Bf Sightings By Wildlife Biologists

[Guest keninsc]

I also agree with J.P.'s observation about a lay persons' vs. "expert's" credibility. In most cases too, the non-expert has local knowledget that will trounce the academic acumen of the other. 

 

This sighting report was  posted by me as a retort to those skeptics who seemed to place more faith in one over the other, and/or wished to argue that the perceived lack of sightings by biologists lent strength to their arguments. Well, there are no lack of them, really, and if you consider J.P.s point (and I do) it becomes even a weaker argument. In terms of  absolute numbers of people in the field, biologists constitute only as small portion of those.

 

 Which brings us to a point we often consider:

 

The reports are made by people you would expect to see them (like any other species of wildlife observed), usually due to their occupation or hobbies: Hunters, hikers, campers, fisherman, timber industry workers, surveyors, farmers, utility workers...and yes, birders.  This is one of the patterns a person who is seriously engaging with the evidence must reckon with. Guys at the local tavern seeing a BF on their way to the car in the parking lot? Not so much.    

 

This is WSA's second post after the initial OP. Here he's talking about lay people versus "experts", but in truth I don't see anything more convincing than any other report I've read on the subject. Now, WSA is free to hold whatever opinion he wishes and accept whatever he wishes as proof or evidence, that's how we all are really when it's all said and done. My point was and still is that this report is only a report that should taken on it's merits not held up because this person is a biologist. 

[BobbyO]

Actually, that is the point. .

Sorry, I should have guessed.

My only issue is that for some reason this is being held up as being the "Holy Grail" of reports because this person was a biologist. It's not a matter of belief or disbelief, the report is the report and stands on it's own merits..

It absolutely isn't being held up as that, it's being used as an example.

On its own, it may not be great, but that isn't the point, it may not " be that great " for a number of reasons, none of which should detract from the validity of it.

The point, in my eyes anyway, is that it is one of many ( a different, "better" one could have been used to show what the OP is talking about ) sightings by a Wildlife Biologist and a Wildlife Biologist seeing me of these things should hold more merit than if you saw one, because you're not a Wildlife Biologist.

Wildlife Biologists seeing these things is, in my eyes, a big deal as they are quite simply more qualified in general to explain and describe what they saw than average joe.

[Guest keninsc]

Sorry, I should have guessed.

It absolutely isn't being held up as that, it's being used as an example.

On its own, it may not be great, but that isn't the point, it may not " be that great " for a number of reasons, none of which should detract from the validity of it.

The point, in my eyes anyway, is that it is one of many ( a different, "better" one could have been used to show what the OP is talking about ) sightings by a Wildlife Biologist and a Wildlife Biologist seeing me of these things should hold more merit than if you saw one, because you're not a Wildlife Biologist.

Wildlife Biologists seeing these things is, in my eyes, a big deal as they are quite simply more qualified in general to explain and describe what they saw than average joe.

 

As I said with WSA, you have the right to accept or reject whatever you like, however I would suggest that maybe you should try raising the bar. Especially in a case where you have a supposedly educated and trained professional making a report that reads like this one does. It's one thing for some good old boy who barely finished high school to write up a report, yeah you need to make some considerations, but this is a college graduate with multiple degrees, trained in the scientific method, so I see no reason not expect just a skosh better in terms of what he did, how he made his observations what evidence did he get. Fact is he's got a great big goose egg. Nothing wrong with that but his goose egg isn't a better goose egg because he's got letters after his name.

 

Sorry, I'm just not seeing what has you guys all excited in the report. I've seen better reports on encounters written by people with far less education and training and they actually had something to lend substance to their report. prints or photos or video or something. I just feel that if you're going to wave that sheep's skin about like a banner to rally around then that bar needs to come up as well. 

 

It's unfortunate that Bigfootery has allowed this sort of thing to happen, but after the results of the last forty or so years I can see why this has happened. Raise the bar, demand better because when you raise mediocrity up to a new level then it makes crap look a lot better. If you want better then you have to demand better and put it up as the new standard.

[BobbyO]

 

Sorry, I'm just not seeing what has you guys all excited in the report. I've seen better reports on encounters written by people with far less education and training and they actually had something to lend substance to their report. prints or photos or video or something. I just feel that if you're going to wave that sheep's skin about like a banner to rally around then that bar needs to come up as well. 

.

It's not " this " report that is in question.

The OP just used " this " report as an example of a number of reports by Wildlife Biologists.

No need to completely focus on " this " report to base an argument on as it was just used as an example because of, I'd assume, it is a new report.

There are others out there by Wildlife Biologists, some of which may be to a more acceptable standard to people like you, me, or whoever doesn't put much credence into " this " specific report.

A quick search yields this in 2 seconds, as another example.

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=2886

[Guest keninsc]

What I said still applies under any circumstances. Each report, regardless of who wrote it must be judged on it's own merit. 

 

Everything I have said about this reports is directly and easily applicable. This report or that report or reports that are as yet unwritten, they must be judged on their own merit. They don't get some super consideration because someone with a biology degree wrote them.

 

How about a doctorate degree? Or a college professor? How about both? The credentials of the writer should have no bearing on the experience.

 

However, here it seems, it does......and that thinking is flawed from the start.

[dmaker]

 LOL, I was not there, I spoke with the investigator on some of the details, I do not want to get any more specific than saying that he works as the biologist for a large business witch was verified both by official records from the business, visitation at the work place while on the clock and in a personal meeting in his office.  

 

 The investigator did a fantastic job looking into the witnesses reputation and credentials.

So this information was verified for you by the investigator? I find that less convincing than you do I guess. The report does not strike me as something written by a wildlife biologist or "avid birdwatcher". 

With regards to the dmeister ( dmaker ), there really is no other option than " I don't believe this one because......) in his world, no matter what details or lack of details are in the report anyway.

 

I understand where you're coming from, but it's a fallacy to think that my default position on bigfoot prevents me from making valid observations on a report. Proponents ( despite their belief in the subject matter) can still make valid observations. Most of the time, however, fallacies and special pleading are all I see. But it would be foolish of me to dismiss any objective observations simply because they were made by an enthusiast. But when those observations are not objective and amount to fallacies like argument from authority ( as is the case here by some), then it is correct to point out the fallacy. 

 

And that report that you recently linked? It stinks as bad as the one in the OP. It does not feel like something written by a professional biologist. There are spelling errors and the style and word choice does not feel like something written by someone with a post secondary education. It does not feel right to me. 

Edited May 15, 2014 by dmaker

[BobbyO]

 

How about a doctorate degree? Or a college professor? How about both? The credentials of the writer should have no bearing on the experience.

 

However, here it seems, it does......and that thinking is flawed from the start.

Are you serious ?

You think a college professor talking about his profession shouldn't have a more valued view on it than John Smith ?

Or someone with a Doctorate Degree who gives a talk about medicine for example wouldn't have a more valued view than the man on the street ?

Just like you don't think a Wildlife Biologist who see's one of these things shouldn't have any more of a valued/valid report when he sees one of these things, just because the report itself ( which comes via an external source and is " investigated " by someone with less credentials than the actual Biologist ) doesn't fit in with your way of thinking how it should have been written ?

Each to their own.

The credentials of a person say a hell of a lot about the subject in question in my opinion, such as someone with a doctorate degree talking about medicine, and a wildlife biologist seeing a Sasquatch.

I don't see how that thinking is flawed personally.

 

And that report that you recently linked? It stinks as bad as the one in the OP. It does not feel like something written by a professional biologist. There are spelling errors and the style and word choice does not feel like something written by someone with a post secondary education. It does not feel right to me.

That's cool.

So it's complete fabrication ( it can't be anything else ) in your opinion and we go round in a circle again and back to square one...

And the same thing will repeat tomorrow.

I'll scurry back to the SSR, nothing to see here as per usual..

[WSA]

I was scrolling through some threads just now, trying to find the discussion that prompted my OP, but failed.  As I recall it, some of us were taking the stance that the lack of sighting reports by "real" scientists, or folks trained in field study, etc., supported the illegitimacy of that evidence. I believe we pretty conclusively showed in that thread that there are no lack of those kinds of reports. This report by our man in FL is just the most recent one.

 

Now, if  you adamantly refuse to accept ANY BF report as legitimate, you should have no difficulty whatsoever in waving away this one too.  When and if you do that, I think common courtesy requires you to also concede when what you originally proposed as a requirement to diminish your degree of incredulity, was met.   Killing the messenger (or disparaging the messenger's credentials), I think, is just plain tacky.    

[dmaker]

It was never my requirement.  I don't really care what sort of background one claims in a bigfoot anecdote. It remains just as unproven as the creature in the claim. It is no surprise, however, that enthusiasts do not even pause to seriously consider if the credentials are valid. 

[WSA]

Oh, I think they did. 

 

If I find that thread entry I'm recalling, I'll link it. Unless it might serve no purpose other than to cause undue embarrassment to others. That too, I think, is tacky.

Edited May 15, 2014 by WSA

[BobbyO]

Badda boom.

Apologies if this has been added already to this thread but I hadn't seen it if it has been.

Here's the BFRO voluntary investigator giving her time to show the public the location of the sighting.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=XieZ8fhcFP4

Edited May 15, 2014 by BobbyO

[dmaker]

^^ I have to ask Bobby, what does providing a video of the location ( with no bigfoot in sight) add to the claim?

[Guest DWA]

 

 The internet is replete with false reports, mistaken reports, total fabrications, lies, embellishments are but a few of the myriad of reports. 

 

 

That sentence means absolutely nothing until you can (1) PROVE how many - what percentage of the overall quota - are those things and (2) SHOW how that relieves us of any obligation to be concerned about the rest.  You of course cannot do that.  Which means:  that sentence means absolutely nothing.  It's your true clung-to belief, and nothing more.

 

See how a scientist thinks about stuff?

Really? In what parallel universe?

 

And just for the record I hope and pray never to get where you are on this subject, just so we understand each other.

 

Really.  Thinking about this.  I agree with you, you don't seem to ever want to get to that point.  Which doesn't exactly make one unique here.

[Guest keninsc]

Wow, denial.

 

It's not just a river in Egypt. 

[Guest DWA]

Well, if one fails utterly to address the evidence, one can say that about one.  But thanks for sparing me the necessity.

 

Really makes me wonder what people like you will say when this is proven.  (As the evidence makes clear is only a matter of time, although the Clouseau tendencies of the scientific mainstream are really testing this.)  I mean, really.  "No, we were justified in not following the evidence at all because it wasn't proven yet"?

 

Not thinking this through, a problem, Grasshopper.

It was never my requirement.  I don't really care what sort of background one claims in a bigfoot anecdote. It remains just as unproven as the creature in the claim. It is no surprise, however, that enthusiasts do not even pause to seriously consider if the credentials are valid. 

Yup.  Tacky.

Edited May 15, 2014 by DWA