Guest Particle Noun Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 I really don't fault scientists for being overly skeptical of this study, or the phenomena in general. But there will certainly be a good deal of self reflection on how science has allowed a relic hominid (or whatever) to go undiscovered right under it's nose for hundreds of years. Assuming there is anything to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 It's the "Kraken of the woods" we're talking about here, :)Love that by the way Ray, did you get that from EB? Hmmmm... ya know, I don't remember, but I just might have. I've been following the bigfoot mystery for so long things are just a blur (or blobsquatch if you wish). Classic special pleading. How so? Since when has bigfoot been captured or identified? Exactly? Did your scientist see his ghost before or after he wrote the paper? Doesn't matter, because if the paper fails the litmus test, the scientist who submitted the paper can still proclaim -- "I know what I saw. It was a ghost." Did your scientist collect tissue samples thought to be from ghosts numbering over 100 and test their DNA? While she may have accepted supposed ghost samples, I'm not aware of her actually collecting one from a ghost. I don't think you're getting the point I'm trying to make. If her paper is not accepted as one of the biggest breakthroughs in the entire history of science, it won't matter because she SAW one, she KNOWS they exist. Those that seem to abhor mainstream science, and their aloof attitude towards bigfoot, and their anonymous peer-review process, will have yet another reason to condemn science. Never mind that maybe, just maybe, the results were inconclusive, less than earth-shattering, or flat out wrong, there are some that will prefer to find fault with the reviewers instead of the lack of science in the paper. Am I pyschic? No. Do I have a crystal ball? No. All I have is a 40+ year history of following this mystery, and being repeatedly disappointed by bold pronouncements that topple like a house of cards once examined closely. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong. Did your scientist send some of those ghost tissue samples out to other scientists to test on their own? How many of those scientists have seen a ghost? Did your scientist bring together a half dozen or so co-authors for his ghost paper? How many of the co-authors know ghosts exist because they've seen ghosts? As I said, I'd be delighted to be wrong, but I'm putting my money on history. I don't think this is going to end the way proponents hope. It's the new Skookum cast, Jacob's photo, Freeman footprints, Finding Bigfoot, or PGF. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 May that you be delighted... and right soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) It isn't really relevant to a DNA study what she thinks she saw. It is interesting and probably extremely frustrating to some semi-skeptics that don't know what to think. It implies that there must be someone with an at least partially habituated sasquatch that is relatively easy to see and yet we don't have confirmation or proof yet. It is kind of like the Sierra Shooting. It is hard to accept without concluding they certainly exist and still we have no proof. At least there is the DNA study that doesn't rely solely on opinions. Since we are up to now relying only on her opinion and reputation as someone that does genetic analysis it is kind of unsettling. I am personally glad she said it and I have more respect for people saying their opinions even when they are likely to not be well received. A persuasive DNA report would increase her credibility about it if she actually saw one but that will probably never be known. What the DNA says is all that really matters to me and I still assume we will see those results eventually. Edited April 16, 2012 by BobZenor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 ^Sorry I can't abide by that word. It sounds like something you learn about in health class that makes everybody smirk. Preternatural? There is an "r" between the "p" and the "e". How do you feel about its definition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 <p><object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Why are you being so defensive and confrontational ? Dude, you are just a gnat flitting through the windmills of my mind. You need A high air volume to have mindmills, I guess there is more than an adequate amount to them installed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 You picked a poor example with Fouke. Lyle Blackburn's new Beast of Boggy Creek book includes 72 reports from the area going back to as far as 1908 and as recently as 2010. Heck back in 2010 when I ran into Lyle there, I was out that night with others and we had a rather intriguing incident with what may have been one very close. Viewed on a thermal cam after a near response to a callblast and some movement heard and when myself and another flanked the woods near the thermal hit, a loud snap and movement was heard as it exscaped out behind the other down the hill into the swamp. We went in after it and found the just broke green sapling broke down at about 4' high from its burst out of the situation. All of the incident I captured on audio and photographed the break. Normal 5 toed track casts have been made in ther area in recent years too. Have a good day GEARMAN, Blackburn’s sightings chronicle around Jonesville/Fouke pan out this way: 1908, 1916, 1932, 1946, 1947, 1955 (3), 1960s [1], 1964, 1965 (5), 1966 (2), 1967 (2), 1968, 1969, 1970s [2], 1971 [10], 1973, 1974, 1978, 1981 [2], 1984 [2], 1985, 1986, 1987 [2], 1988 [2], 1989, 1990 [2], 1991, 1992, 1993 [3], 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 [2], 1998 [2], 2000 [3], 2001 [2], 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2010. Some of these reports involve more than one person. Many are told much later after the fact, when interest in the Monster was high. One (1991) was not a sighting at all, but instead the discovery of a Siberian tiger carcass in the woods. Some of the sightings are from youngsters and teens. Some of these impressionables involve seeing something in a window after dark, or by peering through a window into a dark yard. Some are the classic Bigfoot crossing the road stories. Some are twice told tales. One involves a child in the back seat of a moving car who overhears the adults up front give a “Did you see that! -- what was it!†type of a comment (I have a buddy that does that with his grandkids --- “Hey, did you all see that! It ran up the hill there! I think it was Bigfoot!!!). Some need a little imagination to flavor it: “it looked kind of like a man, and walked like a man, but she didn’t think it was a man.†(1946). The most celebrated account, and the climax of the movie The Legend of Boggy Creek, may have involved nothing more than a bothersome horse that had the odd habit of noising around folks’ homes after dark. (Blackburn mentions this; Smokey Crabtree gives this as a possible solution to the events of that night in his book about the Fouke Monster and himself). You may even note the yearly distribution--- little action at all until a mid and late 60’s flap, then a early seventies flap (probably related to the movie release) and a steady, if meager, sighting list through the 90’s and oughts. This is the positive evidence (Could you provide information on the “normal 5 toed track casts†you mention?) In the negative column would be all the searches through the years that rendered nothing. Local folks who never saw hide nor hair of such a thing, ditto. The four toed tracks that implies some local hoaxing could enter the ledger negatively, as well as a sighting roster that could be interpreted as a folklore grid. Even your own encounter was far, far from anything approaching conclusive. Something moving about in the woods at night? Blackburn includes on p. 201 a possible encounter by a Bigfoot field researcher group near Fouke. It involved, loke a scenario you described, this: “Much to his [the field researcher] horror, a rock came hurling from the black reaches of the swamp and hit the side of his truck.†This is interesting to me. It implies that maybe the Fouke Monster watches Monsterquest or reads current sighting reports and knows what is expected of him. I don’t recall any of the earlier reports having the Monster hurl rocks at its nearby cousins. But, it is the Bigfoot thing to do nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Any thoughts about who should play you in the movie? I feel there should also be a composite character representing us armchair researchers. Speaking of, the blogger who shall not be named (or linked) has a new post. Avert your eyes! George Henderson, they can come live with me......... H&TH 2 The blogger has things more jacked up than ever............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I live in MO. There are bear, rattlesnakes, etc in MO, but I've never seen one in person even back when I was in the woods as a kid. I've said it before, and I'm about to say it again: what one person does or does not see in no way whatsoever invalidates what another person sees or does not see, barring the case that they are in the same place at the same time. For example: In the spring, summer and fall, I go out into the woods. I may or may not see/hear a rattlesnake. On a 10 degree below zero winter day, I go out into the woods. I stand very little chance of seeing a rattlesnake. However, if I were to crawl into a rattlesnake "den" at that same moment, I'd be up to my proverbial armpits in them (and in rather serious trouble). In your opinion. Mulder, Actually I’m trying to point out the existence of negative evidence, which itself is not conclusive, but seriously suggestive. My thinking that true believers and advocates never consider negative evidence, never enters their mind really, has been confirmed. Thanks. Let’s consider two boats adrift, one with bears, rattlesnakes, and the like, and the other with Bigfoot, Fouke Monster, Mo Mo, etc. Your argument does not work for me. You want to put the man-like Monsters in the boat with bears and rattlesnakes and liken them to one another because you have not encounter any of them in the woods. But really, it is more like you are putting the bears and rattlesnakes in the boat with the “cryptidsâ€. This doesn’t work because we have conclusive evidence of the existence of bears and rattlesnakes in Missouri, and do not have such for the Forest People and Wood Apes. Your argument is question begging. Yes, it is my opinion that 3 or 4 toed tracks are spurious. I understand my opinion holds little water with you. May I bring in some qualified experts: Alton Higgins: “In my opinion, no three-toed track has anything to do with the Sasquatch or any undocumented primate.†Jeff Meldrum: “I have never seen a credible three-toed track.†(Both quoted by Blackburn, The Beast of Boggy Creek, p.198) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Robert Lindsay has a new post up predicting the Ketchum report will likely be published either this week or next. Lots more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I can't imagine there is a tipping point for you without knowing what you call positive evidence. Actually, the issue is not about positive evidence (I agree that there is evidence for Bigfoot). The issue the existence of negative evidence. This is overlooked by Bigfooters. By overlooking or ignoring negative evidence, problems like this crop up: http://www.texlaresearch.com/tx_ellis_incident01.htm I copied this report and showed it to a co-worker who lives near this location (and only 40 minutes or so from where I am sitting now, in a major city). He is no scoftic, or skeptic. He couldn't stop laughing. "Are you kidding me? Give me a break!" He understood, instinctively, the problem with taking such a report seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted April 17, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted April 17, 2012 "Out of this world"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Robert Lindsay has a new post up predicting the Ketchum report will likely be published either this week or next. Lots more... Good news. I was just about to give up the mint-juleps and move over to the Southern Comfort, on my veranda, while awaiting news. Hope it is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 jerrywayne, I recall it was Lyle this past Saturday saying he saw or had cast some 5 toed tracks but I will have to check back with him. My only point was there is the normal history of reports in a good area before and after the famous point in history most know of and for the researcher enough activity by our standards to imply it was and still is an active area for our favorite topic. I don't expect it to be adequate for you nor am I worried about it. Just the same ole adedoctal evidence us regular 'footers embrace and entertain ourselves because we like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts