It's easy to insert your own interpretation of "tone" when reading a post. Had I wanted to be condescending I would have agreed that it's obvious that you are "grossly unqualified when it comes to knowledge of fences". Had I wanted to be purposefully sarcastic I would have added that you are also obviously grossly unqualified in what evidence is and pointed out the futility of pointing to a break in a fence as evidence when compared to utilizing your time searching the fence for hair with possible DNA as anyone with miles of farm fence experience would be familiar. Simple enough for you? My use of actual measurements consistent with the strength of woven chain link fencing was meant to be taken seriously and considered rather than taken as some sort of attack. Bigfoot isn't ripping chain link apart by hand - wrap your head around the numbers. Better yet, wrap your hands around some woven chain link and try pulling it apart before making claims like this. The weak link in chain link fencing is the aluminum post ties not the steel fence itself. The forces involved would damage surrounding components and leave evidence like bent posts, warped tension bars, broken post ties, damaged top rails, etc. None of the images you posted show anything like this. Check out the machines used in the ASTM testing of the wire itself to get an idea of the forces required. Why would a person or Sassy choose to avoid a gate? Why would either take the time to unravel a fence with an open gate nearby? Why wouldn't an 8' Sassy just jump the fence like a 5' human jumps a fence? Simple questions that make your analysis weaker, not stronger. If you want to keep your "field work" images of breaks in chain link fence to yourself feel free or just join Shel the dogman lady on facebook and hold court. Good luck with your search!

Hi Stillwater, I'm not sure how many miles of chainlink fence you have on your farm but I agree with slabdog and also think you are mistaken about the use of brute force to break the fence. I can't tell what gauge of fence it is but you are likely talking about 3300N - 9600N of force to break the wire in a tensile test. Considering the lack of damage to the tension bar and post the force would have to be applied locally to the wire only as the tension bars are fairly easy to bend even by humans. I have trouble imagining a creature able to apply this amount of force in such a confined area without any other evidence of damage and without the use of tools. It's impossible for me to see any thinning of the wire, which would be expected if the wire was pulled apart, but that could just be the image resolution. Obviously, a fatigue fracture is possible but unlikely in a fence application and really shouldn't be considered without a microscopic examination which would also reveal the presence of tool marks if there. I believe any creature capable of breaking/cutting the wire in one spot and then unweaving the remainder from the tension bar without damage would have the necessary ability to utilize a gate if desired. Look around most cities and industrial areas with a lot of chain link fencing and you will see countless examples of breaks in chain link fences created and utilized by people to get around even with gates nearby.

Les needs to come here and let the good folks of this forum school him on BF. He would never have listened to TS if he had done so to begin with.