Bigfoot Police / Wildlife Reports.

[dmaker]

They are not testable in the scientific sense. You know this, anyone can see this. It is not a complicated concept. Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge this displays your bias.

[norseman]

My issue with blanket dismissals of BFRO reports is a classic case of tossing the baby with the bath water.

 

They aren't making them up.  What they do with reports after the reports are posted might be somewhat problematical sometimes.  But nobody's giving me a good alternative explanation for all these reports.  I'm not seeing dismissing them.  Non-scientific in the extreme.  Shows...gimme a sec here...a strong denial bias and zero critical thinking.

 

Sure, but in order to be scientific? Tests have to be repeatable, which in the case of these reports? Means that someone like me independent of the BFRO can go in and verify what is being claimed. 

 

This is the report in question, which I did a follow up on over on our website, complete with pictures.

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=36008

 

Anyhow, I never found the exact location, but I'm 100% positive it's quite a ways up creek from the claimed location.

 

Also, it's not the first time I've caught the BFRO being shady with exact locations. In my opinion it has more to do with glory than any sort of hoaxing going on, but regardless, I cannot independently verify anything without being able to get to the location.

 

Now, I can see that skeptics can poke holes in our "defense" because one researcher is calling another research organization out, as oppose to holding the line. But the bottom line is that we need to get better as a community about this. I'm not going to feed you false intel because I'm afraid your gonna steal my thunder..............there is NO thunder to be stolen. Skeptics cannot in any way shape or form argue with a body...........zip, zilch, zero. Anecdotal accounts? Absolutely they can! So what is the harm in trying to get better about filing these reports and making sure that outside researchers can verify the veracity of the claim? All it does is lend credibility to what we are doing.

 

Of course the BFRO is anti kill as well, and I'm very vocal about my position, so I'm sure extra help will not be coming my way..........

They are not testable in the scientific sense. You know this, anyone can see this. It is not a complicated concept. Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge this displays your bias.

 

They are if pictures or audio are taken or if tracks are cast. There is data there to be mined.

 

Just a sighting report being made by someone? I guess we could do a polygraph test? But no real data there...........no.

 

I think a huge problem with the Bigfoot community is that they forget the prize. This guy has his thermal video that has been scientifically analyzed and has been found legit, or a track cast that Meldrum has proclaimed to be real. GREAT. But it's not PROOF of anything, if may exhibit qualities that make it highly unlikely to have been a hoax...........but scientifically it can go no further. So the prize will never be a track cast or a video.............it's a biological entity we are after and that's all that is gonna satisfy science.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Well, I can't read any BFRO minds, and I don't have a telepathic bigfoot to help me with that.  But it might be possible that a site getting flooded with people with varying levels of understanding about how to use stuff like guns may account for the imprecision, and they feel that they have to say something about where this came from.  So, walking an info tightrope there, and just my guess.

 

No argument about the community needing to work better together, and once again NAWAC is the model.  No-kill (not them personally anyway) and specimen advocates working together for what they all acknowledge science needs.

[norseman]

^^^^^^^

But that's a huge part of the problem! Many notable "famous" researchers could not give a hoot about science or discovery. They are very very anti science. Boiled down to brass tacks? They are in it for the adrenaline rush and personal experience........and not so much about proving they exist to anyone.

 

Also, if you do not want the report to be public because you fear it will be flooded? Then don't post it up. Posting up a report that has false data such as the location? Does nothing for your credibility.

[southernyahoo]

To me the reports simply point to when , where, and what to expect when you go looking. One can compare what's in the reports to personal experience and assign them different probabilities of being legit. No personal experience can mean you are lost. Knowing some people perosonally who have had experiences can be motivation, at least initially.

[Guest DWA]

^^^^^^^

But that's a huge part of the problem! Many notable "famous" researchers could not give a hoot about science or discovery. They are very very anti science. Boiled down to brass tacks? They are in it for the adrenaline rush and personal experience........and not so much about proving they exist to anyone.

 

Also, if you do not want the report to be public because you fear it will be flooded? Then don't post it up. Posting up a report that has false data such as the location? Does nothing for your credibility.

And we're all learning as we go.  I'd put up a policy statement "here's why we don't disclose locations in the reports."

 

Now of course NAWAC reports include photos, particularly of road-crossings, that, well, if you drive those roads you'll find the spot.

 

I don't just put a phony location up.  

 

And there actually are people who are in this for the money, Mr. Biscardi.  I generally toss them.  The media however don't, to their discredit.

They are not testable in the scientific sense. You know this, anyone can see this. It is not a complicated concept. Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge this displays your bias.

No.  You just don't understand what "testable" means in the scientific sense.

[Guest keninsc]

I recall reading or hearing that many of these encounters by Forestry Service Rangers are not kept in any official files. That way they don't have to send them in if they get a request under the FOIA, as it only pertains to official files. I think I recall they were considered "personal" files and not kept in any central location but rather kept at individual stations offices.

[norseman]

^^^^^^^

Do you have a interview or article you can lnk here to verify that Ken?

[Guest DWA]

Meldrum tells about a case where a footprint find was laughed at by the USFS office.  The couple got a call a few minutes later from that office.  The guy was whispering.  He wanted to add it to their informal case file.

[norseman]

^^^^^

I remember that story DWA

[Guest DWA]

^^^It's in the book Legend Meets Science.  For any who might want to read it.  Can't remember the page.

[Guest keninsc]

I'll see if I can find it again. It was some time ago. If I'm not mistaken it was from our own Coonbo on one of his podcastes which I enjoy very much as he is easy to listen to about the subject.

[dmaker]

An anecdote can never be truly tested in the scientific method. For example, you claim you saw a bigfoot in your backyard last night.  Without a time machine that can never be tested. And even further some might argue that it still cannot be tested because you and I do not share the same brain and what you perceive may not be what I perceive. So the anecdote itself can never be tested, nor can it be repeatable. Two primary requirements for scientific evidence. It also cannot be falsified without a time machine. How can I prove that claim wrong? It's impossible. Again, another reason why anecdotes are not scientific evidence. You cannot apply the scientific method to them.  You may be able to investigate them, sure, but you can never falsify or test any of them.

 

I will never understand why our resident Self Proclaimed Super Scientist refuses to acknowledge this basic concept.

Edited June 4, 2014 by dmaker

[SWWASAS]

Anyone know what government agency Dmaker works for?    3841 posts from a skeptic?   What motivates someone to spend that kind of time other than he might be paid to do it.   

 

 I have no idea what BFRO does or does not do with reports.     Certainly my reported science background has not been enough to get an investigator to contact me about reports I have submitted to them.     Either mine are too boring or I am not believable.    Certainly it cannot be both.   If BFRO is indeed objective and compiling data as they claim,  I do not know how they can do that without investigating reports.    That is troubling to me in that if BFRO is not doing it, who is other than NAWAC which focuses on Washington State?        Randy          

[Northern Lights]

^^Why is Dmaker posting here a problem?  I think it's important to have as many points of view as possible.  We should all be skeptical, of everything we read, see, hear, or experience.