Guest BFSleuth Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Yes, it is possible for ungulates to be mistaken for the general shape of a bigfoot when in certain positions. In motion they would present themselves much differently. Generally they don't walk on two feet. However, if that moose were to do something extraordinary then it might be mistaken for a bigfoot in motion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 thats the problem with veneration of ***star*** footers, it clouds critical thinking for one and creates the delusion that there's some kind of chain of command in the research, when there clearly isn't. So a critical thinker should have no respect for researchers with experience? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Ziggy, are you suggesting that the TBRC is encountering Mooseses in OK? Baboonpete, I am neither doding on the TBRC nor venerating the "star" squatchers. I am listening to what people say and making my own conclusions based on how they have handled themselves in the past and present. There are lots of "stars" that aren't worth their weight in garbage like Biscardi. I don't have a clouded mind, thank you. I have made some pretty clear headed decisions about who is scientific and trustworthy in this community and if I turn out to be wrong, I can live with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 x 2 James... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Thanks Cotter, back at ya. Haters gonna hate... haha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 So a critical thinker should have no respect for researchers with experience? You can still respect a researcher, and expect more than stories. I respect Jane Goodall as a chimpanzee expert, she writes papers about chimpanzees and their DNA relationships, and their behaviors. She goes into the jungle, observes them, gets blood samples, has the blood samples tested, extrapolates the data, and writes a paper. This is not what Bigfoot researchers do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 BBF Members- During my phone conversations with Richard Stubstad he told me that Sasquatch(he always asked me to use Sasquatch annd not BF), that the difference his samples showed was 99.97% human and compared to a chimp as having 93% the same chomozones. Richard also said though that the nuDNA would be more important and that by just having the mtDNA could only be a foundation for his hypothesis. When our team contacted Sally Ramey she said to focus our study on Sasquatch being very close to human. With all that said, nothing is still a diffenant concluesive but I still would have a problem ignaring the studies as they stand so far. My sincere question to the TBRC is this- have you contacted the Oaklahoma state authorities or the USF&WS to see if you would be procecuted if you "bag" a Sasquatch?Also do you know that ALL natural resourses including ALL wildlife is a national possesion? Can I also say this to the TBRC- I will not tell you what or what you can't or shouldn't do Iam not that arogant, but have you concidered the Sasquatch decision to stay seperated from us and that you may be disregarding their choice in this matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest baboonpete Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 So a critical thinker should have no respect for researchers with experience? not veneration, which isnt the same thing. Thanks Cotter, back at ya. Haters gonna hate... haha! Nope, just hold the whole thing to a higher standard than some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) I hope that Bipto and Hairy Man realise that it's because of, not despite, their high credibility in the field that people are interested in Operation Persistence. Similarly, the TBRC as a whole has acquired a reputation for technological innovation and a calm and rigorous approach to evidence gathering. I'm sure Ontario Squatch is aware that Bipto's word does not constitute scientific proof. However, if Bipto tells me he's seen two Wood Apes moving uphill at high speed then I am much more inclined to seriously consider this than, say, if Tom Biscardi had told me the same thing. This is a result of my long familiarity with the careers of both men and my considered opinion that one of them is full of it and the other highly credible. Ain't got nuffin' to do with Science, just common sense - an equally valuable commodity that often gets overlooked in Bigfooting. Edited October 10, 2012 by Strick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Hold the whole thing to a higher standard? You have a group of people who are taking on the huge task of attempting to monitor an area, because they believe something strange is going on there. They are competent, and educated, and very experienced bush people. They take notes, make observations, etc, and share them with us. They don't have to, but they do. These are not arm chair self professed critical thinkers, but real life people making an organized effort to get to the bottom of the mystery. What higher standard are you looking for? They report their results, as they see them, and it is not up to your standard? Did they make a claim of proof here I missed? Are they trying to convince you of something? Or are they just sharing their experiences? Sorry their experiences don't meet your "standard" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 @baboon - I'm not sure I understand. You said "thats the problem with veneration of ***star*** footers, it clouds critical thinking for one" venerate vb. to hold in deep respect. That's the first definition. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/venerate?s=t So by your own statement, you cannot respect a researcher and still be a critical thinker.....in your opinion. I don't agree with that, as peoples' (The TBRC's specifically) reputation and openness garner respect from certain folks, does not affect said folks' critical thinking in all cases. I certainly don't see such a generalization here from all proponents regarding the TBRC's actions and statements. Sure some do, but as I pointed out in another thread, some folks vilify the entire 'side' based on the actions of a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Haters gonna hate. Deriders gonna deride. The TBRC is sharing their info, fully within their rights. If you don't believe them then go ahead and don't believe them, no one's asking you to read this thread or their reports. THAT my friends, is critical thinking. Honestly, I think most scoffers are secretly envious that they aren't there to experience it for themselves. Meantime, I'll give TBRC the benefit of the doubt and only time will tell if this is all for real. If it turns out to be a farce, hey, I'm only guilty of being initially respectful to the messenger. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 If the scoffers and skeptics actually got up from the computer, packed a lunch and put on some comfortable shoes and took a walk in the woods on a regular basis they might be telling us about their experiences. If you haven't been there, then how can you criticize so loudly and so often. If I were you guys(scoffers and skeptcis) I would be grateful that anyone would come here and share anything with you. Now if I have hurt your feelings, I apologize. And anyone who does go into the woods, this is not directed at you.... I don't agree with TBRC tactics and philosophy but I am interested in what they are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Drew, since you respect Jane Goodall, do you respect her opinion that Sasquattle probably exist? She said so in an NPR interview. Baboonpete, are you calling my standards into question? I think some folks on this thread are asking good questions of which the TBRC may not be in a position to answer due to ongoing research and to maintain their scientific rigor. If you have a problem with that, my condolences. But questioning their methods and calling them out like they are making stuff up is just insulting and absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) Drew, since you respect Jane Goodall, do you respect her opinion that Sasquattle probably exist? She said so in an NPR interview. Baboonpete, are you calling my standards into question? I think some folks on this thread are asking good questions of which the TBRC may not be in a position to answer due to ongoing research and to maintain their scientific rigor. If you have a problem with that, my condolences. But questioning their methods and calling them out like they are making stuff up is just insulting and absurd. I absolutely respect her opinion, (if that is what she really said) but she would not expect me to accept it as science, nor would she try to expound that opinion as scientific in any way. I also think she has clarified her position very recently, here. http://www.huffingto..._n_1927876.html "I'm not going to flat-out deny its existence," Goodall said during an exclusive interview with The Huffington Post before a benefit dinner in La Jolla, Calif. "I'm fascinated and would actually love them to exist. "Of course, it's strange that there has never been a single authentic hide or hair of the Bigfoot, but I've read all the accounts." Goodall conceded there hasn't been the smoking gun that proves the existence of Sasquatch, and told Flatow, "of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, 'Where is the body?' You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to. Edited October 10, 2012 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts