georgerm

Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

1,403 posts in this topic

IMO, if you want to "find" BF, find the bones, live ones move around, their skeletal remains don't.

They can move with the help of the canine kind, lol. Though in truth you make a fair point. Find the bones and some might believe. Though bones have been found in the past and mismatched, improperly put together and even lumped in with other animals all together (not talking Sasquatch here just to be clear). It has resulted in for years people believing X animal existed when later it was proven to be a mix of bones. One example that comes to mind is the Brontosaurus. It was thought to be a need dinosaur and marketed that way (for lack of a better term). Later it was discovered to be an Apatosaurus. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the bones are new enough to contain testable DNA, that's two (maybe three) for the price of one.   While DNA may not prove a species,  it can invalidate a lot of claims of other identification.    Taken together, DNA, physical size, and age should eliminate the known candidates leaving, though not specifically identified, the presence of an unknown fairly well established.  It doesn't answer the question but it should remove doubt that there is a question worth investigating ... a worthy next step if you want academic involvement in the search.

 

MIB

Edited by MIB
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

IMO, if you want to "find" BF, find the bones, live ones move around, their skeletal remains don't.

They can move with the help of the canine kind, lol. Though in truth you make a fair point. Find the bones and some might believe. Though bones have been found in the past and mismatched, improperly put together and even lumped in with other animals all together (not talking Sasquatch here just to be clear). It has resulted in for years people believing X animal existed when later it was proven to be a mix of bones. One example that comes to mind is the Brontosaurus. It was thought to be a need dinosaur and marketed that way (for lack of a better term). Later it was discovered to be an Apatosaurus. 

 

 

I don't think this would be a major problem now as we're much more astute with regard to fossil and bone finds. There has also recently been a lot of press and emphasis on our own evolutionary history with numerous finds across Africa and Asia which have made their way into the right hands relatively easily. While this 'mislaying' may have happened frequently in the 19th and early 20th centuries we seem altogether much more switched on and proactive today. If huge, apelike bones were discovered in a developed country such as the US or Canada I would have confidence they would find their way to the right people.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Antiscience creed? I have an anti-science fiction creed when dogma is trying to be passed off as science fact. Being close to 70, I went to college (Earth Science) in the mid 60s. We were told withbsolute certainty the history of mankind. It was mostly fiction and has continuously been revised since. Modern man and its ancestors are much older than previously though. What we were told were missing links were not even in our family trees. New ones have been found. Multiple simultaneous humanoids were living at the same point in time. We not only outlasted the Neanderthals but interbred with them. None of that was known when I went to college and what was being taught was no more than fiction.

It was unknown what killed off the dinosaurs. They thought it was some sort of ice age and the reptiles could not handle the cold. A guy down in Arizona was trying to convince his geology colleges that the Crater in Arizona was from a meteor. They all thought he was nuts. Then in 1980 they started to find a layer of a certain mineral, iradium enriched shocked quartz that is created when a meteor impacts the earth right at the K-T boundary. The point in time where the dinosaurs died. For over 20 years oil companies looking for oil in the Gulf of Mexico had known about a huge crater like structure in the gulf floor but science pretty much ignored it. Not interested. Then the pieces started to fall together that had been known and ignored for over 20 years. Shoemaker was still thought of as a nut job. Until a comet was found that seemed to be about to impact Jupiter. Science figured that impact would be like a rock in a pond because Jupiter was so large. 9 fragments hit Jupiter with catastrophic effects, scars were visible on the surface of the gas giant planet, and some impacts were visible blasting debris into space with the force of millions of megatons, when the last fragments hit in view of earth. Shoemaker was suddenly credible. If a ball of ice and rock could do that to Jupiter, a huge rock hitting earth could be catastrophic. Anyway we now are fairly certain an asteroid impact killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago and that crater in Arizona is called Meteor Crater. And now evidence is stacking up that those dinosaurs were warm blooded, covered with feathers, and not reptiles. And science was just as certain when I went to college they knew the truth about all of that as they are today. They were wrong and much what I was taught was fiction.

Funny you mention the horse. Even though they originated in the Americas, they and the camel ended up in Europe and Asia and no were no longer in the Americas until reintroduced by humans. What was fact when I went to college is now fiction and wrong. How much of what we are being told today is hard science, will be thrown out as fiction in the next 50 years? The history of science to date suggests that much of it will be discarded as more is discovered.

Nebulous belief about the Smithsonian? Several researchers have tried through the Freedom of Information act to get the Smithsonian to look for giant skeleton bones that were reported by multiple sources in the media at the time (Newspapers) to have been boxed up and shipped there. To date the response to these queries are they have no record of that happening, or they did receive something and it cannot be located. Are we to trust an institution that has such sloppy record keeping? What has been lost may not have been intentional but never the less what could be the finds of the millennium might have been lost. They have even lost stuff collected by Lewis and Clark. Have no idea where it went. They refused display the Wright Flyer for decades because two bicycle mechanics succeeded in doing what their prestigious staff and 100s of thousands of tax payer dollars could not do, fly a heavier than air airplane. They were deeply involved with the Manifest Destiny determination that the Native Amercans were simply hunter gatherers and had not developed a civilization or advance culture. All this in spite of archeological evidence with the Mound Culture in the Mid West which to this day is being suppressed. One director quit in disgust when he realized that the Manifest Destiny was a land grab from the Indians. If you want to cling to an organization in the name of holy science, pick one with a better reputation.

Edited by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem upset science strives to be self-correcting.

 

Edit: And yes, I mentioned evolution of the horse as another example of evolved in N America, moved east into Asia. You'd already mentioned the camel.

Edited by Incorrigible1
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG that nasty science stuff can't be believed it's just a load of horse hockey biscuits.  Well now I attended college a wee bit later than the mid 60's and I learned a thing or two about what science had learned about the crap we've been dumping into our atmosphere since the industrial revolution.  I've known all about the greenhouse effect since the early 70's and what science was telling us was going to happen  And guess what?  Science nailed it and only made one blunder.  Science gave us more time (about 75 years more ) before we were going to really feel the squeeze.  What kept us so naive about the problem? Not science, no sir it was the literal and figurative smoke screen the vested interests put up.

 

I hate to say it but bigfoot science and bigfootism in general does not have a true Carl Sagan, Louis Leaky, or Albert Einstein in it's ranks.  I once upon a time thought it might but bigfoot scientists are the stuff of coffee table books and cute pseudo serious media projects.  Why do portals and UFO find their way through bigfootism's doors.  They don't get into real primate science.  Jane Goodall and Diane Fosse never had to contend with that nonsense.  It gets in the door because  in particular the modern incarnation of the legend/myth was orchestrated as a media sideshow going back the Hillary expeditions.  As a kid I remember the flamboyant newspaper depictions of Yeti, holding cattle over it's head and tossing off cliffs.  That was designed to sell newspapers and bigfoot was designed to sell excitement, media and entertainment.  Bigfootism has stalled because after the DNA farce and Todd Standing the bar couldn't be raised any higher to generate further excitement.  Old Big Red of Timbergiant was hailed as a new gold standard.  Imagine that over half a century since Edmond Hillary and Big Red is a gold standard according to some.  When and if bigfootism can put forward one piece of no strings attached, no question marks of source and provenance of reasonable evidence then maybe bigfoot science will move forward once more.  But the question remains exactly where is there for it to move to?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nebulous belief about the Smithsonian?

 

I'm going to use that for a lead-in.  :)

 

A few weeks ago a friend from high school days who I hadn't seen in over 20 years stopped by.   He's spent the time out-of-country.    Turns out in the gap he earned his PhD in anthropology ... kind of relevant.   We got to talking about bigfoot.  I showed him some of my track photos and a reproduction cast of a foot and hand print, played some audio I recorded, discussed both the pros and cons.   He's not a "bigfoot believer" by any means but he said something relevant and within a realm he has the education and professional expertise to comment on.   He said if someone showed up at a major museum with a box of bones, if they weren't immediately identified, they'd likely go on a dusty shelf somewhere and not be seen again for 50 years or more 'til someone got around to examining and cataloging them.

 

So ... Smithsonian and disappearing bones ... not so ridiculous as the resident scoftics would have us believe and yet not necessarily because of the nefarious intent the conspiracy fanatics would have us believe, either.  

 

MIB

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crow I cannot think of a worse example for you to beat the drum of science than the manmade global warming issue. Every time we turn around someone is caught cooking the data to try and make the models work. They do not. One university after another has been caught doing just that. Big money is involved and it is not on the side of the energy producers, it is on the side of the environmental crowd, research funding, and carbon tax credits. In Washington we pay 50 cents a gallon in carbon tax. And that is going to ramp up to $1.00 a gallon in a few years. The undeveloped countries of the world are lining up at the carbon tax troughs to demand payment from the developed nations. If someone could pin global warming on BF then we would see billions of dollars poured into finding and controlling BF, one of the largest carbon dioxide emitters on the planet. I bet a BF puts out as much CO2 in a full run as an SUV going 70. How dare it!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^Bigfoot researcher embraces bigfoot science and rejects true science.  It's just another normal in bigfootville I see.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bigfoot science has always been stalled.  All one needs to consult is the scientists that have all but proven the animal...whose arguments and evidence REMAIN UNADDRESSED by the mainstream.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice discussions and intelligent thoughts. Let's remember we are a tight nit group of bigfoot 'kooks' according to the general public and our battles are with the blind PHDs. Our head butting has limits before we begin to go backwards and stall science.   

 

SWAA: Nebulous belief about the Smithsonian? Several researchers have tried through the Freedom of Information act to get the Smithsonian to look for giant skeleton bones that were reported by multiple sources in the media at the time (Newspapers) to have been boxed up and shipped there. To date the response to these queries are they have no record of that happening, or they did receive something and it cannot be located. Global warming is another issue and bigfoot passing gas is a nonissue!

 

Finding these boxes possible BF bones could jump start bigfoot science. Seems like the Jeff Meldrum and others would have access to the Smithsonian.

 

Crow: I hate to say it but bigfoot science and bigfootism in general does not have a true Carl Sagan, Louis Leaky, or Albert Einstein in it's ranks.  I once upon a time thought it might but bigfoot scientists are the stuff of coffee table books and cute pseudo serious media projects.  Why do portals and UFO find their way through bigfootism's doors.  They don't get into real primate science.  Jane Goodall and Diane Fosse never had to contend with that nonsense.

 

Very true and we are lucky to be connected with works by Jeff Meldrum, Paulides, Krantz,, and a few others. I really appreciate Ketchum's efforts.  The chimpanzee biologist had a much easier animal to find and study. The portals and bigfoot are out there and a problem.

 

MIB and his PHD friend:  He's not a "bigfoot believer" by any means but he said something relevant and within a realm he has the education and professional expertise to comment on.

 

Here lies one major problem with bigfoot science ............................... if you can't get a PHD interested in BF evidence due to 'locked mind syndrome', then the problem is crystal clear to me. 

Edited by georgerm
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I agree.  Interesting discussion.  

 

As SWW said:

"The history of science to date suggests that much of it <science> will be discarded as more is discovered."

 

OMG that nasty science stuff can't be believed it's just a load of horse hockey biscuits...

 

I guess that depends on what you consider 'science'.  The 'Science' that has been taught by 'Science Teachers' throughout the ages generally mimics the average consensus of "fact" (which has been wrong more times than right).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

IMO, if you want to "find" BF, find the bones, live ones move around, their skeletal remains don't.

They can move with the help of the canine kind, lol. Though in truth you make a fair point. Find the bones and some might believe. Though bones have been found in the past and mismatched, improperly put together and even lumped in with other animals all together (not talking Sasquatch here just to be clear). It has resulted in for years people believing X animal existed when later it was proven to be a mix of bones. One example that comes to mind is the Brontosaurus. It was thought to be a need dinosaur and marketed that way (for lack of a better term). Later it was discovered to be an Apatosaurus. 

 

 

W,

 

Several years ago, I was shown a series of photographs of what appeared to be a burial event.  They were taken at a distance of almost half-mile with professional equipment (what the photographer does for a living) and were indeed compelling and thought provoking. There (at one time) was a website devoted to communications between people having interaction(s) with these entities. Unfortunately, repeated hacking attempts caused the site to be removed and other means of communication were devised. Admittedly, realizing this opens the avenue for ridicule, there are several venues where such individuals congregate but will likely never be seen, presented on a website such as this one.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with this area of science - in which we proponents are at the very cutting edge - is that too many calling themselves 'scientists' demonstrably don't understand what science is.  They treat it as a belief system rather than as a process through which one puts evidence.

Edited by DWA
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I agree.  Interesting discussion.  

 

As SWW said:

"The history of science to date suggests that much of it <science> will be discarded as more is discovered."

 

OMG that nasty science stuff can't be believed it's just a load of horse hockey biscuits...

 

I guess that depends on what you consider 'science'.  The 'Science' that has been taught by 'Science Teachers' throughout the ages generally mimics the average consensus of "fact" (which has been wrong more times than right).

General consensus of fact.in the 1800's it was believed that the human body could not withstand the air pressure of a speed of 60 miles and hour.  It took a scientist placing themselves on the front of a locomotive exceeding 60mph that the general consensus was wrong.  In the 1920's the general consensus was that aircraft would never exceed 200 mph or be larger than the size of a DC-3.  What got us to the moon science or general consensus? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.