Leaderboard

I'm exchanging ridicule for ridicule, snark for snark. It mirrors your "contributions." Sad but true. Can I suggest something truly novel? Make a positive contribution to a discussion. Instead of passing judgement on people, ridiculing ideas, throwing out 3 second sound bite type snark and insults, put some thought into a response. Add something of value. I'm not saying drink the koolaid. If you think an idea is wrong, suggest a way for the person to test it and figure it out for themselves. It's going to go a lot farther in changing their minds than insults. In other words, there are ways to disagree and change minds while being part of the solution, you don't always have to be part of the problem ... it's a choice you're making. MIB PS: So far as giant birds ... I'm not sure. There *is* a bit of evidence for them. No adequate accounting or alternate explanation has been offered yet.

Hello DWA, Must be nice to be able to put such blinders on. For myself I chose to NOT live in such a bubble.

I had the same problem with the pinecones being thrown as Crow did. The person filming is sitting there pointing his camera past a tree and into the sky. Then stating where the cones are coming from. You can hear them falling all around him as he sits under a fir tree. Then he pans the camera around and low and behold there's a squirrel running by with a cone in its mouth. This is typical squirrel behavior, cut the cones loose, drop them on the ground, then go down and pick them up. This is the usual that needs to be eliminated before we can even begin to proceed to the unusual. If you come across something happening that can't be explained through the usual means then you may be onto something. But remember, coincidence does occur quite often, rocks do roll down hill, things do fall out of trees, and trees do tip over by themselves occasionally for no apparent reason. Until we look and try to figure out the cause it doesn't do us our anyone else any good to go directly to supposition.

Hello georgerm, BFRO=Matt Moneymaker="Finding Figfoot"=BFRO=Matt Monemaker="Finding Bigfoot"=BFRO=MattMoneymaker="Finding Bigfoot"=BFRO.....ad nauseum. It's its own circular dialogue.

The lunar landings obeyed the known laws of physics. Truly. OTOH, the (apocryphal?) story of the apple falling on Newton's head did not, instead, new "known laws" resulted from it. I think we should be open to the possibility that we may have to make some new discoveries before we understand the current puzzle. I don't think it costs us anything to treat certain assumption as fact for the sake of "table-top" / what-if exercises to see if they provide any insight that can be tested and validated even if the assumptions can't. That said, I think we do have to be careful that we don't lose sight of them being assumption, not fact, when the table-top ends. IMHO, that has been a problem. MIB

Those are suppositions, they are not, most assuredly, facts.

Squirrels do the same with cluster stems of acorn-laden oaks, and seed-laden maples too, So guess that could also make a racket.

If the skeptics had not harassed Derek Randles about flying cows so much and driven him off the forum we could just ask him for pictures of the nesting area. Perhaps the Olympic Project would give them to some forum member so they could post them here. The placement of the vegetation in the bedding was very interesting.

You say that it is stories and conjecture. That bigfoot throws things and does all these acts that might not seem natural to us but is natural to it. How do know this, as a collective we have all experience this at one time or another. There is no denying there, so that is not conjecture. (an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information) The information is there for all to see and experience if they want. Sure people might go way to far into what these creatures are capable off. As you said a leaf on a car or an acorn that drops from tree, the same goes with pine cones while one is standing under a pine cone tree. It is those little things that you can relate with that gives you an idea that people may be full of B.S. But what those certain ones that cannot be explained but can be replicated if attempted. This is what science should be , testing those theories that we all have. If you fail so what you know that it did not work and you move to the next theory. But you do not stop or give up we keep going till we find an end. If there is no science for this field then there very well should be. Because at this moment in time Bigfoot science was not even a word until now. People are on board with it by what has been happening with television .Not so much with the media and a lot had to with the hoaxing that was done to the media by certain camps that does not need to be mention. Crowlogic You at one time were on board with a living entity, have now come with disbelief. I do not blame you for what happen, But I cannot change what occurred to me personally with these creatures. No more arguments, stop the ignore I have no beef with you. I am after the truth just like you.

The lunar landings obeyed the known laws of physics. Physics and biology are quite different when if comes to field work but each does require repeatable observations. Those are suppositions, they are not, most assuredly, facts. We can agree is disagree as many scientist or philosphers do. At one time these behaviors were suppositions or suspicions, conjectures, speculations, theories, guesses, feelings, and hunches. Supposition is too weak of a word for present bigfoot science in my opinion of course. Crowlogic, far too many credible witnesses have observed these BF behaviors so let's be honest and not exaggerate to make points. BFRO weeds out the noncredible ones. Science needs credible witnesses and repeatable observations and we have it. If someone could compile these knowns or bigfoot facts, we would have a credible bigfoot science book. This science book would be reliable enough to enact laws to protect bigfoot and to post warning signs in campgrounds. The PHDs may come along kicking and screaming, and some would verify these facts or knowns through well funded field work. The Jane Goodalls would come out of the woodwork. "A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means). Experience is the knowledge or mastery of an event or subject gained through involvement in or exposure to it.[1] Terms in philosophy, such as "empirical knowledge" or "a posteriori knowledge," are used to refer to knowledge based on experience. A person with considerable experience in a specific field can gain a reputation as expert.The concept of experience generally refers to know-how or procedural knowledge, rather than propositional knowledge: on-the-job training rather than book-learning. noun: supposition; plural noun: suppositions an uncertain belief. "they were working on the supposition that his death was murder" synonyms: belief, surmise, idea, notion, suspicion, conjecture, speculation, inference, theory, hypothesis, postulation, guess, feeling, hunch, assumption, presumption "

The lunar landings obeyed the known laws of physics.

You're entirely wrong: Lucy was recognized immediately as ground-breaking. She was recovered in situ, and cause for overnight rejoicing. Might have been a little partying happening, that night. Suggested reading: Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, by Donald Johanson. I've seen him speak at a local small college. A personal hero.

We have a problem with Science "presets." Take any artifact - a partial skull, partial bone - partial skeleton. It's acceptable in sanitized, approved "Science" to do a reconstruction and even name or identify an entirely new species - based on a partial. Now when they say it is X number of years old, how do we know? Testing? The strata found in? We take their word for it - but the moment they removed something, there went the conclusive proof of their determination of what strata it was found in. So we take a lot of anthropological evidence - on faith. Like it or not. Lucy. Scattered bones over multiple layers of strata - and even when found meant nothing. Not until much later, others reading of the bones started making something out of them - and they weren't even present. Only THEN, were a scattered group of bones - nothing found in situ - assembled, reconstructed, filled in, extended, and extrapolations made and decided - not determined - that this was a new species that walked upright. Baloney. I have zero faith in BF. I'm not a believer. I had one run at me, in the open, and come really, really close. I wasn't looking for one, I wasn't receptive to one, I wasn't pleased at all, and I wish I was still ignorant. I wish it never happened. No faith on my part. No believing. But there he was. No mirage, no illusion, no delusion, no ****. I've never actually seen the great Giza pyramid. But I have it on good faith - through the word of others - that it in fact exists. Photos can be faked. Films can be faked. If I applied the same personal criteria to things I've never seen in person - as those who seem to make a way of life being BF skeptics - I think I'd be one narrow minded person.

Hello All, It's taken some time and thought but I think as far as I go? I've nailed down the issue for me with the Forum. What? You say you didn't know I had an issue LOL. Well I do but couldn't really nail down what it is/was. First of all I respect and admire ALL the BFF members. So what's the deal then? It's that I'm tired of opinion. Opinion is great and shows that folks are thinking but I'm weary of it. Do I have opinion? Sure I do but I'm weary of that too. Imagine that weary of my own opinion. You must be weary of it too then. This place is addicting. More addicting than the field for sure which is where I should really be. Sometimes there's a spark here but it very quickly sinks back into opinion. My own threads do that too. Heck, they start OUT that way. Somehow I need to do better. Sure would like to solve this Sasquatch thing but I just don't have the deep pockets to so it. I don't even have SHALLOW pockets LOL. I do have a plan that I mentioned somewhere but it's not going to happen by tomorrow that's for sure. And I can work on that and wait for any possible results for the effort. But beyond opinion I've little else to say. Without science or a body I essentially have nothing to say of any worth that will advance this subject- which is how I define worth. I have left before and come back, left and come back.......um..........oh yes,........and left and come bask some more. I think the field and my book are calling and I am going to immerse myself in them until I've taken them as far as I can take them. Just as if they were full time jobs.

Nope. Not gonna happen. I'm after the answer, whatever it is, and I'm not going to ignore parts just because they make you uncomfortable. Follow the facts wherever they go. You will find the truth whatever it is. Refusing to follow the trail is the one sure way to fail in the search. MIB There seems to be only one animal / creature requiring such suspension of natural history and biological science. It's not that I'm "uncomfortable," it's that it's ridiculous to allow for such dispensation of the laws of nature in order to somehow cram bigfoot's uncanny existence into the books. We may as well allow phantom or ghost wolves or bears of deceased animals to be possible, too. Something about not having so open a mind as to allow one's brain to drop out.

Two parts: Ah, but it can be ... tested **enough**. Ever do any tracking? Pick two tracks in sequence (accepted science). The third is hiding (woo). Do you give up on the trackway? I look at the two I've got, use them to predict where the missing third could be, and try to leverage that to find the fourth. You don't actually have to find the third to use it. It is a good idea to go back, once you have the fourth, to figure out where the third is hiding because somewhere down the line you may be missing several in a row and knowing how that third hid may help locate them. I'm not saying we need to prove telepathy / mindspeak, just consider the that it might exist and figure out what it suggests about what else we might be able to look at to find the next missing piece. And We're not going to buy instututional science's cooperation by kissing their backsides to appear respectable It has been tried. They've made that abundantly clear. I don't agree with you about a body, but lets say for the sake of argument you're correct. What if you can't obtain that body without investigating the "woo"? Then what? Do you stay stuck or do you plow forward? What's more important, getting the truth or defending your paradigm? At some point you have to decide what your priorities really are, identify hidden (even from yourself?) personal agendas, and then either stay stuck or chase leads. Even the leads that never pan out put me in the woods where new ones might appear. What I'm trying to say ... do something, try something, no matter how silly it looks, no matter who disapproves. If nothing else, by seeing who hassles you rather than supporting you, you've figured out who is not part of the solution, they're part of the problem. MIB edit: having some issues with quotes.

Hello MIB, This is a "Has Bigfoot Science Stalled" thread. Woo or what most folks call woo cannot be scientifically tested. So following where the facts lead isn't possible. Facts are called facts once they have been rigorously tested and can be repeatable by any scientist in the lab. Paranormal things, even though experienced by some, do not fall into that category except for those few experiencers. Generally speaking those experiences cannot be tested without a specimen which brings us back to square one- we need the physical specimen. In order to get science on board to get one if we don't first is to keep the "facts" in the physically measurable realm and even that is severely lacking to a point where science to date won't even bother. Need a body, my friend. No one is ruling out the woo as far as I can see but adding it to the equation doesn't help in promoting science's willingness to investigate the subject. Surely you can understand that.

Nope. Not gonna happen. I'm after the answer, whatever it is, and I'm not going to ignore parts just because they make you uncomfortable. Follow the facts wherever they go. You will find the truth whatever it is. Refusing to follow the trail is the one sure way to fail in the search. MIB

Hello Bodhi, Really good points there. Some claim to have sightings without ANY scientific program at work. Still others have a program but generally it's still in the observation stage of looking for sign. And still others who have or think they have sign are really only left with guesswork as to whether the sign is a hoax or not and that decision can be very subjective or not depending on what the sing is and where it was discovered. Others who are aware of scientific methods have not had any opportunity in which to apply them. Most all are starting with a picture and trying to make anything they think looks like evidence stretch into evidence. And this has been the case for a long, long time. So it seems natural for some Humans to need woo for answers which puts the subject even farther from a solution. Money. It comes down to that. Or sheer luck; that too? And speaking of money I need to clarify something about the book when I said, "I wrote a book starting last November and am in the process of finalizing the editing and proofreading. It's an involved story that I won't go into here", I meant the book creation process was an involved story- not what's in the the book itself. As far as the book goes there IS no storyline. It's a hunting book. Sorry if there was any confusion.