• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,037 Mythical

About DWA

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • 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?

Recent Profile Visitors

2,097 profile views
  1. And there are always exceptions...to every rule. ;-)
  2. I think we're seeing a bit of out-of-depth here. Field experience is indeed essential, and having more than enough of it to know I'd say that it seems to me he would actually have to see one to find out how useless seeing one is in terms of confirming it to the world. As in, look where we, you know, are.
  3. Rupert Sheldrake is one of the scientists coming on stronger with insistence that we research things that appear to exist but are largely labeled 'paranormal.' One of the ones on which he spends time is the feeling of being watched, which we've all had, and which there is apparently some evidence can be felt by people under electronic surveillance. And, you know, sasquatch encounters. I put a couple of his videos in the Paranormal area of the forum. An essential scientific skill is 'setting this aside for now.' Tossing what appears a legit sasquatch report because one doesn't like a couple of the tag-ons isn't strictly kosher from a scientific perspective. There is mind-so-open-brains-fall-out...then there is, compile evidence and direct research in productive channels. One can always double back, but not when the data got dumped, back there a ways.
  4. The most I can expect from a skeptic is that the evidence is worthy of more research. I just wish more scientists saw it that clearly.
  5. I don't know why Grover Krantz (who got the man's story) didn't publicize it. Of course he was more into footprints than stories, and considered the footprints alone to be proof even if there'd never been a sighting report, so...um...there you go. But he mentions the guy here, and the brief mention is enough to see what makes the report compelling even without the additional details: http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/91-anatomy-of-the-sasquatch-foot The rest is worth the read. The relevant paragraph is near the end.
  6. Um, no. That's an attitude that comes from not reviewing the evidence. Rule of science, peeps: when a guy with relevant credentials shows he is applying them to a topic, he is taken seriously, and done. If most people deny that rule...their objections can be set aside, because they are, officially, not players. Doesn't matter how many there are in science. Only matters who's right. Think about it for a minute. How much do you know about the cutting-edge research going on in the natural sciences for the animals we know about? I'm betting little to none. That would make you a typical human. Sasquatch and yeti are cutting edge. The mainstream is *never on board* with cutting edge. Why it's called that. There are two kinds of people who know this is real: people who have done the relevant research and see no flaws in it...and people who have seen one, and know because of that.
  7. The top representation is in no way 'laughable;' a lot of intelligent speculation - which is pretty much all science is - went into it. It's been honed by increased understanding over the course of well over a century. It is with very little doubt as accurate as anything speculated regarding our prehistory. It is not true that the difference is six of one, a half dozen of the others. Science is all about the way to bet. Put your house on the top one. That bottom one? Some guy with more imagination than science chops ginned that up pretty much off the top of his head. Bet all you have against anything close.
  8. Remember folks: nothing people say who aren't up on this changes anything I said, or anything I think. Because evidence. If you think hoaxing is significant, you need to get up to speed on this topic. It is not.
  9. Here is Wikipedia on the doroucouli (night monkey): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_monkey#Physical_characteristics "Night monkeys have large brown eyes; the size improves their nocturnal vision increasing their ability to be active at night. They are sometimes said to lack a tapetum lucidum, the reflective layer behind the retina possessed by many nocturnal animals.[7] Other sources say they have a tapetum lucidum composed of collagen fibrils.[8] At any rate, night monkeys lack the tapetum lucidum composed of riboflavin crystals possessed by lemurs and other strepsirrhines,[8] which is an indication that their nocturnalitiy is a secondary adaption evolved from ancestral diurnal primates." [emphasis mine] It's interesting to me that research hasn't closed that one out; this animal's been known a long time. But sasquatch are repeatedly reported to have large eyes. No mention of eyeshine in the doroucouli deepens the mystery here. But again, no reason, however it happened, that it could not have happened with sasquatch. And bolstering that it did are the large percentage of encounter reports taking place at night, when fewer of us are around to see them.
  10. The documentation in both prosimians and monkeys of night vision is all that's needed to say: why couldn't a hominid have developed the same?
  11. But there are other explanations. I don't think, in truth, that sasquatch is really any more elsusive than any species we know about. I would bet that *far fewer* people see several animals we know about in the wild annually (lynx; marten; wolverine; cougar). Reports, count on it, are the tip of the iceberg of encounters. Logic just dictates that; there is no presumption that 100% of people seeing one "would have reported by now" (while we're on that fallacy). And the guy that killed and closely examined one in Manitoba (and the one doing the same in western Washington) sure didn't bring 'em in for taxonomy. In fact they aren't the only two records of killing one (and there is no reason not to believe the others, other than you know Justin Smeja. *That* didn't happen).
  12. Oughtta be on the BFRO website (or other database of your choice). Is it? Put it up.
  13. Hoaxing shouldn't hurt the bigfoot case for two reasons. 1. You'd have to prove *everything* the result of a hoax. Note that the skeptics don't try that; they know it wouldn't be possible. They go all mentally loose on us and postulate, you know, all kinds a stuff. Which only increases the improbability of their case. Which if you're a statistician, you'd know. 2. Anything that has been identified as a hoax has been so because it is *clearly separable from the live evidence, which behaves like an animal.* You can tell a scientist hasn't evaluated the evidence if he gets all squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeely about hoaxes. They simply don't matter. Discard them and move on. They are in no way significant. They are a minuscule, and predictable, reaction to a scientific vacuum.
  14. That speaks to issues beyond our reach here
  15. Keep in mind that *the unified skeptic field theory* is of a random concatenation of *all kinds of stuff,* not just hoaxes and mistaken identity but hallucinations and copycats - and those of utterly *all* stripes - as well. Probability goes *down* with each cause you add. Particularly when you put no delimiters on what's possible, and they don't and they know they can't.