"squatchholm" Syndrome

[Guest]

For the most part, I tend to discuss sasquatch with those who are serious about the topic.

I know what I saw beyond the shadow of a doubt. You will find that I am also a skeptic, and have little patience for shenanigans.

I would love for proof of its existence to come to light, however, wanna-believers, hoaxers and such trend to muck it up. (wanna-believers are my term for those people who want to believe in sasquatch so bad that they believe anything, and have little to no objectivity. Rick Dyer's target audience.)

I was raised with a healthy respect for the scientific method. Now I want to know what they are, and why they are like they are. To me, they have been proven to exist.

I hope everybody gets the chance to see one, but it isn't my responsibility to show anyone anything.

[1980squatch]

JDL's PM story reminded me of an incident I had back in the late 80's. I was in grad school at IU and saw a notice that there would be a presentation and discussion of the Bigfoot phenomenon. Excitedly I went, not planning on sharing really - but just to be in a group interested and I assumed serious about the topic was a bit of a thrill. I join a group prior to the talk, and right away some women states "I would love to talk to one of those people who actually claims to have seen one". Everyone else laughs, and it is very clear all present think the whole thing is a joke and anyone claiming to be a witness is a freak. I back out, walked away, and continued my total silence for almost 10 more years.

Prior to the Internet folks, total isolation for witnesses was the norm.

[southernyahoo]

Maybe I have a alpha personality, but if I saw a no ******** Squatch.........and somebody called me "mistaken" or a "kook" or a "impressionable person". I would want to take concrete evidence and shove it straight down their gullet. But that's me.

If you think your going to get that "aha" footage, or picture or audio that is going to convince skeptics? I think you have a rude awakening headed your way........sorry.

If your doing it for your own satisfaction? So be it.

You do have to decide what you are after in this, and whether you want a suvenier or proof for the masses, then set your own poersonal boundries. Killing something that is bilogicly human will not sit well with me, so would rather see novel DNA discovered. When you look at the definition of proof and you understand that proof is literally a concept of the mind accepting a set of facts as truth or reality you realize you are still using faith, even if you see a specimen on TV.

[Guest]

Norseman actually has a very well thought-out plan. If anyone is going to shoot one of these, I hope it's him BECAUSE it looks to me like he's going about it the right way. He knows how he's going to get it, how he's going to get it out and what he's going to do with it afterwards.

While I am in the no-kill camp, I do think someone eventually WILL kill one, and I hope they at least use the incident to the best conclusion, rather than squandering the opportunity. I reluctantly concede that a type specimen will likely be needed because so far no one is coming up with conclusive evidence in any other way. At that point, his goal is species protection, and that I concur with, even though I don't think they need it (though their habitat does).

[Guest]

great comments here and I see my own experience echoed.

JDL thanks for the time to speak as well as the rest.

Grayjay brings up a great point, and I can say i have never been able by Fed-X dvd June 2009, or email or FB (2012) to get a response from Meldrum. Intially, I thought, must be very busy as head of Bigfoot topics. Now I have GrayJay's view.

Similar experience with BFRO, but another layer of complication there as their head honcho was still liberally presenting himself as a lawyer which probably made talking to a real one threatening. But I didn't realize he wasn't, as his website bio said he was and I felt my situation was too small to bother.

I wasn't even aware of the Georgia hoax it came and went so fast....had to hear that from Biscardi himself..who BTW was the only BFer to respond and offer $$ help..yeah true...but his ideas then were capture or kill and I was most definitely feeling love form my subjects...so I was difficult for those types too, and chose to not take him up on his offers....

Local BF hunters were worse, engaging in classic backstabbing BFer behavior, as well as exaggerations (put nicely), or misrepresentations about the area and their experiences . At the time I thought not my public battle....and refrained from ever trouncing on their antics.

I actually had a contract with one well known group when I decided to be more public in the Fall of 09, which oddly resulted in their vanishing in Spring '10, no response to phone or email...months into the agreement...wow again.....frustrated at the lack of professionalism among BFers I vowed, that's it...silence!

But, the trips continued b/c things had gotten so deep.

Then RL's blog pops up sometime (for me) in the summer of 2011...what an eyeopener! And b/c the Sierra Kills so emotional prompted an online comment which grew into online contacts, and unfortunately a boatload of info about BFers I don't want to know..but, it explained what happened to me. I imagine we will have more to read from him as things eventually play out....

...Since then the local boys have destroyed the site and their own credibility, but still offer DVDs for sale and make outrageous claims. Erickson tanked financially apparently. The BFRO launched into Finding Bigfoot and MM appears to have at least removed active references to his lawyerness.

Meldrum seems distant from MM (in 2008 they were buddies it seemed b/c of the Legend book) and even writing an article about how he is open to a "human BF." Also starting his own on-line peer review for BF topics and doing those things one does to get funding (joining Falcon Project - Meldrum's bias might be for money not theory...makes sense.).

And as importantly, Wally's money seems to be reaching several groups and people....rather than just BFRO. Wally Hersom has been a player in this for some time, perhaps a decade, and I believe drove a lot of past events, not by directing it, but funding it, and remaining somewhat insulated....hard to see reality if the windows are foggy?

My experience may have less to with me and more about the forces/alliances/hopes/anger etc of those already entrenched in Bigfootery....and had I known then what I know now ......lol, ah, it doesn't matter as I did learn a lot from the ground up.

Bottom line? There isn't one..too many people, too many purposes and cross purposes, and only one in academia...why would we hang around this insanity? Because of our witness...

Oxford,Oxford, Oxford..tell us, end this part anyway? And then perhaps the real arguments begin.. policy and so on?

Such a wonderful and beautiful experience and few to tell for many reasons..

Bright side? I have met via email some great researchers, with many years of steady and patient work...and a place to share when the witness weighs to heavily...or the desire to know more. I just really don't like shouting...my profession was one of contention.. I went into the forest t get away from arguing humans.....and came out into BFdom...LOL joke it seems is always on me!

Mostly, I just wish I had more money and time to be out there...trying to meet those Bigfoots ... I guess I am thoroughly cooked! But, as noted by many after effort, don't feel a need (or have the energy) to convince an unsuspecting world.

BTW, I don't actually feel bad toward most in BFdom...they seem like me just trying and responding to extraordinary pressures, whether from BFers or society...if I didn't have a goal of getting a "professional" out or better equipment etc... I would have no complaints....right? But, when you are out there and experience it, it does loom large...HOW CAN WE BE STILL DENYING THIS? yeah pretty weird i think.....

What makes me feel bad is my Government cannot even create an agency or hotline, a repository or something, where witnesses can call and get more information......that makes me angry actually....within some understanding they might be 'classified"....quite a conflict...

still no glasses, just too many letters to edit/squint...apologies for typos/errors in advance.

Edited January 30, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

Reasonable is fine. As a matter of fact I was recently and politely approached by a new forum member who wanted to learn more about bigfoot and specifically approached me because he had read some of my encounter posts. I responded, provided him with a lengthy message including the facts and some analysis.

Unfortunately he immediately came back with the announcement that he wasn't investigating bigfoot, but people who "believe" in bigfoot. He wanted to go into an in-depth analysis of why I believed in bigfoot and the probable causes of my mis-perceived experiences. He then baited me, asking if I was "game" and "up to the challenge". He felt that he was entitled to demand any information and time from me that he wanted.

There's a difference between an objective scientist who may be skeptical (adjective) and anyone who identifies themselves principally as a skeptic (noun) but is sans objectivity. And there's a difference in how I respond to them.

As a scientist I'd love to spend more time on bigfoot, perhaps with other scientists. I believe I could contribute in a unique way. But right now I'm working hard on bringing a new technology I invented and patented to market. Personally, I think proof will come before I get the chance to become more involved.

I would call that being "squatchfished" and it is sad that people use these forums to do that.

[Guest]

Something no ones mentioned is a big chunk of the problem is the prevailing BF propaganda. As long as an experiencer toe's the established party line laid down by people like Kranz, Meldrum, ect....things go along swimmingly. Unfortunately if they were correct in their theories they would have a lot more ''product'' to show for it than they do.

In 60 yrs their paradigm isn't working.

So when witnesses show up to exchange info of course it's shocking that they aren't saying anything remotely like what has been said before and the BF community is resistant. Call it debunking, call it remaining healthily skeptical but also call it what it is.

What it is is a resistance to new ideas.

http://bf-field-jour...ial-visits.html

My example is this guy. With very little time, some effort, and remaining open to where things were going he has amassed not only a good working knowledge of BF but a mess of good pics and physical evidence. I've said it before, this isn't rocket science,

you don't need to head out to the back country, and you don't need to gear up like special forces.

Take it or leave it.

But stop blaming witnesses for your listening to people who don't know squat.

I think that is a very presumptuous position to be taking, greyjay. This guy has some good evidence, but it's not anything we haven't seen from other researchers.

Instead of insulting established researchers as "not knowing squat", why don't you try to act as a bridge between this gentleman and some of the established figures with more an better resources such as Dr Meldrum? Then we might make progress.

[Guest]

Instead of insulting established researchers as "not knowing squat", why don't you try to act as a bridge between this gentleman and some of the established figures with more an better resources such as Dr Meldrum? Then we might make progress.

lol see above post.. Meldrum is in the enviable position of being IT, the only academic into BF in the US, it can be tough to get visibility with him, maybe it has improved in the last years? He is in an unfortunate position too, in terms of funding from conventional sources and reliance on BFers and their big ideas, or evidence. I don't think the Falcon Project started with Meldrum did it? It started with Barnes, who got funding first, and then Meldrum joined, b/c without him, there is no credibility, the "science" resides with academia not BFers....let's be honest, the "field" is rife not just with hoaxers and the delusional, or overly ambitious or amateurs, but also influence peddlers, lots of them.. and those are the nice guys!

Edited January 30, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

That is without a doubt a terrible feeling.

You know, I've yet to see JDL whine about some refusing to listen to his arguments, which are well rooted in science, against anthropogenic global warming. Instead, he does what scientists do — he keeps making his points in a logical manner backed by scientific principles. I'd like to know why he thinks anecdotal bigfoot sightings don't have to be backed up with corroborative testimony and evidence to be credible, while anthropogenic carbon dioxide catastrophe theory, backed by erroneous simplistic models in the scientific literature, is not credible.

[indiefoot]

Anecdotal evidence doesn't have to be credible, but it can be and is used as such all the time.

[Guest]

lol see above post.. Meldrum is in the enviable position of being IT, the only academic into BF in the US, it can be tough to get visibility with him, maybe it has improved in the last years? He is in an unfortunate position too, in terms of funding from conventional sources and reliance on BFers and their big ideas, or evidence. I don't think the Falcon Project started with Meldrum did it? It started with Barnes, who got funding first, and then Meldrum joined, b/c without him, there is no credibility, the "science" resides with academia not BFers....let's be honest, the "field" is rife not just with hoaxers and the delusional, or overly ambitious or amateurs, but also influence peddlers, lots of them.. and those are the nice guys!

I'm not sure how you're intending this to come across.

All I'm saying is that grayjay is out of line to intimate that people like Dr Meldrum, Fahrenbach, etc "don't know squat" about the science of BF and have not made positive contributions to the effort to document the species.

If the researcher she is championing really wants to "get in the game", then she should try to get him working with people like Meldrum, who can marshal resources and add scientific weight to the material. Let's face it, as good as that guy's stuff seems to be, he's JAFBR (Just Another Frakking Bigfoot Researcher) w/o it.

No offense intended towards the gentleman in question.

[Guest]

Anecdotal evidence doesn't have to be credible, but it can be and is used as such all the time.

Can you provide a single example of anecdotal evidence alone being used to advance the science of zoology?

[JDL]

You know, I've yet to see JDL whine about some refusing to listen to his arguments, which are well rooted in science, against anthropogenic global warming. Instead, he does what scientists do — he keeps making his points in a logical manner backed by scientific principles. I'd like to know why he thinks anecdotal bigfoot sightings don't have to be backed up with corroborative testimony and evidence to be credible, while anthropogenic carbon dioxide catastrophe theory, backed by erroneous simplistic models in the scientific literature, is not credible.

I accept that science will not accept anecdotal evidence on its own as proof of a new species.

Even so, an objective, yet skeptical (adjective), scientist remains open to the possible existence of the new species. What I object to are the self-defined skeptics (noun), who are subjective rather than objective and interested in nothing more than curing witnesses of their perceived fallacy in order to protect their own subjective belief system.

I can debate the skeptical, yet objective, scientist. I can't debate the subjective skeptic's belief system.

I gather we agree that anthropogenic carbon dioxide catastrophe theory is invalid?

Edited January 31, 2013 by JDL

[indiefoot]

Can you provide a single example of anecdotal evidence alone being used to advance the science of zoology?

Alone, no, but why would it have to alone? How many scientific expeditions to catalogue a new species do you suppose started with anecdotal evidence from local residents? Anectodal evidence has as much value as someone is willing to give it.

[Guest]

I accept that science will not accept anecdotal evidence on its own as proof of a new species.

Perhaps indiefoot will take the opportunity to learn something here.

Even so, an objective, yet skeptical (adjective), scientist remains open to the possible existence of the new species.

"Skeptical scientist" is redundant, because any valid scientist must be skeptical. Science is about logic, not faith.

What I object to are the self-defined skeptics (noun), who are subjective rather than objective and interested in nothing more than curing witnesses of their perceived fallacy in order to protect their own subjective belief system.

It's unfortunate that the word, skeptic, is so broadly defined. Another term for the faith-based scoftic you refer to would be a valued addition to the language.

The one advantage the scoftic can claim is that he is appropriately retaining the null hypothesis of "Bigfoot does not exist" in lieu of that null being rejected. But, when that position is defended through derision of claims of sightings by reasonable people or of reasonable scientific attempts to discover or explore the phenomenon, the scoftic enters the realm of faith and becomes less credible than the reasonable folks he derides.

I gather we agree that anthropogenic carbon dioxide catastrophe theory is invalid?

I am highly skeptical of ACO2CT. I have enough education in statistics, geology, meteorology, and history to know climate is a set of variable metrics (thus, the term, climate change, is redundant), that the world has been in an interglacial warming trend since the Little Ice Age ended roughly a century and a half ago (well before mankind's carbon emissions were significant), that current levels of temperature and CO2 are not unprecedented in geologic time, and that many of the alarmist so-called scientists are behaving as political activists rather than scientists. The alarmists have the duty to prove current climate is unusual. To my satisfaction they have not yet done so. As you pointed out elsewhere, time and empirical observations have proven past consensus models of warming to be overly simplistic and pessimistic.

The alarmists could be right to some degree, but I'm not losing sleep over their so-far wrong predictions.