Sasquatch 2014- Status

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

.....but thanks for playing"- DWA

With all due respect, I really would like this thread to be completely devoid of snide remarks. Please refrain fron such tactics and thry to ADD something positive to this instead of being a detractor. And I disagree, we are NOT getting closer all the time as your own "if confirmation doesn't happen in the next five years - ten at the outside" so glaringly points out.

Edited July 22, 2014 by hiflier

[dmaker]

Hello dmaker,

And point taken. You're correct in saying the OP and therefore the thred is INDEED geared to the enthusiast. It's a Bigfoot Forum after all LOL.

Actually, I took the tone of the OP and the overall suggestion to be rather neutral and inviting of comments from both skeptics and proponents. It was the "we" in WSAs post that I wanted to clarify as the bigfoot proponent "we", not all interested parties. 

One could add:

 

Scientific Discoveries:  get made only after scientists begin to pay sufficient attention

But you do have scientists paying specific attention. In fact, that claim that scientists do not pay sufficient attention was one of the triggers to the Sykes study. Now you may say something like " big deal, Sykes is only one scientist or one small team". That would be correct, however proponents have no problem placing vast amount of emphasis on a very, very small number of scientists when those scientists are proponents. 

Edited July 22, 2014 by dmaker

[WSA]

Right Hiflier....my point. There is no bloody schedule.

 

You're aware, we've got the following categories of folks here, and I think you could expand this to describe all of the public who have any awareness at all about this topic: 

 

The witnesses

The persuaded

The BF apostates

The incredulous Missourians

The un-committed and curious

 

The first two categories do not clamor as loudly for the proof NOW! The last three groups (which make up the vast majority of our population) can do that, and often do, in my experience. 

 

 If one is expending considerable effort "out there" to make proof happen, I give you a pass, and you can be as impatient of your own efforts as you have the right to be...if that suits you. It wouldn't be for me to judge if you were impatient with others too. As for the rest? Rave on, but don't think you're part of the solution, if that is what you care to aspire to. It takes a little more than that to be a player here. I'll be the first to admit I do not have the skin in this game as many here do. Then again, many here appear to have none at all.     

Edited July 22, 2014 by WSA

[dmaker]

What is a player? What is "skin" in this game? If someone has an opinion and they wish to express it, then that is enough "skin" to be a "player" here in this forum.

[SWWASAS]

Very few scientists, including Sykes who I consider a main stream science skeptic,  have devoted any significant field time.     They have day jobs teaching or researching other areas.   In some cases field biologists that work for the State have had encounters.    But when the states they work for deny existence, they keep their mouth shut to keep their jobs.     I contend that if a well funded scientist spent the better part of a year in a field study in the right area they might not have the required proof at the end of the year but they would know BF exists and most likely be a witness.     But without the vindicating proof (body), they are just like the rest of us who are witnesses without proof.     To get funding, risk the rest of your professional career, and take a year off to conduct BF research is more that most pragmatic scientists are willing to risk.     A long term researcher in Oregon related an experience to a group of us this weekend he had with two scientists who he took camping in BF country.     One was a PHD candidate in biology who was nearly done with his doctorate.    The PHD candidate had a daytime sighting that lasted long enough for him to draw the BF.     He refused to allow the drawing to be reproduced because,  in his words,  "He did not want his career to end before it started."     That is the kind of professional pressure that exists for scientists to consider before they research BF even privately.     Non scientists just don't understand those pressures because it directly impacts a scientists ability to get and hold jobs. 

Edited July 22, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest DWA]

 A long term researcher in Oregon related an experience to a group of us this weekend he had with two scientists who he took camping in BF country.     One was a PHD candidate in biology who was nearly done with his doctorate.    The PHD candidate had a daytime sighting that lasted long enough for him to draw the BF.     He refused to allow the drawing to be reproduced because,  in his words,  "He did not want his career to end before it started."     That is the kind of professional pressure that exists for scientists to consider before they research BF even privately.     Non scientists just don't understand those pressures because it directly impacts a scientists ability to get and hold jobs. 

 

And you know that there are scientists who utterly deny that the pressure on that Ph.D exists, at all.

 

Oh-kay there.  Oh it doesn't, does it.

Edited July 22, 2014 by DWA

[dmaker]

I don't believe in the boogeyman of public prejudice to those that express belief or curiosity. There is stark evidence to the contrary. Meldrum does not appear to be adversely impacted by his quite public endorsement of bigfoot belief. He is a fully tenured professor at a respected university. Bindernagel seems to have enjoyed a long and successful career as a biologist, even working for the United Nations. Sykes has not suffered that I can see from his association with the subject matter. 

 

It is one thing to say that something exists but when you have nothing to actually demonstrate that and you have, instead, public examples that refute your premise, it becomes difficult to take the career destroying bigfoot prejudice claim seriously. 

[Guest]

perhaps I fall into the curious Missourian category.

Until recently I did not know what "sign" to look for. I have been hunting/fishing in Penna. bigfoot sighting areas . I like to go a little bit further off the beaten path to find game/ fishing spots.  

 

I really enjoy the sightings stories and hate to call anyone crazy or a liar, but even if I had a sighting it's still not proof in a scientific sense.

Currently I'm tracking down a sighting and hope to add it to Trog's data base.

[WSA]

perhaps I fall into the curious Missourian category.

Until recently I did not know what "sign" to look for. I have been hunting/fishing in Penna. bigfoot sighting areas . I like to go a little bit further off the beaten path to find game/ fishing spots.  

 

I really enjoy the sightings stories and hate to call anyone crazy or a liar, but even if I had a sighting it's still not proof in a scientific sense.

Currently I'm tracking down a sighting and hope to add it to Trog's data base.

Right...the categories I choose to describe can morph back and forth, and there are those here who have probably cycled through all permutations over the years. One thing I've never seen (or if I did, I didn't recognize it) are those who start out as witnesses, and who change their category.  If they are out there, they are few. That says something to me.

 

I have to agree that taking the time to read and post is definitely skin in this game dmaker, the only real claim to that I can make. What does seperate me from so many others here though is their expenditure of time and money in an "on the ground" pursuit of evidence>proof, to the exclusion of many other activities or pursuits. That is quite an investment, and one I have not made up to this point, except incidentally in pursuing other activities like just traveling, walking, camping, hunting, etc.  

[Guest DWA]

^

 

Me too, and the only other skin I have in the game is the desire to know and to find out by the scientific establishment putting in the time to find out the way they have for everything else, no exceptions ever, that has this volume and pattern of evidence.

Edited July 24, 2014 by DWA
Removed quote of preceding post

[ShadowBorn]

Hiflier

You do not know how badly I want to prove how real these creatures are. In my case it is getting to a point where a decision has to be made of pro-kill. There are two windows of opportunity that come's every fall when hunting season starts in Michigan.One is during bow season and the other is during rifle season. Bow seems to be more of a personal hunt and the most dangerous and yes I have been warned.During my last few bow seasons I have had them surround me and chased me out of me hunting areas. They have let me know that I am not wanted in that area in there own special ways.

So my other way of even possibly killing one is with my rifle up north. But even making this decision is difficult for me since knowing what I know about them.I have the right rifle ,which is a 30.06 so that should be good enough.I would like to have a .308 but 30.06 will do the job.

I am like you of coming here all the time and seeing the same thing all the time . Things that never change ,people using the same tactics gaining nothing but the same results. Creatures that are doing the same which is avoiding us as a whole. We have no concept on what needs to be done so that the creatures will stop avoiding us. Almost like these creatures have the upper hand on us and we are blind to their tactics. Even though I have said that we should leave these creatures alone and yes I still believe that we should. There is this this effort in me of wanting to prove these creatures. A picture, DNA, or even good video will not do as proof and the only thing that will ever or show as proof will be a body.

[dmaker]

WSA, if you believe that witnesses are few, if any, then what did you mean by bigfoot apostate?

 

I do recall there being people who laid claim to a bigfoot sighting and then later determined it was something else. There were 2 or 3 of them on this forum iirc.

Shadowborn, if you are in a position to get HD video or pics, do not lightly dismiss that opportunity. Look how much long lasting discussion and interest the PGF generates. It is neither HD nor stable. It might not be proof, but an unmistakable, clear, HD footage would go a long way towards compelling evidence. I believe so anyway. I have zero belief that you will produce any, no one has to date. But I think dismissing it like that, if one is earnest in their desire to prove the species or generate mainstream, serious interest, does a huge disservice and misses a decent opportunity. 

Edited July 22, 2014 by dmaker

[WSA]

^^^^^^What I meant is the folks who were at one point persuaded, and the passage of time with no proof (as they defined it) resulted in complete disillusionment. We've got a number of those here, self-professed, as I understand them to be.

 

Right, it depends on the quality of the sighting, obviously. Some's certainty can't be shaken, no matter how long the wait from others for confirmation. Those who may not be entirely sure what they saw are necessarily going to be open to increasing doubt as time goes by. Overall though, I'm not seeing those who fall in the category of "I know what I saw" changing their minds,  here at least. If you have, you have.

[Guest DWA]

To tell myself I didn't see something and un-see it, just because no one's looking and no scientist pronouncing negatively on the matter has said a thing about it that makes sense, well, I just like to believe I'd think more of myself than that.

[WSA]

I do think once a sighting reaches a high degree of certainty for the witness (either duration, proximity, circumstances, corroborating info., etc.) they don't waffle at all, and as far as I can tell, it is independent of any arguments either pro or con. Those are just going to be in the "I know what I saw" camp, and that is that. If I had a sketchy, coulda-been kind of sighting, I'm going to be all that more vulnerable to whatever outside influence come along, pro or con, that fit my circumstances. Maybe that is appropriate too.

 

I just don't know where I'd fall, if I were a witness, given all those variables involved. I can though put my self in the shoes of some individuals, as they've reported, and say with a high degree of certainty. "Well yeah, if I saw THAT, I'd have no doubt at all...evermore."