Guest Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 What if Janice Carter's story was proven to be true with hard proof, would she be an expert? or that good looking fella in the Enoch book, would he be an expert if hard proof was given? And lets not forget about Jan Klement and his book the Creature would he be an expert if his story was proven. What kind of, or how much experience would it take to be thought of as an expert? Or would it be the Scientist who took the hard proof and studied it and proved the stories to be true, be the experts. Or would a couple of clear closeup pictures be enough to call someone an expert. And what about Mary Green and Autumn Williams who wrote the books would they be experts if hard proof was given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) It seems obvious that the same physicists who proposed HB, designed an experiment to detect HB, and are working to fully understand HB would be the ones to consult about HB. Where are the counterparts in the hunt for bigfoot? Where are the experiments? Where is the body? JMO, If someone was to be an expert, and set out to prove anything they would start with basic premises such as, it's biological, it's terrestrial, it's habitat is often wooded, it makes sounds/ calls, tracks, eats, makes little ones etc.....An expert would cull the data from reports including physical descriptions, reported locations, and behaviors then devise a functional methodology to detect this same data while dictating the circumstances of their collection...(read, choosing locations at random in which to conduct surveys and other experiments such as introducing the stimulous of human presence or sounds projected into the environment to elicit responses.)Information gathered from this identifies most probable areas in which more more focused field study can me done to document sample collections of scat hair etc. Confirmation of the species and it's presence through DNA validates the whole process and premise.I'm very pleased to see the final step has been initiated. Edited October 15, 2012 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) Puuuuleeeeeeeeeaaaaaase.................. use your own intelligence and discretion for who you want to believe and consider viable, on your own terms. BTW, the word authority is a synonym of expert. Edited October 15, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 I never said witnesses were experts. It is a silly concept. So is outright denying the actual definition of expert and conforming to one's own definition. To be an expert, we do not need a BF body. Just a massive knowledge of information derived about a subject. Take HB for example, many skeptics were available for that, until its discovery, now they're as invisible as you are behind your computer screen! Now THAT was a silly concept! No apologizes, no admission of wrong, no more nattering, grunting or chirping that HB does not exist. In order for HB to be discovered, there HAD to be experts on the subject working towards its discovery, otherwise it would not have been pursued and discovered.. Simple concept of experts! That's why people are here, to derive info from those who know more about BF than we do......EXPERTS. You would now be more knowledgeable to other, lesser knowledgeable people, who will now consider you an expert on BF, based on the limited amount of what you know, but much more than them. To be an expert you have to be able to produce - it's that simple. If you go to an bigfoot expert they have to be able to take you to bigfoot. An expert elk guide can do it, an expert on tigers, leopards, or lemurs can do it. Has Finding Bigfoot found bigfoot? By your view everyone here is an expert - we all look at witness statements, pics/vids, evidence, etc. You still haven't answered which of the contradictory "experts" you agree with and which are lying, misguided, or full of BS? They can't ALL be right on ALL points which leads a reasonable person to admit that it's not possible for ALL to be experts. You can be an expert on tics and not be an expert on bigfoot. You can be an expert on DNA and not be an expert on bigfoot. You can be an expert on any subject but until you can produce a body or even a clear video of bigfoot you are not an expert on bigfoot. If you can use your expert knowledge to pinpoint the correct habitat, time, and situation to produce real evidence you will be an expert - until then not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 What if Janice Carter's story was proven to be true with hard proof, would she be an expert? or that good looking fella in the Enoch book, would he be an expert if hard proof was given? And lets not forget about Jan Klement and his book the Creature would he be an expert if his story was proven. What kind of, or how much experience would it take to be thought of as an expert? Or would it be the Scientist who took the hard proof and studied it and proved the stories to be true, be the experts. Or would a couple of clear closeup pictures be enough to call someone an expert. And what about Mary Green and Autumn Williams who wrote the books would they be experts if hard proof was given. It is the proof that matters, we already have the stories. The verifying scientist would be independant of the person who supplied the proof. Depending on what was verified and how it was verified, then yes Janice Carter and "Mike" could then be considered experts. Mary Green and Autumn Williams were merely the story tellers. Sorry, with today's technology pictures can never be definitive proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) Quote: "By your view everyone here is an expert - we all look at witness statements, pics/vids, evidence, etc. You still haven't answered which of the contradictory "experts" you agree with and which are lying, misguided, or full of BS?" You're putting words into my mouth, much like you're making up your own definition of "experts"? I respect the opinion of a small group here and the work they've put into in solving the mystery of BF. They are the true experts. OB, you're saying that there were no experts working towards HB until it was discovered, and then they became experts? If so, you're definition holds NO water. The real definition (post # 130) is what I choose to believe, not some person's own derivative as it's pushed onto other people, like a used car salesman trying to make a sale. Btw, my post at #138, above, was a direct answer to post #136, NOT #137 by SYHoo Edited October 15, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest baboonpete Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 I never said witnesses were experts. It is a silly concept. So is outright denying the actual definition of expert and conforming to one's own definition. To be an expert, we do not need a BF body. Just a massive knowledge of information derived about a subject. Take HB for example, many skeptics were available for that, until its discovery, now they're as invisible as you are behind your computer screen! Now THAT was a silly concept! No apologizes, no admission of wrong, no more nattering, grunting or chirping that HB does not exist. In order for HB to be discovered, there HAD to be experts on the subject working towards its discovery, otherwise it would not have been pursued and discovered.. Simple concept of experts! That's why people are here, to derive info from those who know more about BF than we do......EXPERTS. You would now be more knowledgeable to other, lesser knowledgeable people, who will now consider you an expert on BF, based on the limited amount of what you know, but much more than them. wrong, what you are defining is the perpetuation of the myth of the bigfoot authority. Just because someone can draw upon their "authority" in another field, it does not make them an authority in bigfooting when bigfooting is 100% gussing without a proven specimen. The rest is veneration of people who have positioned themselves to be celebrities in this gated community. JMO, If someone was to be an expert, and set out to prove anything they would start with basic premises such as, it's biological, it's terrestrial, it's habitat is often wooded, it makes sounds/ calls, tracks, eats, makes little ones etc.....An expert would cull the data from reports including physical descriptions, reported locations, and behaviors then devise a functional methodology to detect this same data while dictating the circumstances of their collection...(read, choosing locations at random in which to conduct surveys and other experiments such as introducing the stimulous of human presence or sounds projected into the environment to elicit responses.)Information gathered from this identifies most probable areas in which more more focused field study can me done to document sample collections of scat hair etc. Confirmation of the species and it's presence through DNA validates the whole process and premise.I'm very pleased to see the final step has been initiated. all of which remains GUESSWORK, guessing does not an expert make, it reinforces an artificial construct of the celebrity/authority archetype in bigfootery that is both false and nonsense. When one of the most respected ""experts"" can endorse a hoax (elbe) and to the present day defend an elk's butt print as proof of bigfoot, we simply need a much more discerning definition of who knows what. Its fine to make it about getting results, then all you have to do is produce some. Puuuuleeeeeeeeeaaaaaase.................. use your own intelligence and discretion for who you want to believe and consider viable, on your own terms. BTW, the word authority is a synonym of expert. and is equally misused when it's applied to guessing games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 I think a Bigfoot expert exists. It is someone who has studied the history and the backstories, and the players. Not necessarily someone who finds tracks and things. It would have to be more of a Bigfoot historian type of person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Quote: "By your view everyone here is an expert - we all look at witness statements, pics/vids, evidence, etc. You still haven't answered which of the contradictory "experts" you agree with and which are lying, misguided, or full of BS?" You're putting words into my mouth, much like you're making up your own definition of "experts"? I respect the opinion of a small group here and the work they've put into in solving the mystery of BF. They are the true experts. OB, you're saying that there were no experts working towards HB until it was discovered, and then they became experts? If so, you're definition holds NO water. The real definition (post # 130) is what I choose to believe, not some person's own derivative as it's pushed onto other people, like a used car salesman trying to make a sale. Btw, my post at #138, above, was a direct answer to post #136, NOT #137 by SYHoo It's not that difficult, I just want to know who YOU consider to be a bigfoot expert? I am NOT saying that the physicists involved with proposing/finding HB were not expert physicists prior to finding HB. I AM saying that until a bigfoot "expert" can use their expert knowledge to pinpoint the correct habitat, time, and situation to produce real evidence they are not experts. The correct analogy would be that a primate specialist looking for bigfoot would be an expert on primates and not an expert on bigfoot until they could produce evidence that backed up their claims about bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest baboonpete Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Has Finding Bigfoot found bigfoot? No and they never will, because that isn't the purpose fo the excercise. The purpose is to get ratings and perpetuate the show itself. It's about enetertaining viewers, not finding squatch or keeping footers happy. This is that pesky thing called critical thinking, the bane of so many. Many times you need to look at the motivation behind what you speak of. Do many of these self proclaimed authorities in the so called community have a motivation to elevate themselves and then go out of their way to maintain thats elf proclaimed reputation in order to stay a big fish in a little pond? You better dern well believe it. I think a Bigfoot expert exists. It is someone who has studied the history and the backstories, and the players. Not necessarily someone who finds tracks and things. It would have to be more of a Bigfoot historian type of person. If you're talking about a folklorist, then yes I agree, and Kathy Strain is a perfect example of this kind of expertise. Applied to living asquatch though, not the same thing. No offense to Ms. Strain intended, just clarifying the lines between two concepts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 The "experts" changed me from a believer into a skeptic.... I agree w/ So-Yahoo, "start with basic premises such as, it's biological, it's terrestrial, it's habitat is often wooded..." In short - BF is "Flesh & Blood" - that is my personal filter or as Thermal said "use your own intelligence and discretion for who you want to believe and consider viable, on your own terms" - For example, as a flesh & blood being that apparently doesn't use tools, fire or clothing, I can't accept that they know what a trail cam is and figure out why they need to avoid them ( or even more to the point - they know to avoid trail-cams, but they leave big footprints everywhere). I could argue this point based on the basic biology of known animals, but I have nothing to prove that this is the case for BF. If BF was only in the most remote reaches of the PNW, like Mtn Gorriilas found only in small areas, I would be more apt to believe, but as someone else said "Bigfoot is everywhere and nowhere". To each his own. If someone believes that they have glowing eyes, exchange gifts, smoke cigs, ask for garlic or whatever - if they pronounce it loud enough and often enough - they seem to be deemed "experts" - at least by somebody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 No proof = no experts! My thoughts exactly. Nothing matters it's all conjecture until they bring in a body of evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) HB experts have 99.9999% proven the particle exists, even though it's unbelievably* small compared to a bigfoot. And they did it by using science. 2 quick points Ray. SO, you acknowledge that the HB is not proven as of today, yet there are experts. Excellent. Addittionally, 99.9999% proven? What? Seriously? Like anyone would ever be able to determine that. I may as well say that Bigfoot Experts only release .00000001% of their conclusive evidence for the public on the internet. This is the same argument that a few around here used base on the actions of some person at a college newspaper by calling Bill Munns a Phottogrammist. I would certainly agree that there are no BF experts. But can someone point me in the direction where any researcher is claiming to be an expert on BF? Or is it again, simply a third party erroneously referring to a person as an expert? If it is the latter, does anyone else see the issue there? Edited October 15, 2012 by Cotter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 all of which remains GUESSWORK, guessing does not an expert make, it reinforces an artificial construct of the celebrity/authority archetype in bigfootery that is both false and nonsense Not exactly...For instance a researcher/ expert will use his knowledge of what is reported from witness accounts and what his feild data plus analyses from other experts in relavant fields tells him. If that leads him /her to find definitive evidence then he can be an expert. Thats producing as ohiobill alludes too. Each step of the process can be a point of contention for people not involved and can't accept any assurance as to the reliability of the data, but then they and their opinions may not matter if they only wish to heckel from the peanut gallery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 It is the proof that matters, we already have the stories. The verifying scientist would be independant of the person who supplied the proof. Depending on what was verified and how it was verified, then yes Janice Carter and "Mike" could then be considered experts. Mary Green and Autumn Williams were merely the story tellers. Sorry, with today's technology pictures can never be definitive proof. Good point, So if I was to get lets say twenty BF researchers together in a room and showed them an hour long video. That would be close up and clear of a swamp Ape, and also showed them pictures of the same Swamp Ape. Your saying that would not be enough to prove without a doubt they are real. Then is what your saying is a body is the only proof that will be accepted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts