dmaker Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 To tell myself I didn't see something and un-see it, just because no one's looking and no scientist pronouncing negatively on the matter has said a thing about it that makes sense, well, I just like to believe I'd think more of myself than that. Not every post has to be an opportunity to slam scientists who are not bigfoot proponents. People could rethink and change their minds for any number of reasons.
hiflier Posted July 23, 2014 Author Posted July 23, 2014 (edited) Hello All, Thank you for reinstilling a kind of sensitivity into the subject that has been slowly slipping away. There is room for tolerance but it should be a tolerance offered by members that has been deserved by sensible logic and honest effort made by those bring evidence to the Forum. It's perfectly fine to say "Look I don't know what it was I saw but here's what happened". That does occur here and there is positive support and encouragement for following up with more investigations when it happens. That is a good thing for the few occasions that true mysteries find there way here. There is also aa many know a concerted effort by several individuals to record data for the purposes of one of the holy grails we seek. Patterns. Many here are of the opinion that patterns frame the BF subject in ways that individual anecdotes do not. The possibility of seeing any patterns requires countless hours of inputting data from a number of sources into one body of organized information. The waiting is the hard part but it's coming. There will be heat maps, pin maps, seasonal data, moon data, and all manner of ways to group characteristics and locations along with chronologies etc. For those in the field and on the Forum these tools will be valuable and interesting in presenting a picture that is currently unavailable except partially; so we wait. There are those after a body, but again we wait. There are those in the science of DNA analysis but still we wait. Blurry photos- we wait. Poor and otherwisw hoaxed videos, we wait some more. Can't even comment on those. We wait as individuals and we wait as a Forum. What goes on here in the meantime though could be brought up a notch or two. Discernment is one thing along with sussing out hoaxes directly and the Forum and it's members do a pretty good job of it. It would be a real nightmare if no one took the initiative on these things in order to get it right. But again, in the meantime, though there isn't a whole lot to be done it might be a great time to get a handle on what kinds of things it might take to help stimulate things before winter sets in. Of course it's only July! but last year it was July at this time too and look how fast the time has gone. The Fall season is only eight weeks out from here and now is the time to plan for field trips, road patrols, upgrading photo equipment if one can, learning how to cast a print if you don't know, refreshing ourselves on local sighting histories, check the BFRO, look at the John Green database if you've got it on your computer, and many other little chores to get ready for when the leaves drop and the snow comes. I love summer but I also see it as an easy time to prepare myself for the hunt. I need to upgrade my recorder, maybe get something to enhance listening and connect with those in my area that are of the same mindset. Lots to do between now and hibernation time. Animals will be packing on weight and storing food soon. They know.....And so do I. Apologies for the length of this. DWA, WSA, dmaker, I might add your last couple of posts have been good to read in tone and content. Also DWA and WSA your candidness regarding your field activities has gone farther than you think. Lately my own work has been slack. Good to know I'm not the only one. Others on the Forum may feel a bit of relief as well. Edited July 23, 2014 by hiflier
SWWASAS Posted July 23, 2014 BFF Patron Posted July 23, 2014 (edited) Dmaker I notice you did not mention Krantz when you mentioned scientists not harmed by BF association because he was ridiculed publically by peers and got passed over for department head . You wanted an example so there it is. You did not mention him because you probably know it does not support your contention. Sykes conveniently reinforced main stream beliefs by not finding any BF DNA so he is basically still considered in the main stream camp. If you watched his two show TV special he basically came off as skeptic all the way through and was joking about BF researchers tree knocking to each other and whooping to each other on camera at one point. He did not test everything he got or release results if he did test everything, and has refused to return samples that were not tested or that the results were not released. That seems very suspicious to me. I heard a reference made that Meldrum has had issues with peers and even his own university as I would imagine he has, but do not have any direct knowledge of that. Scientists who have had issues with their universities do not whine in public about it as it would only make things worse for them. The universities main problem is image so an faculty member publically complaining about their situation would simply not happen. They would quietly do damage control to their careers. We have had scientists on this forum say they would not dare publically research BF. Those without tenure would not dare being public. I don't know how much evidence you need but you cannot know what happens in all the Universities or what people do not do because of fear of peer pressure and not making tenure. So your contention is simply not supported by evidence to the contrary. Edited July 23, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
WSA Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 I must say too, THE biggest obstacle, now, in the past and forever as long as this question is outstanding is...the proposed animal looks too much like us. This barrier is much more an obstacle in some, than others.(Maybe it is just my nature, but it has never in the least given me any resistance) We should all be honest though and admit the idea of a quadruped in this context would have gone down with a whole, whole lot less drama, and the amount of buy-in to even just the theory would have been magnitudes larger by this point. All the idea of BFis up against...even before you talk about the evidence, and I'm NOT talking about the evidence here...is only thousands of years of human-centric Western thought, indoctrination, dogma and belief in our primacy. Who is naive enough to say this isn't a factor here? Who could honestly say this has not been a barrier for just the theory alone getting traction? It is a primal, gut-level reaction by some. I understand it, I don't share it, but there it is. If there is a BF for me, I have to say this fact is probably the best thing it has ever had going for it. You can't buy that kind of protection, if you were a species trying to fly under the radar of those with the spears and (now) guns.
dmaker Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 Dmaker I notice you did not mention Krantz when you mentioned scientists not harmed by BF association because he was ridiculed publically by peers and got passed over for department head . You wanted an example so there it is. You did not mention him because you probably know it does not support your contention. Sykes conveniently reinforced main stream beliefs by not finding any BF DNA so he is basically still considered in the main stream camp. If you watched his two show TV special he basically came off as skeptic all the way through and was joking about BF researchers tree knocking to each other and whooping to each other on camera at one point. He did not test everything he got or release results if he did test everything, and has refused to return samples that were not tested or that the results were not released. That seems very suspicious to me. I heard a reference made that Meldrum has had issues with peers and even his own university as I would imagine he has, but do not have any direct knowledge of that. Scientists who have had issues with their universities do not whine in public about it as it would only make things worse for them. The universities main problem is image so an faculty member publically complaining about their situation would simply not happen. They would quietly do damage control to their careers. We have had scientists on this forum say they would not dare publically research BF. Those without tenure would not dare being public. I don't know how much evidence you need but you cannot know what happens in all the Universities or what people do not do because of fear of peer pressure and not making tenure. So your contention is simply not supported by evidence to the contrary. If you want to know more about the Sykes study and the sample selection and what was tested and what was not, etc, then I suggest you read the response from The Proceedings of the Royal Society, Molecular analysis of ‘anomalous primate’ hair samples: a commentary on Sykes et al. I posted a link to that article in the skeptics corner, here at the BFF, last week.
SWWASAS Posted July 23, 2014 BFF Patron Posted July 23, 2014 (edited) Finally don't get me wrong. I do not blame any scientist who does not want to stick his or her neck out protecting their job. When I worked, I protected my job by not doing anything that might jeopardize it. BF hunter was not something I wanted known. For someone with a family to support, that is a reasonable and prudent thing. Many seem to either lambast scientists for not getting involved with BF research or state that science career pressures do not exist so that is evidence that BF does not exist. The first position is not fair or and the second position is not representative of reality. Edited July 23, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
Guest DWA Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 I must say too, THE biggest obstacle, now, in the past and forever as long as this question is outstanding is...the proposed animal looks too much like us. This barrier is much more an obstacle in some, than others.(Maybe it is just my nature, but it has never in the least given me any resistance) We should all be honest though and admit the idea of a quadruped in this context would have gone down with a whole, whole lot less drama, and the amount of buy-in to even just the theory would have been magnitudes larger by this point. All the idea of BFis up against...even before you talk about the evidence, and I'm NOT talking about the evidence here...is only thousands of years of human-centric Western thought, indoctrination, dogma and belief in our primacy. Who is naive enough to say this isn't a factor here? Who could honestly say this has not been a barrier for just the theory alone getting traction? It is a primal, gut-level reaction by some. I understand it, I don't share it, but there it is. If there is a BF for me, I have to say this fact is probably the best thing it has ever had going for it. You can't buy that kind of protection, if you were a species trying to fly under the radar of those with the spears and (now) guns. One hundred per centum. No doubt about it. In other words, the opposition simply isn't rational; it's based on taboos and [that word] beliefs.
WSA Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 (edited) I was thinking and recalling over my lunch just now. I was rewinding the film...an apt analogy...to the release of the P/G footage, my own reaction as a 9 y.o. and what I recall being discussed around it. Granted the recall of a 9 y.o. is always subject to questioning, but those who were not alive and aware at the time can't really have imparted to them what that did to some people, and absolutely didn't do to others. It is sort of like my father trying to explain Pearl Harbor and living through the war years. To a large extent, it just is not possible, but if I can impart anything of that.. What I remember most are those who viewed the film and it just plain didn't make a dent in their outlook of ANYTHING that had to do remotely with them. To me, for whatever reasons, I found this as disturbing, or more disturbing, than what was purported to be on the film, but what I smelled was fear and uncertainty there. There really is no other way to describe it. It was completely a "Don't let it in" reaction, or non-reaction, for many. And then there were others who were like the Italians in that old joke about Columbus returning from his first voyage: "Look Luigi. Chris brought the tomatoes finally...." It was no stretch at all for them. Those were the guys who were the early pioneers in this field. Their failure to confirm the film for the general public was their downfall (according to many) but you have to appreciate how open they were to what their senses were telling them, and how few there were like them out there to take up that challenge. It started out as a hard thing to do, and it continues to be hard. These kinds of people are still out there, although for every one of them it seems we have hundreds of sideshow men that are just sea anchors to getting real information. One I read of recently, and someone only tangentially related to this field is Svante Paabo, in his book Neanderthal Man. I think he fits the mold, and for a reason that might arch some eyebrows. He spends a page or two in the middle of his book discussing his bisexuality. "O.K.", I thought on reading that, "That's TMI for me..." But I later reconsidered that view and I now see why he wanted to put this in. For one, it engenders a feeling of complete trust in the honesty of everything else he says. After all, if you'll share that.... Secondarily, (and probably not intentionally on his part) I think it points out how important it is for radical ideas like extracting prehistoric DNA, and proposing and proving that separate hominid species interbred in the deep past are more likely to come from people who break the mold of conventional thinking, or who might just have a "**** the torpedoes" attitude from so basic an experience as knowing they don't fit the mold of one our most basic so-called normal practices. To emphasize though, I'm not talking about the quality of the evidence, the reputation of the P/G film, or any aspect of the case where minds differ. What I'm addressing is only the idea of Sasquatch. For those who were born and raised in the post-P/G world, and who probably came by their BF case awareness gradually, you can't know what that moment was like, and it won't come again. All that can come, if it ever does come at all, is confirmation of what that film purports to show. Edited July 23, 2014 by WSA
MIB Posted July 23, 2014 Moderator Posted July 23, 2014 (edited) Randy - Correct - the faculty at Idaho State University attempted to have Meldrum's tenure revoked. http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_article.asp?id=515 .. third paragraph. Without tenure, he faces the threat of termination. MIB Edited July 23, 2014 by MIB
Guest DWA Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 One I read of recently, and someone only tangentially related to this field is Svante Paabo, in his book Neanderthal Man. I think he fits the mold, and for a reason that might arch some eyebrows. He spends a page or two in the middle of his book discussing his bisexuality. "O.K.", I thought on reading that, "That's TMI for me..." But I later reconsidered that view and I now see why he wanted to put this in. For one, it engenders a feeling of complete trust in the honesty of everything else he says. After all, if you'll share that.... Secondarily, (and probably not intentionally on his part) I think it points out how important it is for radical ideas like extracting prehistoric DNA, and proposing and proving that separate hominid species interbred in the deep past are more likely to come from people who break the mold of conventional thinking, or who might just have a "**** the torpedoes" attitude from so basic an experience as knowing they don't fit the mold of one our most basic so-called normal practices. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/125-missing-human-ancestor/shreeve-text That's about the Denisova find, for which Paabo's team provided the critical information. Note, not Paabo. He was a busy man at the time; but he knew how to hand big tasks to the right people, and he found out the magnitude of that teeny little almost negligible fossil over his cell phone while he was on a (business of course) trip. This says much about two things. First, about the skimpy evidence that can go a long way if the chain of custody is composed entirely of people with mainstream credibility and chops. But second, about taking chances. (That first skimpy fossil got divided in two and sent to two labs. I don't think they've heard from the other one yet. Sure that never happens with bigfoot evidence. Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.) This is the essential thing that gets forgotten - if it's thought about at all - by all those who hold up science as some sort of Mystical Authority, and forget that it's a business composed of people making and spending money. A long string of way-out chances - supported mainly by the reputation of the people taking them - got grubstakes in the paleoanthropology game to get it where it is now. This is how we found out that, rather than moving from quadruped to business suit in a single straight line, numerous species of cavemen were making out, and I don't just mean getting by, together. Compared to the increasing bushiness of the human family tree, what's one ape getting through the strainer? Or two or three, for that matter? Some have taken the chances to put forth a compelling case for: not farfetched at all, indeed it appears it's happening. If I Did The Dirty With Neanderthal now appears to be a documentary...why all the unreasoning wall-building against an idea right in that stream of thought? Very strange, if one only asks me.
Drew Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 (edited) MIB- I think some posts were removed here. I am confused and missing a post, and not seeing your referenced Randy post. Sorry, I was looking at the wrong thread. FOUND THEM! He has since been promoted and is now a full professor I believe. Edited July 23, 2014 by Drew
WSA Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 Right DWA....Paabo's memoir is indeed the chronicle of a concerted group effort..with more than its share of group failures. Discovery came with all the usual politicking, infighting and disagreements you get with people, especially when the stakes for getting or not getting credit were so high. You have those who wanted to turn the discovery of the Neanderthal genome to profit by patenting it, and those who didn't (and who eventually prevailed). In sum, exactly like BF studies. If there is a take-away for this discussion, it is probably that. (BTW, it just occurred to me...what ABOUT a patent on a BF genome...hmmm? Right. Have to get one first. But then again, there is a certain individual who claims to have one, so.....no, no...best not to go there at all. Still.....) For anyone who has ever done a google search for BF books, we know that the your title DWA is not at all fictional, probably, although much less graphic than some I have seen. Really, it is a cultural artifact that is almost too weird to mention. But then again, why should it be different than any others roughly in that genre? Tells you something, doesn't it?
WSA Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 Think I'll pitch this title to my publisher: "Bigfoot Love: Bestiality, or Just a Family Matter (Legal in Many States) ?"
hiflier Posted July 23, 2014 Author Posted July 23, 2014 (edited) Hello Shadowborn, Hiflier You do not know how badly I want to prove how real these creatures are....... Oh yes I do! I think I've guessed right here in starting this thread because the undercurrent of frustration and passion for closure is palpable. But the proximity of many of those that strongly want that closure either do not have access to the field or, more to the point, data coming from the field which makes for an unconnected situation. Members need to know they're involved and sometimes that is simply a mfunction of field research being brought here regularly- successes or not- because real-time, especially in this day and age, is important. I was thinking and recalling over my lunch just now. I was rewinding the film...an apt analogy...to the release of the P/G footage..... I think about the first time I saw it too. A LOT. And along with the memory of that day comes the sense i felt of wonder.....absolute wonder. I was 18. The thought of how utterly fantastic the idea of the possible existence of such a beast completely polarized my thinking. I had read Ivan Sanderson's book in '63 btu the film five years later blew me away. It went on the back burner a couple of years later until June 2013. Long time away from the subject. rekindling that sense of wonder and excitememnt is all about being with like minded folks here but but to read field notes from all over the U.S. from those who are active would go a long way in leeping the fire bright. And not just for me either. Think I'll pitch this title to my publisher: "Bigfoot Love: Bestiality, or Just a Family Matter (Legal in Many States) ?" ^^ Just had to laugh out loud on this one! Back atcha. Glad to see you posting. Thanky you, WSA. Got a respite from a busy summer and the idea for this thread popped out. I don't yet know how long I can stay with it but it IS good to be here. I drop into the Tar Pit once in a while but haven't had much to offer in the General Forum. I would also like to comment that the thread seems a bit grown up from what I've been reading. Maybe I'm not the only one who wants to get things moving here, eh? Edited July 23, 2014 by hiflier
Recommended Posts