Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Sweaty believes he has evidence that I have hostility problems.

What would you call them...hostility virtues????

 

[RayG]

See what I mean when I say that skeptics don't understand the meaning of the word "evidence"?

Not when you keep confusing evidence with proof.

RayG

 

[TjW]

More from Iowa in 2001! Six witnesses! Bones, hair, and video! Bigfoot eating deer a$$!

BFRO Class A report #2170.

This song by Jerry Samuels might offer an explanation:

Oh, I owe a lot to Iowa pot
Iowa grown and grand.
I never knew such beautiful boo
Grew in this groovy land
That I'm in. I'm indebted indeed to wonderful weed.
Iowa raised and born.
I owe a lot to Iowa pot
And that's not just Iowa corn.

Contraband in the land of manana
Is so ruthlessly risky to cop.
While them Iowans cop all they wanna.
Native fauna -- marijuana crop.
It blooms in this midwestern section,
And there isn't a shadow of doubt
It could shake a Jamaica connection,
'cause it's cheap, deep, and far freakin' out.

Oh, I owe a lot to Iowa pot
Iowa grown and grand.
I never knew such beautiful boo
Grew in this groovy land
That I'm in. I'm indebted indeed to wonderful weed.
Iowa raised and born.
I owe a lot to Iowa pot
And that's not just Iowa corn.
No, that's not just Iowa corn.

 

[tube]

Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere.

This is the greatest Bigfoot related post in the history of the Internet.

 

[LTC8K6]

This is the greatest Bigfoot related post in the history of the Internet.

Well, I'd say it's only a top ten....

 

[kitakaze]

Tracks found in Golden Ears Provincial Park, BC.

Here we have either another dropout from the Skookum Sasquatch School of Track Concealment (psst... Stinky, a little left) or a Graduate with Honours from the Wallace School of Fooling Believers with Minimal Effort.

 

[kitakaze]

Know your mystery hominid myths-

Rumble in the Jungle.

Hairy hominids of South Africa. Don't miss the wisdom of Dr. Brain (no joke), hair covered cannibals, and a word on hairy man archetypes.

 

[William Parcher]

This is the greatest Bigfoot related post in the history of the Internet.

It had already showed up on February 21st.

 

[kitakaze]

It had already showed up on February 21st.

Newman! Er, Parcher! And just as I was looking for that.

I'm sorry, Tube, we're going to have to let you go.

 

[William Parcher]

Hummm...in response to the conservation question, I guess I don't understand why anyone would have an issue with the goal of any organization being responsible and ethical conservation. Habitat loss is an issue for many species - and the species doesn't have to be endangered (right now) in order for a concern to be shown.

I do not feel any need to defend this clearly responsible position.

Of course conservation of wild areas has its own virtue. The problem is when you base the initiative on the preservation of an animal that has not been shown to exist. Again you could ask - what difference does that make? But then I ask - why do it in the first place? Why push for the preservation of Bigfoots, instead of say cougars? Pick a known animal that has a distribution that coincides with where you think Bigfoot lives. Then call for the preservation of the known animal instead of Bigfoot (knowing that you will save Bigfoot at the same time).

If you think that habitat loss has already harmed the Bigfoot population, and will continue to do so...then you must also think some other things.

A) Is habitat loss killing Bigfoots outright?
B) or is it causing them to move their territories?
C) or both?

If habitat loss is killing them, why no carcasses? After centuries of logging and clear-cutting, why no carcasses? Systematically tearing apart and surveying the PNW forests throughout history should have already resulted in a Bigfoot confirmation. It never has. If they are being pushed into smaller areas (especially surrounded by human habitation) they should become easier to confirm, yes?

It is quite reasonable and rational to think that Bigfoot does not exist. There is no functional evidence that it does. The whole belief thing is not based on an animal; it's based on people believing what other people say. One can analyze every single piece of purported Bigfoot evidence in this way. Other than one's own personal evaluation, the PGF only means something to believers in the context of "experts" saying that it is authentic by way of their expert analysis. That belief is based on believing the "expert". The same is true for all the footprint castings. Sure, anybody would say that they look like huge footprints. But the belief in their authenticity comes again from believing the "expert" analysis. With sightings, it's again all about believing the story-teller. The strong Bigfoot believers really have little choice other than to appeal to authority. But those pro-Bigfoot authorities are already basing their positions on the belief in what others have said.

Yes, it looks like a house-of-cards held up by the testimony of experts. But it's no ordinary card house. The bottom layer is not supported by a firm surface. It's not a card house sitting on a table or floor. It's floating in space, because the bottom (the foundational evidence & supporting expert analysis) can't sit on anything real. Nobody has ever been able to examine the animal itself. That is the only functional foundation that could truly hold up a card house. But at that point, it's a real house (not cards) because it's a real confirmation. When a house of cards is floating in space with no real foundation, the "top" is no different than the "bottom", and those two spacial concepts become meaningless. A nicely-described sighting by a grandmother is just as good as whatever Meldrum has to say about some tracks. When nobody is truly a Bigfoot expert, then everybody is an expert.

 

[kitakaze]

What would you call them...hostility virtues????

Well, you can call them anything you want, your the one more worried about my emotional well-being than intelligent debate and getting past the fact that sightings are not reliable evidence of bigfoot. As for me, I'll just call it 'putz-intolerant'.

But, second and most importantly, state and provide evidence to support it that you have never engaged in those exact same behaviours you above mention here on this board. Please keep in mind if you try a 'they started it' argument, I have a long memory and no qualms about digging up the posts myself. If you are not willing to do so then I thoroughly suggest that you drop this line of implication as it will most certainly backfire on you.

Happy digging, kitty!! .

I can't help but construe your encouragement for me to look as an indication that you're well aware you've engaged in the same behaviour that you're finger-pointing about now. Oh well, this is one of the quickest digs I've ever done:

false accusation:

kitakaze wrote..as he drank:

insult (reel slik with thu speleng):

You're so stoopid.

hostility:

Wow...what a refreshing change from the Super-Skeptics that INFEST this place!!

Sweaty, I should try complimenting you for a change. You always make me smile and this thread would be less entertaining without you. I mean that.

 

[kitakaze]

Pick a known animal that has a distribution that coincides with where you think Bigfoot lives. Then call for the preservation of the known animal instead of Bigfoot (knowing that you will save Bigfoot at the same time).

Not to mention Correa and I having suggested that if you want to get funding and other support for scientific research of sasquatch then why not first propose a study in an area where you are quite certain is inhabited by sasquatches and while you're looking for marmots or beetles or whatever, oh hey now, there's sasquatches around here! But first you'd have to explain to yourself why past and current ongoing field research doesn't inadvertently identify bigfoot. Hairy Man would be one of the last people to suggest that scientists aren't in the woods, I would assume.

ETA: A no sarcasm disclaimer.

 

[tube]

Newman! Er, Parcher! And just as I was looking for that.

I'm sorry, Tube, we're going to have to let you go.

No way dude, LTC's post is more PITHY, hence the new tattoo I got last night. Tonight, after the UFC, I'm gonna tag some concrete walls with the GOOD NEWS. Tomorrow I'm gonna print up pamphlets, get a white shirt and bicycle, and push aside the front porch dorks to deliver the GOOD NEWS to the pagan unwashed.

Chant with me now, BIGFOOT IS EVERYWHERE, YET NOWHERE.

My new Mantra.

 

[William Parcher]

...and while you're looking for marmots or...

Hell yes. A field biologist who is studying marmot ecology is going to be dealing with describing marmot predators and their relationship with marmots. Bigfoot is said to prey on marmots and a whole lot of other mentioned animals (many sightings are of Bigfoot acting as predator). Some nice sunny day a marmot biologist who has been watching and studying/analyzing a colony is going to have a Bigfoot grab and eat one right in front of his eyes, right? Why hasn't this happened already? Professionals have already been doing lots of field research on Bigfoot prey animals right in Bigfoot country. Those people often have cameras and video with them at all times. The reason that they can list all of the predators of their study animal, but cannot list Bigfoot, is because it's nonexistent. If not that, at the minimum it can be said that this hypothetical Bigfoot has no observable impact whatsoever on the study animal.

Why is it that only Bigfooters will tell you that they found a deer carcass in the woods that they determined was killed and eaten by a gigantic bare-handed ape? It appeared to have only been interested in eating the liver! Yeah, here, I'll do it for you. "When field biologists find those liver-deprived deer carcasses they don't report them, because they want to save their own jobs (i.e. termination caused by belief in Bigfoot)."

 

[William Parcher]

Don't send Tube away. He's already becoming as scarce as Bigfoot in these threads. If he tags the town, we'll never see him again.

 

[kitakaze]

No way dude, LTC's post is more PITHY, hence the new tattoo I got last night. Tonight, after the UFC, I'm gonna tag some concrete walls with the GOOD NEWS. Tomorrow I'm gonna print up pamphlets, get a white shirt and bicycle, and push aside the front porch dorks to deliver the GOOD NEWS to the pagan unwashed.

Chant with me now, BIGFOOT IS EVERYWHERE, YET NOWHERE.

My new Mantra.

Well, I've got tattoos and plenty of experience tagging walls from when I was a teenager so I'm down! Over at the BFF in the Polling All Skeptics thread admin Paul1968 has issued this rally cry:

There are times when the dislike of skeptics on this forum embarrasses me. One member recently asked for a special section just for the skeptics so that they wouldn't interfere in other threads!


Come on guys - without skeptics, we would get nowhere.

Say it with me, say it loud "I'm a Skeptic, and I'm Proud!"

...But I think BIGFOOT IS EVERYWHERE YET NOWHERE has more rumble factor to it. Join us, Paul, the Dark Side is strong within you! (Nod to Correa. )

 

[Hairy Man]

Those are some very good and valid questions. I’m not sure I can answer them all (I’m a bit rushed this morning to get out the door), but I’ll try and I promise to think more about it during the long drive to Santa Cruz….

Yes, I am in complete agreement that there are scientists in the field M-F during the summer. We run botany, wildlife, fisheries, archaeology, and hydrology crews every summer (including camera and DNA traps for furbearers). And yes, some of these scientists have had sightings and/or other events.

I would love for science to fund a year long study. But otherwise, it’s just me, my husband, two kids for bait, and one or two friends looking in nearly 800,000 acres+ on my forest alone (we are up against Yosemite National Park and two other national forests of another 800,000+ acres). Where do you begin? Unlike archaeological sites that don’t move (without help), we can’t survey lands and call it “covered”. Animals move. And it’s tougher than you think. The U.S. Forest Service has spent millions of dollars trying to track down and identify Spotted Owls and their habitat under court and Congressional orders. What did that buy us? Large circles on maps that identify likely habitat and how to behave in those areas during certain times of years.

As far as conservation goes, I realize that in most minds it means protection from poachers, etc., but I don’t think bigfoots are in danger of poaching. What I mean by conservation is the possible limitations of chemicals being sprayed to reduce hazardous fuels; reduction in commercial gathering of berries, mushrooms, fern, and other possible food resources; reducing the encroachment of conifers into wet meadows that produce food resources, etc.


P.S. You'll be pleased to know kitakaze that PaulUK1968 is on the AIBR Board of Directors! We also extended an invitation to Ben Radford to be on our Board of Advisors, but I believe he turned it down (but I bought his book anyway). Oh, and I have a bigfoot tattoo...so I'm pretty much a lost cause.

 

[kitakaze]

Hairy, in the recent article on you, you suggested the Pinecrest-Strawberry area as a good area to try and see a sasquatch. Have you endeavoured with the AIBR to implement any measures to find anything in the way of evidence from this area? I note that this might produce job related issues and that you have also been reported as never having mixed your BF activities with work. Forgive me if the question is rather simple.

 

[kitakaze]

As far as conservation goes, I realize that in most minds it means protection from poachers, etc., but I don’t think bigfoots are in danger of poaching.

I rushed my previous post as I was anticipating you to log off soon but concerning poaching, you don't think BF face any danger of poaching. Why is that? Is it simply because we have no record of a poacher felling a sasquatch or is there more to it than that?

ETA: For when you return, I hope you had a fun and problem free trip.

 

[kitakaze]

In relation to the line of thinking involving identifying sasquatches through their food sources I invite everyone to consider a new story on bigfootencounters.com. I don't think a link will go directly to the story but it's the one near the top in the 'What's New?' section dated March 2nd pertaining to an apparently elderly couples encounter with two juvenile sasquatches digging for clams in Netarts Bay on the Oregon coast.

http://bigfootencounters.com/

An interesting element of the account is that the couple refrained from reporting this amazing encounter to Fish and Wildlife for fear of being blamed for the illegal harvest of the clams attributed to the sasquatches. There are quite a few rather curious elements of the story but I think it best to allow others to post their thoughts first. It should also be noted that the couple has included what seems to be their real names (Bob and Vivian Brown) and city/town of residence (Eugene, OR). (Have at it, Sweaty!)

My first question would be why thus far we have no accounts of sasquatch harvesting clams in Netarts Bay and if such activity is indeed happening, why has it escaped the attention of the officials in charge of monitoring this habitat.