Justin Smeja Incident?

[Wooly Booger]

Rene Dahinden was an excellent researcher and a pillar of the Bigfoot Community. His no nonsense, down to earth approach to Sasquatch research should be emulated by Bigfoot researchers.

 

The fact that he called out woo for what it is, irrational foolishness, only serves to heighten my admiration for the man. Without Rene Dahinden, there would be no Bigfoot research. Dahinden was investigating Bigfoot before the name "Bigfoot" existed, and when a young journalist by the name of John Green was still a skeptic.  

Edited June 15, 2021 by Wooly Booger

[hiflier]

No, WB, we're gonna all wait until someone shoots one, even if it DOES look too Human. If it happens to be a man in a suit, well then......it's only a man in a suit. It'll be his fault for dressing up and trying to hoax some poor hunter. And eventually, one of them has to turn out to be the real thing. Maybe the second one, or the tenth or the fiftieth. But DANG IT! One of 'em has to eventually be a Sasquatch.

Edited June 15, 2021 by hiflier

[Wooly Booger]

1 minute ago, hiflier said:

No, WB, we're gonna all wait until someone shoots one, even if it DOES look too Human.. If it happens to be a man in a suit, well then......it's only a man in a suit. Eventually one of them has to turn out to be the real thing. Maybe the second one, or the tenth or the fiftieth. But DANG IT! One of 'em has to eventually be a Sasquatch.

I completely agree. And this is yet another reason why shooting a Bigfoot needs to be a last resort. Before we pull the trigger, we had better be 150% certain that we are actually shooting a Bigfoot and not some idiot in a monkey suit. After you explained the process to me, I think eDNA is the best route to take at this present time. 

 

Though I must admit, as an archaeologist, I am partial to bone research 😆

[hiflier]

Too much work. Sitting behind a tree with a gun is so much easier. But should you find a bone, the DNA will definitely follow and play a part. Is this a game of time then? Is the pressure on the bone finders and the DNA samplers? There's a million hunters a year out there. It would be so much easier to to just wait for the big drop. It's been almost 70 years, what's one or two (or 20) more going to matter? People say the creature is doing just fine on its own, so grassing one would only amount to being little more than a vanity expedition anyway.

 

So don't knock on any doors, don't ask F&W, state or federal, don't get science involved. There a Sasquatch out there whose days are numbered and has a bullet with its name on it. We can all go home and simply wait for the news on the tele.

Edited June 15, 2021 by hiflier

[Wooly Booger]

7 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Too much work. Sitting behind a tree with a gun is so much easier. But should you find a bone, the DNA will definitely follow and play a part. Is this a game of time then? Is the pressure on the bone finders and the DNA samplers? There's a million hunters a year out there. It would be so much easier to to just wait for the big drop. It's been almost 70 years, what's one or two (or 20) more going to matter? People say the creature is doing just fine on its own, so grassing one would only amount to being little more than a vanity expedition anyway.

 

So don't knock on any doors, don't ask F&W, state or federal, don't get science involved. There a Sasquatch out there whose days are numbered and has a bullet with its name on it. We can all go home and simply wait for the news on the tele.

70 years and no Sasquatch has been brought in on a slab yet. Most people with a gun who encounter one are hunters who are completely unprepared for the encounter. I have yet to hear of someone appropriately armed with the intent to bring in a Sasquatch actually encountering the creature. Which is not at all surprising considering how rare, intelligent, and naturally elusive this animal is 

[hiflier]

We just haven't waited long enough. Have faith.

[vinchyfoot]

32 minutes ago, hiflier said:

We just haven't waited long enough. Have faith.

 

 

Faith makes it a religion, again, the woo thing to nowehere

[Kiwakwe]

46 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

The fact that he called out woo for what it is, irrational foolishness, only serves to heighten my admiration for the man. Without Rene Dahinden, there would be no Bigfoot research. Dahinden was investigating Bigfoot before the name "Bigfoot" existed, and when a young journalist by the name of John Green was still a skeptic.  

Wooly, I understand that your world view excludes anything unprovable by current scientific methods and can respect that’s where you are with things but what you are saying here comes across as arrogance. I’m sure there are plenty of instances of phenomena that aptly fit your description above but to toss out all anomalous experience is hubris. Our understanding of the world doesn’t cease to expand, why not allow room for it to do so? That is science ain’t it? We learn by investigating what is presented. Imagine what our understanding will look like in a thousand years (if our idiocy hasn’t done us all in). We’ve a lot to learn, we’ll get further along with an open mind, not by forcing facts to fit within present levels of knowledge.

 

I was in your camp, I did my share of scoffing. Though I’d done a few foolish things in my life, you’d be hard pressed to find someone, myself included who considers me irrational. I’ve had a SINGLE, isolated experience of what you term woo, directly after the real world physical event of a rock being thrown. It got me thinking differently and paying closer attention to the reports. There are enough credible people claiming to have experienced something odd to deem them all illusory. Though many events are coincident, who knows if it has anything to do with BF. Discounting these reports is not the way to go forward and is simply a sign of confirmation bias. I'm always amazed at how unscientific scientism can be. It really resembles a faith based cult when it appears with it's magical powers of proving negatives.

 

If you have an agenda to get the subject considered seriously by the scientific community and you feel certain claims should be withheld in the effort, that is one thing but deriding the experience of others just becomes divisive and is pointless. That agenda probably won't happen on BFF turf anyway and discussion here is probably not the milestone which science will judge worthiness of pursuit.

 

 

 

[Huntster]

56 minutes ago, hiflier said:

.......we're gonna all wait until someone shoots one, even if it DOES look too Human. If it happens to be a man in a suit, well then......it's only a man in a suit. It'll be his fault for dressing up and trying to hoax some poor hunter.......

 

Oh, I don't know if it will "be his fault", but if he's wearing a fur suit in the woods trying to get people to think that he's a Bigfoot, he's one incredibly stupid person. I've been shot two different times in hunting accidents, and while I wasn't wearing hunter orange either time (I never do), I wasn't trying to act like a Bigfoot, either. An accidental shooting hurts just as much as an intentional shooting. 

 

The first big game animal I killed in Alaska was a wolf, and I regretted that shot immediately after standing over the dead animal. A local trapper bought the carcass from me the next day, and that made me feel even worse about it.......like an assassin. Since that day, I've been treated to several close encounters with wolves that remain among my most treasured outdoor experiences. I have a very deep understanding now about how wolves became the very first animal domesticated by man. I guess you can say that I "mindspeak" with them. This line of experience with wolves brought me new understanding of William Roe's words about his encounter with a sasquatch. I could kill anything if given documented orders or a permit by government, because the morality of the killing has been assumed by an appropriate authority, but I'll pass on taking that authority myself.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

8 minutes ago, Kiwakwe said:

Wooly, I understand that your world view excludes anything unprovable by current scientific methods and can respect that’s where you are with things but what you are saying here comes across as arrogance. I’m sure there are plenty of instances of phenomena that aptly fit your description above but to toss out all anomalous experience is hubris. Our understanding of the world doesn’t cease to expand, why not allow room for it to do so? That is science ain’t it? We learn by investigating what is presented. Imagine what our understanding will look like in a thousand years (if our idiocy hasn’t done us all in). We’ve a lot to learn, we’ll get further along with an open mind, not by forcing facts to fit within present levels of knowledge.

 

I was in your camp, I did my share of scoffing. Though I’d done a few foolish things in my life, you’d be hard pressed to find someone, myself included who considers me irrational. I’ve had a SINGLE, isolated experience of what you term woo, directly after the real world physical event of a rock being thrown. It got me thinking differently and paying closer attention to the reports. There are enough credible people claiming to have experienced something odd to deem them all illusory. Though many events are coincident, who knows if it has anything to do with BF. Discounting these reports is not the way to go forward and is simply a sign of confirmation bias. I'm always amazed at how unscientific scientism can be. It really resembles a faith based cult when it appears with it's magical powers of proving negatives.

 

If you have an agenda to get the subject considered seriously by the scientific community and you feel certain claims should be withheld in the effort, that is one thing but deriding the experience of others just becomes divisive and is pointless. That agenda probably won't happen on BFF turf anyway and discussion here is probably not the milestone which science will judge worthiness of pursuit.

 

 

 

This is concerning UAPs, but when Sam Harris is saying things like this…then obviously there is a really good chance the universe is a lot weirder than science was originally capable of admitting.

 

 

“Whatever is true ultimately should be captivating, right? What’s more captivating than whatever is real? Because … again, we’re just climbing out of the darkness in terms of our understanding of what the hell’s going on, and there’s no telling what spooky things may in fact be true.”

 

“what is being promised here is a disclosure that is frankly, either the most alarming or the most interesting thing in the world, depending on how you take it, but it’s not a representation of the facts that will give scientific skeptics any comfort, and that’s just … we’re faced with the prospect of having to apologize to the people we’ve been laughing at for the last fifty years who have been alleging that they’ve been abducted or that cattle have been anally probed, pick your punch line.”

 

 

Edited June 15, 2021 by BlackRockBigfoot

[NCBFr]

58 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

70 years and no Sasquatch has been brought in on a slab yet. Most people with a gun who encounter one are hunters who are completely unprepared for the encounter. I have yet to hear of someone appropriately armed with the intent to bring in a Sasquatch actually encountering the creature. Which is not at all surprising considering how rare, intelligent, and naturally elusive this animal is 

I read that a sniper brought in by the Gulf Coast Bigfoot Research Organization (GCBRO) refused to take the shot when he had one centered in his scope because it looked to much like a human.

[hiflier]

36 minutes ago, vinchyfoot said:

 

 

Faith makes it a religion, again, the woo thing to nowehere

 

Sure. But a bullet (or six) is final right? Nothing else needs to be said or done. It means I can quit everything I've been doing and have to make no effort at all. The gun is boss. A body is what science wants so anyone without a gun is off the hook.....no more hiflier and his ridiculous DNA dialogue. I should be packing big heat instead of a stupid little snow scoop. What was I thinking??!? One of these creatures anyway simply doesn't deserve to live, right?

Edited June 15, 2021 by hiflier

[Wooly Booger]

20 minutes ago, Kiwakwe said:

Wooly, I understand that your world view excludes anything unprovable by current scientific methods and can respect that’s where you are with things but what you are saying here comes across as arrogance. I’m sure there are plenty of instances of phenomena that aptly fit your description above but to toss out all anomalous experience is hubris. Our understanding of the world doesn’t cease to expand, why not allow room for it to do so? That is science ain’t it? We learn by investigating what is presented. Imagine what our understanding will look like in a thousand years (if our idiocy hasn’t done us all in). We’ve a lot to learn, we’ll get further along with an open mind, not by forcing facts to fit within present levels of knowledge.

 

I was in your camp, I did my share of scoffing. Though I’d done a few foolish things in my life, you’d be hard pressed to find someone, myself included who considers me irrational. I’ve had a SINGLE, isolated experience of what you term woo, directly after the real world physical event of a rock being thrown. It got me thinking differently and paying closer attention to the reports. There are enough credible people claiming to have experienced something odd to deem them all illusory. Though many events are coincident, who knows if it has anything to do with BF. Discounting these reports is not the way to go forward and is simply a sign of confirmation bias. I'm always amazed at how unscientific scientism can be. It really resembles a faith based cult when it appears with it's magical powers of proving negatives.

 

If you have an agenda to get the subject considered seriously by the scientific community and you feel certain claims should be withheld in the effort, that is one thing but deriding the experience of others just becomes divisive and is pointless. That agenda probably won't happen on BFF turf anyway and discussion here is probably not the milestone which science will judge worthiness of pursuit.

 

 

 

My intention isn't to demean people who have had certain experiences. I agree that there somethings about our world that we as humans do not yet understand. But my point is that these experiences need to be approached from a scientific manner. In fact, I posted an entire thread concerning this issue. It is now in the Paranormal sub-forum if you are interested. 

 

However, those "researchers" such as Nick Redfern, Lapseritis (whom I mentioned above), and Thom Powell are the reason why our subject of inquiry isn't taken seriously by the scientific community. I agree that the stranger Bigfoot reports need to be investigated. But they need to be approached from a scientific manner. Read the thread I posted. I address many of these weirder encounters. 

21 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

This is concerning UAPs, but when Sam Harris is saying things like this…then obviously there is a really good chance the universe is a lot weirder than science was originally capable of admitting.

 

 

“Whatever is true ultimately should be captivating, right? What’s more captivating than whatever is real? Because … again, we’re just climbing out of the darkness in terms of our understanding of what the hell’s going on, and there’s no telling what spooky things may in fact be true.”

 

“what is being promised here is a disclosure that is frankly, either the most alarming or the most interesting thing in the world, depending on how you take it, but it’s not a representation of the facts that will give scientific skeptics any comfort, and that’s just … we’re faced with the prospect of having to apologize to the people we’ve been laughing at for the last fifty years who have been alleging that they’ve been abducted or that cattle have been anally probed, pick your punch line.”

 

 

UAP's have nothing to do with Bigfoot. They are a separate phenomenon entirely. More than likely top secret military aircraft. 

[hiflier]

22 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Oh, I don't know if it will "be his fault", but if he's wearing a fur suit in the woods trying to get people to think that he's a Bigfoot, he's one incredibly stupid person.

 

It would be intentional, stupid or not, so....his/her fault. I mean, would it be worse if it was a woman in a suit?

[Kiwakwe]

17 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

My intention isn't to demean people who have had certain experiences. I agree that there somethings about our world that we as humans do not yet understand. But my point is that these experiences need to be approached from a scientific manner. In fact, I posted an entire thread concerning this issue. It is now in the Paranormal sub-forum if you are interested. 

 

However, those "researchers" such as Nick Redfern, Lapseritis (whom I mentioned above), and Thom Powell are the reason why our subject of inquiry isn't taken seriously by the scientific community. I agree that the stranger Bigfoot reports need to be investigated. But they need to be approached from a scientific manner. Read the thread I posted. I address many of these weirder encounters. 

I'll check that out.

What is the scientific approach to investigating a one-off "mindspeak" event? The typical response is to categorize as hallucination (though we have a word we don't really know what hallucinations are do we?) I get it, and it's what any sane individual does when confronting an oddity--find a "rational" answer based in the known. I don't think they always have sources from that databank, which is why we need Science, capitalized for the pureness of its pursuits. I trust in the truly inquisitive methods, I find fault with its scientism hubris. There are novel things out there, oodles of them I'm sure, they need to be allowed for. 

Edited June 15, 2021 by Kiwakwe