Guest DWA Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 It is always a case of persistence trying to get video of a known animal. We've known about Siberian tigers forever. First video: 2009. We've known about the Bornean race of the Sumatran rhinoceros forever. (Pretty dumb; follows trails that look like roads, on an island that is getting logged away by the day.) First video, after 10 years of trying: 2007. (No confirmed sightings - sightings - in 20 years. First still photo: the year before. Yeah, all those people with camera phones in their pockets should get a clear sasquatch photo by the end of the century. Or never.) Why is anyone complaining when, by the standards of modern biology, we haven't even started yet?
dopelyrics Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) I guess the skeptics complain when we say they are real, but we can't prove it. I sort of get that why they might do that. So, DWA, we should expect a decent photo/film...but we don't know when? OK. I'll hang on. Lee Edited January 4, 2013 by dopelyrics
Guest DWA Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 The skeptics have to wait for the scientific community to get interested, same way as we do. I'm OK with letting them stew. It's not like we are personally responsible for convincing them.
dopelyrics Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Sure, but how is the scientific community going to get interested if there is nothing of worth (in their mind) to show them? And do you mean we are not personally responsible for convincing the skeptics or science? Or both? And actually, aren't science and skeptics in the same boat, for the most part? Who is the onus on to prove to these people that these animals do in fact exist? Do you think a decent film/photo is good enough to pique their interest? I'm thinking probably not, now. Best. Lee
Guest DWA Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 The onus is always on the mainstream of science to resolve scientific controversies. Of which this is one. They get no points for continually yammering about no proof. Proof is their job. Nobody's believing the proponents, right?
dopelyrics Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Bigfoot a scientific controversy? According to the believers, yes. According to "mainstream" science? Not so much. In which case, looks like we'll be waiting a little bit longer for that proof unfortunately. Lee
Guest DWA Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Bigfoot a scientific controversy? According to the believers, yes. According to "mainstream" science? Not so much. In which case, looks like we'll be waiting a little bit longer for that proof unfortunately. Lee And there's where mainstream science has it utterly wrong. They don't recognize the evidence as evidence...when it is precisely this sort of evidence that has led to everything else science has confirmed, and the sasquatch has accumulated more of it than any other phenomenon ever has before the society confirmed it as real. Until mainstream effort, rhetoric and $$$$ are full-time involved in this, forget proof barring luck no one should bet on.
dopelyrics Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 You are spot on, and that's what I'm getting at, DWA. Therefore, the onus has to be on the believers to get the scientific community to sit up and take notice. Because they're not interested. Stating how difficult it is to film other known, but elusive animals, is completely futile, worthless even. Maybe not amongst the believers, but for others, it is. Lee
Guest DWA Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Well then, it stands to reason that waiting for - or talking - about that isn't going to get it done. And this is par for the course. Scientists never come to the truth as a body. A tiny minority challenges accepted paradigms. Others accrete like sand grains over time (the time varies). And all of a sudden (not), everybody thinks it's obvious. But that takes time. And if the mainstream isn't seeing anything to make them interested (more accurately: anything to make enough of them surf the tide of ridicule on which the pioneers earn their spurs) ...then well, we will just need to be patient. Me, I got all the time in the world. The evidence tells me what to think.
Guest Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 The position of the TBRC is that while film or photos might have an evidentiary value with regard to behavior, etc., they cannot and never will constitute "proof" of anything. Individual opinions can vary on this subject, but we've had lengthy internal conversation about it (especially after releasing what I think are some of the best photos of an wood ape ever taken which were quickly and roundly dismissed by skofitcs unwilling to even read the associated article) and our position is firm and not open for reconsideration. Analogies of how long it took to capture footage of any animal is a little like comparing apples and kumquats since you need to also control for differences in environment (density of foliage, etc.), the subject's relative intelligence level, their "stealthiness," and (perhaps most importantly) their population size, among many other things. I can tell you for a fact there are a lot of wolves in the forests of the upper Midwest. I've seen them and their tracks on countless occasions. They travel in packs along roads and trails making all kinds of sounds and, until very recently, have not been hunted for decades. How long it takes to get a video or picture of one of them really isn't applicable to any conversation about wood apes, though the difficulty in capturing an image of one even given these differences is an excellent parable for how hard it is to get any images of all but the most abundant and stupid wildlife. Bottom line, we are not trying to capture images of wood apes for purposes of proving their existence. Maybe we will get an image at some point and maybe we'll publish it if we do, but we don't have any illusions that anything we film or photograph will move the debate on this animal's existence downfield at all. We played that game for six or seven years and have moved on.
dopelyrics Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) Bipto - I get your points about apples and kumquats. Also, when I first heard you guys you were after a body, I was completely against the idea. But it's obvious a picture/film won't do. I'll also admit that I automatically thought "hoax" when I saw your wood ape photos, before I read the background to them. Whilst I am still not convinced, it's further proof that photos aren't up to it. Cheers. Lee Edited January 4, 2013 by dopelyrics
Guest DWA Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Oh yeah, I don't think anybody is betting on photographic evidence moving the needle on this. The photos you link (and that BFRO cellphone set from WA) are compelling if one reads the backstory, which shows a big mobile object, much better described by witnesses than clear in the photos, that obviously isn't a terrain feature of any kind and is way bigger than a human put on the site for comparison. But the unwillingness of people to read stuff (or generally educate themselves before pronouncing sentence) just illustrates what I always say. Every American knows two things: how to paddle a canoe and Bigfoot isn't real.
Drew Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) The position of the TBRC is that while film or photos might have an evidentiary value with regard to behavior, etc., they cannot and never will constitute "proof" of anything. Individual opinions can vary on this subject, but we've had lengthy internal conversation about it (especially after releasing what I think are some of the best photos of an wood ape ever taken which were quickly and roundly dismissed by skofitcs unwilling to even read the associated article) and our position is firm and not open for reconsideration. Please understand, that you compared the photos in your own report, to a picture of Patty. While this seem fine to someone who thinks Patty is a real living Bigfoot, to most skeptics, and many Bigfoot believers, Patty is clearly a person in a suit. Your wood ape definitely looks like Patty unfortunately, so for you to say they are the 'best photos of an wood ape ever taken', leaves something to be desired. Edited January 4, 2013 by Drew
Guest DWA Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 To anyone to whom Patty is "clearly" a person, all I have to say is: I'm glad you aren't making other important judgments for me. Just saying.
WSA Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 I think the divide between those who view evidence as only a lack of proof, and those who view each new piece of evidence as an increase in the probability of proof, is unlikely to ever be bridged. For me though the bigger, more important, question is: should more money, time, expertise and resources be allocated for the pursuit? Whatever side of the divide you stand on, I think the default answer always has to be "yes." I also am inspired by the TBRC's willingness to push it all a little further. Thanks for that.
Recommended Posts