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

[Guest DWA]

We? Are you French?

Apparently only when you try to understand what I am saying in English.

 

Thousands of read reports are not proof.

FOR THE 29,658,498th TIME in the history of bigfoot skepticism, the utter inability to distinguish between evidence and proof.  It's crippling, guys, from a, you know, equal-footing-in-the-debate standpoint.

Edited June 3, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

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. 

 

No, there is no proof. I disagree that, if they're there in numbers, that we would have had proof by now. There are a myriad of reasons why getting that proof is difficult and the only way to really get that is to try and do it yourself. But, as I said above, science shouldn't work under the "prove it and then we'll study it" mentality. We'd never discover anything that way. Most of science is observation. We have observed an animal and evidence of its passage yet "science" ignores it. Why? That's a better question and worthy of digging into. 

 

Also, nobody anywhere who's at all serious is suggesting a breeding population of wood apes lives in campgrounds and picnic areas. That's reductionist in the extreme and a totally unfair characterization.

[Guest DWA]

^^^smh, bipto, eh?

[norseman]

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. 

 

A couple of thoughts.....

 

1) Just recently we thought Homo Erectus had died out over 100,000 years ago, and then we find remains of the Hobbit that died out only 13000 years ago. Another bomb shell was the discovery of the Denisovians, a distinct species that just abruptly appeared out of no where. What I'm getting at is that the forests were filled with a lot more species of archaic humans as well as other primate species than we first thought. And that their demise in some cases was very recent. So recent in fact that we cannot be sure that somewhere, somehow, something still hangs on to life today.

 

2) The next logical step in these debates is for the opponent to make a mockery of north America as a likely place to find a large primate. It's true, there is nothing in the fossil record to indicate that north America has ever had a large temperate primate living here, other than us. But as I laid out above? One bone found in a cave or a university basement for that matter can flip Academia on it's head. Also, there were large primates living in Asia during the last ice age. Just like many other species that made the Beringia walk to get to north America. So it's not beyond the realm of possibility that it could have made it here.

 

3) So we have species that fit the description of a Sasquatch, and we have their distribution range confirmed all the way into Asia, which most all north American species migrated from. So the last point I wanted to address was why haven't we heard anything official from Science or Government about this species? I'm going to skip the conspiracy theories surrounding this, because they simply detract from the conversation at hand, I feel. Not because they cannot be real, but because we cannot verify any of this, and there fore it will forever remain in the realm of speculation. But the easiest answer to this for me? Is that we have! We have Soldiers, Marines, police officers, sheriffs, wildlife officers and rangers whom have all claimed they have seen Sasquatch. Unfortunately these accounts are simply filed away as anecdotal evidence.......... And as for most amateur groups out looking for Sasquatch? Are the same ones that give you grainy photos and cool stories! Why? Because none of them are pro kill, which you can trust me on this, is the extreme minority mindset concerning this mystery. Your gonna get stories, track casts, and grainy photos until?

 

A) Science launches a well funded expedition.

 

B ) A pro kill group kills one. (Bullets are cheap) 

 

I also want to comment on your picnic area comment. You live in Canada..........where 90% of the human population lives within 100 miles of the US border. To put this into perspective the DRC (Congo) is 905,567 sq. miles in size versus Canada which is 3.8 MILLION square miles in size. And a vast majority of that area is wilderness.........just some food for thought.

Edited June 3, 2014 by norseman

[Guest DWA]

^^^To put it another way...they all want into the US...

[Guest]

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. 

 

People generally see what they're looking for and tend to miss what they're not unless it's massively obvious. Your opinion of how field biologists work doesn't jive with my experience talking and working with them. 

One bone found in a cave or a university basement for that matter can flip Academia on it's head. 

 

The problem with how this particular science is reported (and, perhaps, taught and practiced) is that we assume what we've found is all there is. Then, when we find something new, it blows the world away. The entirely of remains we've found from a human or close to human source probably wouldn't fill a school bus. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but not much of one. 

People generally see what they're looking for and tend to miss what they're not unless is massively obvious. 

 

Case in point. Someone in our organization (a trained field biologist) recently went into the field with some peers for totally unrelated activities. During that event, there was activity nearby that our member felt was likely wood ape-related based on their personal experiences and those documented by the group. The peers of this individual either failed to respond in any way or casually suggested totally unlikely explanations (perhaps as unlikely as an 8' primate). Moral of the story is, people don't see or sometimes even acknowledge things that are outside their frame of reference. Conversely, some people looking for bigfoot find it all too often. Both issues are problematic and a deterrent to discovery. 

Edited June 3, 2014 by bipto

[norseman]

^^^^^^

Agreed. 

[Guest DWA]

People generally see what they're looking for and tend to miss what they're not unless is massively obvious. Your opinion of how field biologists work doesn't jive with my experience talking and working with them. 

 

Yeah, that's what I call a "triple smh."  And not only is a field zoologist lottery-unlikely to find something when looking for something else.  I go out looking for woodpeckers...see a bigfoot...and run back to the Jeep telling everyone about it?  OH, OK, that works...go ahead, tell me, no, you shoot video, cast tracks, and behead the big guy with your machete, so I'll know how really out of touch the opinion is with the reality.

 

The problem with how this particular science is reported (and, perhaps, taught and practiced) is that we assume what we've found is all there is. Then, when we find something new, it blows the world away. The entirely of remains we've found from a human or close to human source probably wouldn't fill a school bus. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but not much of one. 

 

Not much of one at all.  Remember when we presumed that anything we found that was anywhere between ape and human was in our direct line of ancestry?  I do.  Biology suffers, severely, from Blind Men/Elephant Disease.  What they see is, indeed, all there is, or has ever been.  And another routine duh find is thus a SHOCK, A SHOCK, I SAY...!  Meanwhile, over here in astronomy, they just presume intelligent life is out there.  No evidence.  They just presume it.  Why?  It makes sense.  Biology could learn some stuff from astronomy.

Edited June 3, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

 

I go out looking for woodpeckers...see a bigfoot...and run back to the Jeep telling everyone about it?  OH, OK, that works...

 

Right. We have many stories of people who have seen something that's highly unlikely to be misidentification but won't go public with their encounter because of the ridicule involved in doing so. I have very recently been made aware of a biologist and wildlife photographer who had a brief yet very clear visual encounter of a wood ape while camoed up and trying to take pictures of birds. This person is highly selective regarding who they'll relate their story to for fear of professional repercussions. This is a trained and experienced person. The very definition of an expert witness. And they refuse to make their account available. 

 

This is what I meant when I said above that not all witnesses are equal to all others. 

[Guest DWA]

^^^But that clearly didn't happen, because there is no proof yet.

[norseman]

^^^^^^

Correct. 

 

Which means we must double our efforts to obtain proof. 

[dmaker]

No, there is no proof. I disagree that, if they're there in numbers, that we would have had proof by now. There are a myriad of reasons why getting that proof is difficult and the only way to really get that is to try and do it yourself. But, as I said above, science shouldn't work under the "prove it and then we'll study it" mentality. We'd never discover anything that way. Most of science is observation. We have observed an animal and evidence of its passage yet "science" ignores it. Why? That's a better question and worthy of digging into. 

 

 

 

Such as?

[Guest]

That's a good try. I could write out 1,000 words on the subject based on personal experience and let you nit pick each one down to the nub or you could do as I suggest and try it yourself. I honestly have better uses of my time than making you understand the practical challenges in collecting physical proof of an elusive animal in the environments we work in. It's outside my mandate, so to speak. 

[norseman]

Such as?

 

That one is pretty easy really. No one is trying to get proof. Academia seems to be ignoring it, which means when a single ranger or biologist has a sighting, that account is treated as heresy within the department. We know this to be true. Same goes for the average joe and a police or wildlife report, it's never taken seriously.......

 

And then within the Sasquatch community? 99 percent of squatchers are not out there to get proof. Most of them are scared urbanites that want to see something and then pray they don't. 

 

And then there is the 1 % who play the long odds and hope that a opportunity for a projectile to smack flesh and bone happens within their lifetime, and pray that when their number is called they are prepared!

[dmaker]

Thanks, but no thanks. Chasing phantasms is not on my itinerary.  

That one is pretty easy really. No one is trying to get proof. Academia seems to be ignoring it, which means when a single ranger or biologist has a sighting, that account is treated as heresy within the department. We know this to be true. Same goes for the average joe and a police or wildlife report, it's never taken seriously.......

 

 

Could you please demonstrate these reports? And I mean the actual police reports, or other official reports. Not the second hand BFRO story of how a police officer did this or did that.