I found this while searching the net for stuff....read lines 367 and 375 specifically...It's interesting to find this on the web...gives you some idea how arrogant these people can be. So exactly what category are us BF believers in??? I have read of sightings by other Fish and Wildlife people and Other Gov Agencies...what does that make them???

here's a link to the whole page...

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/legislative/...R022693agri.txt

So Spaketh our illustrious Fish and Wildlife...lol

326 STOTTER: One looks at trends. For example, one could see a
single
species and make another sighting of a species, neither of those

occurrences have been verified. Nevertheless, the fact that it was

sighted by an appropriately trained professional could make it

scientifically significant.

334 REP. JOSI: Either you have a case of verification based on evidence,
or
a case of verification based on sightings so it seems your definition
is
spreading out.

351 STOTTER: No, in some cases a sighting by a trained professional may
be
enough to require an action, such as a study, to be undertaken.

360 REP. JOSI: What would the study be after? Verification!

365 STOTTER: Yes, but they couldn't even do the study under the
proposed
legislation.

367 REP. DOMINY: In your opinion, best available science proves
bigfoot
exists.

375 STOTTER: No, the professionalism is so high by the U.S. Fish
and
Wildlife Department that it is in a different category than those who

have seen bigfoot.

383 REP. FISHER: You have trust in these state commissions, however,
when
these people are advising the Forest Service and other places, all of
a
sudden they don't know anything, but they've been trained in the same

schools.

398 STOTTER: There's a big difference in differing with biological
outcomes
and questioning their integrity and professionalism.

Oh..my bad....Stotter is the Sierra Club guy...okay..guess it's the Sierra Club that thinks so little of BF...lol...but he does say....

"a different category than those who have seen bigfoot."

he didn't say..."those who believe in bigfoot"....so he is saying that even if you've seen BF you're opinion is still not as holy as that of a F &W agent because you are not as professional?? What the...

This really really bugs me...not that it hasn't bugged some of you for a lot longer..lol..but...this attitude of.."If you've seen a BF you must be crazy"...is very close minded.

I wish President Bush would see a BF....lol.....

Credibility is everything, isn't it?

How strange, that to using one's credibility to prove an encounter..can cause that same credibility to be lost

Makes it easy to understand why many sightings would go unreported, and do go unreported.

You can have credibility for about anything. But if you use it on a BF sighting, which is just what is needed, to lend some weight to the event..then there is all that much more to be lost by an individual!

Why do you think psychologist Matt Johnson got so much press attention?

Or (slightly off topic) the fact that Jimmy Carter had a UFO sighting...and was still considered credible enough to be a nuclear sub commander and later a president...but it still goes to the credibility of the reporter...In the case of the discussion you posted Sosha...I'd have to say it was more about getting some publicity than it was about anything to seriously do with squatch research..but I'm sorta cynical that way.

If only ten of these highly credible people would report a sighting, then there'd be no more stigma to doing so. M. Johnson has helped break the ice. I frown on people in such positions who fail to act on behalf of the greater good. For example, the "skeptical high school biology teacher," a friend of author Robert Pyle's, who came upon a BF relieving herself on a logging road in WA at night, and kept the sighting under his hat, except to mention it with a promise to confidentiality to his friend Pyle.

This witness-credibility business will really come into play if a cop's dashboard videocam captures a Sas.

I just think it is sad that people cannot open their minds to all kinds of possiblities...mostly I think it is fear of ridicule yes..but when I talk about BF..and people start to chuckle or make ignorant comments I just come back with...."Okay then explain the hair that the lab says is from an "unknown primate" explain the footprints with dermal ridges, explain the recorded screams that could not have been made by any known animal, explain why native americans have stories about giant ape men from way back in the 1800's, explain what exactly hundreds of people have been seeing for the past 100 years that consistantly looks the same and sounds the same in case after case? (I had one guy actually try to tell me is was mass hysteria..lol) yeah all these people seeing the same kind for creature at different times, in different states..all suffering from the same mass illusion...

And when skeptics say..."oh well if it was real, someone would have caught one by now or shot one."....really? Well this is what I say.....

Just this past November Japanese scientists say they have identified a new species of whale. Tadasu Yamada of Tokyo’s National Science Museum said..."CAN YOU IMAGINE? An animal of more than 10 meters was unknown to us even in the 21st century?" Yeah...Imagine....

Imagine that For more than 100 years it had been assumed that there were two
species of elephants: Asian and African. But recently, using DNA analyses, researchers found that African elephants are really comprised of two genetically separate groups, as distinct as lions and tigers.

In 2000, for example, researchers in the Brazilian Amazon found two species of brightly colored monkeys that had never before been recorded. In early 2001, a new owl was discovered in Sri Lanka.

And an unusual form of antelope, the saola, was found in Vietnam a few years ago.

Our catalogue of Earth's diversity seems impressive, boasting some 250,000 described plant species, 750,000 insect species and 280,000 other animals. But incredibly, we have yet to discover most of the Earth's species. Scientists have documented maybe 10 or 20 percent of living things, and new species are discovered all the time.

If we know so little about Earth's giants like elephants, how much could we possibly know about everything that might live in the forests?

Put that in yer skeptic pipe and smoke it! That's what I say!!