Guest Crowlogic Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 I have been leaning on the fence toward the ape camp for a while, but recent thoughts and research have me moving in the other direction again. I started out thinking that these creatures had a human component, abandoned that idea, and now I have gone full circle. I just cannot explain the intelligence factor any other way, they are simply way too intelligent to be in the ape category from my growing understandings. I fail to see how any degree of intelligence can be awarded an animal that there is no specimen for study. We've gone from simple primitive of imposing size to very intelligent humanesque based on exactly what? In former time it could have been argued that nobody was actually looking for them so they stayed off of the radar. But as time passed and the increased searching still produced nothing ever more elaborate excuses were invented to explain this failure to produce a specimen. What exactly has been proven that the supposed animal has higher intelligence? What has it been proven to make? What has it been proven to use and what has it been proven to act in an abstract higher thinking process? Isn't it far more likely that the specimen is not found because it simply does not exist?
Faenor Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Some research and accounts I have looked would indicate bigfoot is more likely some kind of space ghost or psychic mystic with power overwhelming.
WSA Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 I get tickled. It is almost as if some around here feel that when the cognitive dissonance between "has to be something" and "can't be anything" gets too pesky they become a little unhinged. C'mon over here Crow. Take you a big hunk of scientific theory and reasoning and try to calm yourself a little. Nobody is going to make you swear an "I believe in Bigfoot" oath. Nobody is going to make you offer proof of existence NOW, or die. You can say w.a. things like "All BF went extinct" and we don't care. We are just hanging to see where this thing goes. Our personal identities aren't on the line here. Our spouses are not going to leave us, our bosses are not going to fire us, our kids are not going to hate us and our mortgages will all still get paid on time if BF is not confirmed RIGHT NOW!!!! Really, we are just curious and intrigued by congruent and consistent evidentiary stuff. It is lots more fun than working yourself all up into a state, trust me.
Guest DWA Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 It is really funny. I am wondering what some folk are doing when they aren't on here. Faenor might have a clue as to what's going on, however: Some research and accounts I have looked would indicate bigfoot is more likely some kind of space ghost or psychic mystic with power overwhelming. Well now. Do tell! Confronted with bigfoot power, scientists forget what science means and how to do it. People forget what evidence means, and the distinction between evidence and proof. Lay skeptics ("Lay" in the sense, I believe, of "lay around and let others do their work for them") extol the scientists who demonstrably have not bothered to arm up on this subject, and denigrate the ones practicing real science. Why...it...might be the psychic power! Or...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRR....Infrasound. Hoooollll. llllllllleeeeeee. Sheeezwaffle.
BigTreeWalker Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Hey... Spending time in the field is always a good thing! Exercising your mind and your body... Good too! Everyone likes a good mystery. The excitement is in the journey to get there. The proving, the anticlimax...
SWWASAS Posted April 17, 2015 BFF Patron Posted April 17, 2015 SWWASP, I get your skepticism of Sykes motives, but none the less it is relative to the subject. If another subspecies of Humans is proven to have existed till the present time, that certainly opens the door to the possibility of other hominids still existing today. I have to disagree with your assertion. I have been leaning on the fence toward the ape camp for a while, but recent thoughts and research have me moving in the other direction again. I started out thinking that these creatures had a human component, abandoned that idea, and now I have gone full circle. I just cannot explain the intelligence factor any other way, they are simply way too intelligent to be in the ape category from my growing understandings. I don't know what Sykes motivations are. Homoflorensiesis lived up to 12,000 years ago and that is nearly modern times but my point was that a nearly human species in Indonesia is evidence, as Meldrum points out in one of his newer presentations, that it is more common than not in the last 500,000 years that there have been several times when coexisting species of human or near human species lived concurrently, even interbreeding. At one point, 5 different known human or near human species all existed at the same point in time. So if history is a quide, it is more likely than not, that other near human species could exist along with us. But that cannot be argued as evidence that BF is related to any previously known species of humanoids. Size similarities of course point to GP which is ape. So I don't have any idea what they are. I do agree, having interacted in the field that whatever they are, they are intelligent. Skeptics will leap on that statement, but I have not experienced bears, deer, cougars, or wolves, all of whom I have had contact with, playing tricks or games on me. Something intelligent is out there, with what seems to be a sense of humor, is doing that stuff, that does not seem to be human. 1
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 I get tickled. It is almost as if some around here feel that when the cognitive dissonance between "has to be something" and "can't be anything" gets too pesky they become a little unhinged. C'mon over here Crow. Take you a big hunk of scientific theory and reasoning and try to calm yourself a little. Nobody is going to make you swear an "I believe in Bigfoot" oath. Nobody is going to make you offer proof of existence NOW, or die. You can say w.a. things like "All BF went extinct" and we don't care. We are just hanging to see where this thing goes. Our personal identities aren't on the line here. Our spouses are not going to leave us, our bosses are not going to fire us, our kids are not going to hate us and our mortgages will all still get paid on time if BF is not confirmed RIGHT NOW!!!! Really, we are just curious and intrigued by congruent and consistent evidentiary stuff. It is lots more fun than working yourself all up into a state, trust me. As a former bigfoot proponent I understand the lure the prospect bigfoot represents. For the nearly 5 decades I was a proponent part of the idea was to see where it all leads. But the place it lead to for me was one of the null set. It lead nowhere. Armed with all of the same knowledge of the best evidence and armed with the ideals that thousands of people can't be wrong or mistaken extended the trail I was on of belief just as it does for every proponent. But those things were not sufficient to sustain that belief indefinitely. Eventually I realized that it required a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty to submit to belief in light of the vast mountain of improbability weighing against it. Yes you can sit back and enjoy the ride if you understand the ride is that of an amusement park and not of a true journey of consequence.
Guest DWA Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 (edited) As somebody who has been all about wishin', and hopin', and thinkin', and prayin', all along, instead of thinking about why things are where they are...you really should understand what that approach yields. See, if you're playin' the game WSA and I are, you'd realize that the vast mountain of improbability isn't...and that the smart money is on the reality of this critter, and it's more or less a slam dunk. Evidence. Every time. We're working with you, 'coz mainly we're just sorry you're missing out on the fun of real science. Shame, that. Edited April 18, 2015 by DWA
SWWASAS Posted April 18, 2015 BFF Patron Posted April 18, 2015 (edited) As a former bigfoot proponent I understand the lure the prospect bigfoot represents. For the nearly 5 decades I was a proponent part of the idea was to see where it all leads. But the place it lead to for me was one of the null set. It lead nowhere. Armed with all of the same knowledge of the best evidence and armed with the ideals that thousands of people can't be wrong or mistaken extended the trail I was on of belief just as it does for every proponent. But those things were not sufficient to sustain that belief indefinitely. Eventually I realized that it required a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty to submit to belief in light of the vast mountain of improbability weighing against it. Yes you can sit back and enjoy the ride if you understand the ride is that of an amusement park and not of a true journey of consequence. Crow: Tell me I am curious. You spent 5 decades as proponent? Where was that and how much field time was involved? In my case no matter how much field time or contact I have, I will never prove existence. Not only do I have no interest in the killing involved with that, from my experience, I could never find a weapon that would be big enough yet light enough to carry around for the years involved, that I be comfortable risking my life with. So I am happy to never prove anything but just want to collect evidence or knowledge about BF behavior that people like yourself or those on the fence can accept if the choose to. It helps that I am lucky enough to live in Washington State. Someone interested in BF that lives in Kansas or some place like that is not likely to ever have an encounter. Edited April 18, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
BigTreeWalker Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Here's an interesting article by an astrophysicist about proof in science. And see the short video at the end. I think that is the healthiest attitude to take. http://www.livescience.com/50521-wheres-the-proof-in-science-there-is-none.html
SWWASAS Posted April 18, 2015 BFF Patron Posted April 18, 2015 Thanks Treewalker That link should be required reading for our resident skeptics. Every time one of them says where is the proof, post the link. To most skeptics evidence means nothing, they want the proof. Well here is one scientist's take on proof.
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 (edited) Crow: Tell me I am curious. You spent 5 decades as proponent? Where was that and how much field time was involved? In my case no matter how much field time or contact I have, I will never prove existence. Not only do I have no interest in the killing involved with that, from my experience, I could never find a weapon that would be big enough yet light enough to carry around for the years involved, that I be comfortable risking my life with. So I am happy to never prove anything but just want to collect evidence or knowledge about BF behavior that people like yourself or those on the fence can accept if the choose to. It helps that I am lucky enough to live in Washington State. Someone interested in BF that lives in Kansas or some place like that is not likely to ever have an encounter. I live in the Northeast and most of that time in New York metro area. But I was frequently an avid camper and have hiked and camped in most parts of the country. Very specifically I was part of a field research project studying lake acidification in New York state. I spent two seasons deep in the the forests and remote areas of New York in the early 80's were in place true wilderness. I often spent a week or two in the field collecting data. I am a trained observer and I was aware and mindful of the bigfoot possibilities of the times. I observed nothing whatsoever of bigfoot but I did observe and encounter just about every animal that is found in the region. So I had extended time in the field, reason to observe and tools to observe with. Most recently I have not been deep into the wilderness although the bigfoot situation has not change from when I was going into wilderness. If I were to go to a hot spot where researchers claim to encounter them it would require evidence that leaves nothing to the imagination. it would require far more than anything I have seen make it to the public at large. Things that go bump in the night do not interest me, movements in the bushes do not interest me. What interests me are the kinds of wildlife sightings I encountered on a daily basis when I was a field researcher which are the very same types of sightings that are as repeatable now as they were then. This is how it is with real animals. Real animals do not perpetually exist as a question mark open to interpretation. Reality does not require special dispensation and endless speculation. My being a proponent came to an end with the realization of a half century had passed since the bigfoot issue came to the modern limelight. It ended when the realization that the means to prove the existence of the creature had increased ten fold as did the number of people interested and searching for it and yet the only thing to come from it was a grander level of buffoonery and slight of hand. The game is more sophisticated than ever before and yet it fails to yield the results that it should have by now. Edited April 19, 2015 by Crowlogic
Guest Divergent1 Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 I think BigTreeWalker is coming about as close to real research as anything I've read about so far in the hunt for bigfoot. https://theconversation.com/why-research-beats-anecdote-in-our-search-for-knowledge-30654 "Research itself can be defined in many ways, but at its core it’s ultimately about rigour. Genuine research – whether in the sciences or the humanities – does not rely on intuition or common sense. It doesn’t lean on anecdote or conjecture. It doesn’t seek to reinforce pre-existing beliefs or ratify wishful thinking."
Guest ksu4 Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 I think BigTreeWalker is coming about as close to real research as anything I've read about so far in the hunt for bigfoot. https://theconversation.com/why-research-beats-anecdote-in-our-search-for-knowledge-30654 "Research itself can be defined in many ways, but at its core it’s ultimately about rigour. Genuine research – whether in the sciences or the humanities – does not rely on intuition or common sense. It doesn’t lean on anecdote or conjecture. It doesn’t seek to reinforce pre-existing beliefs or ratify wishful thinking." Shhhhh. There's reports to read and, you know--thinking to ratify!
BigTreeWalker Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 I think BigTreeWalker is coming about as close to real research as anything I've read about so far in the hunt for bigfoot. https://theconversation.com/why-research-beats-anecdote-in-our-search-for-knowledge-30654 "Research itself can be defined in many ways, but at its core it’s ultimately about rigour. Genuine research – whether in the sciences or the humanities – does not rely on intuition or common sense. It doesn’t lean on anecdote or conjecture. It doesn’t seek to reinforce pre-existing beliefs or ratify wishful thinking." Divergent1, thanks for posting that link. The link I posted above is just one article of the series in your link.
Recommended Posts