Guest thermalman Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) IMO, that would give you expertise in knowing more about their behaviour and habits. Your close encounters with them would give you an insight that a high percentage of others here do not have, thus qualifying you to relate intimate details about your experiences with your contacts. That, to me, makes you a better authority, with an expertise of details only known to you, that others should be extracting in order to gain knowledge of what they might expect if they happen to have their own encounter. Their preparedness would be in part, from some of the details you have released to them ahead of time, that they might have learned from. Edited October 16, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I claim the claims I'm making are only claims, in claiming the claims are only claims the claims I made about the claims are only claims that I have claimed to have claimed, therefore any claims that I may or may not claim are to be dismissed as unclaimed claims and should not be mistaken for claims that I didn't claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I jumped over the first part and instead went into the field not to study but to befriend, I'm funny that way. You dont think that Fossey and Goodall also befriended the primates they were studying? What is your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) You have just qualified as an "expert" claimer!!! Edited October 16, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Can a person call themselves an "Expert" in the field of: "there are no Experts in Bigfoot Research"? Just thought I would add a little humor.. I nominate myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 You dont think that Fossey and Goodall also befriended the primates they were studying? What is your point? The fact that you have to ask what is my point, is my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 <clicks ignore button> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Strain's expertise is applicable to the folklore end of the subject but not to squatch as a real creature, because they aren't the same thing. One will never be an expert if that person has never seen or experienced one and believe they are make-believe myths. That person is not even qualified to enter into this conversation, having no experience whatsoever. Therefore, that person has no evidence nor anecdotal stories to bring to the table to discuss. There are no "experts" because no one has ever spent years in the fields in direct observation of a troop, collecting repeatable data and gathering indisputable evidence. Those closest are those with multiple experiences with them on an on-going basis. When they are proven to be a real species, those folks are the ones who need to come forward with their observation data and share with scientists, and accompany them into the field to learn together. But who dictates that an expert has to be a scientist? Someone going out there for months getting to know them and their habitat and habits is certainly closer to an expert than a brand new scientist hitting the field for the first time lacing up his/her boots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) You know Madison5716 - I actually agree with you. You said: Someone going out there for months getting to know them and their habitat and habits is certainly closer to an expert than a brand new scientist hitting the field for the first time lacing up his/her boots. I quote this for a reason. IF this animal is ever documented by Science - most think the work is over. I think it has just begun - and hopefully one day we will hear about work being done as you describe in this post. Boots on the ground - studying and observing this animal in its natural habitat. I think so much more can be learned about this animal in this way, than by killing it. But, until the animal is documented - all we have are stories being told by witnesses... No one will take them for more than that - especially in the scientific community. Edited October 16, 2012 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest baboonpete Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) One will never be an expert if that person has never seen or experienced one and believe they are make-believe myths. That person is not even qualified to enter into this conversation, having no experience whatsoever. Therefore, that person has no evidence nor anecdotal stories to bring to the table to discuss. There are no "experts" because no one has ever spent years in the fields in direct observation of a troop, collecting repeatable data and gathering indisputable evidence. Those closest are those with multiple experiences with them on an on-going basis. When they are proven to be a real species, those folks are the ones who need to come forward with their observation data and share with scientists, and accompany them into the field to learn together. But who dictates that an expert has to be a scientist? Someone going out there for months getting to know them and their habitat and habits is certainly closer to an expert than a brand new scientist hitting the field for the first time lacing up his/her boots. exactly, first you recognition by those pesky scientists, then you can talk about expertise, until then pareinolia ridden blobs from youtube are not proof of anything. Edited October 17, 2012 by See-Te-Cah NC To bring the post into compliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 You know Madison5716 - I actually agree with you. You said: I quote this for a reason. IF this animal is ever documented by Science - most think the work is over. I think it has just begun - and hopefully one day we will hear about work being done as you describe in this post. Boots on the ground - studying and observing this animal in its natural habitat. I think so much more can be learned about this animal in this way, than by killing it. But, until the animal is documented - all we have are stories being told by witnesses... No one will take them for more than that - especially in the scientific community. But just because they are proven to exist does not mean someone would be able to just walk out in the woods and see one like you would a chimp. They will still be hard to find and it could be years before one is seen again, so I don't feel there would be much to study. IMO it would only step up the hunt and increase the chance one or more would be killed, nothing good will come from finding them exactly, first you recognition by those pesky scientists, then you can talk about expertise. until then pareinolia ridden blobs from youtube are not proof of anything other than lunacy or gullibility or both. have you been drinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Who said anything about youtube blobs making experts? Again, I will say it b/c it seems to fall on deaf ears repeatedly. Basing opinions on an entire group from just a handful of fanaticals is fundamentally flawed. Both sides are guilty of it, and when we can realize that a few does not represent the whole in this world of 'footery, we can all move forward to get to the bottom of this phenom. No one is claiming to be an expert, only third parties referring to them as experts. I don't believe I've seen one person here claim they are an expert. Thus, we are arguing on the same side...yet still arguing. On a totally unrelated note: Do tiger experts know on average how many pints of blood a 3 year old bengal tiger has? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Who said anything about youtube blobs making experts? Again, I will say it b/c it seems to fall on deaf ears repeatedly. Basing opinions on an entire group from just a handful of fanaticals is fundamentally flawed. Both sides are guilty of it, and when we can realize that a few does not represent the whole in this world of 'footery, we can all move forward to get to the bottom of this phenom. No one is claiming to be an expert, only third parties referring to them as experts. I don't believe I've seen one person here claim they are an expert. Thus, we are arguing on the same side...yet still arguing. On a totally unrelated note: Do tiger experts know on average how many pints of blood a 3 year old bengal tiger has? I agree and arguing about something as stupid as who's an expert is a waste of time, that being said I'm going fishing. About the tiger blood, ask Charlie Sheen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 No one can be an expert.. on something yet uncataloged, that can't be consistently found, or studied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 LOL! Good luck enoch. Don't forget the net! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts