It Will Not Make Any Difference

[WSA]

Randy, I'm not sure I could handle the aftermath of your encounter as well as you are, I must say. At some point I expect a witness to question their own sense impressions in the face of such. You know what you know though, I am sure of that. Like things I could not explain in my experience. I was there.

This whole "myth construction" theory our boy dmaker seems to hew to these days? As Norseman recently posted, it behooves those proposing this theory to explain the lack of similarities between this experience and other myths. I'm all eyes and ears for that explanation. Doubt I'll stand on one foot holding my breath while waiting though. (As a theory though, it is a vapid and ethereal as anything he accuses BF of being, I can tell you that)

[Guest DWA]

...  So not only are you challenged or disbelieved by skeptics but you get the same treatment from proponents that do not hold the same beliefs.    This whole BF research  thing can be very frustrating and I am not sure this forum makes things any better.   Perhaps that is why researchers at some point no longer post.   That seems a great shame to me.      

It is.  bipto I'm thinking of right off the bat.  The "skeptical" "inquiry" that was going on there was beyond beyond useless.  Given that, just on what I have seen here, I would take bipto's word in an instant over anyone's that was grilling him, we lost something invaluable there, an opportunity to participate in open science, something the ultra-empirical (possibly the least scientific take of any I have seen) would never be able to understand, ever, no matter what.

 

Randy, I'm not sure I could handle the aftermath of your encounter as well as you are, I must say. At some point I expect a witness to question their own sense impressions in the face of such. You know what you know though, I am sure of that. Like things I could not explain in my experience. I was there.

 

To deny someone the experience he claims he had because You Are A Rational Person And You Were Not There...IS NOT RATIONAL.

This whole "myth construction" theory our boy dmaker seems to hew to these days? As Norseman recently posted, it behooves those proposing this theory to explain the lack of similarities between this experience and other myths.  [my emphasis]  I'm all eyes and ears for that explanation. Doubt I'll stand on one foot holding my breath while waiting though. (As a theory though, it is a vapid and ethereal as anything he accuses BF of being, I can tell you that)

 

Seconded, with major emphasis.  To use only one example:  You know how we, like the Native Americans,  think Raven and Coyote Built The World?

 

Me neither.  But both of us see sasquatch...and we both describe him in the same way.

Edited August 28, 2014 by DWA

[WSA]

Just so it will never be said I don't retract what I post in error...I finally had a chance to run down that report of a trail cam shot of a black panther in AL....total BS, 'nuff said. Sorry for the misdirection folks.

[hiflier]

Hello WSA,

 

Just so it will never be said I don't retract what I post in error...I finally had a chance to run down that report of a trail cam shot of a black panther in AL....total BS, 'nuff said. Sorry for the misdirection folks.

 

I don't think such a thing has ever been said. And thanks for doing that follow-up, Shows good character by someone who really wants to get it right.

[Guest DWA]

Gotta say...soon as I looked at the photo my mind yelled "photoshop."

 

this does not mean, now, that the many reports of black panthers from the deep south are coming from nothing and lead nowhere.  In their own way they have the same validity as sasquatch reports; and unlike for the latter, there are known candidates.  Escaped black leopards happen; the puma may not be proven to come in a melanistic form but it does exist; the jaguarundi, which does come in a dark phase even though it's a small cat.  (I saw a red-phase jaguarundi in 2009 in SE Oklahoma, only a few hundred miles, minimum, out of recognized range.)

Edited August 28, 2014 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

Well, WSA, I'm gonna try it again.

 

Anybody want to take a hack at what was going on here?

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=7272

 

(Feel free to go back and take a hack at WSA's too.  I mean, come on.  After what bipto got this should be meat for you guys, eh?)

Edited August 28, 2014 by DWA

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

Sorry, I missed this the first time around. All I can say other than what could be a fairly nasty Sasquatch is that I don't know enough about bear behavior. I do know Black Bears do not do this, nor are they capable of such activity and Black Bears are the only ones in Mich. I wouldn't seem to be a poachers stash but I can't entirely rule it out. The berry branches may be a clue.

 

What does amaze me though is that no one apparently went back at some later date, that was reported anyway, to check on the status of the pile? That to me would be worth the price of admission and not doing so is a pattern I see in reports quite often where follow up is either weak or non-existent. I've all to often found myself wondering why that is. Checking back in a couple of days, or a week, or after a rain, with a group of armed individuals might seem a reasonable thing to do. Would the BFRO have any info on whether or not that happened?

Edited August 28, 2014 by hiflier

[Guest Stan Norton]

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......

Ok, but I'm a professional ecologist and I am perfectly prepared to take a considered look at sasquatch evidence. I'm by no means EO Wilson but I undertake research (hopefully my first paper coming out soonish) and have a deal of experience in field surveys and applied ecology. Can't say that sasquatch comes up a great deal (at all) in any conversations I have with fellow biologists and I can't say it's a topic I would be happy trying to broach in a professional context, or even down the pub. Then, I am in the UK and we don't seem to have any large unverified bipedal primates roaming around, nor the cultural baggage around the phenomenon that you Nearctic primates do.

I just don't see any evidence whatsoever for some cover up. I mean, where is the evidence? Given the inability for large organizations, especially government, to keep secrets in this age of leaks and whistleblowers I just don't buy it. I know dozens of folks who work in government...I do myself!....and we just haven't got the time, energy or inclination to keep secrets about anything so silly as sasquatch or cryptid creatures...and we do have some of those over here.

The more parsimonious answer would be that the whole subject is so stained with goofiness and stigma that most professional bods just steer clear, or, more likely, are just occupied with the day job.

[hiflier]

Hello Stan Norton,

 

Industrial impacts on the ecology here in the U.S. are well known. A large primate in the forest would be a stick in the cog. That's all I'll venture to say here. As far as scientists and conversations concerning anecdotal evidence suggesting such a phenomenon? I'm not privy to any such conversations. Are there any? Probably. Are they anywhere near being of a serious nature? Danged if I know. I do want to get some feelers out though to see. It's really the only way to ascertain the landscape of what's talked about and what is not. It's hard to say who knows what if anything until someone probes the waters a bit 

 

(Raises hand) Meet the probe. Why am I suddenly a bit nervous?

[Guest DWA]

I just don't see any evidence whatsoever for some cover up. I mean, where is the evidence? Given the inability for large organizations, especially government, to keep secrets in this age of leaks and whistleblowers I just don't buy it. I know dozens of folks who work in government...I do myself!....and we just haven't got the time, energy or inclination to keep secrets about anything so silly as sasquatch or cryptid creatures...and we do have some of those over here.

The more parsimonious answer would be that the whole subject is so stained with goofiness and stigma that most professional bods just steer clear, or, more likely, are just occupied with the day job.

this.

 

There's the stories, and they shoot all over.  I've read a number of them where the witness stopped in at a ranger station...and yepper, sure do, we get lots of reports of this.  Here's a couple and they aren't all I've read.

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=36218

http://woodape.org/reports/report/detail/22498  (note also the t-shirts; photo; education session; etc.)

 

There's the ranger who said look, we're finding new species all the time, I don't have any reason to doubt you, and took it down:

 

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=678

 

Then there's the story Meldrum tells in his book, where the couple get ridiculed by the USFS guy...then get a whispered call back:  a few of us here are recording these, what did you see?

 

Then there are the guys in Govt. employ who go on-record...much later (or, of course, anonymously):

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=13653

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=12302

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=1241

 

 

Just a sample for reading pleasure.  But ...nope, I'm just not seeing anything like a government coverup succeeding unless everybody has been coached and responds to the coaching properly...and good luck in your new job, Mr. Snowden.  

 

Do people in government know, and people higher know they know?  Wouldn't surprise me.

 

Know what the attitude toward Telling The World is?

 

Not my pay grade; not my JD; above my level.

 

All it is.

Edited August 28, 2014 by DWA

[Guest Stan Norton]

Hello Stan Norton,

 

Industrial impacts on the ecology here in the U.S. are well known. A large primate in the forest would be a stick in the cog. That's all I'll venture to say here. As far as scientists and conversations concerning anecdotal evidence suggesting such a phenomenon? I'm not privy to any such conversations. Are there any? Probably. Are they anywhere near being of a serious nature? Danged if I know. I do want to get some feelers out though to see. It's really the only way to ascertain the landscape of what's talked about and what is not. It's hard to say who knows what if anything until someone probes the waters a bit 

 

(Raises hand) Meet the probe. Why am I suddenly a bit nervous?

Because you're about to be stuck up somewhere dark...?!

Anyway, I think there's too much made of the 'sasquatch will bring the whole thing to a halt' game. I mean, the world is full of examples of where the requirements of critically endangered species are ignored or supposedly compensated and impacts supposedly mitigated or offset. It happens with the extant great apes, and especially so with our own species. I just don't see the reason for any kind of widespread conspiracy to keep schtoom about sasquatch. No one seems overly bothered about the species we do know about already and whose conservation should seriously have us considering setting aside vast swathes of land.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

I've read most of what you've posted as well. Do you wonder anymore why I think the way I do? You shouldn't. I'd like to at least begin a draft this weekend as a guide to help keep me on track. PM me if you've got ideas for anti-wiggle room type questions.

[Guest DWA]

Anyway, I think there's too much made of the 'sasquatch will bring the whole thing to a halt' game. I mean, the world is full of examples of where the requirements of critically endangered species are ignored or supposedly compensated and impacts supposedly mitigated or offset. It happens with the extant great apes, and especially so with our own species. I just don't see the reason for any kind of widespread conspiracy to keep schtoom about sasquatch. No one seems overly bothered about the species we do know about already and whose conservation should seriously have us considering setting aside vast swathes of land.

Right.  The case has already been made.  Wild landscapes are the earth's lungs. Destroy them and what sustains us will probably be unsustainable.  

 

And...?  "This park will stagnate growth.  And without growth we can't have any....growth."

 

It's just like the "these cannot be killed THEY ARE PEOPLE" thing.  This is no problem when we need or want or just kinda have a wild-hare hankerin' to kill people; history is abundantly clear on that point.

Edited August 28, 2014 by DWA

[hiflier]

Hello Stan Norton,

Ah, but then there's no Expeditions in the PacNW looking for Gorillas either (uh..nevermind). Or an industry of books authored by who knows who about who knows what. This is after all the U.S. forests we're talking about along with a supposed very large hominid that lives in it somewhere, somehow. Existence yet to be proved if it exists at all. There are TV shows, movies, YouTube vids, blob photos, schysters, a ten second film from 1967, an anthropologist in Idaho.........it's big here.

I think it worth one or two measly little phone calls in light of the size the subject has grown into.

Edited August 28, 2014 by hiflier

[WSA]

Hello DWA,

 

I've read most of what you've posted as well. Do you wonder anymore why I think the way I do? You shouldn't. I'd like to at least begin a draft this weekend as a guide to help keep me on track. PM me if you've got ideas for anti-wiggle room type questions.

One tip I've picked up from Branco here is the need to visit the scene with the witness, and gauge their demeanor when you do. It only makes sense to do that. There are those who are fully capable of masking their emotions very well, then again, most of us can't. If it is the witnesses' first visit to the scene especially, it is likely they will exhibit unconscious signs of agitation and unease. These are hard to fake..not saying impossible to fake, mind...just very hard to manufacture, and most people are just not that good at doing that to fool. It takes somebody with an awareness of that possible reaction to note it if it happens.

And of course, if someone mistakenly thinks they've see a BF, the reaction would likely be identical. What it will do though, if noticed, is rule out a hoaxing to a large degree. And yes, that is a subjective thing to the investigator. You just are not going to obtain complete subjectivity when evaluating things like human emotions, but it doesn't make any sense either to completely ignore those. It is just one tool in the investigative toolbox.