norseman Posted June 10, 2013 Admin Share Posted June 10, 2013 There's a mountain of evidence claimed for bigfoot. I've never written that there wasn't. I've considered historical accounts from the Colonial Period to today. I've read probably hundreds of bigfoot encounter stories from more modern times (say 1950 to 2013), and I continue to do so. I've considered footprint evidence, dermals, handprints, buttprints, the PGF, the Sierra Sounds, DNA evidence, photos, thermals, video, audio, trailcams, etc. I've spent an inordinate amount of time inventing ecological scenarios in which a species like bigfoot could have evolved, dispersed to the New World, come to assume a continent-wide range, and find food in disparate habitats. Now some people might consider all that putative bigfoot evidence to be actual evidence of real bigfoots. Fine. But what have I not considered? What is the singularity of bigfooty evidence that I've missed from not signing up for my John Bindernagel Fan Club Decoder Ring? According to DWA, if I had that ring, it would convince me to take bigfoot seriously. That's the other side of this coin, and he's never been able to intimate clearly what he thinks us open-minded, bigfoot-converted sceintists should be doing once we figure out that there's a lot of interesting bigfooty stuff in the world. Ding-dong! It's the real world at your door. If you think the only thing that separates discovering bigfoot from not discovering bigfoot is a months-long field expedition to someplace squatchy (I hear Rhode Island is "squatchy as hell"), then the scientists with the decoder rings are going to need to apply for funding so such an expedition can happen. To apply for the funding, our elected representatives in Washington need to apply pressure to the NSF to budget some line items to the search for bigfoot. So if people like DWA really took bigfoot seriously, they'd be putting pressure on their elected officials to start doing their jobs and turn the screws on the NSF to free up some coin for some high-level squatchin'. http://www.livescience.com/4463-endangered-species-protection-sought-bigfoot.html Recently, Mike Lake, a Canadian member of parliament from Edmonton, Alberta, agreed to introduce a petition that called for Bigfoot to be protected under the Canadian version of the endangered species act. Lake presented to the House of Commons a petition that stated, “The debate over (Bigfoot’s) existence is moot in the circumstance of their tenuous hold on merely existing. Therefore, the petitioners request the House of Commons to establish immediate, comprehensive legislation to affect immediate protection of Bigfoot.†Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 The person behind that petition was Todd Standing...nuff said. Norse, I do not understand your fascination with Standing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 10, 2013 Admin Share Posted June 10, 2013 The person behind that petition was Todd Standing...nuff said. Norse, I do not understand your fascination with Standing. Well we were poker buddies back in the day before he got caught cheating and..........ah, yah, I'll just hit his number on my contact list and call him and ask him about it!? dmaker? A politician introduced it to parliament. Your not suggesting Todd Standing is hoaxing a petition? Those crafty Canadians are always one step ahead of us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 I'm not sure I am following you norse...are you endorsing this as a real BF? "If Moneymaker says it's not legit, one must call bullspit" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 Saskeptic: my position on the sasquatch evidence could not be clearer...while we are on not grasping screaming loud subtlety. And I agree with gigantor. So ta-ta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 10, 2013 Admin Share Posted June 10, 2013 How should I know? My personal opinion is that Standing's Sasquatch photos show a progression of precision. They started out looking like muppets, but this one looks good. The eye ball even blinks. Now if the footage above is all he had? I would have to scratch my head. But considering your photo and mine do not even look like the same species? I'd say it's similar to watching a 70's Star Wars film to any modern sci fi film. Which just leads us back to the same old point that a photo or film is not going to get us anywhere. When I ask skeptics how they will know when they see a REAL Sasquatch photo? They tell me they will just know......... Anyhow, back to the point at hand. I was simply pointing out to Saskeptic that indeed, people are petitioning their politicians to recognize the creature in some official capacity. I feel the whole thing is preposterous. One should be made to show evidence before they waste the taxpayers dollar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 Is it your opinion that Standing is a hoaxer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 10, 2013 Admin Share Posted June 10, 2013 Is it your opinion that Standing is a hoaxer? I think so, or at the very least a boy that cryed wolf to many times. im familiar with his research area up in inveremere its fantastic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 Norseman- according to the Ca. F&W Commision, the folks that regulate and enact laws and regulations in the state of Ca. , what they need to constituts proof is a DNA report and clear video or photographic PROOF that BF has a viable population within their boundaries.Not body, just a verifiable DNA report. same subject same take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 The person behind that petition was Todd Standing...nuff said. Norse, I do not understand your fascination with Standing. Well we were poker buddies back in the day before he got caught cheating and..........ah, yah, I'll just hit his number on my contact list and call him and ask him about it!? dmaker? A politician introduced it to parliament. Your not suggesting Todd Standing is hoaxing a petition? Those crafty Canadians are always one step ahead of us! Did you actually read the link you provided? It quite clearly shows that Standing was the person behind the petition. Lake did not even speak about it in the House of Commons, he merely tabled it. This was also tried in New York state, I believe, where the official response was that mythical creature do not require legislation. Whic isa bit funny since Champ, the lake monster, does have some legislative protection. But I am sure that is just to encourage tourism than anything else. Or maybe those pesky politicians take lake monsters more seriously even than they do Bigfoot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 Standing is, of course Standing, but he's the one actually trying to push "bigfoot" into the mainstream. I don't see that same level of commitment from some personalities with whom I've communicated down through the years here at the BFF (both 1.0 and 2.0). Gigantor, I agree that it is frustrating to have to point out the same things over and over. In practice though, it's important to understand that the absence of evidence is very often used as evidence of absence. How do we know, for example, that Triceratops is extinct? On a more concrete level, the USFWS works very hard to figure out which species are endangered but still out there and which are extinct. This is an important question because the budgets allocated to extinct species can then be allocated to the still with us. How do they make that decision? Evidence of absence. They send people to look for the thing and if the people don't find it they eventually decide that the thing isn't there anymore. The entire rub I see in bigfootery boils down to folks who think bigfoot has effectively been "looked for" and not found, and folks who think the efforts to find it have been insufficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 (edited) Norseman- according to the Ca. F&W Commision, the folks that regulate and enact laws and regulations in the state of Ca. , what they need to constituts proof is a DNA report and clear video or photographic PROOF that BF has a viable population within their boundaries.Not body, just a verifiable DNA report. same subject same take. Don't know what any jurisdiction would do with a DNA report were there complete uncertainty as to its provenance. I doubt that just that will convince anyone unless the photo/video accompanying it were extremely compelling, and I mean to make PG look like a cartoon. "Verifiable" means "show us the monkey that came from." Count on that. One must have a new animal on hand for DNA to be conclusively identified as coming from that animal. Edited June 10, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 DWA- I totally agree. The Ca. F&W wants compelling PROOF, not just a report. They want a peer- reviewed repot and compelling video and/or compelling photos that ( and here is the other catch) within their boundaries. Oh yeah, they also would like an avadavid from sourses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 Standing is, of course Standing, but he's the one actually trying to push "bigfoot" into the mainstream. I don't see that same level of commitment from some personalities with whom I've communicated down through the years here at the BFF (both 1.0 and 2.0). Gigantor, I agree that it is frustrating to have to point out the same things over and over. In practice though, it's important to understand that the absence of evidence is very often used as evidence of absence. How do we know, for example, that Triceratops is extinct? On a more concrete level, the USFWS works very hard to figure out which species are endangered but still out there and which are extinct. This is an important question because the budgets allocated to extinct species can then be allocated to the still with us. How do they make that decision? Evidence of absence. They send people to look for the thing and if the people don't find it they eventually decide that the thing isn't there anymore. The entire rub I see in bigfootery boils down to folks who think bigfoot has effectively been "looked for" and not found, and folks who think the efforts to find it have been insufficient. Put me in a third category you don't describe Saskeptic: Those who are convinced it has been found...many, many times...but who think it just has not been widely acknowledged. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 (edited) But it will need to be scientifically proven before it's widely acknowledged. So if Bigfoot is real, the efforts to find it actually haven't been enough and it doesn't seem to have enough scientific attention as of yet, which is in contrast to what some proponents might say. But that's a big if Edited June 10, 2013 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts