norseman Posted February 15, 2011 Admin Posted February 15, 2011 Man, if I made comments about bigfooters as disparaging as the comments about scientists I see in this thread . . . Come on, people. Quit whining about how academia hates bigfoot and do something about it. Here are some things you can do (in no particular order): *Find a bigfoot, a piece of a bigfoot, a fossil of a bigfoot, or at the very least a convincing photograph of a bigfoot. *Encourage those doing bigfoot field research who think they've actually got some quality evidence to engage mainstream science by publishing their findings in mainstream journals. (Hint: we ivory towerians don't watch Monsterquest. The vast majority of scientists in the U.S. have never heard the words "Skookum" and "cast" in the same sentence.) *Write letters to YOUR representatives in Congress calling for federal funding of field research to find bigfoot. *Write letters to the USFWS and your state wildlife department commissioners warning them that they could face legal action if they failed to conduct bigfoot expeditions and such an endangered species was subsequently discovered within their administrative area. All good points, but with one exception that I underlined above. As far as I am concerned the Patterson Gimlin film represents that rather "convincing" photograph. It's over forty years old and it has failed to convince the skeptics. Yes, there are many hoax stories surrounding it but none of the hoax proponents have ever produced the suit either. Does this not prove that no photograph, no film, will ever put any of this to rest? I am not trying to rehash the qualities or lack thereof of the PGF. I am simply observing the fact that without a body or a part thereof, I don't think the skeptics will change their minds. And I personally am not threatened by that, it's how the process of science works and although science may not be perfect, it's a **** sight better than any other process man kind has ever invented to explore his surroundings. (as I know you agree) Would we rather go back to the days of Galileo?
southernyahoo Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 Cop out. If I really believed in a cause, I would have no qualms about speaking out about it, and I have done so in the past. For crying out loud Huntster, you bang away on this topic all the time, why don't you simply write an anonymous letter to the powers that be so you can at least plant the seed? And not just Huntster, what about the rest of you folks? For any one of you who've ever claimed that "science ignores bigfoot" or some such, have YOU contacted biologists and elected officials about your concerns? Saskeptic, I can only conclude that if I've ever found evidence of a real bigfoot then other field biologists should have encountered the same. The difference might be that they ignored that evidence or assigned it to some other known. They don't follow through with each sign or observed piece of evidence they find as though it was a forensic investigation, and I would suppose that if they did come across physical evidence that tested as not being their target species or human etc., they would simply write it off as contamination. I know of a couple biologists that have their experiences, so I would expect "them" to be at the front of the line trying to inform science. I doubt my word would carry the same weight, so my best shot at informing anyone is physical evidence studied to the limits of current technology, and I'd be darned happy to see that achieved.
Guest parnassus Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 All good points, but with one exception that I underlined above. As far as I am concerned the Patterson Gimlin film represents that rather "convincing" photograph. It's over forty years old and it has failed to convince the skeptics. Yes, there are many hoax stories surrounding it but none of the hoax proponents have ever produced the suit either. Does this not prove that no photograph, no film, will ever put any of this to rest? I am not trying to rehash the qualities or lack thereof of the PGF. I am simply observing the fact that without a body or a part thereof, I don't think the skeptics will change their minds. And I personally am not threatened by that, it's how the process of science works and although science may not be perfect, it's a **** sight better than any other process man kind has ever invented to explore his surroundings. (as I know you agree) Would we rather go back to the days of Galileo? Norse U may want to review Galileo. He was a scientist. Do you compare him to individuals like Roger Patterson, Marx, Freeman, Wallace, the Georgia boys and Moneymaker and Titmus?
norseman Posted February 15, 2011 Admin Posted February 15, 2011 Norse U may want to review Galileo. He was a scientist. Correct. Do you compare him to individuals like Roger Patterson, Marx, Freeman, Wallace, the Georgia boys and Moneymaker and Titmus? No, my point is that without science, then we must rely on other "authorities" to tell us what is truth and what is false. Galileo espoused his heliocentric view and paid for it dearly.......dying while under house arrest. His scientific views (which were correct) were deemed dangerous and subversive! So while science isn't perfect we must be very careful as a people for what we wish for.
norseman Posted February 15, 2011 Admin Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) dbl post sorry Edited February 15, 2011 by norseman
Guest Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 As far as I am concerned the Patterson Gimlin film represents that rather "convincing" photograph. It's over forty years old and it has failed to convince the skeptics. . . . Does this not prove that no photograph, no film, will ever put any of this to rest? So by definition, "unconvincing." The problem (the?) with the PGF is that while a lot of people think it's the best photographic evidence we have, they also seem to work under the impression that it's the best we could have. Check out some game cam photos or wildlife videos on YouTube and you'll appreciate that a bigfoot video could be WAY more convincing than the PGF - and certainly convincing enough to get a lot of biologists seriously interested in the search.
Guest Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 Saskeptic, I can only conclude that if I've ever found evidence of a real bigfoot then other field biologists should have encountered the same. The difference might be that they ignored that evidence or assigned it to some other known. Right, and in my experience, the bolded part is correct. If you're waiting for people who are ignorant of or unconvinced by purported bigfoot evidence to be the ones to "mainstream" bigfoot to the scientific community, you're in for a long wait. It's not about the education or training of the person making the claim, it's about the quality of the evidence.
gigantor Posted February 16, 2011 Admin Author Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) Sorry this thread got sidetracked with the ivory towers talk, it's my fault. Let me try again... The discussion I was trying to start was about how some researchers are using commercial media to fund BF research. Shows like Monsterquest, Paranormal BF, etc are paying for some research which otherwise would never have been done. For example, digitizing the PGF and developing a skeletal model of the supposed BF, analyzing it's "compliant gait" and comparing it to a live human, etc. My point is that although it is entertainment and not pure science, it is good. There are many more scientists involved because they want the exposure and over time it has eroded the "taboo factor" amongst some scientists, for lack of a better expression. If nothing else, it encourages debate. Edited February 16, 2011 by gigantor
norseman Posted February 16, 2011 Admin Posted February 16, 2011 So by definition, "unconvincing." I think the most convincing film is unconvincing because it is a film....yes. The problem (the?) with the PGF is that while a lot of people think it's the best photographic evidence we have, they also seem to work under the impression that it's the best we could have. The memorial day footage and the Freeman footage are no closer to convincing anyone, and yet were shot much later and on more modern equipment. Check out some game cam photos or wildlife videos on YouTube and you'll appreciate that a bigfoot video could be WAY more convincing than the PGF - and certainly convincing enough to get a lot of biologists seriously interested in the search. I have owned several game cameras, most of what they take is junk. They are motion triggered and only shoot for a short segment. Many times all you see is a butt moving out of frame, or branches blowing in the wind. I really am skeptical that any truly "convincing" footage is going to come from this sort of technology. And here again, Fred Eichler's* game cam got 13 frames of something "he could not explain" and skeptics said it was a guy in a ghillie suit. *= Easton's bowhunting journal celeb
Guest ajciani Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 One person's "unconvincing" is another person's "pathological skepticism". Finding biologists, and particularly anthropologists, with the heart of the explorer is downright frustrating. Find a mound in a State park that looks suspiciously like a grave big enough for a 10 foot tall human, and you would be hard pressed to get a credentialed anthropologist to seek permission from the DNR to dig it up. Better chance if you report it to the police (still no guarantee). If you saw some interesting stick structures, and wanted to get an anthropologist's opinion, good luck, even if it's right outside their office window. Now Saskeptic might grab the shovel, but, is he an anthropologist? I thought he was a bird biologist. Just because the shows are paying for some tests, it does not mean that they are funding bigfoot research. Yeah, having a few hours access to thermal equipment and airborne resources can be a plus, and being able to send a half dozen samples in for genetic analysis is better than none, but we really need that kind of access full-time. Honestly, I think those shows might even hurt the subject, because they spend a day researching and come up either empty or with more questions than answers.
Huntster Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) Huntster, on 15 February 2011 - 06:26 AM, said:Why me? Because you and others are the ones complaining about some sort of problem. I complain about crime, too. Does that make me responsible to shoot or apprehend criminals? Does that even make me eligible to shoot or apprehend criminals? Huntster, on 15 February 2011 - 06:26 AM, said:Why not you? I don't see a problem. I'm a biologist who's invested his own time to become educated about the bigfoot phenomenon. My conclusion is that there is no bigfoot outside of folkore. Then, really, wtf are you doing here? Huntster, on 15 February 2011 - 06:26 AM, said:My suspicion is that (unlike me) you do watch TV. Sitcoms, perhaps? An insult, Huntster? It was a question, Professor. See the question mark? And, considering the fact that you spend plenty of time on this forum while proclaiming "that there is no bigfoot outside of folkore" (sic), why wouldn't one think you like sitcoms, too? I do watch television when I get the chance; I don't watch Monsterquest. I think I watched most of one episode once. I don't know anyone outside of the BFF who regularly watches that and similar programs. I don't watch TV, outside Fox news for a half hour in the morning while sucking up a cup of coffee in bed with Mrs. Huntster. I may have watched part of a Monsterquest episode. I rarely watch anything for a full hour, including the news. I even went in and out of the Super Bowl game. I just don't have time for one way communication. I don't really like being communicated at. I like two way communication, even if it's just me asking questions. Edited February 16, 2011 by Huntster
Huntster Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 Thus, complaints that scientists "ignore" great advances in bigfoot research are unfounded: scientists are not aware of such breakthroughs because they don't appear in the mainstream scientific literature. Indeed, scientists don't seem to be aware of much in the way of "breakthroughs" in biology at all, at least here in Alaska. The federal biologists are all wringing their hands about our "Big Four" endangered species (Cook Inlet beluga whales, walruses, polar bears, and Stellar sea lions), and absolutely none of them seem to catch the common thread among every one of them: They have all been exclusively managed by THEM (feds) since passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972, including "subsistence hunting". It's like territorial days all over again. The major driving force behind Alaska statehood was getting resource mismanagement out of federal hands, and they've turned right around, usurped that authority right back, and driven species into endangerment (or claim that they're endangered, when they really aren't). Huntster, on 15 February 2011 - 06:26 AM, said:I would, but that would likely jeopardize my personal life. Probably like you, too, but I'm admitting it. Can you? Cop out. That's right. I copped out. Because I'm afraid of what open advocacy of sasquatchery would do to my personal and political life here. And I openly stated it. I also asked a question. Did you see the question mark, Professor? For crying out loud Huntster, you bang away on this topic all the time, why don't you simply write an anonymous letter to the powers that be so you can at least plant the seed? Who says I haven't? And anybody can see that it has a snowball's chance in Hell of making a difference. An anonymous letter simply doesn't exist. Nobody sees it except the recipient, and he simply throws it away. This forum, however, is multiple anonymous letters on steroids. They can't throw it away. They can't deny it appeared. The best they can do is say that it didn't "appear in the mainstream scientific literature", and thus didn't see it. They were busy watching Laverne & Shirley.
Huntster Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 Success in science results from getting it right. Success on television results from providing entertainment that allows advertisers to sell you things you don't need. Where is the truth more likely to come from? Neither, apparently. We're all waiting for the logging truck driver (in an era of environmental activism, where logging has been driven overseas) or a poacher to deliver the truth. And that has come straight from the keyboard of the resident scientist.
Guest Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 My point is that although it is entertainment and not pure science, it is good. There are many more scientists involved because they want the exposure and over time it has eroded the "taboo factor" amongst some scientists, for lack of a better expression. If nothing else, it encourages debate. No, it just gives the "skeptics" more fuel...how many times right here in this forum has some self-appointed "skeptic" made disparaging remarks about some media presentation or another. I wish it were otherwise. I really do. The ITC has proven itself to be to intellectually inbred, and close-minded. There needs to be a way to bypass them, but I don't think Monsterquest, et al are going to be the ones to do it...the general public is too well indoctrinated by the High Priests of "Science" with the notion that only the chosen few shall pass on the secular canon of "fact".
Guest Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 The discussion I was trying to start was about how some researchers are using commercial media to fund BF research. Shows like Monsterquest, Paranormal BF, etc are paying for some research which otherwise would never have been done. . . . There are many more scientists involved . . . Agreed. There's actually a fairly long history of scientists and "mainstream" wildlife professionals participating in bigfoot research. Heck, Sir Edmund Hillary and Marlin Perkins participated in a yeti expedition in 1960. I wasn't even a glimmer in my daddy's eye back then. No one was more mainstream than Jimmy Stewart, and he famously smuggled an alleged yeti hand back from an Asian sojourn. Nowadays, every time we hear that a DNA sample has been tested and some expert weighs in on the test, that is a "scientist looking into this." Yet the predictable and strident chorus of "science is anti-bigfoot" erupts from the BFF. It bothers me simply because it's not true. norseman: The World Wildlife Fund relies heavily on camera traps to provide documentation of the world's rarest and most elusive mammals. Show me some bigfoot imagery on par with that in the link and we'd be having a very different conversation about bigfoot, I assure you. huntster: You know I come here to spend quality time with you.
Recommended Posts