Guest peter Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 Why do some BF researchers obtain such popularity ? Am I blind to something here or what? The way some names get bantered around makes it seem almost cult like.
Guest Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 And then there are those believer/knower/witnesses that have absolutely corraled a sighting for their individual proof, and got it by ignoring the blood thirst for a body. Why is it blood thirst for a body? I think it's a sad truth that to actually scientifically recognize it, that's unfortunately what it will take. I don't feel like that's blood thirst. Sure capture document and release would be great...but that's not going to happen.
roguefooter Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 I just want to see a body. Even a dead hoaxer in a costume will do.
Guest Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 I know that what I have seen, heard and smelled was real. I don't know anything about Ketchum, Dyer, Sykes and Erickson. We're not dealing with an escaped troop of capuchin monkeys. We're dealing with something that has the ability to evade us like nothing else we've encountered. Things are not adding up. So either the scientific community is greatly in need of backbone, or there is something fishy in Denmark.
GuyInIndiana Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 Why do some BF researchers obtain such popularity ? Am I blind to something here or what? The way some names get bantered around makes it seem almost cult like. In some general ways, you're right. There *are* cult mentalities out there. More likely than not though, I'd suggest that those who embrace "popular bigfoot researchers" do it out of a need to live vicariously thru someone else. In essence, they hang on every word and action of <insert name here> because they are typically not a field person or investigator for variously legit reasons, so they identify with someone they believe is making a difference in their research since they may not have the opportunity to be "out there" involved themselves. JMO
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Posted February 27, 2013 In some general ways, you're right. There *are* cult mentalities out there. More likely than not though, I'd suggest that those who embrace "popular bigfoot researchers" do it out of a need to live vicariously thru someone else. In essence, they hang on every word and action of <insert name here> because they are typically not a field person or investigator for variously legit reasons, so they identify with someone they believe is making a difference in their research since they may not have the opportunity to be "out there" involved themselves. JMO You have that so right! I'm way too scared to go out and look. I heavily rely on the word of others and boy do i feel stupid a lot for getting my hopes up.
Guest Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 I don't think it's a matter of going back to square one. I was getting suspicious about this DNA study months ago. I wasn't surprised about this. Disappointed, yes, but not surprised. I'm still pursuing my fortean interests all the same just as always.
bipedalist Posted February 28, 2013 BFF Patron Posted February 28, 2013 Why is it blood thirst for a body? I think it's a sad truth that to actually scientifically recognize it, that's unfortunately what it will take. I don't feel like that's blood thirst. Sure capture document and release would be great...but that's not going to happen. You're entitled to your opinion, simple answer equals, a human being or several will be killed in the search and not homo sapiens cognatus----- before some lucky hunter pulls one in and puts it on ice....... that is my opinion, and I see it as probable needless loss of life. The Ketchum study done right would have obviated the need for such consideration. Her secret squirrel stuff post paper release has done nothing to instill confidence in those but I will not change my mindset to pro-kill. Just curious, have you faced these being face to face at any time? Maybe you would feel differently if you had.
Guest Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) You're entitled to your opinion, simple answer equals, a human being or several will be killed in the search and not homo sapiens cognatus----- before some lucky hunter pulls one in and puts it on ice....... that is my opinion, and I see it as probable needless loss of life. The Ketchum study done right would have obviated the need for such consideration. Her secret squirrel stuff post paper release has done nothing to instill confidence in those but I will not change my mindset to pro-kill. Just curious, have you faced these being face to face at any time? Maybe you would feel differently if you had. Aww, I'm not ever going to see one because I'm too scared to go looking. And I wouldn't kill anything unless i was starving death. i wouldn't ever harm an animal to prove it exists. I think that's horrible. I don't think they're taking about going out with pitchforks and torches, they're talking about taking one. And I agree, it could get ugly, but it will prove it. What I said was it's unfortunate that's what it'll take to prove it. Nobody well ever believe it in mainstream society without a cold stiff corpse. I don't need to see one to know I wouldn't hurt one. Edited February 28, 2013 by Pam
Guest Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 It would be somewhat easy to capture one if you believe habituators feed them and have daily access to them. If folks are still no-kill, that's the next best bet. I'm not thinking a rope loop tied to a tree limb, or a net. Lace their pancakes or whatever they eat with a serious sedative, wait 2 hours and go get it. You don't need an elaborate cage to hold it. Zip tie it's hands and feet and haul it to a jail cell for observation. I still say just shoot one and be done, but according to hunters who have seen them, they either can't pull the trigger or the gun misfires or whatever.
Guest Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 Ketchum's data has yet to be fully released for analysis. As of this time, there has been no work done that I know of to refute her data, just trashing of her paper on proceedural grounds (and no small amount of the usual bias).
Guest Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 Mulder: http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/02/breaking-bio-on-the-ketchum-sasquatch-sequences/
Midnight Owl Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 I stated in another thread before the Ketchum paper came out, I didn't think much will change after the paper comes out. People will accept and believe what they want to believe. As for those of us who have seen and interacted with these highly complex subjects, the paper only supports what some of us already knew. I don't claim to have all the answers by any means, but there has to be hidden reasons why the Bigfoot/Sasquatch have avoided capture or being killed by a few. I do know many of us have experienced things out there that are way, way out of the box and don't bother to share because no one would believe us anyway!! Finding and presenting the proof loses its luster over time.....
bipedalist Posted March 1, 2013 BFF Patron Posted March 1, 2013 Ketchum's data has yet to be fully released for analysis. As of this time, there has been no work done that I know of to refute her data, just trashing of her paper on proceedural grounds (and no small amount of the usual bias). So what's the holdup Mulder, money or more money?
ShadowBorn Posted March 1, 2013 Moderator Posted March 1, 2013 It has always been square 1 with them when It comes to reseaching them.We just do not stop since they are out there and very real. This has never stopped me and never has anyone who has doubted me either since i do know what I have seen and have expieranced.
Recommended Posts