Operation Persistence

[WSA]

You know what would restore my faith in the eternal curiosity of mankind? After somebody like Bipto posts, in exemplary detail, the fruits of a long hot Summer in the cause of possibly furthering the knowledge about a subject I presume ALL here are interested in? It would be along the lines of, "Hey, you've posted some information that is pretty intriguing Bipto...thanks for the effort you and your people made....you've given me something to grapple with here and I can't say I understand it completely, but I'll try." In fact, I want to say that right now.

But what do we get instead? It is right up there to read. Too much.

[Guest]

You're welcome.

[ohiobill]

Hopefully Bipto doesn't feel too slighted that I didn't immediately reinforce his recent post with congratulations? The forum sometimes gets a little wonky for me during busy times and posts don't always upload in real time. As always Bipto, good job on even engaging in practical study of the subject! Too many proponents rely on anonymous witness sightings as the basis of their belief rather than the inspiration for further search. I'm not sure who you're referring to with "reasonable skeptics" - I would imagine almost anyone skeptical of uninvestigated claims would be considered reasonable in this field? I've always liked your skepticism when investigating claims - has it become unreasonable to you for some reason?

Speaking of unreasonable, some on here seem to feel comfortable in answering for you but is that what you want? I asked a couple of questions in post #1857 about your feelings regarding anecdotal evidence if you have time to answer. Again, thanks for doing all you do down there. Hopefully your tactics will pan out this year.

[Guest DWA]

My take on and approach to this topic is precisely bipto's. Thank you! Acknowledged. Congratulated! Cool.

[WSA]

You are very welcome Bipto, and your colleagues. I have nothing but admiration for those who are willing to put their skin in this game...and keep it in. Those like me who only sit and type are not the same thing at all.

[Guest DWA]

No kidding. One reason I come here to educate folks on this topic is because most don't seem to understand where the science is coming from in this field. It's the proponents. They deserve better. But in a sound-bite society weaned on TV, too many people seem unequipped to get that.

You are very welcome Bipto, and your colleagues. I have nothing but admiration for those who are willing to put their skin in this game...and keep it in. Those like me who only sit and type are not the same thing at all.

[Guest]

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?

I'm not sure what anonymous anecdotes you're talking about. You mean the reports on sites like ours that have been investigated by us? Those aren't anonymous. We meet with the people who make those reports and have lengthy conversations about what they're claiming to experience. Not all of these reports make it past that stage and are rejected either because we believe the witnesses have misidentified another animal, are simply experiencing overactive imaginations, or, on occasion, hoaxing us.

In addition, many of us in the organization have had our own encounters. Much of our theories and suppositions regarding the apes and their behavior comes from those observations. Once you see one, it tends to clarify your position on the matter.

I'm unclear on what other "anonymous anecdotal sightings/legends" you're talking about.

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?

I think you should talk to Kathy about that since she's the expert. Also, I think you're overgeneralizing native beliefs. Not all tribes believe the same things or have the same legends.

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?

Can you point me to some specifics? I find myself agreeing with him much of the time, not all of the time, but I'll need something more tangible in order to give you an idea of where he does or does not align with me or the organization.

[Guest poignant]

Hey bipto great presentation! Sadly, not everyone can follow through to the logical conclusion: i.e., that this is EITHER one elaborate conspiracy to hoax, OR that there really is a species of wood ape out there.

I also learned about ghost blinds. Neat. Has there been much success with them or is BF visual acuity so good they aren't fooled?

Edited April 3, 2013 by poignant

[Guest]

Hey bipto great presentation! Sadly, not everyone can follow through to the logical conclusion: i.e., that this is EITHER one elaborate conspiracy to hoax, OR that there really is a species of wood ape out there.

Provide an alternate theory. I'd like to hear it.

Has there been much success with them or is BF visual acuity so good they aren't fooled?

I think early in the summer, they were quite effective. Set up correctly, they're practically invisible. We had one member have a sighting from inside the blind of a figure far down the creek that appeared to be trying to figure out if something was there (based on its movements). However, I think our experience would tell us that it's important to move them around. Once that OP was "busted," it was busted and should not have been used again.

[ohiobill]

I'm not sure what anonymous anecdotes you're talking about. You mean the reports on sites like ours that have been investigated by us? Those aren't anonymous. We meet with the people who make those reports and have lengthy conversations about what they're claiming to experience. Not all of these reports make it past that stage and are rejected either because we believe the witnesses have misidentified another animal, are simply experiencing overactive imaginations, or, on occasion, hoaxing us.

In addition, many of us in the organization have had our own encounters. Much of our theories and suppositions regarding the apes and their behavior comes from those observations. Once you see one, it tends to clarify your position on the matter.

I'm unclear on what other "anonymous anecdotal sightings/legends" you're talking about.

I think you should talk to Kathy about that since she's the expert. Also, I think you're overgeneralizing native beliefs. Not all tribes believe the same things or have the same legends.

Can you point me to some specifics? I find myself agreeing with him much of the time, not all of the time, but I'll need something more tangible in order to give you an idea of where he does or does not align with me or the organization.

Sorry Bipto, sometimes it's hard to keep track of what you've said and has been addressed to you vs. what others are saying for you. Specifically I was addressing the BFRO database in regards to sighting reports. (I had every faith that you'd be reasonably skeptical about any claims you had a chance to investigate with NAWAC.) Legends would include Ape Canyon, Teddy Roosevelt's account, third party stories heard round the campfire etc. Hopefully your efforts will soon allow all of us to see one.

I will try to engage Dr. Strain about what you believe regarding the confirmation imparted by certain native american tribal belief as suggested.

I won't bother you further about what is coming from you vs what might only be the opinion of others - to save you time I will assume anyone stating they are speaking for you is and that their opinions are yours. Honestly, I sometimes have difficulty following DWA's posts so I'm sure you will correct any statements you feel don't reflect your personal opinion or that of the NAWAC if necessary. Thanks!

[Guest DWA]

^^^^Wha? You will assume that anyone stating they are speaking for someone actually IS ...????

People! Announcement. I speak for ohiobill; his views are mine. As he says, you may safely assume this. Since he can't follow my posts (they employ stuff deliberately tossed in to throw him off, like logic, humility and syntax), we should have no problems agreeing from now on. OK? When you read DWA, just think: ohiobill. We're In Lockstep.

[Guest]

Specifically I was addressing the BFRO database in regards to sighting reports.

I know people who worked on those reports in the old days and I have every reason to believe they were posted in good faith and deserve to be taken as probably legitimate encounter reports. Honestly, I think the quality control over the past several years has slipped a bit (I'm thinking of one report that was on the site for many months from Minnesota of a trackway that was *clearly* made by a bear). If I don't know the investigator, their report has to be taken with a grain of salt.

However, I'm in a position to know a lot of these people while others aren't. How are they supposed to use the collected database of reports? I think they're a compelling piece of circumstantial evidence when taken as a whole since there is a strong internal consistency to the details of the accounts. Bigfoot come in a certain size range and do a certain set of otherwise unremarkable things. They sound like wildlife reports. They don't sound fanciful in that, unlike crop circles for example, the reported animals and their behavior haven't become incredible (18 foot tall flying purple wood apes).

Bottom line, reports are stories. They are evidence, not proof. For me, the collected database of sightings is a giant column of smoke that indicates there's a fire of something significant happening on the ground. Some would say it's a mass delusion or hoax or whatever, but my experience tells me there's a hairy ape behind it all.

Legends would include Ape Canyon, Teddy Roosevelt's account, third party stories heard round the campfire etc.

Ape Canyon, based on my personal experiences in X, seems totally plausible. There are many parallels between our accounts from X and that old story. I think TR's story has been blown out of proportion and contains some elements that's not indicative of bigfoot and is probably best considered apocryphal. Other campfire stories (of which I've both told and heard a lot) all have to be judged on their own merits. I don't discount things I hear around a campfire just because it's a campfire I'm hearing them around and not a symposium hall full of PhDs, though.

Hopefully your efforts will soon allow all of us to see one.

Keep your fingers crossed.

...to save you time I will assume anyone stating they are speaking for you is and that their opinions are yours. Honestly, I sometimes have difficulty following DWA's posts so I'm sure you will correct any statements you feel don't reflect your personal opinion or that of the NAWAC if necessary.

I enjoy DWA's enthusiasm! And his support. But no, he's not speaking for the NAWAC or me. Only I can do that.

[1980squatch]

Bipto - great show. My favorite parts were the bar charts. No other habitation site is pushing out bar charts! Speaks volumes about how your group is approaching things.

[Drew]

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 seems that lots of evidence collected by Bigfooters comes back as 'Unknown', why do you think this is? Explain your answer.

Because, I can read through lots of studies where they collect scat, and hair, and it comes back as an animal. Why is this so difficult for Bigfoot groups?

I mean, the ONE wolverine in California, they got like 20 samples of scat and hair, and tested it, it didn't come back unknown. Why is the most basic analysis an issue when it comes to Bigfoot?

We obtained both photographs and noninvasively-collected genetic evidence (scat and hair). DNA analysis revealed the animal was a male and not a remnant of a historical California population. Comparison with available data revealed the individual was most closely related to populations from the western edge of the Rocky Mountains. This represents the first evidence of connectivity between wolverine populations of the Rocky and Sierra Nevada Mountain Ranges.

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3955/046.083.0207

[dmaker]

^^^^Wha? You will assume that anyone stating they are speaking for someone actually IS ...????

People! Announcement. I speak for ohiobill; his views are mine. As he says, you may safely assume this. Since he can't follow my posts (they employ stuff deliberately tossed in to throw him off, like logic, humility and syntax), we should have no problems agreeing from now on. OK? When you read DWA, just think: ohiobill. We're In Lockstep.

Sure why not? I'm already used to thinking you and WSA are one and the same.