dmaker Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 (edited) ^^ Well that is my point, salubrious. If there is all this wood ape activity going on then why not bring in some folks from outside of the organization to experience this and spread the word so to speak? I fail to understand how a wildlife conservancy that relies on donations would not be welcome to a visit or two for PR. You are not going to get any money to save any wood apes that way. It seems getting attention for bigfoot is not all that hard. We having Finding Bigfoot, Bigfoot Bounty, the recent Sykes documentaries to name the most recent and on going. Bigfoot is more popular now than anytime in the last few years. I would want to strike now while the iron is hot. Are the wood apes in danger of some sort? What would NAWAC like to protect them from by killing one? Edited January 24, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted January 24, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2014 I think most people watching shows like that are there for entertainment and don't really expect anything. If you ran into them on the street and asked them for money for a project like this, they would probably try to act like you didn't exist or just run away. Marketed properly though maybe one could get some traction. Kickstarter?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WV FOOTER Posted January 24, 2014 Admin Share Posted January 24, 2014 Throw me 6 winning numbers and I will give you more funding than you can spend. Just Sayin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 I'm pleased to see Bipto still has my take on this argument memorialized on his signature line. Sure saves time for all of us. To add a little to that though...I think it would be appropriate, if and when a BF is killed and a type specimen is confirmed, to point out that the necessity of that was driven largely by folks who considered any other evidence to be "not", and who devoted a lot of time and energy towards making sure we all were aware of their exacting standards. Hmmmmm? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 (edited) Seems to me the question of who from outside the group we'd bring in and why has already been asked and answered. Edited January 24, 2014 by bipto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) Hello bipto, I've been managing a couple of threads involving the possible dynamics of Sasquatch hair color vs. age and subsequently their dying. And then what do with a carcass if found along with what to do AFTER extraction of any specimens or the whole animal. Would you be kind enough to express your opinion(s) on the subject? Edited January 25, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) Seems to me the question of who from outside the group we'd bring in and why has already been asked and answered. It has? I saw you shrug it off as a suggestion of eco-tourism, but that is not what I am talking about. Do you not agree that a donation funded conservancy needs to generate some PR buzz to hopefully stimulate some donations? That is hardly pandering to bigfoot skeptics. I'm pleased to see Bipto still has my take on this argument memorialized on his signature line. Sure saves time for all of us. To add a little to that though...I think it would be appropriate, if and when a BF is killed and a type specimen is confirmed, to point out that the necessity of that was driven largely by folks who considered any other evidence to be "not", and who devoted a lot of time and energy towards making sure we all were aware of their exacting standards. Hmmmmm? I'm sorry but that is the current standard for biology as a whole, not just bigfoot. Stop making it sound like the mean world is making NAWAC murder an innocent wood ape because the meanies will not accept any other form of evidence. This is not specific to bigfoot. In fact, I think there is an opportunity here to possibly set some new precedents by advancing the case for existence greatly by non lethal means. Twirl all the moustaches that you want to...but it's not bigfoot skeptics forcing anyone's hand. It's science in general. Unsubstantiated claims are not going to cut it. Nor should they. Biological evidence is what is needed. Perhaps a corpse, perhaps not. But it's a certain fact that stories are not going to do it. If that were not the case then Nessie, unicorns, and leprechauns would have been added to the confirmed bestiary alongside Footie a long time ago. You sound as if the need for biological evidence in biology is a bad thing. Edited January 25, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 ...it's not bigfoot skeptics forcing anyone's hand. It's science in general. Unsubstantiated claims are not going to cut it. Nor should they. Biological evidence is what is needed. Perhaps a corpse, perhaps not. But it's a certain fact that stories are not going to do it. If that were not the case then Nessie, unicorns, and leprechauns would have been added to the confirmed bestiary alongside Footie a long time ago. Our position exactly. Do you not agree that a donation funded conservancy needs to generate some PR buzz to hopefully stimulate some donations? No, not when you're dealing with an animal that most people dismiss as kin to the Easter Bunny and unicorns. It'd be a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Urkelbot Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 You just need to explain to them the tight logic behind bigfoot only being around when there are no cameras and its impossible that its a hoax. Also this "would require more coordination and materiel (and we are talking beyond state of art materiel) than went into Desert Storm" Unnamed self proclaimed scientist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Hello Urkelbot, ^^ An extremely backhanded comment that is unnecessary and serves no purpose but to inflame the recipient. Pretty harsh IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 There's a reason the ignore user feature was invented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Hello Urkelbot, ^^ An extremely backhanded comment that is unnecessary and serves no purpose but to inflame the recipient. Pretty harsh IMO. I disagree. It's the same logic that is provided repeatedly in this thread to BFF members. They don't seem offended by it. In fact, they seem to enjoy it. And the Desert Storm comment was as outlandish and ridiculous when quoted back as when it was originally posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Hello dmaker, If you two are that discontent with it there are other threads to visit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 ^^ Never said I was discontent, I just pointed out what I perceived as hypocrisy in your calling out comments said by another that are identical to what Bipto provides as answers repeatedly in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zenmonkey Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 The members of the group seem to be die hards so the idea of someone within hoaxing is insane. If a hiker has made it way back onto private lands and far back enough to find X then they probably will end up getting shot by a land owner! Can we quit trying to pin Bipto down with this idea of hoaxing. He is here telling us of his work and documentation take it or leave it I'd say don't accuse him of any different. Being scientific hoaxing is always a possibility Id say a very very small one given all the reasons that have been stated over and over before. I can't say 100% for sure unit I see it myself but I bet its about 99.9999999999% that they are just telling me of their observations, and my personal opinion its about an undocumented ape species. Carry on fellas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts