Lab Practicum: Follow-Up Investigation

[norseman]

We are not trying to convince just any skeptic...........we need to only concern ourselves with skeptics with a PHD behind their name and preferably work for a university or a museum.

 

I see denialists all the time on this forum tell people that "They disagree", while not giving a definitive answer as to WHY they disagree! The reason they disagree is not because they take exception to the evidence based on their experience or knowledge.

 

It's simply because they BELIEVE the creature not to exist.

 

The real skeptics with PHD's behind their name have already told us many many times what they need from us before they will accept a creature of this sort. Physical remains, either in the form of fossils or a recently deceased specimen. PERIOD.

 

The kicker for us is that we cannot simply jump from non existence to existence the way the arm chair denialist is going to find out about it. Any idiot can twiddle his thumbs and wait for a press release from the Smithsonian proclaiming that a cryptid ape does exist in North America. We researchers/hunters have to wade through the gray area, decipher the clues, and garbage can the rest in the ultimate quest for that proof. We dodge not only denialists who scoff at us, but we also must dodge the hoaxers who deceive us as well as those that tell us the creature is omni potent with special powers and that our search is in vain.

 

It's tough to walk through this mine field.

 

But know this...........human debate and showmanship and doubts do not affect a real living animal living in the forest. This keyboard I type on is irrelevant to them. If you know it's out there? Bury your nose and don't look up.

[Guest thermalman]

Yes, but we're not concerned about that one anymore. (Not having a scientific review of bigfoot in front of me, I don't think we can say what "easy" and "natural" would be under the conditions, for that individual.  Whose legs keep in mind we can't even see, nor the snow it's moving through neither.)

 

Back to the question in red:  OK folks.  What else did that investigator in the OP not ask?

If you really must persist? The investigator likely didn't ask for your opinion or comments? Of all the BFF membership, I believe, I live nearest to where this video was shot. It didn't even make the local news around here at the time.

Edited November 26, 2014 by thermalman

[Guest DWA]

At least one of us is persisting in giving the scientist's point of view on this; others are persisting in drawing thermal cows.   

 

Why would it make the local news?  Because everybody just needs to run and ruin his reputation at the nearest possible outlet?  You skeptics.  smh.  But if you really must persist?

 

See, the thing some of you people just don't get is that this animal has a guidebook-ready description.  (That handily rules out "cow."     )  This demonstrates it: 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Sasquatch-Field-Guide-Jeff-Meldrum-ebook/dp/B00BQZGJGM/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1417012765&sr=1-3&keywords=meldrum

 

Anyone who has actually delved into the evidence - instead of re-drawing thermals to suit their narrative - knows that that link handily summarizes the eyewitness testimony.  That is called "frequency and coherence," and automatically turns stories into evidence, to a scientist who is paying attention.

 

There are virtually no questions here that flesh out the entire picture of what the witnesses saw.  I have seen reports filed, and followed up, on the BFRO website that don't even describe whether the subject was bipedal!  That link above should supply any investigator with a host of questions to ask.  A bare sample:

 

1.  How do you know that the animal was big?  Did you compare landmarks to the figure?  What is your best idea of its height and weight?

2.  How did it move that "wasn't like a bear"?  (You get every word you can out of the witness for each and every question before you move on.)

3.  How long was the hair?  Did it remind you of anything else you've seen?  (Yes, at this distance that question can be answered.  "Irish setter" and "golden retriever" are used in a number of reports that would surprise anyone who's, you know, actually read them to describe the hair they saw on the animal they witnessed, and no they don't describe a dog.)

4.  Did anything about the face, head, shoulders or neck look unusual to you?  (Guidebook consistency abounds on these features.)

5.  Were there footprints or any other evidence?  Did you look?  (Asking these questions more often might do some good when people who read reports actually see one.)

6.  Why didn't you get pictures?  (Here's why.  Skeptics think that cellphones would have confirmed sasquatch by now.  People who are thinking about this know that's a crock.  Here are the reasons:  1. Patty; 2. What happened here:  they couldn't get a photo because the phone took too much time to get in camera mode.  Hint:  it always will.)

 

(Oh.  3.  These cellphone shots:  http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=23160.   Never mind that everyone knows there's only one North American animal that those could be, and it isn't confirmed yet.)

 

I just got started.

 

See, I just like to help people think about this some, because shooting from the hip and redrawing cows     just ain't cuttin' it.

Edited November 26, 2014 by DWA

[Guest thermalman]

You're no scientist (strike one), I didn't draw a thermal cow (strike two), and there is no guidebook on how a BF should be described (strike three)..........YOURE OUT! Next resident please.

Edited November 26, 2014 by thermalman

[Guest DWA]

And some people know how to push buttons on thermal cameras and look through them.  But, um, when it comes to this...

[Guest DWA]

Here's another hair-puller:

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=32332

What insanely obvious thing does not appear to have been done here?

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

Thank you. I like this thread and the idea behind it. In the Florida case I can't help but wonder what an apex predator would be eating if it was living in that area. But that has nothing to do really with the topic unless finding kill evidence was part of a longer investigation. Doesn't sound like it.

 

I've not seen any indication that there was an effort to get the word out to others in the area that there is an investigation going on. Also whether or not there was any efforts at finding prints. The guy fired shots in that direction and then the creature moved through a clearing? why not shoot again? Then "All I know was something was spreading apart the pines like a bulldozer."? That doesn't seem consistent somehow. 

 

Anyway, so did the hunter hit it? Was there a move to look for a blood trail? That's what hunters do. "First dark' usually means hunters move to leave the woods unless there is a permit for night time hunting like for coyotes? Or hog? UNLESS the animal has been hit. Then the FW gets notified and the hunter HAS to find that animal. The size of the creature in the clearing, it's general description and whatever else in that regard are missing.

 

This is what I always seem to see missing in BFRO reports and elsewhere. John Green's database has categories for this stuff so no one has to reinvent the wheel here so there must be more to these reports......somewhere. I find it hard to imagine experienced field investigators would leave such gaping holes in the story because they were ignorant in the procedure of how to take said report.

 

How am I doing?

 

By the way I checked the weather conditions for the Aug 8th sighting in the first report you posted. The sun was indeed shining, it was 80 degrees and there was a light NE wind around 10. The moon was a waxing gibbous and visibility was 7 miles. With almost no precipitation since July 28th. Even so, there was no indication in the report that an investigator went to the sight. I don't know about the area these witnesses were in but in August here in Maine there are few places below the timberline where on can see 100 unobstructed yards. Sure there are plenty of paces with gorgeous views but when looking down? It's pretty much all foliage and trees blocking one's view. Even from a "small clearing". 

 

Surely an outfit who understands the importance of every small detail in the search for a creature as magnificent is this one can't be dropping the ball as often as I've read. It's why, to me, the BFRO does little to change public perception or attitude. Why is that?

Edited November 29, 2014 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

I think that simple denial is doing it; I just don't have another explanation for the evidence being what it is, and the attention being paid to it that is.

BFRO makes mistakes; Krantz did; Meldrum does...they all do. But the coherence of the overall pile just gets past the errors and continues to ask the question: if the thing that clearly sounds like it's producing the evidence isn't...what is? SOMETHING IS. And it is painting the consistent picture of an omnivorous temperate-zone primate, being reported from places a wildlife biologist or ecologist would expect.. When most people couldn't be counted on to explain in any detail what "an omnivorous temperate-zone primate" is. (Or a wildlife biologist, or an ecologist.) But anyway.

I honestly think that one mistake bigfoot researchers make is presuming that this guy is reporting a bigfoot! So they don't ask questions that should be obvious: was it bipedal? Why did it not look human to you? (Or if it did, what made you think it was a bigfoot?) How do you know how big it was? Did you look for more evidence and if not, why not? They don't have to keep asking questions; they know it's real! I do see that as a problem. And let's face it: some people are good interrogators and data collectors, and some just aren't. Bigfoot research has both. So does science.

In this latest case the researchers might not be familiar enough with hunters and what they do and how they think, so they don't go into the SOP of hunters when they encounter something unfamiliar. (That the two women didn't want to go into the field with guns, and the hunter wouldn't go without one, speaks actually to a fundamental difference between hunters and non-hunters. And "guts" isn't it.) But the thing that got me was: this guy had a second encounter - accompanied by TWO OTHER PEOPLE - and the same things happened! Um...are we going to even talk to those people...?

Edited November 29, 2014 by DWA

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

LOL, I don't know why we would. Devil's advocate raising my hand here the two reports to me don't yell out omnivorous temperate-zone primate. I'm not one to default to that by and large although that's what I'd like it to be. Patty? Yeah, but these two reports? Not so much. Sure overall the reports do say that there's something and that something has a description. But then so don't the Unicorns. I'm not saying that as a needler DWA; just being a practical person who has seen the hoaxes like everyone else. These two reports are not that easy to glean anything out of but the basic outlines that we've all heard about. If there IS any more detail then we're not getting it but instead are supposed to somehow keep this subject alive on what? It's own inertia? Something that gets a little shove every now and then when the subject starts to slow down a bit?

 

I'm sorry but lately there hasn't been enough for me to keep expending time and energy for much other than focusing on the field. Can these reports be added to the pile? sure but I myself am not able to vet them. That's the BFRO's job. They get the calls and they do the follow-ups. What they leave for us though is just enough to whet the whistle- not sing the tune. Personally I think they're doing more harm than good when most of what they put out there is "this-person-says-they-saw.....something". It's just not good enough. But here's the kicker if you're listening at all: The BFRO KNOWS it's not enough. And I don't see them changing anything about it beyond blaming experienced field investigators for not asking the questions.

 

So go ahead, put it on the pile. what's a few more on top of the 12,000 already there with no solution beyond "well, there HAS to be something out there". I don't know about you but 50 reports from 50 years ago is all I need. The other 11,950? Meh.

Edited November 29, 2014 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

It's never two reports. It's always the pile. What does that pile represent?

I just think it's interesting that the only scientists who show they're practicing their science are the ones intrigued by the pile. I think that the more, and better, the questions asked of witnesses, the more intriguing that pile will get, to more scientists. By bits and bytes, granted, it's happening; and unless somebody gets really lucky it's all we can hope for other than getting our own personal proof.

Edited November 29, 2014 by DWA

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

Sorry to say it sure sounds like square one to me. And here's the thing, no one would be happier to bring something solid to the table than me. The UFO community's pile is oh, 100,000's of 1000's and growing. Two main repositories with one boasting nearly 8,000 reports just for this year alone and it isn't even December yet! And when I look up at the sky several times in an evening-every evening what do I see? Nothing.

 

Back on topic though. I'm not questioning the size of the pile and what it represents as much as there's still nothing on the slab. Scientists or no scientists. The pile must be weak somehow?

[Guest DWA]

I think that what's weak is a scientific mainstream that isn't even addressing what the scientists intrigued by the pile say.

People who don't know much about wildlife research or hunting don't know how much time has to go into confirming something like this. People forget that the reason hunters are so successful against other kinds of animals is that we accept and pass along information on those animals that helps people find them. That isn't happening here. Not to mention that most of those animals are first, abundant and second, not primate smart.

The only animals I see on my walks are the ones that don't avoid me because they're habituated to humans or those that are so abundant, e.g., deer, that there's almost no way I could spend a whole day without seeing one (although on many walks I see few if any). Given the population densities of bears I haven't seen as many as I'd think I should; and the animal under discussion here is both probably smarter and likely no more numerous if the numbers are even close. And of course UFOs don't leave footprints vouched for by experts in that field.

So, I don't know; but the explanations why we don't have proof make much more sense to me than the "explanations" why the evidence is something other than what it very much looks like.

Edited November 29, 2014 by DWA

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

Good points there. TBH we don't actually know what science knows about this. All we can really say is what you said. I do know this though the mainstream public doesn't know what it's not told. It IS fed however that the subject is an eye-roller though now isn't it. On the subject of mainstream? And what it's told? Here's a fine example of the media being told what to say to the public. I think for most it's a bit of an eye opener. On the subject of Bigfoot it's easy to see how attitudes can be manipulated:

Now you know......

Edited November 29, 2014 by hiflier

[Doc Holliday]

 The pile must be weak somehow?

 

the pile is weak, thanks to the hoaxers , attention seekers, story tellers and crooks that undermine any chance at credibility this field may have ever had.

 

weeding those factors out might help  strengthen the pile for sure , short of a type specimen.

[hiflier]

Hello Doc Holliday,

 

I agree, the weeding must be done. But I also think that irreparable damage has already been done in how things are accepted. Peer pressure is an effective tool in that it dictates what is normal behavior. We proponents even have out eye roll moments eh? In the case of the two example reports that DWA linked there WAS a gross amount of data missing and I for one don't think for an instant that it's because the field investigators were lax in their duties. The fact that not even one size estimate was logged tells me a bunch and DWA is more than on point for bringing that out. You can fill in the rest.......

Edited November 30, 2014 by hiflier