2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

[Guest DWA]

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.

 

^^^This.  The biggest problem with this field is that so few come to it from an interest in directly relevant topics.  That is changing.

Edited December 19, 2014 by DWA

[MIB]

Long game indeed.    "We" have been on the sidelines since 1958 when Jerry Crew's cast picture was printed in the newspaper thinking "proof" was going to be headlines pronto.   It hasn't happened yet.   Couple thoughts.   First, a definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing expecting the outcome to change, second/related, until something happens that triggers a paradigm shift the best predictor we have of the future is the past.   There's no rational expectation for a solution at any specific predictable time in the future, merely misguided wishful thinking and "beliefs."  If you're not in for the long haul you might as well go do something else.

 

MIB

Edited December 19, 2014 by MIB

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

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...

 

Nobody is proving bigfoot.  Nobody!  My friend reported no bigfoot evidence of any kind just like I reported no bigfoot of any kind.  The proof wanting of bigfoot is conspicuous by it's absence.  The so called bigfoot researchers by now know more than mainstream science about bigfoot.  Or do they?  You seem to support the notion that whatever is going on in the field is non committed and minimal.  OK if it is then toss the whole thing out and it's as I maintain a WWF kind of reality.   It's going to take scientists to prove it?  Well that's never happened and isn't likely to.  Demanding real science to prove bigfoot is a comfortable way of dismissing the reality of the bigfoot circus.

[Guest DWA]

See, this is just pushing an agenda.^^^

 

Didn't we just get over saying you can't prove a negative?  This means, and could not mean more clearly, that if thousands of people's experience contradicts yours, it is common blunt sense *not to go with yours.*

Edited December 19, 2014 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

It's never about the news, Terry.  I know virtually nothing about any of the clowns in the circus.  It's the thousands of eyewitnesses who are channeling their inner primatologist/ecologist - couldn't happen any other way - and all the footprints that are just what this animal would be expected to leave that are the spice for me.  The circus can go hang.  It's not where the action is.

[SWWASAS]

Just a couple of thoughts. Crow if you have seen a BF you would not have proof it of. How could you deal with that reality? You would be like many of the rest of us. Your and your scientist friend's experience defines existence of a species? Wow! What a statement! I am a scientist and have not seen a blue whale so therefore they must not exist? Science said as recently ago as the mid 1950s that we could never go to the moon, so saying nothing can happen with BF and science is almost a sure bet that you will be proven wrong.

Edited December 19, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest thermalman]

Agreed Terry. A whole lot of BF credulity pushing their proof free agendas. I, for one, like to see the facts and true evidence, which so far has not been presented in order to give undeniable proof of BF.

Edited December 19, 2014 by thermalman

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Terry I am with you at heart, but with all that we could avail ourselves of in this present age,

the technology, the growing knowledge of the outdoors...wait...that is the problem here, we are

speeding up technology in this field, but less and less time is spent in the woods with boots on

the ground, and thus we have few individuals that have the outdoor instincts that were common in

prior days. I grew up fishing and hunting, but mostly fishing. As a young adult I spent somewhere

between 20-30 hours a week fishing a local river at night. I did not even start fishing till midnight, and most mornings I would return just as the sun was rising. That is what I call dedication to your hobby, or interest. If some of todays young folk could invest that same time into the study of these creatures, NATHAN, as say I did with fishing, I guarantee we would be learning a whole lot more than what we are today, problem is this next generation is mostly addicted to technology, and do notspend their waking hours exploring and learning from nature, as did some of us older generation folk. Though I am sure there are exceptions like Nathan and others that will carry on the torch. When I retire, if that ever happens, I plan to spend extensive time in the woods to unravel for myself whatever I can, until then I hope to at least get some longer camping in, like I used to do in Northern Minnesota. It can be very rewarding to spend a week all alone pondering your existence, realizing what does not really define you, and returning to civilization with a whole new perspective

Edited December 19, 2014 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Guest Crowlogic]

Just a couple of thoughts. Crow if you have seen a BF you would not have proof it of. How could you deal with that reality? You would be like many of the rest of us. Your and your scientist friend's experience defines existence of a species? Wow! What a statement! I am a scientist and have not seen a blue whale so therefore they must not exist? Science said as recently ago as the mid 1950s that we could never go to the moon, so saying nothing can happen with BF and science is almost a sure bet that you will be proven wrong.

I haven't seen a Blue Whale either but I have touched the bones of one.  I have seen incontrovertible evidence of their existence.  There are tissue samples, fossil evidence, dead specimens, live specimens  and a commercial history of humans harvesting Blue Whales,  There is none of that for bigfoot.   My experiences and observations align with the non existence of the species.  The plea of we don't know everything, one man's opinion is another man's falsehood is IMO a weak and desperate maneuver to maintain a credible thread of possibility for the bigfoot advocate.  We have the best technology ever to confirm bigfoot and what happens?  The bigfoot circus gets better than ever but bigfoot does not happen.  There is something wrong with the picture.  There is better garbage going in and better garbage coming out but the best that results the akin to the WWF.  I suppose if you can believe in the WWF you can believe in bigfoot but both are for entertainment purposes only.

[SWWASAS]

Technology is a two headed problem. Reliance on it makes a person less of a woodman and actually probably not as safe as someone that does not rely on it. I know people that cannot read a map and rely on GPS to find their way around. They get lost very frequently in the PNW. But on the other side of the coin, evidence supporting existence, requires technology. DNA, the lab slab specimen, footprint casts, photographic evidence, are all manifestations of technology that have to be part of any proof.

The device that probably created more of a divide between BF and humans arrived here about 400 years ago. Until then BF was probably seen more often and human contact was not as dangerous for BF. With Europeans arrived guns. While Native Amercans seemed to have a respectful avoidance policy with BF and avoided armed conflict, Europeans seemed to shoot at anything they thought dangerous. That single fact had to effect human/ BF contact protocols and make it difficult have contact to this day.

The most capable humans like hunters and fisherman do not normally carry the gear to provide any meaningful evidence unless they shoot a BF and get it out of the woods. Both less capable humans and those that know their way around are usually scared out of their wits during a first encounter and getting evidence is usually the last thing on their mind. So most encounters are simply not conducive to furthering evidence supporting existence. That to me explains why progress seems so stagnant. There are very few who go into the field who are both capable woodman, knowledgeable and equipped, who need that rare encounter to do anything at all to further collective knowledge or evidence supporting existence. Many are members here but there are just not enough of them in the field to have much chance of success. And finally some may be capable but for their own reasons, choose not to participate in killing a specimen. Once you decide to reject that shot the first time, I doubt that you will ever change your mind.

[Guest]

Nobody is proving bigfoot.  Nobody!  My friend reported no bigfoot evidence of any kind 

 

How much ground did your friend cover and supposing bigfoot exists how many do you actually think should be living in the area your friend was?

[SWWASAS]

Good point Neanderfoot: I have lived in Northern California, Oregon, and SW Washington. The 6 Rivers Area of California my be BF habitat but the chances of encounter there are far less than areas in the PNW. The sheer numbers of people in California, the less dense forests, the dry soil conditions most of the year, and probably fewer number of BF to begin with in that area, and less food available do not promote the likelihood of sightings or BF evidence compared with other areas of the country. Bluff Creek may be holy ground for BF researchers, but if I was leading an expedition for scientists I would not take them there. There are far better areas in other states.

Edited December 20, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Lake County Bigfooot]

So I guess where I am heading with this thread at present is the idea that we need to further ourselves
in use of the technology available, given our respective resources... but also to further our understanding
of the outdoors in general. An individual who I liken to this model would be Derek Randles of the Olympic Project.
As a hunting guide and subsequent student of bigfoot, and combining those skills with a team of equally as
good individuals who specialize in the techno aspects, they have the skillsets to get stuff done. The NAWAC has
a good amount of field experience, and seems to be moving forward using technology to accomplish the goal of taking
a specimen. Researchers like Cliff Barackman continue to push forward the balance of both technology and biology and
the necessary hours in the field. I am hopeful that researchers will be inspired to study the areas around them, looking both at the topography and resources available, and learning of all the native species that interact in that environment. Nature is one such puzzle that unfolds it truths in relation to the parts, however minute, so the reality is that something we consider as trivial, might actually be the very reason for the presence of a specie in an area. An example of this might be a very specialized feeding opportunity, like when frogs migrate in the fall into area lakes, if you know when such an event is happening and where

you can almost guarantee that large game fish will be waiting in that area for a bonanza of feeding.  Countless examples

like this occur, some we know of and others not so much, bug hatches, blooms, seeds and nuts, fruits and berries, migration

of other animals that bring large concentrations of food to a small area, as in the Platte River in spring.  Areas of unique

biological diversity, like swamps and bogs and of course rain forest.  I know that I am restating much of what has been

said by others and myself, but I think we can put more of this puzzle together by discussing all these things. To solve the

enigma of Bigfoot we will need to know exactly what brings them to an area and why they leave, the timing of the resources they are exploiting, and the specialization they employ.  Nothing short of that knowledge will bring us any closer to understanding the creature scientifically, even if we can put one on a slab, it would still remain a mystery.

Edited December 20, 2014 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Guest DWA]

How much ground did your friend cover and supposing bigfoot exists how many do you actually think should be living in the area your friend was?

Really, that doesn't matter. He could have put a bootprint on every square foot, and it wouldn't matter.

One person NOT having an experience says nothing against the many who DID have it. Crowlogic's argument doesn't even need addressing. It can be comfortably tossed. It's not worth dignifying it.

To give this argument time of day is to PRESUME that the people claiming an experience are wrong. This is ABSOLUTELY VERBOTEN! in science; one must have *evidence* for one's proposition, and all the evidence backs the people claiming the experience.

One can never take one person's experience of walking around in the woods and not seeing something as evidence that that thing doesn't exist. That is essentially proving a negative. I have never seen a mountain lion or a wolverine despite substantial miles in their country. Doesn't mean they're not there; and to say "yeah but they're proven to exist" simply proves Six Rivers Walkabout Guy - and Crowlogic's trust in him - to be wrong. If that is one understands logic.

"My experiences and observations align with the non existence of the species" is, essentially, this bankrupt argument stated another way. I mean, who are YOU to say this? What care we for YOUR experiences and observations against thousands of others - including scientists demonstrably practicing rigorous science - that say you are wrong?

Agreed Terry. A whole lot of BF credulity pushing their proof free agendas. I, for one, like to see the facts and true evidence, which so far has not been presented in order to give undeniable proof of BF.

And while we're on bankrupt arguments: here, AGAIN, is "no proof = no evidence." Just wow. Just.Wow.

Edited December 20, 2014 by DWA

[SWWASAS]

I just thought of a great analogy that relates directly to this topic. Aviation has become very technology dependent. Modern commercial airplanes have numerous computers. The Airbus aircraft requires a computers permission for someone to flush the toilet. Believe me I know as have had hours of delay waiting for a cable to be disconnected so the computer no longer prevents the aft toilets from being flushed. The problem with this technology is that while it makes a pilots workload less for certain periods of time, it increases it at others. You have to load flight plans into computers on the ground when you have little time and reload the flight management system if things change in the air. And in flight, pilots have become so reliant on the airplane to fly itself, we have had cases where the pilots cannot fly the airplane without the computers help. The recent crash in San Francisco, the Air France crash in the Atlantic are cases where pilots were so dependent on computers they forgot the prime directive in aviation, "Fly the Aircraft" There were also elements in these crashes where it appeared the pilots were not capable of flying their aircraft without the aid of computer technology.

So in the field bigfooting, quite frankly I think technology is an extreme distraction. Watching a GPS to navigate, carrying a camera at ready, running a digital recorder, or anything that distracts you from what is going on in the woods around you detracts from your objective. The hunter in the tree stand listening to the noises around him, the fisherman quietly fishing on a bank for hours, have much more chance of encounter, than some gadgeted researcher thrashing through the woods. I prefer solo field work because even one other person is a distraction to me. Don't get me wrong, I carry the gadgets but have them out of sight. Even at that, I often avoid field work in the rain because when you have about $1000 of electronic gear in your pack, you really do not want to get it wet. So I am letting technology modify my field techniques too. Maybe I should go primitive and not carry any electronic gear. But if I do that, any encounter will only have my word as evidence it happened. In a way the skeptics are driving research behavior. Quite frankly, I don't think I like that thought at all.