Huntster Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 With relation to the cougar angle, I was in one of those "They're not here states" when I saw one, the ranger the next day told "the other story" and became much more concerned about liability at that point. Point is, in that case, it's about politics and funding, they don't want to acknowledge the cougar presence because they would ahve to be declared endangered within the state and theres apparently a federal mandate to provide funding to protect the species at that point. Bingo. Having been intimately involved in the politics side of fish and game management, I can here assure all that the politics side of wildlife management definitely drives the biological side (not the other way around), and that is Problem #1 with today's fish and wildlife management.
Guest Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 It certainly suggests that the 1978 report may have been accurate, This part works for me. and the attempt to deny the 1978 report suggests yet more official denial and buck passing that we have all become so accustomed to. The two clauses are contradictory. If our hypothetical wildlife agency allows that the new information may suggest that the 1978 account was accurate, then there is no denial.
Guest Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 Bingo. Having been intimately involved in the politics side of fish and game management, I can here assure all that the politics side of wildlife management definitely drives the biological side (not the other way around), and that is Problem #1 with today's fish and wildlife management. Not to mention that the politics side (meant in a generic sense) of education drives the curriculum and what is 'acceptable' and what is written off to the realm of myth and folklore. Once again a closed loop system for the ardent believers in that system. btw: Hunster - having spent some time in various debates I'll bet that you can already see several 'escape strategies' whereby anyone who wants to be a denialist can easily decide to not fulfill fore mentioned wager for a steak/crow meal exchange. I can see several.
Guest Sallaranda Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Since this topic seems to be the best place to pose this question, and the current tangent seems like now is the most appropriate time to post this: -Why, in your opinion, would scientists and researchers neglect to engage in a full-blown investigation on reports of the Bigfoot? Is it purely the financial restrictions, or is there some other factor involved here? Conspiracy theorists run wild with this one, I want to hear your opinions. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that this is simply a money issue. The ends justify the means, and I think we are all aware of the money that could be had in finding Sasquatch and capturing one.
gigantor Posted February 19, 2011 Admin Author Posted February 19, 2011 Inertia. They have already stated that BF does not exist and ridiculed anybody proposing an alternative view, they certainly are not going to go out and attempt to prove themselves wrong.
Guest Sallaranda Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Inertia. They have already stated that BF does not exist and ridiculed anybody proposing an alternative view, they certainly are not going to go out and attempt to prove themselves wrong. Who is they? Certainly not all scientists have publicly acclaimed their disbelief in Sasquatch. And certainly not all Universities have. There's gotta be a scientist out there who proposes research funding to a University that hasn't already stated that BF does not exists.
Guest Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Who is they? Certainly not all scientists have publicly acclaimed their disbelief in Sasquatch. And certainly not all Universities have. There's gotta be a scientist out there who proposes research funding to a University that hasn't already stated that BF does not exists. You don't understand the nature of the "scientific community". It is the institutional embodiment of Groupthink in action. Professors who seriously advocate scientific investigation of BF are literally risking their careers to do so.
Guest Sallaranda Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 You don't understand the nature of the "scientific community". It is the institutional embodiment of Groupthink in action. Professors who seriously advocate scientific investigation of BF are literally risking their careers to do so. I'm of the belief that times are changing, though. Perhaps this just speaks to my youthful naivety, but I truly believe that belief in Sasquatch is becoming much more accepted in academia. Why would the scientific community condemn the belief in Sasquatch? What are they trying to protect by ostracizing those who believe in it.
Guest ajciani Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 -Why, in your opinion, would scientists and researchers neglect to engage in a full-blown investigation on reports of the Bigfoot? Is it purely the financial restrictions, or is there some other factor involved here? Do you mean, why didn't they in 1967 when photographic evidence was first captured, or do you mean why not now? May as well answer both, as they are somewhat the same. In 1967 the response of anthropologists and naturalists to the PGF film was rather cold, maybe even downright frigid. Some institutions did accept Patterson's offer to show the film. Where it was shown, the reactions were reported as mixed. A few tenured anthropologists pursued BF, but most continued to research what they were already researching, which usually involved human fossils, cultures and artifacts. Anthropology is probably not the best department to find people capable of discovering new animals. In 1967, there were also fears of actually finding the "missing link", and Patty looks a lot like one. For the vast majority of anthropologists, I think arrogance in their own knowledge was the primary reason. When scientists think they know something, their minds can often be very closed, and very hard to change, so much so that they will even refuse to entertain what they think is impossible, or goes against the established doctrine. In the modern day, what most scientists think they know about bigfoot is horribly wrong and tainted, on top of the established doctrine. Mention the Patterson film (most don't even know it by name), and they will almost certainly tell you that it was debunked, while everyone here knows that it has withstood a lot of scrutiny, and has never been fully or successfully debunked. Mention tracks, and you will hear that they were all faked by a now deceased hoaxer. They have never heard of the BFRO report database. Mention the possible hair samples, fecal samples, footprint analyses, vocalizations (esp. Sierra recordings), suspected kill sites and predatory behaviors, other videos and tree sign, and you will get a blank and vacant stare in return. I would venture to say that if every anthropologist was even half familiar with the claims out there, this site would have at least 100 anthropologists active on it, and there would be about 1,000 who would take day hikes into their local forests looking for sign.
Guest Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) Don't listen to the conspiracy "groupthink" arguments Sallarandra. 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. If I was to attempt to do a bigfoot expedition, I'd first need to convince some deep pockets somewhere to give me, say, $100,000. I'm not convinced that the evidence presented thusfar justifies the search, so the only way I could make the case to someone else to give me money to look would be to lie. Some people are comfortable lying for monetary gain, me, not so much. If I somehow did obtain that money, I'd have zero confidence that I'd be successful in obtaining a bigfoot specimen. No one's been able to do that yet, it would be the height of hubris to think that I could. So, I'd have $100k to do some field research, but I'd end up with no data and nothing publishable for my efforts. So, the effort would be a waste of my time and the sponsor's money. Scientists aren't anti-bigfoot, we're just pro-reality. It would be great if bigfooters jettisoned this "blame the scientists" nonsense, and just cowboyed up to the realization that the evidence is lacking. Just go find a bigfoot and forget about convincing more scientists to join in the search with tired old rhetoric about coelocanths, dermal ridges, and the PGF. You don't need science to discover bigfoot. Matt Moneymaker could do it tonight, could he not? Edited February 19, 2011 by Saskeptic
Guest Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 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. Because the consensus (ie, the Groupthink) tells them there isn't. If I was to attempt to do a bigfoot expedition, I'd first need to convince some deep pockets somewhere to give me, say, $100,000. I'm not convinced that the evidence presented thusfar justifies the search, so the only way I could make the case to someone else to give me money to look would be to lie. Some people are comfortable lying for monetary gain, me, not so much. Are you sure you want to go down this road? You're dangerously close to outing your true feelings here... If I somehow did obtain that money, I'd have zero confidence that I'd be successful in obtaining a bigfoot specimen. No one's been able to do that yet, it would be the height of hubris to think that I could. So, I'd have $100k to do some field research, but I'd end up with no data and nothing publishable for my efforts. Funny, people spending a lot less have come up with plenty, if the Scientific Community would take off their blinders and take an open-minded look at it... Scientists aren't anti-bigfoot, we're just pro-reality. It would be great if bigfooters jettisoned this "blame the scientists" nonsense It would be great if the "scientists" stopped giving us reason to, and did their jobs. and just cowboyed up to the realization that the evidence is lacking. As defined by the same biased, blindered "scientists".
Huntster Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Hunster - having spent some time in various debates I'll bet that you can already see several 'escape strategies' whereby anyone who wants to be a denialist can easily decide to not fulfill fore mentioned wager for a steak/crow meal exchange. I can see several. Low stakes wager there, and I have a high regard for Saskeptic. He can be assured that his trip to Alaska to pay up would be one of the best adventure trips of his life. I'd treat him to the finest Alaska has to offer. All for a prime rib dinner for Mrs. Huntster and I. If he chooses not to consume a real crow in culinary fashion, I might even try it myself just to let all know what it tastes like. I'm a curious kind of guy. And eating crow in ceremonial fashion doesn't taste so bad when consumed among friends, especially when the reason why it is consumed would be a biologically and anthropologically momentous event like the discovery of a sasquatch.
Huntster Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Since this topic seems to be the best place to pose this question, and the current tangent seems like now is the most appropriate time to post this: -Why, in your opinion, would scientists and researchers neglect to engage in a full-blown investigation on reports of the Bigfoot? Is it purely the financial restrictions, or is there some other factor involved here? Conspiracy theorists run wild with this one, I want to hear your opinions. My suspicions: 1) No current funding 2) (This is key) Nobody wants to be the one to seek funding, anticipating the political and ideological ridicule 3) No officials who might be advocates want to endure what Krantz and Meldrum endure from their peers 4) It's easier to just wait for the truck driver or poacher to solve the mystery for free
Huntster Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 There's gotta be a scientist out there who proposes research funding to a University that hasn't already stated that BF does not exists. Even those in science who may not have already denied the existence of sasquatch are seeking funding, too, for their own passions. Seeking funding is competing for funds with all other "important" research, like the mating habits of porcupines.
Huntster Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Why would the scientific community condemn the belief in Sasquatch? 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". What are they trying to protect by ostracizing those who believe in it. Their ideology.
Recommended Posts