Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

[jhunter1163]

Either Bigfoot exists or it doesn't. It's binary. No in-between. In the 45 years since Bigfoot hit the big time with the PGF, there have been no unambiguous photos, no body, no blood, no hair, no scat, no DNA; nothing but blobs on film, slightly out-of-focus pictures of guys in hoodies, rocks thrown at cabins, dubious trackways and sounds that anyone with a halfway decent voice can reproduce.

As I've said before, I would love to be wrong. Prove it to me is all I ask; today I'll have the Crow Cacciatore, rather than the Almandine.

 

[jerrywayne]

TBRC has released information that they have a hair that has characteristics similar to what some researchers believe indicate Bigfoot. They recognize the sample may be from a human (a human, human, and not a Human Bigfoot) or an exotic species like an out of place Orang. They are submitting the sample to Sykes project where it will apparently be tested and the published results will be published at end of year.

 

[bipto]

I would definitely be interested in hearing the answers to the questions that have been put to you. And as far as being the thread's pinata, I will give you my personal assurance that that won't happen (and, as a moderator, I have the power to make sure it doesn't.)

I do hope you'll come back and give discussion a fair shot here. And, to the rest of you, if he does come back, you can rest assured that the civility rules in any discussions will be strictly enforced.

So, bipto, what do you say?

I've been on the other side of that kind of post several times. The assurance of a moderator means a lot to me, so sure, let's give it a try. However, my continued participation in this conversation is predicated on the assumption that I and no one affiliated with my organization will be called a liar or mocked. Neither will the amount of time it takes me to respond to a question here be construed as evasion on my part (nor will the observation that I'm reading the thread but not responding be used to "call me out").

Fair enough?

 

[bipto]

Well I'd provide proof and enjoy watching my opponents eat crow.

I freely acknowledge we don't have "proof" yet. We do have evidence above and beyond the personal experiences of our members but none of it rises to the level of proof.

 

[bipto]

Is the kitchen too hot for you? Asking for proof is rather unpleasant, isn't it?

Not at all. *Rudeness* is unacceptable, but I've been looking and asking for proof for several years now.

 

[bipto]

One bigfoot equals my acceptance of bigfoot; one story is just another story.

Totally agree. 100%.

 

[bipto]

You should be asking Bipto on BFF for the exact location, list of participants, confirmation of the property owner, etc. - but you won't. I take it nobody on the BFF has even bothered to ask the location. If that doesn't speak volumes, nothing does.

I think it's common knowledge among most people posting on the BFF that the TBRC won't disclose the exact location of our research area. Asking would be pointless.

We choose to keep it a secret for several reasons. The most important of which is that we have members who are trying to collect a specimen of an animal that walks on two feet. Safety is a high priority for the group and, obviously, other people coming into the area would compromise that.

In those tapes offered as "evidence" on the TBRC site for 2011, what you hear is loud cicadas and an occasional noise, the loudest two of which sound very much like metal objects contracting in the cold. My five-gallon metal gas cans make amazingly loud noises at night, and again expanding during the day.

The sounds were recorded in the middle of summer. It was hotter than hell out there.

From the tapes, these sound like people that don't need anyone to hoax them. They hear a sound in the night and they're making recordings of themselves cowering inside. Brian Brown asked this question of his own group: "why didn't you look out the window". He claimed they can't. That is trivially untrue.

Your characterization that we're "cowering" inside it totally without merit and completely wrong. Personally, I prefer being outside rather than in because it allows to me have a better idea where sounds are coming from and potentially see their source. Regarding looking out the window, keep in mind that it's often pitch black outside. We have several night vision scopes, but those will usually reflect back through a window if you're using an infrared light. You absolutely can walk to to a window and look outside, though chances are you won't see a thing. Also, remember you don't know we haven't, only that I have never said we have.

 

[bipto]

Either Bigfoot exists or it doesn't. It's binary. No in-between.

Totally agree.

In the 45 years since Bigfoot hit the big time with the PGF, there have been no unambiguous photos, no body, no blood, no hair, no scat, no DNA; nothing but blobs on film, slightly out-of-focus pictures of guys in hoodies, rocks thrown at cabins, dubious trackways and sounds that anyone with a halfway decent voice can reproduce. [/quote]

Well, there has been blood and hair collected. We've collected both ourselves, including the documentation of prints. Throwing baseball sized rocks onto cabins is something no known animal in N. America does (other than man), so it's not something that can be immediately dismissed.

As I've said before, I would love to be wrong. Prove it to me is all I ask; today I'll have the Crow Cacciatore, rather than the Almandine.

When the time comes, I'll make it up myself. Deal?

 

[bipto]

TBRC has released information that they have a hair that has characteristics similar to what some researchers believe indicate Bigfoot. They recognize the sample may be from a human (a human, human, and not a Human Bigfoot) or an exotic species like an out of place Orang. They are submitting the sample to Sykes project where it will apparently be tested and the published results will be published at end of year.

If I could post a link to it, I would. It can be found on our site. It's the first featured article listed.

 

[GeeMack]

I freely acknowledge we don't have "proof" yet. We do have evidence above and beyond the personal experiences of our members but none of it rises to the level of proof.

You have no objective evidence to support the claim that Bigfoot exists. And if anyone accuses you of being dishonest for claiming to have, or implying that you have objective evidence, your reasonable choices are to provide that evidence or admit that you were wrong in claiming to have it. Whining about being called out on dishonesty isn't a reasonable option.

 

[River]

I freely acknowledge we don't have "proof" yet. We do have evidence above and beyond the personal experiences of our members but none of it rises to the level of proof.

What speciically lead you to believe there was a bigfoot present at your location? Could you please show us "any" evidence you may have indicating the presence of bigfoot?

What evidence do you have specifically? Evidence of what? (Interpreting things in a footer way, does not make it "evidence of bigfoot".)

Have you exaggerated how remote your location is?

Thank you.

 

[Jodie]

Brian, how easy is it to get to the location on foot? Is it in a hollow or on a flat plat of land surrounded by woods?

 

[RayG]

If I could post a link to it, I would. It can be found on our site. It's the first featured article listed.

Brian, I'm highly skeptical that your group is going to produce the evidence required to make bigfoot a recognized and accepted species, but I'll play nice.

RayG

 

[jhunter1163]

I've been on the other side of that kind of post several times. The assurance of a moderator means a lot to me, so sure, let's give it a try. However, my continued participation in this conversation is predicated on the assumption that I and no one affiliated with my organization will be called a liar or mocked. Neither will the amount of time it takes me to respond to a question here be construed as evasion on my part (nor will the observation that I'm reading the thread but not responding be used to "call me out").

Fair enough?

Fair enough, on both points (this one, and the Crow Cacciatore). I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say, and I sincerely hope that we can all have an adult discussion without the sniping and incivility.

So, in that spirit, and as moderator (all thread participants should consider this post a moderator directive);

Do not personalize your arguments, and above all else remain civil and polite. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

 

[Robrob]

I freely acknowledge we don't have "proof" yet. We do have evidence above and beyond the personal experiences of our members but none of it rises to the level of proof.

If your argument it based on not understanding something then having that thing explained to you should eliminate the argument.

Regarding looking out the window, keep in mind that it's often pitch black outside. We have several night vision scopes, but those will usually reflect back through a window if you're using an infrared light. You absolutely can walk to to a window and look outside, though chances are you won't see a thing. Also, remember you don't know we haven't, only that I have never said we have.

1) If it's "pith black outside" at night, you might want to use lights?

2) If you have night vision scopes, you might want to use them?

3) If night vision scopes don't work through a window, then either turn out the lights inside so you can look out, open the window or even simply walk outside to look?

4) Could you state if you have bothered to look out or not?

If your goal is to identify BF, that might be what you would do.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[jhunter1163]

Folks, we are all adults here. We should be able to carry on a discussion without sniping at each other. I will make the entire thread moderated if I have to, and that will please no one. So, please dispense with the snarkiness and simply ask your questions. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

 

[Robrob]

Folks, we are all adults here. We should be able to carry on a discussion without sniping at each other. I will make the entire thread moderated if I have to, and that will please no one. So, please dispense with the snarkiness and simply ask your questions. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Apparently you disagree but I thought my edited out sentence was a reasonable juxtaposition of the (expected) result and direction of research and the (actual) result and direction of research - as provide by the BF researchers. If someone's evidence of BF is "I heard BF in the closet" wouldn't you anticipate one of two results;

1) They would look inside the closet because it might confirm or deny the existence of BF?

2) They would not look inside the closet because it might confirm or deny the existence of BF?

 

[jhunter1163]

OK, I have a few questions for Bipto.

1. Have you (or any member of your expedition) actually seen one of these animals?

2. Can you elaborate on the evidence that you've found that doesn't rise to the level of proof?

3. What steps have you taken to prevent being hoaxed by third parties (other than confidentiality and having armed people around the camp?)

 

[jhunter1163]

Apparently you disagree but I thought my edited out sentence was a reasonable juxtaposition of the (expected) result and direction of research and the (actual) result and direction of research - as provide by the BF researchers. If someone's evidence of BF is "I heard BF in the closet" wouldn't you anticipate one of two results;

1) They would look inside the closet because it might confirm or deny the insistence of BF?

2) They would not look inside the closet because it might confirm or deny the insistence of BF?

I think it's fair to ask what the researchers did when they heard these sounds outside the cabins, and why, if they're armed, they didn't pick up a gun, go outside and investigate the sounds.

 

[Drewbot]

Have you had any game cams go missing, or found any tampered with or destroyed.

Do you consider the following to be evidence of BF?
'Whatever the creature is, shows up here, when the cams are there, and there, when the cams are here.'