Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[Drew]

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. 

 

 

 

Put me in a fourth category, the category that knows Bigfoot exists, but pretends it doesn't, because the government has ordered me to spread disinformation and confusion amongst the knowers.

 

(That is what Neil Burgstahler thought I was)

Edited June 10, 2013 by Drew

[Guest]

ontario sas- ditto that. the Ca. F&W commision has two genitists on the commision. none on the board. BTW, let me just say, until the sierra kills the commision was not entertaining any public recommendations for any BF protections. Since then thru the conversations I have had with the commissions aids I have been given the info. required(as posted) for the  commision to open this hearing. So far nothing meets their criteria for consideration. BTW, the Ketchum Report IMO is not peer- reviewed, and I would not try to present that study to the commission or I would probably sour them and they would show me the door. I know, being an optimist that maybe some day inconclusive evidence (proof) will be obtained and so steps are only tenitive and we are in the examination stage of incidences that have occured up until now.

[Guest]

Well I don't understand why folks who have pursued something with an agency have followed the "protection" angle because that's two big hurdles you'd have to clear instead of just one:

 

1) There's such a thing as bigfoot.

 

2) It needs our protection.

 

Maybe what I've been missing in the evidence I haven't considered is a pile of dead bigfoots.  It's extremely difficult to get agencies to commit the limited resources they have to the protection of species, so there's quite a high bar to clear in demonstrating need of protection.  I think the better angle (that Huntster used to advocate back in the day) is simply that the "wildlife" agencies need to know what "wildlife" they are responsible for managing.  If there's something out there that they're not effectively managing (by not realizing it exists) then they're potentially open to lawsuits.  But to go for protection before even having status is to put the cart so far ahead of the horse that the horse is in danger of being lapped.

[Guest]

 

The comedy is that so many come here to do negative ranting and raving when educating themselves on the breadth and depth of the evidence would be one heck of a lot more fun, not to say educational.

I've been following the "evidence" since the 70s. It's not very wide and it's not very deep. This has caused my interest to switch from the actual search for a big hairy creature to pretty much observing people talking themselves into believing that nothing is something.

I doubt that there is something that I have not read, watched, squinted at, or listened to on this topic. Frankly the more I see the less impressive it all is.

Why does it still hold my interest? Well I guess that something feel down inside that scared or fascinated me as a kid still tickles my interest. Mostly though it all just looks like a pile of junk. I'll keep tabs on all of this but every time I see another wave of the newest, latest awesome "evidence," I just end up feeling bad for those who buy into it.

 

 

 

What he said!

[WSA]

Well I don't understand why folks who have pursued something with an agency have followed the "protection" angle because that's two big hurdles you'd have to clear instead of just one:

 

1) There's such a thing as bigfoot.

 

2) It needs our protection.

 

Maybe what I've been missing in the evidence I haven't considered is a pile of dead bigfoots.  It's extremely difficult to get agencies to commit the limited resources they have to the protection of species, so there's quite a high bar to clear in demonstrating need of protection.  I think the better angle (that Huntster used to advocate back in the day) is simply that the "wildlife" agencies need to know what "wildlife" they are responsible for managing.  If there's something out there that they're not effectively managing (by not realizing it exists) then they're potentially open to lawsuits.  But to go for protection before even having status is to put the cart so far ahead of the horse that the horse is in danger of being lapped.

Well, yes, that would be extremely premature and a very silly waste of resources. 

 

What  I'd like to see more of in our F&G folks is some consideration between "definitely a resource that requires our management" and "definitely not one." What I would like is for the involved agencies to provide some degree of cover for their employees to file reports, pursue leads and entertain possibilities pointed to by the  evidence. This avoids the ridiculous position of state/fed govt. employees having an "official" stance and a personal one, typically to avoid ridicule and the dreaded CLM (Career Limiting Move). What is compelling to the individual public servant should be compelling to the entity that employs him/her, if it roughly falls within the entity's subject matter jurisdiction. Within budgetary reason, of course.  

 

And Drew, the mere fact you bring up that possibility tells me...well it DOES explain a lot.

Edited June 10, 2013 by WSA

[Guest]

 What I would like is for the involved agencies to provide some degree of cover for their employees to file reports, pursue leads and entertain possibilities pointed to by the  evidence.

 

Okay, but that presumes that we accept as true the premise that there are wildlife biologists working in our state and federal agencies who want to pursue bigfoot but have been told that they will be fired if they try to do so.  On what evidence do we base that premise?  You guessed it:  anecdotal accounts in the BFRO database or folks coming here with stories along the lines of "my cousin knows this guy who works for Fish and Game, and he said . . . "   I don't find that sort of thing very convincing, especially given that it's exactly the sort of embellishment that can make a story sound so good that it simply has to be true.

 

Cognitive dissonance in bigfootery can arise from the acceptance of those thousands of anecdotal accounts without a body to explain them.  Perhaps the easiest way for our brains to alleviate that stress is to allow ourselves to be convinced that the die are rigged:  Our agencies do know that bigfoot's out there but they (for some reason) don't want to the public to know that they know.  What better way to trump up the conspiracy angle than to spread the story of that guy who worked for that agency who wanted to go public about his bigfoot encounter but was scared to say anything on the record for fear he'd lose his job - or worse!

 

I spent 3 years in a state agency as a regular working stiff and another 19 in state universities.  I often work with the folks from my state wildlife agency (as recently as this morning), and yes - I've specifically spoken about bigfoot with these folks.  In my experience, the evidence for bigfoot conspiracies is weaker than that for bigfoot itself.

 

Of course, that's what I'd want you to believe . . .

[WSA]

Veeery clever Saskeptic, but I see through your artifice completely!

 

But no, I'm not saying all who dare raise the idea of Sasquatch get to lose their job. But c'mon. Do you think such a stance is calculated to advance anyone's career? Who is considered a "serious" biologist, and who is marginalized?. You know the answer to that one, I know. What would be the performance rating of an employee who uses govt. resources in pursuit of such evidence? As I said, CLM.   Conspiracy theory not required.

[norseman]

 

 

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?

 

 

Yes I read it............you'll notice!?

 

Saskeptic said this:

 

 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'.

 

I replied by offering up an article of a bunch of proponents of Bigfoot putting pressure on their elected officials.............and you go off on a tirade about Standing???

 

I didn't say Standing was a upstanding guy.

 

I didn't say Standing did NOT start the petition

 

I didn't say that their government actually passed any law because of the petition.

 

In fact? I didn't say ANYTHING.

 

Obviously my use of Standing to illustrate talking points in this greatly varied and meandering debate in this thread has touched a nerve with you. But the fact still remains that a petition to protect Sasquatch, was taken to government by one of their elected politicians. You don't have to like it or agree with it, or get nasty with me, and attack me for being an admirer of Standing.........which is ludicrous.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Todd Standing knew the petition wasn't going to work. For him, Bigfoot is a window of opportunity for making money off of people who want to believe in Bigfoot. His history of fraud makes it all too clear.

Edited June 11, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest]

Hmm, I thought it was yellow.

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/manitou.htm

Edited June 11, 2013 by Wag

[Guest DWA]

Okay, but that presumes that we accept as true the premise that there are wildlife biologists working in our state and federal agencies who want to pursue bigfoot but have been told that they will be fired if they try to do so.  On what evidence do we base that premise?  You guessed it:  anecdotal accounts in the BFRO database or folks coming here with stories along the lines of "my cousin knows this guy who works for Fish and Game, and he said . . . "   I don't find that sort of thing very convincing, especially given that it's exactly the sort of embellishment that can make a story sound so good that it simply has to be true.

 

I spent 3 years in a state agency as a regular working stiff and another 19 in state universities.  I often work with the folks from my state wildlife agency (as recently as this morning), and yes - I've specifically spoken about bigfoot with these folks.  In my experience, the evidence for bigfoot conspiracies is weaker than that for bigfoot itself.

 

Of course, that's what I'd want you to believe . . .

Well, you are gonna have problems with that.  Because, see, that first paragraph above has many, many anecdotes backing it up; yours is just....

 

...well, yours...

 

....and the situation on the ground so very obviously favors them over you that:

 

Them over you.

 

See, evidence is like that.  No matter what you're talking about.

 

Everything about the situation we see here - right down to your posts; right down to people saying "there would have to be evidence by now" when no one of consequence to the proof believes anyone who finds any or follows it up; right down to people who don't know anything about this coming on here and acting like they're experts and they already know how all this will turn out...everything suggests that those folks you don't find very convincing reflect the truth, and you just reflect what, well, you would like a perfect world to be.

 

It ain't; and in science, it has never been.

[dmaker]

Sorry Norse, wasn't attacking you. You rather rridiculously asked if I thought Standing had hoaxed the petition when I mentioned he was behind it. That lead me to think you hadn't actually read it.

[dmaker]

I'm on vacation right now and using as few words as possible while typing on my phone. That may lead to misunderstandings in my posts. Sorry for the presumed attack.

[norseman]

Sorry Norse, wasn't attacking you. You rather rridiculously asked if I thought Standing had hoaxed the petition when I mentioned he was behind it. That lead me to think you hadn't actually read it.

That was after you asked me if I had a love affair with the guy correct? So yes I was being sarcastic. No worries..,,.

Edited June 11, 2013 by norseman

[roguefooter]

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.

 

That sasquatch looks really similar to the one seen on the main page of this FX company:

 

http://www.klonefx.com/index.html

 

Like the company could have made the facial appliances.

Edited June 11, 2013 by roguefooter