salubrious Posted June 11, 2014 Moderator Share Posted June 11, 2014 It makes a lot of sense. The point of the activities of the NAWAC in area X is to get a body. They've been quite clear about that all along. So why try to collect other evidence? Its a waste of time, as we all know through countless ad nauseum debate, that it would never going to be accepted anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 It would be easy for NAWAC to get wrapped around the axle. Their goal is to collect a specimen. Any time spent casting footprints, searching for dung/hair/etc is time NOT spent working toward their goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zenmonkey Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 No other type of "evidence" matters it doest prove anything ya sure a new audio recording or photo is awesome but in the end worthless....only a body will do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Surely you have taken a picture of an ape, only to have it not show the ape, whether you were too late, or the ape was hidden when the photo was snapped. Surely why? When have I given anyone here the idea that we're trying to snap a photo? Quite the opposite. I've said repeatedly that we've sold all our game cams and put our resources elsewhere. A photo wouldn't accomplish anything whatsoever. Either in the larger scope of bigfoot research or towards our objective. You do not think that DNA, properly gathered in a biological sample, could bring the necessary scientific attention to this topic? Why would a serious organization adopt your approach? It makes no sense. It makes no sense because you've interpreted what I've said incorrectly. As I have already related in this thread, a DNA sample of sufficient size to allow multiple repeatable results, handled in a way to minimize contamination, could act as a holotype. Obviously, a body (or some part of one) wold provide that DNA sample. But it's not the only way. It's the most efficient way. So why try to collect other evidence? Its a waste of time, as we all know through countless ad nauseum debate, that it would never going to be accepted anyway. Another little hair or track cast or fuzzy photo or video would do absolutely nothing except give sites like this more mastication fodder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) It makes a lot of sense. The point of the activities of the NAWAC in area X is to get a body. They've been quite clear about that all along. So why try to collect other evidence? Its a waste of time, as we all know through countless ad nauseum debate, that it would never going to be accepted anyway. Sorry, but that does not make sense to me. Proper evidence is not open to interpretation or acceptance. If decent DNA samples were gathered and analyzed it does not matter what you or I on a forum have to say. That is ridiculous. The reason there is so much debate, as you say, around alleged bigfoot evidence is that it is all ambiguous. The proper response is not well I'm not going to gather any evidence. The proper response is to raise the bar and gather hard evidence that is not ambiguous. Especially for an organization that claims to be a conservancy. You would think that if non-lethal methods were available to them to prove the species, then they would be eager to pursue those methods. To say well you have to be happy with stories or a body because nothing else will do is not factual. DNA would do just fine if someone were to gather some properly. Arguing otherwise just appears to be an excuse that allows one to provide no evidence at all. "It makes no sense because you've interpreted what I've said incorrectly. As I have already related in this thread, a DNA sample of sufficient size to allow multiple repeatable results, handled in a way to minimize contamination, could act as a holotype. Obviously, a body (or some part of one) wold provide that DNA sample. But it's not the only way. It's the most efficient way. " Bipto Sorry, missed this before I wrote my response. So you are pursuing evidence other than a body? Your earlier comments led me to believe that it was a body or nothing. So what other evidence are you actively attempting to collect? It would be easy for NAWAC to get wrapped around the axle. Their goal is to collect a specimen. Any time spent casting footprints, searching for dung/hair/etc is time NOT spent working toward their goal. You describe method. I thought the "goal" was to prove the species so that a conservancy could be established....? Edited June 11, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) Proper evidence is not open to interpretation or acceptance. If decent DNA samples were gathered and analyzed it does not matter what you or I on a forum have to say. That is ridiculous. The reason there is so much debate, as you say, around alleged bigfoot evidence is that it is all ambiguous. The proper response is not well I'm not going to gather any evidence. The proper response is to raise the bar and gather hard evidence that is not ambiguous. A DNA sample as I described above is not evidence. It's proof. You would think that if non-lethal methods were available to them to prove the species, then they would be eager to pursue those methods. We will accept any form of proof that presents itself. As would a field biologist. To say well you have to be happy with stories or a body because nothing else will do is not factual. I said *you* have to be happy with that along with everyone else here until we have accomplished our objective. Pleasuring anonymous people on the internet it not the objective. I share information here for those who want to hear it or think it could be useful for them. Arguing otherwise just appears to be an excuse that allows one to provide no evidence at all. As far as I can tell, you're the only person arguing that. Edited June 11, 2014 by bipto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Touche, perhaps I didn't word it properly. At the time of my comment, photographs specifically were on my mind. Then a mention of casts and recordings. None of those things are value added at this time (for the goal of species provenance). However, I also think that gathering random hairs and scat for testing is not value added at this time, unless one sees said skat or hair come directly from the animal in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 As far as I can tell, you're the only person arguing that. " We're not really in X to collect more evidence of the kind most frequently associated with bigfoot" Bipto What type of evidence, if any ( other than anecdotes and a corpse), are you in X to collect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Why don't you stop for a second and read the last few posts I've made. The answer to your question is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 You are making a distinction between evidence and proof. So I'm asking what evidence you are willing to collect, if any? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Asked and answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 None, then? Unless I'm misunderstanding your responses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 If I understand the mission of the NAWAC, if they are successful, evidence and proof will converge in the form of one dead wood ape. Pretty much, they see no return on investment in snapping photos, collecting scat, casting footprints, etc. Despite invitations to do that from some posters, they and I know the fruits of those efforts (if any) will only be met with incredulity, thinly disguised as scientific skepticism, telling them why they have it wrong. Why bother with that? Prove the species and then you can have your pick of well funded research projects, and if you then wanted to collect all the hair, scat and footprints in the world, you can have at it with impunity. I think they show good sense in this strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Despite invitations to do that from some posters, they and I know the fruits of those efforts (if any) will only be met with incredulity, thinly disguised as scientific skepticism, telling them why they have it wrong. Why bother with that? Bingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Uhm, okay... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts