Guest Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 SY, Krantz laid all this out in his book. It so happens I believe the same as he did as the proof & events are right there for all to see. Other than Meldrum and the guy doing some DNA work up at the U of Minn, I can't think of a single other scientist who openly works on the study of BF. Most are employed by colleges or private labs, neither of which put the study of Monkees high on their employee's work tasks. In the current economy, don't expect to see govt grants to try to prove up monkees. no money for a real researcher to pay the bills... It all comes back to making a living, and studying BF don't bring in the big eagle every two wekes... Speaking of DNA, that is a dead end as far proof goes because their is no monkee baseline. The best that anyone can come up with is todate is "unnown primate". Once again, no use for proof... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Unfortunately, the PG film seems to be a fluke, as nothing like it has come out since. Out in the open, bright sunlight, on good film with a good camera. So in the past 43 years there hasn't been a bigfoot exposed in daylight to someone with a decent camera? There are two conclusions to draw from this observation. If you are a bigfoot believer, this should be screaming to you that the PGF is a fake. "Patty" ain't no bigfoot. If you are a bigfoot skeptic, it illustrates the obvious: we have no decent photos because there is nothing there to photograph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Speaking of DNA, that is a dead end as far proof goes because their is no monkee baseline. I don't agree that it is a dead end. Surely there is a difference in bigfoots DNA that is not hoaxable. This would bear out to be true whether there is a body to conclude it came from or not. Back to the OP. I agree on scale being very important. Luckily there is all kinds of objects in wooded terrain to provide this. Pinpointed camera position and elevation will be key as well. Also , the subject would need to demonstrate physically controlled articulation as it moves it's limbs. So in the past 43 years there hasn't been a bigfoot exposed in daylight to someone with a decent camera? There are two conclusions to draw from this observation. If you are a bigfoot believer, this should be screaming to you that the PGF is a fake. "Patty" ain't no bigfoot. Would you use this argument against any picture? Since each one prior was supposedly a fake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Speaking of DNA, that is a dead end as far proof goes because their is no monkee baseline. The best that anyone can come up with is todate is "unnown primate". Once again, no use for proof... No, the best anyone can do is place the "unknown primate" DNA on a cladogram or other phylogenetic tree that will show exactly what it is. This is what would be done if a carcass ever materialized. If I had a unique, contemporary DNA sample that was unambiguously hominin and unambiguously not Homo sapiens or any other extant member of that subfamily, then that sample would be proof of an undecribed human or ape, and again I would write that paper myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Would you use this argument against any picture? Since each one prior was supposedly a fake? I'm not aware of any too many clear bigfoot photographs. I, for one, surely would like to see more and encourage anyone to snap such a photo. Like Saskeptic, I hear of those that have seemingly at least occasional sightings of the creature and it would seem photographs, not of the "blobsquatch" nature, would provide plenty of fodder for further discussion upon this very forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Unfortunately, the PG film seems to be a fluke, as nothing like it has come out since. Out in the open, bright sunlight, on good film with a good camera. So in the past 43 years there hasn't been a bigfoot exposed in daylight to someone with a decent camera? There are two conclusions to draw from this observation. If you are a bigfoot believer, this should be screaming to you that the PGF is a fake. "Patty" ain't no bigfoot. If you are a bigfoot skeptic, it illustrates the obvious: we have no decent photos because there is nothing there to photograph. Actually, Grazhopprr's assertion is insufficient to reach such a conclusion. He has 4 criteria. Most of the other bigfoot pictures and videos generally meet 2 of them. To obtain that 'perfect' picture would require: Out of cover Good light Good resolution (film or digital) Close proximity or good telephoto lens This combination seems difficult to obtain, because bigfoots are rarely out of cover, especially if they are in close proximity to a person. Good light probably means that they see you long before you see them, which also defeats close proximity. From my own experiences with getting pictures of something occurring "now", most cameras would need to be pretty much 'up and ready'. In a close proximity event, a person would probably only have seconds to take the picture, and that is too long for most cameras, even if they are on and in hand. A close proximity event will require the camera to be either a fast DSLR, or a video camera which is in hand and running or in standby. Of course, running means that the length of time in the field is limited. The best chance would be to use a DSLR with a 400mm to 600mm lens, from a deer stand, overlooking a field where these creatures have been seen. Lots and lots of time in that deer stand. So if you are retired, have a location where bigfoots are frequently encountered, and have lots of time to sit around, then this is your chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Would you use this argument against any picture? Since each one prior was supposedly a fake? No, assuming any photo is fake because there is no bigfoot (if I understand your question) would be circular* and, therefore, invalid reasoning. What I addressed with my comment was this notion that "Patty" was somehow engaged in a unique bigfoot behavior in that she was sauntering about in an open area in broad daylight not far from a road and that she was caught unawares by two guys on horseback riding along a creekbed with a motion picture camera. In other words, Patty was displaying some rather unbigfootlike behavior. Are we to assume that she's the only bigfoot to have ever been so careless or do bigfoots at least occasionally come out in the open and let their guard down long enough to (potentially) be well photographed? To me, the latter explanation is far more parsimonious than the former. It follows then, that bigfoots must be photographable, even if it's danged hard to do. OK then, how much longer do we have to wait for the next PGF? It's been more than 40 years. At what point do people start to wonder about the authenticity of the PGF? Will it take 50 years, 100 years without some kind of corroboration? *although circularity has its limits, and its utility. For example, if someone showed me a photo of a centaur, we would probably agree that an appropriate default hypothesis would be that the photo was faked because there are no centaurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 No, assuming any photo is fake because there is no bigfoot (if I understand your question) would be circular* and, therefore, invalid reasoning. Very good What I addressed with my comment was this notion that "Patty" was somehow engaged in a unique bigfoot behavior in that she was sauntering about in an open area in broad daylight not far from a road and that she was caught unawares by two guys on horseback riding along a creekbed with a motion picture camera. I think Patty could have been behaving normally. I don't think we would have the number of reported sightings we have if the creatures remained behind deep cover all the time. I think the lack of clear footage or photo's is due to just a couple of factors. 1. Sightings are rare, even though we have thousands, it represents a very small percentage of our population. 2. Very few people have a camera ready and able at that critical moment because they simply don't and can't predict when or where they will see it. 3. Of the very few people who could potentially photograph the subject, even fewer are expert photographers. = low quality. 4. A high percentage of the sightings themselves are brief. So it breaks down like this. Rare opportunity - preparedness - skill level and quality camera - little time to use it. = half dozen interesting photos or vids. Note: This only applies to chance encounters. An investigator can do something about these factors if he has the time and money but alas there is no funding for someone attempting to document bigfoot. Funded researchers are more prone to focus on their funded objectives. In other words, Patty was displaying some rather unbigfootlike behavior. Are we to assume that she's the only bigfoot to have ever been so careless or do bigfoots at least occasionally come out in the open and let their guard down long enough to (potentially) be well photographed? There is one more dynamic at play potentially, and that is that as we encounter and learn about them, they are also learning about us and what we are trying to do. If they have human cognisance they could be countering some of our efforts with modified behavior. To me, the latter explanation is far more parsimonious than the former. It follows then, that bigfoots must be photographable, even if it's danged hard to do. OK then, how much longer do we have to wait for the next PGF? It's been more than 40 years. At what point do people start to wonder about the authenticity of the PGF? Will it take 50 years, 100 years without some kind of corroboration? I think they are photographable and have been, it's just that the opportunity, quality, proximity, and unobstructed view of the subject is a bit less likely than the PGF might lead you to believe. So yes the PGF would represent a set of circumstances analogous with all the planets lining up and lightning striking the same place twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted April 14, 2011 Admin Share Posted April 14, 2011 (edited) Why is messing with boogers so detrimental to a scientists career? Would scientists care what people believe about bigfoot if they had solid biological evidence to stand on, or is the sociological stigma to great for even that? Unfortunately, academia is now such a bloated bureaucracy, that some fields do science by consensus! Without identifying specific fields, just think of how many times you hear the argument "85% of scientists agree that ..." or "the global scientific consensus is..." As if science were a democracy. It's a sad state of affairs, but I'm confident that it'll self-correct, it just takes time. Edited April 14, 2011 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Carl Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Unfortunately, academia is now such a bloated bureaucracy, that some fields do science by consensus! Without identifying specific fields, just think of how many times you hear the argument "85% of scientists agree that ..." or "the global scientific consensus is..." As if science were a democracy. It's a sad state of affairs, but I'm confident that it'll self-correct, it just takes time. Perhaps humility balances knowledge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Without identifying specific fields, just think of how many times you hear the argument "85% of scientists agree that ..." or "the global scientific consensus is..." As if science were a democracy. Only having two options is actually a pretty good point to reach. I sometimes say, that if you put 5 experts on CdTe (it's a semiconductor) into a room, you will get 5 different expert opinions, and all of them will probably be wrong. Of course, a lot of that "consensus science" is often more like "agenda pushing", using a band wagon or argument from authority fallacy, so please don't think of it as typical of science. You will find all kinds in an anthropology department. Some will be gung-ho about finding new species or human cultures, while others just want to study how breast feeding affects women, or the number of ways people can weave baskets. Some will think bigfoot is a joke, while others will consider any evidence seriously; although the former seems to outnumber the latter significantly. Having funding to buy good equipment and understanding that equipment is a key issue. Most bigfoot research is self-funded, weekend warrior stuff. If you read the Camera Placement and Choices thread, you will see that bigfoots CAN be lured into situations where they might be imaged. The problem is that you may have to sacrifice image quality for anything at all, by using essentially low-end spy equipment, and some homemade stuff. Even low-end stuff is not cheap, and homemade means that it requires some knowledge on the part of the maker. As I suspect Patty demonstrates, every creature can have a brain fart moment. As long as we are prepared and keep trying, we will get to take advantage of one of those moments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts