Secrecy And The Myth Of Protection.

[southernyahoo]

Bigfoot is hoaxable, with exception of biological evidence, so as long as the evidence can be assumed as such, researchers can't do much with it, even when they have the real deal. It might not be compelling to everyone, and that can be a deterent, but that doesn't make it nonexistant or not authentic.

 

Some people might argue that if it isn't proof it isn't evidence. It's a falacy because proof is comprised of non-proof evidence which forms the cogency and acceptance which = proof.

[Drew]

Dr. Meldrum says Poop is no good for DNA collection (False, this is used all the time in real biological studies to determine individual specimen's DNA )

 

Moneymaker says Bigfoot hair is no good for DNA because it has no medula. (Oh really which hair did you find that had no medula and you could confirm was a Bigfoot?)

 

Why are these two prominent Bigfooters so against people trying to collect DNA samples?

[norseman]

Drew ?

That's a straw man fallacy. Both men are very much about collecting DNA. They are just pointing out problems they face.

Confirmed Bigfoot Hair.......hahaaha!!!!

If we had confirmed Bigfoot hair? Then we would have a confirmed Bigfoot.

We do have unknown primate hair based on morphology....

Here is Sweaty Yeti agreeing with me about Patty's height compared to McLaren

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/48328-pattersongimlin-vs-independence-day-footage-a-closer-look/page-3

What impresses me the most? Is the bulk she has over him. I think she is taller than McClarin but it's marginal for sure. But her thigh is as big as his waist ......... That's the part that isn't close.

[Yuchi1]

Well before this gets dragged into a PGF debate let's focus on the premise that secrecy in Bigfoot research is designed to hide the fact that the researcher/evidence keeper actually does not have said evidence.  Since a half century on from the PGF we're still holding our breath the premise I state leans far more towards being the reality of the situation than any other alternatives.

 

IMO, secrecy may have benefits as in the case where a individual/group has some preliminary "evidence" and it makes sense to further validate the evidence (among themselves) prior to going public.  Unfortunately, as often the case, ego and this overwhelming desire to "be the first" causes premature proclamation, resulting in loss of credibility.  The endemic nature of this behavior within the ranks of so-called researchers may well be a major reason the endeavour has become mired in a sea of obfuscation, from 1968 to present day.

[Guest]

Let me underline a problem with finding "remains". Bones of a Sasquatch look like human remains to the untrained eye. 99.9% of people finding them are likely to be untrained. So the authorities will be called in. Makes sense as it could be a possible crime scene. But what of the discovery itself? http://www.hintonparklander.com/2013/04/25/possible-human-remains-found-near-brule   In this case they were not sure if they were man or animal. Why? Obviously there were no clothes. Maybe a lot of hair was present. But the media leaked that they found something. How do you cover it up? By releasing something like this a bit later. http://www.hintonparklander.com/2013/05/13/brule-lake-human-remains-are-historical-no-foul-play-suspected-say-rcmp  There has not been a peep about this since and according to one source who found a coroners report, It's very strange with no details. For those of us looking for evidence, it is very important to have a good plan in place just in case.

[Guest DWA]

Humans have been in the American woodlands for a couple of hundred years with no bodies. Doesn't mean bigfoot doesn't exist but means that there is no evidence yet.

 

Maybe not as you personally define evidence.  As scientists define it:  a lot, and with the consistency that points to an animal.  I need only point to the scientists that show this.  Those who disagree with them telegraph loudly that they aren't paying attention.

Ketchum's material was identified as bearman. some with just enough possum and/or raccoon DNA plus some angel DNA. Really, you're going to bring her into this? DNA when sequenced is reliable enough to convict criminals for rape and murder. Why would itbe insufficient for diagnosing angel er I mean bigfoot DNA?

 

DNA can be referred to a type specimen (the perp.  Open wide, perp).  If scientists don't see that DNA connected to something they can recognize as unique, I doubt they'll go for it.

[Yuchi1]

Also, as the OP 's example (Ketchum Study) illustrates, the good doctor created (IMO) her own undoing when she elected to publish commentary on social media and in the process began creating more loose ends than could be effectively dealt with in an appropriate fashion.

 

And, as with all the PR statements of events and alleged evidence, as released by NAWAC and other such groups, the recurrent theme is it simply creates a firestorm of controversy that has heretofore, only served to set the field back, more and more with each fiasco that is created.

 

Not to pick upon the aforementioned examples , rather, they are simply some of the most current examples and being used to ask the simple question of why ? *

 

The wartime saying that "loose lips, sink ships" could very well be reapplied into "loose lips, sink research".

 

*  http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/egocentricity

[Guest Crowlogic]

IMO, secrecy may have benefits as in the case where a individual/group has some preliminary "evidence" and it makes sense to further validate the evidence (among themselves) prior to going public.  Unfortunately, as often the case, ego and this overwhelming desire to "be the first" causes premature proclamation, resulting in loss of credibility.  The endemic nature of this behavior within the ranks of so-called researchers may well be a major reason the endeavour has become mired in a sea of obfuscation, from 1968 to present day.

Eventually every researcher has to stand and deliver.  It's not like Bigfoot is anything new.  We can go back 5 years and find people saying they have them in the back yard every day.  Same folks are liable to say they have been helping them out with food etc.  Well with that kind of contact after a few years shouldn't  that be enough time has passed to allow the issue to move up to the next level?  Namely presenting the proof and finally getting real people of science in it?  But we never, repeat never see this happen.  I'm reminded of the crazy woman with a whole family of them and feeding them garlic.  Even Autumn up in Oregon more or less tipped her hand that it's more about $$$$ now when she released that silly Enoch book.  

 

Researchers/connected up people are real good at selling bits and pieces of conjecture but 100% ineffectual in actually delivering  the goods they would have to have in order to release the bit's and pieces.  The crux is bits and pieces can be cut from whole cloth to make it seem like there is a real coat but it seems there is no real coat and there never is.  There never is no matter who is wielding the evidence and information.  Sorry to say ladies and gentlemen but that has all the earmarks of a scam.  if it was any other subject or even this subject posted elsewhere the opinion would be the whole thing is a scam.  Not all researchers are scams.  There are lots that go out and seek the subject and never get anything.  But then there are the heavy hitters that talk a good game and show just enough to get subscriptions to their cause.   

 

All one needs to do is apply a little critical thinking and not make excuses for the state of the art.   It's not about not having time, It's not about not having money.  It's about a null set that is often exploited in less than ethical ways by people gaining from having a belief perpetuated that the set is not a null set.  Yet a half century down the road the set remains null.

[Guest DWA]

 

All one needs to do is apply a little critical thinking and not make excuses for the state of the art.   It's not about not having time, It's not about not having money.  It's about a null set that is often exploited in less than ethical ways by people gaining from having a belief perpetuated that the set is not a null set.  Yet a half century down the road the set remains null.

 

No, it's about what I highlighted in red.  The failure of that level of involvement - which is 47 years overdue, at least - is why the "less than ethical" is the center of the field to almost everybody but the well-informed.

Edited July 24, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

Yes I do. It's known as experience.

A hallucination is an experience. Does that mean that I should consider the pigeons that decorated my living room wall to have been real? They at least did not carpet my rug with manure and I appreciate that but they probably were not real. I have decades of experience not just with hallucinations but with the scientific method.

 

Humans have been in the American woodlands for a couple of hundred years with no bodies. Doesn't mean bigfoot doesn't exist but means that there is no evidence yet.

 

Maybe not as you personally define evidence.  As scientists define it:  a lot, and with the consistency that points to an animal.  I need only point to the scientists that show this.  Those who disagree with them telegraph loudly that they aren't paying attention.

Ketchum's material was identified as bearman. some with just enough possum and/or raccoon DNA plus some angel DNA. Really, you're going to bring her into this? DNA when sequenced is reliable enough to convict criminals for rape and murder. Why would itbe insufficient for diagnosing angel er I mean bigfoot DNA?

 

DNA can be referred to a type specimen (the perp.  Open wide, perp).  If scientists don't see that DNA connected to something they can recognize as unique, I doubt they'll go for it.

Seeing as science has not accepted the "evidence" I suspect that it really does not measure up to science's standards.

DNA that reads as unique will always be accepted as unique by science. Denisovan DNA was accepted as unique among humans simply by its uniqueness.

Drew ?

That's a straw man fallacy. Both men are very much about collecting DNA. They are just pointing out problems they face.

Confirmed Bigfoot Hair.......hahaaha!!!!

If we had confirmed Bigfoot hair? Then we would have a confirmed Bigfoot.

We do have unknown primate hair based on morphology....

What impresses me the most? Is the bulk she has over him. I think she is taller than McClarin but it's marginal for sure. But her thigh is as big as his waist ......... That's the part that isn't close.

A half-good suit would look bulkier than the human in it.

Let me underline a problem with finding "remains". Bones of a Sasquatch look like human remains to the untrained eye. 99.9% of people finding them are likely to be untrained. So the authorities will be called in. Makes sense as it could be a possible crime scene. But what of the discovery itself? http://www.hintonparklander.com/2013/04/25/possible-human-remains-found-near-brule   In this case they were not sure if they were man or animal. Why? Obviously there were no clothes. Maybe a lot of hair was present. But the media leaked that they found something. How do you cover it up? By releasing something like this a bit later. http://www.hintonparklander.com/2013/05/13/brule-lake-human-remains-are-historical-no-foul-play-suspected-say-rcmp  There has not been a peep about this since and according to one source who found a coroners report, It's very strange with no details. For those of us looking for evidence, it is very important to have a good plan in place just in case.

Clothing will degrade as time passes in acidic soils. This is especially true for older types of clothing but even modern clothes will seldom last more than a few decades in soil. Hair can actually last longer (as will wool to some extent) than cotton or linen or even rawhide.

[Guest DWA]

 

DNA that reads as unique will always be accepted as unique by science. Denisovan DNA was accepted as unique among humans simply by its uniqueness.

 

...aaaaaaaand because the DNA was identified with a bone.  The bone was tested for DNA by a recognized trusted name.  

A half-good suit would look bulkier than the human in it.

 

And would sag all over the place; not move with the human; and not show the human's muscles and joints in action.

Clothing will degrade as time passes in acidic soils. This is especially true for older types of clothing but even modern clothes will seldom last more than a few decades in soil. Hair can actually last longer (as will wool to some extent) than cotton or linen or even rawhide.

 

I'm kinda doubting anyone would let the best costume in history 'degrade' and never take credit for it.  Human nature says:  nope.  And if humans are so good at finding and cataloguing everything:  why didn't anybody find the suit and bring it in?

Edited July 24, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

 

 

All one needs to do is apply a little critical thinking and not make excuses for the state of the art.   It's not about not having time, It's not about not having money.  It's about a null set that is often exploited in less than ethical ways by people gaining from having a belief perpetuated that the set is not a null set.  Yet a half century down the road the set remains null.

 

No, it's about what I highlighted in red.  The failure of that level of involvement - which is 47 years overdue, at least - is why the "less than ethical" is the center of the field to almost everybody but the well-informed.

 

After 47 years we have not had enough time? seriously? I agree money and time are important to finding bigfoot but to say we have not had enough is ridiculous. More likely, we have not applied that money or time in an efficient manner. We need better hypotheses about bigfoot than we have right now. Most players on the scene have their pet theories about bigfoot and refuse to change them despite the lack of success any of them have had over the past few decades. When what we do does not work yet we continue to do the same thing over and over, we can not expect to get anywhere. We need new paradigms.

 

 

DNA that reads as unique will always be accepted as unique by science. Denisovan DNA was accepted as unique among humans simply by its uniqueness.

 

...aaaaaaaand because the DNA was identified with a bone.  The bone was tested for DNA by a recognized trusted name.  

A half-good suit would look bulkier than the human in it.

 

And would sag all over the place; not move with the human; and not show the human's muscles and joints in action.

Clothing will degrade as time passes in acidic soils. This is especially true for older types of clothing but even modern clothes will seldom last more than a few decades in soil. Hair can actually last longer (as will wool to some extent) than cotton or linen or even rawhide.

 

I'm kinda doubting anyone would let the best costume in history 'degrade' and never take credit for it.  Human nature says:  nope.  And if humans are so good at finding and cataloguing everything:  why didn't anybody find the suit and bring it in?

 

One good reason for maintaining high standards is to preserve one's reputation.

 

Padding under the suit is standard for many costumes. Would reduce or even eliminate sagging.

 

A human skeleton without clothing found in the soil would not mean a bigfoot. No one is saying a costume was buried with the body.

[dmaker]

 

 

DNA that reads as unique will always be accepted as unique by science. Denisovan DNA was accepted as unique among humans simply by its uniqueness.

 

...aaaaaaaand because the DNA was identified with a bone.  The bone was tested for DNA by a recognized trusted name.  

A half-good suit would look bulkier than the human in it.

 

And would sag all over the place; not move with the human; and not show the human's muscles and joints in action.

Clothing will degrade as time passes in acidic soils. This is especially true for older types of clothing but even modern clothes will seldom last more than a few decades in soil. Hair can actually last longer (as will wool to some extent) than cotton or linen or even rawhide.

 

I'm kinda doubting anyone would let the best costume in history 'degrade' and never take credit for it.  Human nature says:  nope.  And if humans are so good at finding and cataloguing everything:  why didn't anybody find the suit and bring it in?

 

Hoaxes can persist for a long time unexposed. Was there not an alleged yeti skull or scalp on display for a couple of generations that was only recently DNA analyzed and revealed to be fake?

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Yes it was the scalp of a mountain goat.

[Yuchi1]

Time & Money:

 

Several individuals (Slick, Erickson & Hersom, come to mind) have thrown boatloads of cash and in Tom & Adrian's case, considerable time into the effort, with Slick's involvement beginning decades ago.

 

And, what of substance has been rendered, to-date for all of that?

 

A cottage industry for certain groups?