Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[Guest DWA]

I was gonna post this on a "what's up with those bigfoot skeptics" thread but there are so many good examples of that here that, naaaah.  Besides which, that thread was one I necro-dredged because the current ones are kinda played.  (Man the old ones are RICH RICH RICH.  Count on more of that from me.)  But hell, let's go current, because bigfoot skepticism is a big part of every thread here, isn't it. Particularly a thread where the cams don't have it, um, that I know of, so not real, right?

 

Part - actually, most if not all - of the seven-blue-lines I see so much - even after a one-line poke - I think cuts to the question "why are you here?" about which you can never get a straight answer from a bigfoot skeptic, because they can never be straight with themselves on this, can they. 

 

So, it is just as with the evidence for sasquatch.  (Those game cams have gotten some *interesting stuff,* count on it.  There, on topic! I will endeavor to continue that in this post.)
We have to speculate on this ourselves, as the bigfoot skeptics aren't talking, just as the sasquatch isn't.

 

I have come to realize that this comes down to two things.

 

1.  If you are a proponent, or just curious, you come here to *find out things.* To learn, to tell of your experiences, to *exchange.*

2.  If you are a bigfoot skeptic - and some evince these traits *even when they've had an experience,* isn't that interesting - you have two things going on, that I have seen in abundance.  (This is kinda like tracks.)  First:  you have a conviction, that for some reason you hold with evangelical fervor.  ("I've never seen one, and I've been told all my life...". That's the core of it with almost all of them, count on it.)  Second:  you have a need to make the world right on this, to get the world to come over to you on this, because *it has to.*  Because. It.Has.To.

 

(There is NO WAY a bigfoot skeptic will *ever* put up a game cam shot of a bigfoot on a site where we're trying to *cling to comfortable reality* here. That's why the CCP won't ever post a bigfoot shot. Because, as male handling of the placenta is with Trobriand Islanders, so is bigfoot to the mainstream. TABOOOOOOO.)

(If you are a male Trobriand midwife:  apologies.  Example.  BYGONES.)

 

There are two possible reasons the CCP doesn't show us the bigfoots.  That there have been none activating a camera, sure, could be one.  Alpha *coyotes* avoid trail cams.  So, something smarter could too.  But we have evidence, albeit, sure, indirect, that sasquatch might conceivably do *other stuff* to game cams, and no, unless you can show me something else did this, this stays right here:  http://woodape.org/reports/report/detail/2270  Read the whole thing.

 

"Sasquatch ain't real" can NEVER BE! a reason the CCP doesn't pick them up, because no one can prove that.  Can they. Plus WA is one of the evidence-richest states.  So just no.

 

But that make-the-world-right thing, it is strong in these ones.  It can be the only reason they are here to talk about a subject that has zero practical impact on their lives; for which the evidence thoroughly contradicts them, but they can never admit that; in which they display little if any of the required techo-scientific inclinations nor chops.

 

I had a bigfoot skeptic *pay for a Premium membership* for me once, because he thought it *that important* that I know what he thought of me.  I had one come here *specifically seeking me out* because he knew I Needed To Be Saved/Studied, the difference actually doesn't matter, does it?

 

In fact.

 

Know those movies where The Man Who Has Seen and Knows is yelling at the other characters FOOLS! FOOLS!  TURN BACK!  YOU WILL DIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEE....!!!!!  Before he gets sedated/dragged away/given two tix to a Red Sox game, go have fun and stop bothering us, 'kay? Know them?

 

Know the only difference between that guy and the bigfoot skeptic?

 

THAT GUY WAS RIGHT.

 

(you say BIGFOOT, AHAHAHAHAHAHA! and walk on down the street, one thing.  5000 posts here - not picking up a thing - that's not right.)

 

And get a bigfoot on that cam...and send it here.  We'll know what to do.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by DWA

[dmaker]

27 minutes ago, DWA said:

I had a bigfoot skeptic *pay for a Premium membership* for me once, because he thought it *that important* that I know what he thought of me

Not true. I paid for your membership for two reasons:

 

Mainly to support the forum financially.

And to tell you off in language not allowed on the general forum. 

 

It was worth every penny

30 minutes ago, DWA said:

(Those game cams have gotten some *interesting stuff,* count on it.

Said only a couple of hours after this:

 

"  Something that didn't happen would need to be proven, I'd think "

 

Inconsistent much?

34 minutes ago, DWA said:

First:  you have a conviction, that for some reason you hold with evangelical fervor. 

Pot, meet kettle.

Edited June 16, 2017 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

18 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Not true. I paid for your membership for two reasons:

 

Mainly to support the forum financially.

And to tell you off in language not allowed on the general forum. 

E-VAN-GELICAL. All I'm doing is discoursing dispassionately on science.  And KABOOM

Quote

 

It was worth every penny

Said only a couple of hours after this:

 

"  Something that didn't happen would need to be proven, I'd think "

 

Inconsistent much?

Pot, meet kettle.

Sorry, but wrongo.  See, we scientists know how to assess stuff; why I don't sweep the horizon with my automatic weapon every time I step outdoors because I don't want a Pteranodon to carry me off. Why I'm only looking for cars crossing the street and not tyrannosaurs.

 

That Fahrenbach thing didn't happen.  That is what is called a "safe assumption." And we will see no evidence it did.  That is what is called a "safe assumption."  Patty will never be shown a fake.  Ditto.  'coz it ain't.  Ditto; based on copious backup for both items of evidence associated with the film:  the animal meeting the descriptions of thousands of witnesses, very few of which have seen the film, and the trackway in its path of departure, considered by Meldrum - an authority - the type trackway, and he's looked at more than anyone. 

Science is always about *way to bet.*  Consistent.  Always.

Edited June 16, 2017 by DWA

[dmaker]

We scientists, huh? I think your report fever has clouded your judgement. You believe the below is a picture of an actual bigfoot. And let's not forget how you so blatantly fell for that obvious April Fool's prank a couple of years ago. 

 

[Guest Starling]

14 minutes ago, DWA said:

E-VAN-GELICAL. All I'm doing is discoursing dispassionately on science.  And KABOOM

Sorry, but wrongo.  See, we scientists know how to assess stuff; why I don't sweep the horizon with my automatic weapon every time I step outdoors because I don't want a Pteranodon to carry me off. Why I'm only looking for cars crossing the street and not tyrannosaurs.

 

That Fahrenbach thing didn't happen.  That is what is called a "safe assumption." And we will see no evidence it did.  That is what is called a "safe assumption."  Patty will never be shown a fake.  Ditto.  'coz it ain't.  Ditto; based on copious backup for both items of evidence associated with the film:  the animal meeting the descriptions of thousands of witnesses, very few of which have seen the film, and the trackway in its path of departure, considered by Meldrum - an authority - the type trackway, and he's looked at more than anyone. 

Science is always about *way to bet.*  Consistent.  Always.

 

 

Except when you clearly aren't. 

[dmaker]

I don't know if Fahrenbach identified synthetic hair as real hair, or not. But he is certainly wrong somewhere in that whole thing. According to Bourstev, he gathered hair from Carter's farm and that hair was identified as bigfoot hair by Fahrenbach. But we now know the entire thing was made up. So, what exactly, did Fahrenbach identify as bigfoot hair, if the entire story was made up?

[hiflier]

 

3 hours ago, dmaker said:

How would someone who believes bigfoot to be a social construct move "forward"? Proponents will never accept that bigfoot is not real.  I truly do not understand when people point to skeptics and proponents alike to solve the mystery. What mystery? There is myth, but no mystery. For me, at least. I understand that is different for others, most particularly curious proponents like yourself and Twist. 

 

Attempting to demonstrate how bigfoot fits more as a myth than a living creature, I guess, does contribute to solving the mystery. But that requires one to accept myth as the most likely explanation. That does not happen all that often, I don't think.

 

With all due respect your not the only skeptic, dmaker there are many skeptics who are not as hardlined as yourself. That leave just about everyone else  For instance I'm a skeptic who is 51% proponent and 49% opponent. Neither in your camp nor DWA's but somewhere in between and I think quite a few folks are somewhere in between as well. Those people might be sitting on the Sasquatch tack and will do so until it starts to hurt too much. They will finally want way forward from the "Yes, it is/No, it's not" "Uh Huh/Nuh Uh" debates and do something about it.

 

It may either take someone like me who has reached that point long ago or take it upon themselves to get things going. It's called growing up and taking action. Something neither you nor DWA need to do obviously. So.......realistically.......this isn't about either of you at all  and so is no concern of yours. I asked you once and you gave me your answer although all you had to really say was "No" but chose to elaborate. And that's all I'm doing- elaborating- without including you or DWA of course.

Edited June 16, 2017 by hiflier

[Twist]

I'm about where you are hiflier.  Just on the proponent side, say, 60/40.   I don't do anything to actively seek out BF but I am an avid camper and outdoors person. I always have my eyes peeled waiting for that chance siting.  I ride motorcycles all over Mi but primarily up around the Manistee Nat'l forest area and hope for something.

 

History and, I can't believe I'm saying this, THE REPORTS suggest I'm likely to be more successful in encountering a Sasquatch if I'm just going about my normal routine when in the woods.  I believe I'm more likely to catch a glimpse at BF if he is curious about me and not observing me in what may be interpreted as a stalking or hunter type light.  My eyes are always peeled when camping or just riding thru "squatchy areas"

[dmaker]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

With all due respect your not the only skeptic, dmaker there are many skeptics who are not as hardlined as yourself.

Yes, hence why I said, "For me, at least"

 

For Pete's sake, when are you going to get over that I didn't like your idea about asking the government to solve the bigfoot question. Perhaps I should have used different words. Maybe I should have said naive, rather than childish. I wasn't trying to insult you. 

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

It may either take someone like me who has reached that point long ago or take it upon themselves to get things going. It's called growing up and taking action. Something neither you nor DWA need to do obviously.

Since you felt the need to mention me and insult me, I will ask you again. What sort of action do you think someone like me, who does not believe bigfoot to exist, should take?

[hiflier]

I'm long over that, dmaker. I was over it when you first responded.....er....maybe a little after that TBH. And not insulted in the least believe me. And ditto BTW. Don't want to insult you either- never my intention. I guess what I hear and have heard is folks come here and WAIT for something to break that never does. The Necro postings lately have been rather glaring in that regard have they not? And proponents have a lot of fun at my expense when I call them on it. In a sense we are the same as you call them on it too so believe me when I say I get your side of things completely. But since I'm not an outright non-believer I choose the path that goads action as a solution. Something that I wouldn't ask of anyone if I wasn't doing it myself.

 

People say I try to get others to do my work for me and nothing could be further from the truth. I AM taking action but I have to be sensitive about my approach and that means being discreet and not blabbing it all over the danged internet. Do I have help? Not from this Forum I don't (goad, goad  ) But when folks get fed up with the status quo things may change on that front. I ain't holdin m'y breath though. But I'm not standing still either. We'll see.

Edited June 16, 2017 by hiflier

[dmaker]

The necro posting is out of control. It's a one note, one man marching band parade banging loudly down main street solely to hear himself talk. 

 

 

[hiflier]

With zilch in all of its forms for moving beyond mere thread and post count into science. Intentionally turning the subject of Sasquatch back onto itself and into the dark ages. Progress diffusion? Oh, I think very much so about that agenda. Hopeless.

[Guest Starling]

12 hours ago, dmaker said:

How would someone who believes bigfoot to be a social construct move "forward"? Proponents will never accept that bigfoot is not real.  I truly do not understand when people point to skeptics and proponents alike to solve the mystery. What mystery? There is myth, but no mystery. For me, at least. I understand that is different for others, most particularly curious proponents like yourself and Twist. 

 

Attempting to demonstrate how bigfoot fits more as a myth than a living creature, I guess, does contribute to solving the mystery. But that requires one to accept myth as the most likely explanation. That does not happen all that often, I don't think.

 

This.

 

For those who see the cart correctly positioned behind the horse, the only mystery is why Barnum's statement that there's one born every minute Isn't more clearly in focus for those that have happened to have been born in that qualifying category. 

 

Addendum: Plenty of forensic evidence for Grey's. Plenty. Recovered implants, physical marks on abductees, the usual indistinct video footage, endless consistency in reports (something you in your misguided approach hold a lot of store by). In other words exactly the same vast but inconclusive pool of evidence as there is for Bigfoot. But, no, science has failed us there as well. Only it has not. 

 

A psycho-social explanation accounts not only for the evidence but also the frustratingly ambiguous nature of what evidence there is and the miraculous abilities of the supposed subject. The razor categorically doesn't slice on the proponents side of the fence. In a way this is understandable as myopia tends to make people narrow thinkers.

7 minutes ago, Starling said:

 

This.

 

For those who see the cart correctly positioned behind the horse, the only mystery is why Barnum's statement that there's one born every minute Isn't more clearly in focus for those that have happened to have been born in that qualifying category. 

 

Addendum: Plenty of forensic evidence for Grey's. Plenty. Recovered implants, physical marks on abductees, the usual indistinct video footage, endless consistency in reports (something you in your misguided approach hold a lot of store by). In other words exactly the same vast but inconclusive pool of evidence as there is for Bigfoot. But, no, science has failed us there as well. Only it has not. 

 

A psycho-social explanation accounts not only for the evidence but also the frustratingly ambiguous nature of what evidence there is and the miraculous abilities of the supposed subject. The razor categorically doesn't slice on the proponents side of the fence. In a way this is understandable as myopia tends to make people narrow thinkers.

 

In fact I'd go as far as to say that by DWA's standards there's more accumulated evidence for the existence of Grey's than any other 'unproven' in history. What this doesn't prove is that they don't, like Bigfoot, fall neatly and very comfortably  into the same mythical strata of human consciousness previously occupied by gnomes and leprechauns. He can pat himself on the back all he wants, but until he proves just one of his beloved reports an accurate reflection of the REAL physical world we all occupy, he might as well be chasing little green men, godzilla or the fabled unicorn.

[Guest Starling]

credu|lous

[ˈkrɛdjʊləs]

ADJECTIVE

1. having or showing too great a readiness to believe things.

   "a ceremony staged for credulous tourists"

   synonyms: gullible · naive · impressionable · trusting · over-trusting · over-trustful · exploitable · dupable · deceivable · easily deceived · easily taken in · easily led 

Trusting in people as individuals is one thing but trusting the mercurial products of human nature is quite another. The spectrum of fantasy and deceit in the human social animal is enormous and cunning that as blind watchmaker go, it's a much bigger subject than Bigfoot will ever be. 

 

Show some humility in the face of it or live in the valley of delusion your whole life. 

[Guest DWA]

6 hours ago, Starling said:

 

 

 

For those who see the cart correctly positioned behind the horse, the only mystery is why Barnum's statement that there's one born every minute Isn't more clearly in focus for those that have happened to have been born in that qualifying category. 

And then they start getting *really frustrated.*  And post stuff like this, after coming on here with - here's ten times I have said it now - a half-baked thesis based on studies they have not read, clearly not applicable to the matter at hand.

 

Addendum: Plenty of forensic evidence for Grey's. Plenty. Recovered implants, physical marks on abductees, the usual indistinct video footage, endless consistency in reports (something you in your misguided approach hold a lot of store by). In other words exactly the same vast but inconclusive pool of evidence as there is for Bigfoot. But, no, science has failed us there as well. Only it has not. 

And then they believe BS like *this.* I'd start paying attention, because Barnum has sold you quite the bill.  (Why would anyone read up on Greys?) You need to stop doing what too many people do here:  *worship* science.  As a big bowl of facts, most of which you are not aware.  Science is a process to be practiced, not a god to be worshipped.  The proponents have done the science, and people like you get the big smh.  (Scotland.  Like you would know.)

 

Quote

 

A psycho-social explanation accounts not only for the evidence but also the frustratingly ambiguous nature of what evidence there is and the miraculous abilities of the supposed subject. The razor categorically doesn't slice on the proponents side of the fence. In a way this is understandable as myopia tends to make people narrow thinkers.

No it doesn't and I have shown you why.  This is so patently silly that you have gotten my last comment on it.  Taking the lunatic fringe's word for the 'miraculous' only shows how little attention you are paying.  You aren't anything but a foil here, and I've even gotten tired of that.  Bigfoot skepticism is characterized primarily by its extreme intellectual laziness.  And you're talking like a prime couch potato here.

 

Quote

 

In fact I'd go as far as to say that by DWA's standards there's more accumulated evidence for the existence of Grey's than any other 'unproven' in history. What this doesn't prove is that they don't, like Bigfoot, fall neatly and very comfortably  into the same mythical strata of human consciousness previously occupied by gnomes and leprechauns. He can pat himself on the back all he wants, but until he proves just one of his beloved reports an accurate reflection of the REAL physical world we all occupy, he might as well be chasing little green men, godzilla or the fabled unicorn.

[lid back on pot]

[Watch how frustrated his *next* post sounds.  All this breath he is wasting when he could be telling me why I'm wrong.  'cos I'm NOT.  Clearly, right?]
 

 

One wonders what they will say.  Here some of us have been on an uttermost frontier of the hard sciences for FIFTY YEARS, SINCE WE WERE TEN.  And genius here will only find out...the day the rest of the world knows. After all the chances we've given him and his ilk to be in on history before it happens.

 

(SCOTLAND, GUFFAW.)

Edited June 17, 2017 by DWA