MIB Posted October 14, 2014 Moderator Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) Please show one research effort that is not somehow mired in the circus. How about mine? Which of those things are you accusing me of? If I'm part of this circus you're an expert on you must know exactly what I'm up to ... because of all my publicity stunts and screams for attention, right? So .. please enlighten everyone. MIB Edited October 14, 2014 by MIB
Guest Crowlogic Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 How about mine? Which of those things are you accusing me of? If I'm part of this circus you're an expert on you must know exactly what I'm up to ... because of all my publicity stunts and screams for attention, right? So .. please enlighten everyone. MIB Well let's see it. Give us a full disclosure of your enterprise. If you're one of those with the proof but choose to withhold for esoteric reasons then yes you are under the Bigfoot Bigtop.
Guest Darrell Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 Just a casual observation, but aren't you using the term 'skeptical' where 'cynical' should be? Or can someone who gives credence to the possiblility never be a skeptic? I am both skeptic and cynic. Started a thread on that last spring I believe.
MIB Posted October 14, 2014 Moderator Posted October 14, 2014 Well let's see it. Give us a full disclosure of your enterprise. . No, that's the point you miss. If you have to ask what I'm doing, then I'm not part of the circus you claim all researchers are part of. If I was after notoriety, fame, recognition, you wouldn't have to request that information, it would already be public. You've proven yourself wrong. And if I'm not, how many others that you've falsely painted with your broad brush are also not? MIB
Wingman1 Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) Plussed, Wingman. I won't ask for anything exhaustive, but neither would I want vague. Let's be very specific, what do you think are the top three most important pieces of evidence that a fence-sitter wanting to look as deep as they can into Bigfoot should study? Answers like "the footprints", "the DNA evidence", "the physical evidence" are what I mean by vague. If there is something that falls in those categories, please cite specific cases. Thanks in advance. Hey Kit, thanks for the plus. What three pieces of evidence to do I see as the most important? I would have to say the Skookum body cast. For me, this ranks above most others because several actual scientists have studied the cast in a relatively controlled environment. The group consisted of Dr.Meldrum, Dr. Krantz, Dr. Bindernagel, Canadian Wildlife Journalist John Green, and Dr. Ron Brown. In a press release after they examined the cast, they all agreed that it cannot be attributed to any commonly known Northwest animal and may represent an unknown primate. Now of course this does not definitively prove the existence of a species of North American ape, the cast constitutes significant and compelling new evidence that will hopefully provide the impetus for further serious research and investigation into the presence of these primates in the Northwest mountains and elsewhere. The tracks and castings would come in at 2nd place. Not all casts though, I refer only to the ones that are shown to be anatomically correct and other features which would be difficult to hoax. For me, footprints/casts fall into the trace evidence category when attributed to Sasquatch, but it in no way equates to proof. The 3rd piece of evidence are those oh so wonderful hair samples. I know there has been much discussion on this subject over the years, and have been found to be mostly other known animals that inhabit the areas they were found in. The only instance that I can see that may have some possibility are the hair samples that Dr.Fahrenbach, who is a Biomedical Research Scientist in Oregon found within the Skookum cast. Now based on characteristics matching those of otherwise indeterminate primate hairs collected in association with other Sasquatch sightings, he identified a single distinctly primate hair as “Sasquatch.†Again, not tangible proof as far as proving existence.Unfortunately all of this still inconclusive, and will obviously remain that way until there is something that the evidence can be compared to. The level of confidence I have concerning these 3 pieces of evidence is just high enough to spur me forward and keep looking. I have no ill conceived time table for discovery, it will happen when it happens. I do not feel that they need our intervention for anything, and at times I find myself leaning towards having the position of just leaving them alone. I found out long ago to let intuition be my guide, and my intuition has been a pretty good guide so far. I think back to what an old friend of mine used to say - "Be careful what you look for, you just may find it" Anyone that considers themselves "On the fence" that wants to find that one thing that will prompt them to pick a side should learn as much as possible by going through the available databases to see if they can glean something from them. One should always remember that reports are just reports. On their own, they will not prove anything other than someone has seen something way outside the realm of normal, but they can be used as an arrow to point them in the right direction. Take in what you find helpful and toss the rest. Be skeptical but be honest about it.Keep in mind that sightings reports that describe fleeting, quick sightings from a distance will never any provide proof. The only thing that can be taken away from that is just there is possibly a Sasquatch in that particular area. Nothing more. Also keep a salt shaker handy because there will be many times that you will need to take in some of the stuff with a grain of salt. Do not over analyze everything and use common sense as much as possible. The discussions on the forums can be wild at times but don't get dissuaded by them. The amount of evidence and the quality of the evidence will always be disputed by some and that is simply the nature of the beast so to speak, but that is good because honest skepticism is what keeps all of the cars from running off the track. But suffer no delusions, there are some out there that just want to derail a thread and watch the fur fly. Those type of people will always be around, but after all is said and done, learn to be as patient as possible, and just have fun. There is absolutely no point in making anything harder for yourself Hope this makes some sense to you Kit, as I am just trying to navigate to that center path that I mentioned in an earlier post. It can definitely be as elusive as a squatch! Edited October 14, 2014 by Wingman1
Drew Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) Isn't odd how an elk's rear quarter and leg seems to fit perfectly in an impression of a Sasquatch's butt cheek ? Quote from Tyinhell And then Wolftrax posts this http://bigfootforums.com/uploads/post-128-010663700%201296341913.gif CLICK TO ANIMATE Edited October 14, 2014 by Drew
WSA Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 People from all walks of life say and do all kinds of things. A forest ranger or a policeman are not immune to misidentification or spinning tales. Police have been known to break their own codes of conduct during duty so if that's any indication of what's possible then there is a certain yard stick to go by. One of the Georgia boys was a police officer. We have long past the [point of he said she said with this thing. It's heart breaking to admit it's a dead issue and the only thing keeping it afloat is the circus of researchers who are either in it for the jollies, money, attention or other. Please show one research effort that is not somehow mired in the circus. One will do but there isn't one. It's show biz, recreation and entertainment. It's not science and I fail to see how it is even research at this point.. Crowlogic...this is the "some people lie, so don't trust anyone" roadblock that keep the evidence from ever being discussed on any higher plane. This is what John Michael Greer likes to refer to as a "thought stopper", and he is so correct. When you toss out a conclusion like this, you've already disengaged from seriously discussing the evidence. When you fail to recognize that, yes, some kinds of people are generally more trustworthy than others, despite the very real bad acts by a few in those classes, you've shortcut the need to think about the content of what the others tell you. Result being, it all gets swept under the rug, never to be seriously addressed. We've been doing it for decades on this topic, with a predictable result. We can break this cycle, but not with those kinds of flippant dismissals, in my opinion. Thanks. 1
SWWASAS Posted October 14, 2014 BFF Patron Posted October 14, 2014 The most credible witnesses who are also the ones with the most to lose are the very ones that will not report anything. Field biologists, forest rangers, loggers, etc. When your reputation and livelihood could be impacted by making a report, that is a strong motivation to keep your mouth shut. The problem I see with most sighting data bases is vetting the witness. Finding BF has a big problem with that. Getting your face on television is a powerful motivator to embellish or fabricate a story. You notice that Finding BF when they do their recreations, and raise their hands to show how tall or wide the creature was, it is always much taller and wider than humans? A bell curve of a living BF population would have some smaller than adult humans. Juvenile BF would be less experienced at avoiding contact, and probably skew a bell curve of BF size distribution in sightings to the small end of the bell curve. That does not seem to be the case and most BF are reported to be much larger than human. So I think embellishment or fabrication is frequently at play.
Incorrigible1 Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) Crowlogic...this is the "some people lie, so don't trust anyone" roadblock that keep the evidence from ever being discussed on any higher plane. This is what John Michael Greer likes to refer to as a "thought stopper", and he is so correct. When you toss out a conclusion like this, you've already disengaged from seriously discussing the evidence. When you fail to recognize that, yes, some kinds of people are generally more trustworthy than others, despite the very real bad acts by a few in those classes, you've shortcut the need to think about the content of what the others tell you. Result being, it all gets swept under the rug, never to be seriously addressed. We've been doing it for decades on this topic, with a predictable result. We can break this cycle, but not with those kinds of flippant dismissals, in my opinion. Thanks. The opposite, that is, "trust everyone," leads us to bigfoot following gifters 50 miles home to place cigarettes in the bed of their pickup, or dematerializing bigfoot, or telepathic bigfoot, etc. Edited October 14, 2014 by Incorrigible1
WSA Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 Incorrigible1, quite true. That is indeed the opposite, reactionary attitude that is a hindrance to true inquiry. The middle ground of deliberate and reasoned investigation doesn't get plowed much. The path between "trust nobody" and "trust everyone" takes thought, experience and no little bit of work. The extremes are much, much easier, but so less productive in arriving at answers.
Guest Crowlogic Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 No, that's the point you miss. If you have to ask what I'm doing, then I'm not part of the circus you claim all researchers are part of. If I was after notoriety, fame, recognition, you wouldn't have to request that information, it would already be public. You've proven yourself wrong. And if I'm not, how many others that you've falsely painted with your broad brush are also not? MIB I asked you to stand and deliver and you have skirted the question. Stand and deliver or remain silent. You took it upon yourself to enter the thread with the claim that somehow you are engaged in the Bigfoot issue on a "better" level. Well better is sure needed. BTW a half century of following the issue can and does indeed give license to use a broad brush. The most credible witnesses who are also the ones with the most to lose are the very ones that will not report anything. Field biologists, forest rangers, loggers, etc. When your reputation and livelihood could be impacted by making a report, that is a strong motivation to keep your mouth shut. The problem I see with most sighting data bases is vetting the witness. Finding BF has a big problem with that. Getting your face on television is a powerful motivator to embellish or fabricate a story. You notice that Finding BF when they do their recreations, and raise their hands to show how tall or wide the creature was, it is always much taller and wider than humans? A bell curve of a living BF population would have some smaller than adult humans. Juvenile BF would be less experienced at avoiding contact, and probably skew a bell curve of BF size distribution in sightings to the small end of the bell curve. That does not seem to be the case and most BF are reported to be much larger than human. So I think embellishment or fabrication is frequently at play. I've never seen a Bigfoot but I could sure as heck create one heck of a whopping good sighting report. A little homework is all one needs to get in the sighting report game. Crowlogic...this is the "some people lie, so don't trust anyone" roadblock that keep the evidence from ever being discussed on any higher plane. This is what John Michael Greer likes to refer to as a "thought stopper", and he is so correct. When you toss out a conclusion like this, you've already disengaged from seriously discussing the evidence. When you fail to recognize that, yes, some kinds of people are generally more trustworthy than others, despite the very real bad acts by a few in those classes, you've shortcut the need to think about the content of what the others tell you. Result being, it all gets swept under the rug, never to be seriously addressed. We've been doing it for decades on this topic, with a predictable result. We can break this cycle, but not with those kinds of flippant dismissals, in my opinion. Thanks. The best way to keep a myth going is to have the proof swept under the rug. In 50 years the rug never leaked truth, never leaked proof? **** good rug............. Quote from Tyinhell And then Wolftrax posts this http://bigfootforums.com/uploads/post-128-010663700%201296341913.gif CLICK TO ANIMATE Man I forgot about the Skookum cast. This IMO represents the epitome of both actual contortions as well as mental conturtions some will go through to keep a belief going. It's a bloody Elk lay folks! All the pseudo science in the world isn't going to change it!
WSA Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 Crowlogic...so, if I follow you here (and not sure if I do)...because the evidence (I didn't say proof) has not yielded any definitive answers after being sat upon for decades this is an argument for what, exactly? More of the same? And this was to serve the purpose of keeping the myth alive, if I do follow you?
Cotter Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 People from all walks of life say and do all kinds of things. A forest ranger or a policeman are not immune to misidentification or spinning tales. Police have been known to break their own codes of conduct during duty so if that's any indication of what's possible then there is a certain yard stick to go by. One of the Georgia boys was a police officer. We have long past the [point of he said she said with this thing. It's heart breaking to admit it's a dead issue and the only thing keeping it afloat is the circus of researchers who are either in it for the jollies, money, attention or other. Please show one research effort that is not somehow mired in the circus. One will do but there isn't one. It's show biz, recreation and entertainment. It's not science and I fail to see how it is even research at this point.. Hi Crow - so you can't provide examples and that's fair. A different question then: How come these types of people are filing false BF claims and not unicorn claims? Your last 2 sentences I don't 100% disagree with, but feel you have become tunnel visioned through years of let-down. I am both skeptic and cynic. Started a thread on that last spring I believe. Nice to know, but if you would answer the questions posed that would be rad!
Guest Crowlogic Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 Crowlogic...so, if I follow you here (and not sure if I do)...because the evidence (I didn't say proof) has not yielded any definitive answers after being sat upon for decades this is an argument for what, exactly? More of the same? And this was to serve the purpose of keeping the myth alive, if I do follow you? The myth lives because it fills a need in humans for the "out there mysterious." I don't think anybody is sitting on proof for decades. The only sure proof sitting seems to within the Bigfoot community where the "Proofsters" remain sitting on their proof usually for god only knows why. I have the proof but I save it to protect the beasties is a common rational. Sorry that does not fly. But today it's a bit more problematic because folks will subscribe (pay money) to these proofsters who have no intention of delivering the goods. Those goods BTW would be worth millions, that is if they possessed those alleged goods. Hi Crow - so you can't provide examples and that's fair. A different question then: How come these types of people are filing false BF claims and not unicorn claims? Your last 2 sentences I don't 100% disagree with, but feel you have become tunnel visioned through years of let-down. Nice to know, but if you would answer the questions posed that would be rad! One of the biggest modern hoaxes involved a Georgia police officer. Does that count? Remember Bigfoot in the freezer? Hi Crow - so you can't provide examples and that's fair. A different question then: How come these types of people are filing false BF claims and not unicorn claims? Your last 2 sentences I don't 100% disagree with, but feel you have become tunnel visioned through years of let-down. Nice to know, but if you would answer the questions posed that would be rad! Because unicorns are so obviously myth. Bigfoot is just within the reach of possibility. But we'll be on Mars and there will still be no Bigfoot.
WSA Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 Crowlogic, still trying to puzzle out your views here, and they strike me as pretty circular, if I do say so. Consider what you are saying (I think). You say there is no need to do any kind of serious thinking about who reports BF evidence, because some who have made reports of that kind could be liars, and somehow, the shunting aside of that evidence has perpetuated the myth? If I'm not understanding you, please tell me. If I am, it would seem that the way to debunk the myth would be to give these reports serious investigation to see if they stand up, not wave your hand at them so as to make them go away. The large majority of those who are reporting sightings have not shown any propensity to lay claims to having "proof", but merely want somebody to help explain what they witnessed. I too am looking for that reasoned explanation. Seems like a sensible expectation to me.
Recommended Posts