2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

[Guest DWA]

Personally, I'm not worried.  People are on it.  I'm simply stating the *fact* that it is not scientific requirement but scientists' intransigence and laziness that demands a body here.

[norseman]

They have always been lazy as a whole. Which is why they have always required a type specimen! Old crusty book worms didn't penetrate the dark continent dodging crocs and blow gun darts......explorers did.

[ohiobill]

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?

This is why people who are serious support Project Grendel!

 

What unfairness? Hasn't science tested the samples submitted? While DWA may continually howl about unknown primate findings we all know he can't produce any evidence that it's actually happened. He also continually whines about how law enforcement won't investigate sightings involving sassy but we have hundreds of reports where it's happened. So what, he makes a lot of mistakes. The evidence shows that professionals in many fields take the subject seriously. One mistaken poster doesn't negate the actual facts. Science has and still is investigating, they just aren't finding any positive results.

 

What line needs to be changed? Should we recognize any cryptid solely on the basis of anecdotal reports? Chupacabra and dogmen? Fairies and bigfoot? The line is there for a reason. For those who are unsure - get with the program or get off the ride. The personal opinion of someone like DWA who clearly doesn't understand how science works is totally irrelevant. The opinion of a scientist who is partnering with Todd Standing like Meldrum or Bindernagel currently are won't do it. No personal opinion will do it regardless of how well regarded they are in their field. It just doesn't work that way and it shouldn't.

 

"They have always been lazy as a whole."

 

Except for the few who have collected the specimens and written the papers and defended their theories before writing the textbooks. Yup, lazy as sin. The world would be a better and more magical place if they had stayed home and written papers based on sighting reports.  

[norseman]

Goodall, Fossey and others stand head and shoulders above the rest.....nothing but respect.

[GuyInIndiana]

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

 

IF there was a "Post of 2014 Award", I think I'd nominate THAT. Absolutely simple, and right to the point.

[Guest Crowlogic]

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

Bigfoot is more a form of recreation and entertainment than the study of and or interest in solving a mystery.  I Squatch, it gets me out of the house, my son digs it.  As long as this is a form of anthropological WWF then all is fine.  But the subject does not even get to the post office of real science let alone being reviewed by real science.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Crowlogic

[Incorrigible1]

Squatching is rather like geocaching. You spot one, make a mental log, and move on.

 

But don't, for heaven's sake, seek to authenticate your encounter. It's a badge to swear to everyone you just don't care for such nonsense. Or maybe more akin to a participation ribbon.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Incorrigible1

[Guest DWA]

Bigfoot is more a form of recreation and entertainment than the study of and or interest in solving a mystery.  I Squatch, it gets me out of the house, my son digs it.  As long as this is a form of anthropological WWF then all is fine.  But the subject does not even get to the post office of real science let alone being reviewed by real science.

Meldrum and Bindernagel say you're wrong.  I never hear a skeptic contest their science.  Mainly because bigfoot skepticism is about everything but science.

 

Squatching when you know it isn't real is....I am not really sure, at all, what the heck to say about such a mindset.  Do you go on snipe hunts too?

[Trogluddite]

Bigfoot is more a form of recreation and entertainment than the study of and or interest in solving a mystery.  I Squatch, it gets me out of the house, my son digs it.  As long as this is a form of anthropological WWF then all is fine.  But the subject does not even get to the post office of real science let alone being reviewed by real science.

 

Perhaps for you, and that's fine.  I'm doing putting in my effort specifically to solve, to my own satisfaction, the mystery of whether Bigfoot exists.  Maybe I'll persuade a few others that there is probable cause to believe that bigfoot exists; maybe I won't.   

 

For example, of all the Bigfoot encounters reported in the 1970s east of Lake George (northern Washington County in NY and Addison, Washington, Orange, Rutland, and Windsor counties in VT: 

 

- 16 of 17 (or 94%) occurred along the Whitehall-Castleton-Rutland axis

- Overall, the area where encounters occurred shifted south from reported encounters in the 1950s and 1960s (although there are obvious problems w/small sample sizes, which I learned from SABRE-metric statheads)

- All these encounters occured within a 360 square mile area (roughly 12 x 30)

- Within this area, there were numerous reported encounters w/a 7-8' tall, 400-pound, brown Bigfoot in a specific 20-square mile area near Whitehall.

 

I think that I'm a reasonable man, and as such, that type of information (and I've only provided a very small snapshot here) leads me to conclude that its possible that these are reports of an actual living creature.

 

Having said all that, though, I may have to agree with you.

 

It is certainly a fair and reasonable inference that some individuals or groups, if not a majority, are more interested in entertainment and/or financial gain than in resolving the issue.  

 

And because of that, it will remain on the outside of real science until Norseman plunks a dead body, or parts thereof, on the desk of some prof at U Wash and says, "Analyze this!:

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Mind you DWA,  I am not seeking to completely trivialize everything we have accomplished, but in

terms of breaking through the hard headedness that prevails against this notion, the statement I made

concerning DNA, or a Type Specimen hold true.  What will it take to get the scientific world as a whole

to acknowledge the specie, and to fund the necessary research to make the creature known.  I hope

that every little piece we have dug out of the clay can still contribute to the end picture, and that the

common researcher is not completely pushed aside for the professionals, but I must say are days at

the helm of this ship are limited.

[SWWASAS]

This thread is turning into another where skeptics expect to prove a negative. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, no matter what you have not seen. Heavy sigh!!!!

[Guest DWA]

It kills me.  Might as well tell you that wolverines aren't real because I've never seen one while hiking.  STOP with this.  It's not rational.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Meldrum and Bindernagel say you're wrong.  I never hear a skeptic contest their science.  Mainly because bigfoot skepticism is about everything but science.

 

Squatching when you know it isn't real is....I am not really sure, at all, what the heck to say about such a mindset.  Do you go on snipe hunts too?

Todd Standing sure made some great science that got him a big fat spot on the bigfoot map.  Even scientists can end up chasing willow the wisp and Dr Meldrum is chasing Todd Standings willow the wisp.  Having a credential does not mean a person can't jump the tracks into  bolderedash.  More than one scientist has been seduced by an esoteric phenomenon.  Dr J Allen Hynek eventually became a believer in UFO's and got fleeced pretty good towards the end of his life by a huckster.  Bigfoot science is like playing air guitar.  There are lots of good moves and gestures but air is just air.

 

I threw Squatching in as a reason folks often do it.  No I don't Squatch but I have dissuaded one or two folks from pursuing it.

It kills me.  Might as well tell you that wolverines aren't real because I've never seen one while hiking.  STOP with this.  It's not rational.

Wolverines are proven cataloged animals.  Bigfoot is not and the gulf  that separates rare but proven from sketchy and unproven is vast.  There are more bigfoot than wolverines it seems but the way smaller rare little wolverine is a proven done deal.  Something is wrong with the bigfoot picture and has been for a very long time.  BTW can science prove a negative?

[Guest DWA]

Todd Standing sure made some great science that got him a big fat spot on the bigfoot map.  Even scientists can end up chasing willow the wisp and Dr Meldrum is chasing Todd Standings willow the wisp.  

 

If one can't separate Meldrum from Standing one isn't really sure one can recognize solid science when one sees it.  People make all kinds of mistakes, most particularly people who are making total sense and being laughed at.  I can see past the mistakes.  Folk who don't know how science works, or who are working from frustration, not so much.

 

I threw Squatching in as a reason folks often do it.  No I don't Squatch but I have dissuaded one or two folks from pursuing it.

 

Being against the advancement of knowledge is something one should not wear as a badge.

Wolverines are proven cataloged animals.  Bigfoot is not and the gulf  that separates rare but proven from sketchy and unproven is vast.  There are more bigfoot than wolverines it seems but the way smaller rare little wolverine is a proven done deal.  Something is wrong with the bigfoot picture and has been for a very long time.  BTW can science prove a negative?

 

This illustrates a problem with understanding why the situation is what it is that some of us don't have.  Apparently your buddy in the Six Rivers CAN prove a negative...or at least you think he can...

[WSA]

As I've said many times here, the future state of BF research depends on some kid who is right now pulling up the sighting report database for the first time and going..."HOLY CRAP! That is exactly what my uncle/dad/mother/cousin/friend said he/she saw that time. I believe them and I want to confirm this for all the world." The state of accepted scientific dogma changes one obituary at a time. Take it to the bank, it is a loooooooooooong game.