Bbc Article: Why Don't People See The Yeti Anymore?

[JDL]

I think it's pretty safe to say that most people, when on this forum are using it to take a break from their daily routine. Not sure any of us are actually paid to post on here. We all choose to participate of free will on a message board with the intention of having open dialogue. If you choose to not want to engage with him in this manner then just choose not to post. Not sure it was really advancing any discussion by explaining to all of us just how busy and important you are.

On another note, regarding the Smithsonian, is there any chance the Freedom of Information Act could find anything out? Would documents or information they have fall under this?

 

Some of these skeptics view people who have had direct encounters as kooks or, as Night Walker implied, prone to be mistaken under clear and unmistakable circumstances.  The point wasn't to brag, but to establish for his sake that this is not, or at least not always, the case.

[Twist]

That's a fair statement JDL. Both sides of the coin have their rational people and their extreme people. My point was to use your own discretion on who and what you address. Don't like where it's going just ignore it, you can't come onto an internet forum and expect to like everyone, interact with like minded individuals and skip over the others.

[Faenor]

No, Faenor, you are wrong.  I am badgered by skeptics like him incessantly who are certain that any direct witness is somehow mistaken and none of which really want to objectively consider what I have to say.  This is a screening process.  Why should I waste my time on him when I have already answered his questions before?

 

I'm a busy guy.  The CEO I and the rest of the Board hired to run the company I founded at 275k a year plus stock options starts today.  His job is to take us from early commercialization to full market.  There's a lot to do.  The first order of business is to sort out which of the people who want to invest will become investors.  They're lined up at the door and we don't need as much money as they are offering.  I don't want to dilute the existing shareholders any more than necessary.  On top of that, I need to finish up another patent application for filing; take care of the Power of Attorney filings for three non-US countries for the national stage filings of an earlier application; sign the assignment documents for yet another awarded patent, transferring ownership from myself to the company; review the final draft of a hospital study on our technology being submitted to the American Journal of Infection Control; wire funds to the company finishing up the design for our latest device; negotiate with a licensee that we are acquiring; conference with our accountants; coordinate with the Chicago division of a company that is adapting our technology for use in their food processing plants; coordinate with the University of North Carolina on an upcoming study; coordinate with another company performing due diligence testing with the intent to license our technology; and then travel to Pittsburgh for a three day conference with a Federal Agency that came to us with an interest in our technology.

 

When you see me on this forum it is because I am taking a short break.

Sure that's totally believable. The new CEO, no time to answer a silly question but plenty of time to write a whole block of text about the goings on of the new CEO and his 275k with stock options.

I say it's all a bunch of nonsense to avoid answering the hard questions.

[Guest DWA]

No skeptic on this topic ever posed a hard question.

I have answered all of them, every one, many times.  Reading and critical thinking skills may be the only barrier, I fear.

[SWWASAS]

I think it's pretty safe to say that most people, when on this forum are using it to take a break from their daily routine. Not sure any of us are actually paid to post on here. We all choose to participate of free will on a message board with the intention of having open dialogue. If you choose to not want to engage with him in this manner then just choose not to post. Not sure it was really advancing any discussion by explaining to all of us just how busy and important you are.

On another note, regarding the Smithsonian, is there any chance the Freedom of Information Act could find anything out? Would documents or information they have fall under this?

Several authors have tried the freedom of information route with the suspected BF bones that news reporters at the time saw Smithsonian employees box up and send off to Washington. The Smithsonian claims no knowledge of the event or say that the bones cannot be located. Most of these events are precomputer and have been manually documented and logged into their stores. Those that defend the Smithsonian should be aware that a lot of the stuff that Lewis and Clark brought back, which was proclaimed to be some of the most significant natural history finds of the time, were spread round, loaned out never to be returned, and some simply miscataloged and lost. The expedition kept records of what was sent back and much has been lost. Recently one of the expedition journals was found in a desk in the attic of one of the scholars who took it home to study nearly 200 years ago. Copies were loaned out to scholars who defaced them with their own writings in the margins. Because the Smithsonian sponsored the ill fated and deadly attempt at manpowered flight by Langley, and refused to accept that two bicycle mechanics from Ohio had beat them to it, they refused to even display the Wright Flyer for decades after it flew. The organization is the epitome of a bureaucratic government agency run by political appointees with their own often vindictive agenda. So it is no wonder that important artifacts are often conveniently lost.

Edited November 16, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[JDL]

 

No, Faenor, you are wrong.  I am badgered by skeptics like him incessantly who are certain that any direct witness is somehow mistaken and none of which really want to objectively consider what I have to say.  This is a screening process.  Why should I waste my time on him when I have already answered his questions before?

 

I'm a busy guy.  The CEO I and the rest of the Board hired to run the company I founded at 275k a year plus stock options starts today.  His job is to take us from early commercialization to full market.  There's a lot to do.  The first order of business is to sort out which of the people who want to invest will become investors.  They're lined up at the door and we don't need as much money as they are offering.  I don't want to dilute the existing shareholders any more than necessary.  On top of that, I need to finish up another patent application for filing; take care of the Power of Attorney filings for three non-US countries for the national stage filings of an earlier application; sign the assignment documents for yet another awarded patent, transferring ownership from myself to the company; review the final draft of a hospital study on our technology being submitted to the American Journal of Infection Control; wire funds to the company finishing up the design for our latest device; negotiate with a licensee that we are acquiring; conference with our accountants; coordinate with the Chicago division of a company that is adapting our technology for use in their food processing plants; coordinate with the University of North Carolina on an upcoming study; coordinate with another company performing due diligence testing with the intent to license our technology; and then travel to Pittsburgh for a three day conference with a Federal Agency that came to us with an interest in our technology.

 

When you see me on this forum it is because I am taking a short break.

Sure that's totally believable. The new CEO, no time to answer a silly question but plenty of time to write a whole block of text about the goings on of the new CEO and his 275k with stock options.

I say it's all a bunch of nonsense to avoid answering the hard questions.

 

 

Thank you for proving my point.

[Twist]

Thanks for that information. It's sad that personal agenda and politics get in the way of history and science the way it does. Imagine a world where information and truth was the ultimate goal. But I guess it's a good thing we have the government to censor us from what we are not ready for. /green font.

[Guest WesT]

Sure that's totally believable. The new CEO, no time to answer a silly question but plenty of time to write a whole block of text about the goings on of the new CEO and his 275k with stock options.

I say it's all a bunch of nonsense to avoid answering the hard questions.

You go from "no time to answer a silly question" to "avoid answering the hard questions".  What's up with that?

[Night Walker]

Some of these skeptics view people who have had direct encounters as kooks or, as Night Walker implied, prone to be mistaken under clear and unmistakable circumstances.  The point wasn't to brag, but to establish for his sake that this is not, or at least not always, the case.

 

 

Its part of the wonder of the human experience to sometimes perceive things in profound ways (eg a life-changing/mystical encounter). I’m certainly not implying that people who claim direct encounters with Bigfoot are “kooksâ€. I cannot help how you happen to perceive things but I am interested in it nonetheless – after all, you’ve seen/experienced Bigfoot (at least twice) and I haven’t. Strangely, it is you that dismiss people and their claims based on what you already “know†– isn’t that the “Powell Doctrine†in action (ie the very thing you accuse me of doing)? It's ok - I understand that it is easier to perceive the flaws of others than in oneself, offense is the best defense, etc, etc...

 

I’m just looking for answers just like everyone else here. I’ll put forward my thoughts but they are not set in stone and which are as subjective as anything else within this entirely subjective phenomenon. I can’t learn without asking questions but I understand if you don’t want to answer so I again thank you for your time…

[Faenor]

Sure that's totally believable. The new CEO, no time to answer a silly question but plenty of time to write a whole block of text about the goings on of the new CEO and his 275k with stock options.

I say it's all a bunch of nonsense to avoid answering the hard questions.

You go from "no time to answer a silly question" to "avoid answering the hard questions".  What's up with that?

It's silly because the questions are about Bigfoot and hard for JDL because he is spending more time avoiding answering them than simply giving an answer.

No skeptic on this topic ever posed a hard question.

I have answered all of them, every one, many times.  Reading and critical thinking skills may be the only barrier, I fear.

You also fear the skeptic since they hold the logical and scientific high ground which you and the other proponents are helpless to reverse.

[JDL]

 

I’m just looking for answers just like everyone else here. I’ll put forward my thoughts but they are not set in stone and which are as subjective as anything else within this entirely subjective phenomenon. I can’t learn without asking questions but I understand if you don’t want to answer so I again thank you for your time…

 

 

In red above.  Why dialogue with you if you are not going to approach the subject objectively?

[Night Walker]

Do you have tangible objective evidence of Bigfoot? Objectivity is for objective evidence - if you have it then that's what I'll strive to be...

 

If you do not have any tangible objective evidence of Bigfoot then you must realize that your claim is as subjective as any other - an experience (or a memory of an experience). Real, intense... but a subjective experience nonetheless. Subjectivity for subjective evidence. I may be able to help you with that and I hope to learn a thing or two myself...

Additionally, my perspective is quite broad - I don't just focus on the claims that support my working hypothesis and ignore the rest as irrelevant. Bigfoot is a surprisingly big subject - and it's ALL relevant...

Edited November 17, 2015 by Night Walker

[Guest DWA]

^^^^That's a very flawed way of looking at a scientific topic.

 

"Tangible evidence" is the scoftical dogwhistle for "proof."  The animal's been proven, to anyone who understands evidence and how science works.  There is simply no other comprehensible, fathomable explanation for the pattern and volume of the evidence, except for what, in the history of our species, it has always been:  precisely what it appears to be.  Proof sufficient to the ignorant simply is not required; there are an estimated 24,456,834 proven scientific facts of which the average person knows nothing.

[Guest]

Well, simple newtonian physics is still beyond the grasp of the many, I refuse to discuss it online any more. I've lost count of the times I've been told. "It's only logical/stands to reason, that bigger objects fall faster."

[Guest WesT]

 

 

Sure that's totally believable. The new CEO, no time to answer a silly question but plenty of time to write a whole block of text about the goings on of the new CEO and his 275k with stock options.

I say it's all a bunch of nonsense to avoid answering the hard questions.

You go from "no time to answer a silly question" to "avoid answering the hard questions".  What's up with that?

It's silly because the questions are about Bigfoot and hard for JDL because he is spending more time avoiding answering them than simply giving an answer.

 

Well I must have missed where he was being asked questions, both silly and hard, about Bigfoot. Oh that's right, he wasn't. He was responding to a request to be interviewed about his encounters with someone, like yourself, who believes that there is no way in hell that a flesh and blood creature like Bigfoot exists. Do I need to post a link to the "Bigfoot: Does it Exist or Not" thread or do you guys think you can find it ok on your own?