2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

[Guest DWA]

No doubt, any field like this attracts charlatans, and until science steps in and separates fact from fancy on the society's behalf, always will.

 

My problem is with people who focus on the charlatan-by-charlatan coverage as 'proof' there's nothing to see here, and totally ignore credentialed scientists, applying demonstrated directly relevant expertise, who vouch for the forensic evidence and the compelling nature of the anecdotal evidence.  Those people contribute nothing to the field and, in fact, maliciously war against the expansion of human knowledge.

 

If one's myopia has one focusing on the fakes and fakers and dissing the field based only on that:  their ignorance isn't my fault.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Being only about 2 years a student in any fashion of this topic, it seems like the cycles of people crashing down are about 6 months or less apart, my time alone has seen the hoaxing of Bodies or having killed a Sasquatch, the fall of several projects purported to be the next thing, The Erickson project, The Bigfoot North project, The Ketchum DNA project to name a few, and now Sasquatch Chronicles is going to go by the wayside. It seems the next thing is generally the same old thing, someone trying to capitalize off this community. While none of this has anything to do with the reality of this creature, it certainly helps the scientific world to continue to dismiss the whole bunch of us.  

 

So how do we separate the chaff from the wheat, how do we learn to discern these people capitalizing off of our enthusiasm for 

this subject. I know that once one is labeled a hoaxer in this community is fairly certain they will not resurrect themselves, though

some have tried. It needs to be put in perspective, but am I wrong or has this whole thing ramp'ed up over recent years, or has 

it always been this bone yard of wrecks piled one on top of the other.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[ShadowBorn]

"So how do we separate the chaff from the wheat, when it seems the wheat are so outnumbered!"

By doing your own field work and getting to understand these creatures in their own environment. It takes time and patience, and when you can determine the difference between the false and the truth on your own.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Makes sense to me to operate independently, and not allow yourself to be sucked onto all the merry go rounds

in this field. I knew coming into this community I would have to be on guard, but it seems that there are new 

tricksters around every corner, but as I said before I knew it sort of came with the territory. I am grateful for the

guys whose integrity has held up over the years, and that is why I am sure Will Jevning was trying not to lose

that respect, although you can also be guilty by association nearly as quickly.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[GuyInIndiana]

"So how do we separate the chaff from the wheat, when it seems the wheat are so outnumbered!"

By doing your own field work and getting to understand these creatures in their own environment. It takes time and patience, and when you can determine the difference between the false and the truth on your own.

 

Ab-so-freakin-lutely. THAT can NOT be said enough. After more than a decade of involvement in this *field*, my eyes roll up in the back of my head everytime someone new comes to this (or any forum) and wants proof because they want to "believe" so badly. You're NEVER going to get that at a forum. You'll only get what you're seeking, out there, where the creatures are. It's that simple.

[Guest]

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.

 

Don't sweat the small stuff LCB; you're way better than that.  When you’re upfront and out front leading the charge, you wear a bulleyes on your back and you can expect to take an arrow or two. Anyone and everyone that may have their own reasons to obstruct this information will spend 24 hours and day looking for the slightest aberration in a word, a statement, a time and set the hounds loose on their target.  Me personally I don’t see any there there … 

 

You ask me what date I retired, heck I don’t know and don’t care but I know I retired. I know I retried June 2012, but I couldn’t tell if you if it was a full or new moon. I know it was a momentous change in my life and it might as well be a full moon but I never gave it much thought.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Ya Gumshoeye I am letting all that go, who cares, they know if the encounter was real, and it will be their own conscience that suffers

if it was not. I like the SC format and show and hope it continues, it is really hard to call someone else experience hoaxed or false when

you know that your experience is no less difficult to prove, but in this community we generally shoot first and ask questions later. It seems

that as soon as something seems false or questionable we tend to pile on that individual, for instance the Woman Susie was talking with

who claimed Dogmen were harassing their family, well she was run out of here on a rail simply because of her association with Tree Peekers

and her website. Anyway I am learning from these types of situation to back off a bit more, I was a bit invested in Sasquatch Chronicles to 

the tune of $21, but the entertainment value I obtained it was worth the price of entry, that played a role in my wanting things to be reasonably

truthful. The host being brought into question was a bit of a tipping point for me, I just wanted something in this bigfoot world to last, so I

my frustration was really just that, nothing more, the house of glass idealism has been broken enough times now, I will stop rebuilding it.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[SWWASAS]

I just read through this thread and it seems most skeptics do not seem to understand how science works.     It is not all brilliant discoveries out of thin air.   It is mostly people grinding away, teaching, trying to publish and trying to make a living.    One can develop a theory and never be able to provide any proof to support the theory.  That is where BF science is stuck now.     Many spend their whole life on some theory and die knowing they were wrong.     Some of the more brilliant discoveries were made by people that were not professional scientists.    A professional scientist has to make his living at it.   That means university or private industry in most cases.    Private industry is rarely into pure science but want practical things they can use to make products.    University is the world of publish to get tenure,  seeking grants for pure science, and peer acceptance.    University or industry, money drives both!     I do not see any money in BF for a scientist until someone, and it will probably be an amateur, proves existence.     The species protection, study, and all of that might generate grant money from private benefactors.    We have already seen some of that with well heeled individuals funding some BF related things.   So professional scientists are reluctant to even get involved  with BF even if they have some interest.     With media exposure,  I think there is a new generation of young scientists that might be very interested, I have met some, but like anyone else they have to do what it takes to make a living.    So BF might be a weekend hobby they will not discuss with their colleagues.   Those that claim scientists would be rushing to BF research if there is anything there, do not understand, scientists like anyone else have to make a living.  

 

Like it or not, anyone that ventures in the field is doing science.      Most is not good science.   I do not see a lot of evidence of keeping field notes, objective thinking,  or creative thinking.     Too much copying of media figures methods,  and that sort of thing.     Forums such as this allow exchange of information but I suspect people are holding back.   I do.      Some active researchers have stopped posting so we really do not know what they are doing.    If information, findings, and theories are shared,  then BF science will advance.     If not it will stay in the doldrums. 

 

I am reminded of Thomas Edison and his work to develop the light bulb.    He was not a professional scientist, but he was a very successful inventor.    He did not invent the light bulb.    He made it practical by spending the thousands of hours testing materials for the filament so it would last for more than seconds or minutes.     When asked about that process when it was underway, he said I may not know what the filament needs to be, but I can tell you over a 1000 things that do not work.    He tried over a thousand materials before he found one that worked.      That is what BF researchers need to do.  Spend the time in the field trying to find something that works.    That may involve trying a 1000 things that do not work.   But work or not, we need to share what we try to do,  for BF science and knowledge to advance.    That is how a lot of science works.   Trying things one after another until something works.    Even Einstein got it wrong a few times along the way developing his theories.     

[Guest DWA]

Right. 

 

One doesn't think about this much, but most of the people who call themselves scientists have, in fact, gotten a very narrow technical grounding in the required protocols to grind knowledge ahead down a narrow channel in a very narrow corner of the scientific vineyard.  (Or how to be a techie for hire.)

 

Being a true scientist is different, and doesn't strictly require a science degree.  Jane Goodall - who eventually got one - was a scientist before she did.  She had the observational skills, the patience, the humility and "beginner's mind" in the face of the unknown, and the ability to make connections and progress that characterize the true scientist.

 

Most "scientists" are, when it comes to this topic...not.  At all.  One only has to listen to what they say.  Skeptics' reliance on them is, simply, blind (and I do mean blind) faith.

Edited March 20, 2015 by DWA

[Explorer]

Ab-so-freakin-lutely. THAT can NOT be said enough. After more than a decade of involvement in this *field*, my eyes roll up in the back of my head everytime someone new comes to this (or any forum) and wants proof because they want to "believe" so badly. You're NEVER going to get that at a forum. You'll only get what you're seeking, out there, where the creatures are. It's that simple.

 

+1 for you GuyInIndiana, how true.

 

Not only that, but there also seems to be the repetitive and childish demands from true believers in the non-existence of BF for all the evidence to be given in a silver platter that would justify the claim of a real BF.

 

This field is part of cryptozoology for a reason.  It is not straightforward and is a mystery, and if anybody in BFF could deliver all the evidence in a silver platter in an air-tight fashion, then we would not have a mystery.

[Guest]

While technology and it's availability are on the side of this research, the average researcher has found little

actual increase in the amount of physical evidence obtainable.  One might argue that Rene Da hinden and Bob

Titmus were able to procure more physical evidence in their watch than all the modern researchers combined.

Simple tracking skills and horses were their tools, and they in my opinion did well with what was available to them

 

Patterson captured the most convincing photographic evidence using a camera that would be truly considered an

antique in the hands of the modern researcher, and yet that film has stood the test of time.  So the question I have

here is what are we, the "MODERN RESEARCHERS", going to do with the tools we have today in order to actually

further the science of this creature.  Or is even using the term Science at this point an oxymoron when it comes to

what we term research.

 

I have to wonder that  if in the days of old bigfoot was slacking on hiding skills and as our technology and encroachment brought us closer they became more skittish.

[SWWASAS]

Could it be that our technology, gadgets, and firearms have broadened the gap between BF and human society?     Native Americans were little different from BF, other than wearing clothes.     Native Americans used stone tools, hunted, and gathered plants, all very similar to BF.    The playing field was very even or in favor of BF because of their strength and size.    Native Americans left them alone.      When Europeans arrived then humans got very different than BF in North America.    We suddenly became more dangerous because of fire arms.   Anything strange or different in the woods became a target for someone with a gun.     Now cameras and other gadgets we tote, while they might not be directly dangerous, we really have no idea if BF understands what they are.     Can BF tell the difference between a telescopic sight on a rifle and a spotting scope just looking for a sighting?    I don't know.   They certainly are very similar.    

[Lake County Bigfooot]

You know that it is certainly a possibility that they have upped their game so to speak, and that is an interesting observation.

[norseman]

Could it be that our technology, gadgets, and firearms have broadened the gap between BF and human society? Native Americans were little different from BF, other than wearing clothes. Native Americans used stone tools, hunted, and gathered plants, all very similar to BF. The playing field was very even or in favor of BF because of their strength and size. Native Americans left them alone. When Europeans arrived then humans got very different than BF in North America. We suddenly became more dangerous because of fire arms. Anything strange or different in the woods became a target for someone with a gun. Now cameras and other gadgets we tote, while they might not be directly dangerous, we really have no idea if BF understands what they are. Can BF tell the difference between a telescopic sight on a rifle and a spotting scope just looking for a sighting? I don't know. They certainly are very similar.

I see no similarity between native Americans and Sasquatch, other than basic morphology. The technological gap between Indians and Sasquatch was much greater than between Indians and Europeans.....

Sasquatch shows no human traits that I can think of other than the superficial resemblance of bipedalism. If he has chosen to do something with his freed hands we sure don't see any evidence of thus.

[SWWASAS]

There is good evidence Sasquatch has language and that certainly is a human trait.