Guest Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 Well I guess my posting skills need a bit of adjusting. Was that video not proven to be an April fools day prank? I think it was discussed on the old forum but my memory may not be 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xspider1 Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 I think we can probably just agree to disagree, Ray. To me, 1 single wolverine road-kill does not make a very good basis for statistical analysis, especially as that may or may not pertain to Bigfoot. I don't think that an injured Bigfoot would be easy to 'recover' or end up in a hospital, although there have been reports of people hitting something 'really big and hairy' that they never found... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gambit Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 Oh look... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40782329/ns/technology_and_science-science/ What? You mean we didn't have the world all figured out yesterday? You're kidding!!! There's actually things that evade scientific discovery for this long? Impossible!! Surely this is the LAST such thing though...right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 It is a common misconception that "science" has "figured everything out." No scientist holds that view. Science is a process used to better understand the natural world. Inherent in that process is refinement of understanding based on new data and analysis. What we're seeing in the Desinova example is science at its best - revising our understanding based on new information. If we ever acquire new data sufficient to establish the existence of something like a bigfoot, scientists will be as elated as folks here on the BFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xspider1 Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 What about all of the Scientists and others who 'know for a fact' that Bigfoot don't exist? Would they be elated or, would many of them just take the attitude that none of the prior evidence was worth serious consideration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 I don't get it. What else is someone with a cast obligated to do? If you cast that track you are doing that for your own reasoning, what ever that may be. So long as you don't confuse your cast with any evidence that is going to convince science? All is well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 Evidence is evidence, even if it does not rise to the level of dispositive proof. Tracks certified by credentialed experts ARE evidence. Hairs examined by certified hair examiners ARE evidence. DNA IS evidence. Eyewitness accounts ARE evidence. I am sick of being accused as a proponent of being a "believer" or "accepting it on faith". I am not stupid. I made a rational decision to accept the likelihood of BF based on EVIDENCE, not blind faith/hope/whatever. Yes, but it's shaky, subjective evidence (except DNA, but thus far we have nothing conclusive). And the fact that they can call us "believers" bears that out. I love skeptics! They should light a fire under our ***** to go out there and get this done..........now. Yanno, I hear stories about Bigfoot expeditions from organizations that will remain nameless. In which a person thinks they have a Bigfoot outside of their camper and are prohibited from going outside because of expedition rules. There is a curfew and it is observed strictly. In other cases, people don't WANT to go outside...... Why? To me this is nothing more than a organization that sells "experiences", and has nothing to do with being committed to providing the hard evidence that science has asked from us to provide. Not that I'm making fun of those people that enjoy that, I'm not. It's a free country and they have as much right to have fun as anyone else. BUT! Don't then whine about skeptics not believing....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 Well I guess my posting skills need a bit of adjusting. Was that video not proven to be an April fools day prank? I think it was discussed on the old forum but my memory may not be 100%. Fred Eichler is one of the premier bow hunters in the United States. I doubt very seriously he would risk his reputation with a stunt like that. I'm actually surprised that he didn't look over his shoulder and hit the "delete" button real quick when he saw this footage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 I think you make a pretty good argument for that video Norseman, but there could be more convincing video than that. Remember that we have very good film footage that has not been hoaxed by editing. Not by a trail camera of course. But none of this has done anything to convince anyone. With the low quality of trail cameras when compared to even a mid range video camera that a family might own? It's not going to do the job for us. UNLESS your using that trail camera to either collect DNA or a type specimen. It's a tool for a job.......not the end all, be all of this mystery. The stealth cams are / were some the slowest cameras to trigger and capture. I own one and I'm finding that out.......I've got a lot of video of deer butts and swinging branches. They were lucky to get that with those cameras. The subject looks small as well, which would potentially make it a juvenile human. Thats not something I'd let my kid do during bear season. The arm strikes me as a little long in the video, I don't know, just something about it. I've been around ghillie suits too, and it doesn't look like any I have seen. It most certainly could be a human in some sort of suit, and that's probably the most logical explanation. While I do use game cams out in the field, I'm banking on hair / tissue / DNA results to get the job done. I'm not. While I do think this is the better solution (because you do not have to kill one), it's also much more prone to scientific interpretation and contamination. A type specimen is really the only option we have that slams the door shut on this mystery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 If we ever acquire new data sufficient to establish the existence of something like a bigfoot, scientists will be as elated as folks here on the BFF. Isn't that the job OF "science"? Why is it on the proponents' heads to do the job "science" is supposed to be doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 Isn't that the job OF "science"? Why is it on the proponents' heads to do the job "science" is supposed to be doing? This is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Outside of a few ridiculed professionals like Meldrum, and Krantz when he was still with us, the Scientific Body Politic is going out of its way NOT to seek evidence for this animal. There is more Scientific investigation going on Russia and China than has ever been pursued in the West. It is actually kind of sad that if this animal is proven to exist it will be Russians, Chinese or a rag tag amateur here in the States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 What about all of the Scientists and others who 'know for a fact' that Bigfoot don't exist? Would they be elated or, would many of them just take the attitude that none of the prior evidence was worth serious consideration? I'm a scientist who has considered purported bigfoot evidence, and I'm unconvinced that there is a physical bigfoot. But that statement is very different than if I wrote that I "knew for a fact" that there was no bigfoot. The former statement simply means that no evidence I've seen rises to my standard for a belief threshold. To make the latter statement, I'd need to be able to unambiguously demonstrate that there is no bigfoot, and neither I nor anyone else can do that. This why many non-scientists tune out when real scientists start talking. Our carefully worded statements aren't just big words strung together to make us sound pretentious - they really mean something to scientists. The media, of course, paraphrase such statements and distill them into headlines and sound bytes that often convey a different intent than the scientists' actual quotes. If a bigfoot is found and collected tomorrow, I would leap for joy that evidence had been provided that did meet my belief threshold - and so would scientists the world over. Scientists are not trying to protect some monolithic world view that there is no bigfoot, that's just what the evidence suggests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 Isn't that the job OF "science"? Why is it on the proponents' heads to do the job "science" is supposed to be doing? No, it's no one's "job" to find bigfoot (despite Huntster's assertions to the contrary). If governments were concerned that they had overlooked bigfoots in the myriad explorations of the natural world that have been undertaken in the past several centuries, then more scientists might actively pursue looking for such things. But there's nothing sufficient to make a good case that bigfoots have been overlooked. How 'bout these guys: Wildlife Conservation Society? They're actively exploring wilderness areas in different parts of the globe and describing lots of new species in the process. Why are they traveling to New Guinea to find evidence for tiny frogs and weird tree kangaroos and stuff when they can just drive a few hours up the Northway and find bigfoot in the Adirondacks? The answer is they have good reason to believe that there are new species to be discovered elsewhere in the world, but they're not at all convinced that there are bigfoots to be found in the Adirondacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 Outside of a few ridiculed professionals like Meldrum, and Krantz when he was still with us, the Scientific Body Politic is going out of its way NOT to seek evidence for this animal. I think if you started to compile a list of people who really have dedicated themselves to finding a bigfoot/yeti/yeren/Russian wildman, etc., you might be surprised at how much effort has been invested. Meldrum, Krantz, Bindernagel, Byrne, Dahinden . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spazmo Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 No, it's no one's "job" to find bigfoot (despite Huntster's assertions to the contrary). If governments were concerned that they had overlooked bigfoots in the myriad explorations of the natural world that have been undertaken in the past several centuries, then more scientists might actively pursue looking for such things. But there's nothing sufficient to make a good case that bigfoots have been overlooked. How 'bout these guys: Wildlife Conservation Society? They're actively exploring wilderness areas in different parts of the globe and describing lots of new species in the process. Why are they traveling to New Guinea to find evidence for tiny frogs and weird tree kangaroos and stuff when they can just drive a few hours up the Northway and find bigfoot in the Adirondacks? The answer is they have good reason to believe that there are new species to be discovered elsewhere in the world, but they're not at all convinced that there are bigfoots to be found in the Adirondacks. ...or, they realize that frogs are a lot easier to document than Bigfoot. But your point is still valid either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts