Guest Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 I'm not sure why showing an interest means you're not busy living your life. I'm also not sure about the logic behind, "I don't know what they got, so they got nothin''". Hypothetically speaking, if a study found proof of an extant non-human hominid, do you really think anyone on an fringe Internet forum would be privy to the results before it was made public? The only reason we know anything at all is because some sample providers weren't as discreet as the people doing the science...IMO. Wait and see and don't sweat it. If you don't think anything will come of this then congratulations, you just made the safe bet. Amen. I get the feeling some of the people who aren't interested in any of this also only like Playboy for the articles.
bipedalist Posted October 16, 2011 BFF Patron Posted October 16, 2011 I'm not sure why showing an interest means you're not busy living your life. I'm also not sure about the logic behind, "I don't know what they got, so they got nothin''". Hypothetically speaking, if a study found proof of an extant non-human hominid, do you really think anyone on an fringe Internet forum would be privy to the results before it was made public? The only reason we know anything at all is because some sample providers weren't as discreet as the people doing the science...IMO. Wait and see and don't sweat it. If you don't think anything will come of this then congratulations, you just made the safe bet. Sounds like the epitaph, on a not too famous set of scientist's headstones. Sorry, but that's the first thing that comes to mind, too much Spoon River Anthology in High School I guess,
Guest Jodie Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 I think you can compare a lot of us and our interest in bigfoot to the crowd at the Smithsonian Human Origins Project. Check out Jennifer Clark in this clip at the bottom of the page, it kind of sums it up for me although it's a slightly different topic, I totally empathize with her. Just the realization that you might be looking at potential evidence that someone or something left behind that might not be exactly the same species as you are is awe inspiring, to put it mildly. You can call it anything you want but until you live that moment, or are confronted with the unexplainable, you can't truly appreciate the mind set. As long as people continue reporting bigfoot, the interest in the possible existence of this creature will persist despite everything else. I'll never have any regrets about my interest in bigfoot regardless of the outcome of the OP, EP, Dr. Ketchum's study, or all of the crazy shenanigans surrounding all of it: http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/hop-team?page=1
TimB Posted October 17, 2011 Author Posted October 17, 2011 If the reaction and support of the public didn't matter, there would be no publications in journals. Science needs the public as much as the public relies on science for new information. Tim B.
Guest RedRatSnake Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Amen. I get the feeling some of the people who aren't interested in any of this also only like Playboy for the articles. What ! ! there's articles in those ~ Tim
southernyahoo Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 I mean if you have such rock hard video, dna blah blah proof AND you are letting tidbits out to the media to keep them interested, wouldnt you be somewhat worried that someone else might just stumble across one, film it and completly take the wind out of your sails? Sounds like a sure way to flush out the proof doesn't it?
Guest Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 I think the release won't prove anything. It'll make news and debate and interesting conversation. But no body or capture = no proof they exist. We need a body, alive or laid out on a table so we can "see" the proof. A magazine article won't prove squat. I have already went from checking this site multiple times a day to checking in maybe twice a week. I am losing interest with no real "news.". Maybe I'll start following Nessie sites or turn to UFO next?
Guest slimwitless Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) A magazine article won't prove squat. I disagree to a point. It really does depend on whether that "magazine" is Nature or the self-published, first edition of Squatchin'. Edited October 17, 2011 by slimwitless
Guest Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 In regards to these announced "projects" - EP + OP/Sierra Shootings, again- not in regards to my belief in existence- I think 127 makes a valid point or question. It's actually something that's been eating at me for a while, and I've been hesitant to say anything, as to not offend the people who are involved and may be either reading or participating here. In both cases- when/if the "news" does come, it IS going to come in a $$for-sale$$ package. EP- yea fine, people like pointing out all the $$ that Mr. Erickson has shelled out from his own pocket to fund his research, but hey- I didnt twist his arm and make or ask him to do so. He was/is financially able to do it, is interested enough to spend his own money, but with what end in mind ? The question that comes unfortunately to my mind, is this: Will it be a $$for-sale$$ DVD documentary to help him recoup his hard earned $$ that he dished out, or from the beginning was he a savvy businessman who saw an opportunity to manufacture a product that he knew would be palatable to many thousands of die hard Bigfoot fans, and hundreds of thousands/possibly millions of people who would make an "impulse buy" because of the shock value or excitement tied to the "groundbreaking news" contained ? At face value, and especially in my opinion with recent news associating his project with the likes of Todd Standing, the already mentioned questionable video footage, its not a stretch for me to legitimately wonder about the latter part of my question. OP- and now, while we've been given scintillating bits of the story here on the BFF, a similar question starts to gnaw at my brain- because the answer here is- "wait for the BOOK".... Again, it makes me wonder to some extent the same as the above..... TO BE FAIR, however- it there is a publication of the information in a noted and respected science journal, and the book comes after that, then of course I'm less suspicious. I'm certainly not saying that if I found myself in the same position that I wouldn't at least look into making some $$ on the back end of things.. Unfortunately in both cases, the tying of the information release to an apparent $$ making effort, does not help communicate legitimacy. It will doubly **** both projects if the DNA report comes back in any way shape or form as "inconclusive" as to either identifying a new unknown species or not. If what we get in the end, is DNA results that say human or near-human, and more blurry video footage, I'd say were in for yet another let down.... Like I said though, I'm remaining cautiously optimistic, and will be patient to see what happens. my .02 cents A.
Guest Crowlogic Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 I wrote it off about 7 minutes after first hearing about it. Actually my sole interest in Bigfoot is limited to the Patterson Gimin Film. Sadly virtually all that's happened since 1967 is worthy of the Jerry Springer Show. But yes you can fool a lot of the people a lot of the time.
BobbyO Posted October 17, 2011 SSR Team Posted October 17, 2011 I wrote it off about 7 minutes after first hearing about it. Actually my sole interest in Bigfoot is limited to the Patterson Gimin Film. Sadly virtually all that's happened since 1967 is worthy of the Jerry Springer Show. But yes you can fool a lot of the people a lot of the time. You'd only be fooling them past say 1970 though Crow wouldn't you, as that's about the time roughly you believe they went extinct isn't it ??
Guest Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 I wrote it off about 7 minutes after first hearing about it. Actually my sole interest in Bigfoot is limited to the Patterson Gimin Film. Sadly virtually all that's happened since 1967 is worthy of the Jerry Springer Show. But yes you can fool a lot of the people a lot of the time. Crowlogic, please don't take this as an attack, I'm just trying to understand all sides of this debate. You indicate that you have no other interest in BF other than the PGF, yet you've participated in a number of discussions in this forum in regards to other BF reports, videos, photos, etc. Granted, you take the negative position on these issues, but still that demonstrates an interest. Don't get me wrong. I think your posts are generally well thoughout and constructive, but is it possible that those of us who aren't willing to either call this a hoax or authenticate it are just open minded and not foolish? And would you agree that to declare something in the negative or the positive without doubt takes equal parts proof?
Recommended Posts