N A W A C - Field Study Discussion (2)

[Guest zenmonkey]

You go, bipto!  That's called reading comprehension.  Always good to be able to represent what I SAID.  Even not using the same words.

yes sir

[dmaker]

Physical remains are proof. Everything else is evidence.

I can go along with that.  At least in the context of proving a species. Yes. But it is worth noting that you are setting aside certain types of physical evidence as proof and others as merely evidence. For example, a finger print or foot print or tree structure remain simply physical evidence whereas any biological physical evidence is proof. Correct? 

 

 

So DWA, why were you and WSA lobbying for provisional classification of bigfoot based on the witness reports alone recently if you are so strongly behind the idea that they are simply a form of evidence and not proof?

Edited June 3, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

We didn't say on the witness reports alone.  Nor did we say anything was proven.  We said that :

 

Based on thousands of consistent reports, reports consistent on many physical, behavioral and other characters - buttressed by footprints, forensic evidence occurring across the continent, examined and pronounced genuine by recognized experts - that it would make sense, strictly on Aldo Leopold's thesis that an intelligent tinkerer saves all the parts, to provisionally allow for, and conduct research into, an undocumented animal, from evidence presumably a primate, awaiting formal scientific classification.

 

Does biology normally do that?  No.  But does biology normally display this degree of steelheadedness?  NO.  We thought it prudent to err in the other direction for once.  And this is no more and no less than other sciences have done in many, many, many other parallel situations.  It is, in fact, the only way science advances at all:  by acknowledging a possibility, and conducting a concerted effort to look into it.

 

They're the ones saying it!  "This would be the Holy Grail of biology..."  Oh.  And it's not worth even this?

 

Doesn't say anything is proven.  DOES say that some - a lot of - really really recalcitrant individuals might want to stop imitating Three Monkeys and actually look at the evidence as what a biologist - paying attention, mind you - would BET it was were his mind open to the conceivable possibility.

 

(HInt:  Not Bob Hieronymous.)

 

 

[Incorrigible1]

We? Are you French?

[ohiobill]

Thousands of read reports are not proof.

TESTIFY! Hearsay is normally excluded from testimony.

[dmaker]

We didn't say on the witness reports alone.  Nor did we say anything was proven.  We said that :

 

Based on thousands of consistent reports, reports consistent on many physical, behavioral and other characters - buttressed by footprints, forensic evidence occurring across the continent, examined and pronounced genuine by recognized experts - that it would make sense, strictly on Aldo Leopold's thesis that an intelligent tinkerer saves all the parts, to provisionally allow for, and conduct research into, an undocumented animal, from evidence presumably a primate, awaiting formal scientific classification.

 

Does biology normally do that?  No.  But does biology normally display this degree of steelheadedness?  NO.  We thought it prudent to err in the other direction for once.  And this is no more and no less than other sciences have done in many, many, many other parallel situations.  It is, in fact, the only way science advances at all:  by acknowledging a possibility, and conducting a concerted effort to look into it.

 

They're the ones saying it!  "This would be the Holy Grail of biology..."  Oh.  And it's not worth even this?

 

Doesn't say anything is proven.  DOES say that some - a lot of - really really recalcitrant individuals might want to stop imitating Three Monkeys and actually look at the evidence as what a biologist - paying attention, mind you - would BET it was were his mind open to the conceivable possibility.

 

(HInt:  Not Bob Hieronymous.)

Can you provide a single example where a species was provisionally classified without any of the biological proofs necessary? 

 

And please, if you don't mind, only answer the question and do not treat me to a lecture about what other sciences have done in the past and how you think that relates to bigfoot.

Edited June 3, 2014 by dmaker

[Squatchy McSquatch]

D, how many words can you waste on a broken record?

 

Move on, my friend.

 

The Burden of Proof is on the Fake Scientists.

[Guest]

...a finger print or foot print or tree structure remain simply physical evidence whereas any biological physical evidence is proof. Correct? 

 

Some evidence is more compelling than others. I think some of the casts border on proof (thinking specifically of the Hereford tracks), but it's not enough. Not enough to prove something so significant in a field rife with hoaxing and BS. If someone could fake it, it's only evidence in my book. You can't fake DNA.

[Guest]

Can you provide a single example where a species was provisionally classified without any of the biological proofs necessary? 

 

The point DWA is making, I think, (and one I agree with) is that there is ample circumstantial evidence to suggest some kind of animal is tromping around North American woodlands in form of footprints, the occasional hair sample, the odd sound, and yes, witness reports. More than enough to warrant an investigation that's really never been tried before (at least not since the 70's). Whether or not that means the animal should be provisionally classified is a question for someone at a higher pay grade, but circumstantially the pointers are there. 

 

The day will come when someone kills an ape in North America and an otherwise disengaged segment of our population will cry out, "WHY!?" And the response will be, "Because scientists, by and large, chose not to seek out the source of the smoke around them." 

 

I wrote at greater length on this subject here. 

Edited June 3, 2014 by bipto

[MIB]

Plussed.   I think that is a very good explanation of the situation.   What we have is not proof but it is sufficient evidence to warrant a more serious investigation than we have seen to date.   What we have, instead, is people (lead by the scientists) demanding proof before they'll consider the evidence.   That's not how science works is supposed to work.

 

MIB

Edited June 3, 2014 by MIB

[Guest]

That's not how science works is supposed to work.

 

Agreed. 

[dmaker]

But you still cannot ignore the glaring fact that after all this time there still is no proof. If bigfoots were out there in the places and numbers claimed then we would have had a specimen ages ago. A breeding population of 9ft apes cannot hide in our picnic areas and campgrounds. 

 

And please let's drop the pretense that science must be looking for bigfoot in order to find bigfoot. There are plenty of scientific efforts that go on each day in alleged bigfoot habitat. Do you honestly think that because they and their equipment ( cameras, audio records, etc) are out there looking for other mammals, or birds even, that a 9ft ape will somehow escape detection? Don't you think that would stand out quite a bit? No, this silly notion that no effort is being made to find bigfoot does not cut it. You have amateur organizations doing "expeditions" regularly, plus all the hunters, hikers, land management folks, game wardens, anglers, and yes, scientists who are out there on any given day. To suggest that they must be wearing their bigfoot glasses to find bigfoot is ridiculous. If it was actually out there, it would have been found by now. 

[Drew]

Is there anyone who goes to X who just never sees the Apes?

 

You know, another person says 'There's one!' up on the hill, but the one person just can't locate them?

 

Or there are noises, but they just can't say "Ooh that sounds like an Ape'  but the others think it is an ape?

[Guest DWA]

The point DWA is making, I think, (and one I agree with) is that there is ample circumstantial evidence to suggest some kind of animal is tromping around North American woodlands in form of footprints, the occasional hair sample, the odd sound, and yes, witness reports. More than enough to warrant an investigation that's really never been tried before (at least not since the 70's). Whether or not that means the animal should be provisionally classified is a question for someone at a higher pay grade, but circumstantially the pointers are there. 

 

The day will come when someone kills an ape in North America and an otherwise disengaged segment of our population will cry out, "WHY!?" And the response will be, "Because scientists, by and large, chose not to seek out the source of the smoke around them." 

 

I wrote at greater length on this subject here. 

Bada.  And bing.

 

Whether anyone wants to propose (and a scientist or two has) a provisional classification is their thing to deal with.  But the not looking is unconscionably unscientific.  It's anti-science.

Edited June 3, 2014 by DWA

[Yuchi1]

Plussed.   I think that is a very good explanation of the situation.   What we have is not proof but it is sufficient evidence to warrant a more serious investigation than we have seen to date.   What we have, instead, is people (lead by the scientists) demanding proof before they'll consider the evidence.   That's not how science works is supposed to work.

 

MIB

+1

 

When you consider what an "eclectic" group is involved in this arena, it's no wonder academia, by and large, shuns it like the plague. As Bipto stated, rampant hoaxing along with cable TV shows that make it look (IMO) like a summer camp frolic through the woods and such other primarily "entertainment" based shows, It's probably not something the Rotary Club or Junior League is likely to invite you to speak about anytime soon.