2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

[Guest DWA]

No it's not weak.  It's reality, strongest tonic of all.  Come on.  We're holding our heads.  You don't feel yours hurting yet?

 

And based just on the LOL things I have seen otherwise-serious-here-delirious mainstreamers say:  you honestly think I - or you - should be going on ONE scientist's negative viewpoint of this, just from His You Know Walkin Around?  Particularly when there is serious science that violently disputes him?  If he can't successfully address Meldrum or Bindernagel he has nothing to say to me.  He has been nowhere I would recognize as a significant "there;" I've been as everywhere as he has (including in the Six Rivers, where my GF and I found tracks), and he's wrong.

 

To say what you said in your last two sentences bespeaks such a serious separation from reality that I've sussed you.  You are yet another of those True Believers who didn't get proof on his schedule and has done an abrupt 180.  Sorry.  You're missing the fun...and the facts.  Badly.

Edited December 17, 2014 by DWA

[WSA]

If the rest of my time I have to spend in the woods in my life turns up zero evidence of Sasquatch, all I have proven is that I didn't find any evidence, and it doesn't have any relevancy whatsoever to address all the other evidence. You, and the friend you reference Crow, are falling into the trap of believing it would matter. You've got to fight your cussed self-centered humaness on this issue if you want to see daylight. What happens to me, or doesn't, is no rebuttal at all to the evidence provided by others. Moreover, the lack of experience by tons of other people is no more of an argument...the addition of millions of other non-experiences still add up to "zip" for telling us anything meaningful. If you want to combine experiences to create weight, do it with the witness reports. Then consider why adding up a bunch of non-encounters is more meaningful to you than even a handful of encounter experiences...and there are not just a handful, as you well know. 

[Guest DWA]

It's amazing.  Pretty sure if I took a walk in orangytang woods and didn't see one I couldn't write a paper on its nonexistence.

 

There are few opinions that mean less than that of the person who says "I have walked around, like, a lot, and I haven't seen one.  So everyone else's experience needs to take a back seat to mine."

 

Um, actually, no.

Then consider why adding up a bunch of non-encounters is more meaningful to you than even a handful of encounter experiences...and there are not just a handful, as you well know. 

And that is the difference between a serious opinion and pushing something one just desperately desperately wants (or wants NOT) to be right.

[Guest dxm2]

Facepalm,huh?

 

To think that a researcher in a forest who is looking for woodpeckers is only seeing woodpeckers is one of the silliest things I've ever read.

 

Science is rife with discoveries while looking for something else.  The paranoid/fearful researcher theory is less far fetched.

 

http://www.scienceiq.com/Facts/SerendipityInScience.cfm

[Midnight Owl]

I have looked at some of the established research groups, some of which have very methodical ways of attempting to obtain that Holy Grail of proof, yet over the course of a year or two, keep coming up empty handed with evidence no better than the past 50 years. My opinion based on personal experience, tells me there is a whole lot more going on with this subject than most folks would accept.

If you have a simple monkey running around out there, someone should have bagged one by now. I slowly came to the realization, I was dealing with a subject that had clear reasoning and cognitive thinking that relished running me around in circles out there. Again, based on experience, I don't see the evidence thing changing in my remaining lifetime...just my two cents folks...

[WSA]

You might need to know dxm2, there are TONS of reports of people "seeing" Sasquatch, while looking for nothing in particular, or looking for something different. Some of these are field biologists and scientists. I am certainly not disputing that. What I AM disputing is that these encounters have any signifigance to anyone in the larger world who has cred in scientific circles, or that they serve to advance anything that might lead to a confirmation of the species, for the reasonse I gave above. i.e., we as a society have a better chance of that if we all agree on what we are looking for to confirm, and we don't even get out of the blocks on this point if we don't believe that the thing exists at all. Like I said, dare anyone dispute this? Really?  

[WSA]

Midnight Owl, experience counts for a whole lot in my book, thanks. Now let's just consider that the Sasquatch, like all of us down yonder, can't be fugitives from the law of averages forever.  (Even the "immortal" Stonewall Jackson eventually caught three* rounds, and his medicine was bigger than anyone's) It is a simple equation to me....the more attempts you make, the better your chances. That this has failed so far telegraphs one simple conclusion: We haven't turned up the flame high enough. At this stage even a one-in-a-million lucky encounter a la' Patterson won't get you the Nobel if it is not a specimen, and I think the chances of that lightning bolt striking again, this time with somebody holding a rifle and not a camera, is not something I will await while holding my breath.

 

(*O.K...technically four if you count First Manassas)

Edited December 17, 2014 by WSA

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Many of you know that I record almost nightly during the active season, and yes I have captured
what I would go out on a limb and say is bigfoot activity, mainly based on powerful wood knocks.
But how on earth they captured the Sierra Sounds back in the 70s and with all the recording going
on now so little is really captured. Well at least in terms of what we cannot seriously doubt, as
in my case, the knocks could be some other human, maybe a neighbor, I cannot preclude that possibility.

So I guess my point is what is the point of coming up with inconclusive evidence, and does that still
hold value? I know to myself it does hold value.

 

But in terms of offering anything of scientific value, there are only two things that have any weight, DNA or a Type Specimen.
 

[norseman]

Not a valid argument.  I know of scientists who have spent months in the forests of prime BF habitat that made observations of the flora and fauna that were outside of the scope of their reason for researching in that place.  I'm talking Six Rivers National Forest on a 9 month assignment.  I myself did a stint of field research in upper  New York State that equaled about 700 hours in the field.  Often for several weeks at a time.  Scientists and trained observers do indeed trek the outback.  I wasn't looking for bear I was studying lake water but I saw bear anyway.  I saw deer and everything in those forests.  Sometimes dead.  Many discoveries come from beyond the intent of the given purpose.

I doubt you saw everything in that forest. I have spent a lifetime in Washington and have never seen a Lynx, Wolverine, Fisher or Caribou. I've seen a Grizzly once and Cougar outside of hunting with hounds a few times.

We have people with scientific backgrounds claiming to have seen something, same goes for people belonging to government agencies. So what? If in your 700 hours of study in the field resulted in you seeing one? What would it change? Absolutely nothing. Other than the fact that you would be a knower instead of a skeptic right now. Otherwise nothing would be different.

We need proof of course. But most are woefully unprepared to collect it if the opportunity presents itself.

Facepalm,huh?

 

To think that a researcher in a forest who is looking for woodpeckers is only seeing woodpeckers is one of the silliest things I've ever read.

 

Science is rife with discoveries while looking for something else.  The paranoid/fearful researcher theory is less far fetched.

 

http://www.scienceiq.com/Facts/SerendipityInScience.cfm

1) as already noted, some animals need you to devote much more time and energy than others to go looking for them.

2) discoveries require more than a sighting by a scientist.

[Guest]

There are estimates of between 30,000-100,000 Bigfoot depending on who you ask.  We make far too many excuses why Bigfoot remains unproven and eventually excuses are seen for what they are.

 

 

I dont for one minute buy there are between 30,000 to 100,000 Bigfoot and nobody knows that to be a fact so I wouldn't ask anyone. Accepting such creatures exist, then common logic says they can't be in such high numbers and still remain uncatalogued.

[MIB]

So I guess my point is what is the point of coming up with inconclusive evidence, and does that still

hold value? I know to myself it does hold value.

 

 

I value what I collect.   Two perspectives.

 

1) I have no interest in proving existence.   I may be interested in education efforts after proof occurs.   A single piece of evidence that may have no value in the context of proving existence may have a lot of value in education efforts after proof is accepted.    Your recordings, while not proof, might have the same value later.

 

2) Even inconclusive "evidence" can be a memento of a fun trip.    An analogy .. I have a half dozen or so sets of deer antlers in my garage.   I don't plan to put them on the wall.   The deer were eaten (by me) years ago.   The only value they have is as a reminder to myself of the experience.    In that same spirit I have some track photos and short vids and audio recordings of ... something.   They're not for validation, they just remind me of steps along my personal journey.  

 

MIB

[Guest DWA]

So I guess my point is what is the point of coming up with inconclusive evidence, and does that still

hold value? I know to myself it does hold value.

 

Then for you it does, and that's worth more than all the scientists in the world.  Meldrum and Bindernagel's positions rely, utterly, on the compilation and analysis of metric tonnes of *inconclusive* evidence.  In fact, *SCIENCE* relies, utterly, on that.

 

But in terms of offering anything of scientific value, there are only two things that have any weight, DNA or a Type Specimen.

 

NOT TRUE!  DNA and the type specimen are for the benefit of hard-headed people who aren't doing their due diligence; don't want to be bothered; and don't understand how science - built on large consistent volumes of *inconclusive* evidence - works.  There is more than enough evidence, right now, to consider sasquatch provisionally proven, with only the taxonomic details left to clean up.

 

Edited December 18, 2014 by DWA

[ohiobill]

How to explain the state of bigfootery today? Bigfoot is a personal experience that doesn't need to rely on evidence collection (or even common sense for those who believe solely on the basis of sighting reports). Whatever you experience is, it's all you need, your participation is all that matters. If you show up you should get a ribbon regardless of how you place. 

 

For those few who might still care about results it's become impossible to justify the lack of evidence without special pleading. Don't worry, there are special pleadings aplenty and we can find one for whatever situation is encountered. Ever increasing numbers of game cams mean nothing because squatch avoid cameras unless it's a filmed encounter you personally find compelling. Increasing reports in urban areas are true because people don't make mistakes or lie, there's no need to look for evidence. This works because squatch don't leave evidence - no bones, no hair, no scat, no DNA. If you record some audio similar to a fox or owl it's obviously squatch because we know squatch are in the area from the anonymous sighting reports. Squatch are rare and hard to find due to their population being kept in check by dogmen so don't feel bad that no hard evidence is found. Except those areas where they are everywhere like hab sites and research areas where 10+ years of research can't yield a clear photo, hair, or scat because the squatch are super stealthy apes or all knowing forest shamans or invisible. It's all good, just keep posting your encounters and impressions because Science is most likely going to recognize Sasquatch any day now due to the overwhelming weight of the reports.

 

SASQUATCH 2015 - ALL IS WELL, KEEP ON KEEPING ON!

[Guest DWA]

^^^And the unscientific fringe approach can't be helped, or stopped.  Do what you feel; but if you are a scientist you should really stick to science.  Unfortunately, few really understand what that is.

[norseman]

Howl as you may, the science establishment has spoken on what they consider proof. There is a line drawn in the sand.

The way I see it is we can all belly ache about the unfairness of the line OR strive to achieve it.

Which is more productive?