Guest Crowlogic Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Unfortunately every non eyewitness of this creature is simply a believer, but I am a believer in wolverines and other creatures I have only seen on film, and although these creatures are better documented than Sasquatch, belief is required just the same. I have no problem saying I am a believer simply because I find the facts convincing, that you do not does not make you a scientist, nor does it make you any more rational than I, you simply are not persuaded by the evidence, and are therefore skeptical. I think the danger lies in blind belief or blind skepticism, and both exist around here no doubt. When science begins to close its eyes and become willfully blind to certain evidence it is no longer simply skeptical, nor is it being in any way objective. The fact is that they simply do not believe the notion and have chosen to no longer consider honestly anything put forth to support it, though a few honest scientists remain, and Sykes being persuaded to a certain degree allowed for such a possibility, that is what lead him to such a discovery, and now that honesty is bringing him under attack. I am a believer in the solar system even though I've only seen photos and videos of it. Same can be said for Grizzly Bears, Blue Whales and California Condors. However the gulf that separates those certain realities from the same of bigfoot is vast and not without good reason. As far as I can tell nobody has faked photos of Blue Whales and California Condors nor has anyone created dedicated money generating enterprises based on fake evidence of those animals. I've concluded my viewing of every Finding Bigfoot episode and it's no better and no worse than most. It exists because there is money being made from it not because it's furthering science. Photo and video evidence is indeed a valid form of proof but only when that evidence is up to a level scrutiny that transcends ambiguity. Bigfoot evidence is almost always ambiguous. This is to say that it's either too quick, too far, too dark too blurry etc etc. But it must remain ambiguous if the ball is going to keep rolling. Perhaps if a biologist from a part of the world that knows nothing of bigfoot were to be shown the so called best evidence they might take up the effort. But try showing that same evidence with mountains of the faked and poor evidence and that biologist is likely to turn away. So far we have a 100% failure rate in the bigfoot evidence arena.
WSA Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Watching "Finding Bigfoot" might be your first mistake Crow.
SWWASAS Posted April 10, 2015 BFF Patron Posted April 10, 2015 I couldn't understand what Sykes was saying about Zana's DNA. I know they have found some of the oldest DNA in African populations but it isn't clear whether he found that in Zana, or not, to explain the comments. Yes, I think if a scientist misrepresents their credentialing then all credibility is gone, that's why the call it credentialing in the first place. Certainly credentialing opens doors and gives credibility to scientists with their peers. But it also acts as a caste system that causes lesser mortals who do not have sufficient groupings of alphabet symbols following their name or attendance at prestigious universities to be ignored by main stream science. The biggest name in science in the 20th century was initially ignored and rebuked by main stream science when he began publishing his works. He was a patent clerk of all things. Albert Einstein was his name. It was a number of years before people trying to prove him wrong with experiments and observations had to admit his theories seemed to consistent with what was being observed. Only then did main stream science begin to notice and acknowledge him. That process was embroiled in international politics at the time. It did not help that his work deeply impacted the previous eminence of Sir Isaac Newton in physics that had existed for centuries. In the first half of the 20th century Einstein was more famous in this country than he was in Europe, who seemed to have more trouble ignoring his lack of impressive credentials. Perhaps credentialing for Europeans means more because of their history of royalty and being awarded knighthood? Could that by why Sykes seemed to feel the need to inflate his credentials?
Guest DWA Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 People really overemphasize the importance of credentials. What is important is the understanding and the work. There are a lot of seriously credentialed people in the scientific mainstream who have pronounced negatively on bigfoot and yeti. The sum total of scientific reasoning in those pronouncements wouldn't fit in a thimble. John Green, however, has approached this topic like a pure scientist from the beginning, although he has not a p,h or d to his name. Roger Patterson's 1967 expedition? Pure science in action. And it got us a movie of one. I don't want to see your credentials. I need to hear evidence what you are doing with them. Meldrum Krantz and Bindernagel? Now *that* is maximizing those credentials.
SWWASAS Posted April 10, 2015 BFF Patron Posted April 10, 2015 I am a believer in the solar system even though I've only seen photos and videos of it. Same can be said for Grizzly Bears, Blue Whales and California Condors. However the gulf that separates those certain realities from the same of bigfoot is vast and not without good reason. As far as I can tell nobody has faked photos of Blue Whales and California Condors nor has anyone created dedicated money generating enterprises based on fake evidence of those animals. I've concluded my viewing of every Finding Bigfoot episode and it's no better and no worse than most. It exists because there is money being made from it not because it's furthering science. Photo and video evidence is indeed a valid form of proof but only when that evidence is up to a level scrutiny that transcends ambiguity. Bigfoot evidence is almost always ambiguous. This is to say that it's either too quick, too far, too dark too blurry etc etc. But it must remain ambiguous if the ball is going to keep rolling. Perhaps if a biologist from a part of the world that knows nothing of bigfoot were to be shown the so called best evidence they might take up the effort. But try showing that same evidence with mountains of the faked and poor evidence and that biologist is likely to turn away. So far we have a 100% failure rate in the bigfoot evidence arena. I find it funny you happened to mention California Condors because like people who believe there is a government cover up related to BF, I personally stumbled into one related to the Condor. I was attending a US Park Service Ranger led canoe trip at Ft Clatsup Oregon. The ranger was mentioning large birds of various kinds that habitat the Columbia River basin. And said that soon there would be sufficient numbers of California Condors to be able to reintroduce them into the wild as they used to populate the basin. I took her aside when I got the chance and said I had seen what could only have been a California Condor, while flying over SW Washington and thought such a program was already underway. She wanted details of where and when and what altitude. She said that it was not being reported to the public but a secret program had already started that was releasing limited numbers of the condors into the Columbia River Gorge. She then explained that the government wanted to study how the limited release did, before releasing more publically and having them fail. In other words, the government commonly conducts secret programs related to endangered species. If California Condors, then why not BF?
Guest DWA Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 One thing is for sure: public panic and misunderstanding have been behind many decisions regarding wildlife, particularly reintroducing endangered species. Given the level of public misunderstanding about this topic, it would not surprise me at all were the government simply deciding it wasn't gonna be the messenger regarding sasquatch. Were I in charge of making that decision I'd make the same one.
SWWASAS Posted April 10, 2015 BFF Patron Posted April 10, 2015 I am with you on that one. I would make the same decision. If in charge I would also limit logging in certain areas, establish wilderness areas that will remain untouched, and probably play dumb when people ask about BF. If given a chance, BF seems be able to survive without the help of the government. The problem is that in certain cases agencies are being caught in the lie when they choose to put the lie in print. The Ape Canyon thing is an example of that. I think that sort of thing happens when supervisors in the know, do not tell underlings what is really going on. And that some off the cuff Boy Scout explanation by an underling making a explanation in print, might be examined for credibility. It makes no difference to the underling what they say if they think that that BF does not exist. Any explanation would seem to be good enough. But if existence is known by some supervisor, then such a thing would be a cover up perpetrated by the underling who has no idea what they have done. That sort of thing protects those that do know.
Guest Divergent1 Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Certainly credentialing opens doors and gives credibility to scientists with their peers. But it also acts as a caste system that causes lesser mortals who do not have sufficient groupings of alphabet symbols following their name or attendance at prestigious universities to be ignored by main stream science. The biggest name in science in the 20th century was initially ignored and rebuked by main stream science when he began publishing his works. He was a patent clerk of all things. Albert Einstein was his name. It was a number of years before people trying to prove him wrong with experiments and observations had to admit his theories seemed to consistent with what was being observed. Only then did main stream science begin to notice and acknowledge him. That process was embroiled in international politics at the time. It did not help that his work deeply impacted the previous eminence of Sir Isaac Newton in physics that had existed for centuries. In the first half of the 20th century Einstein was more famous in this country than he was in Europe, who seemed to have more trouble ignoring his lack of impressive credentials. Perhaps credentialing for Europeans means more because of their history of royalty and being awarded knighthood? Could that by why Sykes seemed to feel the need to inflate his credentials? I don't know why Dr Sykes lied about his credentialing. The biggest motivation for doing anything is money. I don't agree with your take on what credentialing stands for, it's not an honorary title like heraldry, but a designation that indicates that a person is educated at a certain level in a certain specialty.I certainly wouldn't want a guy who sat down and read a text book on anatomy to operate on me. Theories are one thing, misinterpreting experimental data to coincide with a pet theory is another.
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 I find it funny you happened to mention California Condors because like people who believe there is a government cover up related to BF, I personally stumbled into one related to the Condor. I was attending a US Park Service Ranger led canoe trip at Ft Clatsup Oregon. The ranger was mentioning large birds of various kinds that habitat the Columbia River basin. And said that soon there would be sufficient numbers of California Condors to be able to reintroduce them into the wild as they used to populate the basin. I took her aside when I got the chance and said I had seen what could only have been a California Condor, while flying over SW Washington and thought such a program was already underway. She wanted details of where and when and what altitude. She said that it was not being reported to the public but a secret program had already started that was releasing limited numbers of the condors into the Columbia River Gorge. She then explained that the government wanted to study how the limited release did, before releasing more publically and having them fail. In other words, the government commonly conducts secret programs related to endangered species. If California Condors, then why not BF? California Condors are a known species. Bigfoot is a hypothetical species. Once again the gulf that separates the known species from the hypothetical ones is vast. Since nobody friend or foe to bigfoot has ever delivered one why in the world would there even need to be a conspiracy surrounding them? Seriously can anyone get behind "Well we better keep the public in the dark about bigfoot, after all about 200 folks a year think they saw one. Think about it Out of the entire population of the country that number is insignificant even if every one were valid which most are not. Even the people out looking specifically for bigfoot aren't finding bigfoot so why should a conspiracy be needed? What does it protect? Who does it protect? If dedicated searchers can't find the beast the beast is it's own self generating conspiracy most likely because it does not exist.
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Watching "Finding Bigfoot" might be your first mistake Crow. Well Sasquatch Chronicles isn't doing much to enlighten, Mountain Monsters is a laugh, Rocky Mountain Sasquatch Organization has everything except Sasquatch, Todd Standing is faker of the decade, Melba Ketchum is barely credible and if not for the modern concept of working with DNA would be totally dismissed. So where exactly is the "real stuff"? Yeah I've watched all the scholarly documentaries and can even predict the format formula.
Guest DWA Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 (edited) OK, let's amend that, Crow. Watching bigfoot TV of any kind - I never have, ever - *is* your first mistake. Bigfoot skeptics are looking one way while the world happens in the other direction. Sorry gang; at the frontiers of science, the only people who know what is truly going on are the people paying attention to the people doing the science. The science is not happening on bigfoot TV. That's entertainment; ...and that is all it is. If you are not reading the reports, studying, parsing and comparing them and other evidence with your outdoor and life experiences, and staying up on what the scientists thinking about this are thinking about this...you aren't even involved in the topic. You are doing your very own version of bigfoot TV. Science does not allow shortcuts. And 99% of the people who come to this topic want nothing but. Not gonna make it happen for you; not gonna. Edited April 11, 2015 by DWA
Guest DWA Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 California Condors are a known species. Bigfoot is a hypothetical species. Once again the gulf that separates the known species from the hypothetical ones is vast. Since nobody friend or foe to bigfoot has ever delivered one why in the world would there even need to be a conspiracy surrounding them? Seriously can anyone get behind "Well we better keep the public in the dark about bigfoot, after all about 200 folks a year think they saw one. Think about it Out of the entire population of the country that number is insignificant even if every one were valid which most are not. Even the people out looking specifically for bigfoot aren't finding bigfoot so why should a conspiracy be needed? What does it protect? Who does it protect? If dedicated searchers can't find the beast the beast is it's own self generating conspiracy most likely because it does not exist. All I have to say is that this is showing what almost seems to be *a lot of effort* not to think about this. Sasquatch is real because the evidence says it is. It's as real as the California condor (in fact the condor was once "unreal" in the wild, something sasquatch has never been); real as Barack Obama and Reese Witherspoon and swiss cheese. Because the evidence says it is. You *really really reeeeeeeeeeeeeeallllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyy* got burned, didn't you. That True Belief thing will do it to you, every single time. Better to trust evidence. Every single time.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 I think everyone has their own unique way of interpreting the evidence. Plus, intelligence levels will vary from person to person. It seems like some people are picking up on things that others just aren't. For instance, not everyone sees and understands the patterns that are present in Bigfoot sightings. This makes the need for hard biological evidence all the more important.
Guest DWA Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Well, most of the "unique ways of interpreting the evidence" are wrong. *Any* way of interpreting the evidence that makes all of this a comprehensive false positive is wrong. And I have never met a person who thought that was the case who was demonstrably paying attention. The scientists who have shown that they are have unanimously come down on the side of reality. If only the ones who were not would ever give a thought to why that was.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 *Any* way of interpreting the evidence that makes all of this a comprehensive false positive is wrong. You're right about this. If someone says all of this is either fabrication or misidentification, it's because they either aren't interpreting the evidence properly or they are simply in denial.
Recommended Posts