Damning For Skeptics

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 27 September 2010 - 12:07 PM, said:

Yes and yes, for some. As evidence, I present to you an obituary for Paul DuChaillu (published in The National Geographic Magazine in the July 1903 issue: Volume 14, Number 7, pages 282-285), the first man to shoot a gorilla and bring the carcass back to science. This occurred 2 years after On the Origin of Species was published by Charles Darwin, and 10 years before Darwin published The Descent of Man:

The real problem is when the "skeptic" opposes the appropriate wildlife management authorities from conducting their very first official look into the matter. That isn't skepticism. It's denial and obstructionism.

Lets take this into specific examples since you feel like the current system is not open to receiving reports of strange animals, or would not respond if there was a real live family of bigfoots discovered to be living. You dont think our current system would accept or provide the neccesary funding to research or protect?

or...

The real issue is, you expect government to support empty claims and literally invest millions into the search for bigfoot based on the current evidence. Is this correct?

Both, really, but organizations like Cornell, Colorado State University, Audubon Society, the National Geographic Society, etc., have no responsibility to research anything they don't feel like researching. State wildlife agencies and the US Fish and Wildlife Service do. Even if they don't feel that they want to do so in-house, they can contract with academic or other organizations to do so. They do it all the time. Colorado State University performs all kinds of contract research, environmental remediation, etc for the government agency I worked for, and did so for years.

If so - which evidence do you feel has merit in it to justify this kind of spending and effort on an already strained budget?

All the existing evidence: aboriginal historical accounts, trace evidence like footprints/trackways, unidentifiable scat and hair next to nests that resemble gorilla nests in old growth PNW forests, eyewitness testimony (especially that from law enforcement personnel), etc.

We're talking which evidence not in general terms but in a specific example of what you feel was over looked and provided substantial evidence to justify spending.

1) The Gray's Harbor trackways casted by the Grey's Harbor sheriff's department

2) Deputy Verlin Herrington's sighting report

3) The Eric Muench nest find on Prince of Wales Island, complete with hair and scat samples at the site

4) The Bossburg trackway

5) The Patterson/Gimlin event

There are many, many others.......

Which story or which foot sprint, hair do you feel is providing that evidenciary providence (link to your sources) making this a sound decision with my money, and everyone elses?

BTW, this "my money" BS is just that: BS. Frankly, I disapprove of the man-made global warming expenditures. Join the rest of the nation in pounding sand when government spends money you don't like. It's their responsibility to manage wildlife, and they have so far spent the grand total of $0.00 with regard to this matter while spending many millions on SETI, the ivory billed woodpecker search, and a colorful potpourri of other silly money dumps.

Also, exactly what steps should in your opinion be taken to make this happen and make the commitment to the project. How would you make it happen.

I've been there with you and the rest of the skeptical peanut gallery. We're not going there again:

So a second time they called the man who had been blind and said to him, "Give God the praise! We know that this man is a sinner.†He replied, "If he is a sinner, I do not know. One thing I do know is that I was blind and now I see." So they said to him, "What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?" He answered them, "I told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples, too?" They ridiculed him and said, "You are that man's disciple; we are disciples of Moses! We know that God spoke to Moses, but we do not know where this one is from." The man answered and said to them, "This is what is so amazing, that you do not know where he is from, yet he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if one is devout and does his will, he listens to him. It is unheard of that anyone ever opened the eyes of a person born blind. If this man were not from God, he would not be able to do anything." They answered and said to him, "You were born totally in sin, and are you trying to teach us?" Then they threw him out.

[Huntster]

The bird is real, that's the diff.

The bird was real. Millions of dollars later, the bird was still real.

Nobody knows if Squatch is real.

Including those responsible to know.

If they gave out funds for Squatch, then they'd have believers in every paranormal topic asking for funding using the same logic.

Maybe they should have figured that out before dishing out $60 million + with SETI looking for little green men.

[Guest River]

all skeptics.... Go to JREF and stay there! Sasquatch is real. Sorry, I know what i have seen. Sorry if you havn't. or you dont believe me... You only show your ignorance on this forum. Because the ones of us that believe and have seen; dont and never will understand what you are saying. You are just getting in the way of our progressive bigfoot discussions. I know this thread had your names in it. But go away now. thank you... bye bye. The JREF looks like a great forum for ya! Im sure youll enjoy it there. lots of chest beating nonbelievers that will give you all more confidence in yourselves.

All proponents: Go to JREF and stay there! You might pick up some excellent knowledge. JREF looks like a great forum for ya! Im sure youll enjoy it there!

[Guest River]

The bird was real. Millions of dollars later, the bird was still real.

Including those responsible to know.

Maybe they should have figured that out before dishing out $60 million + with SETI looking for little green men.

If you went to court, or to congress arguing this or that about ivory billed dogs, or SETI-PETTY-BETTYS you're not making any progress for this discussion. All you're doing is tossing up strawmen. Lets stick to the real issues. We're talking about bigfoot. An alleged large 8-10 foot bipedal ape that has been reported all over the North American continent. I'm pretty sure the mention of how much is spent on other projects will not have any positive effect on your argument to congress, or to any official you would encounter on your journey to get funding.

You can point to the example sure, but you keep tossing it up as if its relevant. The ivory billed woodpecker is a known animal. It had been previously cataloged. Bigfoot has not. However, there has been substantial proof/evidence that humans have hoaxed bigfoot evidence. Not so much proof (any?) that any alleged bigfoot evidence is real. That is quite the important distinction - dont you agree?

About the SETI thing: Youre wanting to compare research into outerspace with looking for bigfoot? Just so were clear...

[Will]

If you went to court, or to congress arguing this or that about ivory billed dogs, or SETI-PETTY-BETTYS you're not making any progress for this discussion. All you're doing is tossing up strawmen. Lets stick to the real issues. We're talking about bigfoot. An alleged large 8-10 foot bipedal ape that has been reported all over the North American continent. I'm pretty sure the mention of how much is spent on other projects will not have any positive effect on your argument to congress, or to any official you would encounter on your journey to get funding.

You can point to the example sure, but you keep tossing it up as if its relevant. The ivory billed woodpecker is a known animal. It had been previously cataloged. Bigfoot has not. However, there has been substantial proof/evidence that humans have hoaxed bigfoot evidence. Not so much proof (any?) that any alleged bigfoot evidence is real. That is quite the important distinction - dont you agree?

About the SETI thing: Youre wanting to compare research into outerspace with looking for bigfoot? Just so were clear...

River you think all the bigfoot evidence is faked?

[Drew]

River you think all the bigfoot evidence is faked?

I think all bigfoot evidence is not evidence of a giant bipedal hairy north-american apeman.

[Will]

I think all bigfoot evidence is not evidence of a giant bipedal hairy north-american apeman.

Then what do you think they could be Drewswrongimous. Drew that was really funny

I don't think I would misidentify an animal like that in the woods.

What about several people on this forum that have seen them up close and personal.

Whats your best guess in what there seeing.

Edited September 28, 2010 by will

[Huntster]

If you went to court, or to congress arguing this or that about ivory billed dogs, or SETI-PETTY-BETTYS you're not making any progress for this discussion. All you're doing is tossing up strawmen.

I'm making and reinforcing my claim:

The official wildlife management authorities have not investigated this phenomenon at all, yet the government has invested millions in investigating something even more devoid of <adjective> evidence ("compelling", "convincing", "irrefutable", etc) like extraterrestrial intelligence.

Lets stick to the real issues. We're talking about bigfoot.

Yes. The bigfoot which official wildlife management authorities have not investigated at all, yet the government has invested millions in investigating something even more devoid of <adjective> evidence ("compelling", "convincing", "irrefutable", etc) like extraterrestrial intelligence.

An alleged large 8-10 foot bipedal ape that has been reported all over the North American continent.

Sorta' like flying saucers reported all over the world. Since the Barney and Betty Hill event, those little green (grey?) men even abduct humans like sasquatches are reported to do. Certainly appears to me to be an equally important thing to investigate.

I'm pretty sure the mention of how much is spent on other projects will not have any positive effect on your argument to congress, or to any official you would encounter on your journey to get funding.

I agree. Politicians remind me of.............people like you.

You can point to the example sure, but you keep tossing it up as if its relevant.

And you're addressing it as if it's relevant.

Thanks.

The ivory billed woodpecker is a known animal.

It was a known animal. It still was a known animal; even after millions has been spent.

Bigfoot has not.

And, reflecting on the behavior of our official wildlife management agencies, it never will be.

However, there has been substantial proof/evidence that humans have hoaxed bigfoot evidence.

There has also been substantial proof/evidence that humans have hoaxed flying saucer evidence.

That is quite the important distinction - dont you agree?

Nope. It's not a distinction. It's a parallel.

All except the official investigation.

About the SETI thing: Youre wanting to compare research into outerspace with looking for bigfoot? Just so were clear...

I already have. Why wasn't that clear?

Edited September 29, 2010 by Huntster

[Guest]

Oy. OK Huntster, so what is your plan to get those negligent wildlife agencies (and which one, please) off their collective duff to "investigate bigfoot" or something?

As for what you want them to do, I think you've suggested a commando-style, stealth expedition to British Columbia, right? Sounds pricey, but I'm sure the money could be found if the right people were committed. So, when can they stop the effort to your satisfaction? How much bigfoot hunting would be enough for you to cease banging on that the wildlife agencies had in fact investigated it? You're a no-nonsense guy and you know how to get things done, so surely there should be some kind of an exit strategy laid out in advance.

Not trying to bait you into any kind of an evil skeptical trap or anything, I'm just trying to get us past the logjam. (And when I wrote "the right people were committed" I wasn't making an off-color statement about anyone's mental health!)

[Guest RedRatSnake]

What about several people on this forum that have seen them up close and personal.

Whats your best guess in what there seeing.

Bet his answer has to do with Sleep paralysis ~

[Guest UPs]

Oy. OK Huntster, so what is your plan to get those negligent wildlife agencies (and which one, please) off their collective duff to "investigate bigfoot" or something?

As for what you want them to do, I think you've suggested a commando-style, stealth expedition to British Columbia, right? Sounds pricey, but I'm sure the money could be found if the right people were committed. So, when can they stop the effort to your satisfaction? How much bigfoot hunting would be enough for you to cease banging on that the wildlife agencies had in fact investigated it? You're a no-nonsense guy and you know how to get things done, so surely there should be some kind of an exit strategy laid out in advance.

Not trying to bait you into any kind of an evil skeptical trap or anything, I'm just trying to get us past the logjam. (And when I wrote "the right people were committed" I wasn't making an off-color statement about any one's mental health!)

On the old BFF, I had asked what science could do that the public is not or cannot. That is probably something you can answer much better than I. However, even is the above scenario did not produce a body for science to study, it would tell us that science is willing to investigate. That is one measure of success that I think most people (here) would welcome. Actually taking this topic seriously, beyond the myth. I for one would love to be involved in it.

The most likely result will be no body taken, but more likely evidence gathered from trained scientists and depending or the evidence gathered, another expedition would be led. The few scientists that do show an interest in bf know how difficult it will be to get a specimen. With the right people and funding, it can and should be done, UPs

[Guest RayG]

Oy. OK Huntster, so what is your plan to get those negligent wildlife agencies (and which one, please) off their collective duff to "investigate bigfoot" or something?

Huntster shouldn't have to come up with a plan per se, but it would be interesting to hear whether or not he's approached any agency/politician to see if they do.

What say ye Huntster?

RayG

[Drew]

Then what do you think they could be Drewswrongimous. Drew that was really funny

I don't think I would misidentify an animal like that in the woods.

What about several people on this forum that have seen them up close and personal.

Whats your best guess in what there seeing.

I will give you two examples, they both happened to me, after I was interested in the Bigfoot phenomenon.

1. I was hunting in the pre-dawn morning, sitting in my tree stand in Northern Michigan. The light was starting to come through and I was starting to see details on the ground, the sun wasn't up yet, I looked out in the field, and saw a freaking Bigfoot standing in the field 80 yards away, black, swaying back and forth. I kept an eye on it, and it wasn't moving, I thought it knew I was there and was keeping an eye on me. The light got brighter, and I saw it was a burned stump, about 6 feet tall, sitting in this field, and that my pine tree was swaying in the wind giving me the illusion of the thing moving.

2. I was driving on a dirt road in Clare county MI. About a 1/4 Mile in front of me, I saw a black creature crossing the road, the profile was Bigfoot! I hit the gas and tore after it so I could see it better, grabbed my camera off the passenger seat, and about 1/8th of a mile later realized it was an old man in a black parka and pants, hood up, crossing the street to his mailbox. He gave me a wave and I kept driving on past him.

I think this happens all the time to people, 99% of the time the person ignores it, but once in a while the person sees something like the old guy, drives up there and he is gone, well, to them, the last thing they saw was Bigfoot.

The rest are just made up stories or other rarer phenomenon.

[southernyahoo]

Did you get a picture of the old guy Drew? I think if most people are skeptical of bigfoot and didn't see the creature clearly, they aren't going to file a report. Thats common sense to me. The perception that all the reporters are delusional is an arrogant one.

BTW, I'm keeping score here, thats 1% "Mis ID", and less than 1% "guy in a suit hoax", that only leaves 98+ % for lies, hallucinations and real bigfoots.

[Drew]

Did you get a picture of the old guy Drew? I think if most people are skeptical of bigfoot and didn't see the creature clearly, they aren't going to file a report. Thats common sense to me. The perception that all the reporters are delusional is an arrogant one.

BTW, I'm keeping score here, thats 1% "Mis ID", and less than 1% "guy in a suit hoax", that only leaves 98+ % for lies, hallucinations and real bigfoots.

Fixed it