Peer Review, The Scientific Arguments And Cross Applying To Bigfoot

[Guest]

Really interesting Jodie...where ever did you run across this? I was looking at Gauss Meters the other day thinking a decent one would be handy to carry on a hike. Besides ruling things in, it could also work to rule some things out.

[Guest Jodie]

The thought crossed my mind months ago when we discussed the ESP stuff and bigfoot in a thread, combined with the research I had already read regarding EMF and other animals, and the research article you posted on EMF and the deaf. Then I recently had a discussion with a hunter who mentioned these suits so I thought I might throw it in here as a possible suggestion for others.

[Guest]

We are trying to apply a process that works well for known species and identification of sub- species or proving that an elusive animal has expanded it's range to something that confronts all sensibility on a whole range of levels for most people. Not saying to give up but I think we will learn at lot after the results/paper is presented.

This REEKS of Special Pleading, to wit: BF is somehow "different", and needs NEW processes, to identify and authenticate it, as opposed to the accepted process that has and does work all the time with other animal species.

[Guest]

Bigfoot science for the most part was and still is pseduoscientific. Now before you tar and feather me, this is what Alan Cromer said about the fundamental difference between science and pseudoscience in his book Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science (page 155) --

"In science all knowledge is public knowledge, that is, knowledge based on evidence strong enough to convince essentially the entire scientific public. In pseudoscience, private knowledge based on personal insight, intuition, or belief is confused with public knowledge."

Anyone else see any similarities with how 'bigfoot science' is conducted? We've got people claiming all sorts of things about bigfoot. That they live in family groupings on their property, that bigfoot imitate owls and other animals/birds, that bigfoot smoke cigarettes, build wooden structures, toss pine cones, go into 4x4 mode, leave butt prints in the mud, and numerous additional claims too lengthy to list here. What's missing from all of these claims is confirmation. They all come down to private knowledge based on personal insight, intuition, or belief, and like it or not, that's just not good science.

So that's why, after 40+ years of following this mystery, when I hear more unsupported claims about bigfoot, it does nothing but push me further away from my original belief in bigfoot.

RayG

Extended argumentum ad popularity (or consensus) fallacy combined with a complete dismissal of the physical evidence on record.

Building that data and evaluating it seriously is valid, there are many disciplines to draw from...and to eliminate bad evidence (think Skookum cast here..had that been vetted by Elk experts it may not have been a chapter in a book).

Not this BS again...

The evidence WAS vetted by game experts and at least one scientist with dual credentials in primatology AND ungulate research.

[Guest]

The thought crossed my mind months ago when we discussed the ESP stuff and bigfoot in a thread, combined with the research I had already read regarding EMF and other animals, and the research article you posted on EMF and the deaf. Then I recently had a discussion with a hunter who mentioned these suits so I thought I might throw it in here as a possible suggestion for others.

Well I wonder if this fabric is robust enough to shield the EMF that game cameras emit.

[Guest RayG]

Extended argumentum ad popularity (or consensus) fallacy combined with a complete dismissal of the physical evidence on record.

You mean unlike the fallacious arguments presented by bigfoot proponents?

Well I wonder if this fabric is robust enough to shield the EMF that game cameras emit.

I suspect it wouldn't matter. Bigfoot would just develop the ability to recognize or detect the cloaked device.

RayG

[Guest Jodie]

Well I wonder if this fabric is robust enough to shield the EMF that game cameras emit.

I don't know, maybe you could get some from the web site and wrap the camera in it to see if it makes a difference. It actually uses a mesh similar to what is in your microwave door. You could probably just get some of that and put around your camera to get the same affect, I imagine.

Mulder, ss far as evidence goes, considering what the claim of bigfoot is, and the supposed similarity to humans, all the evidence in the world will not confirm its existence outside of producing a body. Even then, I believe one specimen could possibly be written off as a genetic fluke, depending on what it actually turns out to be. Either way, there is no harm in exploring other research in developing new techniques to acquire the evidence that the mainstream public isn't ready to accept at the moment.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Jodie

[bipedalist]

We had a huge thread on HECS and shielding game cams on the old forum as I remember. We should be in a position to access that data soon (I hope).

[Wheellug]

Yeah there were quite a few threads on the old forum regarding game cams and all the intricacies.

Something to note is the experience by the TBRC and their 5 year project Forest Vigil. They stated that they found that their game cams seemed to be very fickle when it came to snapping pictures.

Not even taking pictures of those retrieving them. If that's the case, then that could be a huge reason why they just don't seem to get anything, they just don't work reliably enough.

[Guest]

Extended argumentum ad popularity (or consensus) fallacy combined with a complete dismissal of the physical evidence on record.

Not this BS again...

The evidence WAS vetted by game experts and at least one scientist with dual credentials in primatology AND ungulate research.

hey my apologies I get that info from some respected and connected Bfers...which really just makes the point again...

It seems 'reputations" etc is the MO of this "field" for visibility and credibility....it is a common complaint I am not unique...

it leaves you forever defending what could have been at some level transparent "peer-reviewed" with a transparent society of researchers...etc..

The problem with BFRo and many is they are clubs..by invitation and with no real professional charter...all of them really...

A professional society/journal crosses all of that and creates a level playing field and a positive forum...but

I really don't think most Bfers are interested in that kind of discipline. The appeal to so many seems to be the invitation to be your own boss, make your own science, or Youtube channel/blog etc in a arena that truly is a vacuum of professional science...

I get it..perhaps this is why I haven't (except for the Sierra Kills story) felt compelled to join this "community" and still don't...

so I do feel like an interloper anywhere in the BF world...with only three years in the field..etc and no patience for the many long and convoluted relationships that flare up at the most odd times!

That said though.once bitten by Sasquatch, I see now there is no going back. A wildness, or something, has been born in my heart that makes my thoughts turn to the forest and Bfs....way too often! It will be a discipline returning fully to a previous life!

[Guest Cervelo]

This REEKS of Special Pleading, to wit: BF is somehow "different", and needs NEW processes, to identify and authenticate it, as opposed to the accepted process that has and does work all the time with other animal species.

Yes something reeks all right like the stinkness of your same old word game arguments....ya need a new stik Mulder it's no fun anymore. But at least your predictable I'll give ya that!

The best part is if you hadn't been so quick to jump I think you'll see we agree completely!!! Go reread the post....

Edited December 9, 2011 by Cervelo

[Guest]

I see I have missed other comments..these threads get long quick.. To Saskeptic..still a circular argument and for me unpersuasive...

so I don't know that I can contribute... I am personally stuck on the inability of amateurs to make a jump to more credible science type review... and I am thankful to the forum for this respite...I hope not to butt in so much! I managed for three years to just lurk

oh also to someone.. perhaps my point was not well made..my reference to the Skookum cast? More about dedicating a chapter in a book...(no peer-review) on a cast that is unique...wrt to BF anyway..unlike tracks, no other body cast to compare..and the book (just recalling - been a few years) seems not to have had comparative elk lays or other animals in the published photos? again I could be totally wrong, read a lot since then! ...it's more about the venue....not that particular event..and if Saskeptic is listening...feeds his point....that some continue to debate this as real or not...

and of course peer-review does not stop debate..as an attorney I can assure you we hired whatever expert we wanted to take any side we wanted...btw $500-1500/hour...and for the most part...they beleived what they testified to....amazing really

Edited December 9, 2011 by apehuman

[Guest mxav]

This REEKS of Special Pleading, to wit: BF is somehow "different", and needs NEW processes, to identify and authenticate it, as opposed to the accepted process that has and does work all the time with other animal species.

Nope, if the evidence doesnt pass peer review it wasn't good enough. Pretty simple.

Extended argumentum ad popularity (or consensus) fallacy combined with a complete dismissal of the physical evidence on record.

Not this BS again...

The evidence WAS vetted by game experts and at least one scientist with dual credentials in primatology AND ungulate research.

And why exactly are we taking your word for it? Those experts maybe just dont have sufficient evidence to back up what you want to believe, and would love to force the rest of us to believe. Make with proof or fall short of the mark.

[Guest]

To Saskeptic..still a circular argument and for me unpersuasive...

So you're prepared to explain to me how one could publish a paper on "bigfoot activity" in a reputable journal prior to the confirmation that said bigfoots exist?

[Guest]

So you're prepared to explain to me how one could publish a paper on "bigfoot activity" in a reputable journal prior to the confirmation that said bigfoots exist?

LOL these threads are so long..but yea,it's in my confusing words somewhere! We make our own reputable Journal!