Guest Crowlogic Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 I have never believed that discovery would take big science. Roger Patterson pretty much single handedly proved that at least in the late 1960's Bigfoot did exist. One of the problems in modern times communication is so easy that anyone can make a claim and a name in Bigfoot culture. Another problem I see is that a little bit of fame/attention goes a long way in inviting people to garner attention. With all the podcasts and youtube exposure a type of stardom can be obtained. Also a little bit of money can be made in the process. So the conditions are ripe for an endless promise that is never designed to produce. I had forgotten Ketchum's claims about the BF 'habituation site' she went to! Not that I've thought much about the whole affair since it melted down. Is that element something she still talks about or did it get put out to pasture? GK I hadn't forgotten it and when I read it I said to myself "well another one bites the dust." And this was in spite of the fact that the saga had barely gotten rolling at the time.
Yuchi1 Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 Possible reasons for "secrecy": Capitalism. The Cottage Industry that has sprang up around this subject is probably the most detrimental aspect to the endeavour as the catalyst is to "keep it going for as long as possible" so the revenue stream is maintained and the incumbent incident du jour is periodically plugged in as a booster shot. As long as mining the miners/footing the footers is profitable, the hue and cry of, there's gold/foots in them thar hills will be incessant. Egomania. Often added into the above motivation and together, form a powerful opiate. However, the saving grace and apparent pattern is those engaging in such behavior eventually take themselves out of the business when claims become so shopworn that even the most ardent disciple loses faith, lowers their head and with drooping shoulders, shuffle off seeking their next messiah. Looking Back to See Ahead: While eyewitness evidence has been found to be the least valid form, there are situations where it can be compelling. The thousands of years of legend and lore established by the thousands of people that came to this continent and lived in the environment furnishes a database with unique characteristics. Descriptions that have unmistakable parallels and are spread out over large geographic areas and with the communication mediums between these groups of people nowhere near the level as today, mass hysteria and paradolia may well have less relevance as a factor. The catalyst appears to be (in most cases) these people were simply living out their lives, doing the daily activities of life when the above evidence was acquired. I suspect they had the capacity to see the forest in spite of all those trees and thus, were able to observe what was actually in the forest. FWIW.
Drew Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 In this arena there has never been a shortage of those claiming to have the goods but there is a a woeful shortage of a sharing and delivering of said proof. When does the secrecy indicate the null set containing the items kept in secret? Given over a half century of non discovery this member now subscribes to the null set scenario. Take it a step further, there is also no shortage of people trying to make money off of the subject. Problem with this? Let's say a prominent researcher finds a wonderful set of tracks, and publishes a paper on it, starts selling casts, does a tv show episode about it, writes a book about it. Then let's say the hoaxer that made those tracks contacted the researcher and told him he did it, and sent a file of him making the tracks. Do you think the researcher is going to come out and say he was tricked? What if the researcher can secure the hoaxer's silence? Would the researcher continue to present this as evidence? Another thing Jeff Meldrum is going on the Bigfoot tour telling crowds that Patty is 7' tall or bigger, based on Bill Munns work, even though he knows Bill Munns has withdrawn his claim that Patty is 7' tall or bigger. Dr. Meldrum knows that Bill Munns has withdrawn his lens work, yet still continues to tell the Footers that Patty is 7' tall. Why is this?
Guest DWA Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 Not every scientific discovery was made by a professional with financial backing. Many students make discoveries every year without some consortium or scientific panel or government program financing what they do. Amateurs have and continue to make advances in science. I do believe that if bigfoot is real, it will be discovered by an amateur unless BIG science gets involved. I don't really see any way around this. I agree it would be nice to have some bigger financial aid and coordination among researchers though. I have never believed that discovery would take big science. Roger Patterson pretty much single handedly proved that at least in the late 1960's Bigfoot did exist. One of the problems in modern times communication is so easy that anyone can make a claim and a name in Bigfoot culture. I think that the field's current state is all I need to cite in pressing the need for "big science" to get involved. There are still people arguing, seriously, that there is no evidence, for something for which there's more far more, and far more consistent, evidence than man has garnered for anything else - ever - that remained unproven. An eminently qualified scientist has argued cogently that there is enough for a reasonable presumption that the sasquatch has already been discovered, just not acknowledged by enough scientists yet to be generally considered confirmed. That is largely because of "not invented here" syndrome; scientists in most fields don't want to give amateurs the time of day, and amateurs have done almost all the work. (All of it, if one counts moonlighting mainstreamers which one really should.) When a half-century of amateur effort has yielded to the vast bulk of the society a presumption of "no evidence," not really anything more I need say.
norseman Posted July 23, 2014 Admin Posted July 23, 2014 Take it a step further, there is also no shortage of people trying to make money off of the subject. Problem with this? Let's say a prominent researcher finds a wonderful set of tracks, and publishes a paper on it, starts selling casts, does a tv show episode about it, writes a book about it. Then let's say the hoaxer that made those tracks contacted the researcher and told him he did it, and sent a file of him making the tracks. Do you think the researcher is going to come out and say he was tricked? What if the researcher can secure the hoaxer's silence? Would the researcher continue to present this as evidence? Another thing Jeff Meldrum is going on the Bigfoot tour telling crowds that Patty is 7' tall or bigger, based on Bill Munns work, even though he knows Bill Munns has withdrawn his claim that Patty is 7' tall or bigger. Dr. Meldrum knows that Bill Munns has withdrawn his lens work, yet still continues to tell the Footers that Patty is 7' tall. Why is this? Because he knows the size of the foot?
Drew Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 (edited) Norse Not really relevant when you see Patty and Jim McLaren side by side, and Jim is slightly taller than Patty is it? Oh, and we all know the size of the foot don't we? Edited July 23, 2014 by Drew
norseman Posted July 23, 2014 Admin Posted July 23, 2014 I've seen the comparison of mcClarin, she looked taller and much much bulkier. I believe Patty has a 17 inch foot based on the film site trackway? I may be wrong.
MIB Posted July 23, 2014 Moderator Posted July 23, 2014 Yep, you're right, we sure do. From the track casts. There are no real pictures of Patty w/ Jim McLaren side by side, only someone's attempt to show what that'd be like. I would stick with the 7' 4" height estimate unless something pretty convincing, not just convenient as fodder for scoffing, is presented. MIB
norseman Posted July 23, 2014 Admin Posted July 23, 2014 I am 6'3" tall and 260 lbs and have a size 12 foot.
Guest Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 I think that the field's current state is all I need to cite in pressing the need for "big science" to get involved. There are still people arguing, seriously, that there is no evidence, for something for which there's more far more, and far more consistent, evidence than man has garnered for anything else - ever - that remained unproven. An eminently qualified scientist has argued cogently that there is enough for a reasonable presumption that the sasquatch has already been discovered, just not acknowledged by enough scientists yet to be generally considered confirmed. That is largely because of "not invented here" syndrome; scientists in most fields don't want to give amateurs the time of day, and amateurs have done almost all the work. (All of it, if one counts moonlighting mainstreamers which one really should.) When a half-century of amateur effort has yielded to the vast bulk of the society a presumption of "no evidence," not really anything more I need say. From what I see, most scientists are definitely interested in future scientists (aka amateurs) and are more than happy to help with advice and to even get downright involved in the experiments and thesis writing. I'd like to see evidence of scientists dismissing amateurs.
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 I think that the field's current state is all I need to cite in pressing the need for "big science" to get involved. There are still people arguing, seriously, that there is no evidence, for something for which there's more far more, and far more consistent, evidence than man has garnered for anything else - ever - that remained unproven. An eminently qualified scientist has argued cogently that there is enough for a reasonable presumption that the sasquatch has already been discovered, just not acknowledged by enough scientists yet to be generally considered confirmed. That is largely because of "not invented here" syndrome; scientists in most fields don't want to give amateurs the time of day, and amateurs have done almost all the work. (All of it, if one counts moonlighting mainstreamers which one really should.) When a half-century of amateur effort has yielded to the vast bulk of the society a presumption of "no evidence," not really anything more I need say. The state of the art then lies on the shoulders of the amateurs for better or worse. The field is a mess but at least mainstream science can't be blamed for it.
Guest Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 Because he knows the size of the foot? The size of the foot has no relation to the size of the individual. I have a size 12 foot and am only 5'8'' tall. I have dated men taller than myself with size 8 feet. And just so everyone knows, I am a man so we are talking same foot measure methods.
Guest DWA Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 From what I see, most scientists are definitely interested in future scientists (aka amateurs) and are more than happy to help with advice and to even get downright involved in the experiments and thesis writing. I'd like to see evidence of scientists dismissing amateurs. What progress has been made in the almost five decades since the PGF? And that's only Exhibit A. All the work done in this field has been (counting moonlighting scientists) by amateurs. And...?
Guest Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 The state of the art then lies on the shoulders of the amateurs for better or worse. The field is a mess but at least mainstream science can't be blamed for it. true this. I also think amateurs are going to have to reveal bigfoot if it exists. I think that would be great for amateurs actually. There is nothing wrong with amateur science as long as they are conducting themselves in a truly scientific manner. What progress has been made in the almost five decades since the PGF? And that's only Exhibit A. All the work done in this field has been (counting moonlighting scientists) by amateurs. And...? DWA if there has been no progress then there are some possibilities. Perhaps there is no bigfoot for one. Of course, you will never accept that possibility. It is also quite possible that all of the amateurs have not figured out the right hypothesis required to find bigfoot. The right hypothesis may make all the difference. It is entirely possible that no one has figured out the right approach is all. There is nothing anti-science or anti bigfoot about this idea.
Guest DWA Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 ^^^No time, no money = no results. This whole thing lies squarely on the shoulders of the mainstream. How can they not be blamed for the mess that is filling the vacuum they've created by running pell-mell from the topic? When the animal's confirmed, people aren't going to be looking at the amateurs. They're going to go: how could scientists have MISSED this...? DWA if there has been no progress then there are some possibilities. Perhaps there is no bigfoot for one. Of course, you will never accept that possibility. It is also quite possible that all of the amateurs have not figured out the right hypothesis required to find bigfoot. The right hypothesis may make all the difference. It is entirely possible that no one has figured out the right approach is all. There is nothing anti-science or anti bigfoot about this idea. It is anti-science to "accept" the possibility to which no evidence points. And that's not the reason we have nothing. "Nobody's looking, on anything like the required scale" is why. When scientists want to confirm something they don't do three-day field trips. Which is 99.9999999993% of squatchery.
Recommended Posts