Operation Persistence

[Guest]

While this seem fine to someone who thinks Patty is a real living Bigfoot, to most skeptics, and many Bigfoot believers, Patty is clearly a person in a suit.

And I assume a dozen photos like the OK example, from reputable sources and investigated independently, will never convince you and those like you that they're anything but remarkable Patty knock-off costumes.

But this isn't a thread about the PGF.

In any event, you see our point about not pursuing photographic evidence.

[Guest]

A recent show on PBS called Wolves in Wisconsin, broadcast first in 2012, had an interesting segment in it.

It discussed how the photographer obtained the footage. Discussed how the wolves were EXTREMELY aware and wary of 'silent' trail cams, and would react to the photographers zoom lens at great distances.

It took this photographer 4 years, full time in the field, to obtain 14 minutes, yes 14 minutes of clear footage.

This, in an area where a population of wolves was known to exist.

A bit of perspective there.....

Yet there were 117 killed during the 2012/13 hunting and trapping season??? Makes me question the photographers savy in the woods.

[Guest DWA]

Yes, Cotter, I completely get your point here, but they still got the footage. It took them a while, but they got it.

Lee

I missed this. (Context: about the guy who spent four (4) years - full time - to get 14 minutes of wolf footage.)

It only took P&G three and a half weeks to get theirs.

Edited January 5, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

I'd guess that a videographer would want more than just a few seconds of wolf footage at a time. He was probably looking for extended periods of visibility to show activity or whatever. A quick shot of a wolf butt jumping into the bush might be enough for a guy in a tree stand playing deer distress calls but not enough for a TV show. But, like I said, that's just a guess.

[Guest DWA]

Yet there were 117 killed during the 2012/13 hunting and trapping season??? Makes me question the photographers savy in the woods.

You might want to try a practical comparison of the two techinques. It's way harder to get clear footage of a wolf than to shoot one.

And as this relates to sasquatch: we'd have dozens of specimens now if the hunters who mulled it, and decided not to shoot, had shot. But they all had what I'd consider good reasons not to shoot. Prominent among which is: they didn't want to just kill something like that. Says a lot for hunters.

[Guest]

Of course, the other element to consider when it comes to hunters is what it is they're hunting when they suddenly see a wood ape. People with no understanding of firearms often assume a gun is a gun, but a lot of hunters are out for smaller critters and not all are carrying a high enough caliber weapon.

[Guest DWA]

Definitely true. Many are the reports from people who thought: this is a popgun against what I'm seeing.

Then there are those who didn't have a doubt they had the gun. They just didn't see the point.

And to those who think it's just heck, shoot it and drag it out or heck, shoot it and chop off a hand...I'd love to take the shot...and leave you to do the rest.

[dopelyrics]

I missed this. (Context: about the guy who spent four (4) years - full time - to get 14 minutes of wolf footage.)

It only took P&G three and a half weeks to get theirs.

I'm confused by what you are saying here. Please can you elaborate?

Thanks.

[Guest DWA]

Four years to get wolf footage.

Three and a half weeks to get sasquatch footage.

Conclusions....?

(And yes, one has to include in the calculations that no evidence exists that the latter was faked.)

[dopelyrics]

Conclusion: it's easier to get Sasquatch footage than it is wolf footage.

Um, something's not right here.

[Guest DWA]

Conclusion: it's easier to get Sasquatch footage than it is wolf footage.

Um, something's not right here.

...and it's that something-not-right that should have gotten a lot of people thinking about this a lot more, a lot sooner, than has been the case.

Crippling to both the skeptic and proponent stances has been what I call the Bigfoot Impossibility Theorem, which goes:

bigfoot is impossible, so we have to look for alternative explanations, and anything we come up with is better than bigfoot, which can't be real.

Here's what proponents do:

• They clearly shapeshift;
  
• They are clearly Emissaries From Other Dimensions/Worlds;
  
• They are far far far far smarter than yes Einstein;
  
• They are never seen because [state your eyeroll theorem here] [and this of course ignores the copious eyewitnesses].
  

Here's what "skeptics" do (and watch how none of it is skeptical):

• Ignore scientists who disagree, avoiding like the plague reading anything those scientists write;
  
• Confuse evidence and proof, thinking no latter = no former;
  
• Swallow anything any Bob Hieronymous/Philip Morris/Todd Disotell/David Daegling says that conforms with what they want to think;
  
• Deny that they have to justify anything they say, regardless what it ignores or what it proposes.
  

Any of that sound familiar?

Four years for wolves; three and a half weeks for sasquatch.

Oh yeah. I'd be thinking about that.

[dopelyrics]

You've lost me

[Guest DWA]

Rereading always helps. (So does being specific.)

[dopelyrics]

Ok, I've re-read. Now can you be more specific?

thanks a million.

[Guest DWA]

That was, um, about you. What are you not getting? Specifically?