Guest toejam Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 That's so convenient to say...AND I don't think you understand how hard it would be for a population of 8 ft primates to go undetected. You can not think of it as one solitary animal out there hiding and foraging, we are supposedly dealing with thousands, but where are we seeing its affect on the environment? Actually they come very close to us and have no problem staying hidden. I guess that would make them smarter than us in their own domain. Some of us might have a difficult time entertaining the thought that an intelligent creature could avoid our detection in their own home. It's your mindset that will get you absolutely nowhere in this pursuit. Refusal to be open minded to unconventional concepts are what causes the uphill battle in their classification in the first place. They don't affect their environment like we do. We destroy, slash and burn, clear cut, pollute, etc. They know how to maintain a healthy home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) I totally get where you are coming from Denialist. I have never seen live in person anything "Squatchy." I am not in the woods enough to see elusive wildlife though. My inner skeptic is at once silenced by my rational/logical side that asks "how can everyone be lying or misidentifying the things that they are reporting?" It is more difficult to believe that everyone is wrong than someone is right. Most folks aren't that versed in the outdoors and I am certain there are misidentified animals. Furthermore, there are people who want to believe that what they are seeing is a Sasquatch. But there's a sliver of the reporting population who are very well aware of the critters surrounding them who DO NOT want to believe what they saw was a Sasquatch and even though they have spent years in the woods amongst the animals, they have no explanation for what they saw other than Sasquatch or a 7-9 foot tall human in a suit. Ziggy, the fact that hunters only go 250 yards or less into the woods from a road suggests the ease in which they could be hoaxed. While attempting to demonstrate how much land we don't traverse, you just fueled the argument that most hunters are hoaxed or hoaxable. I am sticking to my guns that they might exist and that some people I trust to be very intelligent and even headed have seen something they can't explain. When I get up off this couch, spend hours, days... weeks and months in the woods, then I will have a valid argument to make. At this point, I am just typing words. In the end, everyone's experience is their own and it is what it is. So, since none of that had anything to do with Ketchum's report, can we... Edited October 27, 2012 by James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 That's so convenient to say...AND I don't think you understand how hard it would be for a population of 8 ft primates to go undetected. You can not think of it as one solitary animal out there hiding and foraging, we are supposedly dealing with thousands, but where are we seeing its affect on the environment? Perhaps after you eliminate unvetted reports, misidentified reports and hoaxes we are only talking about a few individuals left. I have always thought the claims of 'thousands of sasquatch scattered across the nation' to be inherently challenged by the paucity of vetted evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Perhaps after you eliminate unvetted reports, misidentified reports and hoaxes we are only talking about a few individuals left. I have always thought the claims of 'thousands of sasquatch scattered across the nation' to be inherently challenged by the paucity of vetted evidence. Stunning statement.... BTW, i know several investigators that have " vetted " thousands of reported encounters. They have thousands, not just a few, but thousands, after their vetting process. They were and are professional investigators in real life also...... Reputable ...... To coin a term ........ Their " Binders" are FULL Speaking of " Full. Binders" some of you deny-ers etc.. Should have your Binders full of missed speculation on this thread ( You are now repeating things ) And ready to be vetted after the Ketchum and Sykes papers are released... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Stunning statement.... BTW, i know several investigators that have " vetted " thousands of reported encounters. They have thousands, not just a few, but thousands, after their vetting process. They were and are professional investigators in real life also...... Reputable ...... To coin a term ........ Their " Binders" are FULL Speaking of " Full. Binders" some of you deny-ers etc.. Should have your Binders full of missed speculation on this thread ( You are now repeating things ) And ready to be vetted after the Ketchum and Sykes papers are released... All I can say is let's see the reports documenting the vetting. Investigators don't just accept the work of other investigators. You build from another's investigation only if you have reviewed and accept their written report. Very much like peer review only less formal. And if the report isn't written, for all practical purposes it didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 I'm going to post this link to respond to the continued use of the "we should have one if they're there" argument http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080805-gorillas-congo.html in particular this quote: In general, the WCS findings demonstrate that our intensely observed planet still has its biological secrets, added Richard Bergl, curator of research at the North Carolina Zoo. "It is extraordinary that in this day and age," he said, "there could be a population of a hundred thousand or more gorillas that were essentially unknown to science." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 I'm going to post this link to respond to the continued use of the "we should have one if they're there" argument http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080805-gorillas-congo.html in particular this quote: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) Interesting Mulder.. And so true, Futher proof, that the scientific community is just a half-shell of the world of scientific discovery......Of note, Academia only goes where some one's previous blood sweat and tears (think Bigfooters ) leaves no alternative but to be investigated by that closed door society of "Tenured ". scientists. In the Bigfooters world that includes a "Professional Veterinarian Scientist", practicing in the REAL world.... Not the big office, closed door world of Academia.... It's becoming more and more evident that in some cases the "Peter principle" has been applied... ( people do reach, thru tenure, & etc. their level of incompetence and achievement......) in the Academia of the Scientific World. I think much of this do nothing in Bigfootery is in fear of the Skeptics and losing tenure by researching big foots . It is also evident that sitting at a desk, writing and projecting "The skeptics mantle" over " the field findings" of the folks working in the field. "is no way to "discover" the presence of 125,000 large primates ..... Of note, these primates are not trying to hide, just survive.... Interesting that National Geographic prints stuff on unknown primates ....... Say it ain't so Academia..... Edited October 28, 2012 by ScienceCritic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 ^Youre points are well taken. The "ivory tower" scientists (or as I call them today, the Lab Coat Boys) have always looked down on field researchers where those researchers were preceived to be "outside" the academic circle. The so-called "gentlemen explorers" of 19th century England, for example, would routinely report amazing things only to be ridiculed by the scientific establishment. The gorilla itself is a textbook case. Documented by explorers for over 2,000 years, but not accepted by Science until the late 1800s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Some quotes from the article: Deep in the hinterlands of the Republic of the Congo The gorillas have thrived thanks to their remoteness from human settlements, food-rich habitats, and two decades of conservation efforts in one of the world's poorest countries, Unlike BF, who is reported all over the place, near cities, etc in one of the most tech advanced countries. A first ever ape census in northern Congo... FIRST EVER....maybe someone can get these guys to find BF, the current batch of BF researchers including MM and all of his TV money have been failing for how long? The other way to look at this is that these guys were able to wade into the the deep jungles of the Congo and take a census, why can't just 1 BF get caught? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Some quotes from the article: Unlike BF, who is reported all over the place, near cities, etc in one of the most tech advanced countries. FIRST EVER....maybe someone can get these guys to find BF, the current batch of BF researchers including MM and all of his TV money have been failing for how long? The other way to look at this is that these guys were able to wade into the the deep jungles of the Congo and take a census, why can't just 1 BF get caught? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) Well ......... I assume you would not or did not WADE in to the deep jungle, for the census .... Sad to say the trend in Academia is to let some one else do the heavy lifting. I'll bet the folks doing the census were not "tenured" but paid on performance .. How "bout you"?????? Also, ( you have probably heard this before ) I can take you to some places in this vast tech jungle we live in that I guarantee you, nor any human goes to on a yearly, bi- yearly on maybe never basis. BTW ... No trail cams ever placed here (see above definition) .. They (trail cams) are put in user areas ((areas used by deer (etc) and humans) ) .. Probably 98%of the time. Some people get sneaky tho. But seems Bigfoot might be onto them... Might be that they know lots about their 2%. I'm Just Saying ....... Fact is, "latest stats", show there are fewer folks living outside the limits of suburbia "now" than there were 50 or so years ago..... Tech = Suburbia, best I know. Many back then lived in the woods to put food on the table..... Not so now, just intense for 3 or so months, then nothing. Like the Mayan planting rituals ....... Predictable ....... I can't explain the trail camera problem ( lack of pictures of Bigfoot ) but that is only for about the month before hunting season.... Plus hunting season ..... I know trail cameras are never put in those places humans avoid. ( see line 2 above ) ... BTW, when the Ketchum paper is published and Sykes comes out .. The Skeps with the "skeptic first" mentality followed by "speculation mode" gleaned from many hours of practice while sitting behind a desk in the Tower, responding to forums like this one, will probably see MORE pictures, movies and trail cam pictures than they want..... And many more than they can explain ... ( Desks and computers, you remember that tech stuff you mentioned , do that type of thing) Funny how even The bravest, will not show any evidence to be cut up by speculation, speculation, speculation, and constant skepticism... i think it's human ego .. What about you. Edited October 29, 2012 by ScienceCritic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 ^^ Not sure why you asking if I'm "paid on performance", but since I am a business owner and not "tenured"...I would say yes - I'm paid on performance. The point is that using the NG study as support of the existence of BF is no more valid than using it against. Apples and Bananas. I don't deny that there are places in North America that people rarely if ever go, but if you look at a map of BF reports, they're not just in remote areas. They are all over - close to towns and buildings and roads. So is BF just pranking us by showing up nears towns etc only to sneek secretly back to the unexplored areas? The problem is that BF is not just limited to the uninhabited areas - like the gorillas in this study- based on siting reports they are in every state - why is it so hard to find just one? Are the only sitings that can be believed the ones one the edge of wilderness - where does that leave all the others? Yes, until hard proof is presented I will remain skeptical - I don't attempt to tear down any and everything presented, just those that don't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) I wouldn't trust every sighting, but it could be that there are more of them than we realize right now if they are often being seen near towns. The number of people around towns is way higher than the number of people at a national forest any day. So that could be a factor as well. Edited October 29, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) comncents said: "They are all over - close to towns and buildings and roads. So is BF just pranking us by showing up nears towns etc only to sneek secretly back to the unexplored areas? The problem is that BF is not just limited to the uninhabited areas - like the gorillas in this study- based on siting reports they are in every state - why is it so hard to find just one?" Where is the food? That's where you'll find them. If that's in deep forest, yes. If that's on the edges of civilization, yes. Where's the food? Where is the water? Where are the transportation routes? Where is the forest cover? Where's a safe place to sleep and raise younglings? That's where they are. Those things are what real creatures need - food, water, cover for safety. It's hard to find one, but not impossible. They exist. And they live where those resources are, and where they feel safest. I don't know why it's so hard to get a picture, except that everyone says they seem to be very shy, are very reluctant to reveal themselves and are very, very good at hiding - which is something I can attest to. I hope I get my opportunity some day. It's fascinating that they've been living next to us for hundreds of years, and we barely know anything about them! God dang, the one that followed me and a friend and snapped a branch behind us as we crossed a bridge HAD TO HAVE run parallel to us on a path 20 feet up the bank from us and we didn't hear a dang thing. Not one footstep for that half mile back to the car. They could (generally) avoid us with one eye closed and one hand tied behind their back, so to speak. They are wicked smart in the woods. We are simply outclassed, hands down. And I think people who see them near towns don't report it or tell anyone because they get mocked - or out of concern for the creatures themselves. Edited October 29, 2012 by madison5716 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts