2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

[Guest DWA]

And I mean, simply start thinking about the effort, the expertise, and the sheer dedication that would be required to paint that total-false picture.  There isn't a doctor or nurse fighting Ebola - there isn't anyone dedicated to *anything* -  who has one single molecule of what it would take.

[Guest diana swampbooger]

Only until there is Grant Money from the universities for the usual suspects, it ain't gonna happen.

The job should be best left for groups of women to do the real stuff as we're used to placating & manipulating all kinds of ornery(pissy) bubbas & bridezillas.

Bona fide address for boogers:

"Jurassic Park"

Big Thicket, East Texas

Follow the noise & watch out for flying logs.

[SWWASAS]

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. 

I have to agree with that statement about patterns.       The difficulty is separation of true patterns from random happenings.    To do that I need more time,  more exposure, or more sharing with other researchers.        Sometimes I find myself in the field staring at something that got my attention,   and thinking that probably means something, but I have no idea what.    Anyone else have similar thoughts?    

Edited April 11, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[SWWASAS]

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. 

You completely missed the point about  what I meant about credentials.   My reference to credentials and Europeans was that it seems to mean more to them than it does to us in the US.  Many of our most wealthy and successful product developers / inventors in the US do not even have an undergraduate degree.    I know credentials are earned in a university program and awarded to show your level of education.      As an example of how much it might or might not mean, my 7th grade home room teacher told us about a PHD he knew, that while the man held a PHD,  he could not deal with the real world and seemed quite happy stapling boxes together in his father's box factory.    While someone like that might have the credentials,   I would not trust his judgment about very much.     

[Guest Divergent1]

Credentialing is not a relative thing. The number of people without mental health issues that have  PhD's and other types of credentialing far outweigh those that do have issues just as it does in the regular population.

 

The U.S. is just as hung up on qualifications/ credentialing as anywhere else, if not more so, since our country is a hell of a lot more litigious than other countries. I don't think there is a justifiable excuse for Dr. Sykes to misrepresent himself and it does put his findings in question. 

Edited April 11, 2015 by Divergent1

[SWWASAS]

Credentialing is not a relative thing. The number of people without mental health issues that have  PhD's and other types of credentialing far outweigh those that do have issues just as it does in the regular population.

 

The U.S. is just as hung up on qualifications/ credentialing as anywhere else, if not more so, since our country is a hell of a lot more litigious than other countries. I don't think there is a justifiable excuse for Dr. Sykes to misrepresent himself and it does put his findings in question. 

If credentials at this point means anything to BF research, the only ones anyone here should be paying any attention to is Bindernagel and Meldrum.  Until BF existence is accepted and the study of it matures involving more scientists,  credentialed researchers are going to be a rarity and can only do so much to advance BF science .    The fact that Ketchum and Sykes have credential issues just muddies the waters.    DNA research is such a fast advancing thing that probably the only ones up to speed on it are current MS and PHD graduates in that field.    A DVM and someone with decades old degrees might not be the best credentialed in the field with respect to DNA.   For all we know with Sykes especially, his skepticism with respect to BF may be an attempt to gain credibility in DNA science.    Ketchum's advocacy sure made her a target.  

Edited April 12, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest Crowlogic]

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.

Bigfoot is real as a belief it is not real based on the current evidence.  None of the current evidence can produce on demand a bigfoot.  Barack Obama, Swiss cheese, wombats, snow leopards, chimps and bonobos can be produced tagged and classified all have been.  I've already stated that the bigfoot evidence is until someone steps up and really knocks it out of the park all pretty ambiguous..In order to accept the evidence a great many concessions must be made.  things like trust in people, a belief in accurate and honest presentation as well as an assumption that if evidence is found that it isn't the result of poor ID or hoax.  California Condors were gone from the wild but they were never unknown.  It was entirely possible to learn the where  about of every one.  If I choose to not believe in Swiss cheese someone with the desire to confront my non belief could bring me to the market and shove a pound of it into my face whether I believe in the stuff or not.  This can't be done with bigfoot.  All that can be done is to present hairs, plaster casts and poor imagery.   

 

In a sense it's good that bigfoot does not exist.  It is a conceptual beast of the finest form.  By it not existing it leaves the Todd Standings and Georgia jerks swinging in breeze.   Bring in the body, let it make the cover of the NY Times and be on display and the Smithsonian then the evidence becomes real.

[Guest Divergent1]

If credentials at this point means anything to BF research, the only ones anyone here should be paying any attention to is Bindernagel and Meldrum.  Until BF existence is accepted and the study of it matures involving more scientists,  credentialed researchers are going to be a rarity and can only do so much to advance BF science .    The fact that Ketchum and Sykes have credential issues just muddies the waters.    DNA research is such a fast advancing thing that probably the only ones up to speed on it are current MS and PHD graduates in that field.    A DVM and someone with decades old degrees might not be the best credentialed in the field with respect to DNA.   For all we know with Sykes especially, his skepticism with respect to BF may be an attempt to gain credibility in DNA science.    Ketchum's advocacy sure made her a target.  

I bolded the part I  think is wrong, the rest is right on target. I think Sykes is at the end of his career and is less concerned about what people might think and is more concerned with funding his retirement. That's harsh but an economic reality in these times. I can't say I blame him.It was the same with Dr. Ketchum, she was also a cheat, but in her case we were left with nothing. At least with Dr. Sykes you knew the end result was going to be a book.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Divergent1

[Guest Crowlogic]

If credentials at this point means anything to BF research, the only ones anyone here should be paying any attention to is Bindernagel and Meldrum.  Until BF existence is accepted and the study of it matures involving more scientists,  credentialed researchers are going to be a rarity and can only do so much to advance BF science .    The fact that Ketchum and Sykes have credential issues just muddies the waters.    DNA research is such a fast advancing thing that probably the only ones up to speed on it are current MS and PHD graduates in that field.    A DVM and someone with decades old degrees might not be the best credentialed in the field with respect to DNA.   For all we know with Sykes especially, his skepticism with respect to BF may be an attempt to gain credibility in DNA science.    Ketchum's advocacy sure made her a target.  

Credentials are a curious thing.  I was given a promotion in a research project because I had demonstrated that I knew what I was doing.  There were a few advanced people with better credentials who took offense.  You don't need an advanced degree to observe things in the wild,  you just need patients and a good eye.  Along with that though you need to be able to dispassionately observe and this is where people trip themselves up.  I posted a video where a bigfoot chaser works themselves into to tither because of some movement in the bushes.  They were convinced already it must be bigfoot and they ran for their lives.  How can a knowledgeable bigfoot researcher get into such a state anyway?  Shows you what he knew I guess.  I see it all the time folks go out on expeditions and video stuff making assumptions based on assumptions.  I laugh some are making so much noise and co motion even the bears are hiding.  I don't think it's possible to research bigfoot truly without bias.  If you go out you believe something is there.  If you believe something is there you will color your observations as such.  If you don't believe it's there you'll stay home.  So far there is no Jane Goodal out there and perhaps there shouldn't be.  If I had to dispatch talented and dedicated people into tasks I'd dispatch them to the tasks that are most likely to reap benefits for the causes.  I'd send the lightweights off chasing shadows since the lightweights aren't contributing as much as the solid ones.  The lightweights time can be squandered  and if they get lucky it's a windfall.

[SWWASAS]

In a sense it's good that bigfoot does not exist.  It is a conceptual beast of the finest form.  By it not existing it leaves the Todd Standings and Georgia jerks swinging in breeze.   Bring in the body, let it make the cover of the NY Times and be on display and the Smithsonian then the evidence becomes real.

Do you realize how nonsensical your statement is to someone who has witnessed a BF.      It puts you in the category of a flatlander who does not believe the earth is round.   Because flatlander Crow has not observed the earth from space and seen that it is round,  it cannot be.   No possible way that you could be wrong about BF?      Evidence is only real if there is a body?    So we have to directly observe a black hole to believe in them?    All the evidence of massive unseen bodies in the center of galaxies causing rapid rotation of stars and sucking in gas mean nothing unless we directly observe a black hole first?     Like BF, black holes do not want to be seen, they gobble up light that cannot escape.   It sure must be frustrating to you that witnesses are un-swayed  by your proclamations.    

Edited April 12, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest Crowlogic]

Do you realize how nonsensical your statement is to someone who has witnessed a BF.      It puts you in the category of a flatlander who does not believe the earth is round.   Because flatlander Crow has not observed the earth from space and seen that it is round,  it cannot be.   No possible way that you could be wrong about BF?      Evidence is only real if there is a body?    So we have to directly observe a black hole to believe in them?    All the evidence of massive unseen bodies in the center of galaxies causing rapid rotation of stars and sucking in gas mean nothing unless we directly observe a black hole first?     Like BF, black holes do not want to be seen, they gobble up light that cannot escape.   It sure must be frustrating to you that witnesses are un-swayed  by your proclamations.    

Based on a long hard look at the phenomenon it is highly unlikely I'm wrong.  People see the things they want to see or need to see.  People say the things they claim to have seen because they want to say them or need to say them.  I will say to anyone prove to me that you saw what you say you saw.  Can you prove that you saw one?  You can prove it by delivering a bigfoot.  Beyond that it's had it's day as far as I'm concerned.

[Guest]

Theres no way every single person is lying or mistaken Crow, i dont believe that for a second

[SWWASAS]

There are many who think like Crow who have seen BF and refuse to acknowledge what they saw because it conflicts with their belief system.    Not much we can do about that.   That same belief system makes the same people refuse to look at available evidence.     Most people who have a sighting initially think they are seeing a bear, until it stands up and/ or walks away and they realize it is not a bear.   Most people that have sighting are not BF researchers, but innocent people who just happen to be in the right place at the right time.   It is unlikely they would assume what they are seeing is something they do not believe in.      Certainly for some believers every noise in the woods has to be a BF as he says, but to assume all sightings are something else is ridiculous when we consider the broad spectrum of very credible witnesses who have had sightings. 

 

Proving things is very difficult.      I could not prove to Crow that I exist, because by his criteria, pictures can be hoaxed, footprints faked,  fingerprints could be someone else,   I have blond hair that does not contain DNA,   and I could be wearing a really good "me" suit in any picture I could provide.   So unless I deliver myself to a lab table for examination, I can do little to prove to him that I exist.    And even that might be quite a surprise.        

Edited April 12, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest DWA]

Crow:  I'm sorry for where your head is at on this.  I really truly am, and hope you can somehow fix it.

[norseman]

Based on a long hard look at the phenomenon it is highly unlikely I'm wrong.  People see the things they want to see or need to see.  People say the things they claim to have seen because they want to say them or need to say them.  I will say to anyone prove to me that you saw what you say you saw.  Can you prove that you saw one?  You can prove it by delivering a bigfoot.  Beyond that it's had it's day as far as I'm concerned.

Hence the reason why we need a body..........if for nothing else it vindicates the witnesses from being hallucinating buffoons to competent observers truthful in their statements.