Once And For All

[BobbyO]

BobbyO, it took me two weeks to get over that shock! I'd never ever really considered it before my first two encounters which were three days apart. Totally shook my world up. Complete paradigm shift. The last four months have been quite a ride.

Lucky you, i'm on 15 years or so and it still freaks me out at times badly..

[Cotter]

If field biologists are trained to intrepret BF evidence, doesn't that pay creedence to the belief in field biologist circles that it is an accepted animal?

Jerry - do you have any knowledge of field biologists being trained in BF related evidence as it pertains to field observations?

[Guest]

So a biologist has to be trained in evidence of a new species to find it? If that were the case we'd hardly be able to find any new animal.

My point is that a while a bigfoot enthusiast might see phyical evidence for bigfoot, a field researcher might see the same evidence belong to something else or as inconclusive.

[Guest]

If bigfoot is like a human, it shouldn't matter. Human intelligence doesn't prevent indigenous tribe from being found.

Does when they don't wanna be found. There's some small tribes in South America, and New Guinea that refuse contact and we only know anything of them from contacted neighbor tribes. Then there's the case of the surviving Yahi in California who decided to go off the radar for decades until the last member "Ishi" decided to break cover and tell their tale. Some of the larger tribal units, are known from aerial survey, on account of having identifiable villages, however, smaller units believed to be "highly mobile hunter gatherers" haven't been documented in this way.

[Cotter]

@Jerry - My point was, field biologists would NEVER attribute BF evidence to BF. It would be reckoned and reasoned as ANYTHING else before BF.

Then, there's the whole aspect of stick structures, tree breaks, footprints, wood knocks, etc etc that a field biologist could potentially ignore entirely if it isn't in the realm of their study.

In order for a field biologist to be able to discern BF evidence, they have to be aware of what BF evidence potentially looks like.

[Guest]

My point is that a while a bigfoot enthusiast might see phyical evidence for bigfoot, a field researcher might see the same evidence belong to something else or as inconclusive.

Probably they will, hence the requirement that they are made aware of the possibility that there's a 1 in 100 shot of some trace evidence not belonging to another mammal or man. 99 times out of a hundred they will be right. Leaves or bark stripped, deer did it, rotten log rolled or broke open bear did it, 'yote howls actually belong to 'yotes most of the time, wilderness campers make debris shelters, rangers make slash piles, and bear poop is bear poop, but ... that one time out of a hundred... IF it was actually analysed and not glanced at and immediately dismissed as being the 99% ... then there might be something a little different about it...

So unfortunately, field biologists experience may lead them astray, by complacency in the face of "familiar at first glance" evidence. Unless there was one of the utmost patience and desire to be rigorous, then I don't think he'd get us anywhere. Would also need one that's not subject to the irrational rejection problem.

(I wanna see a psychology experiment where one group is told from a reliable source that there is a needle in a haystack, another told from an unreliable source, another group with a unreliable source and a mole denying there is one, another group with reliable and mole, and another group with a highly unreliable source giving rise to significant doubt with a mole who is reliably informed the needle is there.... would be interesting to compare their relative efficiencies in finding the "needle".)

[Guest]

Does when they don't wanna be found. There's some small tribes in South America, and New Guinea that refuse contact and we only know anything of them from contacted neighbor tribes. Then there's the case of the surviving Yahi in California who decided to go off the radar for decades until the last member "Ishi" decided to break cover and tell their tale. Some of the larger tribal units, are known from aerial survey, on account of having identifiable villages, however, smaller units believed to be "highly mobile hunter gatherers" haven't been documented in this way.

Interesting, but I didn't think there's a parallel with bigfoot. If the hunter gatherers where sighted as often and as widespread as bigfoot has, then they probably would have been found. So again, apples and oranges.

[ShadowBorn]

Let's say that some scientific organizations decided to give a shot at documating bigfoot. With enough funding they cumbed through key bigfoot areas like the forests of the PNW. After say 5 years they came up empty. Would that make you doubt bigfoot's existance?

No

[Guest]

If the hunter gatherers where sighted as often and as widespread as bigfoot has, then they probably would have been found.

You are saying the fact that they are in your opinion more elusive disproves the idea that a hominid could be a little less elusive.

[salubrious]

Really? I must have seen one of the "wanting to be found" Bigfoot. It stepped right out in front of me in broad daylight, and stood there for about 5 minutes. Guess they only have "super vision" at night.

The ones I saw were sitting right in the middle of the road! Edited November 15, 2012 by See-Te-Cah NC
Staff Edit

[southernyahoo]

Let's say that some scientific organizations decided to give a shot at documating bigfoot. With enough funding they cumbed through key bigfoot areas like the forests of the PNW. After say 5 years they came up empty. Would that make you doubt bigfoot's existance?

I would think the scientific community would just confront the BF research community and say "show me whatcha got"! This would then either settle it in proving the researchers have nothing, or it will set the stage for a huge crow BBQ.

[BobbyO]

The ones I saw were sitting right in the middle of the road!

Were they really Sal ?

That's quite mad.

Is your sighting documented anywhere ?

Edited November 15, 2012 by See-Te-Cah NC
Edit of quote

[Rockape]

Check here Bobby O

[gigantor]

That is a loaded question it has a lot of avenues to explore.

3. Was the crew knowledgeable of the woods or just a bunch of boners

:lol:

I think you mean, Archaeologists...

[southernyahoo]

My point is that a while a bigfoot enthusiast might see phyical evidence for bigfoot, a field researcher might see the same evidence belong to something else or as inconclusive.

Correct, a field biologist would be predisposed to assume it belonged to a known animal. He/she would not conclude it was from a new species without testing the evidence. So, unless this was their objective they would likely pass it up. Bear researchers might collect a Sas hair sample though, it might be interesting to see how many of those tested as "something else".