Leaderboard

Seems some want science to play on their field, with their ball, and their rules. If not, cry bloody murder that no one will play with them.

My question is, why does that scientist choose to write a book rather than a scientific paper submitted for peer review? That is a huge question this field should seriously consider. My opinion is that it speaks to the confidence level in the evidence. I believe the scientific proponents know the evidence would not pass peer review, so they publish books instead. And if the evidence is agreed to not be strong enough to pass peer review, then what evidence is out there uncontested? Right now, for bigfoot findings to be properly reviewed, they must be submitted for peer review. That is the process. That they are not, should be a message in itself. None of this hand waving nonsense about taboo and how journals would not even look at them. Nature looked at Ketchum's paper and the referee comments show no anti-bigfoot bias whatsoever. Why choose to publish a manuscript, rather than a ground breaking scientific paper? Seems odd to me.

Wow, Far Archer. A tiger.... I can't even.... I can't fathom what that would feel like. How people do (and survive) such things is beyond amazing to me. But I'm not a guy, so I don't have any of the mental training boys get to start getting their heads around things like this. And yes, no hurry. I was just making a prediction, based on what I know of you from your postings, that that day will come. This is absolutely true. Knowledge is power. When you know that there's a possibility you'll encounter a Bigfoot in the woods, you can prepare a little, mentally. And when you know that there is no danger from them (which there isn't -- unless you go looking to harm one, and then the odds of you getting out unscathed drop a little -- but even then, not much) -- anyway, as I say, when you know that there's no danger from them, you can put your heart and mind in "greeting mode", in connection mode. This putting of your heart in connection mode will ground you and reassure them. And then your FTF will be much easier. But it will still be hard, I hear (and as Far Archer -- and others who are brave and good people -- can attest to). (I had my first full-body daylight sighting in October, but it was from 100+ yards away, so it was definitely not scary.) I have very experienced friends with very loving hearts and deep insight who all promised me that seeing one up close would shake me to my core (and told me not to get too upset about that; to kind of accept the experience and let it "pass", so to speak). Knowing how many people have been able to get past their own fears and forge strong bonds with our strong cousins has been hugely, incalculably valuable to me in my own adventures. Because of them -- because of that knowledge I got from them -- I have been able to set my intentions and discipline my own mind to expect nothing but good from them. And that's what I've gotten: Lovely experiences that I wouldn't trade for anything in the world. So it's all about intention and discipline. You just do your best to discipline your mind to not fly off into fear -- and, even better, open your heart to them -- and that makes great things (all things, really) possible.

What will it take for more people to realize that they don't know everything already? To paraphrase Aristotle: 'The more we know, the more we <should> realize how much we don't know.' I can sort of understand many folks thinking that all Bigfoot sightings are either fakes, hallucinations, or the result of insanity because it is a very extraordinary subject for sure; but those opinions don't mean much to those who have actually seen one nor to anyone who believes even 1 witness or 1 piece of evidence.

Or they really think something may NOT be out there, but would lose their monopoly as the Bigfoot whisperers if the species was ever exposed to NOT exist- and even more so if they are cashing in. I'll take anyone here with a personal encounter over most anyone famous who hasn't had one. The rub is that most of the ones that have had personal encounters don't care if Sasquatch is publicly proved. So in limbo the subject remains for all of these reasons.

Yet all your bigfoot heroes use peer review for everything but their bigfoot work. They do not seem to be a stranger to, nor an enemy of, the peer review process. Say what? Since when? The number usually shown in polls varies between 15 - 30% usually. That is hardly a majority. Do you just make stuff up as you go along? You are about the most credulous person I have ever met. What you would do in any given situation is hardly a road sign to success. Absolutely not. Public opinion has nothing at all to do with scientific fact or scientific discovery. There are plenty of private sector scientists as well. This has got to be the single most daft thing you have ever said. Holy crap. Seriously. Wow.

I think it helps to define WHAT categories of evidence are on the menu that reasonably could be subjected to publishing/peer review. These are (and some may differ on this) : -Track way casts. -Hair morphology -DNA -Voice/Sound Recordings -The PGF -Tooth impressions/profiles on animal bones -(possibly) tree structures/manipulations All of these, by their nature, require access to the evidentiary "thing"...in other words, you're not asking peers to run an equation, sample a common element/material or just observe something lying around that all can view. The BF "problem" is, at its most fundamental level, a forensics issue. To reproduce results, or not, the scientist must have access to very specific items. This limitation on access to the evidence is the biggest hurdle. So, you have this limitation that is crimping all efforts as those in possession of the evidence will jealously guard their materials. The implication it creates is the keeper of the evidence has something to hide, namely that their hoax would be exposed if they freely offered it up for examination. On top of that, some of the keepers of some evidence have illusions of get-rich-quick schemes. That very idea is antithetical to the freer flow of information and forensic examination. How indeed do you overcome those things ? This is why I've suggested the PGF film is the lowest hanging fruit on the tree. The chief proponent for the authenticity of the film, Bill Munns, has a standing offer to any expert who wishes to examine the 2nd gen. copy/digital images and take a shot at refuting or confirming his conclusions. Treating the images on the film as something that contains verifiable information relevant to the question is a very logical next step. It is subject to meaningful examination by a much larger number of people. Just the reading of his book has given more people more meaningful access to objectively viewable evidence than just about any other source you could name.

I was fearful as I thought I was up against a rabid cat - so my pucker was already clinched tight enough to cut nails. And this huge, butt-ugly thing did nothing to make it relax - none at all. I had to kill a tiger at night that had been stalking us for three days and three nights - killed him on the third night. Yeah, I'm familiar with having squeakers. And if that changes over these critters, I'll be sure and let you boys know. Just don't get in a hurry, because I'm not.

^^ Your wasting your time. He's only here to troll the boards. I just haven't decided if I believe him to be someone's alternate joke account or not. Im surely not convinced he's sincere about the actual subject at hand here. There's zero substance to his posts, just him banging his drum against skeptics and scientists.

What dumbazz guide would go out with a dirty rifle? If any weapon in the field gets dunked, dropped in mud, or falls over in the dirt - it would take a full-blown retard to blow it off and let it go. Because that's your butt on the line. In the early days of the M16, they suffered two misfires per thousand shots, due to: 1. The rifle and round was tested with Dupont IMR 8208M stick powder, but the Army had a lot of Olin WC846 BALL powder they substituted, and it fouled terribly unless the weapon was cleaned well and often. 2. No cleaning kits were issued, nor were any cleaning instructions given. 3. The barrel was not chrome plated - leading to corrosion and trouble extracting the rounds. 4. Rifles didn't have a forward assist - which slams the round to seat like a bolt action does. Semi-autos are very reliable - even automatic pistols - and if you know the weapon, and you know the trick, each can be cleared of a stovepipe or double feed in one second. Even a Winchester Model 12 pump shotgun I used in combat would occasionally have a round jump out of the magazine and jam the loading gate - which I had slotted, enabling clearing in an instant with one of my dog tags. No weapon is 100%. Not one. The semi rifles are now as accurate as bolt actions, a whole lot more accurate than a lever, and you can put three rounds on target for every one of the bolt actions or lever actions. Lots more firepower without sacrificing accuracy. I agree on everything else you said. I just saw a video of a guy poking a small cave, pistol in hand, and he didn't get a shot off - a cat came out and got on him so fast he couldn't do anything.

If you are a Luddite, then so am I. I hear stories of the younger set seeing no need to own a TV because they watch on their devices. A young woman in Portland was hit by a train recently because she had her head in her smartphone and walked in front of the train. I think there is diagnosed disorder recognized by mental health professionals about people who develop anxiety when they are separated from their portable devices. Walking in front of trains is pretty serious evidence something is going on.