The Tree Break..... Explained.

[salubrious]

This thread is now open for posting.

 

Please observe forum rules as posted above.

[Rockape]

OK, cool.

 

 

Edited December 9, 2014 by Rockape

[norseman]

I didn't post this to rehash the echo incident for the umpteenth time.

I simply wanted to point out that Brian did address the tree break to a conclusion of the health of the tree in cyber land.

The link is there for all to listen to, make your own conclusions.

[Yuchi1]

_{My conclusion is the apparent lack of due diligence, prior to the initial reporting indicates an endemic deficit of forensic fact-finding in favor of making sensational statements designed to generate publicity first and facts, second. Add this one to all the other prior "incidents" and a pattern emerges of (IMO) behavior that distinguishes this group/endeavour as having no more expertise, professionalism or qualifications than any of the other so-called research groups.}

Edited December 9, 2014 by Yuchi1

[chelefoot]

I didn't post this to rehash the echo incident for the umpteenth time.

I simply wanted to point out that Brian did address the tree break to a conclusion of the health of the tree in cyber land.

The link is there for all to listen to, make your own conclusions.

Please let's stick to the subject.

[WSA]

My only additonal thought is just a general observation about all internet discussions, and not just as it interects with the late NAWAC thread. Al Gore's invention can enable us all to speak before we think, and induces an ever-acccelerating need to be the first to put his marker down on a conclusion. Necessarily, we are all doing that on imperfect information. The predicted result is that we can come to hasty and unfounded conclusions, even though the intent is only to discuss. Sometimes this predicted result does not happen, and there is a definitive conclusion that can reasonably be drawn from the limited information (Case in point, the "Primate Hand" thread, where photos alone pretty conclusively showed it was not) but many, many times, the information is less definitive by nature (Brown Thermal anyone?) or there may be key pieces of information missing.....as was the case, apparently, in the NAWAC thread. What you get in those cases is a bunch of warring factions, each lobbying for their favorite conclusion, and all without the crucial information required. It goes nowhere fast when that happens.

 

In a field like this, where so much is uncertain, our conclusions might should more often reflect that uncertainty. More often that not, the prudent response to information we are provided here might best be, "Hmmm....I sure would like to know more about this."  

[norseman]

_{My conclusion is the apparent lack of due diligence, prior to the initial reporting indicates an endemic deficit of forensic fact-finding in favor of making sensational statements designed to generate publicity first and facts, second. Add this one to all the other prior "incidents" and a pattern emerges of (IMO) behavior that distinguishes this group/endeavour as having no more expertise, professionalism or qualifications than any of the other so-called research groups.}

Your wrong.

Because most of the research groups deal in plaster casts and grainy photos.

Are you interested in more plaster casts and grainy photos? You must be, because you sure don't like pro kill organizations.

[Yuchi1]

Norse,

 

I respectfully disagree as my observations (and, thus conclusions) are based upon first-hand interaction with the bunch in NW Louisiana (the ones currently on cable), a couple of guys in the Kiamichi's, and close observation (and, interaction with past & present members) of a bunch based out of Stilwell, Oklahoma. All pro-kill and all (IMO) as inept as NAWAC.

[norseman]

And it's my opinion and observation that you have a thinly veiled agenda to discredit any and all pro kill organizations because you disagree with the mission on moral grounds. And you have been at it for a long time.

I have nothing personal against someone who does not feel it is moral to collect a type specimen. No matter how misguided I feel that stance is.

But I do have something against slander based on political motives.

And for the record I'am pro kill and active, and you have not observed me, so am I lumped in with the rest of the "inept"?

[Guest Stan Norton]

Norse,

I respectfully disagree as my observations (and, thus conclusions) are based upon first-hand interaction with the bunch in NW Louisiana (the ones currently on cable), a couple of guys in the Kiamichi's, and close observation (and, interaction with past & present members) of a bunch based out of Stilwell, Oklahoma. All pro-kill and all (IMO) as inept as NAWAC.

And you and your colleagues are, by inference, adept?

[Yuchi1]

And it's my opinion and observation that you have a thinly veiled agenda to discredit any and all pro kill organizations because you disagree with the mission on moral grounds. And you have been at it for a long time.

I have nothing personal against someone who does not feel it is moral to collect a type specimen. No matter how misguided I feel that stance is.

But I do have something against slander based on political motives.

And for the record I'am pro kill and active, and you have not observed me, so am I lumped in with the rest of the "inept"?

 

RE: Your accusation of slander...any evidence to substantiate such in the legal sense?

And you and your colleagues are, by inference, adept?

 

Your inference that I am involved in some type of research group is...well, inept.

[norseman]

You were involved in BF research, you said as much your self.

And I am not saying what your doing is illegal Yuchi. Have at it........

Bye.

[Yuchi1]

I was initially involved in the effort to kill one but evolved out of that phase.

 

What I'm especially critical of with the pro-kll groups observed thus far, is the commonplace pattern of juvenile behavior, moreso when cloaked with scientific/military jargon.

 

Norse, you do seem to be the exception in that you appear to be knowledgeable around firearms, and a sound woodsman/horseman.  However, even with those capabilities, you're hunting something, the public knowledge base thereof, is almost nonexistent.

 

Groups that attempt to classify these things as some type of simple-minded ape and yet have been after them for years w/o success are by definition, setting themselves up as "who's really the simple-minded" ones.  Predictably, they resort to revelations of periodic "events" or "incidents" in the attempt to maintain their relevance, in the public eye. Maybe, that's the spider web DavidNC was referring to with the result that once the criticism/questions become too much to deflect, you simply take your ball and go home?

 

IMO, Bigfootery appears to be pandemic with individuals bereft of true meaning in their lives for as a Scotsman once said. "every man (woman) dies, it's how you live that matters".

 

FWIW

[Guest]

Yuchi if you dont think they are apes, what do you think they are? I have an idea what youll say but just geuninely curious of others views.

[Yuchi1]

I don't know what they are from a scientific classification yet given their capacity to elude homo sapiens, speculate they are some form of hominin.