TD-40 Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 What this forum needs is a thread on whether or not Bf is more ape or more human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 What this forum needs is a thread on whether or not Bf is more ape or more human. or neither Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pruitt Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 (edited) TD-40: I hope that was sarcasm Edited March 17, 2013 by Matt Pruitt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 (edited) Yeah, really, let's not. Practically every assessment of "more human than ape" that I have seen was based on a naïve assessment (footprint looks superficially human; face shades in the human direction from gorilla; animal did something not at all a stretch for an intelligent animal but witness was a bit overly impressed; etc.) But boy are they convinced. I could see such a thread getting locked down in no time. Edited March 17, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zenmonkey Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 TD-40: I hope that was sarcasm lol nice matt, or we could pull the ole Ben Radford as he put it to Scott, as to that we dont even know if its a primate or not......just kidding!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ike Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 Not being a member or having any association with this group I have no dog in this hunt, but personally I think it is a good move. Particularly since I think this group is an objective driven one trying to be taken seriously without all the nonsense seen in so many people engaged in the game "woods and wildmen" as the scofftic Kitakaze used to refer to it. Let's be honest with ourselves folks, mention the term "bigfoot" to most people in society at large and the snickers, smirks, and scoffing begins. You bring that word into the discussion and overwhelmingly I can guarantee you, your credibility will go down. I've seen it happen personally and I know every one of you enthusiasts out there have too. I'm not saying that amongst fellow enthusiasts that it has a detrimental effect because it is such a part of enthusiast vernacular, but outside of that circle it most certainly does. Seems to me the (formerly) TBRC would like to get away from the stigma that term brings, so at least they can get a bit of a fairer shake at the onset of any discussions with those who are outside the circle of enthusiasts before the eyes start rolling. Proud as you may be of it, if you come swooping in with "Bigfoot Hunter" claims, shirts and hats, bumper stickers and signs on vehicles, your credibility is shot from the get go without even opening your mouth. Try to defend it if you will, but those are the facts. There's a lot of bad baggage attached to that term and if the study wishes to advance in a serious fashion, the less baggage the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 (edited) Well said Ike. Edited March 17, 2013 by Mayo2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 Agreed. Our point exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Since collection of voucher specimine is standard practice in the scientific community when identifying a new species, we prefer the term "pro-science" Maybe 19th century science, but not 21st century science. "Shoot and stuff" is primitive and unethical thinking. In the age of DNA science, a "whole body" is unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 If it makes you feel any better, the conference will remain the Texas Bigfoot Conference and all the associated merchandise will be branded as such. I guess you won't be shedding the baggage then, because this is where you might engage or interface with academia. The term "wood ape" is still vague , and I wouldn't expect people to know what you are talking about until you explained it, then your baggage would be back anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 I guess you won't be shedding the baggage then, because this is where you might engage or interface with academia. The term "wood ape" is still vague , and I wouldn't expect people to know what you are talking about until you explained it, then your baggage would be back anyways. exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Thanks for clearing things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 I guess you won't be shedding the baggage then, because this is where you might engage or interface with academia. The term "wood ape" is still vague , and I wouldn't expect people to know what you are talking about until you explained it, then your baggage would be back anyways. If you've ever been to the Texas Bigfoot Conference then you'd know who attends and what it's for. This isn't an academic event. It's geared toward the public and meant to raise funds to further our work. If we used a term unfamiliar to the public, it's likely few would come. Therefore, the conference, as an entertaining and educational endeavor for the average layperson, can carry the baggage just fine. It's the only case where the vernacular is actually a benefit. The conference has a "brand" and the group has a separate one. The new name only accentuates that and how they're different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 This reminds me of a couple years ago when the people who sell prunes decided to start calling them "dried plums". It just seems to be deceptive. It will cause confusion and when people ask questions, they or you will probably still have to clarify with "Sasquash" or "Bigfoot" . You will still get the an eye roll but now the "Oh so that's what they are calling it now." Ugh, either you are ok with doing research for this creature known as bigfoot or not. Sorry, just my humble opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Ugh, either you are ok with doing research for this creature known as bigfoot or not. Turns out, we are not. I'd suggest that if you were in our shoes, you wouldn't be either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts