DWA

Members
  • Content count

    9,509
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

984 Legendary

About DWA

  • Rank
    Sasquatch

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Hiking/backpacking/x-c skiing, just being outdoors and animals in general. Interested in the science of this topic, not the sideshows

Contact Methods

  • Have you ever had an encounter with a sasquatch-like creature?
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

1,970 profile views
  1. For a little while now I have been marveling at the way scientists take a teeny bit of information and go a long long LONG way with it.
  2. Well, yeah, and someone would have to show me how "technology" would do this, or otherwise it's just an assumption with nothing to back it up. What that sound is requires evidence, not assumptions.
  3. That's presuming you'd know what an undiscovered thing sounds like. Hmmmmmmmmm on that one. (There ain't a bird on the planet with lungs like that, and having heard one of the world's loudest birds, as established by science, at very close range, I can speak from authority.)
  4. Worth noting that this isn't the only 'stripped tree' find correlating with other evidence. Here's just one. http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/beds-nests-gallery.html (See Alley's Raincoast Sasquatch" for a couple others. This one might be in there too, off the top of my head....whoa, just looked at the link again, and it is.)
  5. Or as I like to put it: a science degree drills one in canon, and in doing appropriate sums, not in the approach to things outside that canon. (To which a brave few scientists have shown the appropriate sums to be quite applicable. If only, you know, they were actually applied.) Two great fallacies persist in our society: that rich people, and that scientists, are inherently smarter than us. Neither is true; both are just more focused on specific areas than we are. We accept what scientists tell us because we presume they have done the work. In this field, with few apparent exceptions...they have not lifted so much as a finger. "Follow the money," we always say. Well, the money ain't here. The money is in saying, "there is nothing here." And back to what pays you.
  6. No. Most definitely not, as I have taken great pains to point out in hundreds of posts here. I don't like the answer "the experts" are giving me - and I discredit most of them, utterly and wholly justifiably, when it comes to this topic - because any scientist would be able to demonstrate that they used the opposite of the scientific method to come to their conclusions on this. I put my money on the scientists who have done that. (We have specific reasons for requiring lawyers to do what they do, and as I pointed out, there's good reason for that. Being one who thinks like a scientist, I am not going with "I am a lawyer, trust me." Your work is how you show me you might actually be one.) I back science. All the way. Science says hairy hominoids are real, period exclamation point. People who say they aren't? Irrational blind belief, which I reject.
  7. Best answer I have seen so far. In my opinion, advanced degrees do quite a techie make. But do they make a scientist? Not, in my opinion, unless that person views every single topic that person comes in contact with in the way a scientist does: evaluating and sifting evidence and coming to conclusions based only on evidence. That would rule out, as being scientists, anyone who pronounces negatively on this topic, as the very things they say are things a scientist just shouldn't. This speaks more to the society's misconceptions than it does to the expertise of the people making the observation. The weight one puts on a pronouncement says more about that person than it does about the one making the pronouncement. We often give science degrees too much credit; that is the biggest reason we're stuck where we are on the bigfoot question. Personally? I would see no reason to assign different weights to the two observations, unless the Harvard biologists risked their reputations by making their observation public, something I would expect of a true scientist at a bare minimum, particularly with multiple witnesses. I wouldn't let someone who didn't know crap about computers operate on my company's network either. But I'd trust my IT guy, who is in no way a scientist. A lawyer isn't a scientist either, but I'm gonna let him handle things I probably wouldn't let most scientists touch. It's not whether you let a person work on something or not. It's how that person views the world and comes to conclusions about it.
  8. The AK stories - and oh they're interesting - aren't online, unless someone's posted excerpts from J. Robert Alley's Raincoast Sasquatch, which I consider essential reading on this topic. It includes not only a great depth of reports from the AK/BC raincoast, but some of the best thinking I've seen on sasquatch in general.
  9. "Finding" bones presumes much. It presumes that one comes across them; knows what they are; gives them to someone who knows (or, rather, make that, "admits") what they are; that person alerts other technical specialists who know (make that, "admit") what they are... Bones have been found; people have reported it. In SE Alaska, among other remains found there, a mummified foot was found, maybe the same one twice in a period of weeks, both by people driving vehicles with passengers who said, no way is that thing getting in here, toss it. ...aaaaaaaand, you don't believe that. Er, see the problem? Count on it, bones have been come across, many more times than once. Just like sightings and footprint finds have happened - oh, count on this - MANY more times than have been reported. I didn't report mine, for example. What's the point? One more thing. Practically everyone who has ever found remains of anything, in the scientific sense which is the only one that counts, *was looking for them.* The accidental finds that make up every single sasquatch-remains case reported never got into the hands of a person who recognized what they were and brought it to the attention of the wider scientific community. Which, even had this been done, would have had to take the information and run with it. Just like everything else relating to this topic, denial is the culprit.
  10. Personally I'd expect them to see the smoke, and then follow the smoke. But they're like the fire department that goes, I heard there's smoke. Hey, whose deal is it?
  11. That, precisely. I've always wondered how many sasquatch (progenitor) remains might be under the Bering Sea too. Given every single thing scientists know about this, there is no reason to believe that the first humans in NA don't well predate *these* most recent finds.
  12. I remember when I was a kid that it was presumed that every hominid fossil found was in a direct line of descent straight down to JFK. Two of them on the planet at the same time? No way! Two of them HAVING SEX WITH EACH OTHER...?!?!? Name your time and weapon, sirrah...! I'd rather wait until more pieces of the puzzle are in hand. Like with this "man in the Americas 100K earlier than previously thought!" What, you thought the earliest evidence we had was the earliest there could possibly be? What if they stopped by with only enough Happy Meals for a week, then, sayonara, on a boat built "100K earlier than previously thought!" You know Mickey D wrappers DON'T FOSSILIZE SO GOOD, right...? (And how do you know it wasn't Booger Fling, eh?)
  13. Precisely what we all should do. I always let the man on the ground sift and at least pronounce his conclusion. It just stuck out to me that an animal that looked so non-Homo to me could get a Homo marker on precisely one piece of evidence, as accurate as it may be that if we find only one thing, and lots of it, on a site, we haven't found a presumptive perpetrator that isn't Homo. Yet.
  14. I'd say that anyone who has ever been in an airliner, looked out the windows, and thought about it knows that the habitat argument is shot to hell before it even starts. "But most of that is desert!" Inhabited by: coyote, bear, elk, deer, feral horse, burro...and that's just a start on the *large* animals... My problem is that no "skeptical" argument is based on logic. Just a sampling: - "Someone would have X by now." That presumes that no one has; and that had someone, we would all know. There's no logical reason to presume that. - "No fossils." Patently false; there are at least two extinct primate lines of high suspicion. Besides which no scientist would allow this in their own field, knowing that fossilization is fabulously rare, and that what we have found is only *so far.* - "People hallucinate/mis-identify/lie etc." Assumptions, all of them, and refuted by the volume and consistency of reports. This is invalid. One must prove these things are being done. Or else one has no argument. -