A Question(S) For Skeptics....

[Cotter]

 

 

 

So because of that flawed mindset, I think Skeptics knee jerk reaction is to push back against that evidence. They want to prove hoaxes to then drag the whole issue through the mud.

 

 

Let's not forget those 'skeptics' that are hoaxing themselves to perpetuate this "pattern" of trackway and sighting hoaxes.

 

Let's take those off the table....

 

 

Let's say a hoaxer planted a trackway in order to catch 'true' bigfooters trying to discover which Bigfooter actually made the tracks?   If he recorded a major player in Bigfootry saying to another : "Hey, I didn't make these, did you?"  would you then be thanking the skeptic for showing the true nature of the Bigfoot game?

 

Has it ever been documented where a researcher has actually said anything along those lines?

 

Now, I'm fully aware that there at the JRef are folks that claim to know who and how the London tracks were done, was this why they were hoaxed?  What other trackways have been hoaxed in an attempt to flush out these researchers that are laying tracks for the spotlight?

 

What evidence has been presented (anecdotal included) to suggest that current researchers laying fake tracks?

[norseman]

 

 

 

So because of that flawed mindset, I think Skeptics knee jerk reaction is to push back against that evidence. They want to prove hoaxes to then drag the whole issue through the mud.

 

 

Let's not forget those 'skeptics' that are hoaxing themselves to perpetuate this "pattern" of trackway and sighting hoaxes.

 

Let's take those off the table....

 

 

Let's say a hoaxer planted a trackway in order to catch 'true' bigfooters trying to discover which Bigfooter actually made the tracks?   If he recorded a major player in Bigfootry saying to another : "Hey, I didn't make these, did you?"  would you then be thanking the skeptic for showing the true nature of the Bigfoot game?

 

 

Keep in mind something Drew, for every track way you hear about there are hundreds you won't.

 

In the chat room the other day I was presented with a photobucket album that contained numerous footprints. Your never going to hear about them on "Monsterquest"..........whether we believe them to be real or a hoax.

 

And for the record, I don't thank anyone that hoaxes a track way..........other than as a prank in your grandmothers flower bed. Putting something out there to be studied as real, and then only to be found a hoax just muddies the waters.

 

How would you feel if there was actually a creature out there that was rare and elusive, and everybody gave up because of the three ring circus?

FLIR surveying of Woodland Caribou in Ontario 

 

58 caribou at 46 locations on the Slate Islands; two groups of three individuals, eight groups of two and the remainder were singles. Individuals were not classified by age or sex but most groups of 

two were cow-calf pairs. The estimated density was 1.56 ± 0.50 caribou/km2 with a CV of 19.4%, producing a population estimate of 58 caribou (95% CI 40-85)

 

 

I don't see how this wouldn't work for Bigfoots.

 

http://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/rangifer/article/viewFile/2270/2111

 

Without a type specimen? They are not going to waste their time and energy on such a project. And I think FLIR has it's limitations on large canopy timber. But that's a cool find Drew, thanks for sharing that.

[dmaker]

"And for the record, I don't thank anyone that hoaxes a track way..........other than as a prank in your grandmothers flower bed. Putting something out there to be studied as real, and then only to be found a hoax just muddies the waters.

 

How would you feel if there was actually a creature out there that was rare and elusive, and everybody gave up because of the three ring circus?" Norseman

Gotta disagree with that one. I think people hoax tracks for several reasons. There are folks that do it just to see if they can and how legit they might look. Folks who do perform out of the way pranks. I know you find that untenable, but people do it.I think people hoax tracks to draw attention to their community, a la Finding Bigfoot. Suddenly people are coming around to check these out and they are buying gas, and sandwiches, and coffee, etc.  I also think people hoax tracks to keep the myth machine alive so they can keep making money off of Bigfoot. I mean how would you feel if everybody gave up ( i.e. no more cash) because there was no more rumor to feed the interest? I think people need to start recognizing that the likely place for hoaxes is at the top of the Bigfoot pyramid, not outside of it. 

 

There are many reasons why people would hoax tracks. 

Edited June 25, 2013 by dmaker

[norseman]

 

"And for the record, I don't thank anyone that hoaxes a track way..........other than as a prank in your grandmothers flower bed. Putting something out there to be studied as real, and then only to be found a hoax just muddies the waters.

 

How would you feel if there was actually a creature out there that was rare and elusive, and everybody gave up because of the three ring circus?" Norseman

Gotta disagree with that one. I think people hoax tracks for several reasons. There are folks that do it just to see if they can and how legit they might look. Folks who do perform out of the way pranks. I know you find that untenable, but people do it.I think people hoax tracks to draw attention to their community, a la Finding Bigfoot. Suddenly people are coming around to check these out and they are buying gas, and sandwiches, and coffee, etc.  I also think people hoax tracks to keep the myth machine alive so they can keep making money off of Bigfoot. I mean how would you feel if everybody gave up ( i.e. no more cash) because there was no more rumor to feed the interest? I think people need to start recognizing that the likely place for hoaxes is at the top of the Bigfoot pyramid, not outside of it. 

 

There are many reasons why people would hoax tracks. 

 

 

Nothing of the sort...........reread my post.

 

I don't deny that people hoax trackways of all ilk, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna THANK THEM FOR IT........

[dmaker]

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that hoaxed tracks were rare because why would someone hoax when it just muddies the waters?

 

 

Ah, nevermind. I see where your thank-you part comes from now. It was in response to a previous post by Drew. I gotcha now..

Edited June 25, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

 

 

 

Keep in mind something Drew, for every track way you hear about there are hundreds you won't.

 

In the chat room the other day I was presented with a photobucket album that contained numerous footprints. Your never going to hear about them on "Monsterquest"..........whether we believe them to be real or a hoax.

 

And for the record, I don't thank anyone that hoaxes a track way..........other than as a prank in your grandmothers flower bed. Putting something out there to be studied as real, and then only to be found a hoax just muddies the waters.

 

How would you feel if there was actually a creature out there that was rare and elusive, and everybody gave up because of the three ring circus?

Well that's the problem.  The three-ring circus gets virtually all the attention; the serious stuff virtually none.

FLIR surveying of Woodland Caribou in Ontario 

 

 

58 caribou at 46 locations on the Slate Islands; two groups of three individuals, eight groups of two and the remainder were singles. Individuals were not classified by age or sex but most groups of 

two were cow-calf pairs. The estimated density was 1.56 ± 0.50 caribou/km2 with a CV of 19.4%, producing a population estimate of 58 caribou (95% CI 40-85)

 

 

I don't see how this wouldn't work for Bigfoots.

 

http://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/rangifer/article/viewFile/2270/2111

 

Without a type specimen? They are not going to waste their time and energy on such a project. And I think FLIR has it's limitations on large canopy timber. But that's a cool find Drew, thanks for sharing that.

 

And another problem.  It's expensive to do that.  It's not impossible; NAWAC has done aerial daytime surveys.  But yep, the limitations in just what appears to be the best habitat would make anyone wonder about the payback.  Not saying it shouldn't be tried.  In fact I'd like to see someone try it.  But it'll be like close-to-needle in close-to-haystack.

 

Too many trackways are made in situations where it would have been a most unwise bet to expect anyone to come across them before they disappeared; someone that a hoaxer couldn't have expected to be there just happened to come by.  Nothing odd about that; happens with other animals, right?

 

(No assumption is more off the mark than that people are "all over" the North American woods.  My experience is a pretty dang good sample size.  And nothing could be further from the truth.)

I mean, while we're on trackways...

[Cotter]

Heck DWA, if folks covered as much of the wilderness as some skeptics would like us to believe, there wouldn't be a single pot growing operation in existence in the wilds of NA.

 

SO, if our good hikers can't find multiple acre grow operations in the woods, how could one assume that a mobile, intelligent beast would be so easily spotted/filmed/shot?

[dmaker]

Well to be fair Cotter, Bigfoot seems quite capable of finding hikers himself if you believe the witness reports. It's just when people set out to find Bigfoot for the purpose of gathering proof that they are incapable of doing so. 

[Guest DWA]

Heck DWA, if folks covered as much of the wilderness as some skeptics would like us to believe, there wouldn't be a single pot growing operation in existence in the wilds of NA.

 

SO, if our good hikers can't find multiple acre grow operations in the woods, how could one assume that a mobile, intelligent beast would be so easily spotted/filmed/shot?

Binga-roonie.  This is a multiple-acre operation that fully tech-armed people are ACTIVELY ASSIDUOUSLY LOOKING FOR.

 

There is probably no more intensive survey of North American wilds going than the hunt for pot.  And whoops.

 

You come back having found nothing and tell the head of ops "no pot, but we saw a bigfoot."  Go ahead, try it.  Would I bet it's actually happened?  The same amount I'd bet that a logging truck has killed one:  not a lot but I wouldn't bet against it.

 

Well to be fair Cotter, Bigfoot seems quite capable of finding hikers himself if you believe the witness reports. It's just when people set out to find Bigfoot for the purpose of gathering proof that they are incapable of doing so. 

Yes, he finds plenty of them.  And I'm not sure there has been anything in my life - particularly given my extensive bootsole experience in the planet's wilds - that has surprised me less than that thousands, tens of thousands, who cares how many? people going into the woods totally unprepared for the encounter, much less the proof, don't come back with proof.  Who in their right mind would expect it?

Edited June 25, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

^ I don't necessarily DWA. My comment was more aimed at the people that do go out with the intention of getting proof, but don't.  Sometimes over very extended periods of time. .. 

[Guest DWA]

Well, Operation Relentless (NAWAC) is out there right now, for more time than anyone else - other than them and Patterson/Gimlin - has spent.

 

http://woodape.org/index.php/news/news/48-news/232

 

It will take luck beyond what I expect to come back with proof.  But as evidence builds and they learn stuff their odds will go up.

 

I got time.  And I'm personally glad they're doing this, as I have no intention to.

Hint:  while we're on all this discussion that wood apes have to be human:

 

Go into the BIPcast page and you can watch an orangutan fishing from a boat.

 

She's paddling solo.  And there's no kid in America that wouldn't have tipped that boat, doing what she's doing.

[dmaker]

I have seen that orang footage.  It's very impressive. But I also read that orangs are great mimics, so perhaps that is what they were doing as an alternate explanation. I don't know either way.  All I know is that it sure looks pretty cool. I agree on the tipping part. I can barely take a drink from my water bottle without get tipsy in my kayak. That's why I bought a hands free Osprey for drinking.

 

I've never said Wood Apes have to be human.  Wouldn't they be called Wood Humans then...?

Edited June 25, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

^^^Oh, that "human" part was more directed at the folks who think that foot shape, or beating on trees, or having somewhat human-like features, etc., make them human, not at you.