Damning For Skeptics

[Guest Bullfrog]

1) The "you hoaxers" part was because you claimed that you knew them

I know some and know of others. But I don't participate or give aid in any way, so I don't see how that makes me a hoaxer.

3) If it's a reality, it's as rare as a real bigfoot

How do you know that?

4) It is not good or indifferent. It's a real bad thing. Deadly. Dumb.

I think its a bad thing when it gets to the point of purposely trying to mess with someone's mind and never letting them in on the joke. As far as doing it for a good scare then letting the "victim" know about it I think that's just good clean fun, so long as it is done safely. Of course, that's not the kind of hoaxing we are talking about here. So no, I don't endorse it. But its as real as death and taxes.

[Huntster]

My, my. Aren't we infatuated with scarecrows?

Before going forward, let's define "strawman":

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

My position has been consistent all along: wildlife management authorities are duly responsible and are the sole authorities to manage wildlife, and since they have not invested any resources into investigating the thousands of reports, backed by aboriginal historical acceptance and trace evidence, have shirked their responsibility.

There is no "strawman" here, unless it is you building one..............

Now:

Huntster, on 28 September 2010 - 03:40 PM, said:

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.

Strawman. Strawman. Lets stick to the point here about why we should invest in the search for sasquatch, not about what government is or is not spending on currently.

Example, not scarecrow (despite you being scared of the point). And a very valid one. The point is the same, and made glaring by their investment in SETI.

Also, yes.... reports have been investigated by

and wildlife agencies. Want an example look at the

Thanks for that entertaining video. However, there is no mention whatsoever of any wildlife agency involvement, and a responding police officer agreeing that he remembered similar reports in the past, then driving away, is hardly an "investigation".

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.

zzzz Straw..........man

Nope. Little green man.

This reference to the Barney and Betty Hill story validates the Glickman cluster report theory. There were no reports of alien abduction before the Barney and Betty Hill story. Now there are many thousands. Thus:

Let's assume that manufactured reports will be uniformly distributed across the population. If the rate of manufactured reports is constant, then the frequency of reports should correlate to population. To some degree, this is seen in Group B. There may be other unidentified influencing factors such as mean media exposure to Bigfoot, which may influence the density of manufacturing. The author speculates that Group A and Group B represent different phenomenon. Group B may represent manufactured reports because of the correlation to population, whereas Group A may represent a different phenomenon because of its correlation to population density. The author hypothesizes that if Green's data is the superposition of multiple phenomena that this is the expected result.

Media exposure occurs, manufactured reports skyrocket. It happened with Bigfoot, and it happened with alien abduction.

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

Thats awesome because I thought we were trying to come to some conclusion about why "government" agencies should invest millions into the search for bigfoot. and psst, I'm definitely not an example of a politician, or politically correct in any fashion haha

Nor are you ideologically correct, despite your belief that you are.

[Huntster]

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

Much easier justifying cost for an animal that exists....

That did exist. And after millions of dollars, it still did exist.

And so did bipedal apes. There are fossils that proved that bipedal apes existed.

There is no trace evidence whatsoever that extraterrestrial intelligence exists. None. Nada. Zip. Despite scores of millions of dollars invested in the search.

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

Interesting... no distinction between known and existing animals and unknown or unclasssified ones (that i might add have been the subject of many hoaxes) That is noted...

I still find it ironic that you will not conceed the distinction.

No distinction between known and existed animals, and unknown and existed animals from a longer period ago.

Huntster, on 27 September 2010 - 06:34 PM, said:

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.

Lets talk about my bolded. Given the current evidence, you feel like US Fish and Wildlife Service should be obligated to invest in the search for sasquatch?

Yes. As the enforcement agency of the Endangered Species Act, they are the investigative and enforcement arm of government in protecting rare and endangered animals. More, they are the moderating federal agency for interstate wildlife migration and movements, and the government responsible to negotiate wildlife management policies internationally (Canada; we have cooperative caribou management agreements here in Alaska with Yukon Territory).

How much should be invested into this search?

I've already answered this question.

We need numbers if you're asking for a grant or proposing something. Give me a number to work with.

You're not going to work.

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.

You feel that all the existing evidence is authentic and should validate the search?

No. You feel that all the existing evidence is false and should invalidate a search?

[Huntster]

So far to date - all evidence of sasquatch has been explainable by other means.

No, it has not.

There has been no biological proof of such an animal existing.

Yes, there has. There is a plethora of fossil evidence of bipedal apes.

When you say: "footprints/trackways, unidentifiable scat and hair next to nests" How come none of this can be proven to come from a sasquatch?

Because of people like yourself rejecting it when it does not have an existing, accepted specimen to positively compare it to.

If its real scat/hair/nests why does none of it prove the existence?

Because of people like yourself rejecting it when it does not have an existing, accepted specimen to positively compare it to.

Why are we arguing that this is "evidence" of a sasquatch?

Because of people like yourself rejecting it when it does not have an existing, accepted specimen to positively compare it to.

It has been proven that this "evidence" can be fabricated, or misidentified.

It has also been proven that crime evidence can be fabricated or misidentified. Any evidence of anything can be fabricated or misidentified.

It has not been proven that any of this "evidence" comes from a real live or dead sasquatch. Zippo, none.

Yup. Plenty of evidence, no proof. Just like gorillas for 2,800 years. Just like extraterrestrial intelligence. Just like a whole bunch of other things.

That's why the appropriate officials need to investigate.

Why do you keep mentioning hair/scat/nests when none of it can be proven to come from a sasquatch?

Because the appropriate officials need to prove that it comes from a sasquatch so we can identify this unidentifiable evidence.

could be aliens for all we know....

We have already spent scores of millions of dollars trying to communicate with said aliens to no avail. It's time to try to see if it comes from a bipedal ape, which we know existed on this planet at one time.

(Note: I didn't throw out the facetious "strawman" line, did I?..........)

[Huntster]

So far to date - all evidence of sasquatch has been explainable by other means.

No, it has not.

There has been no biological proof of such an animal existing.

Yes, there has. There is a plethora of fossil evidence of bipedal apes.

When you say: "footprints/trackways, unidentifiable scat and hair next to nests" How come none of this can be proven to come from a sasquatch?

Because of people like yourself rejecting it when it does not have an existing, accepted specimen to positively compare it to.

If its real scat/hair/nests why does none of it prove the existence?

Because of people like yourself rejecting it when it does not have an existing, accepted specimen to positively compare it to.

Why are we arguing that this is "evidence" of a sasquatch?

Because of people like yourself rejecting it when it does not have an existing, accepted specimen to positively compare it to.

It has been proven that this "evidence" can be fabricated, or misidentified.

It has also been proven that crime evidence can be fabricated or misidentified. Any evidence of anything can be fabricated or misidentified.

It has not been proven that any of this "evidence" comes from a real live or dead sasquatch. Zippo, none.

Yup. Plenty of evidence, no proof. Just like gorillas for 2,800 years. Just like extraterrestrial intelligence. Just like a whole bunch of other things.

That's why the appropriate officials need to investigate.

Why do you keep mentioning hair/scat/nests when none of it can be proven to come from a sasquatch?

Because the appropriate officials need to prove that it comes from a sasquatch so we can identify this unidentifiable evidence.

could be aliens for all we know....

We have already spent scores of millions of dollars trying to communicate with said aliens to no avail. It's time to try to see if it comes from a bipedal ape, which we know existed on this planet at one time.

(Note: I didn't throw out the facetious "strawman" line, did I?..........)

and it would be just as ignorant to assume so.

Yes, but I'll make yet another exception for you. I think I understand your serious limitations.

[Huntster]

1) casted by the Grey's Harbor sheriff's department

2)Deputy Verlin Herrington's sighting report[/url]

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

4) The Bossburg trackway[/url]

5) The Patterson/Gimlin event

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

Ok, lets go into court or congress, or a board meeting with those examples of bigfoot evidence. This should be strong enough to make the case to justify spending millions of tax payer money right?

I think so. But your imaginary court, congressional, or board meeting (as entertaining as it might be) is just that; imaginary.

You listed some scat/hair samples. Great, this should yield some DNA so this argument should be over. Where are the results? Let me guess.... there are no results... or the results are inconclusive. check.

Correct. The Alaska state lab could not match it to any known indigenous animal, and (not knowing what it was) threw it out.

You have the PGF. Ok, so this is the evidence we're going to present at this hypothetical meeting.....

Why don't you attend your imaginary meeting and let us all know what your imaginary authorities determine. I promise to pretend to be entertained.

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.

Where does the money come from Hunster?

From the same place that funded this.

How many millions are you willing to spend right now of governments money on the search for bigfoot? Remember now, this comes from everyones tax dollars, and you're selling this to congress, or to wild life officials. Give it your best shot.

Approximately $60 million was invested by NASA into SETI.

Give USFWS $60 million.

What do you think the outcome would be of such a meeting given your "evidence" that you offer?

There will be no such meeting, so there will be no outcome.

You dont think it would be irresponsible to spend that amount on such a search considering todays budget?

Not as long as they're still studying porcupine mating habits and looking for extinct woodpeckers.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

<snipped 439 quotes and responses>

Approximately $60 million was invested by NASA into SETI.

Give USFWS $60 million.

That's an interesting point to me, Huntster. It's the only reason I get so uppity with what I consider to be the "crazy" bf stuff, and the only reason I post.

This is going to make a few people angry, so if you are fragile, you should probably skip it.

NASA cut off funding to SETI in '93. Then in '96 we thought we found microbial life from Mars so SETI petitioned the government to start up funding again using this great scientific snippet as a catalyst. Even with (what they thought at the time) was a great find to the presence of life outside our world, still they were denied.

Now, how much funding will devoted to bf research when crackpot people tell crackpot stories? (What I consider to be crackpot, not anyone specific). If they tell these stories to get more people interested in the subject, it's counter-productive. Maybe they don't want funding to pour in. After all, if funding arrives, think of the potential. More scientists, equipment and data. The chance of the crackpot making the discovery for themselves goes way down. Selfish. Knock it off. I would love to have thousands more people interested in the subject, bringing their millions of dollars. Bf "believers" really need to stop submitting anything that the general population thinks is crazy just because it can be argued with semantics into existence on a bf forum. This forum is a good gauge to what people think is nuts. If people here think it nuts, it's a good chance it won't fly anywhere else. If you tell these stories for whatever reason, whether it's closure or attention, you are doing a grave disservice.

I hope I didn't offend anyone. I consider myself to be an outsider to the wonderful world of bigfootery and so far I wouldn't chip in a dime. Except to a small few who actually still keep me interested in this subject.

[Guest River]

snip

I would quote those interesting notes you made - however most of it is useless filler. So we'll stick to the basics here. (without arguing about other existing or non existing animals)

You think the current body of evidence justifies 60 million in spending. You think this 60 million will accomplish the discovery of bigfoot? What would be accomplished by this spending?

Edited October 1, 2010 by River

[Guest]

Just a quick note on Ivory-bills and the reason money was rapidly freed up for them: The Ivory-billed Woodpecker was not only a known, described species, it was actually listed as Endangered under the ESA. It may seem arcane, but it's actually a very big deal for wildlife agencies to finally make the decision that a species is gone so that it can be removed from the list. I think that process for Ivorybills took place in the 1980s - about 40 years after the last, unanimously accepted encounter in the wild. But even then, that was a contentious decision with some folks (e.g. Jackson) arguing for delisting and others (e.g., Fitzpatrck) not at all convinced that delisting was warranted.

So when things looked good in 2004 that we might really have Ivorybills, there was a lot of money thrown into it because a lot of money was potentially at stake. If the USFWS delisted the bird as "extinct" but it really wasn't, then the potential for lawsuits from environmental activist groups was quite high. So the USFWS - in concert with other federal and state agencies - poured a ton of money into survey and habitat protection in the Cache River Basin. They really were pressured to act quickly and boldly, because a lot of money was at stake.

Of course a tremendous amount of private money also went into that effort, but at least this will help explain the federal investment.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

I would quote those interesting notes you made - however most of it is useless filler. So we'll stick to the basics here. (without arguing about other existing or non existing animals)

You think the current body of evidence justifies 60 million in spending. You think this 60 million will accomplish the discovery of bigfoot? What would be accomplished by this spending?

Thanks for the compliment. I'm not sure which part is filler but to answer your questions;

The current body of tangible evidence is non existent, hence me saying I wouldn't chip in a dime.

Do I think thousands of more people (as their full time occupation) searching for bf will bring us closer to an answer? I couldn't say, but I would prefer it. Anytime more people try to tackle a problem rather than fewer, it's always better. Will they even try if people are saying that bf can make a chipmunk implode using infrasound or that they have bioluminescent pee? No

Edited October 1, 2010 by FuriousGeorge

[Drew]

Creekfreak has Ivory Billed Woodpeckers. Why didn't the USFWS just go down to CF's property and prove their existence?

[Guest River]

Thanks for the compliment. I'm not sure which part is filler but to answer your questions;

The current body of tangible evidence is non existent, hence me saying I wouldn't chip in a dime.

Do I think thousands of more people (as their full time occupation) searching for bf will bring us closer to an answer? I couldn't say, but I would prefer it. Anytime more people try to tackle a problem rather than fewer, it's always better. Will they even try if people are saying that bf can make a chipmunk implode using infrasound or that they have bioluminescent pee? No

Sorry FuriousGeorge, my "compliment" was meant for hunsters post not yours!

[Guest River]

snip

Thanks for that entertaining video. However, there is no mention whatsoever of any wildlife agency involvement, and a responding police officer agreeing that he remembered similar reports in the past, then driving away, is hardly an "investigation".

/snip

What sort of investigation shouldve been done in this case that wasnt? How much time and how many employees shouldve been dedicated to "investigate" this mans claims? How much money shouldve been spent investigating this specific claim? Personally... I dont think it deserved any more attention than it got. What about you?

Edited October 1, 2010 by River

[Guest River]

Yes, there has. There is a plethora of fossil evidence of bipedal apes.

Interesting, and you know these apes were bipedal how? Because of a jaw bone and some teeth? cool.... You also forgot to mention that these "bipedal ape" fossils were found in Asia. None in North America where bigfoot is reportedly seen.

Yup. Plenty of evidence, no proof. Just like gorillas for 2,800 years.

Took a body to end that dispute didnt it. Shouldnt be too hard to collect one if there is a 8-10 foot bipedal ape running around in North America. The footage you claim represents a real sasquatch depicts one walking in broad day light (around noon or 1 pm?) out in the open.

Because the appropriate officials need to prove that it comes from a sasquatch so we can identify this unidentifiable evidence.

What if it doesnt come from sasquatch? How can you say any evidence comes from a sasquatch? You know its from a sasquatch how?

We have already spent scores of millions of dollars trying to communicate with said aliens to no avail. It's time to try to see if it comes from a bipedal ape, which we know existed on this planet at one time.

You know that bigfoot existed? Awesome... maybe you should share that information with the world of science. (and direct them to your notes and studies about it) oh wait... you're refering to Gigantopithecus. You know it was bipedal how? (and note, only in Asia - none discovered in NA)

Characteristics of the genus

Gigantopithecus's method of locomotion is uncertain, as no pelvic or leg bones have been found. The dominant view is that it walked on all fours like modern gorillas and chimpanzees; however, a minority opinion favor bipedal locomotion, most notably championed by the late Grover Krantz, but this assumption is based only on the very few jawbone remains found

Edited October 1, 2010 by River

[Guest parnassus]

Huntster, you seem to have a consistent POV about the Wildlife people, that they have been derelict, irresponsible, etc. That almost seems more important to you than bigfoot. Given some of your statements about the way you hunt and the punji pits and all, could I ask (and you certainly don't have to answer this) if you have ever received a citation from some state or federal wildlife agency, ever gotten into some disagreement or conflict with them or their employees (not about bigfoot), that might might make you feel hostile to them?

Edited October 1, 2010 by parnassus