Guest Darrell Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Ya I can get a bit "full" of myself sometimes, just ask me. Good thing I have a light case load the last couple days going into the holiday weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Heard a few experts on Coast to Coast last night. And then a few more called in. On guy claimed he and his crew would build Sasquatch blinds and sit in there and let the Sasquatch approach. None of the other experts questioned him on whether he had any evidence as a result, they only challenged him of his premise that BF's eyesight was poor. Another expert was sure BF's eyesight was awesome...because they are considered an apex predator. Then another expert called in from Arizona claiming he had pictures and video....and had submited to the Ketchum report. Again, no challenge of putting up the pictures or the video from the other experts. In all, most of these experts sounded like they knew nothing but what they wanted to believe. Of the four who talked, one guy, can't remember his name but I think he is from Willow Creek, sounded grounded in reality, the others....not so much! I figure there are no experts, just those up on the material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Publish something not 100% right and your career is done, and why there is a peer review process in place. Which is why, IMO, the Ketchum report will never be published in an actual scientific trade journal. Science prefers science that sticks it's neck out. It must be falsifiable, meaning whatever you propose to be true, it must be possible to prove you wrong. In this light, Dr. Ketchums work should be perfectly publishable, since the evidence itself isn't falsifiable or hoaxable and her conclusions can be proven wrong, but only if they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I would agree. But we also have to qualify our experts to make sure they are on the level for what they purport is truth. My life's avocation has been martial arts training. Back in the 70's one of the real deal movers and shakers was a man named George Dillman. He was a fantastic competitor and instructor and was featured in almost all of the martial arts media of that time. In the early 90's he started a system teaching 1 touch pressure point knock outs and wrote books and magazine articles and taught seminars all over the world, making tons of money. Wasnt long and some started questioning his training and logic in doing what he said he could do. Everybody said those disbelievers didnt know what they were talking about. He was 100% successfull in knocking out his students and those attending his seminars but when a totally skeptical news crew had him try to knock out a reporter he could'nt do it. Of course he had an explaination and you can see all of this on you tube but still he could'nt do his knock outs on anyone who did'nt beleive he could do it. Anyway, did that mean Dillman was'nt an expert in the traditional Karate system he used to train in? Of course not, but from then on everything he put out had a taint to it except for his true believers who still pay him money and believe his schtick even when disproved. Thats why I say most of what we see in bigfoot research is bunk. Have a long term habituation, get the pictures and prove it and dont hide behind the "I dont need to prove anything" argument. If thats the case shut up and enjoy your forest friend and quit writing books and appearing at conventions. Bigfoot talks to you in your head, then get some usefull info we can use or shut up and enjoy your moauntain teacher and quit writing books and appearing at conventions. Am I the only one that has these kind of concerns? Science prefers science that sticks it's neck out. It must be falsifiable, meaning whatever you propose to be true, it must be possible to prove you wrong. In this light, Dr. Ketchums work should be perfectly publishable, since the evidence itself isn't falsifiable or hoaxable and her conclusions can be proven wrong, but only if they are. Ok, I'll be the first one to eat crow when that paper gets published in a scientific trade journal and actually has anything to do with bigfoot. I actually did that years ago when I was in one of those Army units that wore the funny felt hats. Will you if it doesnt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted May 25, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 25, 2012 Thats kind of my whole pemise, that if we cant prove they exist, what are you an expert of? I also think that there are legit expert trackers, woodsmen, hunters, field biologists, scientists, and maybe even DNA lab operators involved in finding bigfoot, but just because they are experts in their respective fields they arent "bigfoot" experts till bigfoot actually exists. And I hate to say it but some researchers are experts at looking downright foolish and some just plain crazy. I guess you might as well define what is meant by 'proof'. When I see a 10 foot tall creature in front of me that can't possibly be faked... well at what point is there the need for further proof?? Regarding Tom Brown Jr, -careful- it is true he was quite young when he taught 'sensing presence' to a person in the army. I think it was 1966 or so- according to him 'Grandfather' insisted that he do the teaching (the guy had originally approached 'Grandfather'). So he was well under 20- closer to 16. It was that individual that then demonstrated the skill and got others to come to Tom. Regardless of what you have read about him elsewhere, I have taken some of these same classes and I've seen enough to know that its not some made-up mumbo jumbo. *Again*, nearly everyone reading these words have experienced the feeling of being watched at one point or another and I am sure most of them know nothing about TBJr. Guys, Ive been following this phenomena since 1970 and there is still no actual proof that this animal exists is there? People have been trying to find this thing for over 50+ years and what is there to show for it? It did'nt take that long to find the mountain gorilla! It took about 50 years from the time that there were sightings of some sort of big ape to actual acknowledgement that it really exists. We are talking about a creature, that if speculation elsewhere is correct, is smarter than most any ape and is considerably more shy. Put another way, what if its as smart as you but really doesn't want to be seen? The ones I saw did something that says they were very much self-aware. Other sighting reports suggest the same thing. My suggesting is to simply try it on- you don't have to accept anything, just try on the idea that they are as smart as we are and really don't want to meet up with us. If they really are an apex predator, the last thing they would want to do is give away their position, and that does mean they don't want to be seen. If you've not seen it, take a look at the video on YT about the 3-mile trackway found in Northern Minnesota just this last March. To anyone into tracking, this video not only explains why we've not found a body, but also why we rarely see them, and is a particularly difficult bit of evidence to dismiss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 It seems to me that the most likely scenario if BF exists is that they are highly intelligent. As Salubrious has noted, if you think about them in terms of that intelligence and family groupings then many of the sighting reports make more sense, ie. the evidence fits a pattern of intelligence. When I say "evidence" I speak in terms of behaviors noted in sighting reports. I also take sighting reports with a dose of salt, as I'm sure there is a degree of misidentification or hoaxing involved (tall tales and yarns for attention). However, I consider that a properly vetted database of sighting reports has a fair amount of genuine reports and taken as a whole can give us useful information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Good points. However, even tho I havent done a tracker school course, I do know several that have who were in the same unit as I that thought it was a waste of money. Tom Brown has almost a cult following, almost like........... It took about 50 years from the time that there were sightings of some sort of big ape to actual acknowledgement that it really exists. Ok lets look at this a bit. First explorers to the Virunga (sic?) region were there in 1861. First mountain gorilla shot and collected for classification was in 1902. If there were actual reports of the animal when the explorers got there in 1861 thats 41 years max. But the catch is the western gorilla and the eastern lowland gorilla were discovered soon after europeans started to visit and explore africa. The gorilla was actually type classified by science by the 1840's as were chimps. That means there were bodies. Lets see, if we give the mid 50's as the actual start of the search for bigfoot in the US thats 57 years and counting with no type specimen. And we have all the cool wiz bang gadgets the white explorers didnt have in africa back in the late 1800's. So it took a handfull of men who probably were not only hunting for the mountain gorilla 41 yrs to find a small population of mystery apes and shoot one and take it back for classification. And science already knew that apes existed for over 50 yrs. So with all the cool equipment, vehicles, audio/visual, and maybe hundreds of searchers looking for bigfoot and we cant produce any definate proof 57 years later? Think about that the next time you attend a conference and the speaker shares their multiple sightings and interactions and telepathic conversations with bigfoot. Why cant an organized and well equiped scientific survey team find good old sas when bubba's grandma can? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 If its ok with you Sleuth I'll throw this out. As for Meldrum, I'm talking his being taken in by the Snow Walker video, Which he helped expose in the end. Why doesn't he get any "cred" for this? his views on the Skookum casing Shared in whole or in part by several other equally reputable scientists with appropriate expertise. So why do you assume Dr Meldrum (and the rest) are automatically wrong? , and his being hoaxed by fake footprints. As demonstrated by who, exactly. Im not saying everything he says is wrong, but he has been wrong in the past so we should just be carefull and make sure he backs up what he says with strong scientific evidense in the future. And so should people like that KU professor who said of the Sykes study that it shouldn't even be started...but they aren't held to the standard people like Dr Meldrum are held to by the other side of the fence. Im also a very leary of some of the finge elements that advocate the UFO, psychic, multi dementional, infra sound paranormal mumbo jumbo stuff. Thats the crazy stuff I'm talking about. As you may have realized by now, so are many proponents. I also group the whole bigfoot is so superior and inteligent to man thing. In terms of their physical abilities and the ability to survive w/o tools and technologies, absolutely they're superior. You or I couldn't live the way they do. Really? if sas is so intelligent why is he eating garbage from dumpsters Why do humans do that? Are poor and homeless people "stupid" for accessing a food source that can keep them alive. I have never been that destitute, and hope I never am. and smelling like poo? Other than aesthetic, what use would sasquatch have for shampoo and/or soap? Animals, even highly intelligent ones, generally don't care if they stink as a normal animal should. If he were so smart and could talk and communicate telepathically he would be some place warm, clean, watching cable, and eating pizza or chinese take out being served by us inferior humans. And you guys keep letting them put out this stupind craziness. Nuff there? See above. Guys, Ive been following this phenomena since 1970 and there is still no actual proof that this animal exists is there? People have been trying to find this thing for over 50+ years and what is there to show for it? It did'nt take that long to find the mountain gorilla! Gorillas were first accepted/documented in 1847. They had been known (as in people knew about them) since the time of Hanno the Navigator (from whence the common name comes) in the West and certainly that long in areas where they were native.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Mulder, your counter arguments dont hold any water. You cant prove ANYTHING!! Show me the proof, your the expert prove me wrong with fact. Here are the pre-requisites for being a bigfoot expert: Does not question anything from established bigfoot researchers, but takes whatever they say on faith and demands that others do the same. Applies "critical thinking" only to that which opposes your viewpoint Immediately judges as false and debunks anything that contradicts their beliefs. Are not interested in truth, evidence or facts, only in defending their beliefs. Automatically dismisses and denies all data that contradicts your beliefs. Scoffs and ridicules what they oppose instead of using objective analysis and examination. When faced with evidence or facts they can't refute, uses semantics, word games and denial to try to obfuscate the issue. Unable to adapt their beliefs to new evidence, and denies data which doesn't fit into them. When all conventional explanations for an unexplainable phenomenon are ruled out, accept paranormal ones. And the best one so far: Will never admit that they are wrong no matter what, regardless of evidence Thanks Mulder for linking to this in your signature line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 Excuse me Darrel, but where exactly did you come up with your criteria? Seems almost like you are applying the worst case scenario for an uncritical "researcher" in your world view to the question. I recognize that you have an agenda, which if I may summarize, is that uncritical thinking is wrong. I agree with that point. However, trying to lump all researchers into an uncritical bias is in itself a bias which I hope you will reconsider as you interact with many well established researchers and thinkers on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 It's pretty clear with that last post that you are not interested in having any type of meaningful discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 No kidding...his criteria certainly doesn't apply to people like Dr Meldrum or Fahrenbach, etc. Does seem to apply however in his case. Not even an acknowledgement about my point about the gorilla, which was known for centuries or longer before "discovery" by Western science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 I was also wondering where he got his time line regarding the discovery of the gorilla, as it was indeed centuries from first report to final confirmation as a species. It was the stuff of legend for quite a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 (edited) "In 1860 an explorer named Du Chaillu described the gorilla as a bloodthirsty forest monster that is willing to attack any human beings. Author Alfred Brehm discounted Du Chaillu’s claim in the 1876 book, Thierleben (Animal Life)." ^lol Edited May 26, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 I was also wondering where he got his time line regarding the discovery of the gorilla, as it was indeed centuries from first report to final confirmation as a species. It was the stuff of legend for quite a time. See that's one of the things that irks me about Science as an institution, especially "Western" science. Western scientists practice the essence of experientialsim. If they don't experience it directly, or otherwise identify, categorize or explain it, for them it simply does not exist. Which if you stop and think about it is laughable. Did the gorilla suddenly pop into existence because Western science "accepted" it? Were the Laws of Motion conjured into being by Newton? Of course not. But try convincing Western scientists that they should check their arrogance and their experientialism at the door when it comes to academic investigation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts