Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[Drew]

If it was fresh powder and windy, it is something that could be accomplished on cross country skis.

 

The shallow grooves of the skis would fill in with blowing snow after a few hours, the deep impressions could be made simply by putting a device on one of the ski poles.

[dmaker]

This covers a lot and was interesting..

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bigfoot_at_50_evaluating_a_half-century_of_bigfoot_evidence

I saw that recently too.  It was an enjoyable read.  Most here will dismiss it out of hand no doubt. 

[norseman]

If it was fresh powder and windy, it is something that could be accomplished on cross country skis.

The shallow grooves of the skis would fill in with blowing snow after a few hours, the deep impressions could be made simply by putting a device on one of the ski poles.

Have you ever cross country skied?

I own a pair and I hate them, they are only good for flat groomed runs and not deep powder and rough terrain. At 6'3" and 250 lbs I sink like a boat anchor with them.

I don't find this theory plausible, I think the ski tracks would be anything but shallow and the ski tracks and hoaxed tracks would fill up with snow at similar rates

[Guest DWA]

Yep.  If there were ski tracks they'd be visible.

 

If you've spent the time on them I have, you know that when you're breaking trail on them, you're going in pretty deep.

[Drew]

There is too much we don't know about the sighting.  I have skied on icy snow where I skimmed across the top without breaking through, if I was walking I would break through.

 

If this was 6" of hard topped snow, with 2" of fresh powder on top, the grooves would be 2" deep, and would fill in with a slight wind.

 

You could easily punch through the footprint with a ski pole.

If we had a good shot of one of hte prints it would be great.

[norseman]

There is too much we don't know about the sighting. I have skied on icy snow where I skimmed across the top without breaking through, if I was walking I would break through.

If this was 6" of hard topped snow, with 2" of fresh powder on top, the grooves would be 2" deep, and would fill in with a slight wind.

You could easily punch through the footprint with a ski pole.

If we had a good shot of one of hte prints it would be great.

Are you using telemark skis?

[Guest DWA]

Another thing.

 

If, as it appears to me, the tracks were actually made in the snow consistency we see, nothing would have filled in at all.  I don't see any evidence of filling-in on the visible tracks.

[Cotter]

There is too much we don't know about the sighting.......If we had a good shot of one of hte prints it would be great.

 

My edit to your quote.

 

ABSOULETLY.  And that does indeed raise a red flag.

[Guest DWA]

 

This covers a lot and was interesting..

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bigfoot_at_50_evaluating_a_half-century_of_bigfoot_evidence

I saw that recently too.  It was an enjoyable read.  Most here will dismiss it out of hand no doubt. 

 

I've read it.

 

What it amounts to (while we're on the words) is Radford's dismissal of the evidence, out of hand.  It's minutes I'll never get back.

 

This is one of the people I respect least on this topic.  He not only doesn't do serious research, but he gets nasty when you disagree with him.  I've seen him tell witnesses what they saw, and get personal when they told him, um, I was there.

Not only that, but he touts psychology as the only necessary discipline here (he does NOT know much about animals), and he constantly violates one of its basic principles:

 

You see unknowns and try to pigeonhole them into what you know.  You don't see knowns and turn them into hallucinations.  Not if your mind is functioning properly, anyway.

[Guest]

This covers a lot and was interesting..

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bigfoot_at_50_evaluating_a_half-century_of_bigfoot_evidence

 Good read!

[dmaker]

 

 

This covers a lot and was interesting..

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bigfoot_at_50_evaluating_a_half-century_of_bigfoot_evidence

I saw that recently too.  It was an enjoyable read.  Most here will dismiss it out of hand no doubt. 

 

I've read it.

 

What it amounts to (while we're on the words) is Radford's dismissal of the evidence, out of hand.  It's minutes I'll never get back.

 

This is one of the people I respect least on this topic.  He not only doesn't do serious research, but he gets nasty when you disagree with him.  I've seen him tell witnesses what they saw, and get personal when they told him, um, I was there.

Not only that, but he touts psychology as the only necessary discipline here (he does NOT know much about animals), and he constantly violates one of its basic principles:

 

You see unknowns and try to pigeonhole them into what you know.  You don't see knowns and turn them into hallucinations.  Not if your mind is functioning properly, anyway.

 

Color me shocked...

[Guest DWA]

Care to quote some things in there you find compelling?

He uses Grover Krantz as, essentially, the last word for his position in two sections...and never troubles, apparently, to ask himself, let alone anyone else, why Krantz was a proponent.

 

He quotes Napier on the P/G film...yet seems never to wonder the same thing about Napier.

 

He takes care of footprints in a couple paragraphs, never addressing (isn't this typical) the scientists who disagree with him.

 

I could go on...but it's not worth it.

 

When you fail to address the evidence that contradicts you, you're not writing something worth the time it took me to read it much less you to write it.

 

Your turn.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

"He uses Grover Krantz as, essentially, the last word for his position in two sections...and never troubles, apparently, to ask himself, let alone anyone else, why Krantz was a proponent.

 

He quotes Napier on the P/G film...yet seems never to wonder the same thing about Napier."

 

I'm sorry, but what is the significance of Krantz reason for being a proponent?

 

He also quotes Krantz on the PGF and illustrates where he was Krantz was mistaken.

Edited June 27, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

 

"He uses Grover Krantz as, essentially, the last word for his position in two sections...and never troubles, apparently, to ask himself, let alone anyone else, why Krantz was a proponent.

 

He quotes Napier on the P/G film...yet seems never to wonder the same thing about Napier."

 

I'm sorry, but what is the significance of Krantz reason for being a proponent?

 

He also quotes Krantz on the PGF and illustrates where he was Krantz was mistaken.

 

The whole thing is typical of the bigfoot-skeptic standard of not addressing the people one can't argue with.  It's classic cherry-picking to take something from someone who disagrees with you, and make it look as if they agree with you.  What it really does is to show that the cherry one picked is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

Krantz's misstatement I have called him on more than once, God rest his soul....as I have the misrepresentation that that size was "within normal human variation."  That an expert like Krantz could even say that is evidence on its face that you won't walk down the street - or throughout New York City - and just find someone to go into a Pattysuit.  ONE guy was found who met the "broad" criterion on ONE measure that Krantz didn't even specify himself; it was specified as a way to address his statement by picking a cherry, with no consultation or reference, and is thus inadmissible on its face.  In short:  not scientific.

 

(Never mind that on the whole suite of measurements one can take, Patty is outside the norm for humans.)

 

I've had many arguments with Radford.  He resorts to attacking the arguer pretty much from post one.  He couldn't be a member here, for sure.  He'd be booted in a month.  (Maybe he was.)  None too impressive, that. 

 

Proponents do nothing but give me evidence; 'skeptics' do nothing but ask me to Believe.  That latter is Radford...and boy does he get testy when you don't.

[dmaker]

I don't know Mr.Radford and while I agree with the general gist of his article, it is not very generous in its citations and presents a pretty narrow sample. Fine, can understand your point.

 

But since we are on that topic. I am reading Bindernagel again--The Discovery of the Sasquatch (2010). The first read through was pretty cursory, so this time I am really taking my time. So far one thing struck me right away. He is guilty of what you were just denouncing from skeptics. The main gist of Dr. Bindernagels book, once you get past the lecture on the scientific method in both the forward and the prologue, is that prevailing knowledge about Sasquatch is wrong and that knowledge prevails only because no one in science takes Bigfoot seriously enough ( now where have we heard that before?). Ok fine enough so far, even for me. He then proceeds to explain this prevailing knowledge as two, yes, two things: the claim that all Bigfoot tracks are hoaxed; and two, that claim that all Bigfoot encounters are the source of mis-identified bears. Yes, that is it. He does not mention tracks that are not hoaxed, but are simply mistaken. He does not mention the numerous other sources of eye witness reports: mis-identified animals other than bear, including humans, hallucinations, pariedolia, liars, hoaxers, drugs and alcohol, peer pressure, mental illness, etc, etc, etc.  No, just....bears.  Just bears and faked tracks.  That is all he decides he needs to deal with before he can go on with the assumption that Sasquatch is real. And, I would like to point out, he makes a point that one of his strongest sources is going to be anecdotal accounts.  And this is a scientific book? I think not. 

 

I am only close to a third through right now, so maybe my take is premature. I can accept that. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, but so far that is what this book is coming across with to me.  I am heading to the cottage tonight for some campfire reading and I am bringing it along. We'll see if the tone changes much.

Edited June 27, 2013 by dmaker