Gotta Know Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 This thread is so much more fun with the dolefully dogmatic one (thanks for that, People Booger--also made my day!) on ignore. It's kind of like watching people shadow box. I don't know where you good folk find the energy!
Guest DWA Posted May 16, 2014 Posted May 16, 2014 ^^^^I occasionally land a smashing right. But that's only when I choose to. Then back into the real conversation. There's an amazing struggle going on inside that head: between a guy who desperately wants to believe something and a guy who knows that.
Guest keninsc Posted May 16, 2014 Posted May 16, 2014 Really makes me wonder what people like you will say when this is proven Not much to really say, on that day I will be happy because the proof will finally be in and that will satisfy my primary desire. Proof is all I'm after, but then all the BS that people have been doing for the last forty with no result........maybe those are the ones you might wonder about? They'll have a lot of time invested for naught, if I bag one then it's over and if someone else bags one then it's over. ......and I can get my olive grove going.
Gotta Know Posted May 16, 2014 Posted May 16, 2014 ^For all the olive branches you will need? Heh. Couldn't help myself.
Guest DWA Posted May 16, 2014 Posted May 16, 2014 (edited) I'm not into the BS. When one looks at scientific topics and knows a little about animals, one becomes pretty adept at sussing out BS from hmmmm, this behaves like a particular kind of animal. There is so much of the latter that the BS is irrelevant. I just ignore it. It has nothing to do with what I think about this. And when people say to me: how do you know the stuff that behaves like evidence of an animal isn't part of the BS? I answer: Because it behaves like the former, and not the latter; so much so that if it is part of the BS, either one or a trained consortium of many of the most adept BSers in the entire history of the primate order is doing it. (That it's being generated by random Joes is so unlikely that you should put your whole income in lottery tickets before betting a nickel on that.) And you are, what, BETTING that? No scientist would. And that is how you know the scientists aren't paying attention. See? That easy. Edited May 16, 2014 by DWA
Guest DWA Posted May 16, 2014 Posted May 16, 2014 ^^^And then there's Charlie Brown McSquatchy. How's Rugman coming there, Chuck?
BobbyO Posted May 18, 2014 SSR Team Posted May 18, 2014 ^^ I have to ask Bobby, what does providing a video of the location ( with no bigfoot in sight) add to the claim? Nothing. But it may give some context and has relevance to the thread and conversation ?
Guest Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 It is unfortunate the number of encounter reports available from qualified wildlife biologists is slim pickings. It is a stigma, no way around it. People who spend a lot of time in the field, such as any fish and game dept, are not going to speak out. They have to toe the line professionally. Only a few will speak out on public forums but they are cautious, at least from I have seen. I am unable to locate significant sighting reports by trained wildlife biologists, zoologists. A trained observer is a good find in BF research.
Trogluddite Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 ^ There are few such sightings, but there could be a variety of reasons other than stigmatization. There are two in the BFRO West Virginia section; one was conducting a bat survey near a coal mine, the other was conducting bird surveys in a corporate experimental forest. The coal mine encounter was a visual encounter w/multiple witnesses. The bird guy only heard sounds he could not identify and an animal moving away from him. The only real benefit of having a scientist involved in either is that you can give more credit to the birder's observation that the sound he heard was not consistent w/known birds in that area. ....Still, if any report describes the witnesses' occupation as "house painter", I stop reading..... Why? Perhaps the quality of the report may be lacking, but you'll never know without reading it. Perhaps the report will be vague or inconsistent but you'll never know without reading it. It's not like you can just identify one profession and banish them from the land of credibiility as "liars" just based on their profession. (That's a softball, people. Hit it out of the park.) Wildlife Biologists seeing these things is, in my eyes, a big deal as they are quite simply more qualified in general to explain and describe what they saw than average joe. And, like experienced hunters, hikers, or campers, they may also have more experience and may have seen more uncommon things that have common explanations. Thus, the report may be more valuable on that basis.
Bodhi Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 What's the name of this "wildlife biologist"? I read the bfro report and didn't notice a name listed. Not really appropriate to claim the credibility (argument from authority) of a wildlife biologist unless one is able to confirm that the report is actually coming from who the bfro claims is making the report. I've heard that not all things I read on the internet are really true; but of course I read that on the internet so who knows....
hiflier Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 (edited) Hello Bodhi, I've heard that not all things I read on the internet are really true; but of course I read that on the internet so who knows.... Sounds like something right out of the Department of Redundancy Department. Edited September 4, 2015 by hiflier
OkieFoot Posted September 5, 2015 Moderator Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) WSA, on 08 May 2014 - 10:26 AM, said: ....Still, if any report describes the witnesses' occupation as "house painter", I stop reading..... Why? Perhaps the quality of the report may be lacking, but you'll never know without reading it. Perhaps the report will be vague or inconsistent but you'll never know without reading it. It's not like you can just identify one profession and banish them from the land of credibiility as "liars" just based on their profession. (That's a softball, people. Hit it out of the park.) (my reply) I've thought about this too on occasion and I think you make a fair point. Speaking in a general sense, there seems to be a perception with some that people with more education and more of an "intellectual" profession have more credibility than a plumber or an appliance repairman. It seems to me that a blue collar maintenance worker has eyesight as good as a wildlife biologist and they can see if a creature has long arms or great height or huge bulkiness. It doesn't take more education to see this. Should reports from your blue collar, lesser educated type people be regarded with more suspicion for that reason? Is there any evidence that says we should? Edited September 5, 2015 by OkieFoot 1
Guest Crowlogic Posted September 5, 2015 Posted September 5, 2015 WSA, on 08 May 2014 - 10:26 AM, said: ....Still, if any report describes the witnesses' occupation as "house painter", I stop reading..... Why? Perhaps the quality of the report may be lacking, but you'll never know without reading it. Perhaps the report will be vague or inconsistent but you'll never know without reading it. It's not like you can just identify one profession and banish them from the land of credibiility as "liars" just based on their profession. (That's a softball, people. Hit it out of the park.) (my reply) I've thought about this too on occasion and I think you make a fair point. Speaking in a general sense, there seems to be a perception with some that people with more education and more of an "intellectual" profession have more credibility than a plumber or an appliance repairman. It seems to me that a blue collar maintenance worker has eyesight as good as a wildlife biologist and they can see if a creature has long arms or great height or huge bulkiness. It doesn't take more education to see this. Should reports from your blue collar, lesser educated type people be regarded with more suspicion for that reason? Is there any evidence that says we should? It shouldn't make a difference whether a sighting is reported by a professional of degree or a non professional of no degree. Most likely it does not. However once the reporting is in the realm for others to review is where things fall rapidly into the hands of the non professional degree population. The case of NASA's Mars photos is a perfect example of pop culture non professionals getting hold of what the professional community has delivered and turning it into a circus. Correct me if I'm wrong but there are no PHD Astrophysicists posting videos and photos of Mars showing mysterious valleys where strange glyph s and remnants of civilizations. But there are a lot of Joe Blows doing it. Where bigfoot is concerned the landscape is so littered with comic book story lines that even most high school dropouts should be able to see through. Does anyone think for a moment that dogman can possibly exist? Or that demon guarded bigfoot portals exist? Any biologist worth their salt knows that there is no precedent for an animal like dogman and that a variety of different bigfoot types does not support the obvious rarity of the thing. But if you haven't had the education and or you've decided to toss your education out the window then dogman and everything else has a place on the stage. Science didn't create bigfoot or dogman. A few minor scientists have given a nod to bigfoot but the lion's share of the mythology is perpetuated by non science.
Recommended Posts