Guest Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Saskeptic, again I'll suggest that they can distinguish between friend or foe. Then why not have someone who is "friendly" to bigfoot put some game cams out? Are you insinuating that all the bigfoot researchers who have attempted to photograph them are viewed as "foes?" I think you're confounding in this issue the physical plastic box and the person who puts that box on a tree. If bigfoots are turned off by the people, then a bigfoot-friendly person should solve that problem. If bigfoots are turned off by the plastic box, then why that plastic box and not any of the other human stuff that bigfoots have been reported checking out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 entirely possible; this is done regularly by scientists. They present papers "in progress" at annual scientific meetings in order to obtain criticism, advice, comments, or other feedback. Let me say that you are being fed a line of baloney about total secrecy. IMHO that is a smokescreen for "no paper," or at least nothing worth publishing. AKA "the check is in the mail." I get to agree with Parn! MANY paper-writers keep the public updated on their papers. Apparently some journals don't allow it though. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Saskeptic, why don't you enumerate these other human technological incursions into BF territory that you think are equivalent in quality to a game cam? And also, if you can suggest a polite way of asking your neighbor if you can put a game cam in his backyard for the purpose of surreptitiously monitoring his family's activities, I'm all ears; otherwise I'll continue to consider a game cam inherently intrusive and objectionable to anyone able to appreciate its purpose. Indeed, it is easy to imagine modern human hunters being startled, agitated, and even angered by being photographed by a game cam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted January 9, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted January 9, 2012 Melba Ketchum The post that Arla put on my wall is true. I know her, but have not been to OK since 1995. My sighting is not a big deal. I saw one silhouetted between me and a white gooseneck trailer in bright moonlight at about 25 yds. It was about 10 feet tall as it walked by. I saw eyeshine from 1 nearby. I was alone at the time. I don't ever take cameras in case it scares them off. Not trying to prove anything here and do not care if I am believed or not. The DNA takes care of that for me. I should not have even brought it up. Any investigation on my part is purely to satisfy my curiousity (which got me into this in the first place), for my enjoyment and edification and no other reason. Like · · A few seconds ago · Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) I consider myself an impulsive poster, but I think I could have restrained myself, all things considered, if I were her from posting about my sighting until after the paper was out. Edited January 9, 2012 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted January 9, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted January 9, 2012 I consider myself an impulsive poster, but I think I could have restrained myself, all things considered, if I were her from posting about my sighting until after the paper was out. But she said she doesn't care if people believe her or not & good luck to her with that attitude, it's a good one to have. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Yep, but with a study coming out, I think I would have waited to mention it on the off chance that people would think less of the results because I had had a sighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Saskeptic, why don't you enumerate these other human technological incursions into BF territory that you think are equivalent in quality to a game cam? I have already (and here are a few more): fenceposts, fences, old cars, deer stands, beer cans, bottles, Wal-Mart bags, houses, livestock, tires, wildlife feeders, bird houses, flagging, pipe, campsites, roads, road signs, etc. No matter how smart they are, bigfoots have no way of knowing that those little plastic boxes affixed to trees are any different (or more threatening) than any other human items they might encounter as they go about their business. . . . I'll continue to consider a game cam inherently intrusive and objectionable to anyone able to appreciate its purpose. (bolding mine) I see you're starting to catch on. Now how in the Sam Hill would a bigfoot be able to "appreciate the purpose" of a game cam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Oh let me see, they can talk or communicate to each other perhaps in some way? Joe Bigfoot told Bob Bigfoot one flashed him ( of course the photo was just a blob squatch for whatever reason) and the flash had his night vision ruined for a good 20 minutes and he kept running into trees and falling down until his vision readjusted. Word flew through the bigfoot network and now all of them know that these things can temporarily blind you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Saskeptic, I disagree, I don't think you are 'trying to understand'. I wrote a nice response to this earlier but it got lost to the BFF ether. The upshot though was this: I am trying to understand. When I gather information and perspectives from proponents on various issues, I use that to help me determine things that might be plausible about bigfoot. Some of those perspectives - if well supported and articulated - make it into my "plausibility canon", and I go to bat for them, even among skeptics at the JREF. A good example might be that I agree that there is plenty of food in many North American landscapes to support a low density population of something like a bigfoot. On other aspects of the phenomenon, I continue to be dubious when no coherent explanation is forthcoming from the proponents. So far, a good reason for why bigfoots avoid game cams with greater success than they avoid live humans falls in this latter category. Occasionally, I pose this question just to see if someone with fresh ideas can articulate something plausible. Word flew through the bigfoot network and now all of them know that these things can temporarily blind you. Well that's something . . . but of course if this had happened we'd have an awesome close-up of a bigfoot face on a memory card somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I think there are some out there, either dismissed or just never put forth for public review. How many game cams are used for just hunting purposes versus sasquatch research? Chances are someone got something and just didn't recognize it or just didn't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Most Primitive cultures have issues with having their pictures taken. It's pretty common and documented. . . . BF as ''human''= avoidance of camera traps bears more investigation. Yep, I'm on board grayjay. But don't those primitive cultures take issue with their images reproduced on the little pieces of paper, rather than the little device that captured that image? I can see bigfoots being super smart and being human and not wanting their souls captured or whatever. The part I don't get is the bigfoot sauntering through the woods, coming across a plastic box strapped to a tree, and somehow making the connection that the plastic box can steal its soul. Regardless of how bigfoots might respond to having their picture taken, how do they make the connection that the thing on the tree takes pictures? I think there are some out there, either dismissed or just never put forth for public review. How many game cams are used for just hunting purposes versus sasquatch research? Chances are someone got something and just didn't recognize it or just didn't care. Sure, we can only go with what we know in a discussion like this, and we assume that no one has taken an awesome photo of a bigfoot with their game cam. By the same token, we also assume here every day that no one has a live bigfoot chained to the floor joists in their basement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Oh come on Sas, bigfoot in shackles in a basement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) They present papers "in progress" at annual scientific meetings in order to obtain criticism, advice, comments, or other feedback. Here's the specifics of confidentiality for a paper an author submits to Nature, for example. Apparently the author is "welcome to post pre-submission versions or the original submitted version of the manuscript on a personal blog, a collaborative wiki or a preprint server at any time (but not subsequent pre-accept versions that evolve due to the editorial process)." RayG Edited January 9, 2012 by RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 entirely possible; this is done regularly by scientists. They present papers "in progress" at annual scientific meetings in order to obtain criticism, advice, comments, or other feedback. Let me say that you are being fed a line of baloney about total secrecy. IMHO that is a smokescreen for "no paper," or at least nothing worth publishing. AKA "the check is in the mail." I think it might depend on what your paper is about. Some works are high profile while others are considered fringe. It would seem to me that the first question to be raised at such a presentation would be whether anyone has reviewed the findings and if it were published. The remainder of the discussions would likely go like they do here, with skeptics unable to get past the premise for the study in the first place, and never trusting that second and third unbiased opinions have been weighed. You don't think it is logical that if someone had done so much work so as to identify a new species, that they would want to protect their data in that discovery? Who would want to put in all that work only to get scooped by someone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts