Information Gathering

[Guest RayG]

Is this Arizona case documented somewhere? Wouldn't bf have to be declared endangered before you could be charged with shooting an endangered species? Sometimes things we hear don't turn out to be true.

RayG

[Guest]

I heard a case in Arizona of a guy who shot a female BF, but it ran away. The ranger heard about it and threatened to arrest him for shooting an endangered species (a BF).

Now how could that be anything other than hearsay? You've written stuff about Rangers before basically admitting BF is real. Where? What was the neame on his badge?

That is exactly the type of post that hurts Bigfootery. I heard this, I heard that. Hmmph!

[Guest]

Sometimes LEOs use the threat of arrest to get you to go away. If somebody was shooting at man shaped creatures in my jurisdiction, I would want them to go away (if I was a Ranger, and not just a man in a Ranger suit). And I think "Bigfootery" will weather the storm just fine, IMHO.

[Guest]

I don't think Bigfootery is weathering any storm just fine. It is a laughed at field in many ways. Telling second or third hand "I heard" stories doesn't help it in the least.

[Guest Silver Fox]

Is this Arizona case documented somewhere? Wouldn't bf have to be declared endangered before you could be charged with shooting an endangered species? Sometimes things we hear don't turn out to be true.

RayG

Nope, just a quote from someone who turned in a sighting report.

[Guest Silver Fox]

I don't think Bigfootery is weathering any storm just fine. It is a laughed at field in many ways. Telling second or third hand "I heard" stories doesn't help it in the least.

You guys won't accept any of our evidence, even our hard evidence like photos, videos, hair, scat, teeth, bones, tissue, saliva, blood, footprints.

What the heck? Since you've already trashed our evidence anyway, we may as well repeat second hand stuff. Why not? Third hand stories are not why the field has a bad rep.

[Guest]

Suprise suprise. Just someone somewhere who said something. That's good enough for me!!

[Guest Silver Fox]

Now how could that be anything other than hearsay? You've written stuff about Rangers before basically admitting BF is real. Where? What was the neame on his badge?

That is exactly the type of post that hurts Bigfootery. I heard this, I heard that. Hmmph!

If we told you his name, it would not matter anyway. You guys might go ask him to confirm, and he would say we are lying. Now what?

[Guest]

"photos, videos, hair, scat, teeth, bones, tissue, saliva, blood, footprints."

None of the above have been concluded to have come form a BF. Seriously?

[Guest]

If we told you his name, it would not matter anyway. You guys might go ask him to confirm, and he would say we are lying. Now what?

If he said you were lying I would have no choice but to believe that to be a possibility. If he said it was true that he knew them to exist that would be score one for BF, and I would have to believe that BF being real was also a possibility.

None of that's the point. The point is you threw out this story without even thinking of getting this Rangers name (if you were there) or looking for his name from the report you read. And if the report you read didn't have a name, why not? Peculiar a little, methinks. Calls into question the whole story. If I ran into the same situation you decribed and got a Ranger to flat out tell me to stay away 'cuz there's BF's around, the first thing I would do (after wondering if he were joking) is look at his badge or flat out ask him his name.

But maybe that's just me. Too logical and all that.

[Guest]

You guys won't accept any of our evidence, even our hard evidence like photos, videos, hair, scat, teeth, bones, tissue, saliva, blood, footprints.

What the heck? Since you've already trashed our evidence anyway, we may as well repeat second hand stuff. Why not? Third hand stories are not why the field has a bad rep.

Silver Fox,

With all due respect, photos and videos and footprints are not "hard evidence." Such evidence type is not "hard" because it cannot be conclusive. This type of evidence is not conclusive because human manufacture cannot be ruled out on principle.

"Hair, scat, teeth, bones, tissue, saliva, blood" would be hard evidence, but to my knowledge none of this (alleged) evidence has been generally recognized by appropriate expertise in the relevant fields.

Of course, this is the case now, but if the current rumors you reference turn out to be valid, we will have some "hard evidence" shortly, as well as some very compelling secondary, or soft, evidence in the form of video.

We will wait and see.

[Guest RayG]

You guys won't accept any of our evidence, even our hard evidence like photos, videos, hair, scat, teeth, bones, tissue, saliva, blood, footprints.

Third hand stories are not why the field has a bad rep.

Personally, I think the field has a bad rap because of unsubstantiated claims like the one you made above.

Fox, your imprecise, unsupported general statements do nothing to further the solution to this mystery, they merely perpetuate misinformation.

RayG

[Guest]

Suprise suprise. Just someone somewhere who said something. That's good enough for me!!

Apply this statement to everyday life and look at it. Every single one of us is "Just someone who said something" LOL!!! Your friends & family as well as mine have numerious times been told an experience by us....story about flat tire, Saturday night conquest at the corner bar, fishing stories, what stunt someone in the office pulled. Are those experiences less valid or invaluable to you, or me? Don't we expect to be taken at our word?

Second hand stories in Bigfootery have their place too. They give a researcher another reason to critically look at a particular area for either an initial scouting, or maybe just a gentle nudge to spend some time in an area to clear it up either way.

To feign that the only evidence provided is second hand or third hand anecdotal, is a misrepresentation. To hold up these stories and dissect them like they were indeed first class evidence is ridiculious. They are supporting evidence at best. I've even had things that I can't & won't in good conscience post because it's merely anecdotal. I do tell someone going into the same area as it may be helpful to them, but that's the limit of how far that type of thing can or should be used.

The problem has been more that some folks expect everyone to use these helpful tidbits, like they were class A evidence....(BFRO defination) Peoples expectations are maybe a little bit higher than is realistic, regarding these stories. Seeing a BF is great....reporting it wonderful, of limited usefulness without the equivelent of something that is courtroom worthy.

Stories certainly have their place & usefulness....exceeding it is where is makes both sides Pro/Con derail.

[Guest Silver Fox]

Personally, I think the field has a bad rap because of unsubstantiated claims like the one you made above.

Fox, your imprecise, unsupported general statements do nothing to further the solution to this mystery, they merely perpetuate misinformation.

RayG

Yeah, but you're a scoffic, Ray. You won't accept anything less than a slab monkey. All this going on about our lousy evidence is called "concern trolling."

[Guest]

Yeah, but you're a scoffic, Ray. You won't accept anything less than a slab monkey. All this going on about our lousy evidence is called "concern trolling."

There are "names" for stuff like this?? I am so out of the "loop"!! LMAO!!!