Operation Persistence

[ohiobill]

There are numerous and consistent sighting reports of strange creatures worldwide - it's not limited to wood apes. There are books about all the creatures I mentioned but the only type specimens are for wolverines. I have never seen a dragon and like you no wood apes...but I don't believe anecdotal sightings are serious evidence, do you? Given centuries of sighting evidence of faeries in Iceland and recent polling which indicates popular belief to be above 50% can you confirm the existence of faeries in Iceland? Can centuries of werewolf/dogman sightings be relied upon as truth? Are First People's tales of lake monsters and mermaids as reliable as their tales about Sasquatch? Should we be looking for skinwalkers in Texas rather than wood apes?

[Guest DWA]

I think all of your questions can be cured by a simple acquaintance with the subject matter. 'Til then, afraid we don't have much to talk about.

[ohiobill]

I doubt my questions about your mindset can be fairly answered by anyone but you - hence the reason they are directed towards you. I will endeavor to glean your unique perspective from the rolls of anonymous sightings of bigfoot, dogman, elves, faeries, dragons, dinosaurs, lake monsters, mermaids, werewolves, and vampires until the magical day you decide to answer.

[dmaker]

No. They are not rejected out of hand. They are rejected because their is no evidence supporting the claims.

They are not claiming a small mouse, which inhabits swamps in a small corner of Michigan's central plateau exists. They are claiming that a Giant Hairy Beast, 6' to 11' tall, weighing 200-800 pounds, is cavorting throughout a range which exceeds almost every other mammal in North America. And while they claim it is elusive, it is allegedly seen by thousands of people a year. In fact, some claim it reclines in the middle of roadways. An animal that size, and with that range, does not remain unverified in The United States.

They are not rejected out of hand, and I adopt this posture for other things: Dragons, T-rex, Nessie, Unicorns, Mothmen. And up until last year, I would never have accepted a story that a Wolverine was in California. Then they went and got poo, hair, and photos of the thing. And now, I agree there are Wolverines in California.

Great! We have poo, hair AND A MOVIE of sasquatch. Welcome aboard. Who says they got those things for a wolverine? In CA? Ever been there? NO WOLVERINES IN CA. You just what, believe those people? Confirming a wolverine in CA is a career-maker. I yell HOAX on that one, loud and long. If you really think that dragons et al belong in this discussion you may be disqualified already. Man do you just swaller stuff!

We have poo, hair and a movie of a sasquatch do we? Really? These are uncontested facts are they? Last I checked the poo and hair was dog, or bear, or carpet or human--take your pick. And the movie? It's hardly a slam dunk, universally agreed upon fact either.

[Guest DWA]

"No proof." Again. The essential difference, to those who are paying attention, is that the mainstream will leave its duff for things it already knows are real. Almost none of them will do it for stuff it doesn't, which is how the fun phrase "frontiers of science" got coined. Where Jeff Meldrum is. Anyone who's read up will know that (a) a CA wolverine hoax would be pretty easy to do and (2) it's about equally likely that bigfoot is a concatenation of made-up stuff. Sorry, that's not me saying that. That is science saying that. Fortunately, there are a few on this beat. They are the people I listen to. You are effectively countering them, um, how, again...?

[dmaker]

^^ Not sure who your above post was aimed at. I'm not laying a general charge of "No proof", so I hope your canned lecture on proof was not aimed at me. I am charging you in particular with claiming that we have physical evidence proven to come from a Bigfoot. And we do not. It always comes back as anything but Bigfoot. I would imagine proponents like you would stop trotting out ( no put intended) the old we have poo and hair, etc argument when it really does you no good. Every time those results come back as a known animal or fake detracts from that body of evidence and weakens your argument. Why would you constantly point to a particularly failed area of evidence? That would make you your own worst advocate.

[Guest]

I am charging you in particular with claiming that we have physical evidence proven to come from a Bigfoot. And we do not. It always comes back as anything but Bigfoot.

Actually, that's not true. "We" (meaning us humans, not the NAWAC in specifically) have found scat that didn't match that from any other animal and "we" have found hairs that belong to primates but not any known primate. The problem with this evidence (as opposed to proof) is that without the type specimen, all it can ever be is from an unknown source.

It's a classic argument by those lashing themselves to the mast of dogma to say there is no evidence that we know comes from a wood ape while at the same time totally dismissing the large body of circumstantial evidence that some large primate is stalking the North American forests. It's also a classic move for those like NWA (and me) to say that trying to explain away all the experiential evidence and physical evidence as nothing more than hoaxery, imagination, and misidentification is even more silly than our conclusion that there is, in fact, a large primate on our continent. Not a fairy. Not a dragon. Not a mythical animal without foundation or parallel in the known and established taxon of this planet. Just another primate who poops and sheds and leaves tracks.

However, it's all so tiresome and totally ineffectual towards concluding this mystery. Your side will never be satisfied with anything our side brings forward except the remains of an actual wood ape. Period. Until then, this conversation isn't much more than mental masturbation.

[Guest DWA]

[dmaker says those first two sentences...and then he says that third one. And then it gets worse. Oh, I aimed it right at him. See why? Um, hey. God. You got something personal against me?]

bipto: I have no comprehension of the frustration you live with on a daily basis. You want 'em to go take a walk off their flat earth.

Edited April 2, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

I totally agree with you Bipto. And that is why I take regular breaks from discussion here because it is the same thing over and over again, around and around.

Uhm, DWA sometimes your rhetoric is pretty hard to follow. Is your word blender on the fritz again? You want me to walk where now? That sounds dangerous. Are you wishing me physical harm? Tsk, tsk..not very gentlemanly of you.

[Guest DWA]

If I am that hard to follow...let's just say that explains much. Listening would help. Speaking of taking a break, think I'll do that now. It'll help to discuss this with people whose minds aren't made up.

Edited April 2, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

I will handle the confirmation just fine my friend. I would welcome it in fact. Like most folktales Bigfoot is intriguing. It would be a thrill were it to be revealed as true.

Now when that sad day comes and you too shall pass from this earth and you get to meet your maker and the secrets of the universe are laid out before you and you say "Where is Bigfoot"? Don't be too surprised if you get a chuckle and a "Big what now?" in response. Hope you can handle that. Because I am pretty darned sure that is what it would take. You, and other proponents, are going to cling to this belief to your dying day, of that I have no doubt.

My mind is not exactly made up. We are, after all, talking about an animal that could, theoretically ( by a very long shot) exist. It is within the realm of remote possibility. It's not very likely, but it could possibly be true. What I am tried of seeing and discussing is the same old weak evidence everywhere. Stories and stories and more stories. I am not about to widen margin in favor of the existence of Sasquatch until something a little more convincing comes along. But in 45 years, nothing really has. That has a tendency to push that possibility to even more remote fringes.

[ohiobill]

Bipto - Would you consider it a classic argument to include anonymous anecdotal sighting reports/legends as confirmation of your beliefs while denying the beliefs of others based on their anonymous anecdotal sightings/legends even though the legends come from the same sources? The NAWAC is in a unique position garnering credibility through the involvement of Dr. Strain. Do you agree with DWA that native american legend regarding wood apes lends confirmation to your beliefs while native american legends of dogmen, lake monsters, skinwalkers and mermaids are strictly mythical? Do you feel DWA's views fairly represent the typical view of a typical NAWAC member in regards to scientific involvement and what constitutes evidence?

[Guest SoFla]

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

what a great presentation Brian-thank you for posting this. You know as a newcomer to this field of study I have to tell you guys that it's way too easy to get caught up in the Rick Dyer crap that goes on at FB/FB and all of the idiots who post replies on other "evidence' sites. It's stuff like this that gives me hope that there actually ARE serious people out there who are not trying to make monkeys out of us all, and trying to show us all to be gullible jerks who will believe anything. I know when people are lying to me and I know when people are telling me the truth. As John Lennon once said "Gimme some truth"

[Guest DWA]

ohiobill: I'll answer for bipto (mainly because you took my name in vain plus it's a free country). And I know he'll respond too. [looks like he might have while I was typing this.] ANECDOTES ARE NOT CONFIRMATION. [That's the one millionth time I have said that, here alone. Do I win something?] But when thousands of people are providing a description that would nail a perp were this a crime, and could pretty much write Jeff Meldrum's field guide for him, which they essentially did, you want to, what, presume they are crazy and move on? Well that's scientific of you. Can you write the dogman/lake monster/skinwalker/etc. field guide for us, then let us show you what the, er, problems are with it? Go ahead.

Edited April 2, 2013 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

Even better: listen to that video, and tell me what is wrong with what they are doing. (Keep in mind that "you don't have proof yet" or any variant is not, from any standpoint within science or reason, an acceptable response.)

Edited April 2, 2013 by DWA