southernyahoo Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 There is also probably some type of method for washing the hair I'm not aware of Yes I've been told there is. It would be necessary even if no one contaminated it in my mind, because if from a predator, the hairs could have other animal blood on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 (edited) This post is exactly why I linked to the article... Going around saying "Science ignores the evidence" is not entirely true. There IS a scientific publishing method, and I wish more sasquatch researchers took it seriously enough to collect data that way, and SUBMIT IT for review. The lack of papers means either there is NOT evidence, or no one collecting it is submitting it. Given the deresion and bias displayed by "scientists" and the "scientific community", why should they bother? They know full well it won't get a fair hearing. Edited April 28, 2011 by HRPuffnstuff to repair fractured quote tags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 The science must get done, or no sasquatch. Meanwhile the sasquatch go happily about their business, never knowing that they aren't supposed to exist because "science" hasn't approved of their existence. Nobody thought rocks fell to Earth from space until someone PROVED IT in a scientific court of inquiry. Wrong! Plenty of people knew that rocks sometimes fell to Earth, because they were the ones who told the "scientists" that it happened! They were of course dismissed because they "weren't scientists" and therefore their observations "were nothing but anecdotes"...and the rocks kept falling... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Given the deresion and bias displayed by "scientists" and the "scientific community", why should they bother? They know full well it won't get a fair hearing. Well which is it? Their submitted articles for peer review are being rejected, or they're not submitting articles for peer review? If they're being rejected, there should be evidence of that. If they're not submitting the articles, is it any surprise they're not being published? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 I naively suggested that we set up some research standards on the Alabama Bigfoot Research Forums about a year ago when I first became interested in the bigfoot topic and got soundly lamblasted by everyone but Matt, aka Oklahomasquatch, who was very supportive of the idea. What was the basis of their objections? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Well which is it? Their submitted articles for peer review are being rejected, or they're not submitting articles for peer review? If they're being rejected, there should be evidence of that. If they're not submitting the articles, is it any surprise they're not being published? RayG They aren't currently submitting papers because of the way the previous attempts were treated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 They aren't currently submitting papers because of the way the previous attempts were treated. Poppycock! If you're going to claim bias, let's see some evidence. You continue to spout these old chestnuts of bigfootery that, as far as I can see, simply are not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 They aren't currently submitting papers because of the way the previous attempts were treated. Ah, so previous submitted papers were rejected then? There should be evidence of that, right? Got some? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Krantz, Fahrenbach, Bindernagle, Meldrum . . . . plenty of experience in this cohort to have published voluminously on bigfoot if there was anything worthwhile to submit. This is why I asked Smitty what he would consider evidence worthy of publishing. If you were going to propose a new species, in my mind you have to be working with evidence that is unhoaxable. So who from your list had the unhoaxable evidence? Fahrenbach maybe, but he couldn't get the DNA he needed from the hairs and since he was screening for a morphology nearly identicle to humans, he's been stuck. Publishing without proof with regards to any evidence other than biological stuff would only serve to educate hoaxers on what is looked for in the supporting categories of evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted April 29, 2011 Admin Share Posted April 29, 2011 Ah, so previous submitted papers were rejected then? There should be evidence of that, right? Got some? RayG Hmmm, I'd like to hear more about this also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 What was the basis of their objections? Basically the same as yours. Some felt that the methods I was suggesting had no basis for validity, that scientists just kind of dreamed up these methods as the correct way to do things, nevermind that there is a real reason to follow protocols that have nothing to do with bias. The better educated forum members thought the bias came into it when interpreting the data, therefore they thought it would not make a difference. I was actually kind of flabbergasted by the overall consensus of the response that I got. Of course, I came off as a newbie "know it all" and that probably hit people wrong. So it may have just been me that they took exception with, and not so much with what I was really saying at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 So who from your list had the unhoaxable evidence? None, that's my point. The lack of bigfoot research in print is about lack of bigfoot, not about editorial bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 I don't think it's about bias from the scientific community so much as it is with the bigfoot community. Right now, it's like amateur fishing at the moment. You can't catch anything if you don't know where they are biting. You can't find where they are biting if you don't know what you are looking for. If you make some "biased" assumptions about what it is you are looking for based on some questionable signs then you are bound to fish in the wrong pond. We've been fishing in the wrong pond for 50 years now or we would have found something, time to rethink the approach and actually re-evaluate our methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 None, that's my point. The lack of bigfoot research in print is about lack of bigfoot, not about editorial bias. Well Fahrenbach has hairs, they are not hoaxed, they belong to something. I didn't say there was editorial bias, I asked what could be done about it if there was evidence of it. What would it change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 I don't think it's about bias from the scientific community so much as it is with the bigfoot community. Right now, it's like amateur fishing at the moment. You can't catch anything if you don't know where they are biting. You can't find where they are biting if you don't know what you are looking for. If you make some "biased" assumptions about what it is you are looking for based on some questionable signs then you are bound to fish in the wrong pond. We've been fishing in the wrong pond for 50 years now or we would have found something, time to rethink the approach and actually re-evaluate our methods. We've found PLENTY...hair, tracks, eyewitness reports, photos, etc. And Science, instead of pursuing the evidence openly and honestly and going where it leads has taken a hostile, dismissive stance (as Dr Meldrum has documented). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts