Guest keninsc Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Ok, at the risk of sounding all negative here, but this person is not exactly what I'd consider an expert, but they might have a bit better idea. The thing that sort of bothers me about it is this person is accustomed to seeing and dealing with animals in a controlled environment, not in the wild. Sort of like seeing an elephant at the circus then going into the wilds of Africa and seeing them in their natural environment.......they don't always like humans hanging around them and they can get pissed off about it. Twenty ton of upset elephant with no trainer or fences or moats to keep them separated might be a whole other story. I can't say what this person saw or didn't see. This report is no different than an other report that is published on the BFRO site or anyone else's site for that matter.
NathanFooter Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) keninsc, the difference is this individual has a solid knowledge of wildlife and the background to prove it. I do not understand your mention to behavioral differences between wild and captive animals as the main point about this report is very simply that a man with the qualifications to identify what he is looking at had a daylight sighting of a sasquatch crossing a trail. It is could not be more obvious that the person has experience with wildlife in a natural environment being that he states in the report he hikes Tampa's wild regions to take photos of what ever he may find, he is an avid birder and wildlife photographer who was intent on trying to get photos of what he thought was a hog moving his way. This happened here in North America where he has lived, worked and taken part in all of the above listed activities. Edited May 9, 2014 by NathanFooter
Guest keninsc Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Well, the just because he's a biologist at a zoo, doesn't make him or her for that matter an expert on wild indigenous creatures. Oh my, we have to give this person a whole lot more attention because they're a biologist. I got a red hot news flash for you, they aren't used to being in the wild with real creatures. I'll give them the same attention I'd give anyone else........and if they were holding a camera as they claimed, then why no picture? A super-duper biologist would surely have thought to snap a picture or two.......well......because they all trained and educated and such, or that's the idea, right? However, no picture. My point being that instead of having some guy who makes no claim about his or her education and background has an encounter and they report it. Ok, so? However, add that title about being a biologist and suddenly people sit up and take notice Truth is I could say I'm a professor of Primate Husbandry at Oklahoma State, I'm not but no one can verify it unless I give you more information. Truth is for all we know this might well have been a guy who was a trash collector at the zoo for all we know. You only have their word on it so verification is virtually impossible.
Guest keninsc Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 I suppose I should add that what we choose to believe and not to believe is up to us. This person says he/she is a biologist, but in point of fact we have no idea if they are or not.......and nether does the BFRO. Do you think they checked? Or did a back ground check on this person before they published the report they wrote themselves? The short answer is no, they didn't. All we have is the word of the person who wrote that report. Now, having said all that, by the very same token, they could be exactly what they say they are. What I'm getting at is don't get so all fire excited because someone said this or that on some website. I can't tell you how many times I've read about someone who claimed they shot a Bigfoot but for a myriad of reason they don't have a body, or they can't find the spot where they left the body or those pesky government helicopters came in and took the body or they had to sign a non-disclosure agreement with the university or group that is doing all the scientific work on the body or bodies, as the case may be. I know I come across sometimes as being all cynical about Bigfoot, but being skeptical about it is not a bad idea especially in light of people like Rick Dyer and others who have tried to turn a fast buck from the sensationalism or the cottage industries that are just as much a part of this as anything else. I'd love to find the hard evidence, to be the guy who brings in the body or bodies for real science to study. My motivations are of a personal nature and have to do with vindicating a couple friends who told me they actually saw the creature and both passed on shooting it. Both had it dead in their sights at short range and couldn't shoot. As I said in another post, the choice to shoot or not to shoot is up to the individual. So, I'm not the flaming a-hole I come off sounding like sometimes, ok maybe I am but it's because the subject stirs such a passion within me.
Guest DWA Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) I'm not buying that a sasquatch is easy to confuse with anything. That's a tossoff that says, nothing to see here, we don't need to look into this any further. I'm not a biologist, nor a scientist for that matter; and I can tell you with utter confidence: there is no way I make a mistake in an encounter like the one described here. That's really got to stop; it's a clear red flag that the person saying it hasn't sufficiently reviewed, or thought about, the evidence. I suppose I should also note that the difference between your average witness on the BFRO website and the Rick Dyers of the world is great enough as to not be worth talking about. HUGE difference, HUGE, between a person who uses his name and doesn't produce the body he says he shot, and a person who reports anonymously and tells the people at the website, ferpetesake, that he doesn't want to be made fun of. There is, in short, nothing that excuses: we're gonna just set these aside because, you know, people can be wrong about stuff. Nothing. DWA, I perceive you are an experienced hunter. One who would ID his possible target with absolute certainty before squeezing the trigger if you were armed. I have had a close encounter with several Bigfoot subjects, two of which were within about 15-20 feet of me. What I felt was overwhelming and hard to clearly wrap my mind around. They had very humanlike features, yet very thick, rugged and powerful. The look in their eyes had feeling and their face cast expression. Something I have never seen that clear in any animal. I feel you would be just like other armed folks who chose not to shoot because they saw more than just a dumb animal standing there. Actually, I'm not a hunter. All the more reason not to get shooting at something one can't even identify. (You have to know where to place the bullet. Kinda hard if you don't know what it is.) But I've spent a lot of time outside and had up-close encounters with numerous bears, among other things. One thing I am sure of: if for some reason I did have a gun, I wouldn't shoot. Other than that: really hard to say, given the range of reactions I'm aware of. Edited May 9, 2014 by DWA
Guest DWA Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) Well, the just because he's a biologist at a zoo, doesn't make him or her for that matter an expert on wild indigenous creatures. Right. They see one, and they're not scientists. They see one and they are, and now they....do you know this guy's experience? You don't. Does it matter? It doesn't. The reason for this thread was that this is brought up as an objection. Like all other bigfoot skeptic objections: it doesn't hold water. NO ONE IN ANY AMERICAN WALK OF LIFE IS GONNA CONFUSE ANYTHING WITH A BIGFOOT. Would you? Would anyone you know? Would anyone THEY know? This is utterly invalid reasoning. The volume and consistency of sightings are prima facie compelling, period. I don't have to be a scientist to tell you that no North American animal known, including Homo sapiens in suit, is a likely candidate for this or just about any other report I've read. Oh my, we have to give this person a whole lot more attention because they're a biologist. I got a red hot news flash for you, they aren't used to being in the wild with real creatures. What? We're supposed to believe that? Show me how you know that. Him over you, every time. He's a biologist; and red hot news flash, HE WAS THERE and you weren't. I'll give them the same attention I'd give anyone else........and if they were holding a camera as they claimed, then why no picture? This bespeaks utter lack of acquaintance with the following topics: human nature; the outdoors; wild animals; and cameras. Don't ask me how I know that. My knowledge of that is in hundreds of posts all over this site. A super-duper biologist would surely have thought to snap a picture or two.......well......because they all trained and educated and such, or that's the idea, right? However, no picture. Dit. To. My point being that instead of having some guy who makes no claim about his or her education and background has an encounter and they report it. Ok, so? However, add that title about being a biologist and suddenly people sit up and take notice Truth is I could say I'm a professor of Primate Husbandry at Oklahoma State, I'm not but no one can verify it unless I give you more information. Truth is for all we know this might well have been a guy who was a trash collector at the zoo for all we know. You only have their word on it so verification is virtually impossible. This is no reason to discount this report. Plain, and simple. If one has the passion one claims about this, one could ratchet up the intellectual engagement. But too many revert to their experience of city and suburb, and don't consider what's really going on here. Edited May 9, 2014 by DWA
WSA Posted May 9, 2014 Author Posted May 9, 2014 Keninsc...if you want to know why he didn't get a picture, read the report again. I had to. These narratives can be engaged with on a number of levels, but all of them require attention to the details.
NathanFooter Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 keninsc, I have contacted the report investigator for this report and have received verification that the person in this report is indeed a biologist as stated in the report. It all boils down to a knowledgeable person with solid credentials had a daylight sighting of a sasquatch. There is not much else I can say except that I suggest you read the report again in detail.
Guest Coonbo Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 @keninsc: While I agree that just because a report comes from someone that claims to be a wildlife biologist, that doesn't automatically make it gold, but it should get your attention. However, for the BFRO to have posted it on their site does mean that they've spent time checking out not only the circumstances of the report, but also have made a judgement concerning the veracity of the witness. And, in this incident, they also physically checked out the location of the sighting. But I strongly disagree with your offhand dismissal of a wildlife biologist that works at a zoo. I personally know or have known several wildlife biologists, some in zoos, some in University environments, and some working for state or federal wildlife/conservation agencies. Every one of them spends (or has spent) significant time in the field and are a lot sharper than you'd suspect. They are trained observers. One of my nieces, while working for a zoo, and while still in her mid-twenties, made several trips to Africa in pursuit of her work. Her dedication and willingness to get out there, in the boonies, in the most primitive conditions, in amongst the WILD animals is nothing short of admirable. When I was in college at Auburn University in the mid-70's, in some of my spare time I worked with a wildlife biologist doing research on the population of alligators in the Alabama River watershed. I saw places that I never knew existed in Alabama. And let me tell you, that biologist had some serious cajones and unbelievable eyes. He could spot gators that I'd never have seen. And when he'd be hanging over the front of his little 14' boat with a 10 ft tagging pole in his hands as I was easing him up on a gator as long as or longer than the boat, the pucker factor, for me, was through the roof. That guy was fearless. And the other things he would see and point out as we eased around were amazing. I learned a lot from him that I still use in the boonies looking for boogers and also while hunting. I didn't mean for this post to degenerate into a story-telling session, and for that I apologize. I just wanted to make the point that just because of your personal feelings or prejudices, you can't just out-of-hand dismiss or lessen the impact of a report just because of someone's training or education or job title, or even lack thereof.
Guest DWA Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 The thing that gets my dander up is all the myriad little invalid ways that skeptics come up with to dismiss all the evidence as not even worthy of a look. Sasquatch is 1) the only phenomenon with this pattern of evidence that has not been confirmed as real, and 2) the only such phenomenon at which the scientific mainstream hasn't even seriously looked. Period. Something rotten in that, and one doesn't need to be a scientist to point that out. Again: The only reason this thread is up here is that skeptics use the argument from authority to dismiss sightings. I have read many reports by clearly non-scientists that I would rack and stack right up there with this guy's. We know this: People, generally, see what they report, and report what they see. Unless they are motivated to do otherwise...which is pretty clearly not the case here.
Guest keninsc Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 (edited) @keninsc: While I agree that just because a report comes from someone that claims to be a wildlife biologist, that doesn't automatically make it gold, but it should get your attention. However, for the BFRO to have posted it on their site does mean that they've spent time checking out not only the circumstances of the report, but also have made a judgement concerning the veracity of the witness. And, in this incident, they also physically checked out the location of the sighting. Well, I will answer in terms we can both understand. You are a technical person.....EE I believe, and I'm a ME. Now, you know full well that there are engineers that are top drawer, you've worked with them and I've worked with them and they are professional, thorough and don't mind rolling up their sleeves and getting into the dirt to find an answer or correct a problem. Trouble is all engineers look alike and it's been my experience that engineers who talk about their degrees, the school they went to and how it was the best of the best, they were Phi Beta Kappa and belong to MENSA. Are very often the people who shouldn't be allowed to do any sort of design work or asked to fix a problem. That certainly isn't always the case however, sadly, I have seen a lot of guys who talk a great design but never quite manage to get it down on paper or prototype or prove the concept.....but **** it's the only way to go. Now I have no idea which side of the fence this person is on, but they were in the field and botched their chance to get some solid evidence. Now, if I am to consider this person to be a cut above then I am going to hold them to a slightly higher standard, and before you get upset with me, this person invoked their being a biologist and therefore raising that bar themselves. Hey, if you're going to claim it then you have to live it. That is the only point I'm making as far as this person's claim to being a zoo biologist. Big difference in seeing animals in cages or behind the protection of barriers and in the field where the only thing between you and them is air. Seems you picked up on it when the others here didn't, so kudos for that and the reason for my rejection out of hand of this person's story seemed both obvious and without the need for detailed explanation. However after reading some of the replies it's apparent that I should have detailed further because they missed it as well. Relax everyone, that isn't intended as a put down or a slight or even a challenge. You all said I should pay attention to the details, I did and their story is nice, but leaves me lacking in the belief department, as it should you. But I strongly disagree with your offhand dismissal of a wildlife biologist that works at a zoo. I personally know or have known several wildlife biologists, some in zoos, some in University environments, and some working for state or federal wildlife/conservation agencies. Every one of them spends (or has spent) significant time in the field and are a lot sharper than you'd suspect. They are trained observers. Yes, but trained to observe what, and under what conditions? There's an old adage I have made up on a plaque that I kept in my office, work space or cubical that reads, "Have you talked to everyone involved? Have you gone out and been an operator for a day or two? Have gone out and looked up it's ass?" That's put very bluntly because I tend to be very open, honest and frank with people. I recall once I had a co-worker working feverishly on a small project and I was taking a break and I asked him what he was working on so diligently? Bless his heart, the guy was convinced that this change and addition to this one piece of equipment was going to save the company a ton of money and get him promoted. Now, he'd gotten all the prints for the machine gone over them, studied them, cyphered over them and come up with his master plan which he was attacking with reckless abandon as a man possessed. He started showing me what he'd come up with and he didn't talk more than five minutes and I stopped him and asked if he'd gone out and actually looked up it's ass. He stared at me like I'd just slapped him and asked what I was talking about. Turns out the machine he was redesigning had been changed and those changes hadn't been documented. Not only that but he'd not bothered to go out and talk to the operators or learn first hand about how the machine was operated. So we go out and he's so upset about what we find, he literally just goes back to the office and goes home. Ok, the moral of this story is, it's one thing to study in books and in a controlled environment and it's a whole other kettle of fish to be out in the field looking the wolf dead in the eye. Some people are great zoo biologist, some people are great field biologist and some people can't spell the word "biologist", but they have a degree that says they is one. One of my nieces, while working for a zoo, and while still in her mid-twenties, made several trips to Africa in pursuit of her work. Her dedication and willingness to get out there, in the boonies, in the most primitive conditions, in amongst the WILD animals is nothing short of admirable. When I was in college at Auburn University in the mid-70's, in some of my spare time I worked with a wildlife biologist doing research on the population of alligators in the Alabama River watershed. I saw places that I never knew existed in Alabama. And let me tell you, that biologist had some serious cajones and unbelievable eyes. He could spot gators that I'd never have seen. And when he'd be hanging over the front of his little 14' boat with a 10 ft tagging pole in his hands as I was easing him up on a gator as long as or longer than the boat, the pucker factor, for me, was through the roof. That guy was fearless. And the other things he would see and point out as we eased around were amazing. I learned a lot from him that I still use in the boonies looking for boogers and also while hunting. I didn't mean for this post to degenerate into a story-telling session, and for that I apologize. I just wanted to make the point that just because of your personal feelings or prejudices, you can't just out-of-hand dismiss or lessen the impact of a report just because of someone's training or education or job title, or even lack thereof. Not to worry, I actually enjoy your stories and hope to get to meet you some day before we both get too damned old. The thing that gets my dander up is all the myriad little invalid ways that skeptics come up with to dismiss all the evidence as not even worthy of a look. Sasquatch is 1) the only phenomenon with this pattern of evidence that has not been confirmed as real, and 2) the only such phenomenon at which the scientific mainstream hasn't even seriously looked. Period. Something rotten in that, and one doesn't need to be a scientist to point that out. Again: The only reason this thread is up here is that skeptics use the argument from authority to dismiss sightings. I have read many reports by clearly non-scientists that I would rack and stack right up there with this guy's. We know this: People, generally, see what they report, and report what they see. Unless they are motivated to do otherwise...which is pretty clearly not the case here. Here, let me help you. The problem isn't other people, the problem is you're so steeped in your own beliefs and dogma on the subject that your mind is completely closed to looking at it from a different view point other than your own. The internet is replete with false reports, mistaken reports, total fabrications, lies, embellishments are but a few of the myriad of reports. For Heaven's sake man, they even had an old lady on "Finding Bigfoot" who obviously seems a bear, but who swore upon her life it was a Bigfoot. Even MM said she was obviously mistaken and that sucker I don't think has hardly ever not seen a "Squatch". Sorry Buddy, just calling it like I see it. Edited May 14, 2014 by keninsc
WSA Posted May 14, 2014 Author Posted May 14, 2014 You know Keninsc, I think you are absolutely right, and one person's word should not be taken over another's, automatically, without a detailed consideration of all the factors. Applying that standard, this wintesses statement, absent something more, should not be given greater weight. That is to say, ALL witnesses, absent something more, should ALL be accorded the same degree of credibility. Bringing it back to my intent in the OP though, it was made as a rebuttal to skeptics who argued the opposite....that a field biologist, by definition and by the mere virtue of their occupation, should be accorded more higher credibility, and their absence from the ranks of witnesses carries some greater significance. My point is/was that they obviously are not at all un/under-represented in those ranks, and moreover, if you want to buy into the idea of them automatically being some kind of super-witness (and again, I don't) here's another account you'll have to contend with.
dmaker Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 (edited) I don't believe a word of the report. This person is a wildlife biologist like I'm a brain surgeon. This is a classic example of the type of bigfoot fan-fiction that gets fawned over constantly by enthusiasts and contains not one single word of truth. When a report starts with: " First, I’ll start with the fact that I have never put much stock into the Bigfoot phenomenon" You know you're dealing with someone who has read one too many Penthouse forum letters.. Bad fiction is all this report is. Edited May 14, 2014 by dmaker
Recommended Posts