Guest DWA Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Well, when one is insisting upon not interacting with the reality of subjects like this, imaginary numbers do tend to get used a lot, yes. See: CCP.
Guest Cervelo Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 This is being discussed in another thread....what do you guys think it shows?
Guest DWA Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Yes, but see, if you have no skin in the game, it's just hard to take your opinions seriously. That's my big problem with bigfoot skeptics: no skin in the game. So no homework done; no serious opinions; no need to take them seriously.
dmaker Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) Define "skin in the game" there DWA. Your problem with bigfoot skeptics, or anyone that disagrees with Meldrum or Bindernagel, is that they will not accept the existence of bigfoot without proper proof. Edited January 16, 2014 by dmaker
bigbear Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 identifying alpha coyotes when hunting is a lot easier than trying to identify alphas in a photo, in fact I kind of wonder how they do that unless a particular animal was previously identified as an alpha of the area and then that particular one simply doesn't show up on the camera? Yes coyotes and alphas will avoid cameras but there is a lot more to it than "they see the camera" is all I am getting at. Coyotes are very wary as it has been said, very much so to scent. It is more likely that when deploying a game camera scent is left behind by the person walking in and out of area a coyote will pick up on this scent, then lay down his own scent as a marker and reminder that this area is fishy keep clear. Wind direction, entry point and set up/overlook location is paramount when hunting coyotes, if you get set up and get a 180 degree wind shift you simply call it at day at that spot and move to another one of your call spots that works with the wind for that day.
Cotter Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 ^I certainly can't argue with that. But it still doesn't explain how BF can ID and avoid them regularly. Only that they do, and there are other animals that are capable of it that have much less intelligence. Without knowing the sensory abilities of BF, it's a (S)WAG by either proponents and skeptics alike.
bigbear Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Here is a study that I always found fascinating with chimps, if you start at 3:30 in I think you will get the gest of it. Point being that it seems primates have a better flash photographic type memory than humans. Is it short term or long term? I don't know if they looked much into that but also at the 7:50 mark they note a particular instance where several seconds go by before the chimp inputs its answer, could they remember number locations and sequence several days later IDK? All this being said I would not find it un-reasonable that if indeed BF exists that it's visual photographic memory could be far superior than ours especially in regards to a home range/territory allowing them to notice subtle changes that would go unnoticed to a human. So with that said in the off chance a BF became aware of game cameras and for some reason made up their mind that they need to avoid them it would not be unreasonable for them to be able to spot them and identify them quickly but that still leaves the question of why would they put so much effort into avoiding them when from so many eye witness reports BF does not seem to be wary of other man made things, like vehicles, or all these gives habituators "give" squatch ect... why so wary about game cameras but you know what, that truck over there, let me go put some hand prints on it. Doesn't jive in my book something is smells funny
dmaker Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 ^I certainly can't argue with that. But it still doesn't explain how BF can ID and avoid them regularly. Only that they do, and there are other animals that are capable of it that have much less intelligence. Without knowing the sensory abilities of BF, it's a (S)WAG by either proponents and skeptics alike. My bold. You are assuming, of course, that they exist. You cannot say that as factual. All that we can say as factual is that there are no bigfeets on the pictures that we have seen. You cannot say that they avoid them as a fact. Now some of us interpret the lack of bigfeet images from these studies as an additional source of strong evidence that bigfoot does not exist. Others, have different ideas that usually include some special pleading for bigfeets. You cannot say, as a fact, that this proves that bigfeets avoid trail cams anymore than I can say that it proves they do not exist, or are not present in those areas. To me it is compelling evidence that bigfeets are not there. It is certainly a mystery why they are not showing up on these cams. For you, it is just evidence that they are avoiding them for a host of speculated reasons.
Cotter Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 ^Agreed. The base assumption on my part is that they do indeed exist. I didn't however evaluate all possible reasons for it. Perhaps you are correct in that they do not avoid them, but by pure chance they haven't been caught on a game cam pic that has been released to the public. Of course I do see the other explanation as a possibility as well, that they do not exist.
Guest DWA Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 There are all kinds of possibilities here. What tickles me is all the people who think they've nailed it down when their own words tell me that they haven't even devoted significant thought to it.
kitakaze Posted January 18, 2014 Author Posted January 18, 2014 DWA significant thoughts... Nobody will be satisfied with a DNA result - and 'unknown primate' has come back more than once - Can not even specify once. Nobody else, not even NAWAC, has put the effort into actively hunting for the animal that P and G did to get that film. You could look it up. "Bob Gimlin, a friend of mine, and myself had been in the area a little over a week." - Roger PattersonLast Saturday they arrived to look for the tracks themselves and to take some films of these, riding over the mountainous terrain on horseback by day and motoring over the roads and trails by night. - Roger Patterson interview, October 20th, 1967.http://www.bigfooten...es/firstpgf.htm 1
hiflier Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Hello Cotter, .....but by pure chance they haven't been caught on a game cam pic that has been released to the public..... A point I bring up every now and then too. I ws talking to Loren Coleman a couple of weeks ago and he was telling me about some border patrol guys that came into his Museum one day. They look at thermal images for Human sized forms. They see all kinds of animals in their areas of surveillance. He said the guys do on rare occasions see larger "things". Is there a way to delve into this part of the mystery further? 1
Guest Cervelo Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) DWA significant thoughts... Can not even specify once. "Bob Gimlin, a friend of mine, and myself had been in the area a little over a week." - Roger Patterson Last Saturday they arrived to look for the tracks themselves and to take some films of these, riding over the mountainous terrain on horseback by day and motoring over the roads and trails by night. - Roger Patterson interview, October 20th, 1967. http://www.bigfooten...es/firstpgf.htm Wow I had no idea that's how little time it took to film "Bigfoot", I wonder why he kept the camera so long.... Edited January 18, 2014 by Cervelo
Recommended Posts