Sasfooty Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) So maybe General doesnt know alot, or as much as you claim too, but most of what he's written and suggested is believable, and his claims are/will be backed up by DNA evidence. Sorry, I forgot to say this in the other post, but it needs saying. I never said or intended to imply that "General" doesn't know as much as I "claim to". If he has killed & examined two of them, he certainly knows a lot that I don't know. I have no doubt it will be backed up by DNA evidence. What I DID intend to say was that whatever he DOES know, doesn't give him the right to be saying "I think most the people that encounter bf have an over active imagination". It sounds mostly like you just dont approve of how/why he got his DNA source material... and your kind of lashing out at him for it. He's given his "mea culpa" several times now, and stated that he wishes he hadnt pulled the trigger... but apparently he did, I don't approve of it, & haven't tried to hide that fact. Whatever "mea culpa" he's given & how many times he's given it isn't much consolation to the dead BF's, & I don't know that I particularly believe he's sorry anyway. Edited October 12, 2011 by Sasfooty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest krakatoa Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 What I DID intend to say was that whatever he DOES know, doesn't give him the right to be saying "I think most the people that encounter bf have an over active imagination". I don't approve of it, & haven't tried to hide that fact. Whatever "mea culpa" he's given & how many times he's given it isn't much consolation to the dead BF's, & I don't know that I particularly believe he's sorry anyway. Surely your position can't be that General doesn't possess the right to state his opinion, but you have the right to state yours, can it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted October 12, 2011 Moderator Share Posted October 12, 2011 I certainly don't mean to offend... but there's also people like yourself- who make claims that they regularly interact with Bigfoot + that they do some pretty odd stuff... like wear cougar hats (as shown in your avatar) + say they know all kinds of stuff, and refuse to say how, or offer any evidence or proof that they do. And please dont give me the "you wouldnt understand" + "its to protect them" excuses... Heard that too many times from people on here, and other places as well. Art1972 If there is DNA that proves these creatures are real how can one deny the ones who claim the things they claim about these creatures.DNA now makes them a proven fact which now make habituation cases a proven fact.Ones who have never have had sightings or encounters of these creatures have no room to speak since DNA now makes Bigfoot a proven FACT. Yes, there are people who know alot more about these creatures but they choose not to speak .These people believe it is best to stay silent knowing that this is what the creatures want most.Was not DNA the ultamate goal and now that this goal has been reach what will be next for these creatures?Death ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest krakatoa Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 DNA now makes them a proven fact...Cart, horse, some assembly required. We have claims of DNA proof just like we have claims of habituation. Where is the documented proof of either? ... which now make habituation cases a proven fact. You have missed badly on your logic here. Proving the existence of 'foot lends some weight to the possibility of habituation, but it offers no evidence of habituation. Much less proof. Ones who have never have had sightings or encounters of these creatures have no room to speak since DNA now makes Bigfoot a proven FACT. Another person who thinks people don't have the right to opine on topics they are interested in if they haven't directly experience the subject of the topic? Did I miss that part in the forum rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted October 12, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted October 12, 2011 Art1972 If there is DNA that proves these creatures are real how can one deny the ones who claim the things they claim about these creatures.DNA now makes them a proven fact which now make habituation cases a proven fact.Ones who have never have had sightings or encounters of these creatures have no room to speak since DNA now makes Bigfoot a proven FACT. Yes, there are people who know alot more about these creatures but they choose not to speak .These people believe it is best to stay silent knowing that this is what the creatures want most.Was not DNA the ultamate goal and now that this goal has been reach what will be next for these creatures?Death ! I've got to say Julio, i think we'd be very naive & we'll be making a grave mistake if we were to accept everyone's habituation claims as a given if/when this Subject gets Scientific acceptance of its existence.. Sightings too, you can't take every Sighting Report in the BFRO Database for example, as a definate, i sure wouldn't anyway, just as i don't now.. Scientific acceptance would make no different to that for me, i take each Report as they come & won't just accept it because it's in some Online Database & has been " investigated " by some volunteer with little or no qualifications to do so, even though i am massively thankful for everything that those people do in order to give Bozo's like myself the chance to make a decision one way or the other.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) Noone has proven anything scientifically yet. I have stated before, I hope that Erickson's video and photographs are impeccable to go along with the DNA samples if they are indeed found to be from and unknown species; because in the biology world you would need those two at the very least in order to make a case. DNA alone with no cooberating videography, photography or a specimen is historically just not enough. http://www.scientifi...ence-2009-08-18 Nucleix was also able to replicate a deceptive double helix just by working off genetic profiles in a police database. Building a small collection of common genetic variations—425—for different genome points, they were able to drum up a fabricated sample. Any biology undergraduate could perform this," Frumkin told the Times. One of the biologist I work alongside is one of the foremost cave divers in the world, she spends several weeks per year in Mexico, South America and other places diving in caves and searching for new species of fish and invertebrates. Her team has found 4 new species of invertebrate in the last few years. I asked her about this morning, hypothecially. What would it take for a new mammal such as canid, feline or primate and she told me without hestitating "You really need a complete specimen or indisputable photographic evidence in order to avoid controversy." Edited October 12, 2011 by Tautriadelta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) Art wrote: "The processes of scraping, soaking, stretching, softening, and tanning etc etc..." Wow - a lesson in taxidermy! Didn't expect that with my BF gossip tonight. Edited October 12, 2011 by tuckybuzzard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) "I think most the people that encounter bf have an over active imagination". Well, just because he has that opinion doesn't make him correct in his assumption; "Over-Generalization" ---get it? I could easily say "I think that most people with an over-active imagination believe they have encountered Bf" Same paradigm, different spin. Although both may in fact be correct to a degree it's circular logic. However the statement he made above is very telling IMO since he has spoken little about their physical appearance. Giving him the benefit of the doubt It would infer that the specimens he viewed (alive or dead) did not live up to the image he had of them in his mind prior to this event. There are a myriad of reasons that could cause that to be so Perhaps they where in poor health, suffered from malnutrition, perhaps even the adult was a young adult and not yet at full height and weight. Maybe previous reports have built them up to beyond gargantuan proportion..there may be some truth in that...people do tend to exaggerate when under duress. No one can say at this point. When the book comes out, or when he decides to speak openly perhaps we will find out. Edited October 12, 2011 by Tautriadelta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Art1972 If there is DNA that proves these creatures are real how can one deny the ones who claim the things they claim about these creatures.DNA now makes them a proven fact which now make habituation cases a proven fact.Ones who have never have had sightings or encounters of these creatures have no room to speak since DNA now makes Bigfoot a proven FACT. Yes, there are people who know alot more about these creatures but they choose not to speak .These people believe it is best to stay silent knowing that this is what the creatures want most.Was not DNA the ultamate goal and now that this goal has been reach what will be next for these creatures?Death ! The DNA is not a proven fact as of this moment. Even if it comes to pass that the DNA points to the existence of something identified, it does not validate the claim for habituation. Can you look at my my FOXP2 gene with an electron microscope and tell that I can't sing? No you can't, there is only so much DNA will tell you in this case without a body or a long term study of the lifestyle. What will be next for the creatures? I don't know, we will have to find one first to get any answers to the details DNA won't reveal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted October 13, 2011 Moderator Share Posted October 13, 2011 Ok maybe i stepped out of line with my statement .But the reason i said was because of what General and Derek have both said and this is Generals statement: We still have some of the flesh sample as i've said many times, but again its already been tested tried and trued. We know what it is and I look forward to when we can share everything with you guys that we have learned from the piece.. By him expressing this statement it sounds like the DNA is done and they have the results but just not ready to release the information formation for some strange reason.Whether the reason has to do with money,lawyering up or whatever other reason.They know what these creature are and know that they exist.So in a strange way to them it is a proven fact that these creatures do exist.The reason they exist to me is that of what i saw and have encountered. I am not trying to start an argument but trying to make a fact that yes the results are done of the DNA of which we all know is all true by the statment that General has made above. I am sure that they would not be lying and this could not be hoax.If it was a hoax how can we ever come to grips with a hoax of this magnitude,where you would have scientist involve. Now if the DNA is true as they say how can we deny reports that have been investigated and have proven to have proof of this creature.sure you can weed out reports that have no merit but what about the reots that do.DnA of this creatures exitance will help these people who have had encounters who have been afraid to report .People want to understand but are afraid to speak because of the redicule.I just believe that we need to listen more.I am just glad that things are starting to be more open.Behavior of these creatures is what is needed now not killing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Art1972 If there is DNA that proves these creatures are real how can one deny the ones who claim the things they claim about these creatures.DNA now makes them a proven fact which now make habituation cases a proven fact.Ones who have never have had sightings or encounters of these creatures have no room to speak since DNA now makes Bigfoot a proven FACT. Yes, there are people who know alot more about these creatures but they choose not to speak .These people believe it is best to stay silent knowing that this is what the creatures want most.Was not DNA the ultamate goal and now that this goal has been reach what will be next for these creatures?Death ! I'm very hopeful that being acknowledged as a genuine species will bring about legal protection for them. That could be an effort that we here could start from here with petitions and legal advice. I could ask my brother-in-love, (my hubbies youngest brother,a lawyer)to look into how we can do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest krakatoa Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Well, just because he has that opinion doesn't make him correct in his assumption; "Over-Generalization" ---get it? I agree. My point is simply that the man has an opinion. That opinion may be over-generalization. It may not be. Whatever it is, it is still just an opinion, as evidenced by the qualifier "I think", and it's veracity has no bearing on his right to speak it. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the opinion. I think a great number of people are not only likely to misidentify sights/sounds/traces when in the deep dark woods, but also are willing to do so if they are specifically looking for 'foot, and are even more willing to do so when accompanied by others giving definitive affirmation feedback to questionable stimula. In other words: If you hear a few footsteps in the woods, and you wonder if it's a 'foot, and your buddy says "I heard a bigfoot!", you are more likely to come to that conclusion yourself. I'd go so far as to say that number of reports fueled by overactive imaginations is likely a majority of reported encounters that don't include up-close visuals, unimpeded by obstructions. That is not to say they didn't witness evidence of 'foot in some manner, but simply the evidence didn't warrant their definitive statement that it was 'foot. It was, simply, indeterminate. And having said that, I'll qualify it further: "Overactive imagination" sounds pejorative. So let's just call it "fueled more by suspicion than by actual data", insofar as a good imagination in the face of the unknown is a healthy trigger for the fight/flight response. That is my opinion, albeit one pretty firmly grounded in basic human nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Do you see the irony here, you make these statements about others making assumptions based on "questionable stimuli" and then make this statement. That is my opinion, albeit one pretty firmly grounded in basic human nature. "basic human nature".... now there is a rock solid science. 99%... (a number that has no basis in fact and was chosen for effect only) of what gets typed on this forum amounts to " My opinion is more scientific than your opinion." Just my un-scientific opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest krakatoa Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Do you see the irony here, you make these statements about others making assumptions based on "questionable stimuli" and then make this statement. "basic human nature".... now there is a rock solid science. 99%... (a number that has no basis in fact and was chosen for effect only) of what gets typed on this forum amounts to " My opinion is more scientific than your opinion." Just my un-scientific opinion. I do indeed. However, it's sort of like "common sense". It's an admission of a generalization, but one that is fairly well accepted. Common sense tells you to NOT touch a red-hot ember. Human nature compels you to "go with the crowd". Personal proclivities aside, I think it's fair to say this is a applicable tendency for the majority of people, hence "human nature". If you disagree that an over-active imagination is helpful to the fight/flight response; or that people within the same cohort will tend to confirm each others biases, then I suppose that's an argument for another day. I'm not stating science, however. I'm stating an opinion based on tendencies that I think are widely accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I have to say that "go with the crowd" is not a label I would hang onto a bigfoot researcher or enthusiast. I believe that is why there are so many differing opinions on the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts