2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

[Guest DWA]

^^^Me too.  Anyone who thought science wasn't fun could get cured by this subject.  If they, you know, paid attention.

 

The cool part for me is knowing what the vast majority of scientists either do not know or will not admit...and knowing that my application of the scientific method is what got me there.  That provides a satisfaction that racing to be The First to Spout Groupthink at every new wrinkle will never come anywhere close to providing.

And yes, I admit, the fun of watching people walk into glass doors over and over again rarely diminishes.

[SWWASAS]

The challenge is not one raw intellect.  The intellects in question engage in the same process over and over and come up with the same results.

 

  The blue comments are my own.   Yes those results are footprint finds, encounters, picture in my case, all in a few years of time with lots of time in the field.    When those results are reported, skeptics attack my character, declare them to be fakes, misidentification,  or simply claim they do not exist or it did not happen.      I don't exactly run into a lot of skeptics out in the woods with me trying to figure out if there is anything to the phenomena even though I have an open invitation.  

 

.      There is a mechanism in play that prevents the stalwart proponent from putting 2+2 together and realizing that the field delivers nothing.  Can bigfoot culture actually continue without creating scenarios as to why there is 100% failure in finding the thing?

 

Finding one is not necessary,  they find you and others at quite a regular rate.    Is failure to shoot one, failure in finding one?    Is seeing and hearing one,  failure to find one?    Is photographing one, no matter what the picture quality, failure to find one?  Is a night face to face encounter, with no chance of photography,  failure to find one?    When most researchers in the field are not pro kill, coming up with a body on the lab table is a not likely.    The pro kill people have a great challenge.    BF is a smart creature, that has thousands of years with success avoiding humans.   It will take some human time and talent to succeed getting a specimen.  

 

 As technology improved bigfoot's inherent abilities to avoid detection were ramped up to excuse it from the detection of new technology.  It becomes more magical, more intelligent, more biologically sophisticated to excuse it from actually being delivered to reality.  That tells me that there is rationalization in play that allows the game to keep going.    

 

What new technology?.    Cameras have been around since the 1860s.    Since BF is primarily nocturnal,  night photography is difficult.    Day pictures are declared blurry, man in a suit,   hoax,  or anything but something that has potential to be something yet accepted by science.  Night pictures are only possible with modern FLIR technology and those pictures lack detail and are immediate dismissed because they are not good enough.     I don't leave a trail of findable DNA in the woods everywhere I go.   Sure I leave it, but anyone following me around would have a difficult time finding it.   One of my blond hairs would not reveal anything.    Why would anyone expect a small population of BF to leave much of a DNA trail?    Blood and body is the only way you could be sure you have anything.     Bigfoot exists and the only one needing to rationalize is the skeptic that needs that to ignore evidence,   before the body or skeleton shows up on that fabled lab table and all the skeptics fade away.       

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

The challenge is not one raw intellect.  The intellects in question engage in the same process over and over and come up with the same results.

 

  The blue comments are my own.   Yes those results are footprint finds, encounters, picture in my case, all in a few years of time with lots of time in the field.    When those results are reported, skeptics attack my character, declare them to be fakes, misidentification,  or simply claim they do not exist or it did not happen.      I don't exactly run into a lot of skeptics out in the woods with me trying to figure out if there is anything to the phenomena even though I have an open invitation.  

 

.      There is a mechanism in play that prevents the stalwart proponent from putting 2+2 together and realizing that the field delivers nothing.  Can bigfoot culture actually continue without creating scenarios as to why there is 100% failure in finding the thing?

 

Finding one is not necessary,  they find you and others at quite a regular rate.    Is failure to shoot one, failure in finding one?    Is seeing and hearing one,  failure to find one?    Is photographing one, no matter what the picture quality, failure to find one?  Is a night face to face encounter, with no chance of photography,  failure to find one?    When most researchers in the field are not pro kill, coming up with a body on the lab table is a not likely.    The pro kill people have a great challenge.    BF is a smart creature, that has thousands of years with success avoiding humans.   It will take some human time and talent to succeed getting a specimen.  

 

 As technology improved bigfoot's inherent abilities to avoid detection were ramped up to excuse it from the detection of new technology.  It becomes more magical, more intelligent, more biologically sophisticated to excuse it from actually being delivered to reality.  That tells me that there is rationalization in play that allows the game to keep going.    

 

What new technology?.    Cameras have been around since the 1860s.    Since BF is primarily nocturnal,  night photography is difficult.    Day pictures are declared blurry, man in a suit,   hoax,  or anything but something that has potential to be something yet accepted by science.  Night pictures are only possible with modern FLIR technology and those pictures lack detail and are immediate dismissed because they are not good enough.     I don't leave a trail of findable DNA in the woods everywhere I go.   Sure I leave it, but anyone following me around would have a difficult time finding it.   One of my blond hairs would not reveal anything.    Why would anyone expect a small population of BF to leave much of a DNA trail?    Blood and body is the only way you could be sure you have anything.     Bigfoot exists and the only one needing to rationalize is the skeptic that needs that to ignore evidence,   before the body or skeleton shows up on that fabled lab table and all the skeptics fade away.       

 

Have you taken a photo that is so good that it is beyond reproach?  The photo evidence of bigfoot caused the phrase Blobsquatch to get coined.  It is a case where the overwhelming photo/video evidence is of embarrassingly poor and or contrived quality.  There are gorgeous clear unmistakable photos of many rare animals that somehow photographers manage to get on record.  Why?  Is it maybe that bigfoot researchers are all poor photographers?  Do they all lack proper equipment?  I don't know what your photo evidence is but I don't suspect that it is jaw dropping quality.  Failure to get a photo of a face to face encounter is not a failure to find.  It is however a failure to offer anything except a recounting of the event.  It goes back to anybody can say anything and that is why mere reportage is of little weight anymore.

 

There has been BTW much discussion of why bigfoot isn't getting caught on trail cams and it ranges pretty far and wide.  Bigfoot can detect infer red and high frequency we are told and it knows to avoid those cams.  This is another special dispensation that absolves bigfoot from being confirmed on those devices.  I'm sure you have heard all of this.

 

You are telling me bigfoot exists because you say it exists and have a stake in it's purported existence.  I say anybody can say anything or believe anything.  Watch a few well done nature documentaries and see what constitutes serious graphic evidence and you'll understand where the bar needs to be set in order to take bigfoot seriously.  Blob squatches, shadows, mystery shapes, micro second glimpse of something are simply not going to cut it.  They might cut it in the bigfoot mutual admiration society but they won't fly in the real world.  Please provide an example of a living animal that has been confirmed solely based on the quality and type of evidence of bigfoot.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest DWA]

^^^And that's denial.

 

But this last sentence at least deserves comment: 

 

"Please provide an example of a living animal that has been confirmed solely based on the quality and type of evidence of bigfoot."

 

Every.One.That.Has.Been.

[norseman]

Have you taken a photo that is so good that it is beyond reproach?  The photo evidence of bigfoot caused the phrase Blobsquatch to get coined.  It is a case where the overwhelming photo/video evidence is of embarrassingly poor and or contrived quality.  There are gorgeous clear unmistakable photos of many rare animals that somehow photographers manage to get on record.  Why?  Is it maybe that bigfoot researchers are all poor photographers?  Do they all lack proper equipment?  I don't know what your photo evidence is but I don't suspect that it is jaw dropping quality.  Failure to get a photo of a face to face encounter is not a failure to find.  It is however a failure to offer anything except a recounting of the event.  It goes back to anybody can say anything and that is why mere reportage is of little weight anymore.

 

There has been BTW much discussion of why bigfoot isn't getting caught on trail cams and it ranges pretty far and wide.  Bigfoot can detect infer red and high frequency we are told and it knows to avoid those cams.  This is another special dispensation that absolves bigfoot from being confirmed on those devices.  I'm sure you have heard all of this.

 

You are telling me bigfoot exists because you say it exists and have a stake in it's purported existence.  I say anybody can say anything or believe anything.  Watch a few well done nature documentaries and see what constitutes serious graphic evidence and you'll understand where the bar needs to be set in order to take bigfoot seriously.  Blob squatches, shadows, mystery shapes, micro second glimpse of something are simply not going to cut it.  They might cut it in the bigfoot mutual admiration society but they won't fly in the real world.  Please provide an example of a living animal that has been confirmed solely based on the quality and type of evidence of bigfoot.

Lets go out and take a GOOD picture of a Wolverine this weekend?! Nature Docs are staged....... you should know that. You bring up solid points as to why this subject is not taken seriously, but comparing it to a nature Doc is not one of them.

[BobbyO]

It would seem that Mr Crowlogic thinks proponents are all intellectually challenged.   Well at least that explains his attitude even though it is not correct in most cases.

Don't take no notice.

Up until this time last year, crow said that they became extinct not long after 1967.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

The interesting thing is that we take such debates seriously, to argue against the existence of an unkown creature, and those who claim to have 

seen something, well that in itself is illogical. You cannot logically place such an argument. That being said you can argue about as little for the

existence of such a creature as well, both arguments are built on the legitimacy of the evidence. Footprints have been hoaxed, videos and film are

inconclusive, eyewitness testimony is unreliable at times, agreed. Frankly, I accept all of these shortcomings and still manage to believe in such a

creature existing. Yes that is the truth of the matter, most of us who have not seen the creature itself manage to believe that some of that body of

evidence is legitimate and deserves recognition, but I cannot argue that my belief in that evidence deserves your belief, only your honest consideration,

and if you have done that and conclude that you cannot believe in that evidence, then you cannot conclude the creature does not exist, only that

you believe it does not exist, and you do not believe in any of the purported evidence. You see none of us non eyewitnesses knows anything for

certain, so why should we waste our time arguing like we do.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[WSA]

You want a solid hypothesis, opportunity for field work, and applied scientific methods? Here's one example of the state of Sasquatch Science 2015, doing quite well , thank-you-very-much:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/50970-what-about-the-bones/#entry900431

 

There may be nothing at all to this once the results are in, and even if the findings are conclusive there will no doubt still be a very large contingent of folks shouting "COW!", but you can't overlook the solid premise here.  These researchers not only have a chance to chip away at the denialist position with their results, they also have the chance of learning something about the animal's diet and behavior.   This is what science looks like my friends.   

[Guest Crowlogic]

Lets go out and take a GOOD picture of a Wolverine this weekend?! Nature Docs are staged....... you should know that. You bring up solid points as to why this subject is not taken seriously, but comparing it to a nature Doc is not one of them.

But here's the rub Norse  there are Wolverines available to stage with.  Are there any Snow Leopards in captivity?  They are photo documented in the wild.  Not all wildlife documentaries are staged.  When a Lion making a kill is filmed did the film crew stage it?  Rare thing gets caught on camera and frequently enough caught well.  What were the chances that the planes hitting the towers on 911 were caught at the moment of impact?  Just look up how many plane crashes were caught on camera in recent years.  Consider too that the people that filmed them were not looking to film a crash they just had the opportunity of the moment.  Bigfoot researchers go into the wilds armed with cameras and supposedly knowledge of the beast and they return with essentially garbage documentation.  It's been said that Patterson got lucky but exactly how lucky was he?  On this site alone there are 20  researchers going out and claiming results but not one of them even approach Patterson's luck?  Did Patterson know any more then they do?  I think not we've had a half a century to learn about the thing and a half century to develop better technology. Bigfoot is nocturnal is the lament.  Well get some night vision equipment and some thermal vision.  Now we can see better than bigfoot at night.  All of it returns nothing of substance.  

[WSA]

Crow...if I may...there is really one thing that is at the core of your misunderstanding. It is: That 50 years is a long time.  Your expectations need to be adjusted on that point, I'd just propose.  

[Guest DWA]

Lets go out and take a GOOD picture of a Wolverine this weekend?! Nature Docs are staged....... you should know that. You bring up solid points as to why this subject is not taken seriously, but comparing it to a nature Doc is not one of them.

There isn't a "solid point as to why this subject is not taken seriously."

 

Not a single *book* by a scientific proponent has received a true scientific review...and the books are just the tip of the iceberg.

 

No scientist who refuses to take this field seriously can, from a scientific standpoint, justify his position to me.

[SWWASAS]

I seem to have violated my own policy about debating with skeptics.    It truly is a waste of time.     Crow belongs to the religion of No.    Why bother to debate their beliefs? 

[Guest DWA]

I know.  I mean, what are we doing that about?

 

The only relevant opinions in scientific debates (while we are on the OP) are those of people in touch with the evidence.  Denial need not apply.

[Guest Crowlogic]

There isn't a "solid point as to why this subject is not taken seriously."

 

Not a single *book* by a scientific proponent has received a true scientific review...and the books are just the tip of the iceberg.

 

No scientist who refuses to take this field seriously can, from a scientific standpoint, justify his position to me.

This is why the field is not taken seriously outside of the bigfoot community.     

[Guest DWA]

I'd rather scientists having a problem with ^^^that just read Meldrum and Bindernagel and Krantz, for starters, and tell me why they're wrong, and why thousands of people who don't know much about primates are describing fine points of one.

 

I can avoid the trash.  If you call yourself a scientist...please follow suit.

Edited April 14, 2015 by DWA