Can You Really Shoot A Bigfoot?

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

It's more like them bringing me a photo of the latest model of a Milwaukee drill, then telling me to go buy one myself because Santa Claus doesn't exist.......and if you think he does, then bring me his carcass.

 

 

Want a carcass? Pay my expenses up front, and give me legal indemnity. I'll do my best.

 

Otherwise, go pound sand.

 

 

So are Milwaukee drill sales. I've got one. A nice one. But I had to buy it myself. I don't believe in Santa Claus.

Im not asking you do anything you don’t want to do.

[Huntster]

30 minutes ago, norseman said:

Im not asking you do anything you don’t want to do.

 

Sorry. I didn't mean you. I meant Science. I worded it poorly.

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

It's more like no one has a Milwaukee drill but they do have blurry photos of them and create a Forum to discuss their existence for 20 years. Not only that, if anyone asks experts who should know whether or not the drills are real? They don't get a truthful answer. Instead, the ones who should know about the drills will only talk about washing machines.

 

 

Drills don't exist.

 

But they did millions of years ago, but they didn't look like the drill in your blurry picture. They looked like washing machines. We know this even though the only artifacts we have of those old drllls look like the ones in your blurry pictures, except bigger.

 

Now leave us alone. The climate has covid, and we're busy developing a mask for the next hurricane. 

[hiflier]

We've had good qualified scientists that have engaged this Forum over the past few years....they're all gone now.

[hiflier]

14 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Now leave us alone. The climate has covid, and we're busy developing a mask for the next hurricane. 

 

Good one. And here I was thinking I was the only cynic on the BFF. YOU, my friend, I'm happy to say, are right up there with the best of them

 

I have sent that chart I posted to a friend of mine who knows a fairly well respected geneticist. I'm also going to send it to a professor that I know personally who does quite a bit of DNA work- and has access to a lab. He's done a little bit of work with the F&W. Also there's a state biologist that I have spoken to and emailed on occasion who's going to get a copy.  I have permission from the chart's author to do so.

 

Edited November 29, 2022 by hiflier

[Huntster]

12 minutes ago, hiflier said:

We've had good qualified scientists that have engaged this Forum over the past few years....they're all gone now.

 

Do you remember Saskeptic?

[hiflier]

2 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Do you remember Saskeptic?

 

Indeed I do. I remember ALL of them.

[Huntster]

After I debated with him for months about the responsibility of government biologists with regard to sasquatches, he claimed to host a symposium of government biologists and warned them that it was being discussed.

[hiflier]

23 minutes ago, Huntster said:

After I debated with him for months about the responsibility of government biologists with regard to sasquatches, he claimed to host a symposium of government biologists and warned them that it was being discussed.

 

Saskeptic was highly intelligent and articulate. I could see where that point would be brought up at a symposium. Would be cool to see a text of that part of the talk. And you were good to debate such a strong message regarding government biologists. The relatively short fact-finding mission I'm on is to see if I can get a rather mainstream professional assessment of the chart from a couple of people who should know at a glance what the data is telling them. So rather than just tell them, "Hey, looks like there's some DNA that's been collected in North America that's more common in primates than in we Humans," I thought it best to actually show the genetic signatures that have been discovered. The chart, after all, IS written in a scientific language that will be familiar to them.

 

Edited November 29, 2022 by hiflier

[Huntster]

14 hours ago, hiflier said:

.........Would be cool to see a text of that part of the talk. And you were good to debate such a strong message regarding government biologists..........

 

I can hear it now. Saskeptic and the biologists in attendance with no previous exposure to sasquatchery would be trying to outdo each other with wise cracks, and the possible one or two biologists with open minds or even a footprint find of their own would be silent and more resolved to remain that way. I'm pretty confident that such a discussion would end up bolstering the recalcitrance of the industry to any official response whatsoever. Any biologist in attendance, in any future exposure to a witness testifying to them about their experience or after any experience of their own, would clam up like a scallop being jostled in a scoop.

[norseman]

39 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

I can hear it now. Saskeptic and the biologists in attendance with no previous exposure to sasquatchery would be trying to outdo each other with wise cracks, and the possible one or two biologists with open minds or even a footprint find of their own would be silent and more resolved to remain that way. I'm pretty confident that such a discussion would end up bolstering the recalcitrance of the industry to any official response whatsoever. Any biologist in attendance, in any future exposure to a witness testifying to them about their experience or after any experience of their own, would clam up like a scallop being jostled in a scoop.

I’ve read Saskeptic’s posts on the ISF for years. He doesn’t think much on this subject or the people involved.
 

He saw his time here as trying to lead a horse to water. When he realized it was never going to happen? He left.

 

It baffles me that a Biologist is trying to tell witnesses that something they have witnessed doesn’t exist. I wonder what his thoughts are on UFO’s? Anyhow its just an appeal to authority and nothing more.

[hiflier]

Makes me wonder what his take on that chart would be. I did send it off to the people that I mentioned earlier. Now I do what it seems I do a lot of when engaged in this sort of thing....wait.

Edited November 29, 2022 by hiflier

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

I’ve read Saskeptic’s posts on the ISF for years. He doesn’t think much on this subject or the people involved.........

 

JREF/ISF has has numerous former BFF participants go over there and post, sometimes for years; Saskeptic, Drew, HarryHenderson, Kitakaze, RayG, BlackDog, and more. They have provided me much psychological toffee to chew on.

[hiflier]

Nah, they don't need me. And that's okay because I don't need them either. I've already shed off most of this whole Sasquatch subject and about three years ago clarified the path to take. The time since then has mostly revolved around narrowing and straightening it.

[xspider1]

I wanted to participate in the Bigfoot 'discussions' there years ago, but they never approved the screen name I selected: skepticskeptic.  I was being honest though because, I am in fact skeptical of dismissing reports from apparently normal people solely based on pre-conceptions.  It was definitely their loss because I think I could have annoyed most of them quite a bit.