georgerm

Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

1,402 posts in this topic

Bigfoot science hasn't really "stalled;" it's ongoing.  We're doing it.  It's just that the scoffers don't really give the people doing the science much reason to keep them posted on what's going on.  I haven't seen one; but my careful thinking about the evidence, and reading scientists who independently came to the same conclusions I did, have me firmly convinced.

 

I keep saying these things, and the people who don't understand them will never be up to speed here:

 

1) Science is nothing but careful thinking.  No scoffer scientist has made a pronouncement that shows that's going on, so a belief in their denial is nothing more than faith in something one doesn't understand;

2) It's not the Hoax!!?!??!?!?! Of the Week; it's the *body of evidence*, the size and consistency of which continues to grow, which makes thorough reading and exhaustive thought utterly mandatory to know what's going on;

3) "Proof" is not what science is about.  Too many techies show their deficiency in scientific thinking by demanding proof.  Science is about *investigation.*   Proof is what you show the ignorant who otherwise would have no idea what was going on.  And the only reason one has to do that is that...the ignorant usually include the people by whom one gets paid to do science.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DWA said:

Bigfoot science hasn't really "stalled;" it's ongoing.  We're doing it.  It's just that the scoffers don't really give the people doing the science much reason to keep them posted on what's going on.  I haven't seen one; but my careful thinking about the evidence, and reading scientists who independently came to the same conclusions I did, have me firmly convinced.

 

I keep saying these things, and the people who don't understand them will never be up to speed here:

 

1) Science is nothing but careful thinking.  No scoffer scientist has made a pronouncement that shows that's going on, so a belief in their denial is nothing more than faith in something one doesn't understand;

2) It's not the Hoax!!?!??!?!?! Of the Week; it's the *body of evidence*, the size and consistency of which continues to grow, which makes thorough reading and exhaustive thought utterly mandatory to know what's going on;

3) "Proof" is not what science is about.  Too many techies show their deficiency in scientific thinking by demanding proof.  Science is about *investigation.*   Proof is what you show the ignorant who otherwise would have no idea what was going on.  And the only reason one has to do that is that...the ignorant usually include the people by whom one gets paid to do science.

Science absent the subject, is subjective science. Subject to circumstantial circumlocutory sophistry.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.  The phrase "subjective science" is actually a non sequitur, because all science is subjective when one thinks about it.  (What a scientist sees are his observations, not the observations of the people reading the paper.  Most of what you know is what you have been told.)

 

The observation of facts is the observation of facts.  When a scientist - really anyone - has seen something he now knows it; the only reason he keeps observing is to add data and to be sure that what he saw the first time is correct, which is what we charge science with doing.  Needless to say, someone who has had a closeup encounter with a bigfoot doesn't need to see it again to know he did the first time.  The mistake we keep making is thinking that our opinion of what he saw matters to ultimate reality, which a moment's reflection, of course, shows us is not the case.

 

See?  It's 3) again.  What you are saying, I know, is that science without a proven subject isn't valid; and practically all science is done to prove something (i.e., with an unproven subject).

Edited by DWA
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, DWA said:

No.  The phrase "subjective science" is actually a non sequitur, because all science is subjective when one thinks about it.  (What a scientist sees are his observations, not the observations of the people reading the paper.  Most of what you know is what you have been told.)

 

The observation of facts is the observation of facts.  When a scientist - really anyone - has seen something he now knows it; the only reason he keeps observing is to add data and to be sure that what he saw the first time is correct, which is what we charge science with doing.  Needless to say, someone who has had a closeup encounter with a bigfoot doesn't need to see it again to know he did the first time.  The mistake we keep making is thinking that our opinion of what he saw matters to ultimate reality, which a moment's reflection, of course, shows us is not the case.

 

See?  It's 3) again.  What you are saying, I know, is that science without a proven subject isn't valid; and practically all science is done to prove something (i.e., with an unproven subject).

I meant as in subject: lack of.

Not as in subjective, subject to or subject pursuant further interlocution. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But lack of subject sounds like it means to me:  lack of a societal acceptance of the existence of that subject.  Which is, as I have pointed out, irrelevant.  In science it is irrelevant what the society thinks; all they do for the most part is swallow what they're told, anyway.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bigfoot science has become a clever shell game.  As the likelihood of bigfoot being real fades the game takes on new paradigms in order to keep it going.  However none of these ever include the beast incarnate.  When the going gets really rough the game goes woo like it has in recent times.  There must be something to this woo thing.  After all a phd is involved with a very intense woo based segment.  A phd would never waste their time chasing phony stuff like bigfoot or woo like bigfoot.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You actually are not only playing the game, *you designed the shells.*

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2016 at 7:28 AM, Crowlogic said:

Nope they do not.  That is not how the game is played.

 

Looks like the second half of 2016 is going to be a might fine time for bigfoot science.  There's a nice young man up  in Utah hikin' and grinnin' his way to all kinds of bigfoot stuff and a once acerbic skeptic in Maine has gone into full woo mode.  It'll help to fill seats at the conventions no doubt.

An interesting part is watching the various youtubers take sides on this tempest in a teapot. Snow Walker Prime, Rictor, Squatchers Lounge, Fortean Slip, it's just really interesting, and entertaining! Snow Walker has REALLY gone nuts, his latest video is sorta' hard to watch because it's uncomfortable to watch someone who's having such an obvious mental break.

5 hours ago, Crowlogic said:

Bigfoot science has become a clever shell game.  As the likelihood of bigfoot being real fades the game takes on new paradigms in order to keep it going.  However none of these ever include the beast incarnate.  When the going gets really rough the game goes woo like it has in recent times.  There must be something to this woo thing.  After all a phd is involved with a very intense woo based segment.  A phd would never waste their time chasing phony stuff like bigfoot or woo like bigfoot.

Have you watched doc johnson videos wherein he details how sasquaches "healed" him. It's another that just gets creepy and really has some strange/sexual undertones. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lake County Bigfooot said:

There will always be the flash in pan researches who change the tune, as well as their fiddle, on a regular basis. The John Green's have not all passed, there are plenty who follow int those steps, methodically analyzing data, and hoping to gain an understanding sufficient to reliably locate these creatures. While you may laugh at those such as Coonbo and Bear who make such claims, you cannot deny that they are true. Such individuals have long since lost interest in proving to skeptics their claims, because once you see a whale you no longer have to prove to anyone you have seen it, you know it exists and that is that. I have not seen one as of yet, therefore I still have the interest in proving they exist, and that will pass if I happen to see one, which given my circumstances very well may happen at any time. Actually it is simply a matter of being at the right place at the right time, some science perhaps, but mostly luck, and perhaps allot of blind courage as when I bolted from bed and into the marsh after hearing wood knocks, if I could have seen what had made them I might not have been so bold.

I am absolutely agog that anyone takes anything that coonbo or bear says seriously.

 

It IS true that they make fantastical claims that are outside even,the rather quirky sasquatch "bell curve" but if you are suggesting that their claims are true I only ask you to explain why you feel that way.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of us who conduct our variety of research, have little time and means to apply to the situation, and some more or less than others. The fact is that it would take an extraordinary amount of effort to locate these creatures predictably and document them. Nothing short of months in the field would prevail, and who has that time and financing among us? My excitement over the falcon project, now dead in the water, was that it put a ground team out in such areas for months, and that would be what it will take. A team spending months tracking, documenting, and spending countless hours of surveillance. It is a monumental task with so few creatures and so intelligent a quarry, but it can be done and one day will be done. It might be the scientific community who gets it done in the end, but I guarantee they will need our help.

Edited by Lake County Bigfooot
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2016 at 7:10 PM, Bodhi said:

I am absolutely agog that anyone takes anything that coonbo or bear says seriously.

 

It IS true that they make fantastical claims that are outside even,the rather quirky sasquatch "bell curve" but if you are suggesting that their claims are true I only ask you to explain why you feel that way.

Well if doc Johnson is a crackpot than are the other phd bigfoot docs far behind?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

subjective science

You can not go by this. There is no way that no one will ever know or see that they exist by subjective science. The only way to understand on what is truly going on with these creatures is by experiencing them in real true time in the field is by you alone.  I cannot speak for others except for myself and what I have experience in he field. PHD's do not mean thing with these creatures, nor do they mean anything with me. I keep coming back because I know with out a shadow of doubt of what is out in the field or what is roaming in our forest.

 

Sure there are some that have talked of crazy events ,but who are we to judge. When we ourselves have not even tested what these folks have explained have happened. If you are of science then is it not your obligation to test these theories and prove them wrong. Of the things that most have spoke off I have tested my self and found to be true. But how is one to prove these actions with out the proper tools to prove them. When science has not yet developed these tools to test these theories. So yes it is easy for a skeptic to attack us when we come out with these outlandish events that cannot be explained. In a way we are goats tied to a tree while the lions await to pounce on it's prey.

 

Why would a person with a PHD risk their reputation be coming out an outlandish story. This does not make no sense and should not make no sense to anyone who has a brain that is capable of thinking. Especially one who has a practice unless he himself Is experimenting on a group as a whole for a project. But if this is so then this would make me a liar and I am not a liar. So the events must be true or I and others have never experienced what we have.

 

Maybe some scientist do not want to follow for the fear of looking like fools.  Can we really blame them their actions of their refusal to search for what most of us have encountered. After all the events that we have reported sounds foolish and I do not blame them for not searching. They need hard evidence that shows they exist. But these efforts will be blocked and maybe even confiscated or even silenced. Thing is people have been silenced before and these creatures make no difference once this evidence has been collected.  People have been made to look foolish by the evidence that have been collected so there is no difference. I can go into further detail but what is the point. So skeptics have at it. Oh by the way , what does the UK defense department have to do with Bigfoot on a roaming mobile device ? :) Just wondering and it is very cryptic.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

science is not subjective, it's objective.

Your opinion is subjective.

And that is my objective opinion, subject to your objections.

Hopefully not objectionable opinions (I have not found them to be so, at least).

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, that subjective/objective thing is too often used superciliously.

 

And on this topic:  the 'skeptics' are far from objective.  Skepticism is an objective stance.  To preach skepticism with no acquaintance with the information is hardly objective.

 

The proponent scientists?  Generally, in the finest objective tradition of science.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shadow - you ask, "What does the UK defense department have to do with a Bigfoot on a roaming, mobile device?"

 

One jumps out at me.  If some of these things could be capture - taken alive - especially young ones, the weaponization of such a physically capable beast would be of great military value.  At night, you'd have a scout/recon point man that would be almost invincible.

 

When it would come to LRRP patrols, your range is limited by what you can carry.  With just one of these things in your group, you could double what the LRRP team could carry - likewise doubling their range, or doubling their weapons mix.

 

For night raids, just one of these things could impart great destruction on opponents - between their night vision and ability to just rip opponents apart. Or worse - be trained with kinetic weapons.

 

Reinforced areas in very difficult terrains would no longer be able to rely on their natural barriers as the previous possibilities allowed for.

 

Supersoldiers.  That might grab a defense department's attention.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites