WSA Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Oh, and as luck would have it, I just happened on this one today: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=2760 An Environmental Engineer who is qualified to measure ambient noise, measuring the db levels of an alleged sasquatch vocalization. Granted, this does not fit my original criteria, but you have to admit this person does have some bona fides for making the sound descriptions she does. i'm not getting a tone here either of "I plan to go look for funding to further this research and enhance my credibility" either, but that is just a guess on my part, yes.
Guest DWA Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Definitely it is easier to get funding to study grizzly bears than bigfoot, but wasn't the DNA study well funded, and Dr. Meldrum seems to be able to get money for bigfoot study and Peter Byrne got quite a bit didn't he? There has been some money put forward to document the existence of bigfoot. The failure of these projects to come up with anything that suggests a bigfoot population coupled with the well publicized hoaxes makes it difficult for funding agencies to take bigfoot seriously. Look at what that money went for, and how much of it there was. No way it could fund the kind of fieldwork scientists do when they are serious about finding something. In fact, almost none of it went to fund fieldwork. Oh, and as luck would have it, I just happened on this one today: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=2760 An Environmental Engineer who is qualified to measure ambient noise, measuring the db levels of an alleged sasquatch vocalization. Granted, this does not fit my original criteria, but you have to admit this person does have some bona fides for making the sound descriptions she does. i'm not getting a tone here either of "I plan to go look for funding to further this research and enhance my credibility" either, but that is just a guess on my part, yes. If you just make any of the standard canned I Don't Read Up Nor Should I And This Isn't Proof So Worth Nothing excuses about reports like this, you have announced your status as a person I don't need to take seriously.
WSA Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 College geology majors doing fieldwork: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=5350 I'm also recalling some F&G employees doing water or fish sampling finding a seconds-old deer carcass that was apparently torn in two, and other associated weirdness...wish I could find that one.
Guest DWA Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 ^^^Naaaaaaaaaah, you know how unreliable cops and geology students can be, unless of course their observations benefit you,gotta remember that, then they're the most upstanding of folk.
WSA Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Here's a N.F.S. worker. His co-worker reported evidence he saw too, and the co-worker was "laughed at." What would you have done then, in his place? Right. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=5294 I'm really only limited by the amount of time I want to spend on this. Really, ask the database a question and you can get an answer, but it takes some work. It is an amazing resource. Eye shape/size? Sure thing, coming up. What does the skin on the elbow of a Saquatch look like? Yup, right here. Do they seem to have an inordinate attraction to infants? I would say the data suggests this to be so. Standing alone though, they are single reports, meaning virtually nothing. You know what too? There is a very large representation of bowhunter's reports in this database. Aside from the thought-stopping explanation of, well, they are more crazy or deluded or drunk than your average person, it might serve science to ask a deeper question. Those of you out there who bowhunt already know the answer, probably.
Guest DWA Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Well, this bowhunter does: http://woodape.org/reports/report/detail/482 And this NPS ranger who would be used by virtually anyone as a "see, I'm right, he said so...": http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=12302 And we know geologists' heads are, well, fulla rocks: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=1241 It really does, I think, take a terminal lack of curiosity that might make one wonder, somewhat, about a pulse, to read such reports; be told they are representative of thousands; and go "only stories."
WSA Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 I would note the key description in Mr. Jackson's account, which probably explains his delay in reporting these sightings until 2005 is: He retired as a Yellowstone ranger in 2004 [emphasis mine]. I would not say the two events are unrelated.
WSA Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 "We asked the biologist what he thought it was and he did not know" http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=7109
WSA Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Meh....what would a small animal veterinarian know about it anyway? http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=40412
roguefooter Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) If you just make any of the standard canned I Don't Read Up Nor Should I And This Isn't Proof So Worth Nothing excuses about reports like this, you have announced your status as a person I don't need to take seriously. Oh, and as luck would have it, I just happened on this one today: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=2760 An Environmental Engineer who is qualified to measure ambient noise, measuring the db levels of an alleged sasquatch vocalization. Granted, this does not fit my original criteria, but you have to admit this person does have some bona fides for making the sound descriptions she does. i'm not getting a tone here either of "I plan to go look for funding to further this research and enhance my credibility" either, but that is just a guess on my part, yes. Why would she look for funding if she didn't even know what the various animals even sounded like? I think it's pretty obvious she wasn't qualified. Just from her description of a howl turning into a woman screaming sounds like a Lynx to me. Also this report is a good example of the follow-up investigator pushing towards a Sasquatch. He says he ruled out any indigenous animals yet doesn't say how he did it and even admits to maybe overlooking some. What kind of investigation is that? Edited April 22, 2014 by roguefooter
roguefooter Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) Meh....what would a small animal veterinarian know about it anyway? http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=40412 What would anybody know about a dark unidentifiable object seen at a distance on a ridge? Seriously, I'm having a hard time understanding how you guys are seeing these as credible. Again BFRO followup immediately labels it a Sasquatch?? This is exactly as Dmaker was saying. The initial report is just "unidentifiable", then after excited BFRO man talks to them the mother has become sure it was a Sasquatch.. Also the two rangers at Yellowstone report above I thought was interesting in that they saw a 7 foot creature cross the road in front of them, and that these guys also had a buddy who happened to be 7 feet tall. Talk about a rare situation, I mean really what are the odds of that? Edited April 22, 2014 by roguefooter 1
Guest DWA Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Were you there? Tell us all about it. How many reports have you read? Tell us all about it. This coming up with lame excuses to rule out reports that one wasn't even there for is the kind of non-analysis we really need far less of. It's a transparently obvious case - like all bigfoot-skeptic opinionizing - of "since we can agree this isn't real, this is the barely-believable thing that's going on."
Incorrigible1 Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 How many reports have you read? Tell us all about it. Well, no one has nor ever can read as many reports as you. Pin a rose on your arse. Nor can anyone ever hope to discern truth from reports as you have. ::envious:: 1
Guest DWA Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Just keep paying attention, and someday you might pick something up, all I can say. In the meantime, your ability to discern falsehood is, well, I'd say 'exceptional' if it weren't so, you know, standard.
dmaker Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Were you there? Tell us all about it. How many reports have you read? Tell us all about it. This coming up with lame excuses to rule out reports that one wasn't even there for is the kind of non-analysis we really need far less of. It's a transparently obvious case - like all bigfoot-skeptic opinionizing - of "since we can agree this isn't real, this is the barely-believable thing that's going on." The flip side to that, of course, is that you were not there either. In the absence of any reliable evidence for bigfoot, I'm going to lean toward the other side and go with no actual bigfoot involved in the bigfoot sighting. If there was something substantial to back up all these wonderful anecdotes then I could see how someone might lend them a higher credibility. However there is not much of anything beyond dubious, ambiguous evidence to prop up a mountain of anecdotes. That is not a very good foundation to me. Reading every single bigfoot report ever given will not make even a single one of them true if there is no such thing as a bigfoot. Pointing out how many of them one has read really just indicates to me what type of fiction you prefer.
Recommended Posts