JustAGuy Posted June 28, 2017 Posted June 28, 2017 59 minutes ago, SWWASAS said: Why would they not give it back? I have no specific insight into this particular show, but it is common in reality TV show situations to include clauses in the contracts of the people appearing that anything they discover or make while they are being filmed (and paid) by the show becomes the property of the show.
LeafTalker Posted June 28, 2017 Posted June 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Cricket said: Hi LeafTalker! Thanks for the additional information, I appreciate it! I will check out the YouTube videos, for sure. My own view is that I am an affable agnostic on the issue because I am not in a position to find out first hand, one way or another. I live near areas of occasional sightings, but I don't spend a lot of time in those places, at least any more than driving through the mountains to get to major cities or populations centers. I will consider whatever I see or read about. I think it is just good practice to be open to things, but also to try and falsify, which is standard in science. Very disturbing that there are people who would try to harm those who are just out exploring the world, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of any creature. Hi, Cricket! I hope you enjoy those videos. Now, a tiny moment for me to get on my soapbox. (I am so sorry, I really am. I can't help it. Okay, here goes.) About standards in science: I understand that science has created standards for itself, and that's fine. Most who share their findings here and elsewhere are not scientists, however. They don't view efforts to falsify what they've brought forward as 'good protocol'; they view them (understandably, in my view) as attacks. So I, personally, feel it's best to tread lightly, at least in one's public comments. (This area of the forums is wide open to the public.) A reluctance to indulge to its fullest possible extent the desire to falsify things doesn't mean you won't find out the truth, eventually. It just means you need to have a lot of patience to get to the truth. And fortunately, the true scientist has a lot of that. Okay, I'm off the soapbox now. And I agree with you, it's very disturbing, how some of us treat others.... I also think that you ARE in a position to get first-hand knowledge about all this. If you ever decide to spend more time in those places close to you that look "likely" to you, you might have some fun experiences.... :-) 1 hour ago, SWWASAS said: I watched the dynamics of the show and had the feeling that the results were being manipulated by the producers. They had purchased a Lloyds of London policy to cover the 10 million prize. I got the impression that if they got worried about someone being successful, they simply changed the venue. Throw people from all over the country into unknown locations but do not give them time to get the lay of the land and you are pretty much assured that no one will succeed. The producers would be the big loosers if they had to pay out the 10 million. The show would have been a financial disaster for them. Disotell was being paid to be there by the producers. One would think that there would be some understanding between him and the producers that it had to be very difficult to prove existence. In other words the deck was stacked from day one. Stacy Brown submitted a DNA sample towards the end of the show. He was told that it was something other than BF after it was analyzed. He was on the team given a cash prize at the end for being the most successful contestants. He asked for the sample back and the producers refused to provide it. Why would they not give it back? Okay, back on the soapbox for a moment. This is a great example of a way to look for truth without sewing tons of discord and insulting people. Laying out the facts as you understand them, and then asking a simple question: It's brilliant. (I would be interested in learning more about the legal agreements JustAGuy referred to. Stacy Brown is a smart guy. I wonder if he -- or others -- attempted to reach 'non-standard' agreements with the producers.... We've seen how others have managed to prevail over their producers -- for example, the crew on Finding Bigfoot. They put their feet down about certain things and were able to influence the direction of the show, and were very public about that.... So I'm curious about all this......)
Guest Posted June 28, 2017 Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, SWWASAS said: I watched the dynamics of the show and had the feeling that the results were being manipulated by the producers. They had purchased a Lloyds of London policy to cover the 10 million prize. I got the impression that if they got worried about someone being successful, they simply changed the venue. Throw people from all over the country into unknown locations but do not give them time to get the lay of the land and you are pretty much assured that no one will succeed. The producers would be the big loosers if they had to pay out the 10 million. The show would have been a financial disaster for them. Disotell was being paid to be there by the producers. One would think that there would be some understanding between him and the producers that it had to be very difficult to prove existence. In other words the deck was stacked from day one. Stacy Brown submitted a DNA sample towards the end of the show. He was told that it was something other than BF after it was analyzed. He was on the team given a cash prize at the end for being the most successful contestants. He asked for the sample back and the producers refused to provide it. Why would they not give it back? Indemnity insurance is negotiate in advance, I'm sure Lloyds was obviously thrilled to take the money. It would be interesting to know the risk assessment percentage wise. I'm guessing something close to zero. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_indemnity_insurance And as others have mentioned the producers would most likely own the rights to everything show related. Edited June 28, 2017 by Happy Camper Spelling
SWWASAS Posted June 28, 2017 BFF Patron Posted June 28, 2017 Oh certainly they have tons of legal agreements, waivers to liability, all things to protect the show from a contestant suing when it is done. And refusing to give a sample back would be one of them. You can be sure if 10 million was involved the producers would be very well lawyered upl. It has been a long time since the show and I cannot remember what the sample was. But if the sample was something ordinary why not give it back? If it was retested by a contestant and found ordinary that would strengthen the case of the show that nothing interesting was found. Those who have submitted materials to Sykes for testing have had the same experience. Samples are not returned. Cost of shipping, prior arrangements not made etc, are probably the excuse or possible reason but if I had a sample that I was reasonably sure was the find of century, I would not send it to Sykes or anyone else without dividing the sample, sending to more than one lab, and keeping a control sample in case they all went missing or worse yet the lab lost them and then claimed it was their discovery. As I have stated before, the likelyhood of a tuft of fur or hair found in the woods to be anything but some known animal is so remote I would not even bother to test things like that without strong evidence that it did not come from some ordinary animal. An example where I would test would be startling a BF, watch it take out a barbed wire fence as it runs away, then finding bloody tufts of fur or hair on the fence wire. That would get me testing because of the high probability it was from BF.
WSA Posted June 28, 2017 Posted June 28, 2017 Simple legal and strategic reason for not returning that sample: Fraud prevention and the elimination of possible conflicting claims. If you have one official source to tell you if the sample is legit, or not, that risk is eliminated. Give it back? Oh yeah, the lawyers win!
LeafTalker Posted June 28, 2017 Posted June 28, 2017 It would be soooo much easier to understand the necessity of hedging against fraud -- and so much easier to forgive an action taken to prevent a fraud from occurring -- if one could just shake the feeling that a similar fraud had already been perpetrated by the very people seeking to protect themselves from one........... 1
Guest Cricket Posted June 28, 2017 Posted June 28, 2017 1 hour ago, LeafTalker said: About standards in science: I understand that science has created standards for itself, and that's fine. Most who share their findings here and elsewhere are not scientists, however. They don't view efforts to falsify what they've brought forward as 'good protocol'; they view them (understandably, in my view) as attacks. So I, personally, feel it's best to tread lightly, at least in one's public comments. (This area of the forums is wide open to the public.) A reluctance to indulge to its fullest possible extent the desire to falsify things doesn't mean you won't find out the truth, eventually. It just means you need to have a lot of patience to get to the truth. And fortunately, the true scientist has a lot of that. I can see how that might be perceived as an attack, but that's now how I personally intend it. Maybe the way for all to think of it is that everyone should make a goof faith effort to consider all the possibilities before drawing conclusions, and be aware of their own leanings as they do so, as that can influence one's perceptions and conclusions. At any rate, on my next drive through the mountains or in rural areas I will keep my eyes open...but from what I've read here, the best way to have a sighting is to maybe not try so hard to have a sighting!
ShadowBorn Posted June 29, 2017 Moderator Posted June 29, 2017 " I think it is just good practice to be open to things, but also to try and falsify, which is standard in science. " Cricket How to try and falsify standard in science? When science should be doing the exact opposite . Not trying to put a square in a circle. If you go out in the field and find a nest of a great size then one should try to learn why it was made and how it was made and by what it was made. Then one should deduct the known creatures that could have made these nests, like was it a known bird, a person or some known creature. Sure we can talk all we want about this Edna and we still will not get no closer to what these creatures are until we have a actual body. Those nest look old and seem like nothing have been there for a while or slept there. One would figure that if a creature like bigfoot was to lay in a nest of this size that it would be fresh and that the leaves would be green. If these creatures have any type of human genes or even ape one would think that there would be leaves for comfort and for bugs. But this would depend on what these nest were made of and where this brush was taken from. Also depends on the time it took to make these nests. My other thoughts are , were there bones of dead animals located near these nests? Did they do a search for more clues into what made these nests? All we have read is that they have found these nests but no prints with some unknown hair. Sure they are in an area where bigfoot roams but that does not mean that bigfoot created these nests. Yes, I know that I am being a skeptic on this one but I have a right to question it. As far as I am concerned I do not care what the out come is. I have looked up what gorilla nest look like and the same goes with ape which I think are the same. There nest are similar to what is found with one exception , that is gorillas/apes crap in there own nests. Humans do not crap where they sleep. Now I am not buying it. Unless they can shoot a bigfoot and bring a body in for study I am not buying it that these nests were made by bigfoot. I can say that they were made maybe by a ape or a gorilla that might be roaming in that area that might have been set free by some owner. But not by no Bigfoot.
Guest Cricket Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, ShadowBorn said: " I think it is just good practice to be open to things, but also to try and falsify, which is standard in science. " Cricket How to try and falsify standard in science? When science should be doing the exact opposite . Not trying to put a square in a circle. If you go out in the field and find a nest of a great size then one should try to learn why it was made and how it was made and by what it was made. Then one should deduct the known creatures that could have made these nests, like was it a known bird, a person or some known creature. Well, that's it in a nutshell. To try and falsify doesn't mean that anyone wants to annihilate someone's ideas just for the sake of being a destroyer, only that in trying to figure something out you consider the possibilities, and the pros and cons of each. Some will fall and some will stand. What's left are the possible explanations. Edited June 29, 2017 by Cricket
SWWASAS Posted June 29, 2017 BFF Patron Posted June 29, 2017 Part of the problem with the nests is that the Olympic Project keeps a lot of stuff closed to outsiders. I do not know if it is because they want fresh material to present at BF conventions or because in this case they want to keep the location of the find secret. Certainly they are not known to publish much as evidenced by this nest thing. I would not know as much as I do about it without seeing it presented at conferences. Some of the nests are close to salmon or steelhead runs. Perhaps they are used seasonally. As far was being made by some known animal, bears may break down limbs and vegetation and rake stuff together to form nests but these nests are made of carefully placed leafy branches, interwoven intricately with the broken stem pointed downward. It takes hands to do that and only apes, humans, and BF have the needed hands and would need a nest that large. I hope the hell there is not some bird out there that needs a 8 or 9 foot nest. Dinosaurs or giant birds would keep me out of the woods. Shadowborn, sorry to say that a dead body would not prove these nests were made by BF. You have to associate the nest with the species with hair or DNA or catch one sleeping there.
dmaker Posted June 29, 2017 Posted June 29, 2017 19 minutes ago, SWWASAS said: I hope the hell there is not some bird out there that needs a 8 or 9 foot nest. Dinosaurs or giant birds would keep me out of the woods. " The average bald eagle nest is 4 to 5 feet in diameter and 2 to 4 feet deep. Each year the adult pair will add 1-2 feet of new material to the nest. The largest recorded bald eagle nest, located in St. Petersburg, Florida, was 9.5 feetin diameter, 20 feet deep and weighed almost 3 tons. " https://www.nationaleaglecenter.org/eagle-nesting-young/
SWWASAS Posted June 29, 2017 BFF Patron Posted June 29, 2017 My 8 and 9 foot dimension is the inside nest depression. Your eagle nest sizes are outside dimension measurements. I have seen pictures of a human laying inside one of these nests and they were dwarfed by it.
ShadowBorn Posted June 29, 2017 Moderator Posted June 29, 2017 I am still being skeptic on this one. Since it is what I have to be since it is new and I have bee searching for large birds that could have made a nest like this on the ground. So far I have found none. SWWASAS we have to keep searching for what type of animal could have made this type of nest and the closes I can come to is Gorilla/Ape. But they poop in their nest and these nest that they have found does not suggest that. Like you said if these are a large bird nest then why are they on the ground when most large bird nest are high in the trees or on poles. These nests took hands to make them and they took time to make them as well. But if they were made by a gorilla or an Ape then there should be fresh green on them. The other thing that gets me is why would these creatures sleep in the elements when most witnesses seem to say that their hair seem to be well groomed. Especially in a area where it seems to be wet most of the time. If these creatures have any human in them then it would be in their interest to seek shelter from the elements. Not to make a nest out in the open or take the time just to be over come by the elements. I am trying to be a skeptic on this and am thinking on the side of the creature on how it would be trying to survive. If these creatures need a lot of protein to survive then there should be proof of it there surrounding these nests. They have to eat and what ever they eat there has to be proof of what they have eaten. Just like bears when they gorge them selves before they sleep before the winter times. The nest is just a start but what about the trace of a creature being there and survivng.. I have made mistakes and I know it , but at the time I did not know what I should have been looking for . But I have learned and if I was ever was to come up to finding a shelter or a nest like this. I will treated like a crime scene and start searching for the things of what ever made that nest or what ever lived there. As far as this Edna goes I will have to go with a University of my choosing. But I would not be looking for credit. I hope that we can learn from this in some way and as far as a body goes , that is just me being mean. So I am sorry. I have to be a skeptic and be proven wrong. All though I do not deny they exist.
bipedalist Posted June 29, 2017 BFF Patron Posted June 29, 2017 On 6/27/2017 at 5:35 AM, Night Walker said: What exactly did Disotell say to "dis" Bigfoot? If his opinions compromised his judgments then it would show up in his work. Are there any specific incidences when Disotell has not been spot on with his DNA work? DNA is convincing evidence to someone like Disotell. He is on a win-win here: if sample is mundane he gets to promote good science; if sample is a new species - he is on a major discovery... This "SASQUATCH NESTS eDNA STUDY" is a great idea - much better than the usual "Fund me to find Bigfoot" crowdsourcing campaigns on offer. Disotell is exactly the right person for the job. Everyone with an interest in the subject should be pitching in a buck or two. At the very least, this data will enable us to evaluate our own individual Bigfoot hypotheses. Will it reveal some ancient Homo relative? Giganto? Or just mundane species and modern human DNA: Which hypothesis will the data support? If it is not as expected will it change anyone's mind? On 6/26/2017 at 9:34 AM, Happy Camper said: Has this thread been started? Yes, check or click on Branco's masthead/name next to his posts and it will take you to his profile it will indicate topics and posts he's been involved with. Not sure what is happening with these quotes but I was not aware Disotell was the go to man. I think it is a mistake, and I am glad I have not contributed yet. He is not my go to person. I do not see TV celebs as the people to solve this enigma, sorry. My opinion of Disotell stands. Wrong guy, right organization and right study. On 6/27/2017 at 10:43 PM, MIB said: I don't recall his exact words, but he was seemingly drunk off his a$$ on a podcast ridiculing the whole notion of bigfoot with his scoffing podcast hosts. I've been looking for a link. It was posted here on BFF at one time, there's where I first saw it. I haven't been able to find it again. Perhaps someone else will have better luck, has linked it and will share, or something like that. He isn't called "Dis-n-tell" by accident. I would not trust Disotell based on the behavior and biases he displayed. I would not want his name, his behavior, attached to my "find." If I had DNA work to do, it would go elsewhere. MIB What he said, you are referring to the incident I viewed. He spoiled his neurality and his neutrality with that utter despicable display of scientific behavior live and up close. He is as good as non-existent now in my book.
Night Walker Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 (edited) On 6/28/2017 at 3:58 AM, OntarioSquatch said: It's going to be the same song and dance. Don't waste your money You seem disenchanted. At least Disotell is still willing to give it a go... Edited June 30, 2017 by Night Walker
Recommended Posts