In bigfootery, as in all research, over time, the methods are refined, casting off that which does not produce, and replacing with new, more effective ones. Usually, when this happens, the hard line oldtimers go slowly, kicking and screaming all the way. It's kind of like all those people who refused to learn computer skills some time back, it may work for them for a while, but they eventually get left in the dust.

I don't know what most of us believe is the single most important contribution that BFF has made to the field, but I am going to venture a guess. I think it might be the discrediting of Mary Green. While that needed to be done, let's examine it's true significance. One batty old lady who has daily, up close and personal interactions with Bigfoot, over many years, most of which are extremely implausable anyway, and she can't privide a shred of DNA or other solid evidence. Not saying it didn't need to be disproved, but, come on! I would rate it maybe Jr. High level science. That is giving it the benefit of doubt. I am pretty sure my 10 year old grandson would make mincemeat of her story.

I predict that within five years, if BFF survives the transformation, we will sit here looking back, and laugh at the crude, archaic methods used now, and in the past. But, a change is coming. We all feel it, even if we choose not to admit it. Debunkers seem to be good at little other than 'debunking'. Picture Dr. Heimlich trying to use the maneuver that he developed, and that bears his name, on patients complaining of symptoms of appendicitis and the common cold. At best, it doesn't help anything. If one of the hundreds of people who came here to report, but were 'debunked' out of here, really had something, or could lead someone to proof, all the debunking in the world won't equal up to that one missed opportunity. There is a better way, and more and more people are seeing it.

BSF

.....you sir, are ill-informed.

Bone up on the lab results in the hands of Will Duncan and Dr. Henner Fahrenbach and others....

Your verbal degradation of Mary Green is not only unkind but also a remark made by someone who hasn't done their homework, have you ever met Mary or Janice?

I predict you will soon be the laughing stock if you don't do your homework.....science is taking a long hard look at the lab results and the evidence that continues to be garnered from that region. Scientists have flown into Tennessee from far and wide to see that area first hand, does that sound like they aren't taking a serious interest?

Shame on you...

Bobbie Short
http://www.bigfootencounters.com

Sorry I offended you. I mean that. It does sound a little far-fetched, considering some of her claims. And I would not doubt that the investigators who did the actual debunking are capable of 'coloring' their findings a little. Still, she has had ample time to come up with something, would you not agree? Soon be a laughing stock? Maybe to some, but, I am NOT mad, I tell you, I'M NOT MAD!!! <Evil-scientist chuckle>

BSF

Are these lab results of evidence gathered at the Green farm? Where can we get information on this?



Who are these scientists, and have they found any evidence of note?

I'm willing to look into their findings.

The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible.

-- A Yale University professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing overnight delivery service. (Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.)

Bump!

Anonymous??? Who could that be? Anyone know a member named 'Anonymous? Hello, Anonymous! Welcome to my thread, whoever you are.
BSF

I'd like to know what the scientists who've come far and near to research the farm has found too. If they don't publish their findings the findings don't mean much.

I'm usually logged in anonymously. You have a problem with that? If so, let me know and I can easily fix it so you won't have to worry about seeing anyone, anonymous or not.




I'd be interested in that information too, T. It certainly hasn't been forthcoming in the past. And if Will Duncan and David Mann are considered "scientists" in this, then nevermind.

I don't think there's a big mystery as to 'origin' of this thread. But I'll bite.

In my opinion, you're confusing rational thinking with wishful thinking. The BFF, despite your veiled attempt at explaining it away as a bunch of 'close minded ne'er-do-wells not worthy of actual Bigfoot™ research', is as valuable or as worthless as any one person wants to make of it. Oftentimes, the best way to see a 'picture' more clearly is to simply look at it with more than a cursory glance - with a more keen eye. Multiply that out by any number of additional 'interested people' with keen eyes and most 'pictures' will reveal their secrets - IF THERE ARE ANY SECRETS.

We don't profess to do rocket science here. In fact, Christie Brinkley would be welcome here because we all know "she's no rocket scientist" (old joke). Hell, I'm not sure we profess to do anything here. Stating the obvious, the 'cosmic answers' to Bigfoot™ seem to be very few and far between. But I doubt Stephen Hawking is gonna come riding up on his white horse to save the day. Nor will most of his scientific community buddies. Why? Because they're not willfully particiapting. And even if they did, would they truly have more of a chance to find all the answers than the rest of us? It's just more wishful thinking if you think that's so. For better or worse, the BFF is about all you and I got. You probably forgot that just about every worthy Bigfoot™ 'research' organization in existence (save the BFRO) take part in this forum in one form or another. It is a respectable place despite a few bumps along the way. And the BFRO simply decided that going the commercial (profit) route to exploit the mystery and not the substance behind that mystery was in their best interest. But not ever did they have more grasp of the answers than anyone else here or anywhere.

The 'transformation' you announce above is just rhetoric. Blue sky. There will be no 'transformation' No paradigm shift. No reiteration and re-evaluation of the 'good evidence' by the 'good guys'. What you see now is what you get. Sorry. The reality is there will probably NEVER BE active 'scientific investigation' until AFTER a body is brought forth. So until then, suck it up. Embrace your own ideas and stance and run with it. Doesn't mean we're all coming with you but the world is made up of all kinds of opinions and you are allowed yours. You want to believe Mary Green and Coatsalyeti and all they have to say? Okay. You won't find me stopping you. You might find me questioning your common sense but just like you want to believe, I might want to disbelieve. And such disbelief isn't gonnna let 'the opportunity of a lifetime' pass us by. That opportunity, if/when it occurs, will be far bigger than 20 year old stories of rotting Bigfoots™ in basements.

That's my opinion.

"Harry"

Well said, Harry. I completely agree with your assessment.

Well said Harry -- very well said

I compleatly agree Harry. You hit the nail on the head :new_thumbsupsmileyanim:

For those of us like myself who are either n00bs, or simply watching from the bleachers, could you tell us who Will Duncan and David Mann are?

Will Duncan frequents the crytozoology.com forum and was/(is?) working closely with Mary Green and Janice Coy. David Mann was another individual who was "working" that particular "case" and apparently had some "interesting" encounters. He is registered here as Thermal1. After he got caught lying he kinda' left BFF though. :new_whistle:

like the boot he kinda had in his ars

Oh Boy ............... here we go again. Buckle up.

And I am still trying to contact my pal from a previous thread.....

Nah, take off your kevlar helmet and flak jacket, Wardog. Not gonna let it go that way. I maybe kinda expected this thread to upset a few people, but if that's all they got, well, let the people decide. Stagnation is cool in a way, I guess. It's the easiest path, anyway. Let's just keep doing everything the same, and continue expecting different results (isn't that a definition of something or other?). That way, if someone comes here with a sighting to report, but doesn't immediately display earth-shaking evidence, we can all insult them, which should soothe our frustration at being so ineffectual.
BSF

Alright, I'll just loosen them, but I will keep my H-bar real close.

Bump!

I'm not sure what to say to this thread, but if I had to sum it up in one word, I would say, "Garlic".

:icon_really_happy_guy:

-Ray

:laugh:

Well, you've certainly opened up a can of worms here BSF. I'm not sure I agree that a new era is upon us, but other personalities perhaps. The BFF is an ever changing thang!

I think there will always be a place for the old skeptics though. Where would we be without them? I think they are a needed resource, and provide a necessary function here on the forum. There's room for everybody, I think.

JMO

I am Anonymous....

Thanks, Mike and Fish. There was only one person logged into the thread under 'anonymous' at the time. No, I don't have a problem with it, Fishbone. Just wondering who it was. I shouldn't do that? Sorry.
BSF

Sounds like some sort really bad sitcom.....

Coming this fall on the Fox network, it is the "Mike and Fish" show...

Where Mike, along with his fish, share adventures in looking for the one arm man who killed his dog...

They're all really bad these days, Mike. JMHO
BSF

I was thinking that it sounds like a country singing duo. Mike and Fish, can ya'll sang?



:new_guitar:

Now that is a really scary thought... :thrasher: :icon_really_happy_guy:

I have heard the words fish and country together connected to music before, Jay.
"Give me an F" (The fish cheer, Country Joe McDonald and the Fish)

BSF

No, I am Anonymous....

I like to log in anonymous also....so that would now be Fish, Mike and Mike...

Now we sound like we come off the old Newhart T.V. show: :new_lmaosmiley: "Hi...I'm Fish and this Mike and my other brother Mike."

That was one of my favorite shows..... :icon_really_happy_guy: :icon_really_happy_guy: :icon_really_happy_guy:

Back in the old days, before they had 1,234 channels and nothing on.
BSF



Interesting gene pool! (Joking, sorry, couldn't help it)

Speaking of gene pools, I am Anonymous....

Thinking of the initial post in this thread and the title, I keep going back to this thread.

If anything , I think 'research" as it's been defined by a good number of people isn't actually that even. There are more than a few instances where the person calling themselves a researcher or investigator has made me ashamed to think of myself that way. There is no research involved in what happens despite claims otherwise, no investigation of even the simplest facts in some cases, or derision toward those who "nit pick' on more than one occasion.

To me anyway, a new era would be bettering what's come before it,but the opposite is what's taking place, Political correctness has outweighed the want for answers , and those calling for respect or politness are the ones showing the least amount of it upon disagreement with thier stance. There is a lot of what you could call 'dogma' associated with bigfoot research and for the most part it remains unquestioned by a majority of people. The good parts of the "old ways" beside the curb, while to he bad parts of it prosper. Questions get ignored, or the questions themselves questioned instead of answered. Then the person asking is made out to be the detrimental part of research.

Think of this, many quote Krantz,Green, Dahinden , Titmus and many of the other "old timers" but only when it suits thier needs, when it doesn't they protest most vehemently towards those who bring it up or ignore it entirely. Alot of what I consider research ,is taking whats been done and at the very least building on it, or seeing if it is in someway verifiable, or if it should raise more questions about what is real or is not. Look at Matts work with casting artifacts, he decided to do this with what he had avaiable and showed another possiblity. For the most part it called one set of casts made into question based on his findings. Shouldn't all similar things be called into question now? IMO yes, but it won't be . Because the want to believe out weighs the want of having those answers.

So where is this 'new era' exactly and what are the benefits of it as opposed to some of whats posed above ? I can think of dozens of examples and things that haven't changed, but should ,IMO. And I can think of a dozen things that have changed and shouldn't have.

So I'll ask again instead of rambling on any further.
What has this 'new era' brought, and what makes it better than before?

I agree, Ars. Many of the old skeptics are amazingly clear-thinking people, with very valuable skills and extensive knowledge. I just think the old "tag it and bag it" philosophy is fading into the past. I think orgs like BFRO (forgive me) almost have to use that method. They have thousands of reports come through a year. They have to scan and select quickly, to even come close to being recent on anything. A rather extensive mobilization effort has to be initiated if a complete investigation is warranted (interview witness, physical inspection of the area, etc...). If we don't label a report within the first 12 hours, no big deal.

There is a really huge knowledge base available to us here, both through our members, and through the internet. We can verify or disprove many things, if we take our time and keep level heads. What's the rush?
Nobody should be on trial here, an eventual 'yea' or 'Nay' would suffice. No proof=not substantiated, that is for certain.
BSF

The more and more I think about this, the more I realize that there is actually a new wave of debunkers starting up here. I think it will be these individuals who we will have rely on to continue the "meanie-headedness". Maybe some people would like to deny it, but we actually need the debunkers as much as we need everyone else. This is because without them I can guarantee this place would turn to the "other" forum.

Let's look at it this way. What happened in the Richard Sade thread? Hard questions were asked, but were never answered fully. Yet people continued to believe and defended the video as a possible sasquatch. Why? Who knows for sure, but it wasnt until the second video came out they started calling it a hoax. Those "debunkers" were right weren't they? So what would have happened had we had no debunkers?

To sum it up (or if you want to ignore the rest of my post ) when we get left with a void when the old debunkers leave, new ones will rise up to take their place.

Jimf, I personally have no interest in being 'politically correct', or any other fad. I just think we need to utilize all of our resources, and that we are not doing so, now.

"Let's look at it this way. What happened in the Richard Sade thread? Hard questions were asked, but were never answered fully. Yet people continued to believe and defended the video as a possible sasquatch. Why? Who knows for sure, but it wasnt until the second video came out they started calling it a hoax. Those "debunkers" were right weren't they? So what would have happened had we had no debunkers?--Mattuitis"

In answer to the question, the second second video would have came out, and that would have been that. What do you think would have happened? I am NOT against debunkers, but calm, reason should prevail. The purposefully harsh stirring of emotions is not always the best indicator. If you are saying the debunkers are always, or usually right, please, show me the evidence.

BSF

Good point.

That written, I suspect the next era in sasquatch research will be after "discovery", when science takes over from the amatuers.

I'm going to respond here at the risk of opening myself up to even further stalking and harrassment, but I've been on this forum too long to let someone like that stifle my opinions. Whether anyone else wants to state the obvious, I will. IMO, the initial post on this forum was a thinly veiled attempt at poking the nest and furthering someone's own bruised-ego-driven agenda. The origin of this thread is painfully obvious.



I'm probably stepping right into the trap that's been set here, but I just can't let this go without commenting on some of this garbage. Like I said, the thinly-veiled attempts at discrediting the work of the "old timers"(such as my self with the MG/JC story) is actually blatantly obvious. I've heard time and time again "what have you got to show for your own participation in this field? Get out of your armchair and you might understand!". Usually that card gets played when someone with a wild claim or BS story gets their feelings hurt, and they stomp off in a huff, which is sad at worst and laughable at best. This time though, I think it actually applies here in a way(except for the armchair part). Some of us have actually put time, money, and effort into an attempt to better this field of study, including(but not limited to) exposing any BS which might float to the surface, and yes some of this has happened right from this armchair that I'm sitting in right now. Just by the mere participation on this forum with an objective, helpful and truth-oriented stance is a major and equally-valuable contribution, and there are a lot of good members which have done just that. The work I did with the JC case was actually easily duplicated by anyone with a phone book and a desire to use it. I will admit that it wasn't rocket science, never claimed otherwise, but it did take initiative. I've never wanted nor desired any accolades for the work I did on that case, it was just something that needed to be done. I had a lot of support with that case. Why? Because there are a lot of objective and truth-oriented members here(like myself) who do not want to see BS get put forth as "non-fiction". These members are still here, and I value their presence very much, and wouldn't be afraid to call upon them at a moments notice if there help were to ever be required. Some though(like the original poster here, IMO) just like to sit on the sidelines and cause trouble because they are either jealous of others who actually put forth the time, money, and effort to do something, or they are pissed because the majority doesn't accept their skewed version of reality, partly because their own hidden agenda's or twisted ideas have been exposed and shown for what they really are. Also, they're probably afraid that they themselves will be exposed, so they bait and switch, trying to damage the credibility of those they envy or despise in an attempt to throw people off their own trail. It is my hope that in five years, the BFF's will still be going strong and still have some of the most objective and truthfully-stringent posters on the net. What has been the biggest contributing factor to the success of BFF's? IMO it's all the objective and truth-oriented members that have posted upon it. Whenever something like this pops up, I like to look back at who started this place, a damn fine Gentleman by the name of Brian B., and refreshing my memory of what his vision for what he hoped this forum to be. I(and many others) also share that vision, and will work to keep it on track. I pledged my loyalty to strive for that goal, that's not changed. I have actually had to do a lot of re-evaluating of my own purpose in this field, and I hope that I'm evolving as a person and as a productive member, but the original goal remains the same: Truth above fiction, always. It's easy for someone to step up to the plate and start spewing forth rhetoric which is brought upon by a bruised-ego and based upon falsehoods, but in the long run it's not going to make any difference whatsoever. I'm not worried about what this place will be in five years, or if it's going to crumble at the hands of trouble-makers and holders of hidden-agenda's. The BFF's is and always will be the sum of it's members, and there will always be plenty of good ones with level heads to keep it on the right track. This is a good day to be a member of the BFF's, and I'm very proud to be one of them, beside all the other good people who post here.

I and others have and could post again a pretty extensive collection of FBI, Police,RCMP and other interview and investigation techniques. There are several threads on how to collect evidence. Every thing from how to maintain viability to the simpleness of documenting your find with a camera. There are references in B.I.P. as to what use blobsquatch pics are or how most photo evidence should be used. A rather exensive post by Rick Noll and others on how to cast a track in differnt mediums, using various casting materials available and the differences associated with them..I've put up a method of interviewing witnesses on SRI, Steve Kulls put one on the AIBR forum. There's a huge list of available services available on the internet from google maps to reverse phone look ups. Psychological studies, advice here from police officers on hw ow to proceed or what questions to ask. Theres the tracking thread by Cut4sign which is avaialbel to anyone who wants to learn..there are.............

The problem isn't with the resources, it's with thier lack of utilization, very many are pretty dependent on very few to use and tell of those methods without listening or doing so themselves. You can have all the resources in the world, but to what end if no one pays attention to them? What good to post a picture of a track with out a measuring tape ? Is it 6 inches or is it 16 ?

I agree that we need to utilize all of our resources, but thats something no one can force anyone to do, so when they have the experiences they tell of ,especially as "investigators" or 'researchers" or even someone with a story of multiple encounters with nothing to show for it, pardon me if I don't buy it based on what little is usually presented.

I know this was directed at Matt, but what is reason exaclty and who gets to decide that ? You? Me? Mattuitus? Because if there was some agreement reached as to what reason was on a bigfoot message board of any type I've failed to see it over the last decade. Who's emotions are really stirred? From what I've seen it's not usually those of the debunker but those who take offense at what the debunker is pointing out. It's simply a variance of opinion on what is true and what is not, or what constitutes reason and what doesnt. To someone trying to make the Bigfoot/UFO connection, what they say may seem as reasonable to them and those who beleive as they do, as you or I discussing a quarterbacks statsistics for the season.


I posted a partial list in the other thread, you can look some up by name.
Mary green you already know.

1. Revatex
2. Videoarts
3. Manitoba video
4. Sonoma video
5. Kevie ray
6. Billy240z

Not based on emotion, based on reason. That the larger the claim , the less likely it is to live up to what it's been billed as. When it involves captuirng, killing,photographing,DNA, blood or any of the other claims posted as "evidence" , it weakens the argument over all for the existence in the first place ? Or at least the argument that the person isn't prone to making up stories,misidentifiing, having mental illness or out right embellishing the events as described. You can read what's said in those threads however you want, but the fact remains in not a single one of them does whats finally presented live up to the hype, some people just catch that earlier than others besed on experience and repitition of events and learn from all the things I posted above, some choose not to. Either way works, and niether may be wrong, but to those debunking on what little is presented, or on knowing the history associated with forums, research, or the history in of bigfoot in general. I'll glady err on the side of scepticism.

Jim, I don't mean to imply that I or anyone else can 'force' a change. not my intention. I just see it, feel it happening. If I'm wrong, so be it. but, I don't think I am. Are you saying, then, that an attempt is not made by some to get an emotional charge from anyone who comes here and says 'I saw a Bigfoot"?

I simply choose not to respond to any obvious BS that floats through this, or any other thread.

BSF

Vols.....


:appl:

It's not happening , wether you want to believe that or not, For all intents and purposes its getting worse. think about some of the less 'grand' claims that come to this forum. "Researchers" who can't bother to measure a track, with anything identifiable before posting a picture. the " is this a bigfoot" picture sthat get taken while in the woods where you need a red circle to see anything. Usually from a distance and not a single researcher who posted them seems to bother returning to that spot to see if the object is still there. Or more importantly "investigate" as the incident is occuring. Look around the forum, its all there ,if you take the time to see it.
Matter of persepective, the mere act of asking questions can create that emotional charge, usually initiated by the person being asked the questions. Or by those calling for respect or niceness. Again the examples are all over this and other forums and matters of perpective.

I guess time will tell if I am right. Some things are not a matter of prospective.
BSF

BSF quote "In answer to the question, the second second video would have came out, and that would have been that. What do you think would have happened? I am NOT against debunkers, but calm, reason should prevail. The purposefully harsh stirring of emotions is not always the best indicator. If you are saying the debunkers are always, or usually right, please, show me the evidence."

When there is no opinion that reasons to the opposite of an arguement --- why would anyone do anything but agree??

I used to moderate for a website, where the only opinions allowed were ones in agreement of the original poster -- and I can say that as I had to move and get rid of posts that did not "conform" to the original posters idea or what they saw. So, if no objections are heard or allowed - why would anyone think any different.

I left that site - as I didnt feel that was right. When you "filter" opinion - there is the attempt to mold thoughts and opinion, I wont be party to that. If opinions that are only in support of a "story" or a report are allowed here or any other site -- I probably wont stick around either. No one thinks the same, and all sides to an issue should be discussed and examined - thats how we make Informed Decisions.. but you need both sides for that.

Even when John Freitas had debunked the Sonoma video - I seen posts from people who said they saw 2 animals in that video - not just one -- so that kinda proves that. Now, should they be allowed to see as many as they want - sure, doesnt matter to me, but I wont play along. I remain skeptical of everything - and I should be, because I have NEVER seen this animal, and to agree with every story that comes along -- is not remaining skeptical.

Is it harsh stirring of emotions you are seeing - or just an opinion that is different from yours, and why do you automatically assume its harsh? If I posted an encounter - I would expect hard questions, as I do not consider this a game. (Im not saying you do).

JMO

Melissa:

The 'harsh questions' ploy again. Not going to get into that here. Listening, answering without outright accusations until the whole story unfolds does not constitute agreement. You are still confusing the issue.

BSF

I am heading to the hill country ranch for the weekend to ride my horses and shoot my guns. Be good.
See y'all Monday.

BSF