Guest Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Now Saskeptic, surely you are a nuanced enough thinker to realize that charging people indiscriminately will bring out the National Guard. It does? All I know is that if I'm camping and some small rocks start landing near my tent, I'm going to assume someone is messing with me. (That's after, btw, some length of time that convinces me that there really are rocks being thrown into my campsite, as opposed to some other natural phenomenon.) My response then, would be something like "Hey <dirty word>, quite throwing rocks!" It might take a few hours of escalation before I decided to leave, and if I was armed and not afraid to use firepower, I might get pretty prickly in response to the prankster. On the other hand, if I'm in my tent and bigfoot comes charging out of the woods screaming at me and kicking my campfire while ripping my tent to shreds, chances are I'll be sufficiently scared to leave - immediately. I guess I'll never understand the minds of them thar bigfoots . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I get that, what I don't understand is why they'd get all territorial with a game cam and not with all the other human stuff that finds its way into their territories. Also, if bigfoots like to beat up on game cams so their photos don't get taken, why don't researchers just put up a whole bunch of fake game cams in bigfooty areas, cover the outside with something sticky, and come back later to collect hairs, fingerprints, etc? So Janice Carter is having sit-downs with the bigfoots in which she shows them game cams, shows them photos taken from game cams, and instructs them that tourists will ruin their way of life once someone snaps a decent photo of one of them? Then she tells them to be sure to share this information with all the other bigfoots on this continent (and others) through their unique system of whooping and smacking trees? Meh, if I was 7' tall and weighed 400 lbs and immensely strong and loud with superior night vision, I would not send interlopers the ambiguous message that I wanted them to leave by tossing rocks into their campground. I would charge them full-on and make it blatantly obvious that if they stayed I would eat them. I gave you the point for setting up the request for a suggestion as to why BF would avoid gamecams if they knew what they were and then ridicule the suggestions with the red herring of Janice Carter. Pretty cool of you. I thought it was you that made the big deal of never using fallacious arguments, yet you don't have a problem using ridicule to make my suggestion look silly. Do you know there aren't people out there somewhere communicating with them? Would it have to be a Janice Carter or could it be someone who hasn't written a book about it. If I were them I would have a system of communications through messengers. Could that explain the single BF that are seen traveling cross country in places you wouldn't think they would be? You see Saskeptic I look at things differently than you because I know they exist. I see a lack of 'Glamour Shot' photos and I wonder "How do they do that?" not whether it must mean they don't exist. I assume they are intelligent enough to "think critically" about what they see and learn how to avoid our attempts. It's possible they do it just because they can. Knowing they exist and not really being interested in proving that to you or anyone else frees me up to just try to learn what I can about them, just for the fun of learning something new. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Looks like Lindsey quoted me directly from this forum on that one. You don't really expect that presentations of the paper and abstract occurs in public prior to publication by a journal do you Parn? 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Good catch Slim. I caught this also when and may have mentioned it in the Ketchum Report thread as well. I am sure someone here knows who Arla is and can make the connection to Ketchum sort of like the Kevin Bacon game. It looks like Lindsay reported on Arla and Ketchum's Bigfoot sighting. I'm guessing this thread was the original source for what he posted. Lindsay speculates that Arla is Arla Collette-Williams. Tonight Arla Williams posted on Ketchum's Facebook page that Lindsay is making things up. She states, "so his story about her being here multiple times to view the Bigfoot is a lie". Well, I went back and listened to the MNBRT show about the Honobia conference. Earlier in the show, Abe (the host) introduces his guest as Arla Williams. Later, someone asks Arla about Ketchum's sighting. Abe states he was told by Melba Ketchum that she witnessed a family of Bigfoot with Arla "this last year". It was odd because Arla never confirmed or denied but simply said she didn't think Ketchum has ever visited "that cabin". Someone followed up by asking for details about the sighting. She basically said she wasn't going to talk about it. It was an odd exchange. The first time I heard it, I got the impression Arla didn't know what Abe was talking about but didn't want to deny it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 OMG....has it really been THAT long since this all started? I knew it was a long time, but had no clue it was almost 3 years LONG. I can't believe that there are still waiting on this. Nalajr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 9, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 9, 2012 Well the guy (Lindsay) is now sobbing that MNBRT didn't give him the credit he should have gotten for breaking the story......PUH.....LEE....SE!. The guy reminds me more of EB everyday (reincarnation probably). Now he talks about how the whole BF world hates him, blah blah blah. All Justin had to do was take names of DFG, badge numbers and check their ID's and the story would have much more validity, maybe re: the visitation. As for Ketchum seeing BF in Oklahoma.......and people not fessing up to it ...... one word ....... disinformation. And now he is bragging about his 25 sources or so........ in his dreams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) I'm not sure what you mean about disinformation. Ketchum says she's seen a Bigfoot. Abe says Ketchum told him she saw a family of Bigfoot in the company of Arla. Because of that (I'm guessing) Lindsay suspects Ketchum saw her Bigfoot at Arla's home. Now Arla says Lindsay is lying. About what? Seeing the Bigfoot in the company of Ketchum or seeing it at Arla's home? If the former, then either Abe or Ketchum is being less than truthful. If the latter, then it's a stretch to suggest the central premise of Lindsay's post is a lie. Edited January 9, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 9, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 9, 2012 Well truths based on partial truths or partial mistruths are what I call incomplete information (possibly disinformation to protect someone else), some might call it all gossip. Still she saw a BF somewhere it seems (perhaps it was just not at that cabin but somebody elses cabin that technically didn't belong to Arla?). There were many premises to Lindsay's latest posting among that one, and his record stands for what it is. I think people (and maybe Bigfoot) are being protected. Lindsay regurgitates what he synthesizes from available sources. Do I think he has the number of sources he states? NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Well, sometimes the cover-up turns out to be worse than the crime. I hope no one destroys their credibility over these weird revelations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 It does? All I know is that if I'm camping and some small rocks start landing near my tent, I'm going to assume someone is messing with me. (That's after, btw, some length of time that convinces me that there really are rocks being thrown into my campsite, as opposed to some other natural phenomenon.) My response then, would be something like "Hey <dirty word>, quite throwing rocks!" It might take a few hours of escalation before I decided to leave, and if I was armed and not afraid to use firepower, I might get pretty prickly in response to the prankster. On the other hand, if I'm in my tent and bigfoot comes charging out of the woods screaming at me and kicking my campfire while ripping my tent to shreds, chances are I'll be sufficiently scared to leave - immediately. I guess I'll never understand the minds of them thar bigfoots . . . No you won't, as long as you don't appreciate how remaining covert is in their interests. The alternative probably entails massive efforts to capture or kill them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I gave you the point for setting up the request for a suggestion as to why BF would avoid gamecams if they knew what they were and then ridicule the suggestions with the red herring of Janice Carter. Pretty cool of you. I thought it was you that made the big deal of never using fallacious arguments, yet you don't have a problem using ridicule to make my suggestion look silly. Um . . . because you were the one who offered the possibility that humans who are "communicating" with bigfoots have been telling the bigfoots that the key to their survival was avoiding camera traps, I figured you were fully on board with Ms. Carter and her stories. Are there other people who claim such contact? She was the only name that came to mind at the time. How am I supposed to know which people who claim to talk to bigfoots are considered disreputable among the population of people who think that there are some who do talk to bigfoots? I'm just trying to understand a mechanism through which the rarest and most elusive creatures on the planet get photographed via camera trap while bigfoot, an alleged species that people like Melba Ketchum claim one can go "visit" apparently at will, does not. We can invent all manner of heightened senses that can help a bigfoot detect a camera trap. but I'm looking for a coherent argument as to why they would care. You offered that they care because people have been telling them that they really should. If my attempt to put your suggestion in terms that I can visualize makes you feel defensive, then perhaps the problem isn't that I'm mean, it's that your suggestion is untenable. No you won't, as long as you don't appreciate how remaining covert is in their interests. I understand that remaining covert would be in their best interests, but they aren't remaining covert when Melba Ketchum can go to some guy's house, take a walk in the woods, and have the bigfoots come out for a meet-and-greet. There is also nothing to suggest to the bigfoots that a game cam is any threat to their cover. That's what I really don't get, and apparently no one else does. How is a bigfoot to learn to avoid a game cam as opposed to the countless other pieces of human stuff they must encounter every day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 They may not know what a photo is, or care. They may simply be something they can detect, and associate with hunters. It does not take a great leap of faith that they are aware of hunters, and the seasons of the hunt. So maybe they have learned the camera traps are part of the hunting scenario, and in turn avoid them.The tree stands do not use energy, so may be of less concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Saskeptic, again I'll suggest that they can distinguish between friend or foe. Much like you could distinguish between the creep that put a game cam in your backyard and the kind people bringing apple pie to the front porch. Or how chimps can distinguish between bushmeat hunters and kindly Jane Goodall. Even prairie dogs can distinguish between men that are armed with firearms (threatening technology) and those that are not, if you believe the research into their language. 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. The more we look into BF and compare the circumstancial reports to what's been previously documented with primitive peoples the more sense the BF phenom is to intellectually understand. Getting definative proof of this is another question entirely. Usually it's the accepted method to begin with a hypothisis and then get evidence to ''prove it''. Not start with evidence and try to form a hypothisis. Until someone picks a original premise they are either animal or human speculation is just a spinning of the wheels. BF as ''animal'' = no avoidance of camera traps BF as ''human''= avoidance of camera traps bears more investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Saskeptic, I disagree, I don't think you are 'trying to understand'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts