Bigfoot Sciences - Is It A Case Of Incompetence Or Deception

[Guest DWA]

^^^More like the culmination of a process that a lot of people who have forgotten how science (the practice) works don't seem to get (including our OP).

 

Unless one thinks playing the lottery and expecting to win is a rational game plan.

[Guest]

Unless one thinks playing the lottery and expecting to win is a rational game plan.

It's not.  That's why I don't play the lottery. 

 

If bigfoots are real, then there's no reason to equate the chance of finding one with winning a lottery.  To win a lottery you must obtain one special ticket.  To find a bigfoot, you've got to choose from 1) the thousands that must exist in North America and 2) the small fraction of the remains that should exist from of all bigfoots that have ever lived in North America.  In addition, we are told regularly here at the BFF that finding a bigfoot is no needle and haystack problem, for NAWAC has a bead on a place they seem to frequent, and we can always just go get one from Sasfooty's house (or toejam's site or that pancake place in Kentucky or wherever du jour people are claiming encounters with regularity). Finally, we only need ONE winner to come forward - ever.

[Guest DWA]

Well, I'm content to wait and bet on NAWAC then.  I see no reason for pessimism, but apparently a lot of people do.  I just like to point out the problems with pessimism.

 

The evidence is sufficient for me.  But those who want proof won't get it until the effort is put in for the time required...barring lottery-bet luck.

[Guest DWA]

Our OP sounds like a True Believer who's just gotten disappointed after yearsandyearsandyears of True Believing.

 

Learn to work with evidence and to think like a scientist about this and one solves that problem.

[southernyahoo]

^A piece of a bigfoot would be a really nice start.

 

But then, you'd need to have some way of knowing it was from a bigfoot and likely you'd only have a perception of what it should be to guide you to a conclusion.

[Guest McGman]

How has science adequately engaged the subject when the majority of scientists in related fields scoff at the idea of sasquatch to begin with? They are shooting themselves in the foot before they have even done anything. And exactly what evidence could be collected that would actually garner attention from the mainstream scientific community, when as I said, there are very few true scientists in academia especially who would be willing to pursue such evidence. The way that information gets out there to all scientists is through scientific publications...Now, what could possibly be collected and analyzed to provide evidence adequate enough to actually publish? There are very few things, considering that if something cannot be identified, it is of little use. 

 

How is it possible to SCIENTIFICALLY make the connection between an UNKNOWN sample and a sasquatch? Eyewitness encounters, even at the time of collection, will NOT help such a scientific case. And we wonder why nothing has really happened with the mainstream scientific community. It is a catch 22 so to speak. A body is the ONLY way to settle the issue completely. And then there are other problems as well, which skeptics do not seem to address to my satisfaction. The fact that for an animal like bigfoot to exist, OBVIOUSLY they are much more intelligent, or are instinctively geared towards solitude, or both, and thus they avoid humans...otherwise they would have been studied by now, just like chimps or gorillas. 

 

If anyone has seen video of these other types of primates, they should know how they behave when humans approach to film them...They don't really care. Now, a scientist who begins some type of study of sasquatch with this mindset, thinking they can do what they have done in the past, is going to FAIL. And then they will say that bigfoot probably does not, or does not exist, simply because they went about trying to document the species in a way that is not going to work with such an animal.

 

And another problem is the fact that the vast majority of all evidence is collected by amateurs. This evidence would NOT be used in an actual mainstream scientific study, simply because those performing the experiment do not have a chain of custody. And what credible scientist would allow the "nutters" in the bigfoot community to send in samples? It has recently been done for the first time. The FIRST time in all these years that science has supposedly been involved in attempting to document sasquatch.

 

And yes, this field is going to draw in hoaxers and liars, but to think that of the thousands of reports, that all are hoaxes or misidentifications is ridiculous. I have read through so many sighting reports, and many of them are exactly like my sighting...They are relatively quick, but there is no doubt about what was seen. It is difficult to explain to someone is closed to the idea to begin with. You just have to see it for yourself to realize that you would KNOW what you are seeing. Many factors probably go into this unconscious realization, and it is a more primal knowledge. Of course the size, height, mass, movement, etc all play a part. There is not even a possibility that I was hoaxed, and I didn't hoax the sighting, but I cannot get someone who is closed to the idea of sasquatch to understand these points.

 

And if the case of sasquatch were taken up in court, I am convinced that sasquatch would come out on top. Why? Because unlike science, a court of law allows for eyewitness testimony. The testimony alone is enough to conclude that sasquatch is real, from a scientific point of view. What science would that be? Psychology mostly.

 

The lack of a certain type of evidence in this field of research is due entirely to the nature of the animal. It is difficult to get decent footage of an animal that immediately goes the other way when it notices a human in the vicinity. By the time a person is ready to shoot, the animal is gone. And IF they get a camera out, the animal is likely to be far enough away that any images are not going to be adequate. I have said before that the majority of cameras that witnesses have on hand are consumer grade, and are meant for shooting at relatively close range. If one attempts to use that same type of camera to shoot 50 yards, of course the image will result in a "blobsquatch." Sasquatch has absolutely zero incentive to stick around when a human is in the area. Even other animals do the same thing, and they probably are not as intelligent as a sasquatch. So to think that sasquatch would be this way is logical. 

 

If I could have my way I would have all detractors leave the sasquatch community. I have thought many times of leaving the community myself for one main reason...Like so many others who have either had a sighting, or who believe sasquatch is real for one reason or another, I joined the community to LEARN through the experiences of others. I just do not see why there are so many skeptics who must focus on existence all the time. If you don't believe sasquatch exist, what are you doing here? It seems counter-intuitive to me that someone who does not believe in sasquatch actually spends their time within the community, whether online or in person. I know there are members here who are on the fence, and I am not talking about them. I am talking about the people who know who they are, the ones who are completely closed to the idea of sasquatch to begin with. They are definitely here.

 

And one more thing I would like to mention to detractors is this: one of the reasons that we cannot get online and read or view more data regarding sasquatch, good data, is because of you. I know for a fact that there are people out there not only with physical evidence, but with visual evidence and excellent sightings, who refuse to come forward and share what they know or what they have collected. And I don't really blame them to tell you the truth.

 

And I am also sick of reading the reports that periodically come along about how a sasquatch dna test comes back as something else. Why is THAT newsworthy, but when a sample cannot be matched to a known animal, nobody really cares? And it has happened in the past. Heck, many of the samples in the Ketchum study alone would fit this category. But, here is the rub..."scientists," and "skeptics/detractors," will ALWAYS claim that a result of "unknown" is the result of an error by the person doing the testing. Like I said, it is a catch 22 for the people who know sasquatch is real, or those who want to prove it to the world. 

 

Hmm, so now it's the skeptics fault that Bigfoot hasn't been discovered?

 

Geez...

[Guest]

Hmm, so now it's the skeptics fault that Bigfoot hasn't been discovered?

It's been that way for quite some time, since at least the 1960s.  If we skeptics would simply believe enough to go look for bigfoot or stop saying unflattering things about the people who do, it'd be collected in no time!

But then, you'd need to have some way of knowing it was from a bigfoot and likely you'd only have a perception of what it should be to guide you to a conclusion.

Huh?  A piece of bigfoot is a piece of bigfoot.  It's tautological.  Gigantopithecus was described from no more than teeth and a couple of jaws.

[Guest DWA]

Hmm, so now it's the skeptics fault that Bigfoot hasn't been discovered?

 

Geez...

 

Well, when skeptical attitudes with career-altering implications for scientists expressing interest in topics like this permeate pretty much everywhere biologists work in society, one coulld think that those attitudes have a dampening effect.  That's a very reasonable thing to think.

[Drew]

Yes, Dr. Meldrum, has had a horrible experience, only being promoted to Full Professor at a very young age for most Full Professors.

And being featured as one of ISU's distinguished faculty members on their website.

[Guest DWA]

Yep, if it weren't for bigfoot, what a nice free ride.

 

As Krantz put it:  they support my bigfoot research.  They don't fire me.

 

To anyone interested in science:

 

that ain't support.

[Cotter]

 

Hmm, so now it's the skeptics fault that Bigfoot hasn't been discovered?

 

Geez...

 

Well, when skeptical attitudes with career-altering implications for scientists expressing interest in topics like this permeate pretty much everywhere biologists work in society, one coulld think that those attitudes have a dampening effect.  That's a very reasonable thing to think.

 

 

Not only reasonable to think, but admitted openly by the reporter that allegedly had a 'top geneticist' analyze one of Dr K's samples.

 

I would also like to say that it's not the skeptics keep the foot on the throat of scientists wishing to engage this topic, it's the pseudo-skeptics.

[southernyahoo]

But then, you'd need to have some way of knowing it was from a bigfoot and likely you'd only have a perception of what it should be to guide you to a conclusion.

Huh?  A piece of bigfoot is a piece of bigfoot.  It's tautological.  Gigantopithecus was described from no more than teeth and a couple of jaws.

 

 

So why didn't they name it bigfoot?

[Guest DWA]

 

But then, you'd need to have some way of knowing it was from a bigfoot and likely you'd only have a perception of what it should be to guide you to a conclusion.

Huh?  A piece of bigfoot is a piece of bigfoot.  It's tautological.  Gigantopithecus was described from no more than teeth and a couple of jaws.

 

 

So why didn't they name it bigfoot?

 

Um, touche.  :-D

[Guest]

 

But then, you'd need to have some way of knowing it was from a bigfoot and likely you'd only have a perception of what it should be to guide you to a conclusion.

Huh?  A piece of bigfoot is a piece of bigfoot.  It's tautological.  Gigantopithecus was described from no more than teeth and a couple of jaws.

 

 

So why didn't they name it bigfoot?

 

If you believe that bigfoot is Gigantopithecus, they did.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at.  Are you suggesting that there are specimens that have been collected and described but we haven't recognized that those species are bigfoot?

[southernyahoo]

I'd say that if we can't tell a piece of bigfoot from an already descsribed hominin, then we could have a piece right now labeled human..