If I remember correctly I will try to shed some light on what Dr. Fahrenbach said and what are, IMO, the intentionally embellished words of the reporter designed to lampoon the conference and bigfoot enthusiasts as a whole.


Dr. F said that, and prior to the conference I had read a report claiming the same thing (except I remember the report claiming 2 leaps rather than three steps.) I don't find that so hard to believe considering how large bf allegedly are and considering the enormous strength of known primates such as orangutan and chimps that are a fraction of the size of bf.


Embellishment intended to mock and lampoon.


Said it. Again, I don't find that so hard to believe considering how large bf allegedly are and considering the enormous strength of known primates such as orangutan and chimp.


Said it. So what?


Said something along those lines. There is a lot of embellishment there as well. Even so, other primates have been observed to behave the same way so I don't see why it would be ludicrous to think that bf would share the same behavior especially if it has been observed.


Said the part in quotes. Again, there is a lot of embellishment there as well. Even so, given that other primates have been observed to behave the same way, I don't see why it would be ludicrous to think that bf would share the same behavior especially if it has allegedly been observed.


Said it. I took it to be tongue in cheek. He also said minutes earlier that if one were shot and could not be removed from the area, then he suggested to NOT take the head, but take a hand or foot instead so as not to destroy the only set of vocal cords, etc... available for study. So I would say this is embellishment on Eric's part as well as taking a quote out of context.


I think we all agree on that.

I must admit I was a little shocked when Dr. F. started talking about *ahem* ... S ... E ... X... But hey, he's a zoologist and sexual behavior is simply a part of any animal behavior. I'm almost positive he isn't the only scientist that has ever discussed at a conference the reported sexual behavior of the animal they were studying.

Just because he is a PhD doesn't mean his word is gospel and I'm willing to bet that most people understand that, especially when it comes to the subjet matter at hand. In fact, he himself stated that readers had to make up their own minds regarding the validity of reports and books. (Curiously, another quote that was omitted from the article by Eric. I wonder why? Maybe because that would have made Dr. F. and the convention appear not-so-kooky - something that was definitely counter productive to Eric's intentions.)

Longtabber mentioned "cherry picking data to create a false premise." Eric's article is a point in case.

Kathy,

Nice try to twist what I've said.

If you go back a few posts you'll see that I SAID THERE ARE NO BF EXPERTS.......

So rather than saying it all again, here are my previous comments again:
















So you see, I am in no way shape or form saying these folks are experts, BUT that in FACT when an organization books these folks, promotes them, and allows them to hawk their wares at the conferences, the GROUP is in fact painting these folks as experts and authorities. Whether that was the intent of the group or not is of no consequence, to the general public (who after all is the audience reading the journalists article that is the original subject of this thread) the individual speaking at the conference is being seen as an expert.

You may not like it, but that doesn't change the fact that this is the way it is!

The ludicrous part is not so much the alleged behavior, it's the implication that someone has had the opportunity to observe multiple such creatures at length and in such great detail but hasn't produced any photographic evidence to support the claim. If Fahrenbach was simply relating stories that are out there for the masses, then he was irresponsible to do so - he was perpetuating nonsense. Of course he's considered an expert in the subject matter, and when he says stuff like this it certainly carries more weight than if Tom Biscardi says the same thing.

If, alternatively, he claims to have witnessed these things himself, then he's simply a nutcase.

WmRoy - I get your concept that while the community itself doesn't believe anyone can be an authority/expert - the general public might think so. My point is just because someone speaks at a conference doesn't (in any way shape or form) mean that the group in charge of the event is holding that person out as an expert or authority - they are simply people that the group thinks has something interesting to say (there were others people who spoke who don't have related degrees). Clearly though, if that is the perception, then they need to be more selective in the future.

I assuming your premise is that more harm is done by someone thought to be an "expert" saying something stupid than joe schmo? You may be right... Can't wait to read the witness report of the orgy

(edit: I thought I was posting under your post, and hence why I didn't quote you...but Saskeptic posts faster than me!).

I certainly understand your point, Saskeptic, and that of other's who say it was irresponsible to spread unverified and unprovable claims.

I suspect that he received the particular "orgy" information from a "habituation" witness. He did claim to have been to two (I think) of the habituation locations (out of a handful of locations,) and he seems to believe that it is happening. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere somebody was doing this, but it seems too good to be true for it to happen and to be verified in my life time.

First let me state that I have not read all this thread, but I do know that some profusely posting pundits propound that Fahrenbach made outlandish claims during his presentation at the 2008 Texas Bigfoot Conference. Of course, he did not claim to have made the observations himself; he summarized witness statements.

Personally, I don’t think Fahrenbach’s comments, as presented in the article, are all that outrageous. After all…

He does not claim they grow to be fifteen feet tall.

He does not claim they fly spacecraft.

He does not claim they are inter-dimensional beings.

He does not claim they are shapeshifters.

He does not claim they have psychic abilities.

He does not claim that they speak Native American languages.

He does not claim sasquatches are Edomites, descended from Esau.

He does not claim that they can change into deer and rabbits.

He does not claim they can become invisible.

He does not claim they are telepathic.

He does not claim they can dematerialize.

He does not claim there are multiple species of undocumented bipedal primates in NA.

He does not claim that “Patty” wore hair braids.

Etc.

I heard most of Fahrenbach’s talk. He did present what I am sure he knew would be considered as remarkable information, at best, but for many of those cases he provided comparative human examples that he used to illustrate the relative reasonableness, from a physiological perspective, of the witness claims he referenced.

Other assertions regarding possible bigfoot behavior that Fahrenbach’s critics find laughable are actually reflected in the primate world (apologies if I’m covering the same ground as others). For example, chimps are known to eat wild hogs; there’s nothing ridiculous about saying the same thing could be true of sasquatches. Female chimps have multiple sex partners, just as Fahrenbach’s purported witness claimed was true for female sasquatches. Bonobos even engage in what are described as sexual orgies.

Do I “believe” everything related by Fahrenbach is true? No, I have my doubts.

Do I think that the TBRC should be held responsible for what Fahrenbach, or any speaker, says? No, I think that’s ludicrous.

Do I think anything I say will sway anyone’s opinion in this thread? That’s a rhetorical question.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think it's really that big of deal, no matter what. It almost seems as if you have some vested interest in exacerbating this situation. It is not really necessary or particularly consequential, regardless. Henner might deserve the spanking of accountability. Big deal. We know. Kathy and Teresa will talk to him, for what it's worth. I discredited one of the witnesses he apparently referenced, so I do know and care about this ultimately.

A couple of chumps getting world-wide attention for their shameless lies and associations with willing accomplice character-deficient opportunists like Biscardi and Kulls (and I look forward to telling you in person, face-to-face, whenever I get the chance, that's a promise tough guy, ~"bullet with your name on it"~ bravado doofus "detective," lest there be any misunderstanding, remember KY...go ahead, PM me...) does not compare to the very limited attention or concern or publicity generated by the TX conference, the TBRC, or Vanity Fair. It's not "nuclear" to this field, this subject, our research, or to me because I am more than willing to discuss it openly and freely with anyone, if anyone ever brings it up, but they haven't. That is how I judge its real affect. Minimal. They, being society's typical perspective in general, think we and this subject are ridiculous. Oh no. But was it helpful? Of course not. I know they are wrong and it's only a matter of time. "They" don't dissuade or discourage me. I consider this the greatest challenge anyway. What's another obstacle or inconvenience?

DDA and TBRC have had more than adequate time to contribute to some resolution of this matter. They have not. Noted. Big deal. We know. It's on the record here at the BFF. The smug and certain mockers can refer to it and see later, if they are serious and if they care. And they will. Later. Someday. Eventually. And the balance as shown here will be reasonable whether they knew it at the time or not.

My opinion concerning your stance, longtabber PE, seems to be consistent through several different examples. I partially agree with some of your entirely valid criticisms and partially disagree only mostly because of your unnecessary insistence on the most stringent and inflexible of standards, which might be laudable in a murder 1, but not in this stuff.

The key here is the transcript. If the writer was 'unfair', then I think the transcript would support these claims. If the writer was simply putting forth what he heard, then the transcript would support this claim.

During the GA hoax, the hoaxers were made out to be the Kooks. In this case, a reknowned Bigfooter, with a PhD, got up in front of bona-fide bigfoot people, and started talking about, frankly, some very kooky things. It got covered by a national publication, and frankly it looks like the writer wasn't embellishing. If there is a Jump-the-shark moment for Bigfootry, it is this. The GA hoax will go down as just another BF hoax.

Does anyone remember the Shatner-Sketch on SNL, when he started yelling at the trekkies? Being in the Comic Book business at the time, I can tell you that the Trekkies I knew were acting similarly, claiming Shatner ambushed them and things like that.

Everyone does realize that the story never appeared in Vanity Fair Magazine...right? It was a blog article on their website (with 15 comments). Unlike the GA hoax, I haven't seen this event on any news channels (let alone hundreds for an entire week), NPR, National Geographic, Coast to Coast, etc. As far as I can tell, only a few bigfoot boards are talking about it. How does that make this a jump-the-shark moment?

(dang it, where is a Fonzy smilie when you need one)

That is what people tell me when they call up and want me to work on a Bigfoot show with them. What do they call you? I have an idea.

I didn't say I WAS an expert... just that they consider me one.

Please take down my personal information from the BFF. Pat Barker seems to have a problem with me and I consider this another personal attack. She can provide a link to the site since it is publicly posted but it wasn't posted on here.

If you are asking I will tell.

Think of active Bigfoot believers/supporters as a Bell Curve

At the left tail, are the 5% of the above people who think there is tiniest chance that bigfoot exists, the 90% in the middle all have varying and popular theories on bigfoot, which are even somewhat accepted by non-believers, and on the right tail are the 5% of people who, like Dr. Fahrenbach, ascribe, to bigfoot, the following attributes:
*Their top speed for running is between 42 and 45 miles per hour
*They can cover 90 feet in just three steps, or 30 feet per step
*Sasquatch has been observed walking with two 200-pound pigs under his arm through the countryside
*Bigfoots enjoy wrestling, tickle fights, and, most surprisingly, gangbangs
*rummages through garbage bins for tampons
and if that isn't enough, the author comments on other things, that anyone at the conference heard:
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/culture/2...t-in-texas.html


Now, I can't put a percentage on how many, but I would imagine a large percentage of the General Bigfoot public, either have to say to themselves: One of four things, 1. This Dr. F. is a Kook, who is considered an expert in the field of Bigfoot hairs, and I don't want anything to do with it. 2. This author is lying about what was said, or 3. This is so goofy, I can't have anyone finding out I'm down with this. or 4. I believe Dr. F. is correct in his observations, and all of the above is typical of a Bigfoot habituation encounter.

If you think I'm full of it, then see the parallels between the WIKI for Jump the Shark, and what I just typed.
.
http://www.studio360.org/img/65671/0

It should be borne in mind that sometimes the organisers of events do this 'expert' promoting without the consent of the speaker. It happened to me twice last year that I was promoted as an 'expert' on bigfoot - something I have never, ever claimed to be, and frankly took exception to when the word appeared alongside mine on websites and flyers.

I work as an Expert Witness, and so I know what it takes to be an 'Expert' in a given field - being 'good' or 'experienced' at something does not make you an 'Expert'.


But, as I always tell my customers, Experts built the Titanic, but it was an amateur who built the Ark....



As for Dr. Fahrenbach, the bits of his Sept 2003 presentation that I was awake for really weren't that entertaining - I think I'd have preferred it if he had made wild claims about naked women in showers

Actually, you said "I am considered an expert on bigfoot".
Not, "People consider me an expert". It really would not matter either way however, as the meaning of the statement is clear to anyone being honest with themselves.

Me either.


Me, too.

I honestly wish I had time to dive into this thread and I'm sorry I haven't been around more to participate in this discussion. However, I think any assertion that the TBRC be held accountable for everything Henner said is silly. The fact that this thread was precipitated by a hack job piece written by a lying, two-faced "journalist" is especially galling. Henner said some interesting things, all of which were based on the reports of others and not all of which I think were of similar value. However, to judge him or the TBRC based on what one slovenly individual decided to report is entirely unfair.

Also, for the record, I am considered by many to be an expert on the world of bigfoot. I have no problem with that and don't discourage it. Feel free to judge me accordingly.

MK Davis says something weird at a conference, and Bigfootry in general throws him under the bus.

Dr. F says something weird at a conference, and Bigfootry blames the Vanity Fair writer.


Errrr... Seems a bit double-standardly-ish.

PS- IF DDA was commissioned to videotape this conference, I doubt he has any rights to distribute any of the video, that would go to whoever commissioned him to produce the tape.

MK was saying crazy shit he was making up. Henner was relating what had been reported by witnesses. All Vanity Fair did was selectively report the more incendiary and sensational items in an effort to discredit him and the community in general. JMO.

A witness told Dr. F. that Bigfoot could swat bullets away like bees?

If witnesses told Dr. F. those stories, then he should have been able to determine that those witnesses were not credible, and thus not used them in his presentation.

Would Sptitznagel have been doing his job, as a writer, if he DIDN'T use the most incendiary and sensational items for his story?

Yes, in fact it does, which was what I and others were eluding to when some became offended at Meldrum being questioned over selling track casts at Conventions. Some go under the bus and some get a pedestal. That seems a trend for a while now.

Yet again to be fair, for all I've been able to read in this thread, no one has said the TBRC IS accountable for Henner, just that they could have vetted his material before he presented it. No one, contrary to some loud protests out there has demanded the TBRC provide a transcript of the event or audio there-of, just that it would be 'nice' if something could be provided to let everyone see if this writer DID a hatchet job, or accurately reported what they heard.

A contact was made to the reporter to see if an audio recording could be obtained, but so far I don't believe that's been cleared to happen either.

Dr. F. was on Let's Talk Bigfoot last night talking about what he talked about at the conference and about the Vanity Fair article. He got questioned pretty hard by a couple of different people.

Now I see why some of his quotes were "outrageous" at times. He was using witness testimony in some cases from janice coy/carter. He also stated that she had given him some hair samples which she "pulled" from a sasquatches hand (fox?) and to me, that could be ground breaking "if" it had been true. Those hairs wouldve had the follicles and medulla. Which basically means, that could've been the first piece of real DNA evidence.


But, since we all know how reliable the source of that is, it's likely to be taken "with a grain of salt". Too bad though....


Just knowing that he relied on some of his witness testimony from her, makes me wonder how reliable some of his other sources were as well. That being said, I enjoyed the interview (on letstalkbigfoot) and feel like hes just relaying others "questionable" testimony. (at times)

Crimney.

I tell ya what...when we have the good Dr. on "Let's Talk Bigfoot" again, we'll ask him about it.

I wonder why Dr. F. left this stuff out of his presentation, If he thought Janice Carter was credible enough to cite her testimony, why did he not cite any of this stuff?

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=430997

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=430981

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=430688

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=430669

Because, as he stated in the interview, he doesn't think everything she claims is credible.

The only legitimate excuse he would have to cite Janice Carter's 'Credible' claims in his presentation, would be if he HAD NEVER HEARD THOSE 'IN(Un)CREDIBLE' claims. In the interview he admits to knowing about her 'In(un)credible' Claims.

Did he say at the presentation "These claims come from Janice Carter, a habituation witness, who has some outrageous claims, the ones I am presenting are the least outrageous of those claims."?

Yes, to me this is a perfect example of cherry-picking "evidence" and using it to suit your purpose.

Not very scientific.

No, in fact, most of his claims, but not all, came from the habituation witness in Northern CA rather than from Jan Coy. Other claims were from habituation sites in Oregon. There was another in Washington, but that may have just been an encounter rather than a hab. site.

Pat, how do you go about determining that your witnesses are credible enough for you to spend the time to sketch and post pictures of their sightings? Do you believe them?

http://www.patriciabarker.ca/sipwhatimdoing.htm


Your methods don't seem to be any more scientific than Dr. Fahrenbach's. I'm not knocking your work. I appreciate it, just as I appreciate his, and when I found your site last year I was thrilled to look at all the great sketches you have done and read the amazing reports that go with them. I just find it ironic that doing what you do, and clearly having the same trust in your chosen witnesses which was gleaned only from the same type of investigation done by Dr. F. with his, that you would so openly challenge him. What makes your work any more credible than his?

I think the difference, Hopeful, is that Dr. Fahrenbach said that the sightings he used for references had never been investigated, and were actually before any groups were investigating. Pat states (and it's bolded) that the reports she works on for sketches have been investigated by experienced field investigators and determined to be reliable before she works with them.

That's the difference I noticed between what Dr. F. said and what's posted on Pat's website which has been copied above.

No, I was not commissioned to produce a DVD set from the TBRC conference, per se. I just have had many other things on my plate and am not one to rush into things unless I can devote time and energy to doing it right. Video editing cannot be done in your spare time and have it come out satisfactory. I will get to Henner’s talk as soon as I can.

I spent 10 hours editing another one of Henner's talk from Willow Creek and then had to not include it in the set because of space on the DVD’s. This will make the third time I have sat and listened to Henner speak. He is a great guy but video editing him can be a chore with his accent, especially with a two camera setup. Willow Creek had very little to do with the subject except for the possible origin of the reported smell some of the creatures tend to give off, so I felt that little would be lost by not including him. I sent him a note about it with my regrets. I guess I won’t be doing that with this conference though. There is quite a bit of interest. Everyone does know that he used no visuals during his talk right?

I went to a community college presentation Henner gave in Washington State a few years ago and he used quite a bit of information, examples and evidence collected by Paul Freeman. There has been an uproar about Paul Freeman as a source as well… even when Krantz or Meldrum use his material. But no one has mentioned Thom Powell, The Hoopa Project or Ray Crowe using the very same source. Some of these witnesses are indeed amateur and cannot be held up squeaky clean in front of scientists. They say things wrong, do things wrong and come to wrong conclusions at the drop of a hat. It is hard for anyone to make judgment calls on people when talking about a subject as fantastic as this.

We have had many things happen in this field that nay sayers have touted as the end of bigfootery. Ivan Marx, Cliff Crook and Chris Murphy, Tom Biscardi, Rant Mullens, a Playboy model, a woman claiming to have been abducted, Ray Pickens, the Georgia boys, scientists in Malaysia, Ray Wallace and family… I really don’t think the subject is going to go away because of a talk, by a scientist out of his field of expertise, about some fantastic claims by single women claiming to have habituated these creatures.

The TBRC conference was not a scientific gathering. It is a congregation of like minded people wishing to learn and share information on the subject. Henner has not or is going to write a book on the subject. He does not sell items he has collected or copies of them. He is reluctant to go on camera. He finds the subject fascinating but he devotes more time to his astronomy.

And to think this all started with his boss (at the time) making a dumb statement and passing off sent in evidence to him.

(That was my bolding. I've should've stated that in my post.)

I believe that Pat does a good job with the sketches, and I believe that the witnesses she uses are reliable. I was just surprised that she would fault Henner for basing his statements on the same kind of unverifiable observations as she bases her work.

Didn't he say that he personally investigated the reports he was using for his statements? At first just after the conference I had thought he was including the thousands of reports posted on the internet, but then in the interview I understood him to say that he himself did his own investigations of a large number of reports and had determined some of them (but certainly not all) to be reliable, and these were the ones he used for his statements. And, yes, it was before investigative groups existed so thorough documentation isn't readily available for our review (bummer.) He did say he took extensive notes during his investigations.

It would be great to be able to read those notes and to re-interview his witnesses using today's techniques (whatever that may be.)

Maybe we just agree to disagree......

Hopeful, as Teresa said, I work with witnesses after their report has been investigated. My website is about 5 years old, and although I've worked with many witnesses in that time, only four illustrations appear there. That should tell you something about how careful I am. And yes, I'm fallable, so I could be wrong about even those ... I try not to make claims I can't support, and I'm still quite confident that each of those was a real sighting, but as you say, I have no physical evidence to prove they are. I have tremendous detail from the witnesses, but again, that doesn't add up to proof.

In the end, it's all just anecdotal, isn't it. Maybe I should take the site down. When I began it, I suppose I was being naive in trying to do a service to the bigfooting community using a skill that I have. But as time has gone on, and I've learned more about how to do good investigations (and I'm always learning), I'm realizing that doing this kind of illustration work might be misleading. And I want to do things the right way, using facts, not jumping to conclusions, not making unscientific assumptions or basing opinions on purely anecdotal information.

So maybe you're right, Hopeful. I may be doing exactly what I'm accusing Dr. Fahrenbach of doing .... If so, I'll take the site down.

I'd like to post here what I posted at another board:

I just listened to the archived show.

Dr. Fahrenbach seems to be a nice kindhearted guy, someone you would enjoy talking to. And it's obvious that he has a lot of friends who want to stand up for him and defend his right to say what he did at the conference. I can also see his friends wanting to defend him against a journalist who wrote a contrary article about his speech. However I think it's time this community took a stand against inadequate investigations and unscientific messages at public gatherings on bigfoot, especially when the unscientific speeches are made by scientists. And particularly when there are media present who will undoubtedly report what was said in a very public way.

After listening to the interview, I can only conclude that Dr. F. seems to check his degree at the door when doing witness evaluations and investigating evidence. This is not something you would expect of a scientist.

He's using anecdotal witness accounts (that have very little corroborating physical evidence to substantiate them) as the basis of his speech ... and also, it appears, as the basis of some decisions he's making about sasquatch behaviour. This is not scientific.

When a scientist delivers a speech at a bigfoot conference, then you expect that what he has to say has some basis in science. Frankly, if a layman had made that speech, I would find it unacceptable. Probably most of us would. And many would be refuting all those statements of orgies and 30 ft steps and 42 mi/hr speeds, etc. as unsupported and unverifyable hearsay. But coming from a scientist, who in the LTB interview seems to be saying he believes what these witnesses are saying without further supporting his statements with physical evidence, well this is pretty incredible. He may be a sweetheart of a guy that many consider their friend ... but when it comes to conducting yourself in a professional manner and representing yourself to the public in a responsible way as a scientist, I think the good doctor has lost perspective.

---------------------

I've heard lots of stories from many witnesses ... and some have related very similar details yet these witnesses didn't know each other, weren't on the internet, lived very far away from each other, etc. And in my mind, I've noted the similarities in the details they've talked about. However I wouldn't dream of giving a speech about them, in effect saying that I believe these behaviours or physical traits indicate they must be true, because that isn't proof .. it's just something to file away for future reference as a "possible". Then you wait to see if you can prove such details before you make public statements.

----------------------

I just keep going back to the same conclusion, that the conference organizers should be acutely aware of the effect bad publicity has on this field and should be much more discriminating about what kind of information is being put forward during the event. We had enough with the Georgia hoax this year. To couple that with this, just shows that the organizers really aren't concerned enough about how the field is represented. Or they didn't expect Dr. F. to say many of the things he said. But if they didn't expect it, then why weren't they more forthcoming about trying to get to the truth? Because they were protecting their friend? So once again, the truth takes a back seat to bias and protectionism. And bigfooting gets another hit of bad publicity.

Same old story, I'm afraid. Makes you embarrassed to be associated with the field some days.

JMHO, of course.

That's a good post, Pat. It's very sensible, and I agree with most of it to a certain extent. There's not much I can say to refute it that hasn't already been said.

We can all post until our fingers fall off, but when all is said and done, it really is just everybody's opinion.

I accept that your opinion is not the same as mine, as well as that of Longtabber and Blackdog and others, and I can see the bases for those opinions. My opinion about it is different, and I suppose when all is said and done, none of this debate really makes a hill of beans anyway, however interesting it all may be.

Very well said, and I agree. It's time to stop the embellishments and fabrications with proper investigations, and time to start presenting fact instead of speculations.

This may mean a lot less information put out there, however... it means the information out there is good information. There is so much misinformation floating around this subject. It's quite the task to clean house.


One day it needs to be done, "if" we expect a serious approach by the world of science, and the world in general. The "believers" will always take every bump in the night as a sasquatch experience. The investigators/researchers should not. Nuff said.

Yep, everything ever said about this subject, falls on the listener to determine wether or not they believe what they are hearing. Regardless of how out of this world it may be or how many hands the story has passed through, without a book to open and reference an actual article of fully documented research, with pics and DNA samples and mating rights and clan battle documentation's and migration patterns, if any, and actual footprint measurements and the associated dvd with video footage and recordings of them actually making calls, of any kind, and communication skills, all we really have in the end is a community of opinions, and thats all it can be until this is somehow fully documented.
Until that happens how do we trash anything that comes out, unless just plain ass wierd, how can you have science on a subject there isn't any recorded science on, where is the basis for comparison. I don't want to be the individual that throughs out possible information on this, and have it bite me in the ass later.
Simply put, we don't know the level of animal, ? , we're dealing with, can we possibly as responsible researchers through out every possible angle regarding this subject, how can we say, "Thats not possible" when we don't really have a clue, or there are some with a clue holding back, in which case it would seem they're not about the research, but thats another story.
I don't prescribe to the fringe crap, all I do is read, take in what I want, and disgard the rest. But I leave alot on the table for reference as it may come in handy in the future. This is a primate, or so it would seem, that in and of itself holds alot of possibilities for what we could be dealing with.....How do we know for sure..

Can you explain the "some with a clue they are holding back" element of your post a little more? Intriguing.

Yes, please do elaborate on that statement a little bit.

All I meant by that statement was, it wouldn't surprise me if someone out there had info on these animals that may help the cause. I'm sure that there are folks out there that research/investigate these animals that don't frequent the interenet with their information.

I'm sure you are right about that, many have knowledge they will never disclose.

It's the bolded part that I'm curious about... why would you assume that? Do you think there aren't good reasons for not making everything public?

There was a fellow that did research and had youtube videos of a "killing field" of animal bones/skulls mentioned on another thread. He also has a research journal/blog of this research of his. To me, there was enough information for me to question whether he might be on to something. When he came upon clues he thought would give away his research area or disclose naturalistic behaviors or clues that might be telling of the animal the camera goes black and is edited out with a disclaimer. Forgot where that was, but is this what you mean by "holding a clue back" ? for example.

Is that holding back a clue? Why would someone put up a website to tell everyone who finds it about their "research" and their claims........ yet fail to provide the information properly to science in terms of documenting an undocumented species, especially something so controversial as an extra large bi-ped mammal? I just don't understand, here this amateur gets all this "evidence" and refuses to allow the professionals (sciences) to verify it. I wonder why the double standard, it would appear "to me" that when you need to hide something, nothing is really there and a good possibility it's been staged for entertainment purposes. I'm sorry, I just don't buy the invasion of "research" theories.

If anything, the media has a valid interest, but all that's given to them is the same old song and dance, I got bigfoot on my property (etc) but I can't give you any information about it. So, when it comes down to it, the "community" feeds the perception. Of course this is only my opinion and sorry for being off topic.

Can somebody lead me back to the link to these youtube videos? It was on a thread here in the last three weeks or so?

Bipedalist, was it this post by Dudlow in the "Take on Giganto remains" thread?

(My bolding.)

Hopeful thats the one and it was not youtube, I was mistaken, but google video, it is a very odd scenario, and he reports that there are both
Bigfoot and little forest people who clean up after the Sasquatch to remove all the evidence but the bones. Don't much go for that theory but
having seen a smaller version of forest people myself, don't want to remove some possibilties there. It is a fascinating topography he reports in his
journal about the area in general with many ecosystems within close proximity to one another, even has a rough map either in the journal or the video.
To get to the journal I believe you have to view that google link. Thanks again.

Wow, the silence is deafening in this thread. Isn't it interesting how so very many who defended Dr. F have abandoned this topic since the interview aired.

Edited for clarity.

I was interested until 4 minutes in when they focused on the crystal/diamond things on the stump........... You've gotta be kiddin me!

An aside.............why is the video so pixelated? So we can't see clearly? or just a poor quality video?

Yegads, research? You can't be serious. That video was an embarrassment.



Don't tell me you missed the parts about finding bones next to a fence, the invisible birch trees that hide in plain sight, squatch snot, and killer cows?

RayG

I think the main cause, Pat, of the deafening silence is that the main one(s) who made such a big f'n deal out of it being such a big bad blackeye to bf-ery haven't been posting at all for several days now starting a few days before the interview ever took place. Had you noticed that?

FYI, there is more discussion about it on the Let's Talk Bigfoot thread starting immediately after the show ended Wednesday night. It's the same thing. Some folks have one opinion some have another.

What exactly is the unpleasant point you're trying to make with your base remark regarding the so very many who defended Dr. F?

There, now we've both been catty.