That saved me a post. I couldnt have said it better myself




I guess for the encore we need to join hands and join in with "We are the world"?

Dang you 'rockinkt'.................

When will you stop!! (making me agree with you)

Bigfoot Science is to true Science as Alchemy is to Chemistry as Astrology is to Astronomy. But with each passing day I feel that if the great Bigfoot discovery was going to happen it would have happened by now.

However even if Bigfoot dosen't exist now sooner or later it will through the magic of genetic manipulation. Sasquatch will emerge from a labratory somewhere.

Gee... thanks MOI... excuse me while I...



Gack, now I'll spend the rest of the day wandering around looking like this...



RayG

You're welcome!

Then, its time to effectively change that

>>However even if Bigfoot dosen't exist now sooner or later it will through the magic of genetic manipulation. Sasquatch will emerge from a labratory somewhere.

Didnt the Raliens already do this?

Got any ideas in mind?

I would start with testing standards, acceptance standards, chains of custody for samples, review processes etc ( that wouldnt do anything but restore some validity and confidence of future tests but thats a good baby step)

I wouldnt "report" on anything until it had passed a rigorous objective review ( same reasons as above)

I would plan fewer expeditions but better equip, staff and finance them and develop some survey areas off of habitat studies ( not the do all- end all but a good place to start)

I would even come up with some sort of 'training program" and or certification process before anyone could be considered a BF researcher ( weed out the masses and thus hopefully cleansing the data a bit)


Thats a good start- at least then the groundwork for processes that science at large would recognize

Something else i would do ( this is a first pass thought that hasnt been developed yet)

I would develop a reporting protocol with some sort of screening process ( maybe those with multiple sightings or with an accompanying police report) or some sort of 'culling process' to only investigate the accounts that have the best probability to produce something. Dont know exactly how i would do this but i would come up with something ( or at least try)

I would assemble some form of equipped lab ( RV type) to go investigate the most believable accounts

Both of those would be dependant on the budget.

still developing this

Do you have a study area in mind or a criteria by which you'd propose one?

Just off the top of my head, it would include

tagging,bagging, COC details

how to properly gather evidence, photograph

how to interrogate

how to analyze prints including microscopy, measuring, etc

tracking basics

casting procedures

soil analysis

equipment specific training ( obviously)

I would also have a detailed incident sheet to even record temperatures, humidity, times, foliage ( or possible food sources nearby), maybe even common animals in the area ( no telling what else) to build some kind of database to later search for commonalities, trends.

I would have some training on how to set up an 'ambush" area with cameras, FOV,s to know how to recognize a likely area and set it up for pictures.

At the end of the day, even this wouldnt produce anything much better than exists currently ( it would just be done by more measurable methods, accountability etc) but eventually ( rather to establish stand alone "proof") I would gather the information for the end result of being able to locate/track it better for the eventual trapping or killing ( maybe get lucky and find a physical artifcat) that will eventually have to occur to finally settle the issue.

The AIBR (www.bigfootresearch.com) had offered standard protocols and other field tools to fellow researchers for several years. We also have held training classes to teach protocols hands on (known as Operation Odysseys). The classes will expand to other parts of the U.S. in 2008.

(Please note that your list is a combination of both witness interviewing and field work...many bigfoot researchers only do one or the other, i.e., you don't need to know how to interrogate a witness if you don't take sighting reports; nor do you need to know how to track if you only take sighting reports and don't do field work.)

Sounds good. The geographic search area still has to be in a habitat where evidence collection is possible based on both accessible terraine and the research area's qualified history of reports and a few other considerations, I think.
I feel there's a predisposition to search in areas with a lot forest cover, dense and off the beaten path, good camping possibilities, and because that's where they're encountered with some significant frequency, but I recall you mentioning that you thought that maybe those encounters are the a product of their supposed extra-territorial movements, which I kind of favor as an aspect worth considering.
Whether BF are in forests (east coast or west) or not, I don't think there's any doubt that, if they are as we rather suspect, they're also in the higher elevation inland western regions where there is more open country and the skies are not cloudy sorta thing.
For example: were I studying wolves' behavior, even though I know they exist in the Olympic Rain Forest, I'd instead go to Yellowstone, or as the Muries did in the early 1930s to study wolf social behavior where it was actually visible, north of Denali which was one of the only places left where they were known to be protected from hunting within that sizeable preserve. Though the wolf was anything but a cryptic animal, it might has well have been when considering how little was known about what it is that actually makes a wolf a wolf, up until those studies, and now instead of being universally despited, hated and killed on sight as they had been thorughout almost all of their shared history with humans they're considered a fascinating compex animal with important contributions to a healthy environment. The only point of that being that we should consider carefully the nature of the area and look for significant natural advantages based on how we suppose a realistically imagined kind of natural creature would naturally behave.

Despite your seeming expertise in 'whatever it is you're an expert in', you've just lost a few points with me with inane comments like that one. You couldn't have been more wrong. I'm a lot of things, but an agent (or proponent) of 'the status quo' I am not. And if you were a little more read here you'd see I don't EVEN have to prove that one. Anyway, just go about doing whatever you wanna do here however you wanna do it, you apparently don't HAVE any 'humiltiy' and I see I was foolish to suggest it. Just don't be all 'shocked and awed' when after your reception here gets past this 'honeymoon stage', others still unknown to you turn on you for being so 'unrighteously righteous'. How old are you anyway? Just curious.

And Ray, Kumbaya my ass.


Oh c'mon man. Let's talk about 'Gimme a break'.

They may be

understand that these thoughts arent even fully developed much less thought out yet- those were just off the cuff

My point is that nothing you are suggesting is a new concept...it's all been done before (and for some time) and will continue to be done in the future.

>>>Despite your seeming expertise in 'whatever it is you're an expert in', you've just lost a few points with me with inane comments like that one.

Then you understand exactly how I was feeling a few posts back ( for the same reasons no less)

>>>You couldn't have been [i]more wrong. I'm a lot of things, but an agent (or proponent) of 'the status quo' I am not. And if you were a little more read here you'd see I don't EVEN have to prove that one. [/i]

You arent going to believe this ( maybe- not speaking for you) but that remark ( and the ones preceeding it) were not directed toward you exclusively even tho they were in direct response to your post. And i have read many of your posts and i conceed that you specifically do not portray such an image.


>>>Anyway, just go about doing whatever you wanna do here however you wanna do it, you apparently don't HAVE any 'humiltiy' and I see I was foolish to suggest it.

I have plenty of humility and prefer operating in that mode but thats a 2 way street

>>>Just don't be all 'shocked and awed' when after your reception here gets past this 'honeymoon stage', [i]others still unknown to you turn on you for being so 'unrighteously righteous'.[/i]

Any "reception" I have received here has been anything but a "honeymoon"

>> How old are you anyway? Just curious.

4th turn to 50 and you?

As does the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy. New members attend outings designed to help teach them how to use the equipment (technology) that is provided by the TBRC. They are also taught witness interview techniques - Interrogation is best left to those who have the proper training. Also these witnesses do not have to talk to anyone.. Interrogation will only get you the business end of a front door.

Members are also taught proper evidence collection techniques as well as casting. Both programs put on by the AIBR and the TBRC are very well rounded.

These things too are being done.

I dont doubt the concepts are old ( they arent exactly rocket science) and probably in use to some degree but like anything else- they need to be revised, improved, updated and maybe even used too.

All our protocols have been well reviewed by a cadre of scientists including DNA specialists, police officers, hair specialists, etc. and then updated to reflect their comments. They are very, very well used by members of the AIBR, independent researchers, and as Melissa pointed out, by the TBRC and their members.

Very good then- the next logical question is what have these methods produced?

If the methods and techniques are sound- its a no brainer to jump to the next step to deployment and the operational search strategy.

I find it hard to believe that anybody would accept telephone interviews as being up to any sort of rigorous investigative standard.

I guess you aren't reading what I wrote...the protocols are in use in the field and have been for several years (that includes deployment and operational search strategies). It's produced footprint casts, vocal recordings, hair, etc. but no dna or body.

It would be difficult as you dont have the ability to judge eye movement, body language, protective zones in real time as is necessary to establish credibility.

Plus, people tend to get bolder/braver over a phone

That was my whole point ( going way back upthread)- whats been produced so far hasnt established anything- just more inconclusive evidence. Thats why I suggested a complete revision or looking into different strategies.


In all honesty, footprints arent going to get anyone anywhere, vocals arent any better.

hair would be about the best thing available ( hoping to get a good sample)

Then maybe the focus needs to prehaps shift to the analysis capability and who is doing the analysis.

prehaps even the use of traps

I would also probably review those standards- are they published in a Pdf?

ETA- I would also review the CV's and expertise of the 'experts" to ensure their expertise and advice is valid. Just because someone has a title doesnt qualify them in anything.

Have you personally ever conducted any phone interviews in the course of an investigation?

long tab, you said "hair would be about the best thing available," yet you fully agreed with a post that basically said Fahrenbach's hair samples are useless.

Inconsistency and ignorance are not going toget you very far.

longtab, if you don't mind, can you say whether you work in basic research or some applied science? If answering makes you uncomfortable you don't have to.

In different posts you said your work involved engineering, physics and forensics? All combined? Do you work with forensics technology?

Without going back, didn't the post say that Fahrenbach has also come to view the samples as useless?

Engineers can get into some interesting fields. I have a good friend with a Phd in Electrical Engineering. He became involved in studing the human nervous system, and when he ended up retiring he was teaching Med students the Physology of the Human Nervous System. Wild.......... when we first met I asked him what he did. Drumming his fingers on the table he said "I've spent my entire life trying to figure out how I can do this". He's one of the most brilliant men I know.

hey wmroy

I may need to be updated, but Fahrenbach's last comments on his library I've read, was that the samples were consistent with BF being a real unknown species. He was just very careful not to say that it was from a BF (and rightly so, I believe). Maybe some were thrown by this distinction.

As far as I know, he still considers them interesting and suggestive, and not useless.

Yeah, I have a very close friend too who is an engineer who works in AI. He has exposed me to ideas that just blow me away (my background is in the life sciences). He too is brilliant. It' s good to have a friend who can really challenge you.

I wasn't knocking engineers, tho they can certainly have a different take on things.

But the obsession with protocols and proper technology use seemed to suggest work in an applied science with a very constricted view of what science does and how it does it. COC, quality control, quality assurance, standard(and evolving) operating procedures, proper training, etc. are all hoped and strived for to varying degrees, but they are not the be-all, end-all of science.

I work in an applied science and my job is to worry about all of that and improve them when I can. But at the end of what I do after all the QC/QA and the simple analysis and modeling I do by protocol is only the beginning of what the science is.

It then goes to the basic researchers in my group who analyze it in novel ways that is the truly interesting side of this process.

You forgot the part that said good samples. From what I understand Farhenbach's hair samples don't seem to be able to have DNA extracted from them.

In posting that, you have effectively demonstrated your complete misunderstanding of what LS was implying, and thus, your own apparent ignorance on the subject.
(edited to add "what Wolftrax said!")

No, SOP was face to face, preferably 2 people ( one talker, one observer) and whenever possible, recorded

Yes i said hair- I say both his samples and his "expertise' in analyzing them are useless.

Theres nothing in his degree field that qualifies him an expert in hair analysis so any analysis he has comes from a lab ( no different than when i send samples off)

>>>Inconsistency and ignorance are not going toget you very far.

neither are applicable, what you need to do before you jump to a conclusion is ask for the differentiation first. I said hair ( in the general sense regarding hairy's post) and Farenbachs was specific to him and his "findings"- 2 completely different things

>>>longtab, if you don't mind, can you say whether you work in basic research or some applied science? If answering makes you uncomfortable you don't have to.

If i were uncomfortable answering questions, I wouldnt be here. I have done both over the years but do little research now ( except post 9-11 for WMD civilian countermeasures)

>>>In different posts you said your work involved engineering, physics and forensics? All combined? Do you work with forensics technology?

Yes, Yes and yes and no ( not currently) Engineering ( ME and EE) and physics go together- plus working DoD in the NBC/WMD field ( USAR) Forensics ( crime scene) was one of the areas I instructed at the USAMPS but no, I dont work currently in forensics technology ( but am around it) except where it applies in technical RCA and FMEA work. That may be a complex answer to a simple question but it would take a long thread to break it all down.

Yet more "human contamination"?

Back in the heyday of the UFO enigma many UFO research groups did in fact establish a comprehensive reporting protocol. However in spite of the considerable effort that went into creating a reporting system 45 years later there is still not a single piece of hard evidence or even reasonable circumstantial evidence to confirm that UFO's are true unknowns (read not of this world). A rigorous Sasquatch protocol may produce excellent report rendering but like in the case of UFO's will not produce a craft or carcass to actually study.

It can be argued that the Roger Patterson's of the world without the aide of true science protocol accomplished more by the seat of the pants gut instinct approach to the Sasquatch issue. But of course even the Roger Patterson's were unable to provide the hard evidence and almost to a man every successfull Bigfoot researcher has had questionable elements involving the methods of success (read hoaxers).

Since I brought the subject up - I will answer as well.
If you mean have I ever tried to conduct an investigative interview over the phone - the answer is a resounding NO.
No properly trained police investigator that I know would ever consider such an obvious blunder.


edited to add "properly trained police" to the last sentence.

I wouldnt even go that far. What I would like to see is the full report, the technician's certification and the labs accreditation- without all of those, I wouldnt accept any report as valid- regardless of what it says.

Too much room for word games.



In the most literal and real sense- protocols and such serve more the purpose of weeding out "evidence" that is in whatever way, inconclusive, not relevant or obviously fradulent- leaving anything that survives worthy of further and more comprehensive testing.

It could be said the protocols did their job as no evidence or account passed the first round testing.

That might get you somewhere when it comes to enforcing the law, but when it comes to dealing with witnesses in this field, your going to fall flat on your face with this approach(in most instances).

Phone interviews can be very valuable. I wouldn't dismiss them out of hand too quickly.

From what I've observed so far, I can see that you appear to be a reasonably intelligent person who is knowledgeable in certain areas, but obviously someone who doesn't have much experience in this area of study(bigfoot/sasquatch).

JMHO.

Incoming.

I don't mean to imply that you think this way, (and this post probably will come across as being a firm grasp of the obvious and that's why I've been reluctant to post my 2 pennies, but I haven't seen a response yet that has said how I feel about BF "science"), but do you really think it's possible to interview every person who's had a "sighting" face to face? How is that remotely possible? I think we can agree it's not -- no crime has been committed when someone thinks they've seen a BF, so there's no mandate by law to do that. More than likely, if he or she honestly believes they saw something that is a BF, they (excuse the bad grammar, but I'm going with the all inclusive "they" for brevity) more than likely will be confused, frightened and maybe a bit defensive or embarrassed in coming forward in the first place. Interrogating in police type manner may make then just want to forget about it and regret they said anything at all.
Sure, a face to face would be best -- a lot easier to pick up on clues if they're lying or not. But show me any agency that has the funds to visit each person who has claimed a sighting. You have amateur investigators scattered all over the country who would be willing to drive some distance, but for some I bet it's just not feasible. So should a phone interview just be written off or discarded? It's better than nothing, isn't it?
I see a lot of critique on what people are doing while investigating the BF phenomena, and that it isn't either professional enough or not enough science in it. For my part, I see precious few pros or scientists interested in investigating anything, because they have a preconceived bias that a creature like BF is impossible or just tabloid myth, and it ends there for them -- unless they want to take pot-shots at someone like Meldrum.
I'm very, very unsure if BF exists. I really have my doubts, so I accept nothing at face value. If I had the money, and if I had the time, I would be more than willing to devote both to educating myself more in any way that would help investigate BF. But I, like just about everyone researching BF, have to work for a living. Even Meldrum doesn't spend all his time on BF. Until funding comes through and we get a team of researchers that truly are scientists, I think we're stuck with the methods we have for now. Not saying things can't be improved, of course -- even "real" science has to do that from time to time.
Sorry, my post kind of went off track and ended encompassing more than just your post, Rockinkt. I should learn not to post when it's bed time.

Not sure I see any value in witness reports any more. Toss another one on the anecdotal pile is what it seems to amount to. No matter how high the pile it isn't getting anyone closer to solving the mystery.

RayG

I have to disagree with you on that Ray. I look at bf sighting reports the same way I do fishing reports. If you want to catch fish, you go where the fishermen are reporting that the fish are biting. Sure, some of those who fished the waters the day before and reported a record catch may be full of it, but it's a place to start. If a person tells me that they saw a 12 pt. buck go into a certain patch of woods, that's the patch of woods I want to hunt. Same thing, IMO.

Sighting reports are just a tool that can be used to get a starting point.

JMO as always

I completely agree JayleeD.

If we have no reports, then what do we have to look for? Or where should we even look? We need to start somewhere.. If reports stopped completely, I would think one of two things - either the animal has been a product of mass hallucination and everyone suddenly got over it - or the animal has suddenly died off in some strange freak nature situation (which would be worth investigating in and of itself, LOL).

I personally think without reports, we would have no reason to be looking for a large upright bipedal primate.

Yeah, but when you go to where the fish are biting, eventually someone lands a fish.

If we can't bag a squatch, does it matter where we look?

RayG

You are correct in the fact I've never done an "official" ( or even amatuer for that matter LOL) study on BF and dont see the event where I ever could. ( even if I wanted to[ which I would entertain the idea]- I'm on the road and mostly out of CONUS over 300 days a year so it would be logistically impossible for me)

I agree interviews ( even phone ones) have some merit- but as i have followed this field in particular ( mainly on the BFRO- I found this site by accident)- witness accounts seem to be mostly unreliable regardless.

This is why I feel the best chances are to apply technology.

Its a no brainer that ( overall) the various groups have both "funding and resource" constraints ( and after reading one sites technical advice last night, they need some more work there as well- I see now why many samples are contaminated)- so with that said, the more effort extended to investigate witness accounts ( without some way to cull/categorize them in regards to production) would be like a slow drip IV of resources.

Believe it or not- I agree with your premise 100%

I'm with you on the fact that there are too many reports for them ALL to be fakes, hallucinations or misidentifications- but I hope you acknowledge that as true as that is- you, me nor anyone else will ever "sell" it based on that.

So, the question evolves to what exactly do you "do" with reports.

A stack of reports by itself is all but meaningless- there needs to be a set of standards ( hopefully not resource intensive) to cull/categorize reports to only apply resources to those most likely to bring results if investigated ( notice, not even true- but to bring results- thats whats going to count)

Designing such a protocol would not be easy and may not even be possible ( with any degree of accuracy)- but something needs to be tried ( even if it fails)

The reason scientists dont do it has nothing to do with their "belief"- its a matter of funding.

All scientists work for a living and whether for private enterprise or educational institution, funding and resource determine what and to what level they go to. Thats why I have said many times, the "key" is to get funding and the "road' to that key is to start at the bottom and build as much science into the subject as is possible.

I hate to use a "movie" to validate anything- but watch the original Ghostbusters regarding how they got thrown out and the conversations regarding the private sector- THATS the reason mainstream science doesnt have much use for him. That discourse was pretty accurate.

As to Meldrum- his methods and the way he "sells' his ideas is what put him in the target circle- not the fact people decided to pick on him because of Bigfoot. As even Harry acknowledges, he is walking a razor thin line and he knows it.

Well, I didnt think even you could disagree with that.



I absolutely acknowledge there is no way we will ever build a case for the existance of this animal based on reports. But, I also have said since my first day in this - we could be using reports better than we are. I personally think there are different questions that should be added to the various lists, and they are questions I already ask.

But, more specifically to your question, when I first became involved in this I actually went through one specific public data base of reports, and did what most investigators do - I attempted to create a profile. I think I suceeded. One other researcher did the same thing (that I know of) on the same data base, and came up with the exact same outcome - and he had no idea I had already done this work. My work is not yet complete in this respect, but suffice it to say I have been working on this profile now for 2 years.



How do you create standards for reports that largely come to us more than a year old? You forget, these people who have what are considered credible reports are afraid to discuss it. There is nothing we can do with a report that is 10 years old - heck its hard enough deciding if a report turned in of a sighting more than 1 week old is credible.

Ok, this is where I get irritated. Longtabber, I think your a very smart individual - but you say things like this as if its the first time any of us have heard this... We know in and of itself, a report is useless, unless the witness report directs us toward a body. We know that. We know all the things you keep saying - we have beaten ourselves up over this for a very long time. I myself have irriated a few by screaming about the need for more scientific standards and the use of more tests (your not the first nor am I) DNA to be specific.... But, telling us it needs to happen wont make it happen. With your knowledge - why dont you discuss how researchers would go about (and what materials are necessary) to perform a DNA swab of a suspected blood sample.. Start a thread on Presumptive DNA testing.

Thats what researchers need - not more of what we already know and get irritated about ourselves. If you want more science - then help teach it, anyone can tell us what to do - it takes someone special to teach how.

Also, you can attract more flies with honey - just something to consider.

LongtabberPE

I knew you had to agree with this. Being SF, you know the importance on intelligence gained through eyewitness reports. While everything that is related must be taken with a grain of salt, it still can be compiled into usable intel. As far as your arguments, I see that you are looking for undeniable proof. Circumstantial proof, at best, is circumstantial. A body will need to be produced to erase any doubts of the existence of BF.

I think what folks see as brash arrogance, is somewhat confused with self-assurance. A lot of folks bring it to light that your military career must be the reason for your unrelenting point of view. I would argue that if that were the case you wouldn’t have made it long. A good officer always listens to his noncoms. And their views do influence his judgment. Being able to listen and evaluate in a positive manner determines the success of any officers’ career.

All that said, this is just a forum. People take from it what they wish. I am no more an expert on BF as I am on UFOs. But I do have an opinion, as most here do. Some lean one way and some lean the other. What I know about science and all that gobblty-gook could fill a thimble. I grant that there are others here (if not most) whose education far exceeds mine. I do not wholeheartedly agree with anyone’s scientific opinion, as I don’t consider myself that qualified (anyone of you could be right, but I am not scientifically qualified to state which one, if not all). But the information that I gain is appreciated and used by me, for me, to form my own opinions. After all we are talking about BF. The ultimate end to this argument is always going to be prove it, until someone does. Hopefully, by the use of the information that is presented, someone will. So thanks to all of the posters, and to MOI and LongtabberPE in particular for sparking the debate.

>>>I absolutely acknowledge there is no way we will ever build a case for the existance of this animal based on reports. But, I also have said since my first day in this - we could be using reports better than we are. I personally think there are different questions that should be added to the various lists, and they are questions I already ask.

I agree- so since you have your own operation, come up with those questions, implement them and see what happens- dont stop there even.

>>>How do you create standards for reports that largely come to us more than a year old? You forget, these people who have what are considered credible reports are afraid to discuss it. There is nothing we can do with a report that is 10 years old - heck its hard enough deciding if a report turned in of a sighting more than 1 week old is credible.

I dont pretend to tell you that will be easy ( or even possible)- but if the goal is the results of evidence that can be examined and "may" produce something to build a legitimate scientific case- I would suggest not even bothering with a report less than 30 days old.

Let me be redundant to make sure the meaning didnt get lost there above- reports, reports and more reports ( in and of themselves) mean nothing ( be they true, false, reliable or anywhere in the spectrum)

Samples that can be collected and may yield fruit are the only thing any scientific case can possibly be built from- with that said, I would extract the data from 'reports' as you get in hopes of building a database but I wouldnt expend one erg of energy on any report ( beyond that) that wasnt recent enough ( and credible enough) to where the potential for evidence to be collected.


>>>Ok, this is where I get irritated. Longtabber, I think your a very smart individual - but you say things like this as if its the first time any of us have heard this... We know in and of itself, a report is useless, unless the witness report directs us toward a body. We know that. We know all the things you keep saying - we have beaten ourselves up over this for a very long time. I myself have irriated a few by screaming about the need for more scientific standards and the use of more tests (your not the first nor am I) DNA to be specific.... But, telling us it needs to happen wont make it happen. With your knowledge - why dont you discuss how researchers would go about (and what materials are necessary) to perform a DNA swab of a suspected blood sample.. Start a thread on Presumptive DNA testing.

OK, I'll do just that ( thats a fair and honest statement you made and I'll make every effort to comply with the Lady's request) but before i do that ( I'm an engineer- NOT a DNA expert) I'm going to consult with the 2 labs i have under contract ( the only DNA I do is with the animals to establish breeds, bloodlines etc- so I pull samples on a semi regular basis so i have a working knowledge of it but am far from an expert) and get their input- give me a few days. ( thats based in part also of perusing hairy's site last night- there were some serious flaws and omissions in some of their techniques)

>>>Thats what researchers need - not more of what we already know and get irritated about ourselves. If you want more science - then help teach it, anyone can tell us what to do - it takes someone special to teach how.

Fair enough- time to beat the sword into a pruning hook and put on the thinking cap. I'll assist you anyway i can.

So we dont replow old ground, what specifically does the lady think she wants ( or needs)