Modern Researchers Are Bypassing Traditional Academia

[Huntster]

Washingtonian, on 16 February 2011 - 11:57 PM, said:

We already have several States that claim quite clearly that there are no large cats within their borders, but when you go talk to the farmers or ranchers in the outlying areas they have seen them and some have even suffered loss in their livestock herds to them. Those State's game biologists will swear up and down that cougars simply aren't there, people are seeing large house cats and mistaking them for cougars, all they while they don't realize how ridiculous they sound to those who know better by experience, or they are caught in their own circular mindset as I see in this thread.

Have you considered what it's like to be sent hundreds of photographs of housecats, dogs, and obviously canid footprints with claims that they are/were made by cougars?

Police are inundated by false reports all the time, both mistaken as well as intentional hoaxes. They still investigate crime. Daily. If not each and every report, they certainly do most, and they're held to that by the public.

I fail to see why government biologists are not held to the same standard.

My mammalogy professor (20+ years ago - pre-Internet) was on an eastern state's task force to investigate cougar sightings. Back then he claimed that they had a database of over 3000 sightings amassed over the years, and not one of them provided any corroborating evidence - though many of the "witnesses" claimed that their photos of cats and dogs were definitive proof.

The very fact that the state was actually investigating such sightings is good to hear. Similar kudos to the Air Force for investigating UFO reports.

Have any states or the USFWS done so with regard to sasquatch reports? Ever? Anywhere?

So cut the state wildlife folks a bit of slack - they deal with nutjobs, the woefully ignorant, and the well educated but mistaken on a daily basis.

So do the police, and exponentially more so.

They still investigate and respond to crimes.

Please point out a single official wildlife management agency that has done so with regard to sasquatchery.

I think if you actually dissect their official statements, you'll find them carefully worded: "We have no evidence of a breeding population of cougars" is not the same as "There are no cougars."

I can appreciate that. I use the same weasel words here and on other forums because of the lawyer-like skeptics and denialists. If you don't use such words, they will gleefully turn your point into a semantic game. Been there. Done that. For years.

Back to the point.

Now that we're getting better physical evidence of cougars in eastern states, the state biologists are re-evaluating their positions.

Does that mean that the initial reports were wrong, or were they correct all along?

What does that tell you?

This is wholly appropriate, not embarrassing backtracking.

In the case of sasquatchery, since officialdom is not investigating reports, it would be embarrassing backtracking.

Considering the likelihood that we're discussing a very rare creature, and possibly endangered, this "backtracking" (after years of heels-in-the-dirt behavior) could be considered even more than negligent.

If a cougar gets killed on a road in Calvert County, Maryland today, that doesn't mean that the guy who claimed he saw one in that same county in 1978 really did.

Are you sure you aren't a lawyer?

By the same token, if norseman shoots a bigfoot today, that doesn't automatically legitimize the bigfoot report from Staten Island.

Correct. But it would be exceedingly easy to show that official wildlife management agencies in the locale where norseman shot the sasquatch failed to investigate multiple previous reports of sasquatch, easy to show that they never investigated any reports of sasquatch, easy to demonstrate that science as an industry refused to investigate sasquatch, easy to prove that many within science ridiculed the possible existance of sasquatch, and as such, easy to convince a jury of mass irresponsibility among official wildlife managers to appropriately investigate the phenomenon before norseman broke their silly rules and shot the damned thing, dragged it out of the woods, and rubbed their stuck-up noses in it's stinking carcass.

[Guest]

Police are inundated by false reports all the time, both mistaken as well as intentional hoaxes. They still investigate crime. Daily. If not each and every report, they certainly do most, and they're held to that by the public.

I fail to see why government biologists are not held to the same standard.

Because they're not "held to that by the public"?

Because there's often just a single carnivore expert in the state wildlife agency to cover the whole state?

I can appreciate that. I use the same weasel words here and on other forums because of the lawyer-like skeptics and denialists. If you don't use such words, they will gleefully turn your point into a semantic game.

Right, and we're seeing that here in this thread. I would love to see an official statement from a director or commissioner, on state letterhead, that says "There are no cougars" in such and such a state where people keep claiming to see them. "Weasel words" actually serve an important purpose, namely to explicitly state a complex idea in such a way to make it very difficult to misconstrue the intent. When such statements are paraphrased, however, those specific qualifiers in the statement are lost, and it makes the issuer of the statement appear foolish. This is rampant in the "biologists say we don't have cougars but I've seen them on my farm" culture.

In the case of sasquatchery, since officialdom is not investigating reports, it would be embarrassing backtracking.

You may think so; I don't.

Are you sure you aren't a lawyer?

Do you think the scenario I described would prove that the 1978 report was accurate based on the 2011 roadkill? I'd say they might be related, they might not. Remember, there are thousands of bogus reports of cougars.

Correct. But it would be exceedingly easy to show that official wildlife management agencies in the locale where norseman shot the sasquatch failed to investigate multiple previous reports of sasquatch, easy to show that they never investigated any reports of sasquatch, easy to demonstrate that science as an industry refused to investigate sasquatch, easy to prove that many within science ridiculed the possible existance of sasquatch, and as such, easy to convince a jury of mass irresponsibility among official wildlife managers to appropriately investigate the phenomenon before norseman broke their silly rules and shot the damned thing, dragged it out of the woods, and rubbed their stuck-up noses in it's stinking carcass.

Well alrighty then. I guess all we really need is a dead sasquatch.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 17 February 2011 - 06:37 AM, said:

Police are inundated by false reports all the time, both mistaken as well as intentional hoaxes. They still investigate crime. Daily. If not each and every report, they certainly do most, and they're held to that by the public.

I fail to see why government biologists are not held to the same standard.

Because they're not "held to that by the public"?

For the most part, yeah.

And I hope my crusade here will help change that.

Because there's often just a single carnivore expert in the state wildlife agency to cover the whole state?

That, too.

And I'll bet that not a single agency has sought funds for their first ever investigation into the phenomenon.

I wonder why the California Dept. of Fish and Game was so silent after the PG film? Not a peep.

What a lost opportunity.

"Weasel words" actually serve an important purpose, namely to explicitly state a complex idea in such a way to make it very difficult to misconstrue the intent.

They are also used to be accurate. Phrases like, "I believe this or that" instead of "this or that is" usually more accurately describes something that cannot be absolutely proven. Yet even when such qualifiers are used, many try to pin that person down as if they've stated a false absolute, and often just to derail a valid point, or to try to somehow discredit the speaker.

Huntster, on 17 February 2011 - 06:37 AM, said:

In the case of sasquatchery, since officialdom is not investigating reports, it would be embarrassing backtracking.

You may think so; I don't.

That's because you don't believe sasquatches exist and I do believe they exist. If I am wrong, there will be no backtracking whatsoever. If you are wrong, there may be backtracking (if there are enough sasquatches left to backtrack with). If the population of sasquatches is perilously low, the backtracking will be more embarrassing, or worse.

Huntster, on 17 February 2011 - 06:37 AM, said:

Are you sure you aren't a lawyer?

Do you think the scenario I described would prove that the 1978 report was accurate based on the 2011 roadkill?

Of course not. It highly suggests that the 1978 report was accurate, and the attempt to deny the 1978 report suggests yet more official denial and buck passing that we have all become so accustomed to.

Huntster, on 17 February 2011 - 06:37 AM, said:

Correct. But it would be exceedingly easy to show that official wildlife management agencies in the locale where norseman shot the sasquatch failed to investigate multiple previous reports of sasquatch, easy to show that they never investigated any reports of sasquatch, easy to demonstrate that science as an industry refused to investigate sasquatch, easy to prove that many within science ridiculed the possible existance of sasquatch, and as such, easy to convince a jury of mass irresponsibility among official wildlife managers to appropriately investigate the phenomenon before norseman broke their silly rules and shot the damned thing, dragged it out of the woods, and rubbed their stuck-up noses in it's stinking carcass.

Well alrighty then. I guess all we really need is a dead sasquatch.

Unfortunately, that is correct. It will require a dead sasquatch to get science to act. More, that dead sasquatch will have to be produced by a truck driver, poacher, or some other happenstance event.

And when that finally occurs, if we soon afterward learn that the vast majority of the preciously few remaining sasquatches from the 1967 - current era are also dead, that is when the piper must be paid.

My lantern and pitchfork are hanging near the shop door, ready for action...............

[Guest COGrizzly]

So....Saskeptic, Huntster - Is the "bet" still on? If a sasquatch body turns up, is Saskeptic still taking a trip up to Alaska for some cooked crow?

You two (and your debating) are one of the only reasons I still visit the BFF...tons of fun to read!

[Huntster]

So....Saskeptic, Huntster - Is the "bet" still on? If a sasquatch body turns up, is Saskeptic still taking a trip up to Alaska for some cooked crow?

I think he was going to treat me to prime beef, but part of the deal would be me serving him whatever dead ungulate I happen to have in the freezer at the time (caribou, moose, deer). Who knows? Maybe I can serve him up some smoked bear roast.

If sasquatch is discovered and I'm still alive, I'll serve up plenty of crow from up here online. I'm sure it will get real old quick. I'd be banned in short order, cause I'd sure serve it hot.

You two (and your debating) are one of the only reasons I still visit the BFF...tons of fun to read!

Your posts are pretty good, too.

I've always been impressed with Keith Foster. I'll bet he's a wonderful guy to share a campfire with.

[Guest Sallaranda]

Could someone fill me in on the story of "norseman" shooting a Sasquatch?

[Huntster]

Could someone fill me in on the story of "norseman" shooting a Sasquatch?

I think it was a theoretical exercise he and Saskeptic were bandying about, but I hope norseman gets an opportunity and takes it.

But I'd sure understand if he didn't pull the trigger. I've sure read several accounts of others in that same position, and they didn't shoot. I really don't know if I would, either.

[Guest Sallaranda]

I think it was a theoretical exercise he and Saskeptic were bandying about, but I hope norseman gets an opportunity and takes it.

But I'd sure understand if he didn't pull the trigger. I've sure read several accounts of others in that same position, and they didn't shoot. I really don't know if I would, either.

It'd certainly be a tough shot to take. But you would think that eventually there has to be some cold hearted sob with a shotgun in hand and a Sasquatch in site that would take the shot without hesitation.

Regardless, the reason I asked is because I remember hearing a story about how a Sasquatch body had been provided to some type of authority and they completely disregarded it and dismissed it as a hoax.

[Guest Blackdog]

And I hope my crusade here will help change that.

That's the way I always saw this from you, and I'm glad you finally admitted it.

This is a Holy War for you and **** anyone that gets in your way!

[Huntster]

It'd certainly be a tough shot to take. But you would think that eventually there has to be some cold hearted sob with a shotgun in hand and a Sasquatch in site that would take the shot without hesitation.

Yup. Or (as some stories suggest), a frightened person with a gun shooting, or an aggressive sasquatch getting shot.

Regardless, the reason I asked is because I remember hearing a story about how a Sasquatch body had been provided to some type of authority and they completely disregarded it and dismissed it as a hoax.

A recent story? Maybe that Georgia story?

[Guest Sallaranda]

Yup. Or (as some stories suggest), a frightened person with a gun shooting, or an aggressive sasquatch getting shot.

A recent story? Maybe that Georgia story?

Yes, I believe that is the story I was thinking of. Now that I look back on it, I feel foolish for even giving the story some credence.

[Huntster]

untster, on 17 February 2011 - 06:36 PM, said:

And I hope my crusade here will help change that.

That's the way I always saw this from you, and I'm glad you finally admitted it.

This is a Holy War for you and **** anyone that gets in your way!

Should I report that as a religious attack? I suspect some might be chicken**** enough to do so, but I won't. Instead, I'll try (yet again) to educate you:

Crusade:

–noun

1. ( often initial capital letter ) any of the military expeditions undertaken by the Christians of europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries for the recovery of the Holy Land from the Muslims.

2. any war carried on under papal sanction.

3. any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc.: a crusade against child abuse.

While I do have very strong religious beliefs (something you well know from another forum), and I do believe that, since sasquatches may be a primitive hominid or even human, spirituality may be a future factor in sasquatch research, I do not currently hold any religious views toward the phenomenon. At this point, this is a biological mystery. That is why I repeatedly call for professional and official biologists to get involved, not priests (although I might be willing to admit that I'd have a better chance to get priests involved before professional wildlife managers).

Yes, I'm "vigorous" and "aggressive" in my debate. I'm "vigorous" and "aggressive" in just about everything I do. Guilty as charged.

No, I don't "****" (condemn) anyone who gets in my way. Some, maybe. Some more may get run over (maybe they ought to get out of the way). Damned? Now? Nope.

But after sasquatches are discovered, if it is learned that they are near extinction and rapidly got that way in the last half century, yes: I'll be damning aplenty. Like I wrote, I've got the lantern and pitchfork ready for the party.

And the problem is.............what, exactly?

[Huntster]

Now that I look back on it, I feel foolish for even giving the story some credence.

Don't. Hoaxers do what they do to deceive people. It isn't a sin to be briefly deceived.

The sin is in the deceiving. They are the ones with the poor character, not you or I.

[Guest Sallaranda]

Don't. Hoaxers do what they do to deceive people. It isn't a sin to be briefly deceived.

The sin is in the deceiving. They are the ones with the poor character, not you or I.

Absolutely, but it's frustrating to believe in something so forcefully and have your faith tested by mere imbeciles looking to make some money or gain their 15 minutes of fame.

I share certain spiritual beliefs as you do, especially when it comes to Bigfoot. My personal belief is something I won't share publicly, but something I am always willing to discuss privately.

Regardless, my feeling is that there is only one way to truly unearth the creature, and that is by becoming at peace with the creature. Until someone travels to the middle of the forest completely alone, and tests their patience to wit's end, this beast will likely never be found. But that is a tangent more suited for another topic, I'm sure.

[Huntster]

Absolutely, but it's frustrating to believe in something so forcefully and have your faith tested by mere imbeciles looking to make some money or gain their 15 minutes of fame.

Yeah. Pisses me off. More, I just can't understand what they can possibly get out of such a foolish endeavor. Fifteen minutes of attention can't be worth the rest of your life being known as a cheat and...............well, I can't use the word anymore. The mods will spank me.

Regardless, my feeling is that there is only one way to truly unearth the creature, and that is by becoming at peace with the creature. Until someone travels to the middle of the forest completely alone, and tests their patience to wit's end, this beast will likely never be found.

You may be right. I spend lots of time in the woods alone, but not in good coastal, montane, sasquatch habitat. But I do understand the unity one can achieve with Creation when alone out there for a while. And I suspect sasquatches may become less wary of a person who is out there alone and not acting in a threatening manner.

But, with that written, such a person is not likely to be one to then capture or kill the creature to satisfy the demands of the skeptics and denialists of the Earth, either, are they?