WSA Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Crow seems to be getting balled up over the difference between "Some of this is not real" and "None of this is real." Then, his/her reasoning seems to veer off into the swamp of thinking this presents some kind of intractable situation with no chance of being resolved, ever. As DWA reminds us with DFW.'s wise words, this lack of discernment will only result in said hosing. Totally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) I had my moments. First was: a huge vegetarian in the PNW. That war a tough swaller for an 11-y-o much less a primatologist. Then there were those tracks; how did they get so dam *deep*? Had to be truck ruts; had to be; I was misremembering stuff. But...L/R...L/R....*truck ruts???* Shaped like big feet, on an unused-for-decades road bed miles from a *trail*? Then there was Backpacker Magazine saying sightings in every state but HI; I thought: tcheeeeez, it's UFOs. Then there was the BFRO database; and a backpacker for some time by that point, I had some points of reference. Then there was a *lot* of thinking. *A LOT.* By the time I'd picked up Meldrum and Bindernagel, it was page after page of "yes! Just what I thought!" At the frontiers of science it is mostly anecdotal, and one isn't going on much established fact. One has to really examine stuff and use one's noggin. It's like caving was in the 1980s: the big opp for people with day jobs and houses and kids and dogs to Boldly Go Where No Man Had Gone Before. Almost unique among all science's frontiers, this is like that. if you have gotten where the proponent scientists are, on your own bootstraps your own reading your own intensive thought your own time...*you,* my friend, are a cutting-edge big-S scientist, and leaving the overpaid overwrought techies in the dust. You are, here at the very least, passing the DFW test, and with flying colors to boot. Wotta time to be alive, I can't help but think. Edited April 14, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 I'd rather scientists having a problem with ^^^that just read Meldrum and Bindernagel and Krantz, for starters, and tell me why they're wrong, and why thousands of people who don't know much about primates are describing fine points of one. I can avoid the trash. If you call yourself a scientist...please follow suit. I've seen enough of Bindernagle's cast collection to scratch my head and wonder how much of it can be even remotely related to that of a upright walking biped that leaves human like prints. But the sheer range of foot shapes is a red flag. If you were to make sample casts of human beings from around the world they would look all pretty much the same. It wouldn't be a case of some showing MTB, or looking like a hand or having the wrong number of toes. Heck there's this guy down in Texas chasing 3 toed bigfoot. Oh come on no primate has 3 toes and none have ever morphed into having them. Jeff Meldrum signed on with Todd Standing which in my estimation has ruined his credibility. Grover Krantz is dead I'll tell Dr Bindernagel he's barking up the wrong tree and I'll tell Jeff Meldrum that he's fraternized twice with hoaxers in the form of Todd Standing and Paul Freeman which indicates his standards are less than the best. Eventually anyone with a stake in something of dubious reality can only do one of two things, they can dig themselves in deeper to rationalize the investment or they can withdraw having concluded that the field has nothing real to offer. If Jeff Meldrum walks away and announces that he's been taken or has been mistaken then he looses face. His professional colleagues will denounce him for having chased it in the first place and the bigfoot community will brand him a traitor. It's safer for him to stay put and also make whatever $$$$ he does from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Crow seems to be getting balled up over the difference between "Some of this is not real" and "None of this is real." Then, his/her reasoning seems to veer off into the swamp of thinking this presents some kind of intractable situation with no chance of being resolved, ever. As DWA reminds us with DFW.'s wise words, this lack of discernment will only result in said hosing. Totally. My position is none of it is real until proven real by the same standards that gets applied to all biological organisms. What I find hard to comprehend is the willingness of believers to accept the endless flood of garbage evidence in whatever form that evidence is taking. Also in response to a post you made I will ask is not a half a century a long enough time to realized it's all a myth? Is it realistic to say oh let's just give it another 100 years? If you are new to the subject than the weight of that half century of nothing is not of consequence. It is easy to say well in my time it'll happen. But for the person that has observed the game as long as I have the diminishing returns of proof begin to add up and they add up to there being nothing to the whole thing. So far my position is the one most taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Shut it down Crow, it is not going to get better for you, is what I would tell you over a beer, if we were sharing one. Take up shuffleboard or backgammon or water sports. You just aren't geared for this and the more you hang in, the more frustrated you will likely become. No shame in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) . Almost unique among all science's frontiers, this is like that. if you have gotten where the proponent scientists are, on your own bootstraps your own reading your own intensive thought your own time...*you,* my friend, are a cutting-edge big-S scientist, and leaving the overpaid overwrought techies in the dust. You are, here at the very least, passing the DFW test, and with flying colors to boot. Wotta time to be alive, I can't help but think. Or perhaps the books you read just happened to say the things you wanted to hear? Edited April 14, 2015 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Nope. Unlike some, I have devoted serious thought to this. I never read a book I didn't analyze. Might try that. Shut it down Crow, it is not going to get better for you, is what I would tell you over a beer, if we were sharing one. Take up shuffleboard or backgammon or water sports. You just aren't geared for this and the more you hang in, the more frustrated you will likely become. No shame in that. With emphasis. Crow, read my GreenQuote below. You gotta get there. You are *only* listening to what you want to hear, unlike those of us who *resisted* this idea...until the facts showed us we were wrong. The facts don't care who wants to hear what. You're clinging to something. You need to let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Shut it down Crow, it is not going to get better for you, is what I would tell you over a beer, if we were sharing one. Take up shuffleboard or backgammon or water sports. You just aren't geared for this and the more you hang in, the more frustrated you will likely become. No shame in that. Actually you are partially correct. I am not geared up for bigfoot belief since the field is essentially a faith based construct at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) 1,423 posts. Nope. He is entirely correct. You need to stop letting faith and its failure speak for you. It's obvious you took bigfoot as real on faith, only listened to what you wanted to hear, and proof didn't happen on your personal schedule. No, you might just as well have actually said those words. It is that obvious. The people who let no one dictate anything to them are the ones who tend to be on top of stuff. The facts do not care who gets hurt by what. The facts do not care who wants to listen to what. Edited April 14, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 But here's the rub Norse there are Wolverines available to stage with. Are there any Snow Leopards in captivity? They are photo documented in the wild. Not all wildlife documentaries are staged. When a Lion making a kill is filmed did the film crew stage it? Rare thing gets caught on camera and frequently enough caught well. What were the chances that the planes hitting the towers on 911 were caught at the moment of impact? Just look up how many plane crashes were caught on camera in recent years. Consider too that the people that filmed them were not looking to film a crash they just had the opportunity of the moment. Bigfoot researchers go into the wilds armed with cameras and supposedly knowledge of the beast and they return with essentially garbage documentation. It's been said that Patterson got lucky but exactly how lucky was he? On this site alone there are 20 researchers going out and claiming results but not one of them even approach Patterson's luck? Did Patterson know any more then they do? I think not we've had a half a century to learn about the thing and a half century to develop better technology. Bigfoot is nocturnal is the lament. Well get some night vision equipment and some thermal vision. Now we can see better than bigfoot at night. All of it returns nothing of substance. we have tons and tons of pictures and film of Sasquatch better than the PGF, WAY better........consensus is? There all a hoax.....why? Squatch doesnt exist, do you see the vicious circle? we have really cool thermal images of Sasquatch stealin zagnut bars off of stumps too. your not being truthful when you say there is no evidence out there. The truth of the matter is is that this type of evidence will never prove a thing. back to the wolverine analogy, Ive never seen one ever in the wild. Lions? The pac nw is not the serengeti......... a person can look at thousands of animals and dozens of species from one vantage point. if you dont have a buddy who is a biologist with a yaggi antenna? you and you film crew are not filming a wolverine. and if wolverines were 800 lbs and as of yet undiscovered? the film would be meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted April 15, 2015 Author Share Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) I barely have time to even log an entry much less follow these long debates, though I do not devalue them in the least. Only to say that if you take two steps back you see the illogical aspects of both sides. I am not here to change anyone's mind. I am here to discuss with those of you who have a belief in the creature, or better yet you have seen one, I am here to discuss the steps we need to take in order to silence our critics. I have sought to open the discussion of Sykes book which does suggest the probability of relic hominids existing today, and using Zana as an example. I think the attributes ascribed to her defy a standard definition of modern humans. Her size, agility, strength, physiology, and general behavior exhibited a variance to great to fall within our modern definition of Homo Sapien. Edited April 15, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diana swampbooger Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 I suppose the Evolutionary Biologists will stay out of the woods... & parse out the mtDNA & nuDNA.... The researchers/observers will continue as before.... In the meantime, plenty of work to do for everyone.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted April 15, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted April 15, 2015 While I will not debate the importance of DNA findings from Zana and the possibility of relic hominoids, that in all likelihood has nothing to do with the sasquatch phenomena. Descriptions, behavior, size, etc simply do not show much likelihood there is any direct association. Not having seen Sykes book yet, his methodology to this point seems to be to explain away the yeti and bigfoot as something else. He happily does that using DNA provided by others who claim it is from a yeti or BF. When it turns out to be something else then he publically announces that. All he is proving is that people are mistaken about what they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 I was highly impressed with the tooth research. I wish I had thought of it years ago but I didn't pay attention to the bones other than to note what animal it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted April 17, 2015 Author Share Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) SWWASP, I get your skepticism of Sykes motives, but none the less it is relative to the subject. If another subspecies of Humans is proven to have existed till the present time, that certainly opens the door to the possibility of other hominids still existing today. I have to disagree with your assertion. I have been leaning on the fence toward the ape camp for a while, but recent thoughts and research have me moving in the other direction again. I started out thinking that these creatures had a human component, abandoned that idea, and now I have gone full circle. I just cannot explain the intelligence factor any other way, they are simply way too intelligent to be in the ape category from my growing understandings. Edited April 17, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts