Jump to content

"hoax Confessors"


Recommended Posts

Incorrigible1
BFF Donor

A poster has gone off the JREF reservation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
masterbarber
Admin

Don't go bonkers on me, now. After all, you claim to be experienced with lawyers (of which I'm not)........

No bonkers, simply admiring your new moniker from a recent fan :lol:

....you would not call the site trashing, <15" footprints, unidentifiable DNA, and the testimony of a person who saw an animal resembling the common description of a sasquatch evidence of a sasquatch because sasquatches haven't been proven to exist?

Is that accurate?

I might call it evidence to support the person's story, but I wouldn't call it Sasquatch evidence anymore than I'd call it unicorn evidence.

That is similar to the PGF, isn't it?: There is a motion picture of the animal, footprint casts, footage of the footprints being cast, an independent person who came upon the site and photographed the footprints, and the testimony of two men who saw the creature. IOW, multiple layers of evidence.

Some say real, some say hoax. A Biological specimen might have solved the dilemma, don't you think?

And, again, you claim all of that is not evidence because sasquatches have not yet been proven to exist?

Ah, Yep- That's my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
Huntster, on 24 November 2010 - 04:03 PM, said:

Don't go bonkers on me, now. After all, you claim to be experienced with lawyers (of which I'm not)........

No bonkers, simply admiring your new moniker from a recent fan

Yeah. Me a lawyer? That's funny. Daddy always wanted me to go to law school, but I wasn't going for that. He also advised being an engineer, so I joined an Army engineer unit.

He wasn't impressed..........

Huntster, on 24 November 2010 - 04:03 PM, said:

....you would not call the site trashing, <15" footprints, unidentifiable DNA, and the testimony of a person who saw an animal resembling the common description of a sasquatch evidence of a sasquatch because sasquatches haven't been proven to exist?

Is that accurate?

I might call it evidence to support the person's story, but I wouldn't call it Sasquatch evidence anymore than I'd call it unicorn evidence.

I'm glad that at least you admit it's evidence, but since a unicorn wasn't claimed to be seen (and a sasquatch was), and there were no horse type tracks (but <15' human type tracks were), wouldn't it be more sasquatch evidence than unicorn or extraterrestrial alien evidence?

Huntster, on 24 November 2010 - 04:03 PM, said:

That is similar to the PGF, isn't it?: There is a motion picture of the animal, footprint casts, footage of the footprints being cast, an independent person who came upon the site and photographed the footprints, and the testimony of two men who saw the creature. IOW, multiple layers of evidence.

Some say real, some say hoax. A Biological specimen might have solved the dilemma, don't you think?

Yeah, it sure might have.

So you advocate that Gimlin should have shot it dead? Or somebody today do so?

And why do you think the California Dept. of Fish and Game are nowhere to be found in the PGF saga?

Huntster, on 24 November 2010 - 04:03 PM, said:

And, again, you claim all of that is not evidence because sasquatches have not yet been proven to exist?

Ah, Yep- That's my opinion.

So any offerings of "evidence" of a sasquatch is just wasted time, effort, and money?

And the only way to obtain evidence of a sasquatch is after proof is obtained?

And since the only way that can be obtained is by shooting a specimen and delivering it to...................well, who?, that is the course that should be followed.........................again, by who?

Link to post
Share on other sites
masterbarber
Admin

He wasn't impressed..........

My wife had a similar reaction when I came home after 4 years of marriage and "announced" I was going to be an LEO.

I'm glad that at least you admit it's evidence, but since a unicorn wasn't claimed to be seen (and a sasquatch was), and there were no horse type tracks (but <15' human type tracks were), wouldn't it be more sasquatch evidence than unicorn or extraterrestrial alien evidence?

Or maybe an extraterrestrial unicorn with Big, hairy man feet....

Yeah, it sure might have.

So you advocate that Gimlin should have shot it dead? Or somebody today do so?

I'm saying we might be having a different discussion if he had.

And why do you think the California Dept. of Fish and Game are nowhere to be found in the PGF saga?

Are you asking why they didn't investigate it? If so, most likely because they found no validity to it.

So any offerings of "evidence" of a sasquatch is just wasted time, effort, and money?

And the only way to obtain evidence of a sasquatch is after proof is obtained?

And since the only way that can be obtained is by shooting a specimen and delivering it to...................well, who?, that is the course that should be followed.........................again, by who?

I think it's great that folks are getting outdoors and looking around, I wish I had more time to do it. If someone feels hunting for Sasquatch is worthwhile then by all means, Do it. As it stands, I couldn't pack up all of the "Sasquatch evidence" and present it to a group of reasonable persons, Court of Law, Scientific review board, Wildlife Management agency, Legislative body, etc... and have them agree that there's a large Hairy Bigfoot roaming North America...Do you think I should be able to?

Edited by masterbarber
Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
Huntster, on 24 November 2010 - 04:37 PM, said:

So you advocate that Gimlin should have shot it dead? Or somebody today do so?

I'm saying we might be having a different discussion if he had.

That's a pretty lawyeresque answer. Maybe bob the Cubs fan needs to come back? :o

Huntster, on 24 November 2010 - 04:37 PM, said:

And why do you think the California Dept. of Fish and Game are nowhere to be found in the PGF saga?

Are you asking why they didn't investigate it? If so, most likely because they found no validity to it.

What makes you think they even looked at it? There is no mention of them whatsoever. Anywhere. At any time.

In fact, I believe I'm the only person in the past 42 years who has mentioned the California Dept. of Fish and Game with respect to the PGF.

Why is that?

Huntster, on 24 November 2010 - 04:37 PM, said:

So any offerings of "evidence" of a sasquatch is just wasted time, effort, and money?

And the only way to obtain evidence of a sasquatch is after proof is obtained?

And since the only way that can be obtained is by shooting a specimen and delivering it to...................well, who?, that is the course that should be followed.........................again, by who?

I think it's great that folks are getting outdoors and looking around, I wish I had more time to do it.

Other than for personal recreation, what good does that do if they are not going to shoot and deliver a sasquatch..............well, again, to whom?

If someone feels hunting for Sasquatch is worthwhile then by all means, Do it.

In Alaska, that would be against the law.

As it stands, I couldn't pack up all of the "Sasquatch evidence" and present it to a group of reasonable persons, Court of Law, Scientific review board, Wildlife Management agency, Legislative body, etc... and have them agree that there's a large Hairy Bigfoot roaming North America...

But you may get some of them to agree that the appropriate wildlife management agencies are duly responsible to conduct their very first investigation of the phenomenon.

Do you think I should be able to?

No. You have no authority or responsibility in this arena, do you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
masterbarber
Admin

That's a pretty lawyeresque answer. Maybe bob the Cubs fan needs to come back? :o

He might :lol:

What makes you think they even looked at it? There is no mention of them whatsoever. Anywhere. At any time.

In fact, I believe I'm the only person in the past 42 years who has mentioned the California Dept. of Fish and Game with respect to the PGF.

Why is that?

Maybe you should ask that Agency what their position on the PGF is.

In Alaska, that would be against the law.

Hunt, as in seek out/search for.

But you may get some of them to agree that the appropriate wildlife management agencies are duly responsible to conduct their very first investigation of the phenomenon.

I doubt it.

No. You have no authority or responsibility in this arena, do you?

Are you saying average citizens don't have a right to introduce information in any of the venues I mentioned? Why would there be a need for authority?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
Huntster, on 24 November 2010 - 05:25 PM, said:

What makes you think they even looked at it? There is no mention of them whatsoever. Anywhere. At any time.

In fact, I believe I'm the only person in the past 42 years who has mentioned the California Dept. of Fish and Game with respect to the PGF.

Why is that?

Maybe you should ask that Agency what their position on the PGF is.

I could without jeopardizing my situation here, but I wonder if they'd even bother to respond to a letter with an Alaskan postmark on it, even if it was certified?

Huntster, on 24 November 2010 - 05:25 PM, said:

In Alaska, that would be against the law.

Hunt, as in seek out/search for.

Oh. But, again, if not just for personal recreation, what good does that do?

Huntster, on 24 November 2010 - 05:25 PM, said:

But you may get some of them to agree that the appropriate wildlife management agencies are duly responsible to conduct their very first investigation of the phenomenon.

I doubt it.

That's very skeptical of you.

Huntster, on 24 November 2010 - 05:25 PM, said:

No. You have no authority or responsibility in this arena, do you?

Are you saying average citizens don't have a right to introduce information in any of the venues I mentioned?

Sure they do, but (like I wrote above, to which you answered "I doubt it") to what good if evidence isn't evidence until there is proof?

Why would there be a need for authority?

To establish standing, to back your findings with the authority, to obtain funding and support in your efforts, and to legitimize your efforts. For example, scientific research of wild animals requires a permit in Alaska. You yourself looked that up in the Alaska Statutes (Title 16), did you not?

Link to post
Share on other sites
masterbarber
Admin

I could without jeopardizing my situation here, but I wonder if they'd even bother to respond to a letter with an Alaskan postmark on it, even if it was certified?

You might get an answer

Oh. But, again, if not just for personal recreation, what good does that do?

"Good" as in getting an Agency involved? It's not going to happen with what's been offered so far.

That's very skeptical of you.

Thanks, you have your moments too.

To establish standing, to back your findings with the authority, to obtain funding and support in your efforts, and to legitimize your efforts. For example, scientific research of wild animals requires a permit in Alaska. You yourself looked that up in the Alaska Statutes (Title 16), did you not?

It does here in Georgia also, if one intends to collect a specimen.

The point is none of that is going to happen because these agencies do not believe that BF exists. Why?- Because there is no tangible direct evidence to date, only what is interpreted by the finder. That ain't good enough and that's why you see absolutely zero Government agency involvement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
Huntster, on 24 November 2010 - 06:51 PM, said:

I could without jeopardizing my situation here, but I wonder if they'd even bother to respond to a letter with an Alaskan postmark on it, even if it was certified?

You might get an answer

Maybe, but with the PGF event being 42 years ago, anybody in the department at the time would be long retired, and I doubt any written record on why they didn't respond would be forthcoming. Like Kitikaze's silly attempts to re-hash the old testimony, it is likely a waste of time.

The mere fact that no mention of the California Dept. of Fish & Game by anyone of the era who was involved with the film is good enough to spell out the obvious to me: they weren't involved, and had no intention of getting involved until they were dragged into it kicking and screaming.

Huntster, on 24 November 2010 - 06:51 PM, said:

Oh. But, again, if not just for personal recreation, what good does that do?

"Good" as in getting an Agency involved? It's not going to happen with what's been offered so far.

While that's a common opinion from the skeptical side, it is still just an opinion.

Life has a way of delivering surprises all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
Huntster, on 24 November 2010 - 06:51 PM, said:

That's very skeptical of you.

Thanks, you have your moments too.

Indeed. At times, I'm even a denialist.

Huntster, on 24 November 2010 - 06:51 PM, said:

To establish standing, to back your findings with the authority, to obtain funding and support in your efforts, and to legitimize your efforts. For example, scientific research of wild animals requires a permit in Alaska. You yourself looked that up in the Alaska Statutes (Title 16), did you not?

It does here in Georgia also, if one intends to collect a specimen.

While Timothy Treadwell conducted his "research" in a National Park (and thus out of state jurisdiction), it was revealed later (after much "withholding") that the Park Superintendent failed to enforce numerous regulations on Mr. Treadwell, including permitting for his activities. (Of course, Treadwell broke nearly every rule and reg in the National Park system and the Superintendent didn't do a thing about it............funny how that worked, huh?)

So, in short, the collection of a specimen is not the only thing that requires a permit. Indeed, Les Shroud (Survivorman) got cited for commercially filming in a National Park without a permit (maybe they got tough after Timmy got ate, huh?).

The point is none of that is going to happen because these agencies do not believe that BF exists.

The ADFG doesn't believe polar bears are threatened, either. But guess what?............

Why?- Because there is no tangible direct evidence to date, only what is interpreted by the finder.

Ditto polar bears and AGW.

So?

That ain't good enough and that's why you see absolutely zero Government agency involvement.

Maybe.

Maybe not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
masterbarber, on 18 November 2010 - 03:21 PM, said:

I understand the reluctance of agencies to expend resources to hunt for BF

So do I.......kinda'..........

NASA had no problem funding SETI. Congress shut it down, though.

Why?:

nasa.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO,its easy to spot hoaxers,they are incapable of telling the truth about anything. Are generally severely over weight. Have bad oral,and physical hygiene,and pick their noses constantly. Children and puppies will avoid them whenever possible. Known not to pay taxes,most have done time in prison. There is evidence,that they are probably responsible for Aids,herpes and jock itch.

Edited by Gunz and Bunnies
Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

IMHO,its easy to spot hoaxers,they are incapable of telling the truth about anything.

The original lie leads to subsequent lies, each trumping the previous, until (in short order) the lies overwhelm the original false claim.

Are generally severely over weight. Have bad oral,and physical hygiene,and pick their noses constantly. Children and puppies will avoid them whenever possible. Known not to pay taxes,most have done time in prison. There is evidence,that they are probably responsible for Aids,herpes and jock itch.

After so many years, I'm afraid I'm guilty of all the above............and much more.

I snore, too!...........

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

Maybe, but with the PGF event being 42 years ago, anybody in the department at the time would be long retired, and I doubt any written record on why they didn't respond would be forthcoming. Like Kitikaze's silly attempts to re-hash the old testimony, it is likely a waste of time.

The mere fact that no mention of the California Dept. of Fish & Game by anyone of the era who was involved with the film is good enough to spell out the obvious to me: they weren't involved, and had no intention of getting involved until they were dragged into it kicking and screaming.

While that's a common opinion from the skeptical side, it is still just an opinion.

Life has a way of delivering surprises all the time.

Huntster you said:

"Like Kitikaze's silly attempts to re-hash the old testimony, it is likely a waste of time."

Why is his attempt to interview some of the prime figures in the pgf "silly"?

Just asking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • masterbarber locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...