dmaker Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) I dunno Dmaker.....the case for lack-of-proof-is-equal-to-proof-of-non-existence seem to be very much alive and well here. I just thought I'd join in and get me some of that ! Hmmm....is this how it feels? Yeah, I get it. Niiiiiiiice. Does make things a whole lot simpler, does it not? :-) How do you think scientists determine if a species is extinct? By lack of evidence to support that the animal is present. Yes, an absence of evidence is used by science in certain scenarios. The stunning lack of unambiguous physical evidence of bigfoot should be a clear indicator that we are not dealing with an actual animal here. Edited April 21, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I dunno Dmaker.....the case for lack-of-proof-is-equal-to-proof-of-non-existence seem to be very much alive and well here. I just thought I'd join in and get me some of that ! Hmmm....is this how it feels? Yeah, I get it. Niiiiiiiice. Does make things a whole lot simpler, does it not? :-) "Simple so we can go back to sleep" does seem the core of bigfoot skepticism, I do must say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) ^Is that why wildlife biologist Bindernagel has always been actively out searching for Sasquatch? because he's afraid of his job? Nope; like Krantz, he's old and doesn't care a whit about advancement. Meldrum has an enlightened faculty...and very serious mainstream chops, just like those other two. In other words... unless you have totally made yer bones: a huge emphatic DON'T TALK ABOUT BIGFOOT AT WORK. And you did NOT see one, nosireeBob. (Does the name "Mionczynski" mean anything to you? He's only the most prominent example.) What about the wildlife biologists that are self-employed and don't have to worry about any job security? Right. Legions and legions of 'em. Why we should have had proof....this is so Bigfoot Skeptic. What aobut 'em? Do you know what self-employed even means? Lemme give you a hint, something a friend of mine said about a trip I was goading him to go on: "I'm self-employed...and my customers won't let me." Oh...you're that bigfoot loon, aren't you...? Oh yeah, he'd be "employing himself" soon enough if you get my drift... Which would include the majority of the general public, yet somehow you trust those reports are real. Grasshopper. Learn frequency, coherence, and quiet of the mind, and enlightenment may dawn. Edited April 21, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 No, not a "no." It does take into account those field biologists who did take the time and effort to report evidence, and have that evidence ignored by their peers. (You can find those reports a plenty in the BFRO database, if one is inclined to do the work, but if not, please exit from the rear, and watch your step...) Where do you go, exactly, to have your field observations of Sasquatch published by an established and well-funded scientific journal, and receive peer review of that work? Where is the funding to do that work I am always hearing about? I'm sure many here would be overjoyed to know deep pockets and academic accolades await those who would only ask for it. Tell us, please. If I were a field researcher and advanced this evidence as a first-person account, and received even just a yawn in return, I'd not have to have somebody make a finer point to me as to what regard they hold me, professionally. Hostility to a theory does not require a certified rejection letter. One knows not to propose something if one wants to continue to keep one's future employment possibilities extant. If one doubts this, one should get out much more. Since you like to lump myself and DWA into a common category Dmaker, you at least should acknowledge something we do have in common. We've both worked a collective 1/2 century for large, unwieldy and (can I speak candidly?) ossified organizations in both the public and private sectors. I would just politely suggest that you not be so rash as you are in saying we do not appreciate the very real limitations at work against those who propose paradigm-changing theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 ^^^Bing. and Go. Please. I demand the names of ten up-and-coming sasquatch researchers. Now. The evidence demands that. So why isn't it happening? Because taboo topics tend to work like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I do think though DWA, if such a study could be compiled and published, the title might could be, "Commonly Observed Morphological Characteristics, Corresponding Exhibited Behaviors and Other Witness Sense Impressions, as Documented in First-Hand North American Sasquatch Sighting Reports: A Case For The Collective Evidence" Dmaker, where do I send the grant ap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Your question is rhetorical and does not require a response obviously. You are not a biologist seeking a grant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 Hello WSA, ...It does take into account those field biologists who did take the time and effort to report evidence, and have that evidence ignored by their peers. (You can find those reports a plenty in the BFRO database, if one is inclined to do the work, but if not..... Speaking as a person who does do the work(Me) would you please link 10 examples? It's OK if you feel the need to decline the request. I'm kinda used to it after dealing with DWA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) Where do you go, exactly, to have your field observations of Sasquatch published by an established and well-funded scientific journal, and receive peer review of that work? Where is the funding to do that work I am always hearing about? I'm sure many here would be overjoyed to know deep pockets and academic accolades await those who would only ask for it. Tell us, please. I'm sure Meldrum and Munns could answer that, since they both have received grants for Bigfoot related research. I believe Munns is also going through peer review. Nope; like Krantz, he's old and doesn't care a whit about advancement. Meldrum has an enlightened faculty...and very serious mainstream chops, just like those other two. In other words... unless you have totally made yer bones: a huge emphatic DON'T TALK ABOUT BIGFOOT AT WORK. And you did NOT see one, nosireeBob. (Does the name "Mionczynski" mean anything to you? He's only the most prominent example.) Bindernagel has been researching Bigfoot since 1963, which is a far cry from "old and doesn't care about advancement". He still has a job too. Go figure. Edited April 22, 2014 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) Dr. Sykes does bigfoot sample analysis publicly. Dr.Disotell seems to have no problem doing the same. Where is this long list of damaged careers due to bigfoot interest? It sounds like fantasy to me. It's just another bigfoot story meant to help explain why there is no conclusive evidence. People don't talk about it because it's bad for their careers. Sure, that sounds good. Edited April 22, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottv Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 Definitely it is easier to get funding to study grizzly bears than bigfoot, but wasn't the DNA study well funded, and Dr. Meldrum seems to be able to get money for bigfoot study and Peter Byrne got quite a bit didn't he? There has been some money put forward to document the existence of bigfoot. The failure of these projects to come up with anything that suggests a bigfoot population coupled with the well publicized hoaxes makes it difficult for funding agencies to take bigfoot seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 Dmaker, it sounds bad only if you don't have much experience in those kinds of things. Out here in the nasty-now-and-now, especially in this economy, self-preservation reigns supreme. The young man wants to believe that the strength of conviction will always carry the day, and Hollywood does its part to keep that fiction alive. Understand, I'm not trying to dis you at all...just pointing out our experiences inform us. I've been down a lot of roads, as some others have too. It pays to listen to some of that is all I'm saying. I view Disotell as somewhat of a clown figure, really. He might not be, but I don't care to take the energy to learn more. Everyting about the guy's appearance and demeanor screams, "Don't take me seriously." Well, yes, he has lots of company in this area, sure. Serving the media trumps all, as we know. So of course, that waives a lot of folks off who might otherwise have a contribution to make. The panoply of bumblers is not something anyone really wants to be identified with. Shame that the serious side of this quest gets eclipsed by that sideshow. Hiflier, they do exist. If you've not read them, then you haven't read all of them, or as many, or maybe just the ones I've read. I did not say there were as many as 10. If you interpret "plenty" to be at that number, minimum, I'd just say that was not what I was trying to convey...just that I've read more than one of them, surely. I don't keep any kind of index or compendium of reports, although I know such are out there to reference. Do I understand you to say you've never seen the first one of that description? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 I agree that Dr.Disotells appearance and demeanor can be a bit, er, colorful, but his credentials are most impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 If you think he bears up under scrutiny dmaker, I might take that recommendation and look at his work more closely. So much noise to signal out there, and folks clamoring for their 15 minutes. So many of us have just walked away from the whole circus, but I do keep looking for the primary research results....let me draw our own conclusions and spare me the commercial tie-ins. It has gotten to the point where if anyone considered to be a "serious" researcher collaborates with anyone who is questionable, the taint to them is indelible. That is not a good thing, when you are talking about advancing scientific knowledge, but understandable. I would just want to call a moratorium on any so-called BF expert wearing any sort of headgear. (That, and I would also like to propose that any band or performer who poses for a publicity still on any set of railroad tracks have their capos smashed) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 (That, and I would also like to propose that any band or performer who poses for a publicity still on any set of railroad tracks have their capos smashed) ^^ lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts