Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[norseman]

There is a very very simple way to test the validity of a person's observation of a Bigfoot.

 

If I walk up to a scientist and say "Bigfoot lives in a cave, 2.2 miles up the Mule creek trail....on the left next to the mossy stump."

 

And the scientist walks up there and indeed observes a Bigfoot? Goes back and gets some sample supplies and goes into the cave and collects multiple hair and scat samples? That's testable and repeatable.

 

This is how new species are discovered daily globally.

 

The problem with Bigfoot? Is that we can never get past the first step. I make an observation and nothing ever comes of it. To the point that scientists no longer take the first step seriously. Which it means it's up to the observer to collect samples that are testable and repeatable.

 

This is why it's so important to shoot one in the name of science. Say you collect a hair sample, and it's tested, and the test destroys the hair. And the hair comes back as a new species of Primate. Well....too bad because the test cannot be repeated. And other scientists could question the validity of your test. Which leaves you with nothing. Just a giant question mark.

 

800 lbs of Bigfoot is repeatable and testable for eternity. It would settle everything.

[dmaker]

I agree with you, Norse, to a point. If someone said bigfoot lives in that cave, and DNA evidence supporting an unclassified hominid was recovered from that cave, there would be an avalanche of scientific interest. It would not be, "oh, well, no more hairs available...too bad" type response you described. There would be a full on, full press, effort to confirm those results. And that position is supported by recent events. Recent evidence suggesting human habitation far earlier than thought in North America has gotten full press, and full attention. Every effrot is being made to verify those results. The same would be true if even one piece of alleged bigfoot evidence provided a similar intriguing result.  

 

There is a decided lack of government spin teams involved with recent evidence. No one is trying to suppress this evidence. Quite the opposite. It made quite a splash, and continues to do so. The same as confirmable evidence of bigfoot would do. 

 

Think about it. We have part of a tooth to confirm G.Blacki. The same extinct species that you love to link to bigfoot. If anything even close to that was recovered from a cave in N.A. that supports bigfoot? The scientific community would go nuts. We've confirmed G.Blacki on a tooth fragment, do you really think any significant find supporting bigfoot would suffer from a paucity of physical evidence if even just one piece proved interesting? When we are happy to pronounce G.Blacki based on a tooth fragment? I don't believe so. If we can happily classify something like G.Blacki on a tooth fragment, then why do we need an entire body for bigfoot? Don't get me wrong, a body would be awesome. It would be the ultimate point to the discussion, but that should not diminish the role that other evidence should be playing in this.

 

22 minutes ago, norseman said:

800 lbs of Bigfoot is repeatable and testable for eternity. It would settle everything.

I can't argue with that.

Edited June 9, 2017 by dmaker

[norseman]

We had a large tooth. It was sent to Sykes for analysis and evidently was lost.

 

This is how conspiracy theories happen in the Bigfoot community.

 

Is the Smithsonian over at Sykes office ripping it apart?

 

Out goes the repeatable part along with testing.

 

If you have a promising Bigfoot sample? Do us all a favor and don't send the whole thing off to a lab.

[WSA]

Since the OP topic has been spindled and mangled beyond repair at this point, I'll go ahead and state again how the scientific method can be easily applied to the subject of anecdotal evidence....specifically how it has NOT been applied to the most significant sighting report in the history of this field. It also is a topic more appropriately taken up in the PGF threads, and not here, but I trust we can get some laxity from the Administrators since this thread seems to be drawing in all kinds of discussion anyway.

 

The basic premise, of which I don't think there can be much dispute at all, is: If the PG Film is testable, and it yields consistent and repeatable results,  the existence of  BF  (at least at that time) is also proven and the hundreds of other sighting reports can be crap-canned with no impact on the conclusion.    

 

And we have a testable piece of evidence, and no effort (I don't believe) has been undertaken to see if repeated testing and analysis will yield  repeatable results. I'm talking about Bill Munns' cogent analysis as set out in his landmark book, When Roger Met Patty. If any practitioner of science wants to make their case for BF not existing, here is that opportunity. You can prove a negative, at least as far as the PGF goes, and put a silver bullet in the BF hypothesis, from which I doubt it could recover. If you come here extolling the non-existence of BF and haven't bothered to read and understand his analysis, you are wasting all of our time. Period.

 

I am going to take Bill at his word on this too. He would welcome anyone who has the competency to do it to review his conclusions and tell him why he is wrong. That is the scientific process, and as I've said above, there have been no takers as far as I know.

 

There are many who have said (and I am one of them), "Give me an alternative explanation of the PG film, supported by WHAT IS ON THE FILM (and on a level of analysis equal to Bill's) l and I will largely lose any interest in this field". Not completely, but largely. It is that simple.     

[dmaker]

Film is not an anecdote.

[norseman]

This falls into my analogy.

 

Bluff creek was a hot bed for Bigfoot activity. Where is the physical evidence?

 

Put it in the context of a hunter.

 

My buddy shows me video of a giant mule deer buck in bluff creek. And there are loads of hoof print pictures that accompany the video.

 

But after hunting down there for 50 years? Ive never harvested a mule deer, nor found hair or scat to indicate one is there.

 

Regardless of whether my friend tricked me or shot video of a real buck? 

 

Is a moot point. Because I cannot replicate his success. Either the creature left or died out or my buddy is pulling the wool over my eyes.

 

So no, the PGF is neither testable or repeatable, because it never lead searchers on to physical evidence. That could be tested and repeated. If Bob had pulled the trigger? There would be enough DNA and morphology there for a lifetime of scientific work.

[dmaker]

Agreed.

[Guest DWA]

42 minutes ago, norseman said:

This falls into my analogy.

 

Bluff creek was a hot bed for Bigfoot activity. Where is the physical evidence?

 

Put it in the context of a hunter.

 

My buddy shows me video of a giant mule deer buck in bluff creek. And there are loads of hoof print pictures that accompany the video.

 

But after hunting down there for 50 years? Ive never harvested a mule deer, nor found hair or scat to indicate one is there.

 

Regardless of whether my friend tricked me or shot video of a real buck? 

 

Is a moot point. Because I cannot replicate his success. Either the creature left or died out or my buddy is pulling the wool over my eyes.

 

So no, the PGF is neither testable or repeatable, because it never lead searchers on to physical evidence. That could be tested and repeated. If Bob had pulled the trigger? There would be enough DNA and morphology there for a lifetime of scientific work.

This is irrelevant.  Reason:  no one is denying the existence of the buck in that film, or that the species that buck belongs to exists.

 

The film is testable and has been tested to a faretheewell.  I don't know how to explain "no learned analysis points to a known animal including H. sapiens in suit" any better, but there it is.  I don't know how to explain "fifty years and no one has come up with a possibility that makes sense how it could have been faked" any better, but there it is.  The film is also replicable; it says "go there and you will find this."  Note that "you" does not mean YOU.  You just got skunked; don't mean the buck isn't there.  "I've never seen one" doesn't scan in the hard sciences.

 

You may not be finding hair or scat but the cowboys took that film FOUND FOOTPRINTS, FORENSIC EVIDENCE and I am not arguing facts with you, congruent with all the others in the discussion, along with that film, congruent with all the sighting reports in the discussion.  (This animal is a larger-than-average female.  Gee, how would I know that.  Riiiiight, the bell-curve distribution that never happens with hoaxes and hallucinations.)  This is slam-dunk, done-here, scoffers-go-suck-eggs scientific evidence, which would have led to the confirmation, in 1968, of anything...but this.

 

What I do not think you are seeing here, despite the tons of times and ways it has carefully been pointed out, is that the mainstream is not doing science here.  The mainstream is in denial.  The mainstream is behaving like emotional little girlygirls.  The mainstream is denying what's right in front of it. Nothing the mainstream says about this reflects proper scientific practice so much as it does rank dereliction of duty.  And done.

 

But for this:  the mainstream is a teenytiny coterie of people with blinders on...and a whole society is marshaling overwhelming evidence against them.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2017 by DWA

[WSA]

DWA's point is mine, exactly. If the analysis of the film images leads to the (so far) undisputed conclusion THIS THING WAS NO GUY IN A SUIT, you've proven there was a Bigfoot on that creek bank on that day. Period. The end. (so far) There is no other conclusion that science can make. (so far) It stands. (so far). 

 

Go test Bill Munn's conclusions, using the methods he used, and then we can have further scientific discussions, and if Bill falls short, we can talk about inconclusive findings or other corroborating evidence, if such exists.

 

Only if and when you do your own repeat of Bill's analysis do you have a seat at any scientific table of discussion.

 

Let me repeat myself one more time: Nobody has even shown an interest in doing this, as far as I know. Is it any wonder we are contemptuous of science's credibility at this stage?

[Guest DWA]

This is real real real simple.  Do science or watch us do it.

 

All science is provisional; all science can be dunghilled on further evidence.  Sasquatch is as proven as anything has ever been to anyone that counts in this discussion. (HINT HINT MOMENT:  if you have not seen something, or carefully analyzed evidence to a conclusion, you do not count in the discussion.) The mainstream?  Dunghilled.  They count for nothing.  All that counts in science...is them as is doing the work.

[norseman]

4 hours ago, WSA said:

DWA's point is mine, exactly. If the analysis of the film images leads to the (so far) undisputed conclusion THIS THING WAS NO GUY IN A SUIT, you've proven there was a Bigfoot on that creek bank on that day. Period. The end. (so far) There is no other conclusion that science can make. (so far) It stands. (so far). 

 

Go test Bill Munn's conclusions, using the methods he used, and then we can have further scientific discussions, and if Bill falls short, we can talk about inconclusive findings or other corroborating evidence, if such exists.

 

Only if and when you do your own repeat of Bill's analysis do you have a seat at any scientific table of discussion.

 

Let me repeat myself one more time: Nobody has even shown an interest in doing this, as far as I know. Is it any wonder we are contemptuous of science's credibility at this stage?

 

I find the film compelling everyone knows this. I have sympathy that no one takes Munn's work seriously. Everyone should know that as well.

 

But science doesnt care about that film or hundreds like it....

 

They cant boil down 35 mm film and extract DNA from it!

 

Its just how it is. This is why I advocate a rifle instead of a camera.

[hiflier]

17 hours ago, norseman said:

We had a large tooth. It was sent to Sykes for analysis and evidently was lost.

 

This is how conspiracy theories happen in the Bigfoot community.

 

Is the Smithsonian over at Sykes office ripping it apart?

 

Out goes the repeatable part along with testing.

 

If you have a promising Bigfoot sample? Do us all a favor and don't send the whole thing off to a lab.

 

Initially part of the tooth was sent to Dr. Ketchum and was necessarily destroyed in the DNA processes. She asked for another sample and Mike Ruggs and the gentleman in LA (I think) who organized the testing connection refused to send another one to her lab. A part of the tooth was then sent to Dr. Sykes but I don't know if it was sent after a request for DNA testing or not. Mr. Ruggs at the time I was corresponding with him said he was informed AFTER he sent the tooth sample that Dr. Sykes only tested hair samples (which I thought rather odd).So about half the tooth was still remaining in Mike Ruggs possession at the Bigfoot Discovery Museum. THAT piece was evidently misplaced or believed to be stolen. So nothing is left except possibly the piece hopefully still in Dr. Sykes possession. 

 

Because it was the only piece left Mr. Ruggs asked for it's return and there was no response. Mike Ruggs then asked Dr. Meldrum to ask D. Sykes on his behalf for its return and Dr. Meldrum was informed that Dr. Sykes would only accept requests from the primary party and informed Dr. Meldrum that he was therefore would no recognize the request. So I don't know if the tooth sample in Dr. Sykes possession has been lost or not. In either case, to my knowledge, there has been no return of the tooth specimen. Maybe I should write or call the Bigfoot Discovery Museum and see if there has been any further communication? Although one would think there would be some kind of all out effort to secure the tooth sample seeing as it is all that is left of what was apparently once a whole tooth.

 

Something about this just doesn't seem right considering the magnitude, or not, of whatever is riding on this. I think this all came to light last September when I started the "Meganthropus Tooth" thread

. If anyone wishes to take the ball on this then please be my guest. I also seem to remember that there was a one year waiting list for DNA testing at the lab in Switzerland? So if the tooth sample is still in Dr. Sykes possession it may be in a queue and so will be tested in the order that samples came into the lab? IDK. But again, something is definitely wrong with this picture. Conspiracy or no conspiracy, something is seriously not making sense here.   

Edited June 9, 2017 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

 

I find the film compelling everyone knows this. I have sympathy that no one takes Munn's work seriously. Everyone should know that as well.

 

But science doesnt care about that film or hundreds like it....

 

They cant boil down 35 mm film and extract DNA from it!

 

Its just how it is. This is why I advocate a rifle instead of a camera.

 

Actually, nobody's really arguing about that.  It's just that the way it is doesn't reflect well on the scientific community, at all, because with everything other than this, they've prosecuted a whole lot less evidence than we have here to that DNA.

 

The issue is with people who don't know a thing about this, and they know who they are, saying they know this is no way real...and not being able to put together a coherent story why that is.

[SWWASAS]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

 

I find the film compelling everyone knows this. I have sympathy that no one takes Munn's work seriously. Everyone should know that as well.

 

But science doesnt care about that film or hundreds of others.

 

They cant boil down 35 mm film and extract DNA from it!

in

Its just how it is. This is why I advocate a rifle instead of a camera.

In the interest of accuracy I wish the PG film was 35MM instead of the 16MM that was shot.     Perhaps we would not have had endless arguments over costumes,   flaws in the suit,  reproduction artifacts,   and imaginary zippers with the quality of a 35MM film shot at the same distance.    Rifle or not,  you are correct in that at this point,  proof will take a skeleton or body on a lab table.     What most outside the science community do not understand, that those scientists who have seen the film and other evidence, and dismissed it, or have not bothered to examine evidence,   have a lot of skin in the game.     They demand proof on a lab table because they know their reputations are at stake.    Imagine if geneticists other than Sykes proved he misinterpreted genetic evidence.     When proof is in the lab,   the scientific doubters will look pretty unenlightened compared with those like Bindernagel and Meldrum who recognized what little evidence there is as authentic.    The losers in scientific battles about proof are often treated harshly by peers as well as science historians. 

[norseman]

We have film of Bigfeet in modern digital format. I really do not think it matters.

 

Thanks for the correction on the 16mm PGF!