Guest Posted January 12, 2013 Posted January 12, 2013 I would hope that even Bipto would agree -- If there were some verifiable factual information to be presented, and they really are trying "to facilitate scientific, official and governmental recognition" for this undiscovered creature, they'd be presenting it to the people who identify and classify flora and fauna, not preaching to the choir. Again, you ignore the practical requirements of actual wildlife research like that in which we endeavor. We have expenses. We need stuff. Expensive stuff. Money is what lubricates our engine and our sweat powers it. We can climb up on a mythical white high horse with you and talk to all the identifiers of flora and fauna we want, but it will be just as effective as a bunch of words on an internet forum at the end of the day without putting boots on the ground and collecting real data and real specimens In this world, we need funds to do our research and this conference is one of the ways we try and get them. In your world, unsoiled as it is by the practical realities how research is paid for, nothing happens.
Guest RayG Posted January 12, 2013 Posted January 12, 2013 I take it that's a round about way of saying you have no factual information? RayG
norseman Posted January 13, 2013 Admin Posted January 13, 2013 I take it that's a round about way of saying you have no factual information? RayG So if I walked into the office of Nature, and I had a Squatch body in tow? And I stated their range, eating habits, sleeping habits, mating rituals, so forth and so on........what that be then considered factual information or speculative?
Guest RayG Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 It would certainly get you a lot further than showing up without a body, yes. Is that surprising? If someone showed up at your house making claims about space aliens, but had no body to show you, would you accept their claims at face value? I wouldn't, and like it or not, that's the approach I take with bigfoot. Got a claim? Prove it. Got some factual information? Prove it. RayG
Guest Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) I take it that's a round about way of saying you have no factual information? But what are you - as in you RayG - going to accept as 'factual information'? Is it the audio they've got? Is it analysis of the observed wood knock interactions and the implications of that for sentry-type behaviour? Etc, etc. Edited January 13, 2013 by forestguy
Guest Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 Different people probably appreciate different things about attending one of their conferences. I've always had an active interest in subjects ranging from primatology to biological and cultural anthropology. I wouldn't go to hear Bubbas slur out spooky campfire stories or stroke their egos, but I would go to hear someone like a Grover Krantz, or John Bindernagel, Kathy Strain, or Meldrum give an insightful presentation. Maybe someone had a visual encounter, it might be a somewhat traumatic event for someone uninitiated to the thought of their existence. I'm sure that talking to other folks who (probably) aren't crazy could be therapeutic for them. I imagine that early on the pioneer researchers were able to get together and share strategies, experiences, theories, and ideas that (arguably) paved a foundation for future research. Also, friendships are forged in person. I'm not personally especially interested in the social aspects of Bigfootery as I already have an incredibly full life. That being said, many people who collaborate throughout the year are able to enjoy the company of a group of friends, in person. For new prospects who are interested in contributing, it lets the team members look them in the eye, shake their hand, and get a general feel for someone to make sure they aren't a few fries short of a happy meal. As far as the cost, well, things cost money. I'm sure there are more expenses involved than you would imagine unless you were to organize one yourself. I've heard Brian mention (here, or on the Bigfoot Show) that the conferences usually don't generate any signifigant revenue for the TBRC. I understand they operate primarily off of member dues, and a tiny handful of random donations through the website. But it sounds like you've already made up your mind.
Guest Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 I've heard Brian mention (here, or on the Bigfoot Show) that the conferences usually don't generate any signifigant revenue for the TBRC. I understand they operate primarily off of member dues, and a tiny handful of random donations through the website. That has been the case for the past several years. We usually about break even, though a small profit can be made if we watch our expenses carefully. This year, we're hoping that holding the conference in a larger city will increase attendance and our probability of a profit. I take it that's a round about way of saying you have no factual information? It's a straightforward way of saying your "why all the sideshows, why no science" blathering is nothing more than that.
norseman Posted January 13, 2013 Admin Posted January 13, 2013 It would certainly get you a lot further than showing up without a body, yes. Is that surprising? I think for most they find it barbaric. Does it surprise me? No. If someone showed up at your house making claims about space aliens, but had no body to show you, would you accept their claims at face value? I wouldn't, and like it or not, that's the approach I take with bigfoot. Got a claim? Prove it. Well, a space alien that is millions of years more advanced than humans is a different problem entirely.......with the human most likely becoming the type specimen out of an encounter. I don't give much thought to bigfoot claims of "zapping" people or reading their minds, etc.........but I really have no idea what intergalactic space travel buys you in the way of technology. But I think it's logical to assume that it would be downright scary and would appear as magic to our crude civilization. Got some factual information? Prove it.RayG Ray as far as I'm concerned your picking on the one organization that IS trying to prove it.
Guest RayG Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 But what are you - as in you RayG - going to accept as 'factual information'? Is it the audio they've got? Is it analysis of the observed wood knock interactions and the implications of that for sentry-type behaviour? Etc, etc. None of that. Show us a clear photo, or better yet a clear film of a squatch or group of squatches engaging in their squatchy things. Foraging, eating, picking nits, wood-knocking, etc. A clean DNA sample would do it. The clincher of course would be to bag one, drag it in, plunk it on a desk at Nature, and instantly become famous. More stories are ok for the campfire, but likely won't convince the majority of scientists. RayG
Guest RayG Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 It's a straightforward way of saying your "why all the sideshows, why no science" blathering is nothing more than that. From your perspective, fair enough. In the meantime I eagerly await the "factual education and understanding to the public regarding the species" you highlighted from the mission statement. I wasn't aware that anyone had any bigfoot facts they could educate the public with. That would be a major step forward for the identification and classification of an undiscovered bipedal North American primate. I think for most they find it barbaric. Does it surprise me? No. I find it barbaric that we willingly kill other humans, innocent & guilty alike, and it happens every day. Do you find it barbaric that Dr. Krantz has his skeleton on display at the Smithsonian Museum? Did you take high school biology? Did you find it barbaric when you had to dissect a frog? If we're going to add sasquatch to the list of identified and classified animals, then proof has to be provided. If bagging one is easier than getting a photo, film, or snippet of DNA, then I say bag one. Well, a space alien that is millions of years more advanced than humans is a different problem entirely.......with the human most likely becoming the type specimen out of an encounter. I don't give much thought to bigfoot claims of "zapping" people or reading their minds, etc.........but I really have no idea what intergalactic space travel buys you in the way of technology. But I think it's logical to assume that it would be downright scary and would appear as magic to our crude civilization. I picked space aliens because there are some similarities to the bigfoot mystery. Lots of reports, books, movies, sightings, amateur films, hypotheses, and speculation, but no space aliens. I'm betting if someone were to walk into any newspaper, TV station, or University science department with an actual space alien body, the knowledge of the world would be changed instantly. Ray as far as I'm concerned your picking on the one organization that IS trying to prove it. Well, when it is implied there is some sort of factual information out there, I'll say to them the same thing I'd say to any individual or organization -- prove it. RayG
Guest Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 From your perspective, fair enough. In the meantime I eagerly await the "factual education and understanding to the public regarding the species" you highlighted from the mission statement. Perhaps you should show up at the conference and see what you see.
Guest DWA Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 Perhaps you should show up at the conference and see what you see. Well, you know, bipto, judging stuff in absentia does seem a bigfoot-skeptic meme.
Guest RayG Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 I'm satisfied to have you present it to your local newspaper, TV station, or University science department. That way I'm out no vacation time, no travel time, and no money, but I'd still get to hear some factual information about bigfoot, and you'd become famous. It's a win-win situation for us both. RayG
Guest Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 Its a fact people find foot prints. Its a fact that many of these foot prints are found in some extremely remote area's, where is ludicrous to believe they where hoaxed,. Its a fact that people are getting a lot of strange, unidentified audio, audio that can be analyzed and compared against any animal call there is, thanks to the internet. Its a fact that there are thousands of eye witness's out there, and again, to make the assumption that every single one of them is mistaken, a hallucination or an out right lie, is pretty hard to believe. Much harder to believe there could be something out there at the core of all this. Maybe the "skeptics" would be more comfortable if everyone stopped giving it a name. We can just continually refer to it as an "unknown" Get rid of the pet name Bigfoot, and replace the word with unknown, then what stance would skepticism take? What could it take? Now we have thousands of witness's saw an "unknown", thousands of "unknown" bi-pedal Human like footprints found. Thousands of hours of clear, good audio of an "unknown" There is no such thing as Bigfoot, or Wood Apes, there is simply an "unknown" out there, and there is plenty of evidence to indicate that.
Guest RayG Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 Label it whatever you wish, but it's a fact that none of those footprints have been matched to an actual foot. None of the thousands of reports, tracks, and sightings, have been matched to an actual subject. None of the audios, tree-knocking, nest-building, twig-stacking, or rock-tossing attributed to sasquatch, has ever been matched to an actual sasquatch. And when and if any factual information is actually obtained about these elusive unproven creatures, hopefully it will be presented to people who are actually qualified to identify and classify the critter, and not just to other bigfoot enthusiasts. RayG
Recommended Posts