Operation Persistence

[Guest]

dmaker- can't disagree more. Not that we want to(shouldn't) make BF a pin cusion, but as an example some discoveries have shown a great benifit in forwarding medical research. My prayer(excuse me) is that BF may show a greater degree of mylon restoration that humans an help with the reasearch and cure for multiple sclerosis; just as an example.  Hey you never know what relationship may come from that interaction. Far fetched for sure but that my hope. Also as far as the history of the tree line of the great apes(primates) may help us know where we or they came about. I will agree about the importance, but other researchers are involved more in the known and getting their grants and Bf research is just about totally funded by private means. 

[Guest]

Whoa there dmaker -you really should find out my stance on the subject before you go placing me into any camps.  Frankly, your  response tells me a great deal about where your mindset is and I will not step into your argument - which reminds me of that old saying about tossing the baby out with the bath water.

[WSA]

dmaker...you really should try parsing good evidence from bad, and make a habit of always, always, ALWAYS ignoring the sideshows. DWA is a good example of somebody who is able to do that. You won't see him, or me, and many others here, commenting on the probable hoax du jour  much, or what Bobo said last night, or what RD has in his freezer,etc., etc. We get more than our share of others who are willing to do that...free country and all.

 

Exploiters are in every field, although this one seems to have more than its share, I grant you, and those who are willing to engage them. Don't go there, is my sincere advice.  Personally, I should live so long. 

 

In this world you've got to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff, the dross from the nuggets.  I'm not savoring any mysteries, I'm just more aware, I think, that it is a big wheel turning, and it doesn't turn on my schedule. Or yours. Or anyone's. And that just because I'm willing to entertain the idea of the Wood Ape, it does not require me to swallow every bucket-o-crap that gets trotted out 24/7, or that this activity has any influence on the real probabilities we're all here to discuss.

Seriously too dmaker, you come off sounding like a guy who is being charged by the minute to come up with some Sasquatch proof or pay a penalty on the back end if you're wrong about it.  Relax. If this isn't fun for you, try stamp collecting! It is supposed to be. None of us are going to jail if our position doesn't pan out.

Edited May 10, 2013 by WSA

[dmaker]

 

dmaker- can't disagree more. Not that we want to(shouldn't) make BF a pin cusion, but as an example some discoveries have shown a great benifit in forwarding medical research. My prayer(excuse me) is that BF may show a greater degree of mylon restoration that humans an help with the reasearch and cure for multiple sclerosis; just as an example.  Hey you never know what relationship may come from that interaction. Far fetched for sure but that my hope. Also as far as the history of the tree line of the great apes(primates) may help us know where we or they came about. I will agree about the importance, but other researchers are involved more in the known and getting their grants and Bf research is just about totally funded by private means. 

 

Indeed some discoveries have inadvertently led to even greater discoveries. Yes, history is not short of examples of such things. My argument is that the premise is flawed when applied to Bigfoot. There is nothing to examine with Bigfoot. You cannot study the mylon restorative properties of a myth. There will be no ancillary discoveries to benefit mankind from studying Bigfoot, because you cannot study something that does not show up. And it doesn't show up because it doesn't exist is my premise. So when people talk about science should be looking into Bigfoot, that is just one of their tools for accounting for a lack of evidence or proof. Science should be doing this or doing that. Looking for Bigfoot is the last thing that science should be doing. What it should be doing is looking for things like you mentioned, but in real, live animals, not in fairy tales.

Just wanted to add if you have someone close to you suffering from MS, then my heart and thoughts go out to you and hopefully the advances you pray for will come soon.

Edited May 10, 2013 by dmaker

[dmaker]

@BigGinger , I'm sorry if I misunderstood you somehow. Some days my tolerance for the "Science is mean to Bigfoot" argument is pretty low and makes me testy. If there was enough to this then science would be looking more strongly. Some scientists did look when this phenomenon initially started, found that largely there was nothing there. All that has happened in the mean time are a lot of hoaxes and a lot of eye witness reports. What is there, exactly, to compel science to chase after Bigfoot? I don't think money should be spent chasing down anecdotal reports of something that most likely is not there. The only people interested in this "field of research" are amateur enthusiasts, charlatans and a couple of phds. If the far larger community of trained and educated scientists are clearly not interested, not moved by the weak evidence to date, why would that be exactly? Footers go on about how this is the discovery of our lifetime, and worth a bazillion bucks, the missing link, the most important thing ever, etc. Well if that is true and there was even a moderately decent chance of the magic monkey actually being out there, what university in their right mind would not want to get the "discovery of our life time"? All that says to me is that educated people have taken a look and are not interested in chasing shadows. It's got nothing to do with babies and bathwater.

Edited May 10, 2013 by dmaker

[Cotter]

dmaker wrote:

 

"Some days my tolerance for the "Science is mean to Bigfoot" argument is pretty low and makes me testy."

 

 

Dude, tell me about it!  You are the only member on the BFF who is actually more relaxed in the Tar Pit than on the main forum!
 

LOL!

[dmaker]

^^ That made me laugh..Thanks. It's true most of the time.

[Guest Big-B]

Dear All,

      First, let me apologize for the content of my original post expressing disbelief over the existence of Bigfoot.  That was not germane to my key concern. Furthermore, it did not did not engender good will.

      As I have observed response to my original post I must say that more concerns were expressed about ancillary issues than my central point: is the determination to kill a Bigfoot in this valley wise given the nature of the land?

     Repeatedly it was doubted that I had even covered this land.  I can easily prove this but seeing that people want to keep Area X secret, I will not.  However, I am certain that Bipto and others associated with Operation Persistence can confirm my strong familiarity with the area.  It was only through sheer coincidence (I am in no way connected with any group looking to locate a Bigfoot nor have I or do I have any aspirations to locate one) that my paths intersected with Operation Persistence.  

     I was repeatedly challenged that my concern for safety was misguided or falsely altruistic.  It was contended that hikers do not have to worry about other hunters in the woods.  That is correct.  However, other hunters are not looking to kill a creature that is human like in shape and movement.  Other hunters have not shot at one in the past nor are laying in wait to kill one now.  Does the conviction of this creature's existence coupled with the determination to kill one possibly predispose that a horrible accident may take place?

   It was also noted - and here I apologize if I misread the tone - that my concerns for others was misplaced or invalid since I had no hesitation in walking the area.  Those that know me will attest to my willingness to go boldly (some would say foolishly) where angels fear to tread.  Additionally, my desire to find new areas, explore new land, and photograph nature and wildlife will always propel me.  I want those like me to not have to be concerned about their safety.

   I do think one person misunderstood my declaration of familiarity with the land.  When I said I was there for 3-5 days it was not a one time occurrence but numerous visits over the last year.

   Lastly, and most importantly,  the nature of the intersection of public and private land - I did explore both - in this area is what causes concern.  The public land that exists overwhelmingly outweighs the private land there (that was the reference to 95%, I do think it is much greater but thought I would err on the side of caution).  Furthermore, the private inholdings are irregularly spaced, irregularly shaped and most importantly, unfenced, undeveloped, and unsigned.  Moreover, there is no way to get to the small private inholdings without using public land. I do know that others use this area as I have encountered people about 40% of the time I explored there.  Hence, my goal is not to debate bigfoot, nor to prove that I walked the land.  I am not at all concerned about that.  I apologize if that post offended anyone.  The purpose of my post was simply to raise safety concerns.

Big-B

[Cotter]

Hi Big-B.

 

Are you a hunter?

 

Do you know the 4 safety rules of gun handling?

 

Why do you think that said safety rules are not being applied here?
 

Final question - have you read Bipto's numerous responses to the exact question you are posing?

 

Thx.

[dmaker]

FWIW, Big-B, I don't think your post was off topic at all. It was probably my mea culpa for turning the thread into another BF evidence thread. Particularly once DWA and I are both in a thread. We really ought to keep it to the actual evidence thread. Though in his defense, he has been absent a few weeks so I am probably mostly to blame for the off topic wandering, not you or anyone else. I think your experiences while hiking through here are relevant and your safety concerns should be aired and answered.

[WSA]

Big-B: Fair enough. I'd be the first to acknowledge firearms raise risk, on both sides of the gun sight. You'll find a much more cogent position statement from Bipto in the thread above than I can muster, but the fact of the matter is they are well aware of the stakes they have wagered here. As much as I would like to safeguard the world from mistakes, inadvertence and neglect, we all know the impossibility of that. I'm not even sure I can reduce it much. I will predict though that if you dared to confront a member of the OP team with the idea that they might somehow confuse a hiker with a WA, they'd at first laugh at you, and then become ill with you if you persisted.  The phrase, "Just how dumb do you reckon I am?" comes to mind. 

 

(And I have to just add this: Despite your declarations of sang froid, nobody is that chill. If you seriously thought the danger was that significant, this would be the last place you'd go, let alone return to it repeatedly. Or file an incident report)

[Guest]

LOL! Thanks dmaker - I was sitting on my hands so I wouldn't post something I shouldn't. I agree and yet, disagree with some of what you say. Yes, some did look into the situation before and didn't find anything, but that doesn't mean the answer is no - it just means an answer wasn't found. Maybe, had there been more interest at the start (a larger group as you seem to point out that only a few phds are interested now) something would have been found by now.  It stands to reason if you equate interest size as a fault now, it should also be considered a fault as to the eariler search.  So, perhaps that fault is the reason for the current outcome. 

 

Does that mean large sums of national monies should be tossed at the search/research?  No.  But, it shouldn’t be dismissed or ridiculed either.  Many people do that with the Space Program and call it a major waste of time and money but they have no idea what was given to humanity in the process of trying to reach space.  Now, would it be wiser to use that money to feed the poor?  That is a valid argument.  But look at the advances that would be lost if the space program hadn’t been developed. 

 

You know, dmaker, not long ago I would have agreed with you that if there was more to the BF question that science would be looking more strongly, but that has changed for me recently.  Not just about the BF issue, but Science in general.  My recent step into research design has opened my eyes to the problems Science has trying to move forward in a profit driven world.  And, I am also amazed at the obvious questions that need to be asked that many are not. 

 

Dmaker, I really don’t even know how I can possibly respond to your post with any success when in one line you say the only people interested in the field are enthusiasts, charlatans and a couple of phds, and then a few sentences later say that educated people are not interested in the subject.   Just because there isn’t a large contingent doesn’t invalidate the few. I think educated people are still looking into the subject actually.  That would be the purpose of the DNA studies and educated persons in the field looking.  I wouldn’t call these people amateurs with the degrees and experience they bring.

 

But, then, this is taking the thread off-topic and really is best for another thread I would think. 

[WSA]

dmaker, I do think you should take your own advice, yes. You can of course interject the, "but you're considering/describing/documenting/researching something that is not real" into every thread on this board, if you want to. Consider though, you'll not do anything more than annoy those who are trying to have the discussion you're insisting they change or end all together. This won't leave you much to discuss here, granted. Or, it might lead you to look for things in the evidence on which you might be able to contribute something constructive. I'm betting on the second one, but my opinion is just mine alone.

[dmaker]

Correct BigGinger, when I said educated, I more meant relevant academics, not to preclude the enthusiasts with degrees or training or just lots of outdoors experience.

You are %100 correct WSA. In fact LeafTalker pointed that out to me recently too. And I do see the pointlessness of bringing the same thing to bear on every thread. I have a very singular mindset when it comes to BF--there is no such thing. So that leaves me with only one point to make in almost any given thread about Bigfoot. I don't set out to do so, it just ends up that way somewhere between brain and keyboard. I'll try to leave those musings to the evidence thread where they belong and expand on my repertoire for other threads. After all, no one loves a killjoy that doesn't know when to shut up.

[WSA]

Correct BigGinger, when I said educated, I more meant relevant academics, not to preclude the enthusiasts with degrees or training or just lots of outdoors experience.

You are %100 correct WSA. In fact LeafTalker pointed that out to me recently too. And I do see the pointlessness of bringing the same thing to bear on every thread. I have a very singular mindset when it comes to BF--there is no such thing. So that leaves me with only one point to make in almost any given thread about Bigfoot. I don't set out to do so, it just ends up that way somewhere between brain and keyboard. I'll try to leave those musings to the evidence thread where they belong and expand on my repertoire for other threads. After all, no one loves a killjoy that doesn't know when to shut up.

There's always option 2 (above). Once, just once, I'd really be tickled to see you post something like, "I can't explain that...and it makes me curious to dig deeper." C'mon man, give it a shot!