• Announcements

    • masterbarber

      T shirt fund drive   07/17/2018

      norseman has designed a t shirt and started a fund drive on custom ink. He is going to split the proceeds between the BFF and Project Grendel.  "We all owe this website a tremendous debt of gratitude. Our community and history would not exist without it. As far as the Project Grendel proceeds, I would like to see it go towards the purchase of a thermal scope."
      -norseman     https://www.customink.com/fundraising/sasquatch-hunter
hiflier

A Plan For Presenting Sasquatch To Science

303 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, dmaker said:

This is what I was getting at in a different thread recently. The word "truth" is thrown around, but not really meant. What is meant is something more bigfoot friendly

 

The truth will be what the truth is- Bigfoot friendly or not.

 

1 hour ago, dmaker said:

Because what if the "truth" simply is that scientists consider bigfoot an answered question until, or if, more verifiable evidence is provided?

 

Evidence being verifiable is the goal is the job of a scientist and is exactly why I am doing this- otherwise, what would be the point of it? I cannot go into what I am presenting as a dialogue in my correspondences at this time. Suffice it to say it isn't woo. The "open mind" part is about finding someone who will engage with the aim of some kind of conversation that can be scientifically backed up- pro or con. I am not out just to find a person to say, "Yes". I will accept a straight conclusion of "No" as long as there has been research specific to the subject. Because part of these inquiries is to find out if any research had actually been done by the people I am corresponding with or will correspond with in the future.

 

1 hour ago, dmaker said:

You are not interested in the truth unless it includes some sort of confirmation that bigfoot should be more closely examined.

 

See above: Because I'm not interested in "should be more closely examined". That is not good enough. "HAS been closely examined" or "IS being closely examined" is what I'm looking for. But reaching that particular level with someone is quite a ways off.

 

1 hour ago, dmaker said:

But that is not being interested in the truth, that is looking for someone with a degree to agree with you.

 

Not the way I operate.

 

1 hour ago, dmaker said:

You expose your lack of scientific interest when you put your own conclusion up front and center as the only acceptable outcome

 

My scientific interest is first and foremost. My own conclusion is my own. Finding anyone who thinks one way or the other and is willing to discuss certain matters that I am presenting would be an achievement in itself. Even if a consensus is never reached. Of course, how many doors get slammed in the process of these presentations would be enlightening as well? It is why any dialogue has to contain a level of logic coupled with respect. I have questions about some key points that should have answers. No one here has those answers. So there was no choice for me but to get proactive and seek out the people who just might have answers- short of knocking on the Secretary of the Department of the Interior's door. Do not put that past me either. Going for broke perhaps? Sure am!  And why not?

 

I received an extensive, lengthy email on the just the tooth question. Did I accept the explanation? Yes. Human. Probably not 130,000 years old but much more recent though still a fossil. And not Meganthropus. And this just from the photos. The email even contained other tooth examples for me to look at. Anyone want answers? Go get them. Just be respectful and keep Bigfoot out of the picture. Choosing a peripheral detail to open dialogue is not easy. Only recently have I hit on things to offer a scientist. Things that are in the real world but relate to the BF subject nonetheless. The tooth "mystery" being a good example. I also expect to read more dialogue on that tooth as well. If I did not start engaging scientists then I would be just spinning wheels. This was the only logical way to get anywhere. Personal conclusions, which I can ignore for this purpose, notwithstanding.        

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

48 minutes ago, hiflier said:

"HAS been closely examined" or "IS being closely examined" is what I'm looking for. But reaching that particular level with someone is quite a ways off.

 

You should understand that most scientists likely consider there has been insufficient evidence proffered to merit a close examination. As such, you are very unlikely to get the response you are looking for. That is what I was getting at. The truth is that there is no real good reason to closely examine the bigfoot claim at this point. Unlike proponents, scientists are not generally titillated by endless strings of unverifiable anecdotes. 

 

 

Edited by dmaker
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

dmaker, you are not paying attention. You have remembered nothing that would support my endeavors. You post is glaringly evident of that. There certainly IS good reason for examination. A side benefit to this is finding scientists who SAY there is no good reason for close examination because it tells me that they put the cart before the horse- same as you if I may respectfully say so. And to be clear, I am not titillated by endless strings of unverifiable anecdotes either. Which is why I think I am well suited for this task. To address this:

 

40 minutes ago, dmaker said:

You should understand that most scientists likely consider there has been insufficient evidence proffered to merit a close examination

 

And you think I do not understand that why exactly? After all, I fully understand that you have allowed yourself two safety valves by using the words "most" instead of its definitive cousin "all" and skipping the "likely " thing altogether. It tells me you are not entirely sure and kind of leaves you a seat on the bandwagon should a bandwagon come along.  

 

40 minutes ago, dmaker said:

The truth is that there is no real good reason to closely examine the bigfoot claim at this point

 

A small amount of veiled prodding perhaps? Or a bit of fishing? I will not inform you of what is in my correspondence dialogues. You seem to be busy enough without me adding potential ideas to your current skeptic's repertoire.  

Edited by hiflier
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what should be discussed here if you won't share your methodology--namely the questions you are asking. 

 

Otherwise, this seems to add up to "I'm asking some sciency people some stuff about bigfoot hoping they will say bigfoot is real"

 

Good luck with that.

 

 

21 minutes ago, hiflier said:

There certainly IS good reason for examination. A side benefit to this is finding scientists who SAY there is no good reason for close examination because it tells me that they put the cart before the horse- same as you if I may respectfully say so.

So, any scientist who disagrees with you is wrong?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

45 minutes ago, dmaker said:

So, any scientist who disagrees with you is wrong?

 

Ah the art of twisting things around. Make you feel good to do that does it? Why would you even care? You are obviously not listening to/reading a thing I have said.

 

45 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Otherwise, this seems to add up to "I'm asking some sciency people some stuff about bigfoot hoping they will say bigfoot is real"

 

The bolded? Wrong. More evidence of not listening to/reading a thing I have said.

 

45 minutes ago, dmaker said:

I'm not sure what should be discussed here if you won't share your methodology--namely the questions you are asking

 

Even MORE evidence of not listening/reading. I have already mentioned my methodology. As far as the questions I am asking? They are no different than the questions I have asked on this very Forum. Had I gotten answers I would not have to go elsewhere. If you care enough (which I do not thing that you do) then go back to June of 2014 and read every post that I have written. Then get back to me.

  

45 minutes ago, dmaker said:

I'm not sure what should be discussed here.........

 

See? Not reading.....AGAIN. I setting an example here. So what should be discussed is what I suggested should be discussed. If members want to follow this kind of proactive thing then ideas for how to proceed and how to approach academia would be a valuable thing to know. What subject to present? It would be up to whomever what that might be. It could be contacting a zoo curator and opening a dialogue on Gorilla nesting. And WITHOUT mentioning Bigfoot bring up the nests found in Oregon. Question it and ask questions about the NESTS themselves and ask for advice on how a scientist should approach such a thing.

 

That is only one suggestion of many. All it takes is thinking from a scientists point of view who is receiving a correspondence from one of us. Pick an idea, narrow down the field of scientific discipline that relates to that idea and then research who is in that narrow field and contact them. But then if you had read this thread all the way through you would have come across all of that already. 

 

Now you can be more sure of what should be discussed here :) 

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This can go one of two ways:

 

1)  hiflier turns into a skeptic

 

2) hiflier goes deeper down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck in your endeavors hiflier.  I hope and pray your day job will not be exposed to any flak by this decision.  I have personally known others that paid a price for stepping out and confronting those leaders in established in science.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

This can go one of two ways:

 

1)  hiflier turns into a skeptic

 

2) hiflier goes deeper down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories

 

 

 

hiflier will do neither. It is a fact finding mission for how specific fields of academia respond to small logically presented details. I even have plans for a detail aimed at a specific field within podiatry that is so far out of the ballpark from the usually expected mid-tarsal break discussion it would not even be worth mentioning. This Forum is all about the big picture stuff which doesn't fly with academia.

 

3 minutes ago, Midnight Owl said:

Good luck in your endeavors hiflier.  I hope and pray your day job will not be exposed to any flak by this decision.  I have personally known others that paid a price for stepping out and confronting those leaders in established in science.  

 

HA! Maybe I SHOULD have a day job ;) And thank you, Midnight Owl, for the good wishes. I will pay the price in time and effort, and do so gladly, and there is only one way to maintain credibility when corresponding with a scientist. Ask a reasonable and honest scientific question. I have those questions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understanding why scientists are generally skeptical of the existence of sasquatch can be done by simply facing your own doubts, but it’s clear that the ultimate goal in this case  is to reduce your own doubts.

 

The most practical resolution is a deep state of denial where compelling arguments for either the existence or non-existence of sasquatch are completely discredited in one’s own mind. Several ISFers have attained such a state of delusion, and have been able to move on with their life.

 

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if your state of delusion is real?  what do you do then when confronting these so called scientist. They can call me what ever they want and it is not going to change a thing since they should be open to things not yet discovered. The only entity that could be holding them back is some thing that is higher then them. Some thing that does not want them to discover what is out there that can change the way we think. An entity that is so high up that can change the way one lives in this world. No one in their right mind wants to loose their esteem that they had work so hard for. So they will not risk their career on some thing that can change the way we believe. There are some powerfull entities in this world that does not want this truth to come out in the open that can change the way we believe.

 

I wish you luck as well but I have learned that it is better to stay silent. Let this world be and live the way that it is intended and not change it .It might be better for our good. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is why I do not bring up the subject of Sasquatch. As long as I stay focused on the detail I am questioning then the discussion remains on the detail. So what if the detail is connected to Sasquatch. It doesn't have to be connected as long as one is conscious that the connection should not be spoken of. I admit there are not that many areas in which one can separate out a detail in a way that it can stand on its own in order to be able to openly discuss it. But there are enough or it would be pointless for me to continue in this kind of an approach. Being able to dialogue with academia is valuable as long as a certain mindset is promoted that is in keeping with academia's.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiflier I may have you confused with another poster. Did you not publish a book or field guide on Sasquatch some time ago?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dmaker said:

Otherwise, this seems to add up to "I'm asking some sciency people some stuff about bigfoot hoping they will say bigfoot is real"

Seems to me he's saying he's going to ask them about bigfoot without asking them about bigfoot. Not sure how that works but good luck.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, hiflier said:

That is why I do not bring up the subject of Sasquatch. As long as I stay focused on the detail I am questioning then the discussion remains on the detail. So what if the detail is connected to Sasquatch.

Not giving all the relevant information seems to you to be a decent approach? You think that somehow withholding circumstances and context will help you piece together some pro-bigfoot conclusion that you have so obviously already reached?

 

That does not seem exactly above board or fair. 

 

 

 

Edited by dmaker
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 hours ago, dmaker said:

You should understand that most scientists likely consider there has been insufficient evidence proffered to merit a close examination. As such, you are very unlikely to get the response you are looking for. That is what I was getting at. The truth is that there is no real good reason to closely examine the bigfoot claim at this point. Unlike proponents, scientists are not generally titillated by endless strings of unverifiable anecdotes. 

 

 

They can always look at the Patterson Film. Plenty of good details on the film subject, there....for all to see....and analyze.  :)  

 

The fact of the matter is...since this subject involves either a human, or near-human species...that alone provides "good reason" for a close examination of the evidence.....with an open mind.  "Humans" deserve the benefit of the doubt. Humans are even worth being wrong about. (That is why rescue workers search disaster scenes long after the odds of finding people still alive have dropped to almost 'zero'.)

 

People like yourself...who have little more to say/think than...."I really don't care"....are what are really not worth.........anything.  

Edited by SweatyYeti
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites