Modern Researchers Are Bypassing Traditional Academia

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 19 February 2011 - 02:41 PM, said:

It certainly suggests that the 1978 report may have been accurate, which shouldn't be surprising since cougar distribution originally included nearly all of the Western Hemisphere, every major American habitat type, and is still the greatest range of any large, wild terrestrial animal in the Western Hemisphere, and had wildlife managers ignored such reports like they ignore sasquatch reports, gross mismanagement would have been rather easy to demonstrate.

Better?

No, you lost me. The only part that makes sense is the "suggests that the 1978 report may have been accurate" part. Everything else in your statement just sounds like somebody reaching for an opportunity to write something unflattering about a wildlife management agency.

Actually, it was much more gracious than this (which well might be true):

The politics of being the North American Great Ape:

Pennsylvania Game Commission spokesman Jerry Feaser has been quoted by various newspapers as saying the strange looking animal in the Jacobs photos is "definitely" a "skinny mangy bear." People outside of Pennsylvania may not know about the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) and their history of deceitful denials of mountain lions.

A significant percentage of people in PA say the PGC is the least trusted government agency in the state, because the PGC has stated for years, emphatically, that there are no mountain lions in Pennsylvania, even though hundreds of people in Pennsylvania, including many government employees, have seen mountain lions.

It seems that credible people in PA who have clearly seen a mountain lion do not like to be told that they did not see a mountain lion. Until earlier this year (2007) the PGC routinely offered unwavering denials to mountain lion sightings, until a farmer named Roger Madigan saw one, along with several other people, on his farm after a large outdoor party which included a roast pig cookout. Roger Madigan is a Pennsylvania State Senator. Madigan apparently didn't like being told that he did not see a mountain lion, because after his sighting he called a meeting in his office with the PGC, and brought in the only other wildlife agency that could assert jurisdiction over the heads of the PGC regarding the mountain lion issue. That agency was the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The USFWS can assert jurisdiction regarding moutain lions under the Endangered Species Act. The push of the meeting was apparently to force PGC's official position to something more rational-sounding, like "There might be mountain lions in Pennsylvania." The official statement at the end of the meeting stated that USFWS concluded that there "needs to be a study" to determine whether (and if so, how many) mountain lions exist in Pennsylvania. The USFWS now asks the public to send sighting reports of wild mountain lions directly to the USFWS, rather than to the PGC, in apparent recognition of the PGC's long-standing practice of whitewashing any sighting reports sent their way.

Worries about mountain lions might hurt the Pennsylvania Game Commission directly in their pocketbook. The PGC receives all of its funding from the sale of hunting licenses. There is reason to believe the PGC fears that the revenue from hunting licenses might be reduced if hunters were afraid to go into the woods by themselves, due to fear of a mountain lion attack, or if the wives of hunters were too worried to let their husbands go hunting by themselves. Worries about some other strange animal might have the same effect, or so the PGC may fear, as they hinted last week when they chastised the first PA newspaper that ran the story about the Jacobs photos. The PGC claimed the newspaper was "spreading panic" in Pennsylvania.

The very first newspaper to run a story about the Jacobs Photos was the Bradford Era, in Bradford Pennsylvania. Not long after that first newspaper story appeared, the Bradford Era's managing editor was contacted by phone by Jerry Feaser of the PGC and was told the newspaper was doing a "disservice to the public" and "spreading panic" if they did not write a follow-up story with a retraction stating that the strange animal is merely a mangy bear. Feaser said he was "certain" that the Jacob's creature is nothing more than a skinny mangy bear, and offered offered a photo of a skinny mangy bear to the newspaper. Folks at the Bradford Era newspaper thought the bear in the PGC's photo (shown above) looked distinctly unlike the Jacobs creature in various ways, so they did not promote the PGC's assertion that it is a case of mistaken identity, as Feaser urged them to do.

You can find more information about the PGC's history of deceitful denials of wild mountain lions by performing a search on Google with the search string "Pennsylvania Game Commission Mountain Lions".

[southernyahoo]

You forget the most important part: it's vastly more likely to be successful if such creatures exist.

Yes but only if there is some means of knowing they are successful. The evidence encountered in a search might be so indistinguishable from human, that the perception of failure becomes a false negative.

[Guest]

Yes but only if there is some means of knowing they are successful. The evidence encountered in a search might be so indistinguishable from human, that the perception of failure becomes a false negative.

A wild "human" killed in the wilderness that was 7-foot tall, covered in hair, weighed 500 lbs, had enormous feet with mid-tarsal breaks, etc., would prove the existence of bigfoot regardless of its place on a phylogenetic tree of the hominids.

[Guest]

However, the same people who carried on after DuChalliu's discovery were also the types who resisted it's discovery and it's implications to Darwin's theory on "The Descent of Man". While that particular resistance is not as big today, other ideological resistances are clearly in play.

OK, but you can't "resist" for very long once physical remains are obtained. If we actually had a bigfoot and its remains were actually described in a high-profile paper and it was actually curated in a museum, etc., how could someone resist that information? The irrational denialist in your scenario is then painted into a corner. Upon viewing the evidence, he can step out of that corner by stating "son of a gun, I guess I was wrong" or he can stay there and be considered pathologically detached from reality. The former case would merely indicate a particularly bull-headed individual; the latter, someone not at all indicative of the larger scientific/sceptical community.

[Guest RayG]

Why there are still scientists to this day who refuse to believe gorillas exist.

RayG

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 21 February 2011 - 09:22 AM, said:

However, the same people who carried on after DuChalliu's discovery were also the types who resisted it's discovery and it's implications to Darwin's theory on "The Descent of Man". While that particular resistance is not as big today, other ideological resistances are clearly in play.

OK, but you can't "resist" for very long once physical remains are obtained.

Correct. Just as those after DuChaillu's discovery with their "Mr. & Mrs. Gorilla" silliness, there will be a period of time where the current crop of denialists will pooh pooh the discovery either to try to save face or minimize the discovery.

However, like the gorilla discovery and their poor ability to survive long in human captivity perpetuating their rarity, sasquatch's likely low numbers (if not already near extinction) might perpetuate their rarity in human consciousness.

Yet again, the late start by official biologists might bear a great price.

If we actually had a bigfoot and its remains were actually described in a high-profile paper and it was actually curated in a museum, etc., how could someone resist that information?

Through the same type of hardheadedness that inspires them to resist official inquiry today.

The irrational denialist in your scenario is then painted into a corner.

Which is where he belongs, and the only way to get him out of the way of official inquiry.

[Guest]

Actually, it was much more gracious than this (which well might be true):

The PGC has had a long history of friction with some of its constituents, mainly because deer culture rules the Commonwealth. There are big factions among the hunters in PA that generally divide down lines of "good science for effective deer management" and "nostalgia-driven demands for abundant deer within 10 yards of my stand, and 20 yards from a road." There are long-standing (and widely believed) conspiracy stories that the PGC had trucked in cougars and coyotes from "out West" to help reduce the deer herd. I don't know that their official statements about cougars in the state were incompatible with those of neighboring states, but I'm willing to bet that they were dealing with a comparatively larger proportion of irrational, conspiracy-minded hunters among their constituents.

Were any of those Pennsylvanians who thought they had seen cougars submitting physical evidence of cougars that was dismissed? I didn't see that in the linked article. But the senator pushing the issue combined with confirmed reports from other eastern states doesn't strike me as an inappropriate time for the PGC to revisit its official policy on cougars.

Meantime, the Jacobs creature was a bear, and I have no doubt that businesspeople in sleepy Bradford are interested in perpetuating the notion that it was something else. Wanna see something cool in the Bradford area? Those woods are thick with bears, mourning warblers, and Swainson's thrushes, and you can find golden-winged warblers in the young clearcuts. If you're lucky, you might even hear a bugling elk or catch a glimpse of reintroduced fishers and otters. It's also one of the best places in the world to hear the winter wren's clarion song . . .

[norseman]

The PGC has had a long history of friction with some of its constituents, mainly because deer culture rules the Commonwealth. There are big factions among the hunters in PA that generally divide down lines of "good science for effective deer management" and "nostalgia-driven demands for abundant deer within 10 yards of my stand, and 20 yards from a road." There are long-standing (and widely believed) conspiracy stories that the PGC had trucked in cougars and coyotes from "out West" to help reduce the deer herd. I don't know that their official statements about cougars in the state were incompatible with those of neighboring states, but I'm willing to bet that they were dealing with a comparatively larger proportion of irrational, conspiracy-minded hunters among their constituents.

Were any of those Pennsylvanians who thought they had seen cougars submitting physical evidence of cougars that was dismissed? I didn't see that in the linked article. But the senator pushing the issue combined with confirmed reports from other eastern states doesn't strike me as an inappropriate time for the PGC to revisit its official policy on cougars.

Meantime, the Jacobs creature was a bear, and I have no doubt that businesspeople in sleepy Bradford are interested in perpetuating the notion that it was something else. Wanna see something cool in the Bradford area? Those woods are thick with bears, mourning warblers, and Swainson's thrushes, and you can find golden-winged warblers in the young clearcuts. If you're lucky, you might even hear a bugling elk or catch a glimpse of reintroduced fishers and otters. It's also one of the best places in the world to hear the winter wren's clarion song . . .

I don't agree at all.

The pics don't work, here is the blog link:

http://halfsquatch.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html

I think it looks like some sort of starved chimp that has escaped a research lab. No ears, and the back line is wrong.

Edited February 21, 2011 by norseman

[Huntster]

The PGC has had a long history of friction with some of its constituents, mainly because deer culture rules the Commonwealth. There are big factions among the hunters in PA that generally divide down lines of "good science for effective deer management" and "nostalgia-driven demands for abundant deer within 10 yards of my stand, and 20 yards from a road."

And that differs from ungulate management in other states exactly how?

You want amazing fish and game politics? Welcome to Alaska: Commercial, subsistence, "urban", and "local" (not to mention the poor non-residents) are just the beginning of the fray. Throw in the feds and Native organizations and you have a real circus.

There are long-standing (and widely believed) conspiracy stories that the PGC had trucked in cougars and coyotes from "out West" to help reduce the deer herd.

ADFG is blaming a northern pike infiltration of Southcentral Alaska on some sort of "Johnnie Appleseed" kind of guy illegally planting them throughout the area (as if pike fry haven't been riding along in float plane floats from the Yukon drainage for the past 75 years).

Conspiracy theories work both ways, Professor. Yes, even the "educated" do it.

Were any of those Pennsylvanians who thought they had seen cougars submitting physical evidence of cougars that was dismissed?

Again, citizens are under no obligation to conduct the work of the professional biologists whether that has to do with cougars or bigfeet. I never saw the Air Force demanding an alien carcass before they began investigating UFOs in the 1940's. Nor do I hear police demand criminal carcasses before responding to reported crimes.

But the senator pushing the issue combined with confirmed reports from other eastern states doesn't strike me as an inappropriate time for the PGC to revisit its official policy on cougars.

Me, neither. I'm quite used to such "stimuli". With me it's colonels and generals. With state wildlife biologists it's legislators. The message, in short, is: "Get it done. Now."

Meantime, the Jacobs creature was a bear, and I have no doubt that businesspeople in sleepy Bradford are interested in perpetuating the notion that it was something else.

Maybe. It looks like an odd bear to me. Either way, a single still photo is a non-issue when dealing with sasquatchery, no?

Wanna see something cool in the Bradford area? Those woods are thick with bears, mourning warblers, and Swainson's thrushes, and you can find golden-winged warblers in the young clearcuts. If you're lucky, you might even hear a bugling elk or catch a glimpse of reintroduced fishers and otters. It's also one of the best places in the world to hear the winter wren's clarion song . . .

I'm not sure if I'll ever get into that neck of the woods (my travel lust has waned tremendously), but if I do, Mrs. Huntster will certainly plan it for the fall colors.

You know what I'd like to see? I hear what I believe to be Wilson's snipes in the late spring and early summer here in Alaska all the time, but in all my time here, and even after trying to get a peek at one, I still have never seen one. Those things are like ghosts. I now understand what "snipe hunt" is all about.

After pointing out the sound they make while flying to my brother a couple of years ago on a bear hunt, I sent him out to catch it (I told him it was a freaking sasquatch). He could never see the thing. He called it the "woo-woo bird". Later, I told him it was a Wilson's snipe. He didn't believe that, either. So I told him that he'd either have to accept the fact that I sent him on a snipe hunt, that a sasquatch was hanging around our camp calling to him, or he'd have to come up with a better explanation.

He's left that alone...........

[Guest Lesmore]

It seems that researchers today are successfully avoiding the "Ivory Towers" (i.e. universities and academia) by using commercial enterprises to fund research. Witness all of the BF shows paid for by the History channel, the Discovery channel, the National Geographic channel, etc.

All of these companies are vying to produce the best documentary about BF (which draw great ratings) every year. I offer "Paranormal BF" as the latest. They funded a state of the art, science based documentary with plenty of qualified scientists (who want/need the exposure) to spend considerable time and effort on the subject.

No way traditional academia would provide funds for such a lavish examination of the matter. Competition is a great thing.

The objective is different...commercial enterprises on TV....are there to develop and provide entertainment and sell that entertainment, to make money. Nothing wrong with that.

Yes, sometimes there are facts involved....but it's a TV program, first and foremost. In order for it to be a successful TV program, people must want to watch. The number of people who will watch a dry recitation of facts , I would say is not enough to turn a profit. So TV must be entertaining to draw enough people to watch the show.

In the end it's about selling time to advertisers. Advertisers want to ensure that if they are paying for advertising space, time...that the demographics...age, gender, socio-income level, etc....that they want to attract...will watch the show, see their advert and buy their new, improved widget in numbers large enough to turn a profit.

While, Academics are involved in investigations of scientific, historical, archeological , etc....issues, to determine the facts. That is their objective.

They don't have to sell advertising time, they don't have to entertain....but they do have to determine the truth, the facts.... of whatever they are working on.

Do you want to be entertained, or do you want to examine the facts ?

I like both...entertainment and facts. But I do separate the two.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Lesmore

[Guest]

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.

Mulder, that's a bit of a misapplication of the term Groupthink. Groupthink is when a limited group of people essentially discuss & debate a particular topic or situation. Here's the Wiki link explanation. Its worth reading by anyone because Bigfoot Research is by definition isolated and thus group conclusions are highly susceptible to Groupthink.

Irving Janis, who did extensive work on the subject, defined it as: A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.

And

Social psychologist Clark McCauley's three conditions under which groupthink occurs:

• Directive leadership.
• Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.
• Isolation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis.

Essentially they avoid pursuing input from outside the tight group soliciting those who may have more specific qualifications, this omission generally leads to poor rash decisions being made. Some will go so far as to rigorously defend the decisions without offering valid substance for doing so. And yeah, there are one or two examples of this in this field! What possibly happened with the Skookum Cast may be a perfect case in point. There were never any elk experts brought in to thoroughly analyze ALL the evidence so as to rule it out, even when there was plenty of evidence of it being from an elk. Groupthink was how bigfoot was quickly pursued as the cause by a small group, as it was that very morning, even though several attendees expressed their opinion that it was elk but were ignored.

Groupthink is essentially discussions and decisions made in a vacuum Mulder. What you were trying to describe on the other hand on the prior page is just good ole resistance to change or of science not being open minded because it would contradict the status quo of science. Of which I completely agree with you.

I wouldn't have taken the time to raise this either but the term 'Groupthink' is one of those terms that I absorbed back in college so as to better avoid the problem in the future. The field equally needs to be on the lookout for Pareidolia because many purely natural phenomenon found can be easily misconstrued as from our hairy friend. Groupthink and Pareidolia probably feed one another negatively in this field.

Edited February 21, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist

[southernyahoo]

A wild "human" killed in the wilderness that was 7-foot tall, covered in hair, weighed 500 lbs, had enormous feet with mid-tarsal breaks, etc., would prove the existence of bigfoot regardless of its place on a phylogenetic tree of the hominids.

Yes but we are discussing how a search team might gauge their success either before or after discovery. Each search wouldn't need to end in another specimen collected. There would need to be some affirmative sign / evidence to go by in a survey. Establishing that there is a genetic , behavioral and morphological distinction all goes hand in hand.

Edited February 21, 2011 by southernyahoo

[Guest]

I don't agree at all.

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 . . .

[Guest]

You know what I'd like to see? I hear what I believe to be Wilson's snipes in the late spring and early summer here in Alaska all the time, but in all my time here, and even after trying to get a peek at one, I still have never seen one.

Me neither. 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. Woodcock are a different story. I've enjoyed them a lot. They used to display right behind the barn on the farm where I grew up.

[Guest]

Yes but we are discussing how a search team might gauge their success either before or after discovery. Each search wouldn't need to end in another specimen collected. There would need to be some affirmative sign / evidence to go by in a survey. Establishing that there is a genetic , behavioral and morphological distinction all goes hand in hand.

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.