Leaderboard

Says the person who attacked Bipto so relentlessly he left the forum. Quit feigning innocence, we know better.

I think this thread has been a good example of "The Bigfoot problem".

My advise to you is to stop talking about it, until the deed is done. Im being sincere. The more you talk on the forums, the more you become Bipto. The more you become Bipto and share your experiences? The more people will ask you to validate your claims. Its just a fact you cannot avoid. Good luck.

Those of us who were here know what you did. You have no right to complain about anyone else.

I looked around and did not see anyone filming the Olympic Project session because Derek specifically asked that it not be recorded and posted on Facebook. Apparently he is getting the same sort of flack on Facebook that drove him off this forum. I talked to him privately and told him he was missed, at least by some of us on the forum. He wondered if the resident denialist skeptics were still here. He laughed when I mentioned flying cows.

As SWWASAS said we were asked to not record the screen during Derek's presentation so I'm not sure if anyone, Sasquatch Chronicles maybe, recorded just his presentation. The rocks Mitchel found are interesting. But I am holding my decision on what they are until he has a geologist familiar with mineral deposition in water take a good look at them. I do hope they are what they appear to be, ancient artwork. But I am also familiar with some of the strange things that water can do.

BTW was on duty at their display table answering questions. Townsend gave him due credit for his findings and analysis. They sold 506 tickets. So that is a good showing for a first event. They had an interesting way to get people to stay to the end. Your entry gave you a chance to win a ATV. I even put up with the final question answer period to get a chance to win it. Some woman won it. There was some discussion on the forum about the nests found sometime back. Derek Randles showed some pictures and like BTW said they have found 17 nests so far in the same area. It is on a ridge above a salmon spawning stream. They can eat salmon, go up to the nests and sleep it off with a desert of huckleberries. The area is in a thick thicket of huckleberries and you have to nearly crawl to get in there. The ridge and thickets prevent any approach without them hearing. Additionally one nest was 60 feet in the air in a Doug Fir tree. I was about 8 feet in diameter. Someone surmised that it might be a sentry position. They are going to hire a tree climber to get up there and collect hair samples etc. If you want to know what they look like just look up gorilla nests on the internet. They prohibited photography of that part of the presentation. All but the one were on the ground. Other than what they are made of, they are identical to gorrilla nests. All these were the top branches of huckleberry bushes woven into a 2 foot deep mat about 8 to 10 feet in diameter. There is little indication they are used more than once. The cushioning properties would not be there when the leaves dry up. They intend to remove one intact and take it someplace for study. Loren Coleman's (Porland Maine Cryptozoology Museum) presentation was interesting. He presented what happened with the Kennewick man finding and extrapolated what would happen when BF is shot, body or skeleton found. It will not be pretty but I do not think he really got into how bad things could get if the finding is on Federal land. Watch the video about the T-Rex Sue find to find out how that would go. One finder served two years in prison. Stacy Brown could not get there because of the hurricane in Florida cancelling his flight. The organizer privately told me that John Bindernagel is serious ill. Some presenters need new material. See one presentation in the past few years and you have seen them all. Most are selling something:. Books, foundations that need money, expeditions, and mostly themselves. Mitchell Townsend claims to have discovered a pre ice age settlement someplace in WA. If true that would rewrite the history of man on North America. He showed some rock art which appears to show a BF that is part of the artifacts found. Sure looked like a BF to me. The site has been turned over to state archaeologists. Wess and Woody were filming the first day. Guess they need new material for another "sighting". The conference location has a nearby airport with airline service, several moderately priced hotels and several restaurants within walking distance of the convention center so could be less expensive than Ocean Shores if you want to choose which venue you attend in Washington State.

And so, young man, you concisely summed up why Sasquatchery continuously takes one step forward and then, two backwards. Keep the faith, fear not the slings and arrows of the functionally ignorant as their angst is the only touchstone within their grasp. Those that know firsthand of the subject matter still know what they know. Perhaps, when we bring the skeletal evidence to the proper venue, eyes and minds will be opened, for as long as the grass grows and wind blows.

^^^^ What Rock said. We apply our experience and our judgement to decide if the tale passes our personal sniff test. It is absolutely possible to be wrong so it helps not to over-invest in someone else's account being true or false to the degree that we can't let go of our first impression if new information comes to light. "passing judgment" and "showing discernment" are two edges to the same sword, perspective depending on whether you're the hack-er or the hack-ee. MIB

Half-ass?

Learned folks can agree that the truth lies in one area, yet a generation later, the youngsters agree that the truth lies somewhere else. This is common in any field, and science is particularly noted for this. Thomas Kuhn, as many of you know, made this an essential feature of his philosophy of science. So, I am no longer all that impressed by what laypersons, or any learned folks agree on with respect to truths of the world. Chances are pretty good that they are wrong, to some unknown degree, and the chances are still pretty good that the next generation will fare no better in their grasp of the keys to the universe. Seems to me this is the essence of the skeptical position. Show me your evidence, you can give me your interpretation, and I will perhaps accept it provisionally.

The claim comes up again and again that eye witness testimony is not reliable. Really? It seem to me that we could not exist as a species if eye witness testimony were not more or less reliable, in a wide variety of circumstance. Think about it. We see something, we tell folks about it. The folks act on that information. It proves useful to them. Sometimes we make errors. Usually these are at the level of detail. Sometimes our memories are faulty. Sometimes our perceptions are faulty. Our interpretation of events can be off. All of this has been researched. Hearsay, information transmitted through a chain of people is typically worse. Despite that we do, we must, rely on eye-witness testimony for understanding the world. It guides our actions. You use it, you act on it, you produce it. It is how we learn about the world and pass it on to others. It is more often right than wrong, on the whole. The details are usually far more suspect. Example: "Don't let the dog out, there is a black bear in the yard. " Well, it could be that it is not a black bear. You may have imagined a black bear. It may have been a big bear-like dog. Chances are pretty good that if you live in a smaller community near where I live, it was correctly reported as being a bear. Folks know bears, they see them, even in town. My wife ran into one in my sister's back yard last fall. Maybe you said it was 150 pounds. That is probably more suspect, unless you have a specialty of estimating bear weights. Maybe you said it was cinnamon. Good chance you were right on that, unless the viewing conditions were bad, or very brief, or cinnamon bears don't live where you are. You might have said it was eating apples from the ground. That is going to be a pretty believable claim, if it is the season when apples are ripe and on the ground. Maybe you thought it was a Grizzly. Your wife thought it was a black. Maybe the sighting was too surprising and fast to really absorb what your were seeing. What was not in doubt was that you both saw a bear. So, in the final analysis, we do go on eye witness testimony. We also know that some witnesses are more likely to be reliable that others, for various reasons. We know that some people routinely get all kinds of thing wrong, and some are more accurate observers. We learn that some folks just like to make things up, and take delight in duping people. We know that some circumstances lead to more accurate perceptions than others. Despite that we do and must use eye witness testimony to navigate through our world.

Kudos to those who endeavor to prove the existence of Sasquatch through conventional scientific means. I have no interest in that nor proving it to scientists nor to my neighbor or anyone else. The scientific community will never accept anything less than a body and that's a day I hope never comes. Those who wish for that day...that's fine. It's just not my cup of tea. I hold in great disdain the scientific community as a whole as it relates to BF. That arrogantly sit back and laugh about the subject and tell those in the field to go do the heavy lifting and let me know when you're got it. In general, the scientific community does lift a finger to do anything. Thus my total lack of respect for it. Some individual scientists do sacrifice their time, energy and money and those I applaud. I know what I've experienced and no coke-bottle bespectacled nerd from the scientific community, sitting on his ever-enlarging fanny, will ever convince me otherwise.