A Bold New Approach To Bf Research...

[roguefooter]

ok, so that's 1,2,3,4,...10..no, wait, let me count the etc etc etc that 13 out of 10,000!

 

that's like zero. 000000000000000000000000.......000000000......000000000000013%...!!!

 

yup, I'm convinced boogers don't exist

 

 

zzzzzzzzzz

 

Nobody is arguing that they don't exist so what are you going on about?

 

We're discussing a claim that all the evidence supports existence. What I listed was a part of that evidence- and it certainly doesn't support the claim. Saying that there's 10,000 more doesn't support anything either, especially since the majority of it is anecdotal.

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

 

You cannot tell people what these creatures are about or how they operate with us on the net. You have to keep things low key or hoaxers will use this info. Been hoaxed three or four times and I do not like it ,by people reading these threads. Whether they hoped that I would mess up with posting the hoax  only to be laughed at later. No more tricks and now I do things so that I am not hoaxed.

Let's not forget the government conspiracy keeping the existence of bigfoot a secret.  Why not just look at all the hoops and contortions the believing/proponent community puts themselves and everyone else through making excuses for it not being proven. 

[Guest DWA]

^^^You two are what a baaaaaaaaaad headache sounds like.  Might want to rest it a bit.  The rest of us will carry on, don't worry.

[Guest Crowlogic]

^^^You two are what a baaaaaaaaaad headache sounds like.  Might want to rest it a bit.  The rest of us will carry on, don't worry.

Well of course every 4th grader knows bigfoot exists and to consider otherwise is just being contrite.  Perhaps you can explain how a big base of hoax based evidence emerged from a tiny base of real evidence?  What could possess people to run amok like that?  

[roguefooter]

Do people faking real stuff mean the real stuff isn't real?  

 

 

If none of it can be proven to be real, then how can you call any of it "real stuff"?

 

 

The Skookum cast was left by a sasquatch.  You don't know how much you're telegraphing your need to read up.

 

  

 

Uh huh, a sasquatch that's anatomically the same as an elk.

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/skookum_hokum.htm

 

 

No it is not.  It is not bigfoot evidence.  You aren't too good at this.  Are you.

 

 

Yet many casts by those people are still being sold at Bigfoot conventions and still being presented as evidence, even by Meldrum. What about all the samples for both DNA studies? They must have not been Bigfoot evidence either..

 

 

This was you marveling at 'real Bigfoot evidence' on April 1st:

 

"a sound at the end that nothing else in NA makes.."

 

"how 'bout, finding hair that no one can match with anything known.."

 

"Those who specialize in hip-shoot analysis and never think about the details will totally gloss over how practically every single subtlety one would expect in a legitimate scientific newsflash is present here.."

 

"To anyone tossing the usual scoff brickbats all I can say is:  the denial is strong in that one, Luke."

 

Do you really think you should be the one preaching about what's evidence and what isn't?

Edited June 5, 2015 by roguefooter

[Guest Crowlogic]

 Skookum Cast!  OUCH!  When that was happening I was still a proponent.  You can't tell much from the appearance and you can't say much about it if you don't know about Elk.  I'm not an expert on Elk so it was an open question that could be followed as it was analysed.  I had reservations as to why a bigfoot would adopt such an inefficient posture  in order to grab a piece of fruit from the ground.  One thing about it it wasn't a fake contrived object.  Eventually I saw an artist rendition of the posture the bigfoot was in and that clinched it.  The creature must be outright stupid or outright lame as in needing to get off it's feet.  Consider the thing strides up to the fruit then does the one thing that is the most dangerous position it can assume it lays down and becomes an easier target for capture or assault.  Heck it they're sooooooo smart they knew humans were around and they know what humans do but no it lays down and takes the bait and also getting itself full of mud and dirt in the process.

 

So just for that moment the king of cunning and stealth turned stupid became an easy target.  It was said oh no no no it didn't want to leave footprints so it laid down.  Well kids I suppose that bigfoot was a very special kind of stupid because it gave us a great body imprint if one is so inclined to accept it as such.  Perhaps it knew that if it laid down we might think it was and Elk lay?

[Guest DWA]

That's a weetad overheated, gang.  You're trying too much to keep the sunshine out.  Let some in.

 

Anyone who thinks Skookum is an elk thinks the elk either carefully brushed over its tracks, or levitated.  Take yer pick and there's no Door #3.  Daris Swindler over any Noob Logician on that one.  Google him up a bit.

[Guest DWA]

If none of it can be proven to be real, then how can you call any of it "real stuff"?

 

Leave it to a bigfoot skeptic.  [Makes the big WHOOOOSH motion over his head]  Reread, and think.

  

 

Uh huh, a sasquatch that's anatomically the same as an elk.

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/skookum_hokum.htm

 

You'll believe anything won't you.  Handy info.  Hey rogue!  BIGFOOT'S REAL.  Now.  Go back and READ THAT again.  And tell me where all those stoodious folks think the elk went from that imprint..without having to stand up.

 

 

This was you marveling at 'real Bigfoot evidence' on April 1st:

 

"a sound at the end that nothing else in NA makes.."

 

"how 'bout, finding hair that no one can match with anything known.."

 

"Those who specialize in hip-shoot analysis and never think about the details will totally gloss over how practically every single subtlety one would expect in a legitimate scientific newsflash is present here.."

 

"To anyone tossing the usual scoff brickbats all I can say is:  the denial is strong in that one, Luke."

 

Do you really think you should be the one preaching about what's evidence and what isn't?   BIG TIME YES.  Remember:  you're the alternative. 

 

Figures rogue here - given his impressive track record picking out from the Skookum article the clauses that suited his worldview - would miss the most important thing I said in that thread:  that scientists aren't making a joke when they make press releases.  People rely on their judgment.  That I did is what a scientist should.  More evidence is what sorts out the frauds, not "I know this backward and forward"  when you GUFFAW think Skookum is a FLYING ELK...!!!

Edited June 5, 2015 by DWA

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Well, actually, wrong.  Since it is obvious to all assembled that you need sasquatch proven ten years ago, it's time for *you* to show *us* how it's done.

 

Although you are a bit late.  As I just said, sasquatch is proven.  That most people don't know that puts it right with many other scientific discoveries that didn't get acknowledged for a long time.  Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn, nothing new.

 

(bolded) nope and nope.

 

Every declaration you make that bf is proven is an untruth and shows arrogance and ignorance.

 

My end game in this? Just wanted to spark some discussion instead of the backslapping and high fives that have been going around here lately.

 

Deedub how do YOU propose a bigfoot should be captured?

[Guest Crowlogic]

That's a weetad overheated, gang.  You're trying too much to keep the sunshine out.  Let some in.

 

Anyone who thinks Skookum is an elk thinks the elk either carefully brushed over its tracks, or levitated.  Take yer pick and there's no Door #3.  Daris Swindler over any Noob Logician on that one.  Google him up a bit.

I know who Darius Swindler was.  I also saw him agreeing with that idiotic mouth movement/mouth positioning Owen Caddy put together of Patty on one of big bigfoot documentaries.  It's mind boggling that that got passed as credible and even more mind boggling that Swindler was agreeing with Caddy.  However the bar is set pretty low for some of that stuff.

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

Those who know sasquatch exists have absolutely nothing to prove to anyone. That is not their job. Making a claim does not mean the claimant has to prove the hypothesis. If this were the case there would not be scientists proving the predictions of other scientists. But sasquatch proponents are not even scientists, and again it is not their job to prove the species, even if they claim bigfoot is real. Plus, most believers are not attempting to force their beliefs on anyone else. Instead, these people congregate in a place where they feel safe discussing their beliefs without fear of ridicule, ie a bigfoot forum. They are not trying to prove anything, rather they are interested in either gaining a greater understanding through the experiences of others, and sharing in fellowship with like-minded individuals. I could understand a skeptical individual saying "put up or get out" if proponents were in peoples' faces shouting that bigfoot was real, but this is not the case. Instead, these so-called "skeptics" seem to be SEEKING OUT believers, followed by bullying them into proving their beliefs. When you look at the infiltration from this perspective the actions of the skeptics does not make much sense.

 

Continuing on what I mentioned earlier, it is not as if a believer complaining about the failure of science somehow means that the believer should go out and prove the species. If they are nice enough to try, then more power to them, but again it is not their job...even if they are complaining. The complaints come from a failure of professionals to do their jobs. It would be one thing if these professionals had no clue that sasquatch was out there, but this is not the case. The aggregate of credible reports from within their own ranks, such as those professionals in wildlife-related fields, provides more than enough reason for something to be done. Yet things are ignored at best, and covered up at worst. Either of those ends is bad, and places the blame on such organizations. This denial could be forgiven if such people/organizations were blindsided with the idea of bigfoot, but this is not the case.

 

There has been virtually nothing done by any of those professionals in the field of wildlife, much less anything scientific. At least put up a freaking bigfoot crossing sign, or set up locations to ****** (lol auto censor) bigfoot in a bear trap. Anything. Thus complaints by believers are warranted, if just for the fact that everything regarding bigfoot is ignored, no matter the source. It makes a certain amount of sense for these groups to ignore outside claims, as investigating them may require more resources than they are willing to expend, but when you've got individuals on the payroll who come across something that is obviously novel, "something" needs to be done. Virtually all instances of research into these animals has been conducted by amateurs out of necessity. Skeptics ignore this fact and constantly shout for professional results. Professional results > amateur researchers, to put it in internet speak. Now I'M getting a headache.

Edited June 5, 2015 by JiggyPotamus

[Guest Crowlogic]

 The complaints come from a failure of professionals to do their jobs. It would be one thing if these professionals had no clue that sasquatch was out there, but this is not the case. The aggregate of credible reports from within their own ranks, such as those professionals in wildlife-related fields, provides more than enough reason for something to be done. Yet things are ignored at best, and covered up at worst. Either of those ends is bad, and places the blame on such organizations. This denial could be forgiven if such people/organizations were blindsided with the idea of bigfoot, but this is not the case.

 

 

I've often wondered what would change with "professionals in the field.  What exactly is a biologist going to do differently?  Field work is observation for the most part.  I sometimes think people envision an army of biologists descending on a forest and with geo tracking devices and walkie talkies marching in mass into the woods like something out of the movies.  Even if that could happen the learning curve is too steep to give meaningful results in any kind of short time frame.  

 

You can't find bigfoot from a helicopter or 4 wheeler and then there is the host of experienced researchers who already know or claim to know something of the beast's MO.  It's a bit late to get the pros involved.  I have wondered why when massive manhunts are staged in wilderness areas that nobody ever turns up anything bigfoot.  You'd think that by now at least that the search for one lost hiker would have a bonus find.  But we don't need scientists we have  the habituators who interact on a daily basis with them..  Isn't it strangely convenient that they are to the last person keeping it to themselves?  But that's another thing in and of itself and I'm sure worthy of a Masters thesis.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Crowlogic

[ohiobill]

Crow - I agree, it seems silly to claim that science has never examined the subject. We've had numerous direct investigations and countless examples of indirect investigations by biologists and naturalists over the years with no proof. Every birdwatcher, hiker, hunter, fisherman, survivalist, logger, trapper, driver etc is a de facto squatcher and amateur or professional biologist! Every man, women and child alive today, every one of the 7 billion + people alive today has failed in bringing forth a sample specimen as far as we can currently prove. Humanity - thou hast failed! It's mind boggling to hear how it's "science's" fault that evidence is hard to come by regarding a creature with no known samples. Bring in one slab monkey or bring forward an HD video and money will flow bringing tactics, equipment and manpower. Until then it's business as usual.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Scientists are used to working with and collecting hard data. The Bigfoot phenomenon just doesn't allow for that, so I can see why most academics don't bother with the subject. Researching the Bigfoot phenomenon would be a waste of time for many people. Plus, this field doesn't even need more scientists than it already has. It's already been looked at by people who have a good understanding of science and it's not getting anywhere. We need people who can obtain proof. In this case a specimen. 

Edited June 6, 2015 by OntarioSquatch

[southernyahoo]

I sometimes wonder if the skepticism towards bigfoot isn't so instilled in peoples minds that they wouldn't believe or accept it even if they were told by scientists on TV. If you think about it, very few privileged people will get to examine a specimen in person, and pictures and videos just doesn't do it. We even have fake documentaries these days.