Modern Researchers Are Bypassing Traditional Academia

[Huntster]

huntster:

You know I come here to spend quality time with you.

I actually believe that, and I return the sentiments. And I sincerely hope you don't for a second believe that I don't respect and appreciate you. More, and like I suggest above, I understand why many interested in the phenomenon within science keep sasquatchery at arm's length.

But I also believe that these anonymous letters I'm banging away on here are being pondered. And, as a government official myself, I also fully understand and believe the squeaky wheel principle.

So bear with me as I squeak with each turn of the axle.................

[Guest]

But I also believe that these anonymous letters I'm banging away on here are being pondered. And, as a government official myself, I also fully understand and believe the squeaky wheel principle.

So bear with me as I squeak with each turn of the axle.................

Sure, but I still think you're squeaking at people who lack grease - myself included. And again, this applies forum-wide, not just to Huntster.

[norseman]

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.

Maybe so, but I am sure that the WWF receives funding that would dwarf any amateur researcher.

Trail cameras are a numbers game, with the vast amount of what is taken is simply junk.

I don't know if you have seen it but here is Fred's video:

If that was a moose leaving the camera target area? With only 13 frames in which to judge it? It's value would still be in question. But I get footage like this all the time with my game camera. Maybe the WWF is using higher end stuff?

Edited February 16, 2011 by norseman

[Guest]

Maybe so, but I am sure that the WWF receives funding that would dwarf any amateur researcher.

So? The number of trail cams not operated by the WWF certainly dwarfs the number that are.

Trail cameras are a numbers game, with the vast amount of what is taken is simply junk.

We're not talking about the likelihood of getting a great photo or video, we're discussing its quality once gotten. You've stated that no photographic evidence of bigfoot would make a difference to mainstream scientists in terms of investment in research of the bigfoot phenomenon. In other words, if the PGF can't convince the skeptics, nothing can. (If I've mischaracterized your position, please correct me.) I disagree. I'm trying to make the point that photographic evidence could be far more compelling than the PGF, and I've illustrated that with links to clearly diagnostic imagery of rare and elusive wildlife taken from camera traps. If you show me a video of a bigfoot as unambiguous as, for example, the rhino video I linked, then my personal bigfoot credence level jumps instantaneously from 0% to ~90%. The effort invested to obtain such a video is a separate matter. The point is that if just one surfaces it's a whole new ball game.

I don't know if you have seen it but here is Fred's video:

I had seen it, but I don't get your point. How that video subject could be interpreted as anything other than a human in a jacket I do not know. If you think it's something else, then again, that is ambiguous. Check out the 2nd image in this gallery. Unless you think the subject is somehow not a tapir, then we can agree that this is a convincing, unambiguous photograph of a tapir. Show me a photo of a bigfoot on par with this one and I'll show you a denialist (that was for you, Huntster) ready to completely re-evaluate his opinion of the bigfoot phenomenon.

[Guest]

I also think that there needs to be a way to break the closed loop system that exists in some areas of science.

Reading through this thread I honestly wonder if those within the closed loop cannot even see that they are in that loop.

Academic: "I'm a man of science and if BF existed we scientists would have discovered it long ago so BF is obviously a creature of myth and folklore, but if there is some small remote chance that they are out there somewhere, well, let the uneducated who believe such things prove it."

Uneducated: "Many of us have seen them, we have examined their tracks, scat, sounds and other possible signs. Look at what we have found, look at our pictures, videos and audio recordings and tell me that this isn't at least worth a well funded research project which you guys are so proud of being capable of performing."

Academic: "Well, who are you anyway? Do you think that you can compare to us great scientists who have made great discoveries of the past like Galileo? You can't even prove that two plus two equals four in any meaningful and convincing way."

Isn't it possible that if and when the weight of experiences among the general population reaches some sort of tipping point the academics begin to look like the emperor who has no clothes?

I hope that the more people who have had genuine experiences share those experiences and are taken seriously, at least by one another (and yes there will need be the rooting out of hoaxers and charlatans) the more it will become evident that science has been locked in their closed loop system for a long time and has become in need of another outside influence that can break that loop.

There could very well be other influences that either willingly or unwillingly contribute to the sustaining of such a closed loop system of thinking, as Hunster described above.

If entertainment is focused only on ratings and making a buck and is criticized for that, then the academic antithesis to this is that science is only interested in making discoveries that bring notoriety and more grant bucks to their University, Research group, specialty field even to the point that some scientists lust after making a discovery that will be named after themselves.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Washingtonian

[Guest]

Isn't it possible that if and when the weight of experiences among the general population reaches some sort of tipping point the academics begin to look like the emperor who has no clothes?

The issue there is the assumption that some critical mass of bigfoot sightings by itself proves that there are real bigfoots out there. It doesn't, because it's not about evidence quantity it's about evidence quality. A single bigfoot molar is vastly stronger evidence than 10,000 stories of people who claim to have seen a bigfoot.

[norseman]

So? The number of trail cams not operated by the WWF certainly dwarfs the number that are.

But controlled by whom exactly? How much of this data is being lost because it wasn't a giant white tail buck that was captured? I had read in a hunting forum that Fred almost erased his trail cam footage because he is a bow hunter and didn't really want to deal with the issue of Bigfoot. And look at the Jacob's trail cam photos. I believe the official statement was that it was a mangy bear. I hunt bears with a bow, it's unlike any bear I have ever seen. What it was? I have no idea. But it certainly did not light any fires under the butts of the scientific community, that is for sure.

We're not talking about the likelihood of getting a great photo or video, we're discussing its quality once gotten.

And I would argue that the $199.99 sporting goods trail camera that people buy at Wal Mart is never going to get you there.

You've stated that no photographic evidence of bigfoot would make a difference to mainstream scientists in terms of investment in research of the bigfoot phenomenon. In other words, if the PGF can't convince the skeptics, nothing can. (If I've mischaracterized your position, please correct me.) I disagree. I'm trying to make the point that photographic evidence could be far more compelling than the PGF, and I've illustrated that with links to clearly diagnostic imagery of rare and elusive wildlife taken from camera traps. If you show me a video of a bigfoot as unambiguous as, for example, the rhino video I linked, then my personal bigfoot credence level jumps instantaneously from 0% to ~90%. The effort invested to obtain such a video is a separate matter. The point is that if just one surfaces it's a whole new ball game.

As far as I'm concerned Bigfoot will never be as unambiguous as a Rhino, because people don't dress up as Rhinos.

I had seen it, but I don't get your point. How that video subject could be interpreted as anything other than a human in a jacket I do not know.

Um....the long hair? It's not a human in a jacket, either it's a human in a monkey suit or it's the real deal. Which brings us back to the point of ambiguity, as well as the quality of the picture taken. One thing I want to add is that the chance of Fred Eichler hoaxing that photo is non existent in my mind. His trail cam could have been hoaxed though, by a unknown party.

If you think it's something else, then again, that is ambiguous. Check out the 2nd image in this gallery. Unless you think the subject is somehow not a tapir, then we can agree that this is a convincing, unambiguous photograph of a tapir. Show me a photo of a bigfoot on par with this one and I'll show you a denialist (that was for you, Huntster) ready to completely re-evaluate his opinion of the bigfoot phenomenon.

Again, if there was a rash of Tapir hoaxing going on? Then you might find that the quality of that photo to be wanting. The snout is too long, too much eye shine, not enough eye shine, it's lumpy, it's legs are too short. So forth and so on. The ambiguousness of any Sasquatch photo is that there is always the possibility of a hoax.

The PGF isn't a "snapshot" of time, it's a movie that shows Sasquatch walking through an area that's background can be measured with authority.

Make no mistake it can still be a guy in a monkey suit, but the complexities of getting it right for 30 or 40 seconds compared to a single photo (or a 13 frame clip) from a trail camera are much higher, in my mind. And yet it's dismissed as a hoax too.

No, I put zero faith in any trail camera proving anything to anyone.

[Guest]

I think we're still kind of in apples v oranges territory, norseman.

But controlled by whom exactly?

Who cares? Again, the point is not how difficult it would be to get such a photo, it's the value of such a photo as evidence to convince mainstream science that there might be bigfoots out there.

And look at the Jacob's trail cam photos. I believe the official statement was that it was a mangy bear. I hunt bears with a bow, it's unlike any bear I have ever seen. What it was? I have no idea. But it certainly did not light any fires under the butts of the scientific community, that is for sure.

No, that's not at all "sure." In fact, the Jacobs' photos attracted a great deal of attention from legitimate scientists and wildlife biologists. That it was demonstrated to be a bear was simply seen an unpopular result by some in the bigfoot community who now perpetuate this unfounded notion that it didn't attract attention. It did. It was a bear.

And I would argue that the $199.99 sporting goods trail camera that people buy at Wal Mart is never going to get you there.

If a bigfoot walked right up to a $200 camera and urinated on the tree to which it was attached that camera wouldn't produce an image clear enough to tell? Again, forget the likelihood of that happening and focus on the unlikely event that a bigfoot is well photographed by a good camera. There are good cameras out there even if you think most of them are useless.

Check out these photos of a wild chimp. If you think we have bigfoot photos this good that are being ignored by science then . . . well then I guess I can't help you.

As far as I'm concerned Bigfoot will never be as unambiguous as a Rhino, because people don't dress up as Rhinos.

<Cue RayG providing photo of some dude in a rhino suit in 3-2-1 . . . >

Right, that's an important point. With bigfoot, we always have to be on guard against hoaxing. That's why in my scenario of us getting some awesome photographic evidence of bigfoot that evidence, in and of itself, could only get me to about 90% certainty of bigfoot. I'd need to leave some wiggle room so that the event could be investigated and provide the opportunity for corroborating evidence. But wouldn't it be awesome, let's say from Mulder's or Huntster's standpoint, to have a photo they could show a denialist like me that could propel me 90% of the way toward belief in a physical bigfoot, in an instant? If we had just one bigfoot photo of the clarity and quality of the chimp photos linked above, it would send shock waves through the zoological community such as we've not seen in our lifetimes.

Um....the long hair? It's not a human in a jacket, either it's a human in a monkey suit or it's the real deal. Which brings us back to the point of ambiguity, as well as the quality of the picture taken.

Right, if you can't tell what it is then it's not good, unambiguous evidence. I didn't see any long hair.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 16 February 2011 - 06:28 AM, said:

But I also believe that these anonymous letters I'm banging away on here are being pondered. And, as a government official myself, I also fully understand and believe the squeaky wheel principle.

So bear with me as I squeak with each turn of the axle.................

Sure, but I still think you're squeaking at people who lack grease - myself included.

I don't. First, you have already informed us that you have lectured professional wildlife biologists on the subject of sasquatch (including USFWS), and have even pointed out the possibility of legal repercussions if they have mismanaged the species through inaction.

That is grease, Professor. More grease than I could ever get with an anonymous letter or two to game boards, departments, biologists, etc.

That doesn't even include the eyes reading these very posts among other forum members, not to mention lurkers. The number of lurkers on forums is amazing. A simple google search inspired by simple curiosity might very well land some critical eyes on this very post. That includes environmental organizations, environmental zealots, environmental lawyers, professional wildlife biologists (especially those who might have seen something that has them wondering, like the ADFG biologist in the Eric Muench story on POW Island), anthropologists, primatologists, etc. Eventually, somebody within the scientific industry is going to stand up and point out the responsibility science has to invest some effort. Henry Gee is already doing so:

....Science presented as a list of pre-digested facts that we must obediently learn is rightly condemned as dull - but that's not what science is about. No, science is a long list of unanswered questions, a voyage into the unknown, a quest to reach for things slightly beyond our grasp. Be honest, now: who'd really rather go on an adventure with Indiana Jones than be lectured at by Richard Dawkins?

Even today, when science is so often a world of pristine laboratories and humming machinery, the old-fashioned, down-and-dirty spirit of adventure pokes through. Just when you'd imagine that everyone has an iPod, and that we'd shaken every tree and looked behind every bush on the planet, some creature walks into view that is entirely new to science.

Not tiny creatures, either, such as sea urchins living obscurely on the ocean floor, miles below the surface; or near-microscopic wasps that lay their eggs in the pupae of jungle-living butterflies; or bacteria only found in sulphurous slag heaps. Sure, such things are being found all the time, and each and every one is a wonder. Oh noes, I'm talking about big creatures that everyone would recognise as such, living on land accessible to people with no special equipment except their own eyes.........

.......The saola is, in fact, so shy and secretive that it wasn't until 1998 that it was photographed alive in the wild - and then only fleetingly. In 1999 it disappeared from view altogether. It was only in September 2010 that a live saola was captured. It obligingly stayed alive long enough to pose for its portrait whereupon it expired, presumably unaccustomed it its unwanted celebrity. The number of saola in existence is unknown, but it is likely to be small, and getting smaller all the time.

The saola joins a select band of large mammals discovered relatively recently, all of which are (not surprisingly) rare to the point of vanishment. A wild pig, the Chacoan peccary, Catagonus wagneri, was known only from fossils until it turned up on the wild borders of Bolivia, Paraguay and Argentina in 1975, and is believed to be hanging on by its trotters.

A wild ox called the kouprey, Bos sauveli, a cousin to the saola, was described in Cambodia in 1937. There were around 1,000 of them in 1940; down to around 100 in 1969; and it hasn't been seen at all since 1983. This strongly suggests extinction, as creatures as big and beefy as the kouprey would be hard to miss.

Other creatures hardly touch the zoology texts before disappearing entirely: the red gazelle, Eudorcas rufina, is only known from skins discovered in Algerian souks in the nineteenth century. It has never been seen alive............

...........If stone tools are any guide, human beings - of one sort or another - have been living on the relatively far-flung island of Flores in Indonesia for a million years at least. By "one sort or another" I mean exactly that - as far as we know, modern humans didn't arrive on Flores until a little before 10,000 years ago. The previous residents were (presumably) related to the extinct form Homo erectus.

The announcement in 2004 of an entirely unknown species of extinct human that lived on Flores - Homo floresiensis, or "The Hobbit" - caused a sensation. The small size and unique morphology of this creature is still a field of battle between those who contend that it is a real species, against those who think it is a diseased form of modern human. But what is really remarkable is the age. Initial findings showed that H. floresiensis lived on Flores from before 38,000 years ago to as recently as 18,000 years ago. Further work extended the range from as long ago as 95,000 years to as recently as 12,000 years ago.

Given the great age of the Earth, 12,000 years is very much less than an eyeblink. That an animal became extinct 12,000 years ago, or yesterday, hardly matters, for in the great scheme of things, this difference is insignificant. If the Chacoan peccary came to life from fossils, and if the saola emerged alive - if only just - from the Annamites, it is entirely legitimate to ask whether H. floresiensis, or something like it, still exists, or, perhaps, became extinct in historical times: a human version of the red gazelle, perhaps.

And if one admits H. floresiensis to the canon, what of other celebrated mythical beasts - if not necessarily Nessie, then the orang pendek of Malaysia? The yeti? The sasquatch? Bigfoot? Are all such creatures the products of delusion, conspiracy theories and hoax? Perhaps - but not necessarily. The little we know of those large mammals on the fringes of knowledge suggests that they live in remote places, are very shy, are extremely rare, and that to find them before they become extinct requires a degree of luck. So far, no hard evidence for yetis (say) has emerged. But in a world that hosts H. floresiensis and the saola, the kouprey and the red gazelle, one should keep an open mind.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Huntster

[Guest]

The issue there is the assumption that some critical mass of bigfoot sightings by itself proves that there are real bigfoots out there. It doesn't, because it's not about evidence quantity it's about evidence quality. A single bigfoot molar is vastly stronger evidence than 10,000 stories of people who claim to have seen a bigfoot.

Then that is your assumption, not mine. Where did you get the idea that I was talking about a critical mass of knowledge equals proof?

We already have several States that claim quite clearly that there are no large cats within their borders, but when you go talk to the farmers or ranchers in the outlying areas they have seen them and some have even suffered loss in their livestock herds to them. Those State's game biologists will swear up and down that cougars simply aren't there, people are seeing large house cats and mistaking them for cougars, all they while they don't realize how ridiculous they sound to those who know better by experience, or they are caught in their own circular mindset as I see in this thread.

Like one rancher said - "the game warden told me that we don't have cougars here, but then he also told me that if I see one that I should not shoot it".

It seems that the deniers use this same kind of doubletalk when it comes to BF.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

I think these two folks don't get enough shout outs here, John Mionczynski and Dr. Anna Nekaris. Dr. Meldrum always gets top billing over these two. Anyone else agree? I think if there were more like these people, bigfoot wouldn't stand a chance lol. These people are traditional academia. They have mega-credentials outside of the world of bigfoot. Btw, there are more in other countries. Scientists in England and China are not as embarrassed as we are in North America.

The first time I saw anything about John Mionczynski was on a show called The Desert Speaks. The show has nothing to do with bigfoot, it's about deserts. He is a wildlife biologist and he left a pretty good impression on me after I heard him speak about Wyoming (again, it wasn't about bigfoot). Definitely a bright individual. I was surprised later to see him in tow with Dr. Meldrum on (can't think of the name) some History Channel bf special.

You may recognize Dr. Nekaris (Oxford Brookes University) from that Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide program that recently aired. She is way cool in my book. She has been to many many countries studying primates. She discovered six different types of primates.

This video is long but if you are bored, it's pretty interesting.

Dr. Nekaris

I'm not trying to make a statement or anything..... just giving props to people who deserve it. Okay ....done.... now back to bickering.

Edited February 17, 2011 by FuriousGeorge

[Guest]

Where did you get the idea that I was talking about a critical mass of knowledge equals proof?

From this sentence in your previous post:

"Isn't it possible that if and when the weight of experiences among the general population reaches some sort of tipping point the academics begin to look like the emperor who has no clothes? "

We already have several States that claim quite clearly that there are no large cats within their borders, but when you go talk to the farmers or ranchers in the outlying areas they have seen them and some have even suffered loss in their livestock herds to them. Those State's game biologists will swear up and down that cougars simply aren't there, people are seeing large house cats and mistaking them for cougars, all they while they don't realize how ridiculous they sound to those who know better by experience, or they are caught in their own circular mindset as I see in this thread.

Have you considered what it's like to be sent hundreds of photographs of housecats, dogs, and obviously canid footprints with claims that they are/were made by cougars? My mammalogy professor (20+ years ago - pre-Internet) was on an eastern state's task force to investigate cougar sightings. Back then he claimed that they had a database of over 3000 sightings amassed over the years, and not one of them provided any corroborating evidence - though many of the "witnesses" claimed that their photos of cats and dogs were definitive proof.

So cut the state wildlife folks a bit of slack - they deal with nutjobs, the woefully ignorant, and the well educated but mistaken on a daily basis. I think if you actually dissect their official statements, you'll find them carefully worded: "We have no evidence of a breeding population of cougars" is not the same as "There are no cougars." Now that we're getting better physical evidence of cougars in eastern states, the state biologists are re-evaluating their positions. This is wholly appropriate, not embarrassing backtracking. In light of new information, you modify your opinion. If a cougar gets killed on a road in Calvert County, Maryland today, that doesn't mean that the guy who claimed he saw one in that same county in 1978 really did. By the same token, if norseman shoots a bigfoot today, that doesn't automatically legitimize the bigfoot report from Staten Island.

[Huntster]

Like one rancher said - "the game warden told me that we don't have cougars here, but then he also told me that if I see one that I should not shoot it".

That's a quote that should be enshrined in doublespeak. It also reflects officialdom's position on sasquatch.

They refuse to accept (or even investigate reports) that they exist, demand that they want unequivocal proof like a carcass, yet have such blanket statements in their hunting regs like this:

Look up the species you want to hunt and check for an open season - if it is open, you may hunt it. If the species is not listed, you may NOT hunt that species.

(Italicize, color, and bolding as it appears in the Alaska Hunting Regulations).

It seems that the deniers use this same kind of doubletalk when it comes to BF.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

A plus for this excellent observation and post. Thank you.

[Huntster]

I think these two folks don't get enough shout outs here, John Mionczynski and Dr. Anna Nekaris. Dr. Meldrum always gets top billing over these two. Anyone else agree?

Yes, I agree. Mionczynski's encounter is powerful, and I am impressed with his willingness to openly talk about it.

Okay ....done.... now back to bickering.

Thanks. I agree with that, too.

[Guest Rick1901]

We call them Mountain lions in Maine, people have been seeing them for years. I saw one in 1994 and was told "we don't have any" in those words! I have been seeing them on a regular basis as well as wolves. A female mountain lion was hit by a car in southern Maine on Rt 4 about three years ago. A wolf was killed by a hunter in Central Maine 8 years ago a fined for it a couple of weeks after the wildlife biologists said there were none in Maine

From this sentence in your previous post:

"Isn't it possible that if and when the weight of experiences among the general population reaches some sort of tipping point the academics begin to look like the emperor who has no clothes? "

Have you considered what it's like to be sent hundreds of photographs of housecats, dogs, and obviously canid footprints with claims that they are/were made by cougars? My mammalogy professor (20+ years ago - pre-Internet) was on an eastern state's task force to investigate cougar sightings. Back then he claimed that they had a database of over 3000 sightings amassed over the years, and not one of them provided any corroborating evidence - though many of the "witnesses" claimed that their photos of cats and dogs were definitive proof.

So cut the state wildlife folks a bit of slack - they deal with nutjobs, the woefully ignorant, and the well educated but mistaken on a daily basis. I think if you actually dissect their official statements, you'll find them carefully worded: "We have no evidence of a breeding population of cougars" is not the same as "There are no cougars." Now that we're getting better physical evidence of cougars in eastern states, the state biologists are re-evaluating their positions. This is wholly appropriate, not embarrassing backtracking. In light of new information, you modify your opinion. If a cougar gets killed on a road in Calvert County, Maryland today, that doesn't mean that the guy who claimed he saw one in that same county in 1978 really did. By the same token, if norseman shoots a bigfoot today, that doesn't automatically legitimize the bigfoot report from Staten Island.