Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm on the Huntster's side. By default, I find that the "right" side.
The "Huntster's side":
1) If sasquatches never get "discovered", there won't be a bit of sweat off my brow
2) I have nothing invested in this phenomenon
3) I don't matter, neither does my opinion, and I have no responsibility regarding this situation whatsoever
You might want to change the "by default its the right side" part... Leaves no chance for a dialog.
Nope. It stands, because the Huntster's side is flexible. It varies with the evidence and circumstances.
Originally Posted by Huntster
The PG film is nearly unimpeachable. It has moving footage, it incorporates high quality footprints, independent individuals happening on the scene while some evidence is still there, they photograph the evidence too, and none of it is revealed as hoaxed. Yet look at the fussing and BS that goes on here.
Its your opinion.
My opinion is that its a hoax being kept alive by people that are making money from naïve believers and by the naïve believers themselves.
And there we have a pair of opinions.
But I will not say my position is right by default.
I never stated that the PG film 9or any othere evidence) is bonafide by default.
PGF is suspected to be a hoax. There are pieces of evidence indicating it might be, there are a lot of fishy details.
More than enough to dump it in to the garbage can.
Painfull for some, but its the only way.
It is inconclusive, but it's my opinion that it is bonafide.
Originally Posted by Huntster
A photo ain't gonna cut it. It's gotta be a corpse, and it has to be rubbed in a lot of noses.
"Painfull, but may be the only way."
Maybe. Painfull? Perhaps for the bigfoot...
Considering the odor these creatures are reported to emit, it might be painful for the noses that get rubbed, too.
Not to mention the egos attached to the noses...........
Specially when some people try to raise flimsy and/or hoaxed evidence to the status of good or even "nearly unimpeachable" data, its natural to raise the required quality level.
"Raise the required quality level?"
So, as the quality of the evidence rises, so too do the denials?
And thus it is that only a corpse will do.
Originally Posted by Huntster
That's your right, and you might be correct. I'd have to learn about the "expedition."
At this point, I suspect that even a confession by the PGF hoaxers themselves or the gorilla cloth would not be enough change some people's beliefs...
For me it would certainly affect my opinion of that particular piece of evidence.
Originally Posted by Huntster
The authorities with the responsibility of wildlife management should step up to the plate.
I always find amazing how the onus of backing the claim is so quickly moved from the claimer to someone else...
Like I stated above, I have no responsibility whatsoever to establish whether or not these creatures exist.
State and federal wildlife agencies are specifically responsible for the management and welfare of wildlife. Period.
It's their responsibility. Period.
But, if you folks think they should act, then its your responsability to force them to do so.
Maybe so. And maybe that's the next step.
The discussion you are having with us, trying to convince us, you should have with them.
Grab all the "reliable" data you have and go see them.
Yup.
Originally Posted by Huntster
If a sasquatch is found, will you be prepared to fly?
If a real bigfoot is found, I will say: WOW! I was wrong! As unlikely as it was, the critters are real. Cool!
But this will not change the fact that the "everything is possible" line is sheer BS.
Correct. You cannot fly like Superman, but an uncatalogued primate is.
Originally Posted by Huntster
Do you reject all such pro-bigfoot evidence "out of hand" and "all day long"?
Do you reject all con evidence like this?
Nope.
Now please illustrate some "con evidence."
Originally Posted by Huntster
How about another example? Recent and very relevant:
They said they'd seen it. Sorta like the thousands of sasquatch sightings. A creature that has yet to be "re-discovered", despite Cornell researchers actively looking (with granted money) for the past two years.
Yup. "It's a significant development", all right. The judicial precedent could be very significant, indeed.
If the lawsuit is found to have merit by the court, than it sets the precedent for sasquatches, too.
If it weren't for a small incovenient detail. The woodpecker has some "advantages" that bigfeet do not have. For example, we knew they existed, there are similar creatures at that particular environment...
Try presenting evidence under suspicious of being a fraud to a court to see the outcome...
The same evidence that will be presented in the above mentioned trial would be presented in a similar sasquatch trial, except more such evidence exists for sasquatches.
In the ivory-billed trial, there are eyewitness testimony and a single, blurry film which is controversial.
In a sasquatch trial, there are hundreds more eyewitness testimoy (including law enforcement officials on official investigations) as well as many footprint casts, and including at least one blurry film which is controversial.
Originally Posted by Huntster
Maybe state wildlife agencies and the US Fish and Wildlife Service can be forced into looking into the matter by the courts....................
OK, but then, please tell me, why you bigfoot paladins have not started to do so?
1) Not all sasquatch proponents agree with this point, and
2) Funding
Maybe its because presenting evidence under suspicious of being a fraud to a court is not a very wise move...
It's just as wise as bringing snail darters and ivory-billed woodpeckers into court.
The snail darter situation (after a favorable ruling) was later proven to be a fraudulent legal tactic used to halt development, yet that very same legal move was repeated many times.
The legal precedent has been already set. It's just a matter of manipulating it for some good instead of using it to halt development or forward environmental propaganda.
Originally Posted by Huntster
Maybe I don't need "experts" to agree.
Maybe a judge will do.....................
Submit the case to a jury. I would like to see it. But remember the issue regarding presenting evidence that may be false...
False evidence of all kinds go through the legal system every day. I'm going to hear some in just a couple of hours.
BTW, why the bigfoot experts dont gather and move on? Because the data is flimsy and entangled with hoaxes... OK, but if it is, then its not reliable and conclusions draw from it such as habitat, behavior, distribution, population, etc. are completely useless.
Frankly, I think the sasquatch researchers that are into the phenomenon seeking fame and/or fortune are the ones people like yourself focus on, and that degenerates the overall effort.
An attempt to poison the well? A "divide-to-conquer" approach? I hope not, for this could be misinterpreted as a sign that you've run out of arguments!
Are you united with Mad Horn?
I'm certainly not united with Beckjord.
