SWWASAS Posted August 27, 2014 BFF Patron Posted August 27, 2014 Upon proof of existence, anecdotal evidence will become valuable. As Stan Norton mentioned, baring a Jane Goodall that can live with or observe a BF tribe, anecdotal evidence can be scrubbed and analyzed and probably become one of the few methods to determine behaviors. They apparently don't want us to know anything about them. Right now that evidence suggests some things: They avoid human contact, they peek around trees even in the dark, they are more active at night when humans are not around etc. Personally I think existing data bases are lacking. Perhaps acceptance will get funding to improve data bases so behaviors and demographics can be studied. There seems to be some prejudice against certain reports being included in data bases based on a particular organizations preconceived ideas about behavior and abilities or they only investigate reports that interest them. That is hardly scientific and makes me suspect about the validity of their data bases.
WSA Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 (edited) Funny world where keeping awake in freshman earth science class earns you the title of an elitist. Yep, that is where this stuff was covered. (Have we got too many screens in some households? Why yes, I believe we do.) Your raise a valid point about the database Randy, and one we discussed up-thread a ways. An offer to listen to anyone who might propose how they would conduct an investigation on the opponent's side of the discussion drew exactly "zero" responses. (I'm beginning to know how Bill M. feels too) So, we are helpless in the face of anecdotal evidence, I guess their word would be. I could give you four or five suggestions, and I'm sure you could give me as many I haven't thought of. But the "See no BF, hear no BF, speak no BF" contingent? Ha! We can wait a little longer for their superior intellects to reflect our way, I imagine. As the night watchman at the dump once said to me, "A waste is a terrible thing to mind." Uh. Yup. Edited August 27, 2014 by WSA
Guest DWA Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 (edited) If somebody says he saw something, and no one can give me a good reason to discount it, I am gonna take his word over somebody 1,000 miles away who says he didn't. He saw something that isn't real...? HEY MABEL! I think we've identified the problem...! If being an elitist or a member of an Experts Club is what I get for staying awake and curious, I accept the Academy's august judgment and thank them. (I do want to throw in a word for the "humility" of people who can comfortably call thousands of witnesses deluded from an armchair. Humble indeed that is.) Edited August 27, 2014 by DWA
norseman Posted August 27, 2014 Admin Posted August 27, 2014 I think the key is the term compelling........ What one person finds compelling, another does not. But I challenge skeptics to show me a more compelling myth. I think beyond a shadow of a doubt, Sasquatch speaks to the human physique, no matter if it exists or not today. Because it DID exist in the past, in one form or another. As we are finding in the fossil record. Our bipedalism that has long separated us from the animals is no longer special, it's no longer a safe haven in which we can hide behind, separating us from them. Mass amounts of people do not report seeing Leprechauns roaming around the country side. Why? One myth should be as good as any other. Either this creature still exists OR it did exist and lives on in our species collective memory. A Bear attacking and eating you is scary, a giant hairy hominid that picks you up and packs you off, never to be seen again is absolutely terrifying to most people. And in my opinion this is because this was a real threat at one time for our species. Maybe for some it was a Neanderthal, others? Homo Erectus or Gigantopethicus. Or some unknown species that has never been discovered yet. They are like us, but they are not us, and they do not have our best intentions at heart. It's a common theme............it's what makes King Kong movies so successful. The oldest story in the English language is Beowulf, again coincidence? I don't think so. I find all of this very compelling, and I think to say it's not compelling is a slap in the face to the reality of the situation. We do not have proof so there fore it remains a myth........but we do have proof of one thing. This myth is a giant among myths!!!!! If it's just a myth? Then I think there are some real reasons as to why that is, and it's not pleasant to contemplate.
Incorrigible1 Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 (edited) Have a hard time finding a hat to fit that head? Can we start our own mutual admiration society to match that of friends WSA and DWA? Well, maybe not match, that would be tough, but still, we could post of our amazing ability to ferret out the truth, our prodigious readings of reports, and our disdain for mainstream science. Edited August 27, 2014 by Incorrigible1
david75090 Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 But for them to be true he would have to see you seeing him seeing you seeing him etc etc, otherwise it never happened. Might need a body...
hiflier Posted August 28, 2014 Posted August 28, 2014 (edited) Hello Incorrigible1, Can we start our own mutual admiration society to match that of friends WSA and DWA? Well, maybe not match, that would be tough, but still, we could post of our amazing ability to ferret out the truth, our prodigious readings of reports, and our disdain for mainstream science. Good idea! I'll start it off: I have an amazing ability to ferret out the truth and I have a prodigious reading of reports........... But that's where the similarities end for I have a very high regard for mainstream science. The reason they don't investigate BF may surprise some: it's the lie that the public is being led to believe. There's one intrepid member here that has fallen for it. The "stigma" is a functional one meant to discourage any investigations by those not inside the circle of specialists picked for the investigative tasks. It all operates behind the veil of manufactured public derision. Now this may sound pretty wild and far-fetched but it can only go two ways here: The Creature doesn't exist; or it does exist and the subject's reality has been known about. Choose one. If one chooses the latter then one has to accept that there is a clamp down on ANYTHING truthful associated with said subject. Edited August 28, 2014 by hiflier
WSA Posted August 28, 2014 Posted August 28, 2014 Incorrigible one: Well yeah you should. Just keep in mind (was it Casey Stengel ?) If you can do it, it ain't bragging. Ask Branco sometime how he goes about a witness evaluation. Go ahead and then tell me you have nothing to learn around here.
Squatchy McSquatch Posted August 28, 2014 Posted August 28, 2014 WSA have you, as an attorney, ever evaluated a bigfoot witness? Have you ever discussed Bigfoot in a court of law? Of course not.
hiflier Posted August 28, 2014 Posted August 28, 2014 Hello Squatchy McSquatch, I'll remember that if I'm ever in need of a defense. "Bigfoot told me if I didn't rob that bank that he was going to kill me!"
Martin Posted August 28, 2014 Posted August 28, 2014 Incorrigible one: Well yeah you should. Just keep in mind (was it Casey Stengel ?) If you can do it, it ain't bragging. Ask Branco sometime how he goes about a witness evaluation. Go ahead and then tell me you have nothing to learn around here. What ever happened to Branco's bigfoot wearing the orange tracking collar?
Guest Stan Norton Posted August 28, 2014 Posted August 28, 2014 Hello Incorrigible1, Good idea! I'll start it off: I have an amazing ability to ferret out the truth and I have a prodigious reading of reports........... But that's where the similarities end for I have a very high regard for mainstream science. The reason they don't investigate BF may surprise some: it's the lie that the public is being led to believe. There's one intrepid member here that has fallen for it. The "stigma" is a functional one meant to discourage any investigations by those not inside the circle of specialists picked for the investigative tasks. It all operates behind the veil of manufactured public derision. Now this may sound pretty wild and far-fetched but it can only go two ways here: The Creature doesn't exist; or it does exist and the subject's reality has been known about. Choose one. If one chooses the latter then one has to accept that there is a clamp down on ANYTHING truthful associated with said subject. I can't tell if you're being serious. So rather than an across the board incuriosity by 'science' leading to a virtual dismissal of sasquatch as a topic worthy of investigation (DWA's key thesis), yours is that either sasquatch is not real or it's known about and is the subject of a huge cover up? How would that work in reality? I'd have thought Mr Assange and his pals would've revealed some kind of tangible proof by now. Doesn't sound very plausible to me at all. I really don't think that such a simple black or white view is at all likely and there seems to be not one jot of evidence for it. Unless I'm part of the plot....
hiflier Posted August 28, 2014 Posted August 28, 2014 (edited) Hello Stan Norton, Yes I was being serious. I don't really wish to steer this that much off topic though. I created a thread "Is Sasquatch A Secret" a while back which touches more in depth on the subject. So rather than reinvent the wheel here I will just say that if this Creature is real then it's known about. I also am of the opinion that a lot more people in the scientific community are interested in the phenom than DWA or anyone else think. An initial whimsical approach will turn a bit more thoughtful after a bit of data mining which any respectable scientist will automatically do. The real issue about that though is I have asked that doubters contact their centers for education or even a local anthropologist or biologist and inquire about the subject and it supposed stigma. No one so far seems to do much more than launch generalized criticism though. Ah well...... Edited August 28, 2014 by hiflier
MIB Posted August 28, 2014 Moderator Posted August 28, 2014 (edited) The real issue about that though is I have asked that doubters contact their centers for education or even a local anthropologist or biologist and inquire about the subject and it supposed stigma. No one so far seems to do much more than launch generalized criticism though. Ah well...... Oh, you mean someone like .. MIB ... who might hypothetically work at a university and might hypothetically have already tried talking to the biology department faculty? Like that? MIB Edited August 28, 2014 by MIB
Guest DWA Posted August 28, 2014 Posted August 28, 2014 (edited) When one reads Bindernagel's second book, one sees in his assertions what one hears in scientists' blanket pronouncements on this topic. Which is, ignorance. (And incuriosity about that ignorance.) Of wildlife biology "there's no food for such an animal..."; of biogeography "there is simply no way an animal like this could be in North America"; of the significance (or not) of fossils "we see no fossil evidence"; of the reports (no understanding of what would have to be going on for The Comprehensive Lie/Hoax/Hallucination 'Hypothesis' to have legs); ...and I could go on. And on. A number of attempts have been made to get this brought into the mainstream (through paper presentations at conferences primarily). The response: until there's proof this is tabloid stuff. Oh. Kay. For whatever reason the complete ignorance of the breadth and depth of evidence is happening...it very clearly is. There is no reason, really, to have a particularly high regard for any scientist's opinion over one's own, when that scientist is clearly either not in his area of expertise or not applying it to the subject at hand. And it could not be more obvious to me, when a "skeptical" scientist is discussing this topic, that he is out of his depth, big time. Simply applying his expertise to the evidence would show him that....and nnnnnnnnnnooooooooo soap. There is in all probability no comprehensive government cover-up. What there could be is a massive case of: not my job. And in truth, for government...it isn't. Their job, that is. Oh, you mean someone like .. MIB ... who might hypothetically work at a university and might hypothetically have already tried talking to the biology department faculty? Like that? MIB ...Or Bindernagel...who has tried to get papers on the discussion docket at conferences? Numerous times? Edited August 28, 2014 by DWA
Recommended Posts