Damning For Skeptics

[Guest River]

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.

This is interesting because a lot of your initial replies indicated you felt that the current system would not and did not investigate these sort of claims. A reversal?

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 01 October 2010 - 09:54 AM, said:

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.

Thank you for this clear illustration of your unyielding position of denial (as if your position really mattered, anyway). Again, there will be no need for money to prove the existence of sasquatch if a body is provided.

[Huntster]

This is interesting because a lot of your initial replies indicated you felt that the current system would not and did not investigate these sort of claims. A reversal?

No.

I think I'm done with you. You have illustrated for me and all your unyielding position of denial. That is good enough, thanks.

Au revoir, mon ami.

[Guest River]

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.

Fair enough. Can you narrow it down? (or dont want to?)

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.

I'm not from any camp. Are you refering to Gigantopithecus?

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.

Rare might explain a lack of fossil record. So would it not existing.

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

Whos denying? I'm saying show me the beef. No burger, no dollar. Simple concept.

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.

So a direct answer to my question would be: The body came first. Thanks for conceeding that point. (/end sarcasm lol)

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

You said we needed 60 mil earlier. Then you said that was not a firm figure. You also stated you could do it yourself with a team of commandos and special forces trained for such a mission. This requires money right?

Anyhow, youre argument for funding wont happen unless a body is presented first. (of course JMHO)

[Huntster]

No burger, no dollar. Simple concept.

You pay the dollar before you get the burger.

You're clearly one of those who insists on free lunches. That tends to be an ideology, too.

[Guest River]

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

Actually we have a lot more than testimony. Does the name Ray Wallace ring a bell? Take a look at bigfoot cast collections. I'd call that proof of hoaxing. What about 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?)

You saw n my above example that the officials werent being ignorant at all. They came and checked out the guys story. Just as they would a ufo report....

No one denying hoaxes on my side... lots of them happen for all sorts of beings or activities. Its not limited to bigfoot or ufos.

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

Desperate? Hardly. Although that may describe the current bigfoot body of evidence....

An absence of proof is not proof of absence.

My bolded. True. Also true: absence is a glaring indicator of non existence. You yourself said the the ivory billed woodpecker "did" exist. Not that it does. How do you know this? Its 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.

Wrong... They couldve come from man. You dont think were capable of duplicating any footprint? Seriously?

also, these sandals seemed to have fooled more than a few people on the proponent side. Had his family not come forward would they still be considered authentic?

[Guest River]

You pay the dollar before you get the burger.

You're clearly one of those who insists on free lunches. That tends to be an ideology, too.

I have enough money for my lunch thanks though, I'll even buy you a burger if you have the time for a chat one day.

The burger is a known thing, maybe you should compare it to something not known lets say... a ghost. (similar enough to bigfoot?) I'd fork out a dollar first for a pie too. (btw, where are these dollar burgers im hungry!) Your analogy is clever, but it fails on the premise of known and unknowns. Everyone knows what a burger looks like, tastes like, and the nutrional value. What do we know about bigfoot?

Give me a dollar, I'll show you bigfoot evidence. Thats how it works isnt it? (bfro wut?)

Edited October 1, 2010 by River

[Huntster]

I'll address these questions. These are not repeated questions or rehashes. When you revert to the rehash tactic, it's over.

Huntster, on 01 October 2010 - 11:25 AM, said:

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

Actually we have a lot more than testimony. Does the name Ray Wallace ring a bell? Take a look at bigfoot cast collections. I'd call that proof of hoaxing. What about you?

I'd call it testimony that he was a hoaxer. He was never caught doing so, and he never documented his hoaxes with photos of him undeniably doing so in a site where people later claimed sasquatch footprints.

And even if he did, big deal. One man fooling people? That justifies the ignorance of the entire phenomenon continent wide with documented testimony going back at least to 1811?

Only to a denialist.

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?)

You saw n my above example that the officials werent being ignorant at all. They came and checked out the guys story. Just as they would a ufo report....

And, again, a report with nothing but testimony with no other supporting evidence doesn't require an "investigation". A local cop came, he talked to the guy, he looked around, and he filled out his daily report. End of event.

What official happened at Bluff Creek? Bossburg? Klawock?

Nothing.

[Huntster]

An absence of proof is not proof of absence.

My bolded. True. Also true: absence is a glaring indicator of non existence.

So is the complete lack of results after hundreds of millions of dollars invested in investigating UFOs and sending signals into the sky. But we haven't done anything like that with sasquatchery, have we?

You yourself said the the ivory billed woodpecker "did" exist. Not that it does. How do you know this? Its absence?

I don't. I wrote that to emphasize "did, as in the past, despite millions of dollars invested in a search" vrs "does, and confirmed after millions of dollars invested in a search". Frankly, I don't know if it ever existed. I guess I just believe they did because they were widely accepted by science and locals alike.

See, believing isn't a problem for me.

How about you? Do you know that ivory billed woodpeckers existed at one time? If so, how so?

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.

Wrong... They couldve come from man.

Funny. I'm a pretty outdoorsy guy, and have been described as "wild" on several occasions, but I've never actually been described as a "species of wildlife" before. So, I suppose in your case, you can be such a species, if you really want to.

You dont think were capable of duplicating any footprint? Seriously?

I suppose someone with a deformed foot 17 1/2 inches long could have been convinced to walk barefoot from a garbage dump through the snow for miles in the dark, then swim across the Columbia River. I actually suppose a number of people without deformed feet could be convinced to do so in order to supply people like yourself with fodder for denial of the obvious.

But I really doubt it. Call me a skeptic.

also, these sandals seemed to have fooled more than a few people on the proponent side

Probably because they didn't have a full grasp of the depths of stupidity possible from a few within humanity. Perhaps they didn't realize that there was a subspecies of wildlife within humanity.

Had his family not come forward would they still be considered authentic?

Probably. See, that's how evidence works for most of us; when it's there, it's there. When it is appropriately found inappropriate, it is considered inappropriate.

Edited October 1, 2010 by Huntster

[Huntster]

The burger is a known thing, maybe you should compare it to something not known lets say... a ghost.

1) Again, you don't need money to prove that sasquatches exist if Paul DuChaillu brings one in for free.

2) I'm not interested in ghosts, or buying a ghost. Let the ghost guys buy them.

Your analogy is clever, but it fails on the premise of known and unknowns.

And your insistence that there needs to be a body provided before there is an investment to search for the existence of sasquatches is so ridiculous as to make one wonder who would insist on such.

Everyone knows what a burger looks like, tastes like, and the nutrional value. What do we know about bigfoot?

That they are bipedal, hairy, and that denialists are in a furor to deny that they exist.

Give me a dollar, I'll show you bigfoot evidence. Thats how it works isnt it?

Close. "Give me the assets needed to find them, and I'll try to find them."

Knock, and it shall be opened unto thee. Seek, and ye shall find.

Don't knock, and nobody will open the door. Don't seek, and ye shall not find squat.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

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.

I also think boots on the ground will get it done. That is my point. If funding to search for this being were to ever arrive, it would not be to for people to look it for in theory in a library.

There is a difference between reporting bf and reporting a bf that talks back. If you don't see the difference, nevermind.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

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

This is exactly what makes my second point valid. Although NASA did chop off funding to many projects as well, the stigma attached to aliens (because of wacky UFO reports) was the main reason why they stopped funding SETI. I'm not saying all reports, just the wacky stuff. In a sense, a potentially great project was cut off by the only people who were interested in the findings. They now have to rely on private funding (donations).

Edited October 1, 2010 by FuriousGeorge

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 01 October 2010 - 07:23 AM, said:

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

This is exactly what makes my second point valid. Although NASA did chop off funding to many projects as well, the stigma attached to aliens (because of wacky UFO reports) was the main reason why they stopped funding SETI.

Sorry. I understand your point now.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

I could have made it a little more clear by simply using the phrase "Catch 22", but I was tired and my brain was not firing at the time. I know my posts are not fluid.

[Guest River]

I'll address these questions. These are not repeated questions or rehashes. When you revert to the rehash tactic, it's over.

Ivory billed SETI what? haha If I followed your rules, it wouldve been game over a long time ago. ;-)

I'd call it testimony that he was a hoaxer. He was never caught doing so, and he never documented his hoaxes with photos of him undeniably doing so in a site where people later claimed sasquatch footprints.

I'd call it definitive proof those tracks were hoaxed, and by whom. I'm quite certain many proponents would conceed this point, but I know you wont. Its not your style ;-) but its ok. We know those "sandals" seemed proficient in their day/time at hoaxing people.

And even if he did, big deal. One man fooling people? That justifies the ignorance of the entire phenomenon continent wide with documented testimony going back at least to 1811?

No. What it does do, is give proof that man hoaxed prints and it fooled well known "investigators". As soon as you or someone else proves even one of those prints comes from a real sasquatch - I'll be more than happy to conceed the point and say some footprints are made by sasquatch. Until then.... they are made by men. Proven.

Only to a denialist.

Seems like you have been doing a lot of that when it comes to some of these points

And, again, a report with nothing but testimony with no other supporting evidence doesn't require an "investigation". A local cop came, he talked to the guy, he looked around, and he filled out his daily report. End of event.

You admitted that the response was sufficient, and that "probably" if there was biological evidence at the scene it wouldve been investigated further. Which brings me to the whole point we were arguing.....

I said the current system takes reports of unusual animals. You said they do not investigate these claims. Yet later in this debate, you admit that "probably" they would given the evidence to support it. The whole point is: If there was a freakin family of sasquatch (which is required for its existence?) spotted and reported, the current system would absolutely respond, and investigate. Do you believe for one minute that given a real live sasquatch found, that no real response would happen? They woudlnt investigate? please.....

You know better. You have even said so. The only thing lacking is..... REAL EVIDENCE.

What official happened at Bluff Creek? Bossburg? Klawock?

Patterson, Marx, and whoever else.

Why would filming a dude in a monkey suit require law enforcement or wildlife officials? Anyhow, you know that given the evidence there would absolutely be the funding and manpower dedicated to the task in a very short time. The only thing is.... there has been no such evidence presented. There has been a lot of evidence that these things are man made. My whole point is made. Our current system is fine, and there is plenty response available for any sasquatch that needs our help or protection. Do you agree? Or are humans killing all the sasquatches? please..........

Edited October 2, 2010 by River