Guest DWA Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 (edited) Well, in all fairness you did say "the state of sasquatch science." Which is, largely, not. People with the bigfoot skeptics' approach wouldn't have any traction in any field mainstream science took seriously. Nobody knew much of anything about the movements of grizzlies, gorillas, and chimps until mainstream scientists started coming up with ways to track those movements. (Without modern telemetry, grizzlies and wolverines wouldn't be a whole lot better known than sasquatch.) Nobody is spending the time, right now; not even NAWAC is close, although they seem to be in a 'refugium' in which there is, for the moment, a stable resident population. Until we get that time and money commitment, we'll be dealing with an inadequate observational base to do anything other than make educated guesses. Which are better than nothing; in fact, that's how most of the work at the frontiers of science gets done. Edited December 26, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted December 26, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted December 26, 2014 I have been attempting to draw the conversation back toward research, and maybe this thread needs to moved to that arena, obviously it is going astray. I have long stated that where I live in the Midwest I think they move along rivers north and south in the spring and fall months. The river that runs through the lakes I live on empties into the Illinois river near Utica. I said sometime in September that expected to hear of a sighting along that route, sure enough it happened in October, but it confirms my suspicion that they follow the river south as colder weather hits, and back north when it gets hot, I think that they stay put or move a little south of the river confluence in winter. So now I want to go hit that area hard and look for prints, because history says they should be in that area where the two rivers join. I wonder if any of you guys have a similar situation that seems to have some predictability. All of my contact and footprint evidence is near water. That does not mean much when you consider that the most likely place to find a footprint is in damp soil. In dry forest floors with needles, leaves or down wood footprints are a tough find. BF need water. Lots of it in warm weather. Deer etc need water too so that puts prey near water sources, so it is not surprising that there is a link. Both need cover, but BF more so than deer it would seem. I think it's likely there are migrations as BF like any hunter gatherer has to migrate some to follow food sources. In the PNW there are berry field areas where sightings are common when berries in season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 All forums are goofy? I wouldnt say that at all. Goofy means crazy, ridiculous, ludicrous. There are a LOT of great, serious and very very interesting and informative forums out there. I think goofy is a wrong choice of wording. Calling it Goofy is to mock it. I already said I wasn't mocking this forum. All forums are goofy to me but it doesn't mean I don't enjoy participating. Intent is all that matters when dealing with words. Mockery is not my intent. And if inclined to do so I could point out many crazy, ridiculous, ludicrous posts and threads along with the quality discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dxm2 Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Okay, I'm done. I wish everyone good luck in 2015. For anyone to reduce the fields of astronomy and physics to "DOODLES ON PAPER!?!!?!? is insulting and beyond belief, particularly coming from someone who claims to know something about science. When that was said, the "Circus" got its third ring. My post was inflammatory, and if it went too far, I apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Welcome, dxm2, to what passes for science among some of our famous report readers. Hmm, you might have Alexei Filippenko, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Stephen Hawking on one side, and our illustrious, self-appointed scientist on the other, which side will you put the most store into? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 ^^^ ding ding ding Okay, I'm done. I wish everyone good luck in 2015. For anyone to reduce the fields of astronomy and physics to "DOODLES ON PAPER!?!!?!? is insulting and beyond belief, particularly coming from someone who claims to know something about science. When that was said, the "Circus" got its third ring. My post was inflammatory, and if it went too far, I apologize. at last it wasn't called goofy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Welcome, dxm2, to what passes for science among some of our famous report readers. Hmm, you might have Alexei Filippenko, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Stephen Hawking on one side, and our illustrious, self-appointed scientist on the other, which side will you put the most store into? I tried back in college to pass Roger Patterson and Rene Dahinden off as real science/researchers in a paper I had to write. I got a big F for my efforts. Same paper included Jane Goodall and the problem was not with her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 (edited) Okay, I'm done. I wish everyone good luck in 2015. For anyone to reduce the fields of astronomy and physics to "DOODLES ON PAPER!?!!?!? is insulting and beyond belief, particularly coming from someone who claims to know something about science. When that was said, the "Circus" got its third ring. My post was inflammatory, and if it went too far, I apologize. So is the attitude you express about sasquatch, for someone who claims to know something about science. And I could address that sentence to most "skeptical" scientists, who seem to think something has to be proven...before...one INVESTIGATES IT!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Welcome, dxm2, to what passes for science among some of our famous report readers. Hmm, you might have Alexei Filippenko, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Stephen Hawking on one side, and our illustrious, self-appointed scientist on the other, which side will you put the most store into? Welcome to what passes for 'constructive' commentary among, er, one here. Who has this down to, I daresay, a science. One holds one's breath for a contribution to the conversation. And realizes one may be on the way to a record...for all species. Edited December 28, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 I'm not a "self-proclaimed scientist." You've got me on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 On that among other things. Paying attention, always useful. Scientists always do that...at least in their specialties. But get 'em outside their specialties...and I got them on that too. Among other things. You show me you're a scientist...or a glorified techie...by your attitude toward subjects like this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 (edited) I'm not a scientist. I don't "proclaim" myself to be so. That you do, is reason for me to doubt anything you post. I'm merely an intelligent human poster, without benefit of telepathy from the bigfoots, nor your amazing report reading ability. I just call 'em like I see 'em. I don't adopt a "better than thou" attitude, nor do I exclude any data. Take it for what it's worth, my "self-proclaimed scientist" friend. I don't come to the table demanding "science" jump thru hoops. I don't proclaim myself somehow more worthy than the rest of the scientific discovery process. Some not-so-subtle differences between yourself and me. Edited December 28, 2014 by Incorrigible1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 At least you don't read my posts. You have that "going" for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Good things/small packages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 I tried back in college to pass Roger Patterson and Rene Dahinden off as real science/researchers in a paper I had to write. I got a big F for my efforts. Why didnt you cite Krantz and Napier etc instead? They were real scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 (edited) They never cite the scientists, mention them, or refute them. Except to show that they aren't familiar with them. Bigfoot skepticism is less a serious opinion about something than it is a user guide to cherrypicking. "Science is nothing but careful thinking, and careful thinking encouraging an appreciation of the complexity of the world." The scientific proponents live by this. One knows because they show it. Edited December 28, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts