Jump to content

A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark


Guest Crowlogic
 Share

Recommended Posts

Bigfoot skeptics can't avoid focusing on bright shiny...OK, smelly crappy objects.  We smell the difference and move on.  Clowns are smellable from a mile off, and say nothing about the evidence.

 

Bigfoot skepticism is the reason the clowns exist, when it gets right down to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then don't play a numbers game with me.

 

 

Why not? You are the one who said your stance might "prevent people from succumbing to belief". I'm not the one going around saying things like that. You are.

Edited by Neanderfoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you care to look at the thread that talks of the money invested in bigfoot research.  The oh money is never applied is tired and hollow .  How much did it take Roger Patterson to get his film?  How much did it cost Paul Freeman to get his video and his track casts?

 

I'll take a look at the money thread (assuming it's in this same section).

 

Freeman and Patterson's evidence doesn't do a thing to solidify proof.  Nor does it represent a scientific research/discovery approach.

I have no problem with Cotter.

 

 

Well....no problem other than I'm a yankee.

 

;-)

 

lol

At some point, results should be released so the claims/results can be reviewed and replicated by peers. If this doesn't happen research groups will continue to needlessly duplicate effort and struggle.

 

Hi Bohdi!

 

A couple quick comments on this statement.  The first part being that many groups (notice how I left out 'research' or 'scientific'?  LOL) have shared what they consider evidence and have been met with some crazy resistance from both sides of the coin.  As more of these groups go into secrecy, we will see less and less results until those results add up to proof.  I've yet to check out the money thread that Crow recommened (still wading through the last couple pages of this thread), but I would still like to pose the question as to what group or groups folks think fit the 'well funded scientific research' category. 

 

Regarding the needless duplication of efforts....I'm sure you are aware of the infighting between the pro groups.  It's almost like high-school cliques.....so I don't see the universal 'for the sake of science' flag being waved.  Unfortunately, the duplication will continue for the foreseeable future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the self proclaimed bigfoot experts can't even admit that the Skookum Cast was made by an elk. The cast is too close to home. Some of this industries finest have misidentified it... there is no going back now.

WSA, the only difference between the clown show and serious researchers is that the clown show claims to have evidence but when they produce it it's fake. Serious researcher have stick teepees, wood knocks, scary noises in the dark, and stories of bigfoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think rational people have to kneel down and worship at the alter of a myth steeped in hoaxing and tall tales you're as mistaken as you are about your belief in this subject.

I so wish this comment was in the premium section!  But I'll let my silence be my rebuttal.

 

;-)

These closed groups who make big but veiled claims and then ask for money to review their results should, IMO, been seen as particularly suspect.

 

AGREED!

To tell the truth Martin, I pay very little attention to the cavalcade of clowns out there. They are useful only to emphasize those who are going about it in a wholly different way. I like them only for entertainment value, and even for that purpose my gag reflex doesn't let me keep my attention there for long. We have folks though (you?) who can't tell one from the other. This must make the ability to tell good evidence from bad very hard.  

 

I think you hit the nail on the head as to why some folks get so tired of the circus......gag reflex is a good term to use as well as some of the pro-BF stuff I read is unpalatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Double agreed.

I do not trust anti kill groups that ask for money. Perpetuating the myth is a much better fiscal plan for them than real proof.

But I will say that there are exceptions to this as well. There are a few kind souls that truly want proof without harming the creature.

But there are also nameless groups that sell Bigfoot "expeditions" that have curfews and leaders that prep the area before hand, etc...

(raises eyebrow)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take a look at the money thread (assuming it's in this same section).

 

Freeman and Patterson's evidence doesn't do a thing to solidify proof.  Nor does it represent a scientific research/discovery approach.

 

Well....no problem other than I'm a yankee.

 

;-)

 

lol

 

Hi Bohdi!

 

A couple quick comments on this statement.  The first part being that many groups (notice how I left out 'research' or 'scientific'?  LOL) have shared what they consider evidence and have been met with some crazy resistance from both sides of the coin.  As more of these groups go into secrecy, we will see less and less results until those results add up to proof.  I've yet to check out the money thread that Crow recommened (still wading through the last couple pages of this thread), but I would still like to pose the question as to what group or groups folks think fit the 'well funded scientific research' category. 

 

Regarding the needless duplication of efforts....I'm sure you are aware of the infighting between the pro groups.  It's almost like high-school cliques.....so I don't see the universal 'for the sake of science' flag being waved.  Unfortunately, the duplication will continue for the foreseeable future.

Regarding duplication, I am aware of the infighting. I think the factional aspect of the sasquatch field surpasses any other paranormal field. The ufo folks have a go at one another but nobody comes close to the sasquatch groups in terms of straight-up antipathy between groups. It's a hindrance and I expect it to continue.

 

Regarding getting resistance when publishing results, it should be expected. When a scientific paper is published, the claims undergo ruthless scrutiny. Questions and challenges will be raised, the publishers must be able to answer the critics or rethink their findings. I listen to the Exposing PseudoAstronomy podcast, the host is an astronomer/geophysicist who did a very interesting episode on the difficulty in getting papers published in scientific journals. It is eye-opening and sounds like an ordeal BUT it means that the best possible information is presented and getting published is just the first hurdle, after publishing peers try to tear apart the conclusions/claims of the author and the author must defend. We should really expect nothing less if the goal is truly to get the best/most correct information out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the self proclaimed bigfoot experts can't even admit that the Skookum Cast was made by an elk. The cast is too close to home. Some of this industries finest have misidentified it... there is no going back now.

 

 

Daris Swindler was self proclaimed bigfoot expert? Words fail me. And it's not concluded to be an elk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that, while M.M. is BFRO the show doesn't belong to the BFRO, M.M. is simply paid "talent". I don't think that cliff of renae are BFRO and I believe the production company owns the show.

Hmmmm, sounds like something to look into further. Thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daris Swindler was self proclaimed bigfoot expert? Words fail me. And it's not concluded to be an elk.

I don't even know who Dari Swindler is...... but as to the rest.... My point exactly.....

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/skookum2.jpg

http://s847.photobucket.com/user/wolftrax2009/media/skookum-elk-comp-anim.gif.html

Edited by Martin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daris Swindler was self proclaimed bigfoot expert? Words fail me. And it's not concluded to be an elk.

While it's not unanimously been declared an elk, the majority and the more rational podcasts absolutely conclude that it's an elk. In fact, Wiki points that out.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skookum_cast

 

This is what I mean about claims needing to be rigorously vetted, skookum is unneeded distraction from real attempts to gain evidence and, while dismissed by most, is STILL being flogged here as potential evidence. Sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=328

While it's not unanimously been declared an elk, the majority and the more rational podcasts absolutely conclude that it's an elk. In fact, Wiki points that out.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skookum_cast

 

This is what I mean about claims needing to be rigorously vetted, skookum is unneeded distraction from real attempts to gain evidence and, while dismissed by most, is STILL being flogged here as potential evidence. Sad.

But why is it widely dismissed? Simply for the fact that Bigfoot doesnt exist therefore it must be an elk right?

There are real problems with the elk hypothesis that I see as a elk hunter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Steering Committee
BFF Donor

<While it's not unanimously been declared an elk, the majority and the more rational podcasts absolutely conclude that it's an elk.>

 

The BFRO still maintains it is a bigfoot cast I believe, even though many of it's members, including the co-founder is skeptical of that claim. Here's a pretty good and skeptical article from Bigfoot Encounters about the Skookum Cast, with commentary by many in the field. Most seem to be in agreement it is most likely an Elk.

 

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


so how did it rise off the ground without leaving a single hoof print in the cast area? was the elk of the pegasus variety?

 

But how did a bigfoot make that impression and not leave any footprints? There were plenty of Elk prints all around the cast area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so how did it rise off the ground without leaving a single hoof print in the cast area? was the elk of the pegasus variety?

Dr. Daris Swindler

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daris_Swindler

A Anthropologist who was skeptical until he reviewed the skookum cast.

http://orgoneresearch.com/2011/10/21/the-case-of-the-skookum-elk-cast/

 

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1758470&postcount=1

 

http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/fish-obit/

I really like this Cryptomundo article because it has a DWA response in the comments section and it's so typically DWA that it caused me to chuckle just a bit.

 

and to, hopefully, beat this horse to death:

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

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=328

But why is it widely dismissed? Simply for the fact that Bigfoot doesnt exist therefore it must be an elk right?

There are real problems with the elk hypothesis that I see as a elk hunter.

It's not skeptics that are dismissive, it's believers too. The link below shows a hunter who has shot an elk with a bow and goes on to describe why skookum is an elk lay. As an elk hunter you may find this more compelling.

 

http://orgoneresearch.com/2011/10/21/the-case-of-the-skookum-elk-cast/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...