Is " Bf Burn" A Factor In Discussions ?

[Guest DWA]

Yes, but that's why we have Ignore here.  I mean, come on guys.  Work this a bit why doncha.

 

There must be an informed basis for what you think.  Why do you never discuss it here?

Edited August 8, 2014 by DWA

[Rockape]

I've offered up what I believe and why I believe it many times here in many threads, but have never seen you do the same, you merely change the conversation as you are doing now by not answering if you are a member of NAWAC or have ever been to Area X.

[Guest DWA]

On the two posts of mine you appear to have read.  You don't have a good reason for what you think unless you can put it here and it stands up to scrutiny.  And all I have to say about you and Inc1 is that no one in proper command of the evidence could say what you say here unless he were pointedly contradicting everything he knows to be true.

 

WSA and I have laid out the doctor's cure to BF Burn.  But you're chronic sufferers, and we know why.

 

All 'tis to that one.

[Incorrigible1]

Man, if DWA has me on "ignore," I'll hardly sleep, tonight. Heh!

[Rockape]

On the two posts of mine you appear to have read.  You don't have a good reason for what you think unless you can put it here and it stands up to scrutiny. 

 

What on earth are you talking about? Good reason to think what? You said you had spent enough time in Oklahoma and Texas to know that NAWAC is selling straight. All I did was ask if you've been to Area X and if you are a NAWAC member?

 

 

 

And all I have to say about you and Inc1 is that no one in proper command of the evidence could say what you say here unless he were pointedly contradicting everything he knows to be true.

 

 

And what is it that WE say here? That we don't believe every story that comes along? Is there something wrong with that approach?

[Guest]

It shouldnt be. One of the first things they should tell you when you begin to dabble in cryptozoology is that 85% of it is wading through claims ranging from ambiguous to downright farcical. There is a lot of jadedness that results from that, and sifting through all those ambiguous and farcical reports... ya tend to get a little short with people. The "okay,next" kinda attitude. I think it comes with the territory sometimes. 

Those who understand that and love cryptozoology and the search for bigfoot anyway stick around. Unfortunately, and regrettably, it probably does scare a few folks off. I guess we should work towards minimizing that.

 

Sorry, 3am thoughts.

[MIB]

Ummm ... the reason they're cryptids is they're hard to find.  

 

Anyone joining the search should start with a reality check.   There have been a ton of talented, gifted, and dedicated people who've searched much of their lives with nothing to show for it if proof is the measure.  (There are other measures of success but they are personal and take time to develop and appreciate.)  Only the most arrogant or most ignorant of people are going to jump into bigfoot research expecting to instantly succeed where all others failed. 

 

The impatient do not belong in cryptid research.  

 

IMHO if "burn" is an issue, you do not belong here, it's a sign of over investing something you can't afford to lose.

 

MIB

Edited August 8, 2014 by MIB

[Doc Holliday]

no one has mentioned expecting instant success, in fact most of us expect more along the lines of years and years of the same thing over again.

 

arrogance and ignorance sound more like qualities displayed  such as when suggesting who does and does not belong here.

 

fwiw,  I suspect most of us don't have anything  to lose in this, other than time wasted sifting through the blatant BS that permeates this topic so often.

 

the burn suggested isn't so much about research as it is weeding through attention seekers and hoaxers which repeatedly appear as build ups to nothing.

[MIB]

I wasn't aiming that at you or at anyone in particular.   Your reaction brings to mind the old saying about the guilty fleeing when no one pursues.   I must apologize for outing you.   "My bad."

 

Attention seekers ... any reaction, positive or negative, is attention.   If they're getting under your skin they're getting what they want.  The only way to frustrate them is to ignore them.   Ignoring them does not include posting about burn. 

 

MIB

[Guest DWA]

When it takes approximately eight seconds to make the call, no burn.  Here are the calls.

 

1.  Trash.

 

2.  Proof.

 

3.  On the pile.  (If it takes more than eight seconds.)

 

Next!

Edited August 9, 2014 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

OK, ballgame's on rain delay so here's more.

 

1.  Trash.  This usually takes eight seconds or less.  A video that looks like a human in a suit is; somebody who has proof he will unveil after he sees the money is; Todd Standing and Tom Biscardi are.  Justin Smeja; Melba Toast.  Anything - ANYTHING - in a freezer someplace.  "Hank."  Dyer.  Anything that smells like any of these.  One whiff does it.

 

2.  Proof.  You will not make this call.  It will be made for you.  You might have to read the article to be convinced and that might, OK, take more than eight seconds.  (OK, if you have seen one you have personally made the call...if the sasquatch can't be said to have made it for you.)  Major news services will be carrying this one; it will be obvious (as the trash major news services have carried has been).  CAUTION:  your own personal proof will not be proof to pretty much anyone who was not with you.  Most especially me.

 

3.  On the pile.  Intriguing video; a report that you can't discount and that has guidebook markers; a footprint find that looks like a significant possibility.  Conceivably:  a news report that appears to feature a reputable organization, i.e., one you know and have vetted, and scientific names of significant standing (not Dyer saying "Meldrum says I got me the real deal"), and notes that something reasonable to expect (e.g., not featuring Hands Out For Money or a Stay Tuned For the Big Reveal!!! by a name smelling similar to 1.) needs to happen before the news is confirmed.

 

Now.

 

NEXT!

 

SPF 500.

Edited August 9, 2014 by DWA

[Doc Holliday]

  The only way to frustrate them is to ignore them.  

 

 

LOL ...excellent idea     

[SWWASAS]

DWA you are dead on.      #2 especially.    There must be dozens of "proof" youtube videos that are anything but proof.       Whoever comes hat in hand with "proof" is in for the grilling of his / her life.  Proof will be decided by others, some of whom are not going to be very friendly or accepting after pronouncing for years that BF cannot exist.    Hopefully the provider  knows what is required and will have their bases covered.     Even the origin of a body will be questioned.    You have this  8 foot BF "proof" on their lab table and the first question will be where in Asia did you shoot it?    Where you dropped it better be well documented and findable.     The location of the P/G film was lost for many years.    I cringe at the cavalier attitude some have displayed who think science will drop everything to come and look.  It does not work like that especially since in the last 10 years many have claimed to have a body but could never provide it.    Main stream science will just figure you are another one like them.  

 

MIB is very right about ignoring them.    He always has excellent advice.    

Edited August 9, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Wingman1]

I agree with Chelefoot on her view of BF Burn. There are a
lot of people out there that require absolute proof. I find
this to be a little amusing because if someone can produce

any irrefutable proof, wouldn't it be game over at that point.
Most sightings/encounters are very quick visual glimpses, and
do not leave much evidence behind other than a few footprints.
I would have to say that most of these folks did not bring along
a BF evidence collection kit. This leaves us with only their word
to back up their encounter/sighting. Many skeptics will have a
serious problem with that scenario as they tend to subscribe to
that old saying "Believe only half of what you see, and nothing
of what you hear!" I welcome skepticism since it helps to keep
the forum on an even keel. WV Footer is correct about the folks
that think every broken tree branch is done by BF, and that
animal bones are the leftovers from BF predation should be
thanked and then shown the door! I grew up in a time when a
person's word was all that was needed, but unfortunately that
is no longer the case. WV Footer is also correct in saying that
one person's judgement should be their guide when reading

these claims. If a persons story does not add up in your mind,

just toss it out and move on. Skeptics should also realize that
no one is required to provide them proof! I wonder if there
were any skeptics watching Paul Revere ride through town
yelling "The British are Coming,The British are Coming!"
and they yelled back at him to prove it. I think that BF research
in it's current state is now beyond the point of diminishing
returns, and a complete overhaul needs to be done as far as

methods and tactics are concerned. New and creative tactics

are needed to get back on BF's trail.

[MIB]

Before you get to new and creative tactics, you need a new mind-set to conceive of them.   Otherwise it's just another rehash with a fancy label claiming not to be another rehash.    Even most of the people in the "people" camp, not the "ape" camp, do their field work as if they're chasing stupid apes.   It doesn't matter how many times we say "they're people" if we merely show up in the woods with a more respectful monkey trap.

 

I don't think there is such a thing as a safe breakthrough.  If we want to do something new we may have to step outside our comfort zones and risk a little ridicule. 

 

MIB