Damning For Skeptics

[Incorrigible1]

So pleased to actively choose to come to "The Bigfoot Forums" and find posting after posting decrying their existence. One would get the impression this were a site to discourage discourse in the subject.

[kitakaze]

So pleased to actively choose to come to "The Bigfoot Forums" and find posting after posting decrying their existence. One would get the impression this were a site to discourage discourse in the subject.

The shock and horror that not every person who talks about Bigfoot believes it to be a real animal. Last time I checked, this was a forum to discuss the subject of Bigfoot, not dictate whether it exists as a real animal or not. I1, maybe you could give a ratio of skeptical members vs proponents? Empty whining doesn't sway people the way hard numbers do, I think.

[Guest]

Any logical "discussion" regarding Bigfoot should, every time, include whether or not they exist. That should be so until they are proven.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

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.

It's fine to have a skeptical opinion of Bigfoot and or the witness encounters but please, let's not discourage anyone from reporting their encounter(s). It's hard enough to get anyone to come forward with their info as it is. If stories had anything to do with funding or lack of, then SETI would have never received a dime. It's a safe bet there are more "crackpot" stories about UFOs in the general public than there are about Bigfoot. EX: How many stories of alien abduction vs stories of Bigfoot abduction are there? Landslide for ET. Yet SETI has received funding in the past.... Funding for discovery of this unknown Earth species is unlikely, and that's fine in my book. A word about funding: Any funding for the discovery of Bigfoot would likely be in the form of a grant made to a University somewhere. I don't think an academic sitting in an office with a fat grant is going to discover much without riding on the coattails of the unpaid Field Researcher. The discovery of the species is likely going to be made by the person in the field with the boots on the ground probably while investigating an area listed in a sighting report. And we taxpayers won't have to invest a dime in that Field Researcher. So let's not try to take away the sighting reports or stories of potential witnesses by telling the witnesses "you are doing a grave disservice." by coming forward with their experience. Let's hear them out and invest our efforts accordingly. Chris B.

[Guest dozy]

A sense of perspective should be sought on the spending issue, I think.

As much as we're all intrigued by the phenomenon of the big, hairy beastie, the search for extraterrestrial life has scientific and, more importantly from the point of view of government expenditure, strategic implications that the search for an upright hominid in the PNW does not.

As much as they may both ultimately be fruitless exercises, or at least very, very hard to pursue, when weighed in the above context it's completely impractical to expect that the government will spend as much on the search for Sasquatch as it was once willing to spend on the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. The asymmetry between the significance of a positive result in both fields should testify to that.

[Huntster]

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?

You're first point is valid. Congress did cut SETI funding (and, indeed, attacked NASA's budget overall) after people complained about it. However, if you combine the costs of Project Sign, Project Grudge, Project Blue Book, and SETI, you will find that hundreds of millions of dollars were expended over a 45 year period investigating UFOs and the prospect of extraterrestrial intelligence, and it was justified with evidence no more "compelling" than that of sasquatch. And with sasquatchery, they haven't expended a nickel. It is overdue for at least an initial response to the phenomenon.

However, your second point is not valid. There are as many wacky UFO and alien abduction stories (if not more) than with sasquatchery.

[Huntster]

You think the current body of evidence justifies 60 million in spending.

Not necessarily. I used the $60 million figure as that is approximately the amount spent on SETI alone (and well after similar military costs investigating the UFO phenomenon).

I'm not going to play the "how much" game with you. My position is that our wildlife management agencies are responsible for wildlife management, a bipedal ape should be assumed to be wildlife if it exists, there is plenty of trace evidence and testimony that they exist or very recently existed, if they do exist they are quite clearly rare, wildlife management agencies have not invested any resources to investigate the phenomenon yet, and it is long overdue for them to do so.

[Huntster]

Just a quick note on Ivory-bills and the reason money was rapidly freed up for them........

I do not have a problem with the investment in the ivory billed woodpecker search or investigations into UFOs and SETI. Indeed, it was government's responsibility to do so.

My problem is the complete lack of a similar response to sasquatchery, as well as the continued resistance to do so.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 30 September 2010 - 07:47 PM, said: 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".

What sort of investigation shouldve been done in this case that wasnt?

Nothing. It was your example, not mine. (You really don't think I'd fall into your silly trap, do you? Do you really think that people who believe sasquatches exist are stupid?)

Since this was based purely on testimony, a police or game management report filed was perfectly appropriate.

However, if footprints, scat, and hair had been found along with thrashed vegetation and perhaps a smashed hood on a parked vehicle, perhaps a bit more investigation would be due. Wouldn't you agree?

If a dozen people witnessed it, perhaps a bit more investigation would be due. Wouldn't you agree?

[Guest]

I think things like the Kansas Dept of Wildlife and Parks Large Carnivore Response Team is wildlife management addressing the issue. They don't specifically state "Bigfoot" or "Sasquatch", but they have a team together to identify and address reports of large carnivores within the state. There are a number of contacts within that state that are specifically assigned to the Large Carnivore Response Team with "scientific" credentials. I'm sure if you had a large print photographed you'd get a response from the Response Team.

So, without being specific a bigfoot response team, I think there is a plan in place to address reports of large carnivores/animals in the state of Kansas. It then makes me wonder if we have other plans in place, in other states or jurisdictions, that are there to address reports. Maybe we are looking at this too high level when what we should be doing is looking at this a step or two down?

[Guest]

The asymmetry between the significance of a positive result in both fields should testify to that.

It does to me.

It's fruitless to complain about the funding for some things but not others because it assumes that funds are allocated through some objective process of merit and need. That's simply not the case, and everyone knows this.

If you make the case to Congress that we need giant radio antennae to search for signals of other technological civilizations in the universe - and Congress agrees - good on ya. But until you pursue similar avenues for other things you want to do, you don't really have cause to complain that Congress hasn't come up with the mandate to fund such things on their own. Squeaky wheel, and all that.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 30 September 2010 - 07:55 PM, said:

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

Interesting, and you know these apes were bipedal how?

I don't. I believe the science that desperately decrees such. You know; Darwinism?

You also forgot to mention that these "bipedal ape" fossils were found in Asia.

I didn't "forget". It was stated that we know bipedal apes existed on this planet at some time in contrast to our absolute absence of <adjective> evidence that extraterrestrials existed.

None in North America where bigfoot is reportedly seen.

Similar creatures are reportedly seen throughout Asia, too, and we also know about the migration of fauna across Beringia (including man himself).

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

Took a body to end that dispute didnt it.

Sure did. But they exist, don't they? So is that some sort of justifiable excuse for the foolishness?

[Guest]

My problem is the complete lack of a similar response to sasquatchery, as well as the continued resistance to do so.

Right, but the reason for the strength of that response, I submit, wasn't just the quality of the evidence produced that the woodpeckers were really there. Remember, regardless of your feelings on the subject that sasquatches should be considered endangered species, they aren't. As you know, the money and resources brought to bear for Federally endangered species dwarf similar investments in all other species.

[Huntster]

Shouldnt be too hard to collect one if there is a 8-10 foot bipedal ape running around in North America.

Shouldn't be too hard to make contact with a species so advanced that they defy the speed of light and time and abduct people, either, right?

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?

Then we'll find out where it comes from.

How can you say any evidence comes from a sasquatch?

How can you say it doesn't?

You know its from a sasquatch how?

I don't. I believe it does.

Games over yet?

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...

Nope. Games not over.

Some people never learn..........

[Huntster]

Huntster, you seem to have a consistent POV about the Wildlife people, that they have been derelict, irresponsible, etc.

That would either be a false impression or another game of yours. It is my "POV" that denialists are derelict and irresponsible. Wildlife management agencies have ignored the issue, and it's overdue for them to address it.

That almost seems more important to you than bigfoot.

Considering the obvious rarity of these creatures if they exist, it is critical to their survival for our wildlife management agencies to manage them in accordance with the principles used to manage all endangered wildlife.

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?

Pungi pit slur (in other words, your classic and expected games) aside, yes and no. I have received one fishing citation in my life, and that was fairly recently; 2006. I was cited for unattended lines when I set some burbot sets (as had been previously legal at that location, was still legal in many locations, and is a common practice statewide), and no, I felt no hostility toward the individual officer who cited me (he was a pure professional, and a former soldier), and certainly not toward the ADFG. Indeed, I have interacted with the department and many individuals within the department both personally and professionally over the past four decades, and my long time neighbor is a member of the Alaska Board of Game.