2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

[Guest DWA]

I'm the kind of person who never rules anything out.  But again, if I'm searching, it's on the middle of that normal curve, which is that ape.

[Incorrigible1]

You convolute "sightings" into actuality. It's sad, really.

[Guest DWA]

I am not sure we have shown something more definitive than what an uninformed opinion ^^^that is.

It shows no reading of my posts, let alone consideration of the evidence.

[Guest DWA]

And from this article, the state of the scientific fart:  http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/trail-floridas-bigfoot-skunk-ape-180949981/?all&no-ist

 

"It’s easy to imagine how, in the days when much of the planet had yet to be explored and catalogued, you might have reasonably believed in the existence of any of these beasts. But in the present day, when every square mile of the earth’s surface has been photographed by satellites, and scientists have identified 1.3 million species (with mostly plants, tiny animals and microbes remaining to be found), how could you still believe in a lumbering, seven-foot-tall ape, hiding out in one of the most well-studied countries on the planet?"

 

Could any statement show less reflection upon the state of affairs or attention to the evidence?

And no, it gets no better than that.

[Incorrigible1]

^^Claims much, provides zilch.^^

[Guest DWA]

In one uninformed person's opinion.  We know how much this matters, don't we.  Yes we do.  7,528.  And to what purpose.  Wow.

[Guest]

Hi All,

I am a new member to this forum but wanted to throw in an additonal opinion on the topic of obtaining unambiguous scientifc evidence of BF or an 'as-unyet' classifed species of large hominid. My opinion is only based on my perspective and experience as an organic chemist who works in the pharmaceutical (cancer) industry who has published peer-reviewed papers in mainstream publications that are pertinent to my field of expertise - not bragging but will come into the forthcoming discussion:

When you stop and think about what would define unambiguous evidence, it is rather daunting. To whom would this evidence need to be unambiguous and what areas of of science would have the expertise to make the determination that the evidence does support the conclusion that a new hominid species has been discovered? I would expect that primate biologists would be on top of the list, using Jane Goodall as an example. This assumes BF is a potential primate - not homo sapien. Or maybe anthropologists/archeologists who study our precusor species like homo erectus or homo habilis. If DNA samples could be evaluated, that would require the expertise of a molecular biologist or cellular biologist.

Let's consider what defines evidence. First and foremost, if any evaluation of tangible, physical evidence such as tissue, blood or hair samples were to be published, it would have to stand up to scientific scrutiny before being published in any reputable scientific journal. And the physical evidence would have to be collected, stored and transported under such controlled conditions that would eliminate questioning the credibility and integrity of the evidence. Remember the OJ Simpson case? If you cannot guarantee the integrity of the evidence, you will have a hard time finding any credible scientist willing to put their reputation on the line to perform the evaluation, let alone report their findings in a major scientific journal of peer review. This last point is a HUGE bar to overcome, I''m afraid. We are in the realm of cryptozoology, not zoology, at this point in time.

I think we do need to clearly define the desired outcome of all of our efforts in our respective quests. Only then can we define as a loose group of BF enthusiasts or skeptics as to what has to be done to achieve that outcome- what defines as evidence. If a personal sighting encounter with a witness is on your bucketlist, like it is for me, great and keep plugging away to provocate such an outcome. If the intent is to collect physical samples from a new hominid species, more drastic measures and efforts may need to be taken.

Can you imagine the impact on the world if irrefutable proof of the 'big guy's' existence would be established? May not be good for BF at the end of the day, given our track record as a species.

Just my 2 cents

Dr D

[Incorrigible1]

7248 and still zilch proof. Science just don't care 'bout your opinion, nor your reading reports like the wind, pal.

[Guest ksu4]

Although quantum physics probably does apply to large things too, much of how that happens is unknown, so I agree that BF is probably not quantum. He makes entirely too much noise moving through the woods at times to be quantum

I hate to be a pedant, but quantum physics is specifically the study of incredibly small, nano-particle sized objects. You can't compare that to a thousand-pound apeman.

And DWA, just because a few scientists (and, of course, yourself) feel that the evidence justifies further investigation, does not mean that they have reached the necessary level of proof to sway even a simple majority of scientists in relevant fields, let alone the man on the street.

Nope, sorry. Not how Science works. I'm not saying that they won't, not saying that they can't. Would love to see it happen.

[Wingman1]

2015 The state of Sasquatch Research

I honestly think that the current state is about the same as last year, and from what I can tell, it has been stagnant for

sometime now. I see more back and forth arguing than I see any sharing of useful information. That is not to say

there are no intelligent discussions, because there certainly has been. Sasquatch will not be proven on a forum,

and that should be blatantly obvious. It's the researchers out in the field that have the best chance of success.

There are larger more organized groups out there, but are basically the same as most others - A lot of talk and

very little action and/or evidence. I do still hold a bit of faith that they will turn that around.

 

What really aggravates me regarding a couple of these groups is that anything and everything that they say is automatically

taken to be true by many of the members here. I mean shouldn't these groups be held to the same standards as the rest

of us. Whatever happened to extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence or proof? When anyone else makes an

extraordinary claim they get pounced on like free pizza at an anime convention! There is something wrong with that picture.

I don't want it seem that I am bashing these groups, on the contrary I actually applaud their efforts. Although there is one

group out there that when I hear or read their name - I instantly think Keystone Cops! This is mostly said in jest, but I do

think they still need to be held to the same standards as the rest of us, I detest any use of double standards.

 

Another thing, why is it so difficult for many members to understand what sightings reports really are! The simplest

way to explain their place in BF research is that they are a means to an end! Think about it, if no reports had ever

been submitted, we wouldn't know that BF are out there. Now are all reports hoaxed? of course not! and that is because I

doubt there is anyone or any group out there smart enough to perpetrate a hoax of that magnitude! I'm sure there is a

fair number of hoaxed reports out there, but not as many as some people think, but that is purely conjecture on my part.

 

There seems to be this belief out there that if something has been hoaxed in the past, it therefore becomes unreliable

or unbelievable, and tossed into the trash can.That negative belief seems to be applied to all of the evidence as well. For

me It's Innocent until proven guilty! or in more relative terms - Reports are relevant until proven otherwise! You will never

accomplish anything with a negative mindset. It's no wonder the state of affairs has become stagnant! I'm quite certain that we

may well have overlooked reports and evidence that would have lead us to the promised land so to speak. It is such a simple

process, Read and analyze the report, apply your knowledge to determine validity while weeding out inconsistencies, Use

what you have found, if it makes sense to you at this point, then form your hypotheses and apply it to your research effort

and move forward. You can then enjoy the satisfaction that due diligence has been done and then activate your plan. It really is

simple. If you come to a report and read it only to dismiss it out of hand, and classify it as an interesting anecdote, you will get

out of it what you put into it - Nothing!

 

The statement that reports do not allow the scientific method to be applied comes up a lot, well no kidding Einstein! Reports are

tools used to gather pertinent information for the research effort. What does a detective always do at a murder scene. He/She

canvases the area for witnesses, take in every bit of information that is available, and then uses that information to identify suspects,

build a case, ascertain motives, and mobilizes assets to search for and apprehend the suspect/s - Roughly the same process can

be done on sightings reports, but for our purposes, just change the word suspect to Bigfoot

 

Are sightings reports proof? of course not! If they were we would not be here on this forum, and this is where the USS Bigfoot

ship runs aground!

 

I think Dr. Meldrum said it best "The sheer amount of reports and the evidence certainly SUGGESTS that there is an undiscovered

type of bi-pedal ape in our forest's and swamps! and I completely agree! Reports are an integral part of the research effort. Reports

can be data mined for useful information and passed on to those in the field. A few examples of what can be gained - Trends,

commonalities, behaviors, and here is the big one, Location, Location, Location! The credibility to a certain degree of the witness can

be determined. It really does not take much to read a report and determine which pile to toss it on, the good pile or the trash pile.

It also doesn't take much effort to differentiate the good reports from the BS reports. Here is an example - If you read a report that

someone claims they saw a 25 ft. tall blue and yellow hairy creature knocking on their backdoor asking to borrow their checkerboard

for family night back at the cave! Well it shouldn't be too hard to realize what pile to toss that one on.

 

When will science becoming fully vested in the research? Not in our lifetime! and you are living in an alternate dimension

if you think otherwise! Unfortunately much of the scientific community (at least some quarters of it) have made the distinction

between the conduct of good science and the spirit of exploration. Anyone care to guess which of these two they practice these

days

 

Why won't the scientific community actively pursue the evidence to wherever it leads. The paragraph above certainly applies here, 

but for a more simple answer - They don't need to and why should they. They know there are plenty of lapdogs in the BF community

that have heard their "Go Fetch" command. If you have Go-Fer's in your back pocket, you don't need to get your hands dirty! That

way any failures will not fall in their laps, they will fall squarely in our laps. Until some of the geniuses in their own minds around here

can find a way to change whose lap the crap falls in, we will continue to be the ones thrown under the bus. Exactly how that will happen

is anybody's guess at this point.

 

Here is another reason/example why BF research is not taken seriously - I was looking through the older threads and found a couple

of them that almost made me spew my beer on my monitor! One thread was titled "Do Bigfoot's Kiss" No joke! another one asked "What

do Bigfoot's think about us" I couldn't think of any reply other than - How the hell should I know, you'll need go ask a Bigfoot to get an

answer for those questions! Come on, Really? And we wonder why people think we're all goofy.

 

I am not going to bother addressing the Scofftic's and their wonderful demeanor, but I found a definition for Scofftic's that hit's

the bullseye!

 

Scofftics, which actually isn't a real word, but here is the the perfect definition by the Editor of a Skeptical website who

is a P.G., EdM, and is also a geologist with a specialty in science and society and public outreach for science. A “Scoffticâ€

is described as follows: “the programmed skeptic who is defined more by a pre-determined mindset than the results

of any thoughtful probing of the evidenceâ€; “a cranky skepticâ€; one who displays “unhealthy skepticismâ€; “someone

who…gives witness testimony no weight whatsoever, on ideological grounds, and who asserts numerous other bits

of unreasonable dogma, such as that the quantity of reports is insignificantâ€; one who exhibits “fanaticism behind a

pose of reasonableness†and who uses “fine print†and/or “qualifiers†when considering evidence.

Sound like anyone you know?

 

The position of Pro-Kill

I do understand the reasoning behind it, but it just doesn't sit right with me. I definitely don't buy into the protection reasoning either. Why?

well it should be obvious, they don't need it. Then what about protecting their habitat? Okay, does anyone really know what constitutes

BF habitat with absolute certainty? didn't think so. When it comes to this topic we must deal with certainty, not speculation. For me

personally, I have no desire for proof and would much rather see them left alone. Funny, they seem to want the same thing don't they.

Why the big hurry? and no more tired old cliches either. That dog don't hunt no more! The terms ego and bragging rights come to mind

during any discussion on Pro-Kill. It is a sad state of affairs to want to end the life of one these beings in order to satisfy one's curiosity

under the guise of conservancy. I was curious if Dr. Meldrum's viewpoint on this issue had changed, so I emailed him my query and he

replied the next day, and it hasn't changed at all. I do give credit to those that at least acknowledge their true motives. Although I don't

agree with this mindset, I do respect your rights and beliefs on this issue.

 

Here is his reply........

I have said that the conventions of zoological taxonomy require a type specimen as the basis of acknowledgement and

naming of a new species. I have also been very clear that my objective in the field has been to secure tissue (hair, scat,

blood, skin) for DNA analysis. While there is no precedent for recognizing a new species on the basis of DNA alone, there

are those who advocate this in the case of rare and endangered species. Sasquatch would be an important test case in

this regard.

 

Jeff Meldrum, PhD
Professor of Anatomy & Anthropology
Dept. of Biological Sciences
Idaho State University
921 S. 8th Ave., Stop 8007
Pocatello, ID 83209-8007
208-282-4379

 

I couldn't agree more! It is definitely time to set a new precedent for discovery through DNA. So in a nutshell for me, until there is some

kind of monumental game changer found and implemented, and don't kid yourself because a game changer is exactly what is needed

otherwise we will continue to chase our own tails until 2016. It will take nothing short of a miracle to solve this mystery and I doubt that

most will live to see it happen. As for me, I am enjoying the chase because it is always better than the catch!

 

Hey, did anybody see where I left my beer!   Aha, never mind I found it.

 

Hey Incorrigible, you may have already heard but the A-10 Warthog won't be going to bone yard after all.

It was given the old last second reprieve by congress. I have a couple of videos of me in the Hog doing the

engine start process and taxi, and I think I still have some gun camera footage as well. I just have to find where

I put them. When I do, I'll shoot em over to you.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Wingman1

[Incorrigible1]

Thank you for a marvelous posting. Kudos to you, sir. And your last paragraph brings a broad smile to my bewhiskered face.

[Guest DWA]

Quite a bit of meat in there, Wingman.

 

It does seem rather useless to go over this with bigfoot skeptics; they're stuck in a way of thinking that rejects science in favor of embracing scientists who aren't contributing anything but the hot air they want to hear.  Nothing one can do about that.  But the volume and consistency of the evidence says what it always has in science:

 

Seek, and ye shall find.

[Wingman1]

Yeah, and that's my problem, I don't post very often so when I do everything stored in the old brain case tends to come flooding out.

Isn't it funny that it comes down to something so simple - Seek and ye shall find! what a concept. I steer clear of arguing with the more

skeptical crowd, it's just pointless. I would have better luck arguing with a brick wall than with some of those folks. I really do not have

the time nor inclination for that stuff anymore. Life is way too short! Hell, I haven't won an argument here at home in the 25 years my

wife and I have been married! Even the ones that I start I still lose. I swear that woman is professional arguer.

Thank you for a marvelous posting. Kudos to you, sir. And your last paragraph brings a broad smile to my bewhiskered face.

Hey thanks Incorrigible, I really appreciate that. Any time this old goofball can put a smile on someones face it is a good day!

Take care my friend! Hey that reminds me, I need to shave before going back to work tomorrow. I have been on vacation since

18 Dec.

[Guest]

And from this article, the state of the scientific fart:  http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/trail-floridas-bigfoot-skunk-ape-180949981/?all&no-ist

 

"It’s easy to imagine how, in the days when much of the planet had yet to be explored and catalogued, you might have reasonably believed in the existence of any of these beasts. But in the present day, when every square mile of the earth’s surface has been photographed by satellites

 

Shocking statement that, considering much of the 'surface' that has had been photographed by satellites is covered with trees hiding everything. Do these people ever think before they speak? 

[Guest DWA]

The presumption of the omnipotence of science is the first sign he doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

Really I should say "scientists."  The amazing thing about science is that it is omnipotent.  Or it would be, if people weren't trying ham-fistedly (or simply failing, or declining) to apply it.

 

if this guy had the foggiest, he'd know that we'd have precise censuses of every species as of the latest satellite scan if satellites could tell us whether bigfoot's real.

 

[sigh]  Beyond a certain Degree Level people must think they're immune to saying dumb things.

Edited January 6, 2015 by DWA