2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

[Guest DWA]

Thanks for the refutation and utterly lucid explanation of the skeptical thesis.  What I have come to expect.  In bland black and white.

 

Posts like that, repeated over and over along with pie in the sky wishful hopes for continents full of crafty hoaxers and crazy people, tell those paying attention all we need to know.

 

Aside from, you know, the evidence.  

Edited March 17, 2015 by DWA

[WSA]

Anymore, when I get to the words "no proof" in a post attempting to address evidence, or lack thereof, I just shake my head and move on. Really, there would be no point at all. At all.  

[Guest DWA]

Or even worse, "no compelling evidence" or "no scientifically testable evidence" or "no forensic evidence" [yodood, there is...and there's the color Faenor loves so much]" or some other odd phrase (I actually did add a new one today but it's yawningly slipped my mind...oh, right, "nothing of solid scientific value") attempting to somehow avoid saying what is meant:

 

no proof.  Which means, precisely, nothing.  Proponents still right; skeptics still wrong.

Please back up why it's wrong.  Bring on the solid no two ways about it proof.  I don't think there is solid no two ways about it proof.  The evidence is the same stuff that gets on Animal Planet or Finding Bigfoot, Nat Geo etc.  The curious thing is the deeper one digs into the bigfoot issue the less substantial the issue becomes..  

 

Agreed, WSA.  Agreed.  No point.

 

I've lost the ability to listen to the bigfoot mutual admiration society.  

 

But nothing about you and the mirror.  Might help to read up.  But haven't we beeen there before.

 

Let's just suppose there are 5 solid researchers with tissue samples and videos of compelling quality.  

 

Those are called "proof."  Agreed, WSA...

 

 

Science does not go near the subject because real scientists know they are entering a quagmire of sorts.  

 

No.  They have reams of stuff to read by real scientists doing real science.  They just choose not to read it, and more or less expose themselves as narrow techies, not real scientists.

 

In all honesty what scientist in his right mind is going to turn their back on a great puzzle?  It isn't that scientists are lazy or narrow minded. 

 

Of course it is!  Because ^^^that *is happening.*  Right under your nose.  To say something like you said is to commit one more time the great sin of bigfoot skeptics:  presuming that only scientists understand or can do and parse science.  We're seeing that the vast majority of scientists do not recognize the greatest biological puzzle of this continent.  It is beyond obvious, but only to those who are paying attention.  No secret handshakes required.  It's all public information and easy to find.  The mental application?  As we can see, not so easy.  But any intelligent layman can do it.  And yes, it's science.

Edited March 17, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

Or even worse, "no compelling evidence" or "no scientifically testable evidence" or "no forensic evidence" [yodood, there is...and there's the color Faenor loves so much]" or some other odd phrase (I actually did add a new one today but it's yawningly slipped my mind...oh, right, "nothing of solid scientific value") attempting to somehow avoid saying what is meant:

 

no proof.  Which means, precisely, nothing.  Proponents still right; skeptics still wrong.

 

Again we are left to ponder evidence and not study proof.  Where is this science being done?  Where are the results of this science?  The media is littered with bad photos and videos, back stabbing researchers stabbing other backstabbing researchers and none of it brings in a single piece scientific proof.  

 

Interesting I was just watching Finding Bigfoot in England.  Now anybody that's ever gone to England knows that there is not a place for such a beast to exist.  However they manage to get a room full of people to raise their hands that yes they've seen a bigfoot like creature in England.  Right then and there was the entire nutshell of bigfoot belief.  They take to the field with a half dozen people claiming to have seen bigfoot on English soil.  Well let's play the observer credibly card for a moment.  Are all those people in that room liars?  Well they are one of three things, liars, misidentifying the known or they are seeing things not actually there.  Why should we in North America not be as susceptible to erroneously seeing this stuff as those Brits.  If the Brits can come up with that stuff with a virtual zero chance of it being real why can't Americans?  It goes back to something I said earlier its theater of the mind with a few good parlor tricks thrown in.  Now bring is the body and it's a new ballgame but I'm willing to bet nobody has got one to bring in.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest Divergent1]

Well, LCB, the thread is about "the state of sasquatch science," and right now that can be summed up as

 

1.  Evidence that would sway any scientist that is paying attention;

2.  ...that has swayed *every* scientist whose comments indicate that he is, without exception; 

 

3. ...and no action by the mainstream to execute what is science's fundamental mission:  solving things like this for the society.

 

The main reason for this is that the skeptics (whose thinking is echoed by the mainstream) don't know what's going on; resist every effort to enlighten them; and persist in showing scientists relying on, well, income that this is no place to risk that income.

 

Yes some of us do love to joust.  But the state of the field contradicts scientists' understanding of science's mission.  Period.

So the title of the thread is a misnomer?

[WSA]

The lack of discernment on reading the encounter database is a very hard thing to overcome, especially if the reader hasn't identified the deficiencies to begin with. I am convinced some have the ability, and some simply do not. Still, it can be learned. As a young law clerk i would summarize depositions for a very skiled trial lawyer. He would read them and often rewrite the summary. I was always amazed at what he could tease out of something i saw as very flat testimony, but i learned. This is a lot like that. Most read those and only take away the obvious, which is more easily waved away. The ability to really understand takes diligence and a bit of art as well. When you read that an E. European likens the smell to the moldy interior of a travel caravan, for instance, you have to know why that matters. That and a thousand other details that are all there for those with eyes. This is not so handily dismissed, i don't care much how the world has defeated your own personal expectations and timetable for confirmation. There is a greater perspective demanded.

[Guest DWA]

So the title of the thread is a misnomer?

Nope, it doesn't say what the state of sasquatch science is.  Said state just actually sucks; because evidence to which any scientist should be attracted, few are; 99% of the conversation is about the crap; and while everybody says "how could a scientist turn his back on the find of his lifetime," they almost all are doing just that.  And few read, and none attempt to refute, and few to follow, the few that aren't.

Edited March 18, 2015 by DWA

[Explorer]

Norseman,

 

I believe that the link below refers to the event that Yuchi is referring to from back in 2002.

 

The article is titled The Louisiana “Hunt†(from January 2002) and was discussed in BFF back in 2012.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/29566-the-hunt-for-the-southern-bigfoot/

 

It reads like fiction, but apparently Branco and others posted that it happened.

 

 

Thanks, a lot of back story I'am blissfully unaware of. The GCBRO has their own TV show now. I'm just a nobody that rides his horse and packs a rifle when work and family don't get in the way of being in the mountains. But hopefully with many more like me at some point we can strike pay dirt.

I'm guessing Yuchi is Martin, who is the author of the AAR? Did I not read that he discharged his shotgun at a dark shape assumed to be a Bigfoot?

 

 

Norseman,

 

I don't think Yuchi is Martin.  Martin is the guy who originally posted the article and asked for background information on the story.

 

The article was written by somebody named T.G. (could that be Yuchi?). 

 

Suggest you contact Splash7 ( a member of BFF) who seems to know a lot about GCBRO and this incident based on his posts on that topic.

 

Yuchi, did you write that article?

 

 

BTW, while I don't know much about GCBRO, I wish they published monographs on their research efforts and findings like NAWAC does.  Instead we get tid-bits here and there with no clear understanding of the details of what happened and what was learned. I did not find any papers summarizing the findings of this incident/evidence obtained in their website.  I searched in the GCBRO forums (which probably has information on the topic), but it was very difficult to find using their search/editor.  Maybe I did not look hard enough. 

 

Sharing findings, methodologies, and failures in a formal paper is a big ++ for NAWAC. 

 

I wish other organizations will replicate.  Who knows how many groups are re-inventing the wheel and/or chasing their tails with methods that do not work.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Explorer

[Guest Divergent1]

Nope, it doesn't say what the state of sasquatch science is.  Said state just actually sucks; because evidence to which any scientist should be attracted, few are; 99% of the conversation is about the crap; and while everybody says "how could a scientist turn his back on the find of his lifetime," they almost all are doing just that.  And few read, and none attempt to refute, and few to follow, the few that aren't.

Say what?

The lack of discernment on reading the encounter database is a very hard thing to overcome, especially if the reader hasn't identified the deficiencies to begin with. I am convinced some have the ability, and some simply do not. Still, it can be learned. As a young law clerk i would summarize depositions for a very skiled trial lawyer. He would read them and often rewrite the summary. I was always amazed at what he could tease out of something i saw as very flat testimony, but i learned. This is a lot like that. Most read those and only take away the obvious, which is more easily waved away. The ability to really understand takes diligence and a bit of art as well. When you read that an E. European likens the smell to the moldy interior of a travel caravan, for instance, you have to know why that matters. That and a thousand other details that are all there for those with eyes. This is not so handily dismissed, i don't care much how the world has defeated your own personal expectations and timetable for confirmation. There is a greater perspective demanded.

What kind of perspective? I mean if someone says that bigfoot smells like rotten meat, well it just means the obvious doesn't it?

[Lake County Bigfooot]

I will have to read Bindernagel's last book discussing the why's of scientific resistance to the subject, but much of it goes back to the whole "Bigfoot" sensationalism of the late 60s and 70s following the PG film, and Boggy Creek. Sasquatch moved from the realm of being a real question to being an odd form of entertainment. It fell into that category of stuff labeled as paranormal, and that is where it has stayed. It will not be taken seriously until we rescue it from that place, and we bring it back from the abyss. Really all it will take is DNA, and some reproducible knowledge of the creatures movements and habits, or one on a slab. That discussion has been had as of late, and if the account of the GCBRO is true, then the problems of such a harvest should be evident. Well I for one am hoping that Sykes will receive a legit sample, as Bipedalist recently noted that they will still test new samples, quoting Rhettman Mullis. Those of us who know these creatures exist can take heart as we are nearing the end of the debate, science will discover the Sasquatch, because they are a flesh and blood creature and can be tracked, it just has been the wrong methods and the lack of effort that has stopped us. Six months of 20 individuals, well trained, with expert tracking, well it should produce some results, because that is what I mean when I say effort, sustained long term study.

 

To the skeptic I say, these are possibly the most elusive creatures on the planet, and that alone has allowed them to survive into the present. If they were not

as well adapted to their environment as they are they could not have survived. The problem this presents given their limited numbers is incalculable in terms of

research, and that is why we have so little evidence. Apart from the very credible footprints of these creatures and the sightings that form a consistent picture of

what is out there, we only have a few pieces of credible video. I too doubted this could be real, and was pretty hostile to the notion of it existing. What cannot

be ignored is the footprint evidence, say what you will, there are enough casts of a real creature to be able deny such a thing exists. To be agnostic, and to say

I do not know if it exists, well that is honest, but to say I know that they cannot exist, well that is certainly not honest intellectualism by any stretch.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Guest DWA]

Bindernagel's 2010 The Discovery of the Sasquatch is a must-read, maybe the most important in the entire field when it comes to the "why we don't know."

 

Yep to the rest of it.  A sustained stay in the field will...well, were NAWAC's effort conducted with mainstream time and money it would definitely continue to conclusion, because evidence tantamount to proof to the people in the field has already been gathered.

Say what?

 

I was gonna change it and went, naaaaaaaah, too few conundrums on here.     I would settle for a skeptical scientist (or ten or twenty) reading some of the books I have read and critiquing them from a scientific standpoint.  That has never happened.  The only "skeptical" reviews I have seen don't even deal with what's in the book!  They start with the "critic's" basic incredulity,...and deteriorate from there.

What kind of perspective? I mean if someone says that bigfoot smells like rotten meat, well it just means the obvious doesn't it?

 

He is talking about the perspective required to examine why we are where we are; and why the evidence is so compelling to the people paying attention; and why the people to whom the evidence is not compelling are not paying attention...which isn't so obvious.  When people say "the reports mean nothing and provide us with nothing," or "the tracks could all be fake," or "the proponent scientists could be wrong about this," or ...well, just about anything else I have heard a skeptic say...then that perspective is lacking.  The person saying those things needs to think about this much more.

 

In other words:  one must think the way a scientist does about this.  The scientists who are not paying attention are not thinking like scientists, but like incredulous laymen.  Their premises and conclusions are pretty much the same as any other bigfoot skeptic's, and reflect as little thought.

Edited March 18, 2015 by DWA

[WSA]

Divergent1...The point being, people are inarticulate and imperfect communicators. This goes double for those trying to describe something for which they have very little frame of reference. When you read a detail like that, does it mean anything to you? If not, are you truly comprehending what the witness is trying to tell you? 

 

There are those who discount eyewitness account out of hand, for the reason that they are unreliable, unsubstantiated and untrustworthy (to name just a few of their objections to them).   What this leaves out is only the content of the reports. I've likened it to someone standing in front of a Monet and saying all they see is blobs of color. Reading any witness account at a level that allows you to make some conclusions is hard, and it is all together a futile effort if all you are going to do is take details like the one I've mentioned and merely say, "Meh" in response.  We are so used to having our information spoon-fed to us we have lost most of our ability to think about what it is we are truly reading.  These reports are a gold mine of information, but only if you are willing to pay attention and do some hard work by thinking about what they are saying.

Edited March 18, 2015 by WSA

[Guest DWA]

That.  Why we are where we are?  Why virtually no scientists are chasing after what everyone thinks every scientist would chase after?

 

The work.  They just don't do the work.

Edited March 18, 2015 by DWA

[Lake County Bigfooot]

I guess admin pulled my recent thread discussing the Wes Germer situation, I did not think that what I wrote was a problem, but maybe

the title was not allowed, waiting to see a message about why it was pulled. Maybe someone could let me know. 

Edited March 18, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Well I am still waiting to see what will become of the Wes Germer situation, if you listened to Sasquatch Chronicles, Wes is the host, and now

is facing some pretty tuff questions, seems he hoaxed his encounter, Will Jevning has posted that he resigned from the show and website on

Facebook, that he was disassociating from Wes and Woody for his own reputation as an author, and that he also was banned from the Sasquatch

Chronicles website. Just shows you how many charlatans this field attracts, nothing new, same old same old.