Damning For Skeptics

[Huntster]

Incorrigible1, on 01 October 2010 - 05:09 AM, said:

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.

That's not the problem. The problem is the deceitful debate tactics and vitriol with which skeptics and denialists attack those who successfully debate with them. More, the clear, researchable, and quotable "den" where skeptics gather to discuss their offensives on believers as well as on the BFF itself.

This is an ideological war, and it centers on belief, doubt, and denial.

[Huntster]

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.

That is very true, and the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the various investigations into extraterrestrial life demonstrates that our government has at least looked into it responsibly.

That is contrasted 180 degrees by the complete lack of investigation by the appropriate authorities into sasquatchery.

If the welfare of polar bears (at all time high numbers worldwide, and especially in the United States) and spotted owls are important, then an initial investigation by the appropriate authorities into sasquatchery is just as important and justified.

Edited October 1, 2010 by Huntster

[Huntster]

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.

What an excellent example of precisely what I'm trying to discuss! Thanks, Ace!

From their department:

1. Overview

Black bears (Ursus americanus), cougars (Puma concolor), and gray wolves (Canis lupus) have increased in number and distribution in the United States in recent years. Multiple Midwestern states have experienced a reoccurrence of individuals of one or several of these species in recent times after many decades of absence. No free-ranging individuals or populations of these species are currently known to exist in Kansas, but their immigration into Kansas is a possibility that should not be discounted. Should wild individuals or populations reoccur in Kansas, they would fall under the management jurisdiction of the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP).

Debate by the public over the presence of these species has evoked a great deal of controversy in the state of Kansas for many years. Failure to address these issues in a consistent manner by KDWP has contributed to the controversy and the confusion surrounding the issue, and in many cases, has lead to varying levels of animosity towards KDWP and its staff. Corrective action in this regard is needed.

The purpose of this document is to establish KDWP guidelines relative to the potential presence of several species of large carnivores in Kansas. The possible situations that could involve these species are too varied for a specific plan of action to be applicable. Rather, this document is meant to provide guidelines for dealing with broadly-described situations that may occur. Specifics will be addressed on a case-by-case basis as necessary. There are three primary goals of this document.

First, this document will standardize procedures for reporting observations. Currently, investigations are being conducted, but not compiled and quantified. Standardized reporting procedures will provide for this with almost no additional effort by field staff, since the information requested is likely already being collected during any KDWP investigation. And by quantifying the frequency and outcome of investigations by KDWP, response by KDWP to reports of the species listed above can be validated and defended.

Second, this document provides general guidelines for responding to unverified reports of large carnivores. These guidelines are meant to ensure that cases are handled in a consistent and professional manner. In particular, the potential legitimacy of all reports should be initially recognized. We must also remember that it is of social and biological interest to KDWP to monitor these species if and when they do occur in Kansas – and we should avoid the tendency to place the burden of proof entirely upon the public in lieu of conducting field investigations.

Finally, this document provides general guidelines for responding to verified reports of large carnivores. By providing general response procedures for various situations, field staff will have some guidance as to how to respond to an unexpected situation that requires immediate action by investigating field staff. In cases where time permits, the chain of command may still be utilized.

Too bad Kansas isn't a state with significant sasquatch habitat and reports. BFRO only has 29 reports since 1899 on file for the state.

I'm sure if you had a large print photographed you'd get a response from the Response Team.

I would hope so.

[Huntster]

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.

Correct, and also, as you know, the ESA is as much a political/ideological tool as it is a biological management tool. Thus, if the discovery of an endangered sasquatch might require significant conservation measures in densely forested areas, there would be industries (and their political allies) who would not want the species discovered and considered endangered.

[Guest]

if the discovery of an endangered sasquatch might require significant conservation measures in densely forested areas,

Like northeastern Kansas or the OKC metro?

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 01 October 2010 - 08:34 AM, said:

if the discovery of an endangered sasquatch might require significant conservation measures in densely forested areas,

Like northeastern Kansas or the OKC metro?

Sassy, you're so naughty at times.......

[Guest River]

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.

my bolded Fair enough... Although I think using the 60 mil figure because that is what SETI acquired is an irresponsible way of coming to a figure.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 01 October 2010 - 07:27 AM, said:I'm not going to play the "how much" game with you.

my bolded Fair enough... Although I think using the 60 mil figure because that is what SETI acquired is an irresponsible way of coming to a figure.

Fair enough back to ya'. So let's let the officials put a plan together similar to the Kansas Large Carnivore Response Plan when they finally respond.

[Guest River]

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?

I agree nothing more shouldve been done there. Also, we agree that if there were some biological evidence present it may have vetted a closer look. I suppose the real question is here now... If that biological evidence wouldve been present, do you feel the authorities wouldve investigated further? If so, why or why not?

[Guest River]

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

Actually "the science" in general says it was on all fours. It was mostly touted as bipedal by a bigfoot proponent. (krantz) The truth is, we do not know if it was bipedal or on all 4's. We only have a jaw bone and teeth. That was the whole point... using the term "bipedal ape" is far from correct. Maybe using the term "possibly a bipedal ape" wouldve been more appropriate in this case.

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.

No, we dont. We dont know any such thing about "bipedal apes" unless you're refering to humans.

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

How come no fossils here then? Only is Asia.

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

Simple question... which came first... the money to finance research and habitat for gorillas, or the body? We're still waiting on a body to justify the funding, or it will never happen. If the ape is out there, it can be shot and killed like any other animal. Like gorillas were.

[Guest River]

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?

Then we'll find out where it comes from.

We have. We have proof that men hoax these prints. We have no proof a bipedal ape leaves them.

How can you say it doesn't?

Because there is absolutely no evidence to prove any tracks came from a sasquatch.

[Guest River]

Fair enough back to ya'. So let's let the officials put a plan together similar to the Kansas Large Carnivore Response Plan when they finally respond.

Soon as there is a body, the funding will come. Before that? never. This is bigfoot we're talking about.

[Huntster]

I agree nothing more shouldve been done there. Also, we agree that if there were some biological evidence present it may have vetted a closer look. I suppose the real question is here now... If that biological evidence wouldve been present, do you feel the authorities wouldve investigated further? If so, why or why not?

The authorities might have investigated further (depending on the individuals involved), but it is not likely to have been officially documented. We have cases to refer to. Some authorities (almost always law enforcement officers) have conducted investigations, and even allowed information about those investigations to get widespread. Sheriff Bill Closner of Skamania County and the sheriff's department of Gray's Harbor comes to mind. However, the Eric Muench affair on Prince of Wales Island also demonstrates that Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game and USFS foresters investigated "on the side", and don't want their identities revealed.

I think that some officials simply don't want to risk putting up with the ridicule and vitriole from denialists and the ignorant among the public and among those in their official organizations. And, frankly, I can't blame them.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 01 October 2010 - 07:49 AM, said:

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

Actually "the science" in general says it was on all fours. It was mostly touted as bipedal by a bigfoot proponent. (krantz) The truth is, we do not know if it was bipedal or on all 4's. We only have a jaw bone and teeth. That was the whole point... using the term "bipedal ape" is far from correct. Maybe using the term "possibly a bipedal ape" wouldve been more appropriate in this case.

I never narrowed my statement that "we know that bipedal apes have existed in the past" to gigantopithecus. There as been a literal potpourri of bipedal apes in our planet's history.

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.

No, we dont. We dont know any such thing about "bipedal apes" unless you're refering to humans.

Ah, I see. You are from the camp that if it was bipedal, it was human. Well, I see no need to continue along these lines with you. Apparently, your ideological barriers are more insurmountable than I originally suspected.

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

How come no fossils here then? Only is Asia.

Yet again (for what? the umpteenth million time?), these are clearly rare creatures, and especially in the New World. Even humanity was less densely distributed here. The ape record is even more so. Additionally, this continent was a sheet of ice during most of the Beringia migration epochs.

Catch the clue. Don't let your magazine of denial ammunition squeeze you so tightly.

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

Simple question... which came first... the money to finance research and habitat for gorillas, or the body?

Do you really need that answered? Really?

Okay, if I must:

First came the gorilla. Then came the indigenous recognition of the gorilla.

Then came the humans from the Mediterranean. 2,800 years ago. They discovered the gorilla, returned to the Mediterranean, and there was, frankly, no problem.

Then came the fall of the Roman Empire, and a thousand years later, the Renaissance. With the Renaissance came the beginnings of Modern Science, and specifically, it's ideology.

Now we have a problem. It's ideology. It's denial. The very people who should be researching and investigating natural phenomenon are the very people today who refuse to do so.

Money? As I've clearly pointed out, money was not the issue with other similar phenomenon.

We're still waiting on a body to justify the funding, or it will never happen.

You don't need money to prove bigfoot exists if Paul DuChaillu dumps a carcass on your cold, shiny dissecting table for you.

If the ape is out there, it can be shot and killed like any other animal. Like gorillas were.

<Sigh>

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 01 October 2010 - 07:50 AM, said: 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?

Then we'll find out where it comes from.

We have. We have proof that men hoax these prints. We have no proof a bipedal ape leaves them.

1) We have testimony that men hoax some prints (awfully selective on the testimony you believe, aren't you?)

2) A couple of clowns hoaxing footprints doesn't justify intentional, official ignorance any more than it did with UFOs (do you deny there have been UFO hoaxes?)

3) You appear to be rather desperate in your denial to use such rational

How can you say it doesn't?

Because there is absolutely no evidence to prove any tracks came from a sasquatch.

An absence of proof is not proof of absence. There are footprints that cannot have been "sandals". They were created by living feet, and they could not have been from any other known species of wildlife.

Edited October 1, 2010 by Huntster