Guest DWA Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 Actually, I ignore the trainwrecks. They're the nonsense in this field. They're the noise. Focus on the signal. I never blame the animal's nonexistence on those looking for it. Particularly when they're really looking for something else instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 (edited) ^^ I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying. Particularly when they are really looking for something else? Not following you... And I am not just talking about the obvious doomed from the start nonsense such as anything associated with Dyer. But also the more respectable endeavors that when panned out prove to be huge failures. Things like the EP, or even Sykes. If Sykes fails to deliver it will add more to the mainstream perception that Bigfoot is laughable. And what of your own predictions? You recently said in another thread that NAWAC will more than likely have a slab monkey within the year. And when that fails to deliver as well? Just more noise to be separated from the "signal"? If those that are actively looking for it are not to blame for the animal's lack of confirmation, then what is to blame? That question inevitably leads to all kinds of special pleading like Bigfoots are super smart, are wood ninjas, can cloak, hop dimensions at will...etc. At some point someone has to offer a decent and plausible explanation for why no one can find Bigfoot when Bigfoots are reported to be living in our very backyards, smoking cigarettes and sharing rail cars with hobos. Or at least they cannot offer any decent evidence of having found one beyond cool stories. Edited October 5, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 At some point someone has to offer a decent and plausible explanation for why no one can find Bigfoot when Bigfoots are reported to be living in our very backyards, smoking cigarettes and sharing rail cars with hobos. How about this for an explanation. All that is a load of horse hockey and if bigfoots do exsist they are very few and far between. There are no set parameters for bigfoot, it is a buffet and I can pick and choose what I want. To think BF might exists does not mean I have to believe they ride freight trains, wear clothes or smoke cigarettes or live in someone's back yard. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 (edited) That is more than fair enough Rock, and I am inclined to agree. However, as DWA often points out, you cannot summarily dismiss eye witness reports just because you find what they are saying is not believable. That is a tactic of nasty scoftics. To admit that you believe some eye witnesses are misguided, let's say, does raise the question of why then cannot all of them be? Where is the line drawn? Is it drawn at cloaking, infrasound, dimension hopping, dumpster diving, backyard apple tree raiding,foot ball field leaping pig tossing Bigfeets, etc ...? Where exactly? And by what evidence do you personally use to dismiss them? You are expressing an argument from personal incredulity. As far as I have been lectured over and over and over again here on this forum, that is a very bad thing to do. Edited October 5, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted October 5, 2013 Author Share Posted October 5, 2013 But also the more respectable endeavors that when panned out prove to be huge failures. Things like the EP, or even Sykes. Sykes is a failure? Do you have a link to back that up? At some point someone has to offer a decent and plausible explanation for why no one can find Bigfoot when Bigfoots are reported to be living in our very backyards, smoking cigarettes and sharing rail cars with hobos. Or at least they cannot offer any decent evidence of having found one beyond cool stories. Only a few claim that BF is living in their back yard, smoking cigs, and riding the rails (all of which I find hard to believe, but I don't say that it can't be true). Who am I to say that don't? I have NO experience with them, other than what I read. So, I (or we) are in no position to rebuke these claims anymore than skeptics to rebuke the claims - claiming that it can't, under no circumstances be true. imo. Because i can't prove they are wrong, no more than they can prove they are right. Did that make sense? lol, I am running on little sleep. I'm haven't seen them, so I am not qualified to say what they can or can't do. So I keep an open mind...hoping that someday, someone will bring the proof to back up their claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 You are expressing an argument from personal incredulity. As far as I have been lectured over and over and over again here on this forum, that is a very bad thing to do. Sounds like a personal problem. I've expressed personal incredulousness many times and don't remember ever getting a lecture. And no offense to DWA but I don't have to bend my beliefs to fit his mold. But then, I don't dismiss all of them, just the ones I choose and it doesn't matter to me if someone else believes them and it also doesn't matter to me if someone doesn't like that I choose not to believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 "Sykes is a failure? Do you have a link to back that up?" You are correct. I did not mean to imply that Sykes was a failure. I only meant that Sykes is the current band wagon that Footer hopes are hitched to. And if ( when in my opinion) that fails to provide the desired result is what I meant. Sorry for any confusion. @Rockape, again fair enough. And it matters little to me if someone chooses not to like the fact that I attribute all witness reports to a long list of possible reasons, but none of them include Bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 And Rock, I would have to check but I would wager that there are more reports from areas that are not remote parts of the PNW than otherwise. So how would you explain all of those? What is at the root of all of those reports, if not a Bigfoot? When you say few and far between, what do you mean exactly? Does that include the idea that they are in every corner of North America, but in few numbers? Or they are remote areas only and in small numbers? Again, how would you explain all the sighting reports that contradict that notion? Never mind the silly stuff like rail car riding and cigarette smoking and cloaking and that kind of stuff. What is a tenable profile for Bigfoot for you? And how well does that profile fit with the witness reports? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 And Rock, I would have to check but I would wager that there are more reports from areas that are not remote parts of the PNW than otherwise. So how would you explain all of those? What is at the root of all of those reports, if not a Bigfoot? I do not think they would be exclusive to the PNW. When you say few and far between, what do you mean exactly? Does that include the idea that they are in every corner of North America, but in few numbers? Or they are remote areas only and in small numbers? Again, how would you explain all the sighting reports that contradict that notion? I think it is obvious that if BF exist they are very rare creatures. Possibly isolated pockets of them here or there with an occasional nomad. If you look at the dates of many reports, you will see they usually are years apart, so it is not like there is a multitude of sightings that are occuring all around the same time. You do find clusters where they happen with more frequency however. Never mind the silly stuff like rail car riding and cigarette smoking and cloaking and that kind of stuff. What is a tenable profile for Bigfoot for you? And how well does that profile fit with the witness reports? Witness reports vary, so there is no one size fits all. If they exist I would say they are generally smart enough to avoid human contact and are usually only seen by accident, and that they see us much more than we see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 (edited) Small, isolated pockets as you describe? How would they avoid issues like inbreeding depression which leads to a decreased fitness of a population? Edited October 5, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Urkelbot Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 I think that maybe Bigfoot is going extinct if it is not already. If it wasn't for that pgf I'd toss Bigfoot in the bin with alien abductions and ghosts. I personally can't rule out that video. But I don't understand why more people here aren't troubled by the absence of evidence, not eye witness accounts or footprints. A lot of excuses get thrown around why there is no body or even a decent picture since pgf. I don't think any of them sufficiently explain how a large ape can be spread out all over north America but completely avoid a clear picture or video. Or die alone somewhere public, hit by car, shot, get rabies or madness and wander into town, etc etc etc. One more good video to corroborate the pgf or DNA and I'd drink the kook aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 (edited) I think we are fairly similar except for the PGF. I am not impressed to the point of belief based on that footage. Yes, I grant that is very beguiling. But still when I look at it, I cannot deny my gut reaction that tells me that it looks fake. A good fake? Absolutely. But does it, for me, look like a real animal? No, it does not. The why and how and all that, I cannot say. All I can offer on that is my impression when I view it, and it looks like a good fake, but still a fake. And I would ask people, when was the last time that you watched a wildlife documentary and had to stop yourself and ask, is this a real animal? Some things look and feel real, and some things do not. Edited October 5, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted October 5, 2013 SSR Team Share Posted October 5, 2013 Small, isolated pockets as you describe? How would they avoid issues like inbreeding depression which leads to a decreased fitness of a population? By moving, like all animals do to find mates ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jsbelljr83 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 I started to read books on BF/Yeti when I was in middle school, 60's-early 70's, the interest died down until a few years back when I caught a special on cable and it rekindled the interest. Three weeks ago I attended my first expedition with the BFRO, I didn't see anything but sure heard enough to really spark my interest back up again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 Small, isolated pockets as you describe? How would they avoid issues like inbreeding depression which leads to a decreased fitness of a population? Well, they certainly wouldn't be prolific breeders. 1 or two offspring in a lifetime would most likely be the max, and some probably would never breed. Many animals have a natural instinct on ways to avoid inbreeding, like driving away progenie when they reach maturity. Still, there would have to be a viable population to reproduce, so these isolated pockets could hold quite a few individuals/clans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts