Guest DWA Posted April 7, 2013 Posted April 7, 2013 This is the constant bigfoot-skeptic error: telling us that how we think is how we should think, not ever noticing that that is precisely what we are doing. How many times have I said here that belief has nothing to do with this topic? Do they have glasses that screen out the important words? Might not want to buy those.
Guest Posted April 7, 2013 Posted April 7, 2013 It takes some effort to see the difference between the people who see bigfoot behind every broken tree limb, bump in the night, and random impression in the ground and those of us who, even with our higher standards and more skeptical approach, still find the evidence we need to tell us we're on the right track. All we can do is try to set an example. If they can't see it or appreciate it, that's more their problem than ours.
the parkie Posted April 7, 2013 Posted April 7, 2013 I can think of one encounter where the animal chose to be seen. But only that one. Has this encounter been described in detail anywhere Bipto? I like to describe them as "furtive." They don't like to be seen, but they're also drawn to us for some reason. If they were shy or afraid of humans (as the commonly held perception suggests), they'd presumably just go into the next valley over and leave us along. But they don't. They stick around. Some of them often appear insatiably curious about us. Do you ever find any other animals exhibiting this type of behaviour to your group?
Guest Posted April 7, 2013 Posted April 7, 2013 Has this encounter been described in detail anywhere Bipto? Yes, in my presentation at the Texas Bigfoot Conference, I played a video of Mark McClurkan relating his experience where a large, black, bipedal animal charged at him from across a dry creek. Mark had imitated a vocalization he had been hearing and then the animal growled and charged. You can watch his account here: Do you ever find any other animals exhibiting this type of behaviour to your group? You mean like non-primate animals? Or other wood apes? Not sure what you're asking.
the parkie Posted April 7, 2013 Posted April 7, 2013 (edited) Ok thanks, I mean to watch your presentation in full when I get time anyway. I meant any animals other than wood apes. I guess I am driving at the notion that your description of this behaviour, in particular the 'insatiable curiosity' component, sounds intuitively more human-like to me rather than animal-like. Edited April 7, 2013 by the parkie
Guest DWA Posted April 7, 2013 Posted April 7, 2013 And the suicidal flirting with armed men, in dense trackless forest while wearing cumbersome suits? That sounds like a particular kind of human too. Do they form clubs? Serious question.
the parkie Posted April 7, 2013 Posted April 7, 2013 Bipto For clarity re post #1985, I am referring to your previous descriptions of the creatures traits as always inherently ape-like rather than in any way human-like, which has obviously subsequently led to the change in your organisation's name. Could the insatiable curiosity ever be construed as a human-like trait? After all, we here are all insatiably curious of them and we're all human. Well, with one or two exceptions.
Guest Posted April 7, 2013 Posted April 7, 2013 .700 Nitro........yikes. Skilled hunters have taken African Elephants with cartridges as (relatively) diminutive as the .45-70 and 375 H&H. I would think that anything typically used for LARGE bears would be sufficient. If I had to risk my life to take the shot though, any cartridge that starts with a four and reloads quickly.
Guest Posted April 7, 2013 Posted April 7, 2013 Actually DWA, Bitpo agreed with me. Believing or disbelieving someone is not scientific. I responded to your direct quote. If you meant something else then maybe you should have said it more clearly. Yes, stick around kids. You'll learn how to "intellectually" dance.
Guest DWA Posted April 7, 2013 Posted April 7, 2013 Um, nobody agreed with you, because this is not about belief. (Kids? Don't keep talking past people. Key grown-up skill.) If it is so hard for you to figure out how belief does not factor into the science of this, but disbelief is why we are where we are, take a class in logic. Seriously.
Guest Posted April 7, 2013 Posted April 7, 2013 DWA~ "Um, nobody agreed with you, because this is not about belief." DWA ~ "It's our refusal to believe people who see them that is the problem." Dance dance dance....
Guest Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Could the insatiable curiosity ever be construed as a human-like trait? After all, we here are all insatiably curious of them and we're all human. Curiosity is not an exclusively human condition. Octopi and my terrier are both curious. Chimps, gorillas, and blackbirds are curious. I think these animals, with presumably relatively big brains, are more curious than other animals, but no, I don't think it means they're human-like. Our observed behavior of them is that they throw rocks, charge through the bush, make displays with foliage (tree breaking, etc.), howl and chatter, and generally act like gorillas, chimps, orangs, etc. To be clear, I said... "believing" someone is not scientific No, but looking at the investigated encounter reports in aggregate and seeing the internal consistencies among them is. There's nothing at all unscientific about analyzing reports of activity — of any kind, not just in bigfoot research. And when you actually interview someone who's had an encounter, you are performing an act that's not unlike what many different kinds of scientists do. If you interview a witness and publish their account, it's because you think they're telling you the truth as best they can and that they didn't misidentify something mundane. In essence, you believe them. Not because you're trying to be a nice guy or because they told their tale especially convincingly, but because they said something that syncs with other accounts or your own experience and they don't have any obvious motivation to be telling you a lie. Is it possible that the occasional liar gets their story through? Sure. But I'd suggest those are extremely rare occurrences.
Guest DWA Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 But keep in mind, bipto: you can't -- analyze anything until it's proven; have any evidence until it's proven; consider anything even possibly real until it's proven; be real yourself until it's proven...I lost sight of my right hand for a minute. I went Oh my god....then realized I wasn't a bigfoot skeptic and, sure enough, there was the hand. Man it must be hard for them to get through a day. Is that my wallet? Are those my keys? Is that my front door? What if it's a trap? If thousands of people with demonstrated ability to navigate visually through life - never mind operate heavy weapons and drive motor vehicles - are describing with guidebook consistency something they saw, it is more than slightly possible that they saw that thing. If that shakes your reality, my only advice is, don't go outside, 'cause you may not be able to handle it.
the parkie Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 (edited) Curiosity is not an exclusively human condition. Octopi and my terrier are both curious. Chimps, gorillas, and blackbirds are curious. I think these animals, with presumably relatively big brains, are more curious than other animals, but no, I don't think it means they're human-like. Ok, thanks for the clarification. You compare their behaviour to gorillas, chimps, orangs etc but given their apparant hugely higher elusiveness compared to those and other known animals could this be an oversimplified comparison as those animals are routinely shot and killed? Edited April 8, 2013 by the parkie
Guest Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 You compare their behaviour to gorillas, chimps, orangs etc but given their apparant hugely higher elusiveness compared to those and other known animals could this be an oversimplified comparison as those animals are routinely shot and killed? I don't think there's any evidence they're more elusive than gorillas or chimps. Lowland gorillas specifically haven't been studied nearly as much as mountain gorillas due to the difficulties in finding and tracking them. Chimps can be very elusive. Wood apes in our research area have been seen and heard and otherwise are known to be there. To us, all this sounds about the same. But keep in mind, bipto: you can't -- analyze anything until it's proven... Somehow, it's been decided by some that witness accounts are worthless. I can't think of any field of study where that's the case. Where interested individuals would literally throw in the trash the accounts of thousands and people over hundreds of years. It boggles my mind. Seems to be another baby/bathwater situation. Since some people lie or misidentify, all accounts are lies or misidentification. Since some tracks are faked, all tracks are faked. Since one film *looks* fake, all films, photos, and videos are fake.
Recommended Posts