Leaderboard

Should I wait for someone to prove existence before I begin to study them? Proof of existence is a procedural thing that has not been completed yet, that I neither have the tools or desire to participate in (dead BF on a lab table). I just heard about a study about people that have made extraordinary discoveries. In nearly every case, it was people that devoted a significant and extraordinary amount of time doing it. Spending sufficient time is the key to discovery. Sitting back and waiting for someone else to prove something before devoting serious study will not likely accomplish something. With BF it is time in the field that will yield results. But I have to agree that some of the most vocal "experts" do not know what they are talking about.

Granted, Nelson may be pushing the boundaries out a little too far with this but I would think he'd be the first to acknowledge it is only a working hypothesis, subject to revision and change. We have so little to go on that is tangible, I am glad there are those who have novel theories to propose. Remember too, he's not just pulling this theory out of his posterior...there is real science behind it. There are those with expert knowledge, and in the field of language he's got the bona fides. On the subject of language having the fruits you've listed, careful with those assumptions. That list would not be possible without language, of course, but they also wouldn't be possible without WRITTEN language...and entirely different (but obviously related) skill set. That fact that we learned to read and write might just be peculiar to our species. You also have to always be careful extrapolating all of natural history from only the (recorded) human experience. Given the pretty established fact that there have been multiple species of the genus Homo to have walked this earth up until now, and of which we know very little, this is an iffy practice. Still, given how enamored we all are with our really awesome humanness, it is an easy trap to fall into, yes?

I listened to their show on the 18th, the theme was about the recent accusations of hoaxing and profiteering. Prior to the recent accusations, I had listened to their show and had always thought it leaned towards the dramatic. I just assumed they focused on dramatic stories to increase their audience participation. Anyhow, the tone of the show was rather interesting in that they were very indignant about the accusations thrown their way. Apparently, they had also been harassed and had received inappropriate comments about the female host. I don't know if there were inappropriate comments made but if so, I don't blame them for being upset as that behavior is unacceptable, regardless of what they have been accused of doing. I'm not a behavioral expert but I had the impression that both Wes and Woody had a tone of sarcasm and almost righteous indignation about the accusations. In short, they did not sound like people that were eager for the opportunity to prove their story was true. They kept making sarcastic comments about all of the money they were making, from the show and their website. One of them kept mentioning he was unemployed and they didn't have the money to pay for even minor expenses. However, instead of feeling empathy for these guys, I felt like they sounded like two people that were caught with their hands in the cookie jar and were trying to divert attention from their actions. Who knows where the truth really lies as their Bigfoot encounter can't be proven true or false. However, there's no doubt in my mind, they have attempted to make some money from people interested in the subject of Sasquatch. This is what has caused them so much grief. Simply because this creates an "incentive" to create or hi-light stories that are more sensational than what can be found on other websites or podcasts. I've listened to a number of their shows and all of them have this ongoing theme of violent, aggressive Bigfoot. Let's face it, mean Bigfoot sells much better than flower smelling, cuddly Bigfoot. Wes and Woody claim they are not really trying to make money from their show. This makes no sense to me as they're charging for memberships? They're also trying to sell advertising and its displayed on their website. I'm not an expert in advertising but I do know that pricing is based on the size of the target audience. In other words, they have a serious incentive for increasing their audience and once an incentive like that is in place, it immediately casts doubt on authenticity. If these guys really are telling the truth, they should welcome the opportunity to step up and verify their claims in whatever manner they can. I understand their resentment towards people that have been verbally aggressive or invasive. Aside from that, they have no room to question why people are questioning them. They claim to have started the show as a way to provide a place for people to discuss their encounter. Maybe this is true but along the way, they saw a chance to make a buck. It's the money that detracts from the legitimacy of their show.

^^^^^^^ I hope you know that I respect you immensely. But certain things you and I disagree about. A dead specimen delivered to the Smithsonian? Would be able to provide data for years. What does it eat? What is its reproductive system? DNA? Brain CC? Etc! On top of that? No longer can they ignore the species and the long lens of science would finally study this species with budgets that individual researchers could only dream of. Your experiences die with you or are shared upon a board like this......proof delivered to the Smithsonian would be a game changer!

I'm not convinced that the campsite destruction ever occurred, in fact, stating it more strongly, I think it's a hoax. There seems to be no connection between Bob (or Robert) Garrett and any murders or any torn up campsite and murders. If this happened it should have hit the local news and be available via web searches even if the physical evidence were covered up. Further, I saw the videos before they were taken down. They raise huge red flags. Way too "Blair Witch". This Bob Garrett, if that's who was in the videos, was not acting like any veteran researcher I've ever been in the woods with acted documenting evidence. It was posturing for the camera, that's all. MIB