Guest Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 GroupThink = Teamwork = All of Us Can Be Dumber Than One of Us Saskeptic, loving the riffs on the PGC Huntster, sadly the article you linked to describes EXACTLY how it is here.
southernyahoo Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 OK, but what does this have to do with you showing me a sasquatch carcass, me citing a paper on that carcass that demonstrated it to be genetically Homo sapiens (as if), and me saying, "That's not a sasquatch, it's a human"? I thought that's what we were discussing, i.e., that "denialists" like me would pooh-pooh even a carcass. I didn't say you would deny a carcass. I was addressing these statements below. You don't need science to discover bigfoot. and There is only one reason more wildlife biologists (there are some, for crying out loud) aren't out there looking for bigfoot: they don't believe that they'll find anything if they do. This addresses denialism doesn't it? They don't have any faith in the evidence collected to date because? How it was collected? It hasn't been verified by science? hasn't been published? What happens when we can establish there is biological evidence that establishes the fact that there is a wildman out there to be found? How shall it be denied?
Huntster Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 It's only in communicating with you that I feel like such a southerner, but for all the snipe I've kicked up in my time, I guess I've never been far enough north to get into their breeding range at the right time of year. It's amazing. They come, breed, nest, hatch, and then the noise goes away. Then they may be underfoot, for all I know. But I never see them. Sorta' like what sasquatch reports indicate about those guys.
Huntster Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Huntster, sadly the article you linked to describes EXACTLY how it is here. You in Pennsylvania? Don't lose heart. Fish and game politics are hot everywhere. There's no relief from political, commercial, and ideological difficulty with regard to wildlife management anywhere.
Guest parnassus Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) I can't imagine the presence or absence of mountain lion having any effect on the sale of hunting licenses. And my wife is not a fan of hunting. I've hunted around both for years. It just seems like another absurd conspiracy theory. Everyone know there are a lot of bears in PA and the danger from lions is miniscule compared with bears. This has nothing to do with the fact that no Bigfoot has ever been found. The idea that Bigfoot remains would be mistaken for human remains and forgotten is equally ridiculous. Do you think we don't investigate human remains? How long do you think it would take law enforcement or a coroner to notice the hair, the heavy bone structure, the huge feet, not to mention the DNA? And how many conspirators around the country have been paid to keep quiet? By whom? Why has none of them ever confessed? No, conspiracy theories are not the reason that Bigfoot has not been found, not conspiracies of scientists or game wardens or administrators or timber companies or law enforcement or anyone else. Edited February 22, 2011 by parnassus
Huntster Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 I can't imagine the presence or absence of mountain lion having any effect on the sale of hunting licenses. Yeah. Your imagination has been suspect for quite some time. Imagine lions being in a state without the Fish and Game Dept. even knowing about it. Imagine no comprehension of the number of lions in the habitat. Imagine no open season on lions. Imagine how lions interact with other species. There has been no season on lions in California in nearly 20 years. Do you have any idea what lions have done to the California deer population? Even before super restricted lion hunting there? And my wife is not a fan of hunting. That's a rather common Lost Angeles emotion, isn't it? It just seems like another absurd conspiracy theory. That's also rather common in Lost Angeles, isn't it? Everyone know there are a lot of bears in PA and the danger from lions is miniscule compared with bears. But a combined predatory pressure from both bears and increasing lions is something to manage, no? 1
Guest Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 This addresses denialism doesn't it? They don't have any faith in the evidence collected to date because? It hasn't been demonstrated to be from a unique, heretofore undescribed species. How it was collected? No, that's really just a problem for DNA analysis in which contamination can produce confounding results. For other types of evidence it doesn't matter how it was collected, or by whom. You could collect a bigfoot by hitting it with a truck, shooting it, capturing it live, finding a carcass, uncovering a jawbone while digging a well, and - I keep saying this but few here believe me - taking a completely unambiguous photo of one. (If I saw photographic evidence good enough to convince me, I'd write it up if no one else would!) It hasn't been verified by science? There's no real process for that. What we call "accepted by science" is kind of a shorthand for something that's been published, replicated many times, and published many more. I think the phrase implies predictability of outcome more than anything else. It hasn't been published? Like it or not, this is a huge deal. For one, if it hasn't been published, scientists probably don't know about it. But the more important aspect of the publication process is independent peer-review. When I read a paper in a reputable journal, I don't automatically assume that everything in that paper is accurate (far from it, in fact). But I do read through the lens that "at least three of my colleagues found this argument convincing" and that carries a tremendous amount of weight compared to an anecdotal account or even information presented "scientifically" but in a non-refereed journal or book. This is why I'm nonplussed by Meldrum's book. It might sound sciency, but without engaging in the peer-review process the information he presents is little more than hearsay. What happens when we can establish there is biological evidence that establishes the fact that there is a wildman out there to be found? How shall it be denied? It won't. If this part "there is biological evidence that establishes the fact that there is a wildman" is true, then there is no reason nor means to deny it.
southernyahoo Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 You could collect a bigfoot by hitting it with a truck, shooting it, capturing it live, finding a carcass, uncovering a jawbone while digging a well, and - I keep saying this but few here believe me - taking a completely unambiguous photo of one. I don't agree about the photo. People aren't satisfied with just what they see in a photo. They wouldn't have any frame of reference to tell if they are looking at a real one. They would want to know all the circumstances of the photo, who , what , where, when , why , how. Then they would still be skeptical that this one photo could turn up, when there should be thousands of similar photo's haphazardly taken by game cams and nature photographers. The more "unambiguous" the photo the more contention it will receive because ambiguity is the norm and the subject can be mimiced by man in nearly every way. A clear photo could turn up, but I think the skepticism about the photo might surprise even you.
Guest Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 . Everyone know there are a lot of bears in PA and the danger from lions is miniscule compared with bears. This has nothing to do with the fact that no Bigfoot has ever been found. Sorry, have to point out the danger from Black Bears here is very low in PA . You're more likely to hit a deer with your vehicle than ever see a Black Bear wandering the forests. Even Black Bear sightings in the suburbs show it will usually try to retreat, as long as you don't attempt to make it drop your birdfeeder. No disrespect to responsible hunters, but out here the biggest risk in the woods here are hunting accidents. Check the stats.
Guest Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 I don't agree about the photo. . . . And I think the reticence about the influence a great photo can have is an artifact of bigfooter uneasiness to accept just how lousy the photographic "evidence" has been up to this point. Of course a photo would be heavily scrutinized. Assuming our hypothetical photo survived that scrutiny, however, I've written many times that such a photo could very quickly convince me of the reality of bigfoot. If it's ambiguous then it's not good evidence. I'm talking about unassailable photographic evidence. If such ever surfaced and I was convinced by it, then I would attempt to describe it in the literature if no one else would. Check out this photo of an American Robin. Of all the creatures in the world, there is nothing else this could be. What's more, it has been photographed in the act of doing something extremely "robiny." The behavior captured indicates very strongly that this isn't a robin puppet or some kind of CGI. We could analyze the photo itself - perhaps even find its image on the photographer's camera card - to reveal if it had been manipulated, etc. Theoretically, we could obtain photographic bigfoot evidence that is unambiguous like this robin photo. If we did, it would be a whole new ballgame for bigfoot.
southernyahoo Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Ahhh but you already know it is a Robin and have observed them with your own eyes. A clear photo might appeal to you, but would still be quite questionalble to others. With the latest theories and artistic renderings coming forward, those old bigfoot images from the covers of National Inquirer pop up in my head and I have to ask myself how I will know when I'm looking at a real photo of one. Truth is, I'll have to have some confidence in the person who captured it and how it was later treated.
Guest Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Ahhh but you already know it is a Robin and have observed them with your own eyes. Sure, but imagine we didn't know what a robin was. People had been reporting encounters with a plump songbird, about 10" long, that was slaty gray above with a conspicuous brick red breast. It had been reported to frequent short grassy fields where it fed on earthworms, foraging much like other thrushes. Imagine we had anecdotal reports of all that, but we just lacked a physical specimen on which we could base the description of a new species. For some reason, the bird had evaded capture forever, but one day someone (we'll call her "Agnes Vorhees" for no reason whatsoever) goes public with that photo. Now what? Well the photo is unambiguous - this ain't no blobrobin and it's easily distinguishable from any other thrush. Sure we work with Ms. Vorhees to see what kind of detail she can provide. Let's say she took the photo with her digital camera and the original file is still on that camera card. We can look at that file to determine if it's been manipulated. Let's assume it hasn't. Bingo. It's a photo of a real, live creature; it's not CGI, Photoshopped or whatever. Amazing stuff ensues, including an organized attempt to obtain a physical specimen and, depending on the outcome of that effort, a potential description paper prepared using just the photographic evidence. We've never gotten this far with bigfoot because we've never had a single, unambiguous photo of one.
norseman Posted February 23, 2011 Admin Posted February 23, 2011 That's your prerogative I suppose. I think our BFF 1.0 thread on the Jacobs photos exceeded 30 pages. If you'd like to reopen that can of worms with a new thread here, go for it. The Jacobs photos are a source of amusing irony for me. Bigfooters like to bemoan that mainstream biologists and scientists don't pay any attention to bigfoot. But those people did weigh in on the Jacobs photos and, if memory serves, were unanimous in their opinion that the subject in the photos was a young bear. Some folks who didn't like that answer now just complain that those professionals were biased, didn't really study the photos well enough, etc. Can't win, I suppose . . . Well.....like I've been saying all along. I just don't think main stream science is going to be convinced with a trap camera photo such as the Jacobs photo. And I know you disagree with that assumption. But I suppose from the Bigfooter perspective, they keep introducing photo's that hold promise and they always seem to get shot down, which is construed to mean that there is some sort of conspiracy going on.
Will Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Many condemn "belief" in it's most basic form. They see "belief" as the enemy of the scientific method, even though (as humans) they engage in belief just like everybody else. It's inevitable. Unavoidable. You'd think they'd be smart enough to figure that out. But they aren't. Example: Check out this pit of despair and see what ideological opposition is toward the mere concept of "belief". Their ideology. thanks hunster for putting up that miserable site I was able to go on there and let them have it and that was kind of fun. I haven't done that for a while.
Incorrigible1 Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Well.....like I've been saying all along. I just don't think main stream science is going to be convinced with a trap camera photo such as the Jacobs photo. And I know you disagree with that assumption. But I suppose from the Bigfooter perspective, they keep introducing photo's that hold promise and they always seem to get shot down, which is construed to mean that there is some sort of conspiracy going on. Sad to say, I must disagree. Sad because there have been so very few (or none) photos that hold promise put forth. While a clear, unaltered photo of a unknown upright hominid will not provide proof positive, it would certainly stir the pot and increase public interest. It seems disingenuous (not referring to you, Norseman) to proclaim film or video evidence won't provide proof, so why bother at all.
Recommended Posts