"squatchholm" Syndrome

[norseman]

So how does one "plan" on encountering a BF for just that purpose? By sending out invitations to them?

That is most certainly one way......

Maybe most Bigfooters think inside the box of the "Bigfoot researcher"?

I'm a hunter..........so I think like one.

If Mr. Moneymaker is to be taken for his word? Then Bigfoot goes after ungulates correct? So do Bears, Cougars, Wolves, Coyotes. While there are different methods and angles in which to hunt each species, the common denominator that each species responds to is predator calling. Again there are a multitude of different call sets and calls that may pertain to one species more than others.

To call a Squatch the best set and style would be that of a Bear. For one the hunter isn't going to be packing a smaller caliber rifle. Cougars, Wolves and Coyotes are relatively easy to kill compared to that of a Bear. Bears are also an omnivore.........which means that the areas they habitat to begin with may very well be better areas in which to hunt a Squatch than other species. Bears respond great to rabbit distress calls, bear cub squall calls and deer/elk calls as well. Bears do not see as well and smell superbly, so that would require some tweaking if hunting an ape with trichromatic vision. But cats and dogs see fairly well and most predator hunters using calls are set up for multiple species...........so no biggie.

So a call set that includes a fawn decoy and a fawn in distress call bleating away like a sad billy goat, could very well be a great invitation. But hunting is on the decline nationally...........predator hunters are even a much much smaller percentage with most hunters concentrating on deer or elk. And many states allow hounds and baiting for hunting bear...........which then cuts down the amount of hunters out there actually using calls to hunt bear an even smaller minority. And then we must then assume that when that hunter calls in an ape instead of a bear? Which is not his intended prey? He could very well be shocked from the encounter or feel that it was human like enough to not pull the trigger........ it's a very remote scenario that a predator hunter hunting Bear is going to bag a Sasquatch.

It's a far far BETTER scenario that I continue chipping away at the old guard, and convince Bigfootdom that what they need to do is leave their dental cement, rulers, whoop calls, video cameras and rave parties behind..............camo freakin up, grab a large caliber rifle and join me.

My guide gun goes with me everywhere! If I go out hiking? It goes. If I go to town? It goes. If I go hunting for coyotes? It goes. It is a permanent part of my "kit".......even if I'm doing something that has nothing to do with Squatch. It's an insurance policy, an insurance policy that I will not miss the opportunity if lightning strikes and the stars align.

For example.......concerning typical Bigfoot wisdom.

When a track way is found what is the first thing that enters the mind of the Bigfooter? Document the trackway right? Because the trackway is evidence right? Out comes the camera, ruler, dental resin, maybe a small grid search of the area looking for more tracks to document? The primary mission is to preserve and document the track way.........and there lies the problem.

Track casts do not convince science...........we have those, we have had those for 50 years. Now that doesn't mean that the track way isn't useful for someone like Dr. Meldrum or others. The track way is important but it shouldn't be the primary mission. The primary mission is tracking down and collecting a type specimen. Because that is the only way...........the only way, to convince science. People may buck this, they may find it barbaric, they may find it immoral, but it's reality. I don't hold a lot of hope for hair samples and DNA studies. And believe me, I have been patient, I've been patient for about 30 years now. Patient that somebody ELSE was going to prove this species existance......... For most of my life I have not actively searched for Squatch, yes I have done many activities in the wild, hunted, fished, packed mules, picked huckleberries, etc

But obviously this species is different and needs a more direct approach if we are going to rise them out of the ranks of pixies and gnomes. If there is a better way? I'm all ears.

[Guest]

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.

The problem is that such a claim is baseless because the "null hypothesis" itself is logic fallacy, not science.

Firstly, such a hypothesis cannot be proven. There is no way to "prove" that BF does NOT exist (prove the negative fallacy). The best the Skeptic can hope to do is demonstrate that there is no evidence that BF exists. That however, does not prove that BF in fact does not exist (absence of evidence fallacy).

Secondly, it is poor scientific practice. It is not objective, as it starts with a conclusion. The proper, objective, scientific way to study an issue is to gather data, consider it, and arrive at the best, most reasonable and logical conclusion that explains it.

[Guest]

The problem is that such a claim is baseless because the "null hypothesis" itself is logic fallacy, not science.

With no null hypothesis, there is no scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis.

Firstly, such a hypothesis cannot be proven. There is no way to "prove" that BF does NOT exist (prove the negative fallacy). The best the Skeptic can hope to do is demonstrate that there is no evidence that BF exists. That however, does not prove that BF in fact does not exist (absence of evidence fallacy).

One does not need to prove a null hypothesis. One either rejects it or, absent the ability to refect, one retains it. Retention of a null hypothesis does not constitute acceptance. (Note: Some null hypotheses can be proven with sufficient evidence; the non-existence of bigfoot is not one of them, unless a feasible way to instantly scour the entire earth's surface at once could be devised.)

You'll note I never said a scientist (or anyone else) could validly claim to have proof of bigfoot's non-existence; merely that they are retaining the null hypothesis (i.e., implicitly admitting that such null has not yet been rejected).

Secondly, it is poor scientific practice. It is not objective, as it starts with a conclusion. The proper, objective, scientific way to study an issue is to gather data, consider it, and arrive at the best, most reasonable and logical conclusion that explains it.

On the contrary, null hypotheses are an integral part of the scientific method (see the Wikipedia link above). Per Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor), one's null hypothesis, out of the many alternatives must be "the one that makes the fewest assumptions" consistent with the available data. That bigfoot does not exist is a simpler assumption than that it does exist, given no physical specimen.

I must confess to being an evil scientist trained in molecular biology and ecology. As such, I must be skeptical and, with regard to bigfoot, must admit to my null hypothesis being that it doesn't exist. To allay the fears of the gnosiophobes reading this, I believe the body of track, photographic, and anecdotal evidence, including a potential auditory encounter I had just outside of Mt. Rainier Nat'l Park, justify significant efforts to attempt to reject my null hypothesis. As a scientist I cannot abide scofticism, but I cannot fault one for finding a comfortable refuge in a retained null hypothesis.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Pteronarcyd

[Sasfooty]

The problem with science "finding bigfoot" is that their assumptions/hypothesis, & Occam's Razor are all leading them in the wrong direction.

They're looking for a 100% flesh & blood, subhuman, bipedal ape, and there is no such creature. Until they accept the fact that what they are looking for doesn't exist, & start looking for whatever BF really is, there will be no "discovery".

[Guest]

Sassfooty is correct. And to expand on her post--scientific method is how you learn about stuff.

Scientific method involves observation and evaluation of evidence, then arriving at a conclusion. It all must be as objective as possible.

If you ignore some evidence, you just subtracted your objective factor and your conclusions will be flawed or in error. NO ONE who discounts evidence without a strong and provable reason can ever reach a valid conclusion. You should err on the side of acceptance, not rejection, of evidence if you want to know something. If you really do want to know.

Collection of evidence to prove what you already think is just medieval.

[Guest]

With no null hypothesis, there is no scientific method: http://en.wikipedia....ull_hypothesis.

I do not agree. In the case of documentary science (as opposed to experimental science), the hypothesis must flow FROM evidence. To begin with a hypothesis renders the investigation open to charges of "cherry picking" and of shaping the evidence to prove the hypothesis.

On the contrary, null hypotheses are an integral part of the scientific method (see the Wikipedia link above). Per Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia....i/Occam's_razor), one's null hypothesis, out of the many alternatives must be "the one that makes the fewest assumptions" consistent with the available data. That bigfoot does not exist is a simpler assumption than that it does exist, given no physical specimen.

Occam's Razor renders just the opposite conclusion. One only need assume that BF exists to explain all the evidence (tracks, hairs, eyewitness accounts with converging details, etc). The hypothesis that "BFdoes not exist" requires assuming that: 1) EVERY eyewitness is delusional, untruthful, misled, or has misidentified. 2) EVERY cast track (including the ones with highly technical evidence incorporated such as dermatoglyphics) is a forgery and 3) EVERY piece of trace evidence (forensically typed hairs, for example) has been misidentified.

Occam's Razor is BF's best friend, logcially speaking.

[Guest]

The problem with science "finding bigfoot" is that their assumptions/hypothesis, & Occam's Razor are all leading them in the wrong direction.

They're looking for a 100% flesh & blood, subhuman, bipedal ape, and there is no such creature. Until they accept the fact that what they are looking for doesn't exist, & start looking for whatever BF really is, there will be no "discovery".

Occam's Razor is used to formulate the null hypothesis, and the goal of a scientific investigation is to reject the null hypothesis. Thus, Occam's Razor and the null hypothesis can hardly be held responsible for leading a scientific investigation in the wrong direction, unless the null hypothesis reflects truth and reality.

Given that we, Homo sapiens sapiens, are flesh and blood bipedal apes (specifically great apes of the family Hominidae), our pre-Homo ancestors were, thus, flesh and blood, subhuman, bipedal great apes. Amd I fail to see how a resolution to the bigfoot phenomenon would not constitute a discovery. Care to elaborate in English?

Sassfooty is correct. And to expand on her post--scientific method is how you learn about stuff.

Scientific method involves observation and evaluation of evidence, then arriving at a conclusion. It all must be as objective as possible.

If you ignore some evidence, you just subtracted your objective factor and your conclusions will be flawed or in error. NO ONE who discounts evidence without a strong and provable reason can ever reach a valid conclusion. You should err on the side of acceptance, not rejection, of evidence if you want to know something. If you really do want to know.

Collection of evidence to prove what you already think is just medieval.

What evidence is being ignored? Who is collecting evidence to prove a null hypothesis? Science doesn't work that way.

[Sasfooty]

What does "what we are" have to do with "what they are"?

Is that "English" enough for you?

The evidence that there is something "paranormal" going on is being ignored!

[Guest]

I do not agree. In the case of documentary science (as opposed to experimental science), the hypothesis must flow FROM evidence. To begin with a hypothesis renders the investigation open to charges of "cherry picking" and of shaping the evidence to prove the hypothesis.

All science is experimental. Some may not be done in as rigorous a manner, but the scientific method is employed nonetheless.

If by "documentary science" you mean what used to be termed "natural history," what typically happens is a biologist submits a type specimen of an organism not previously documented, along with a description of the new species and where it was found. Such action rejects the null hypothesis, that the species did not exist, with the simplest alternative hypothesis, that it does exist. Both experimental and documentary science are empirical — evidence über alles.

How does the development, documentation, and specification of a null hypothesis render an investigation open to charges of cherry picking? Everything in science is open to scrutiny and criticism, but failure to develop, document, and specify a null hypothesis in all but the most trivial situations (e.g., the above natural history example) puts one outside the realm of science.

I believe the body of track, other spoor, film, and anecdotal evidence merit significant effort in a scientific investigation of the bigfoot phenomenon. However, I think it is reasonable to maintain the null hypothesis as "bigfoot does not exist" until a documented specimen is presented (which could be DNA). After all, we know that tracks have been hoaxed or misidentified, other spoor has been hoaxed or misidentified, film has been hoaxed or misidentified, and tall tales have been spun. Thus, even you can't claim all the evidence you embrace points without question to bigfoot's existence, but it is possible (although I would claim improbable) that it is all fake.

If we accepted your threshold of proof, we would deem chiropractic a medical science, certify the existence of ghosts, provide at least one seat to extraterrestrials in the United Nations, reimburse farmers for destruction done by crop circles, and provide welfare recipients with vouchers for psychic services.

[Martin]

It only becomes paranormal when what people think is bigfoot is not really there at all.... The habituator's Occam's razor historically has worked like this: They know bigfoot is there even though they never see them clearly, can't get a picture and is based mostly on anecdotal evidence and circumstance so eventually they have to think that Occam's Razor would indicate that he has paranormal properties. It is a slippery slope for many.

[Sasfooty]

Apparently you don't have a very good conception of what habituators have going on.

We see them & their glowing eyes, we hear them, we smell them, we communicate with them, & we get pictures. (We don't always share our pictures, because we see what has happened to others like us who have shared.)

And eventually, the "paranormal" stuff starts being hard to ignore. Occams Razor has nothing to do with it.

[bipedalist]

I will say that many who have been habituated by them have done all of the above except have no pictures and may have only nonverbally communicated with them or at least have had interactions without calling themselves habituators too. Some of themhave seen them and had associated unexplained phenomena occur. Eyeglow is just one of many.

[Sasfooty]

I don't like that word, but for lack of a better term, I have become habituated to using it.

[Explorer]

A problem with Occam's razor is that it does not work well when there is deception.

When you are trying to come up with a hypothesis to explain evidence/testimony from people who are intentionally deceiving you, then choosing the simplest hypothesis is very likely to be wrong.

Bigfoot research is an area that suffers from deception (not sure what % of cases are due to hoaxers and liars but there is some and it muddies the waters).

Deception might also be introduced by the Bigfoot.

If you believe that they are very intelligent beings (close to human) and that they are deceitful (that their intent is to intentionally avoid discovery or capture and mislead the searchers), then usage of Occam's razor is flawed.

The idea that deception blunts Occam's razor is not new.

The intelligence analyst community has been aware of this for as long as their other branches of intelligence have been conducting deceptions.

An excellent book on the analytical practices of the CIA (titled: Intelligence Analysis: A Target-Centric Approach) by one of the top CIA intelligence analysts (Robert M. Clark) discusses this topic.

While the CIA supports the usage of Occam's razor, below is a quote from Clark on page 115 regarding its limitations.

"Occam's razor is not an infallible principle; sometimes the correct explanation for a set of facts is very complex or convoluted. Conventional wisdom is often wrong. And counterintelligence, especially denial and deception, is a possibility that the sciences do not have to contend with. "

This rationale, of course, will not work if BF is just a dumb animal; you need to assume that they have enough intelligence to deny and deceive.

[bipedalist]

..... and that they do not use counterintelligence to impress and deter.