Olympic Peninsula Nesting Area Update

[Guest DWA]

Contrary to what seems popular belief, if it's not known to be done by a confirmed species, and all evidence indicates a human didn't do it, neither of those is "most likely."

 

It's just like thinking that all the reports or all the trackways add up to a massive false positive.  THAT is what is called "keeping your mind so open your brains fall out."

Edited May 31, 2017 by DWA

[dmaker]

2 hours ago, DWA said:

 

Contrary to what seems popular belief, if it's not known to be done by a confirmed species, and all evidence indicates a human didn't do it, neither of those is "most likely."

 

That is ridiculous. If a confirmed species is known to make nests, and we have a nest, then the most likely answer is it was a bear. Even when there is no crack for bigfoot in the scenario, you just sledge hammer a giant hole through the logic, don't you? Unbelievable.  

 

This is basically your argument:

"Bears make nests in the woods. Oh, look a nest in the woods."

"Is there a bear in it?"

"Nope,"

"Did you see the bear make it?"

"Nope"

"That's a bigfoot nest. Let's leave and go tell the Internet about it"

 

 

[dmaker]

6 hours ago, hiflier said:

Dmaker, You sound like the perfect candidate for a grassroots program of taking the question of existence to authorities at different levels. Good to see you here BTW as we've always had some good exchanges and I respect your stance and questioning nature. But you know as well as I that there will always be a hint of doubt, always be a situation that can be hoaxed. So why not bypass all of that and go direct. You are in Canada but there's no reason to think that it would interfere in any way to ask the U.S Forestry service point blank for an answer on a supposed large flesh and blood North American primate.

 

Waddaya say. You're the first one I've officially asked about it. At least as an individual as opposed to the community in general. Be curious to hear what your response would be to such a thing. You would have as much to gain or lose as anyone else interested in the Sasquatch phenom. Of course if the anwer for say the Forestry Service or Fish and Game is, "No, there is no such creature" then there will be a LOT of fallout and so much to discuss. And the thing too is I don't see anyone on the ISF doing anything along that line either. All rants, slaps in faces, and condescension, but no one going after an official U.S. or Canada answer as a solution to the debates. Surely people can do better, right? 

You don't have to look too far to find examples of official-ish answers to the question. Just look in the Cascades Carnivores thread for a letter from one of the members of the scientific study group responding to a question from kitikaze. Basically their response was "no, we did not see anything that could be thought of as bigfoot evidence, and if we had, we would certainly not have tried to hide it". Of course, DWA, insisted the person was lying. Also, there was a petition in New York state, I believe, to have endangerment laws enacted for bigfoot. The official response was that the state of New York does not enact laws for imaginary animals. 

 

No, I have no interest in approaching my, or your, government to ask them if bigfoot exists. No offense, but I think it's a rather silly notion to begin with. First of all, I don't believe that bigfoot exists, so why would I want to do this task? If I did believe that bigfoot existed, then it would be my burden to gather ample evidence and approach whomever and try to prove the case. Not walk up with empty pockets and demand them to pronounce....something. I'm sorry but that just seems rather childish.

 

 

Edited May 31, 2017 by dmaker

[hiflier]

Sorry to hear you say that in that way......the 'childish' part that is. In truth you would have to provide any existence and I don't even understand where you got that notion. I've seen you write that if there was a body found or the animal was proved to exist that you would be jumping up and down all happy and everything but to do anything that might require action to find out- no, apparently that not the way you operate. Childish? Maybe. But it's more childish to throw mud at the community of proponents virtually empty handed. But in general your sentiment is the same as everyone else's- proponent or not. Meanwhile you sit back and throw stones at those in the field? Not good.

[dmaker]

I'm  sorry you did not like my response. But perhaps you need to rethink the utility of approaching a government agency and demanding an official statement on sasquatch. I can tell you right now what the answer will be, and what the community response would be. The answer, if one was even offered, would be, no we do not believe that bigfoot exists. How could it be  otherwise? There is no physical evidence for the existence of bigfoot, anywhere, so of course any responsible government agency would respond responsibly with, we do not believe bigfoot to exist. If they responded at all. They would never respond with an all encompassing proclamation that bigfoot does not exist, or does exist. . They would simply say there is no evidence at this time to conclude that bigfoot exists. Fine. How does the move the meter one way or the other? It does not.

 

Proponents will cry conspiracy theory and claim that there is evidence but that it is being suppressed. And that the response is evidence of such. It's a no win situation with a ridiculous premise. The government, or whatever federal agency you wish to entreat, is not in the business of confirming species. Never have been. Your idea is terribly flawed from the start.

 

Do you believe there to be some department of the government that deals with species confirmation? I'm sorry, but there is not. 

 

Edited June 1, 2017 by dmaker

[dmaker]

Hiflier, think about it. Let's say that I lined up a dozen responses from various government agencies that all said "we do not believe there is enough evidence to conclude that bigfoot exists at this time", what good would that do? Absolutely none. Nothing would change.

 

To think that the government, or any agency of it, would respond with a definitive yes or no is wishful thinking. They would respond in kind to queries about the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. I really struggle to understand how you might think it would be otherwise. This line of inquiry on your part is really a waste of time.

49 minutes ago, hiflier said:

I've seen you write that if there was a body found or the animal was proved to exist that you would be jumping up and down all happy and everything but to do anything that might require action to find out- no, apparently that not the way you operate.

I would love for bigfoot to be real. But why would I approach the "government" with that question, virtually empty handed? I can't go and say, "hey, do you think bigfoot exists?", and expect any reasonable response. The reasonable thing to do would be to approach and provide evidence of what one is asking. Not to approach empty handed and expect them to respond with some Gordian knot response.And in this case I am empty handed because I do not believe that the evidence supports existence.  No, take the evidence and support your case. Since I don't think the evidence for bigfoot supports existence, what am I supposed to approach the "government" with? A question with no evidence to base a response upon? You're  shifting the burden on to the wrong person. 

Edited June 1, 2017 by dmaker

[Branco]

 

Quote

 

Do you believe there to be some department of the government that deals with species confirmation? I'm sorry, but there is not. 

 

Quote

 

Proponents will cry conspiracy theory and claim that there is evidence but that it is being suppressed. And that the response is evidence of such. It's a no win situation with a ridiculous premise. The government, or whatever federal agency you wish to entreat, is not in the business of confirming species. Never have been. Your idea is terribly flawed from the start.

 

Do you believe there to be some department of the government that deals with species confirmation? I'm sorry, but there is not. 

 

Yes there is. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has a unique Animal Forensic Laboratory in Ashland, Oregon. It is the only one like it in the world. It is devoted to and for the protection of fish and wildlife both here in the U.S. and most other countries of the world. Odd they established that lab in that location. Just a few miles from the famous "Bigfoot Trap". When the Feds are forced to 'fess up, that's where the message will come from.

 

Of course, all the USAF flight crews that had their survival training at the areas in Washington state were made aware of Sasquatch in those areas; they were issued maps with images and listed the critters as part of the wildlife likely to be seen by trainees. Many did. 

Edited June 1, 2017 by Branco

[dmaker]

Yes, I'm well aware of the map. It's called tongue in cheek.  

 

The US Wildlife Service is not an agency that pronounces whether a species exists or not. The closest thing to something like that would http://iczn.org/  If it exists and has a name, it would be in there. 

Edited June 1, 2017 by dmaker

[BobbyO]

What are we at now, 15/20 posts on this thread by someone who admittedly hasn't listened nor has any interest in listening to the link podcast of what this thread is all about ?

 

Way to go..

[dmaker]

Would you like some cheese, Bobby?

[Guest DWA]

13 hours ago, Branco said:

 

Yes there is. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has a unique Animal Forensic Laboratory in Ashland, Oregon. It is the only one like it in the world. It is devoted to and for the protection of fish and wildlife both here in the U.S. and most other countries of the world. Odd they established that lab in that location. Just a few miles from the famous "Bigfoot Trap". When the Feds are forced to 'fess up, that's where the message will come from.

 

Of course, all the USAF flight crews that had their survival training at the areas in Washington state were made aware of Sasquatch in those areas; they were issued maps with images and listed the critters as part of the wildlife likely to be seen by trainees. Many did. 

The government is silent on this, just before the public now, not because "some massive coverup" but because the government has a whole lot more on its plate than bigfoot, and frankly doesn't have near the budget to deal with the fallout from its pronouncements/lack of same on the topic.  Those two citations should make any curious person wonder, though.

[dmaker]

That's a lot of unsubstantiated speculation.

[Branco]

7 hours ago, dmaker said:

Yes, I'm well aware of the map. It's called tongue in cheek.  

 

The US Wildlife Service is not an agency that pronounces whether a species exists or not. The closest thing to something like that would http://iczn.org/  If it exists and has a name, it would be in there. 

Well. it certainly wasn't "tongue in cheek" to the trainees who saw Sasquatch going about their business while they were going about theirs.

 

I understand the lab has assisted in the DNA confirmation of new species found in this and other countries.

 

Kind'a think they may have given Dr. Sykes a little heads up & advice when he visited that lab a time or two before he revealed his findings. If Dr. Sykes had actually found that the DNA of that one sample from the USA was from a relic hominid, his testing would have violated regulations established in response to a Presidential Memo issued by Obama while Dr. K's work was ongoing. Had he declared the sample from the "cross breed bear" showed it was really a Sasquatch, that Memo and the scientific community would have discredited him and his work. by hook or crook.

 

 

 

[MIB]

A past / now banned BFF member went to that USF&WS forensics lab to ask about testing.   He was told by the director that under no circumstances would any sample not coming through law enforcement official channels for testing as evidence in a crime be tested.  "Period."  No exceptions.

 

So .. how is it that Sykes' got his samples tested?   What strings were pulled, and by whom, to allow what appears to be a violation of the lab's charter / operating rules?  

 

Can Sykes be trusted regarding bigfoot?   Can the USF&W Forensics Lab be trusted with regard to bigfoot?   Or are they key components of a coverup?   Can Disotell be trusted?  

 

MIB

[scottv]

The lab is explicitly for wildlife crime, hence the word "forensics". They also identify species based on morphology of samples not just DNA. I don't think bigfoot had anything to do with choosing it's location. Maybe they just thought it was a nice place to live? Years ago I had a phone interview for a position there but was not selected. Supposed to be a great place to work.