How Will "it" Happen?

[Guest DWA]

I think the rush - mainly among people who have had personal experiences - to confirm is a desire to both satisfy personal curiosity and show the rest of the world:  see, I'm not crazy.

 

Like Green (and unlike NAWAC) I think they may not be all that uncommon.  The black bear is rebounding all over; and this species seems to have a similar opportunist-omnivore profile (plus it looks, from a quarter mile away at a dumpster, like a drifter).

Edited July 28, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

 

Still new ground but becoming much more accepted. But yes someone will try to collect a specimen unless DNA analyses indicate it is a form of human. Even a separate species of human would very likely get protection immediately. Many alleged bigfoot hair samples tested before DNA analysis indicated human and were summarily thrown out. If these samples had not been tossed, we could possibly examine them more closely today. If they had been close enough to be human without being Homo sapiens that might not have shown under the less sophisticated techniques of the day. Today they might have shown the truth.

DNA can give SOME indications of their appearance and even behavior. DNA from Denisovans and Neandertals indicate many things about them. Certainly not all. I am in the no kill camp but hoping and praying for a bigfoot body by the side of the road that I can grab some tissue from. That would answer more questions. Something along the lines of Goodall's work is going to be required for anything more than. That's the kind of work I want to see the most : )

 

I agree with that Antfoot, but given the way that the scientific community views the subject of Sasquatch, I'm betting that the only thing that will spur them into motion

is to produce a type specimen! For me personally, I'd rather not have to kill one to prove it exists! and still hope that a dead Sasquatch will eventually. It really comes

down to the amount of research and funding one is willing invest. I am still trying to figure out why there is such a rush is to find them. Many groups out there cite loss of habitat

as their motive for being pro kill, and I do not buy into the loss of  habitat argument, or that they need protection. They seem to be doing just fine on their own and

probably wouldn't want our help anyway

 

If anything, habitat is rebounding in many parts of the US and Canada still has loads of habitat.

 

Many in science dislike the unscientific behavior of the enthusiasts rather than the idea of bigfoot per se.

I think the rush - mainly among people who have had personal experiences - to confirm is a desire to both satisfy personal curiosity and show the rest of the world:  see, I'm not crazy.

 

Like Green (and unlike NAWAC) I think they may not be all that uncommon.  The black bear is rebounding all over; and this species seems to have a similar opportunist-omnivore profile (plus it looks, from a quarter mile away at a dumpster, like a drifter).

That similarity can be a drawback for bigfoot. If black bears are rebounding and engage in the habitat in the same way then bigfoot has competition for space and food. This would limit bigfoot since black bears are very much more common than they are judging by report quantity (quality notwithstanding) and would have a larger share of the ecological niches they both share.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Then it's their job to apply their science like many of the proponents have; either find out that the proponents are right and join in the hunt, or prove them wrong; or just quietly walk away until someone else resolves it for them.  Simple as that.

 

I don't care what anyone thinks who isn't showing me why.

[Guest]

^^^But why should they? What evidence is there that their time would not be wasted?

[Guest DWA]

^^^^The evidence they aren't even looking at.  Everything else with anything like the pattern we see for sasquatch is confirmed.

 

If that's not enough?  What is?

[Guest]

um, the evidence. There is none presented. How should they go look if they don't know what to look for? Proponents say there is plenty of evidence but they don't show anything that the scientists can work with. It is not the fault of science that the evidence doesn't mean the higher standards of science.

[Guest DWA]

There is plenty to work with.  Scientists are working with it.  They're working with it pro bono, that's how compelling it is.  To a scientist, you know, paying attention.

 

It's the rest of the scientists who aren't meeting the higher standards of science here.  The history of science just repeats that theme, over and over and over.

Edited July 29, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

If we have scientists already working on the matter then why should more scientists enter the fray? What's in it for them? Some might like to find bigfoot but life costs money. They have to find jobs and pay off school loans and of course they want to chase after other dreams. You like to vilify scientists from what I see because they do not want to throw their careers away chasing bigfoot. Not because they think bigfoot is fake but they don't see how they can make a living at it. Many might not have any interest. Preferring to work with salmon or polar bears or something else. Which scientists should put their regular lives and careers on hold to satisfy you?

[Guest DWA]

You are having a really really really really hard time getting what I am trying to say here.

 

Scientists are hostile to the topic.  Teeth-gritting shrieking crazily HOSTILE to the topic.  (Which is silly, given the evidence, but I'd expect a scientist to know that.)

 

They aren't allowing anyone else into the fray.  You're right that they can't make a living at it; it's your career if you express an interest.  The prominient names in the field have made their bones on standard-issue science; it's why they're paid and why they aren't fired.  As Krantz put it:  sure they support my research.  They don't fire me.

 

When no one is getting paid to do it, contributions are part-time and part-time only.

 

You keep screeching at the wrong stuff here.  Wonder what scientists think would happen if a big institution said:  we'll pay two people to look into this?  (Given that the reality of sasquatch is a slam dunk, that's a cowardly allotment.)  They'd have 1,000 applicants before the first week was up.  Wanna bet?

 

The mainstream's position is a cowardly position and unbecoming science.  A lot more scientists give credence to this than any of us suspect, I'd bet.  But they can't even talk about it at work.  I'm not asking anybody to put his life and career on hold for me.  I'm asking them all to start behaving like scientists, and encouraging legitimate research.  That is one of the things scientists are paid to do.

 

The strident defense of people who are flat failing in their calling as scientists that I see from so many here is just puzzling.  You'd think they had compromising pictures of you or something.

Edited July 29, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

I'm sorry DWA but it is clear that you do not know ANY real scientists if this is what you believe. EVERYTHING you just said is absolutely unlike any of the scientists I have had the pleasure of meeting. They aren't worried about being laughed at for talking about bigfoot or having an unpopular opinion about bigfoot. Not in the least. I have never met one who thought bigfoot was an absolute flat out impossibility. Without the necessary evidence to form a plan to study bigfoot they will not try. There is no use In doing so. And they are right to not bother. Money wasted will not make them friends with their funders. So if YOU want more scientists involved perhaps YOU should get out there and find them some legitimate evidence with which to form a plan. Perhaps if YOU sent them some of the reports that YOU think are relevant they will then jump to it. I might jump to it if you showed some of the reports you think are so compelling. I warn you, I'm pretty lazy and need to be plied with beer occasionally.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

I've said it before it will take a body.

A body 50 years in the finding 

Yet to be found

Not likely to be found.

 

And dwa is wrong on every point, as usual.

 

Poor fake scientist.

[dmaker]

^^ But DWA has read a zillion bigfoot reports and he rode around in a truck once with Dr.Bindernagel!

 

 

That's pretty sciencey...

Edited July 29, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest LarryP]

 I have had the pleasure of meeting. They aren't worried about being laughed at for talking about bigfoot or having an unpopular opinion about bigfoot. Not in the least. I have never met one who thought bigfoot was an absolute flat out impossibility.

 

Names please?

[Guest Stan Norton]

I predict that the king of the mystical sasquatch people will choose the moment to reveal himself at some point in the future. He will instruct his chosen mouthpieces to reveal, in a non specific but intriguingly mysterious way, vague snippets of seemingly informative statements, but also sometimes through gibberish. They will channel this information through the medium of internet fora, and will only reveal their secret knowledge when the worthy are ready (this will not be related to the number of posts). 

 

He is watching.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Back into serious mode, there may be an interesting parallel with the very recent (re)discovery of the night parrot in Australia. This species, long thought either extinct or at the least extremely rare indeed, was very recently found by a somewhat maverick birder called John Young. Many many birders claimed hoax, mostly due to a mix of incredulity and Mr Young's previous claims of rare bird species. The revelation of evidence...photos and video no less...to a select audience initially did little to dissuade the naysayers. Further information has been forthcoming, with another workshop with relevant scientists happening recently. The following bullet points are from a recent post on Birdforum from a member who attended that meeting. They illustrate how a new discovery, made by an amateur researcher, might pan out. The birdforum member relates that: 

• he (Mr Young) has only seen the bird the night he took all the photos, but has recorded them by sound regularly since then. He had been at the site three days earlier
• he says they now think they have evidence of “multiple pairsâ€.

• there are trail cameras through the area including on each water source, but those cameras have not photographed the bird. So he thinks they get their liquid from vegetation and perhaps eating insects.
• there are several other researchers visiting the site regularly to work on the birds. Sound recording apparatus seems to be there semi permanently.
• the short term future of the site has been secured by an agreement whereby the landowner is receiving money for leaving the area in its current condition. He had previously been thinking of building a dam somewhere nearby but has undertaken not to.
• he thinks feral cats are the main threat to the parrots, but dingos seem to have reduced the extent to which cats venture away from trees and into the spinifex.