FarArcher Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 I surely lean in JDL's direction on this, although I keep going back and forth. Meat. Protein. BigTex can likely join in and add to this, but like him, I used to have a grey wolf. Unlike dogs I've had who pretty much ate what we did, and were great for cleaning up leftovers, the wolf only needs protein. I couldn't feed it dog food, I had to use the higher-protein cat food - or meat. THEN, if you fed it more than once a day - oh, he'd eat, but it would upset his digestive process. I think we've all seen multiple reports of stacked hindquarters etc., in caves, and I find that interesting on two levels. First, caves are natural refrigerators in the warmer months, and then, they keep things from freezing in the harsh winter. Sounds more like someone is "drying" meat while it's available, suitable to eat on during months it's maybe not as available. According to 411, lots of folks have disappeared just before a storm. When game usually lays up. If a lone human comes along when these critters know there may not be as much success hunting for a day or three, then that's just another source of protein - a prey of opportunity. But I also think they're clever enough, or knowing enough, to not make taking humans as a habit as it immediately brings pressure on them by other humans searching for the lost ones. And I'm a bit of a believer in genetic memory - if in days past there were raids and subsequent hunt-downs, that may be another reason for limiting their taking of humans.
Guest DWA Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Yah but your not going to change it! And sometimes our head hurts when you point it out for the umptenth time! We cannot change the rules, we can only keep throwing for the endzone and belittle those that keep calling dive plays. The defense will always be there and we cannot control that either. Not to change the subject but are you a NAWAC member now? People don't point it out enough! Somebody has to. The hat-in-hand approach hasn't worked, and I am frankly getting sick of it. When you're dealing with the deliberately blind deaf and dumb why not point it out, constantly? Don't they deserve it? Of course they do. Might get them to wonder what the heck it is that they are ignoring, something I can guarantee you never enters most of their heads now. If I could find all this out on my own recognizance...well, I have less than zero respect for a multi-degreed imbecile who can't even rouse himself to be interested in something ...he says the same things over and over about, incessantly. This may be just me. That guy ain't a scientist, and crapping on his shoes is really all I feel like doing. Nope, NAWAC is doing just fine without me...and, I might add, I am doing just fine without them. Although, yep, they're legit, and they're reporting actual events. What people who don't understand how to think about this don't seem to get is that the main difference between NAWAC and mainstream research is that they're informing people as they go. Mainstreamers tend to wait until the paper's written to utter a peep. NAWAC's way is better, of course. Edited October 21, 2015 by DWA
dmaker Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 "...he says the same things over and over about, incessantly. " Sounds like someone we all know. 1
norseman Posted October 22, 2015 Admin Posted October 22, 2015 Yah but your not going to change it! And sometimes our head hurts when you point it out for the umptenth time! We cannot change the rules, we can only keep throwing for the endzone and belittle those that keep calling dive plays. The defense will always be there and we cannot control that either. Not to change the subject but are you a NAWAC member now? People don't point it out enough! Somebody has to. The hat-in-hand approach hasn't worked, and I am frankly getting sick of it. When you're dealing with the deliberately blind deaf and dumb why not point it out, constantly? Don't they deserve it? Of course they do. Might get them to wonder what the heck it is that they are ignoring, something I can guarantee you never enters most of their heads now. If I could find all this out on my own recognizance...well, I have less than zero respect for a multi-degreed imbecile who can't even rouse himself to be interested in something ...he says the same things over and over about, incessantly. This may be just me. That guy ain't a scientist, and crapping on his shoes is really all I feel like doing. Nope, NAWAC is doing just fine without me...and, I might add, I am doing just fine without them. Although, yep, they're legit, and they're reporting actual events. What people who don't understand how to think about this don't seem to get is that the main difference between NAWAC and mainstream research is that they're informing people as they go. Mainstreamers tend to wait until the paper's written to utter a peep. NAWAC's way is better, of course. What Im getting at is that your beating a dead horse. Repeating Bindernagel's mantra of a defacto discovery isnt going to sway hard core skeptics, nor the scientists you loathe. The way to prove them wrong and make them eat crow is to dig in and get involved! You like reports right? What about helping out here with the classification system? Its invaluable to people in the hunt for the creature, it gives us moon cycles, elevations and seasonality. Or join a group looking to offer up a body or DNA as proof? Not trying to be a jerk here, I just think you could be useful in more productive ways is all.
Guest DWA Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 Nope. It's just like the film we have. Everyone who needs to be productive is, in every way needed. To get more involved in *that* when there is no demonstrated need is beating the dead horse, in my opinion. Remember: I'm satisfied. The evidence tells me it's real; it's the scoftics who need to convince me, and they have nothing. To all of you who need additional satisfaction: good luck, you don't need me. I got where I am by simply reading the reports, not classifying them, which is a useless exercise until that information is used in research. Not saying it won't be; but until it is... This is the way more people need to be on this: to ask why with all the evidence required to mount full-time efforts to confirm, this is not being done. I'm not doing their job for them. Whether they know it or not: they are paid to do this; and it is dereliction of duty to science to do what they are doing. It also irks me no end how 99% of the conversation here pays no attention to the breadth and depth of the evidence! Gotta be kidding me on that.
SWWASAS Posted October 22, 2015 BFF Patron Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) . This is the way more people need to be on this: to ask why with all the evidence required to mount full-time efforts to confirm, this is not being done. I'm not doing their job for them. Whether they know it or not: they are paid to do this; and it is dereliction of duty to science to do what they are doing. "Dereliction of duty to science"?. Somehow I really don't believe modern scientists think like that. There is too much specialization to feel like they have any Duty to Science. Undergraduates are busy just learning what they need to pass courses. Graduate students find some project that they can use for to get their Masters normally just picking it from an approved list . And Doctoral candidates have to find something their department will accept for their thesis. Post Doctoral have to publish and get tenure. None of that is advanced by getting into fringe areas like BF. Anyone that is interested in the topic probably takes a look at what happened to Grover Krantz and decides not to cut their own academic throat. Edited October 22, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
Guest DWA Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) ...which is precisely why I say "scientists." As in so-called but not really. Because what you describe there...isn't one. Edited October 22, 2015 by DWA
norseman Posted October 22, 2015 Admin Posted October 22, 2015 Nope. It's just like the film we have. Everyone who needs to be productive is, in every way needed. To get more involved in *that* when there is no demonstrated need is beating the dead horse, in my opinion. Remember: I'm satisfied. The evidence tells me it's real; it's the scoftics who need to convince me, and they have nothing. To all of you who need additional satisfaction: good luck, you don't need me. I got where I am by simply reading the reports, not classifying them, which is a useless exercise until that information is used in research. Not saying it won't be; but until it is... This is the way more people need to be on this: to ask why with all the evidence required to mount full-time efforts to confirm, this is not being done. I'm not doing their job for them. Whether they know it or not: they are paid to do this; and it is dereliction of duty to science to do what they are doing. It also irks me no end how 99% of the conversation here pays no attention to the breadth and depth of the evidence! Gotta be kidding me on that. Well no, they are paid to study whatever the university tells them to study. And evidently Squatch didnt make the list, but some new monkey in S. America did. Many of us have our own convictions about Squatch but until its proven to science non of us are vindicated......thats fact.
Guest DWA Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 If you are opining out loud about a topic about which you know nothing, Mr. Ph.D, a paid techie you may be. But you ain't no scientist, and don't call yourself one to me. My problem is that scientific education - like most education - pounds cant rather than encourages critical thinking. It's the rare person-having-science-degree who possesses the qualities of the true scientist.
norseman Posted October 22, 2015 Admin Posted October 22, 2015 Which scientist or scientists do you admire and exhibit(ed) the traits you feel are important as a scientist?
Guest DWA Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) [Not to mention their names again but] Krantz. Meldrum. Bindernagel. Mionczynski. Swindler. Schaller. Goodall. Cronin. Just for starters. They have gone on the record, using their real names, as pronouncing what the evidence tells them after careful review of that evidence. They haven't let their academic or field workload stop that process; indeed, they couldn't have maintained tenure and stature in their fields otherwise. They let their curiosity and the evidence, and not the canon of the field, dictate the direction of research. They were unafraid to say what common sense told them. They show their work; and their work clearly draws directly upon their expertise. Just for starters. Edited October 22, 2015 by DWA
norseman Posted October 22, 2015 Admin Posted October 22, 2015 Cool. What about Science outside of Bigfoot circles?
Guest DWA Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 Well, they all are! Every one of them is a bona fide academic and an expert in a mainstream recognized field. They have simply shown the proper attitude toward what real "outsiders" consider a "taboo" topic. That's a litmus test of the true scientist: he doesn't recognize anything as a taboo topic.
norseman Posted October 22, 2015 Admin Posted October 22, 2015 No what scientist not associated with Bigfoot past or present do you respect? Copernicus? Tesla? Darwin?
Incorrigible1 Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 Post away, DWA. Get it out of your system. Post like the wind! Then spare us the constant drone of your uber predictable anti-scientist screeds. 3
Recommended Posts