Operation Persistence

[Guest DWA]

I am trying, however, to show that there is not enough evidence to support a claim that Bigfoot/Woodape exists.

[bIPTO] There is no *proof* wood apes exist, but there is a lot of strong circumstantial evidence. Proof is the whole point of the NAWAC's current mission.

Exactly. Getting one's knickers in a twist because evidence isn't being accumulated quickly or publicly enough to suit one isn't exactly something to which serious researchers need to pay attention. And I might argue the evidence is significantly beyond circumstantial. One is supposed to pursue that evidence to proof; and one has to answer to no one until the proof is obtained.

But, you, being a skeptic, have to admit, that I don't need personal experience to 'say they don't' exist.

That sentence is a non sequitur.

First, why do we say one can't prove a negative? Because personal experience is irrelevant; one still can't prove a negative. Second, the argument from incredulity doesn't wash in a scientific discussion. I've never seen a wolverine. But even if I had never heard of them, that wouldn't change that they're real.

One's personal experience does not equip one to say anything about the nonexistence of something. It only helps one acknowledge something as real, a question to which that person's experience matters not at all.

[Guest]

The video of my presentation at the Texas Bigfoot conference is now available. Includes audio collected on-site and video accounts of members' encounters.

[1980squatch]

^^^ Got my lunch hour plans set! Thanks Bipto-

[WSA]

Holy crap.

That just about covers it for me.

[dmaker]

^^ Could you elaborate WSA? Not trying to be rude or a party pooper, but I watched this and I don't see anything that you can't find in any other BF commentary. People saying they saw this or saying they heard this along with some audio that could be anything. Not one thing in this report makes me any less skeptical or do I find in any way more compelling than anything else out there right now. In fact, again at the risk of being rude, one person struck me as not being truthful when telling the story. That's just a vibe I got, but it's usually right. Again, that's just my gut feeling and I would expect the torches and pitch forks to be whipped out pretty quickly to drum me out of this thread.

Edited April 1, 2013 by dmaker

[WSA]

Your opinion dmaker is yours, of course, and thin-skin and relic hominid studies will never gee-haw. So, you've got your right to stand your ground. We have the right to challenge your thinking, as you well know! :-)

My comment was probably too strong...and I don't mean that in the context of the story not being astounding. It is. What I mean is: This narration is really just a continuation in a long string of them, and it has risen to the point now of no longer being extraordinary to me and many others. I will just tell you (yes, again, and one more time on behalf of DWA) this narration of life in the OK boonies will not make much of a greater impression on anyone who is not familiar already with the greater body of narrative evidence over the decades. Really and truly, my reaction was more like, "Uh-huh, yep."

Consistency, openess, stubborness and plain ol'fashioned walking-around-sense will eventually crack this nut wide open. These boys and girls have dished out a giant dollop of all of that.

Now you are exactly where Bipto said you would be: He and his people are either liars, or they had genuine experiences with the animal. Otherwise, are we considering that somehow their site crossed through a meteorite shower every night around that same time? Group hallucinations of rocks raining down on them? These people are obviously going way out of their way to engender trust in their research. I see exactly zero motivation to fabricate anything. When they say they will release the DNA analysis of that hair for instance, I've no doubt they will, whatever it shows. Same as to the blood they collected. I for one don't plan to be surprised at the results.

Lastly, If I were them perpetrating a hoax, I can tell you....I'd come up with some stuff A LOT more juicy than this evidence.

Thanks Bipto for your efforts and contributions to the field.

[Cotter]

^Agreed. If they wanted to hoax, they could be doing it on a much grander scale....I mean, it doesn't take months in the woods to get folks hook, line, and sinker on a hoax.

There's a gentleman in Las Vegas doing that right now, and I must say STILL getting quite a bit of attention over it.

To claim such mundane (no offense meant, compared to other 'encounters' (Carter, Ostman, Ketchum) tho, this isn't all that exciting) experiences to hang your hat on them as WA evidence, well.....doesn't seem to be that well thought out as far as attention grabbing.....

[dmaker]

I believe the Erickson Project has been hoaxing for quite some time and has yet to produce much of anything. Other than our dear Chewtilda and that was ridiculous.

I do, in fact, hope to be surprised when the DNA tests results are shared from samples gathered during this research. That would be awesome if I was surprised. But my money is on contaminated or bear, dog, you-name-it.

I am not saying these folks here are hoaxers, but one of the persons being interviewed has my BS radar ringing pretty loudly. I could easily be wrong. I will eagerly await DNA results with you.

[dmaker]

Well the problem with "juicy" evidence is that it can be easily debunked. Vague evidence can be anything, so it's easier to put it out there and say prove it isn't BF. Objectively speaking the sounds of rocks falling on a roof prove absolutely nothing. In fact, they do not even tickle my curiousity. It could be some kid in closet banging on drums for all I know. Now put something "juicier" like a photo or video and it becomes easier to point out where it's a bear, not a BF, or a clump of trees, not a BF. You get my drift. Nothing in this report does anything for the scientific case for BF. Again, like almost everything related to BF it is nothing but he said, she said, and some noises with nothing but anecdotal context that could be made by almost anything on this earth.

It's probably worth adding if I had a gaggle of giant monkeys throwing rocks on my roof every night, I think I might manage to get a picture of one.

[Guest]

Your comment suggests you didn't watch the video or have a solid grip on the details of the situation.

[dmaker]

I did watch the video, but I had to skip forward at points as I don't have 1:33 hrs to spend watching it at lunch. But I did watch the interview portions. I did feel that I got the details of the situation, but I'll watch it again in its entirety and if I've been too hasty in my assessment then I apologize.

[WSA]

Interesting thing too on the subject of rock throwing. In the early 19th century outside of the little Shenandoah Valley town of Newport/Augusta County, one Dr. McChesney related a "haunting" where rocks would rain down on his roof from a "clear sky." That would be at the foot of the forested slopes adjacent to the Allegheny front. My point being Dmaker, you have to go in that deep sometimes to tease out the narrative.

[dmaker]

Understood WSA. But wood apes are hardly the sole creatures capable of throwing rocks on this planet.

[WSA]

After having read all of Bipto's posts on the subject of this study, I had an excellent idea of what the evidence would be. If I can presume to say what he meant by his comment, I'd tell you: They tried to do that, but failed due to pretty basic characteristics of the study site and the cabins they slept in. I'd add that If it were that easy to do, it would have been done already. It is hard, and it is no wonder. If you've never spent a Summer night in the Southern woods you may not have an appreciation of why that is. If you haven't, I think you are bound to take the word of others as to the limitations of the environment. In short, it is very dark, uneven for walking faster than a shuffle, very close, buggy and navigating even with a light is difficult, slow, noisy and dangerous for anyone trying it.

On of the gentleman who relates his experience (wearing the "Infidel" ball cap) exhibits the classic backwoods itch....you wind up randomly scratching your face and neck without even knowing you're doing it. That is just what people do after having buggies on their sweaty skin constantly. It takes some getting used to and is not for those enamored with physical comfort. All the more reason to conclude these people are not out there having a party and ginning up Youtube videos for sport!

As for people throwing rocks...you have very little faith in your fellow man Dmaker. By that I mean: You are not willing to grant to others the common sense you possess. If you consider that a person should rule out the obvious first, why would they not feel that too?

Edited April 1, 2013 by WSA

[dmaker]

If I had a nickel for every time someone had an excuse for why squatches can be all over the place doing very noisy, obvious things, but somehow they leave no evidence behind, well I'd have a pretty large bag of nickels by now. And yeah, we'll see when these DNA samples come back as some known animal and not an unknown primate.