Are Bigfooters conspiracy theorists?

[MIB]

A couple comments on that?  

 

I'm not aware of an eradication program.   I think if it were happening in the Pacific NW on a scale large enough to have any chance at all of being effective, I'd know about it ... unavoidable.  So .. I think such a notion falls under the heading of conspiracy theory, in other words, no factual basis.

 

I'm also not aware of any effort to conceal the number of reports.   I would have to be directly involved in that ... and I'm not.   So again, conspiracy theory with no factual basis.

 

There are some things that seemingly should have happened but have not.  So far, I see nothing to support any of the imagined reasons why.   That's one of the things that keeps me interested.   I'm looking for that "ah-hah" moment.   But ... I am **looking** for it, a real one, not an imaginary one.   Something I can document, something I can prove.   There aren't even credible hints, just paranoid beliefs with nothing more than shaky deduction to support them.  

 

So far, that is.     If I find evidence to the contrary, I'll chase that, too.   If there really is a conspiracy, that might well be something I'm more inclined to prove and it might even suggest something about bigfoot that would make me more inclined to prove existence than I am at the moment.  

 

MIB

Edited December 15, 2016 by MIB

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

I'm also not aware of any effort to conceal the number of reports.

 

Nor am I, MIB. I'm thinking that from what I read here on the Forum is more that reports are filtered and so they might be incomplete?

 

1 hour ago, MIB said:

So far, that is.     If I find evidence to the contrary, I'll chase that, too.   If there really is a conspiracy, that might well be something I'm more inclined to prove and it might even suggest something about bigfoot that would make me more inclined to prove existence than I am at the moment.  

 

And that is good stuff there.

Edited December 15, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

I'd argue the opposite.  It's bigfoot deniers that exhibit all the earmarks of conspiracy theorists, not the least in their general thesis that the continent is carpeted with track hoaxers and people in suits, who must have been going about this - with world-class expertise that would make their living for them practically anywhere they chose - since before the US was a country.

Now.  There are many people who have had experiences who are off on their own tangent, and haven't thought about this nearly enough to (1) pay close attention to the evidence and (2) critique their own or others' thoughts on the matter adequately.  Yes, those folks do tend to sound like conspiracy theorists (gummint coverup being the most prominent, and something that, as former gummint, I can virtually assure you isn't going on. We are nowhere close to that good).  But bigfoot skepticism is, root and branch, conspiracy theory.  Period.

Edited December 18, 2016 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 2:03 PM, FarArcher said:

The moment a new species is verified - the proverbial crap hits the fan - six ways to next week.

 

[snip]

 

Then in the scientific community - things will go full retard - and you never go full retard.  Likely, the entire anthropological narrative will be scrapped, deconstructed, patched, and reconstructed - to allow for this "new" species.  This will take decades.  The field of anthropology will likely be turned upside down.  Numerous scientific disciplines will be called in to make determinations - some to "verify" preconceived theories and notions - some not - such as multiple DNA studies to determine where and when this "new" species fits into the flawed theory now in place.  There will be more new theories than the entire Wal-Mart chain has suppositories.  In the short term - scientific chaos.

 

Fights among disciplines.  [snippety]

 

Nope.  No reason at all for conspiring to keep this critter concealed and unidentified.

 

 

I'm not so sure about this.  Me personally?  I can drag the "extinct" line of, well, either Gigantopithecus or the robust australopithecines right into the present, and change nothing else.  Or say hmmmm, we don't seem to have found the fossil ancestry for this one yet, which has only happened innumberable times in the biological sciences.

 

This doesn't need to change what we "know" - almost all of which is just intelligent speculation anyway - any more than finding a new species of tapir, or deer, or monkey does.

[MIB]

On 12/15/2016 at 3:33 PM, hiflier said:

Nor am I, MIB. I'm thinking that from what I read here on the Forum is more that reports are filtered and so they might be incomplete?

 

Incomplete .. yes.   This has 3 pieces.   There's the backlog of reports each group has that have not been investigated because of manpower limitations.   There are reports which have been investigated and will never be published.  (Several reasons for this.)   There are reports which are investigated and a report is published but it is only part of the original, raw report.

 

It is necessary to understand that different groups / sites have different standards regarding what to publish, how much investigation to do, etc.   This varies between Bigfoot Balleyhoo where even the witness is unnecessary, Linda Newton-Perry invents them as she invents their reports, to BFRO who always investigates every report that is published.   Most fall in between somewhere.   Every site has an owner somewhere at some level.   The "flavor" of the site generally reflects that person's beliefs.   They select investigators they trust which generally means people who share their philosophy so it creates a filtering of sorts whether conscious and intended or not.

 

Ultimately, behind the filtering, is often a desire to appear scientific and credible to Big Science.   I believe you are among those who have expressed an opinion that certain things should not be examined because doing so undermines the community's credibility.   There it is.   That weird need to prove ourselves credible to our scoftics causes us to self-harm.   By omitting the "para" content, which is fairly prevalent, from publication, it leads those not "in the know" (with access to the raw reports) to conclude the para is truly infrequent.   That, in turn, leads many witnesses to omit that from their original report ... further feeding the vicious circle.

 

My suggestion to other investigators is to conduct the interviews very carefully .. "the facts ma'am, just the fact."  When that is done, before ending, ask the witness if there is anything they want to add or ask that didn't go in their written report.   It's amazing what people are happy to talk about but not put in writing.    GOOD investigators are not just interrogators, they are witness advocates.  The witnesses come forward not to help us understand, but to seek help with a life / perception -altering event.  We should leave them better than we found them.

 

MIB

[FarArcher]

1 hour ago, DWA said:

I'm not so sure about this.  Me personally?  I can drag the "extinct" line of, well, either Gigantopithecus or the robust australopithecines right into the present, and change nothing else.  Or say hmmmm, we don't seem to have found the fossil ancestry for this one yet, which has only happened innumberable times in the biological sciences.

 

This doesn't need to change what we "know" - almost all of which is just intelligent speculation anyway - any more than finding a new species of tapir, or deer, or monkey does.

 

 

Maybe you can plug and play, but it's much different among the bulk of academia.

 

If perchance I found one intact - died of a heart attack - and brought it in, photographed it in detail, had a couple forensic physicians validate it's a real biological entity with no known identification - and is announced - this can go a few different ways.

 

First, likely, a state or multiple states would likely try to take it under game laws, suggesting it was theirs, I had no right to it, and it belonged to the state.  So we'd very likely have that one legal circus going.

 

Then, I'd likely get hundreds and hundreds of requests by biologists, anthropologists, archaeologists,  Naturally, one can't fulfill all those requests.  Those who are turned down would automatically scream "fraud," as they are being kept away to perpetuate the fraud.

 

Whatever you intended to do with it - have tissue slides made, duplicate the skeleton, have it mounted - whatever - you will have tons of distractions and roadblocks.

 

A select few will demand access to do detailed study - and like anthropologists have done forever - they drag their feet and deny others access - for years and years.  You see, those select few will have "funding" to complete their detailed studies.  And when the studies are pretty much complete - their funding ceases.  So there's no interest in coming to firm determinations, to keep the money coming, and to keep "them" the experts on this species, and promote their trickles of information they release.  Anthropological pop stars.

 

There won't be any simple plugging it in.  

 

But that's my guess.  Based on the behaviors, practices, and tendencies of states, authorities, academia, and multi-discipline discoveries.

 

 

 

 

[Guest DWA]

Well, given the wholly irrational response of academe to the issue so far, maybe we shouldn't expect rationality after they get a body either.

[hiflier]

DWA methinks rationale will go out the window anyway if a body comes in for study. Scientists may be slow on the draw when it comes to testing but they are very quick indeed when it comes to thinking of the overturned carts in the wake of a new primate taxonomy on a parallel course with Humans. The reaction to a Sasquatch body will be amazing. Watching the scientific response will be amazing also- and enlightening  Nice to have you posting, hope everything is well with you this holiday season.

Edited December 18, 2016 by hiflier

[Incorrigible1]

2 hours ago, DWA said:

Well, given the wholly irrational response of academe to the issue so far, maybe we shouldn't expect rationality after they get a body either.

Once a body is produced, they'll come right along. Ain't up to them to supply said carcass.

[hiflier]

Pretty much the gist of it Inc1. So far science hasn't had too much to worry about, eh? Unless getting  guy on Mars is difficult  

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

People's perception of conspiracy theories and unusual phenomenon will change dramatically in the near future. Right now society is in a phase where people are being kept in the dark on some very big secrets that have incredibly dramatic implications. As far as the coverup on Sasquatch goes, it's important to understand that it's in the subcategory of something far bigger. I think if people knew what they are and how they came to be, they'd be much more understanding of why things have turned out the way they did throughout history and why it's been kept a secret for so long. 

[hiflier]

16 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

...Right now society is in a phase where people are being kept in the dark on some very big secrets that have incredibly dramatic implications...

 

There probably isn't a CT person out there that wouldn't agree with you  

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Perhaps the forest service has a species improvement breeding program.

Better Bigfoot through selective breeding.

I wonder what traits we should select for?

 

Might wind up looking a lot like you or me.

 

Now we just need to find the farm.

 

Perhaps it's under area 51

Edited December 19, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[hiflier]

3 minutes ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

I wonder what traits we should select for?

 

Hmmm...maybe the trait where they greet us at the edge of the forest and then show us where the berries are. Maybe they will show us the most efficient way to remove an Elk's head, or perhaps invite us to one of their funeral ceremonies? Or maybe.....uh.....oh, nevermind.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Just now, hiflier said:

 

Hmmm...maybe the trait where they greet us at the edge of the forest and then show us where the berries are. Maybe they will show us the most efficient way to remove an Elk's head, or perhaps invite us to one of their funeral ceremonies? Or maybe.....uh.....oh, nevermind.

How about telepathic empathy?

Then they would share their berries.