How Many Normal (Relatively) Intelligent, Adult, Witnesses Without A Prior Agenda Does It Take To Have Any Provative Weight Towards The Unknown?

[dmaker]

" I want to see state and Federally-funded biotic surveys go into the field with, at the very least, the following three things:

 

• Jeff Meldrum's sasquatch field guide;

Distributed without snickers..."

 

 

Sorry, but those are two statements at odds with each other imo.

Edited June 4, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

When a man is paid not to see something it's going to be hard for him to see it.

 

I like the one where the couple calls in a sasquatch report to the local USFS office.  They get the hoo-haw.

 

Then they get called back.  A guy talkiing in almost a whisper asks them to fill him in.  Turns out a few of them are keeping records, and this report ain't alone.

 

Science is like life.  Really hard to stamp out once it gets going, despite the most earnest efforts.

 

If there are melanistic whitetail and melanistic bobcat and melanistic and white squirrel - all but one of which I have seen in person - show me how melanistic puma are impossible.

 

None?

 

Yet.

[dmaker]

I personally have no interest really in black cougars. They sound cool, but I had never even heard a claim for one before yesterday. I have some experience with cougars and where they live but were not recognized until recently. I live in Ontario, Canada and were told cougars did not live here. Recently that has changed and the provincial police have turned up at least one body that I can think of. Again, cougars are not really my hobby. I think they are interesting animals and would love to see one from a distance, but that is about it. 

 

I'm not quire sure that I am on board with you though WSA. You predict the rational response from the F&G guy and then fantasize about the response that you would imagine him giving if the gubmint wasn't oppressing the poor guy. Or it could just be that he has never seen one, nor any physical evidence of one? I mean as long as you and DWA love to talk about taking people at their word and trusting their responses. Yet you want to doubt that this guy told you the truth? That seems a bit one sided to me.

 

So if the person is reporting a BF, then they are totally telling the truth. Trust your fellow man, dude! 

 

But if the person is denying a BF, then they are totally lying and will not divulge their "real" answer until later plied with alcohol?

 

Is that how it works?

Edited June 4, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

 

" I want to see state and Federally-funded biotic surveys go into the field with, at the very least, the following three things:

 

• Jeff Meldrum's sasquatch field guide;

Distributed without snickers..."

 

 

Sorry, but those are two statements at odds with each other imo.

 

And we identify your problem.  See how simple that was?

[dmaker]

When a man is paid not to see something it's going to be hard for him to see it.

 

I like the one where the couple calls in a sasquatch report to the local USFS office.  They get the hoo-haw.

 

Then they get called back.  A guy talkiing in almost a whisper asks them to fill him in.  Turns out a few of them are keeping records, and this report ain't alone.

 

Science is like life.  Really hard to stamp out once it gets going, despite the most earnest efforts.

 

If there are melanistic whitetail and melanistic bobcat and melanistic and white squirrel - all but one of which I have seen in person - show me how melanistic puma are impossible.

 

None?

 

Yet.

Is this documented somewhere, perhaps outside the BFRO? Even so, all that displays is that a BF enthusiast is employed by the USFS. Not exactly mind blowing I would think.

 

 

" I want to see state and Federally-funded biotic surveys go into the field with, at the very least, the following three things:

 

• Jeff Meldrum's sasquatch field guide;

Distributed without snickers..."

 

 

Sorry, but those are two statements at odds with each other imo.

 

And we identify your problem.  See how simple that was?

 

 

That I don't think a field guide to an imaginary animal should be standard government issue?

Edited June 4, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

No.  Just routine zoological-variety closed mind, that makes you unreachable to people who like to think about this some.

"Either they agree with me or they're wrong" isn't something I can work with.

 

And before you misunderstand me again - actually, there really is no helping that as we have seen - here is what I think.

 

"If you disagree with me, better have some reasons that a scientist can respect who is paying attention."

[dmaker]

"Either they agree with me or they're wrong" isn't something I can work with."

 

  You are quite the little irony machine lately. ^^ This, from the guy who said last week that there is only one conclusion allowed, and it's mine?

 

LOL

[Guest DWA]

Well, I was right wasn't I?

 

When my opinion was:  The evidence says there's something worth looking at here, even iif it's mass psychosis or something other than an unlisted species?

 

You can't contest that, can you? Well, you can.  You just can't build from what you've said a respectable opinion.

 

 

OK, I'm taking a vacation from you and talking to folks who are willing to take on the evidence more, and not just stamp it DONE and go back to...um, well, what precisely...?

[dmaker]

I'm also taking a vacation. I leave mid-day tomorrow, so I won't be bothering you here for a couple of weeks

 

Enjoy.

[Guest]

 It is curious isn't it?  So many witnesses, and no one to tell...but each other.

 

Were there any court case and BF witnesses required, and those steps applied..in deposition, through discovery...looking at extrinsic evidence, conflicting evidence, while you ask questions under oath and threat of perjury, and bring that forward...in concert it would be deemed the truth most probably by the trier of fact.....in that the witness sincerity, perceptions, accuracy, memory etc were all tested and found credible......

 

no offense to the hardworking investigators....but clearly few scientists accept our BF researcher compilations.

 

But, were they to listen and go out..well then scientific method could step forward....science could produce peer-review work...

 

and the court might not recognize it...and the authors/scientists could complain like we do now they are not believed! ha!

 

...the burden of proof is even tougher through the Daubert Standard....when fighting it out with experts and peer-reviewed works.... it basically limits the court to relying on science that is almost generally accepted among scientists   ..not quite...but the scales must clearly tip

 

obviously, the type of case and associated procedural rules make the above a simplified view..but it is interesting isn't it?

 

B/c scientific method does depend on the observation of the scientist..to record the numbers accurately, and so on, and to apply the method accurately..and reason correctly............same issues with any witness really, but less dependable in some ways too...b/c it then stretches to conclusions..and law respects the status quo/tradition so to avoid rsh decisions, unintended consequences..

 

I doubt BFs will be proven in a legal sense until many papers have been produced, if not a body...and studies and such...

 

and our Government won't respond till after they are pushed...so the most we will get from any "scientific proof" might be braggin rights...maybe hah

 

oh I don't want to go off on this..too much writing to totally flush out..but I think you get the general jist...

Edited June 5, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

Yes, the evidenciary standard for describing a new species is higher than that necessary to mete out a death sentence in our courts or, apparently, convince a coalition of nations to invade Iraq.  That may sound startling, but instead of complaining about how scientists determine reality, perhaps we should focus our efforts on how juries and politicians determine reality.

 

As for scientists lacking the curiosity for discovery these days, let's contemplate for a moment some famous discoverers of stuff:

 

Christopher Columbus:  He had the passion, the curiosity, and . . . the backing of the Spanish Crown.

 

Lewis and Clark:  Curiosity, adventure, and . . . a modest budget of $40,000 from the Jefferson Administration.  (That's about $1.19 million in 2012 dollars.)

 

If we don't factor in the need for $$$ to marry with curiosity to find the answer to the gripping questions of our day (such as, "are there black cougars?" or "where is bigfoot?") then what is the difference between an unbudgeted scientist going out to look for these things and an unbudgeted amateur?  If bigfoots or black cougars are real, then one doesn't need a PhD to photograph one or pick up a piece of a dead one.

[Guest DWA]

 

If we don't factor in the need for $$$ to marry with curiosity to find the answer to the gripping questions of our day (such as, "are there black cougars?" or "where is bigfoot?") then what is the difference between an unbudgeted scientist going out to look for these things and an unbudgeted amateur? 

 

There isn't any. 

 

Which is the problem, because unbudgeted amateurs are basically it right now and no budget means no time to speak of. 

 

(Three expeditions in history worthy of the name, and all of them would have gotten bigfoot budgeted if people controlling or influencing major purse strings had been along.)

 

What has to happen is that somebody has to come back from one of these encounters with:  there's something out there, and we should find out what it is.  And people have to listen to that somebody and fund - or significantly influence funding of - the followup.

 

That isn't going to happen barring sick luck given the mainstream's attitude of:  all this is a crock, and don't bother talking to me about it.

 

I hear that's not the attitude.  See, I'm a skeptic,  and I think that attitudes in science are spelled either $$$$ or NO$$$$$.

 

Until the attitude among scientists becomes, if a scientist saw it (and scientists have) it's legitimate and we should pay attention, forget ever finding out what this is, barring luck no one has had yet.

 

(Bindernagel and Meldrum are getting the bills paid by something else, as has always been the case for bigfoot proponents in academe.  As Krantz put it:  they support my research.  They don't fire me.)

[Guest]

Yes, the evidenciary standard for describing a new species is higher than that necessary to mete out a death sentence in our courts or, apparently, convince a coalition of nations to invade Iraq.  That may sound startling, but instead of complaining about how scientists determine reality, perhaps we should focus our efforts on how juries and politicians determine reality.

 

As for scientists lacking the curiosity for discovery these days, let's contemplate for a moment some famous discoverers of stuff:

 

Christopher Columbus:  He had the passion, the curiosity, and . . . the backing of the Spanish Crown.

 

Lewis and Clark:  Curiosity, adventure, and . . . a modest budget of $40,000 from the Jefferson Administration.  (That's about $1.19 million in 2012 dollars.)

 

If we don't factor in the need for $$$ to marry with curiosity to find the answer to the gripping questions of our day (such as, "are there black cougars?" or "where is bigfoot?") then what is the difference between an unbudgeted scientist going out to look for these things and an unbudgeted amateur?  If bigfoots or black cougars are real, then one doesn't need a PhD to photograph one or pick up a piece of a dead one.

 

I agree with what you say Saskeptic.  You bringing up Lewis and Clark reminded me of Jim Bridger – which in turn reminded me of my earlier college days as he was celebrated yearly in remembrance of his exploration in that area. 

 

It also reminded me of a “scientist†we had on campus – Jack Horner.  While Jack is a Paleontologist I think the situation is still apropos and proves “degrees†aren’t what matter, for several reasons.

 

Jack’s trips into the field are not just Jack and other PhDs with him.  He goes into the field with students and volunteers, who are the ones that do most all of the hands on, boots on the ground, work.  These students are not limited to Grad students, volunteers are usually just persons interested in the subject.  Many times, the University is contacted by a person that just stumbled upon something and wants to know if it is of value and there are vast drawers of items in the collection. 

 

Once items are found it isn’t Jack and the other PhDs that handle it and preserve it and work it out.  It is students, and not just Grad students.  I was a Physics major and still worked on the Triceratops skull they had found in the field to clean it and preserve it.  They showed me what to do and I did it. 

 

And, some will say, well, it was under the direction of a PhD, but, then, many do not know that Jack never completed his bachelor’s degree and his Doctorate is Honorary.  Most of what he knows he learned by studying on his own and experience in a field that interested him.  He worked hard in a subject that interested him.  It wasn’t his degrees that made him what he is, his work is what made his degrees.  If not for someone willing to respect that and bestow upon him the honorary degree he’d just be another “laymen†in the eyes of so many. 

 

So, really, what does that piece of paper mean?  It doesn’t matter who finds what.  What matters is what is done with it.

Edited June 5, 2013 by BigGinger

[Guest]

Saskeptic, You are correct. I concede the point. My point referenced comunication on a cougar sighting forum and although I believed what was said and the pictures I was shown, I can not vouch for or prove either. However that brings me around back to the question of the topic. These reports viewed or told to a skeptical person of course would be received with, lol skepticsm. These reports viewed or told to someone who has seen the subject of the reports are apt to be received much differently.

   Your explanation of the realities of what funding means to these sort of matters is useful. I am not privy to the inner workings of governmental bureacracies or the competitions between different agencies, professionals versus laymen or the myriad of human interactions that are involved in the allocation and use of resources.

Here though is a picture of a non black cougar killed near the Alabama Border with Georgia on Lake West Point. This was killed on the eastern side of the lake which for much of its length has the border of the two states in the middle or certain parts of the lake itself. The article states that dna found the animal was from the Florida Cougar Population approximately six hundred miles from where it was killed, and not an escaped or released captive animal, which was thought to be the case of most if not all sightings.  The dismissive attitude of Mr. Sasser as quoted in the article is not very conducive to public relations regarding the matter I thought, being one of those whose sightings and whose mens' sighting have been dismissed. I don't know the disposition of this case legalwise regarding the legality or non legality of hunting or killing the creature in the state of Georgia. It is illegal in Alabama to kill cougars.

     A great, enjoyable study for interested scientists would be the documentation of the cougar population (of any pigmentation) in South Alabama, especially on, and around Fort Rucker, but the animals are seen throughout the area. Nice place, great people, and great fishing and golf if those be your vices lol, funding permitting of course.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

http://www.aonmag.com/article.php?id=2047

[WSA]

It is also maybe not a coincidence that one of the hot spots for purported BF sightings in AL is between Auburn and Columbus, GA., right down where this cougar was bagged.  If you look at the topo you can see why that might be.