Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[hiflier]

8 minutes ago, ohiobill said:

But I refuse to believe that anyone serious about such a search wouldn't have the most basic understanding of the scientific method and understand why it's so important.

 

There are at least three that think the way you do. Stopping at anecdotal evidence isn't science. And even though in hindsight science has benefitted from anecdotal evidence it takes a lot to break science's own inertia in order to get the ball rolling. It certainly appears to take more that just witness reports, footprint casts, and blurry photos. I know it does for me and I'm not even a scientist

 

( For some reason I just HAD to be the first poster on page 100!!  )

Edited June 11, 2017 by hiflier

[ohiobill]

Thanks for starting page 100 out on the right track!

 

There's a whole lot more who agree with us on the matter and that includes all the folks actually responsible for seeing a new species recognized. DNA alone, arguably, could suffice but stories just won't get the job done.  

[Guest DWA]

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 3:11 AM, Starling said:

 

That people are hoaxing, misinterpreting, theorising, speculating, fabricating, game-playing, fantasising, mistaking, mythologising, misinterpreting, story-telling, joking, hallucinating, self-aggrandising, self-deluding and bare-faced fib telling 

 

 

In a nutshell...yes. Why not? For your last question to be pertinent you must first ask why are people who testify in court required to say an oath? Is it not because it's a concrete and undeniably documented fact that as a species a large number of us have a propensity towards all of the things I listed above? 

 

 

There's a certain irony that you should ask this in the context of me simply pointing out that, amongst other things, folk sometimes have tendency to see things that aren't there.

 

 

This rather undermines your point doesn't it? Using elephants as an example, you'd think they'd be easy to spot and, yes, you concede, sometimes they are. Why then does this not apply to Sasquatch? I've never seen a completely unambiguous image of one, including  the PGF, ( I challenge you to present one)  but by this logic, there should be plenty. o present

 

 

 

Your ultimatum is moot. No amount of  special pleading to your own -or any other authority-  can detract that what I've described most certainly is evidence for just that. It is substantial and it is, in my view, highly persuasive evidence. Your reluctance to examine it (or even discuss it) demonstrates a bias that is hard to miss. The one factor that seems to be under-discussed on this topic, whether it's the trail-cam footage or any other aspect of the phenomenon is the human factor, the part that we all, whether proponent or skeptic, know to be involved.

 

The apparent remoteness of your prints, the similarities in the details of reports, the sheer volume of reports, all of it can be explained if you're willing to accept that occasionally witless, sometimes wily, often unpredictable and and wholly surprising (not to say clever and cunning) human nature is at work.  

 

Von Daniken famously sold a best-seller in which he put forth the proposition that because archaeologists don't know for certain the exact manner in which some ancient structures were built, it must have been aliens. Today the number of experts in the related fields who agree with this are rarer than hen's teeth; because the imagination and ingenious resourcefulness of homo sapiens is all that is requited to explain a Stone Henge or a Great Pyramid. And it's certainly all that's required to explain a Bigfoot.

 

As I said, I may be wrong. In fact I sincerely very much hope I am. I like and admire the wonder of the world and like many here I'd love love it for something as amazing as a gigantic unclassified hominid to be discovered in modern times. Being wrong would pale into insignificance in the face of that revelation.  It's a wonderful, intriguing, fascinating idea. All I'm suggesting is that that is is part of the problem isn't it? Like a social meme, the big hairy man in the woods has touched something in us, and it's entertaining enough that part of us want it to be real. But my conviction is not yours. I believe the evidence points strongly towards psycho-social and not flesh and blood. 

 

One recurring theme in your argument seems to be that you know all the evidence, that you've looked at all the evidence and for this reason the possibility of you being wrong is so slight as to be practically non-existent.

 

  I would politely suggest otherwise. To paraphrase from one DWA's own previous posts...

 

"How in the hell could humans - HUMANS! - be wrong about anything? "

 

 

Know what all this sounds like? 

 

Special pleading.

 

A desire to come up with a solution that does not require intensive work on the direct evidence of an unlisted hominoid has to be called that.  It just does.  As I said, I have read studies of psycho-social phenomena; none of them even makes an effort to take on the evidence for sasquatch, which means:  that evidence stands, unchallenged and unassessed.  Period.

 

Assumptions DO NOT! cut it in science, and I assure you I have made none.  I've done the work and so have the scientific proponents.  You don't get to use the wholly ironic brush-off "you all think you're perfect."  We have been exceedingly humble foot soldiers for the truth.  We have done the work.

 

No one who disagrees with us shows that they have.  Including on their own assertion, as I have.  And that is a disqualifier in any scientific discussion.

 

(Simple reflection on what science has taught us will show quickly that "people are hoaxing, misinterpreting, theorising, speculating, fabricating, game-playing, fantasising, mistaking, mythologising, misinterpreting, story-telling, joking, hallucinating, self-aggrandising, self-deluding and bare-faced fib telling" is so astronomically unlilkely to depict just the kind of animal a scientist would expect - which is precisely what we are seeing here - that it is the LEAST likely, by a lot, of all possibilities.  A French family-owned company, dedicated to this task since the year 1000, is FAR MORE LIKELY.  The way to bet is that ONE THING is causing the evidience.  I just happen to know what the one thing is. Just sayin.)

45 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

There are at least three that think the way you do. Stopping at anecdotal evidence isn't science. And even though in hindsight science has benefitted from anecdotal evidence it takes a lot to break science's own inertia in order to get the ball rolling. It certainly appears to take more that just witness reports, footprint casts, and blurry photos. I know it does for me and I'm not even a scientist

 

( For some reason I just HAD to be the first poster on page 100!!  )

That's just a severe misstatement of the most impressive body of evidence in the history of our species for ANYTHING prior to its acceptance by the society.

 

And that film ain't blurry.  The best film available in 1967 gives you that resolution at that distance.  As many reviews have shown it is easy to determine what the thing on that film is.

Edited June 11, 2017 by DWA

[dmaker]

But you are assuming all the witnesses are telling the truth. So, you ARE making assumptions. Thousands of them, to be exact.

[hiflier]

16 minutes ago, DWA said:

Assumptions DO NOT! cut it in science, and I assure you I have made none.

 

I have to disagree. There's no solid proof so there has to be assumptions. You may disagree by citing the body of evidence which cements things for YOU but not for everyone. In a way your position on the matter says that since the reports as a whole say that Sasquatch is real to you then everyone should think like you and stop where they are? Just read the reports, look at the casts and watch the movie and be satisfied? Nope. Wrong. Ain't gonna cut it! It just becomes a giant assumption without solid physical evidence that science can test and repeat. Not a good message for newbies at all. Read the reports yes, but that's only the beginning and so should in no way be, in and of itself, a conclusion. 

Edited June 11, 2017 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

That's wrong.  I have said this many times here:  Proof is IRRELEVANT TO PURE SCIENCE.  This constant injection of proof into a discussion of a body of evidence so large and consistent that it has screamed to several scientists to drop what they were doing and WRITE BOOKS ON IT simply doesn't wash.

 

I know what the evidence says.  Those who have not done the work...just don't.

 

Wondering how many times I am gonna have to say this.  One cannot just read them.  One must bring the equipment required to assess them, rack and stack them, and draw conclusions.  I happen to bring that.

[hiflier]

15 minutes ago, DWA said:

That's wrong.  I have said this many times here:  Proof is IRRELEVANT TO PURE SCIENCE......

 

Never said it wasn't. PURE science which is only study. For advancement, however, science NEEDS to prove things so it's best to not mix up the two: Pure science vs. scientific advancement. Besides that mantra is injurious to those that are in the field looking for proof. AND it attempts to cap the discussion so far short of the mark it isn't even funny. You don't need proof, PURE science doesn't need proof so that automatically aligns you with PURE science? Then why do I see so often that science has proved this and science has proved that? I know, I know, you're going to say that science only says that for the ignorant because I've heard you say it a gazillion times. But science is about progress which logically comes to a screeching halt as SCIENCE NEEDS PROOF of something before it can make a decision about the next step to take- that won't blow something UP! That is only logical because with out proving something science is just fluttering in the breeze without a way to safely proceed. So, my friend, no more of this science-doesn't-need-proof stuff. We, and science, would be nowhere without the proof process. 

Edited June 11, 2017 by hiflier

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

 

And that's all fine and well. Those men are telling the truth from the standpoint of a expert micro expressionist. Great.

 

But if we are dealing with a creature that breeds, bleeds and defecates and makes its living in the forests of North America? At some point we must start asking ourselves why we cannot come up with any physical evidence!?

 

Add to all of this a community that by and large doesn't care if a type specimen is found, which would vindicate every witness who ever made a report? Very frustrating.

 

The truth is we've had legitimate biological samples (E.g hair, blood, scat) of Sasquatch correctly tested and interpreted since the late 1990's, but they end up getting dismissed by virtually everyone because the results aren't indicative of an undiscovered species. It's part of what makes this phenomenon so mysterious and challenging for enthusiasts.

[hiflier]

And that seems to be the rub/excuse. I say that because if Sasquatch is a parallel line of hominid to Humans the differences my not be enough to SAY unknown. And apparently if one cannot say unknown it seems to become the primary reason to toss it all out. It's almost as if the arguments and discussions on whether the creature is homo or not has hurt more than helped the subject of discovery. Many reports speak of 'superhuman' abilities and I think that somehow has been translated into non-Human. Well that, and the body full of hair thing  Body-wise as far as posture- Human. Brain wise as far as advanced technological thought? Animal. Or severely underdeveloped. A brain gene ether switched off too soon or never switched on at all. IDK. At what point does be animal not be an animal? And does Sasquatch see us as an animal too? It must- odd animal that we are. An odd animal that is now everywhere. Makes me wonder how stressful that must be for the creature on so many levels.

[JustCurious]

On 6/6/2017 at 2:11 AM, Starling said:

This rather undermines your point doesn't it? Using elephants as an example, you'd think they'd be easy to spot and, yes, you concede, sometimes they are. Why then does this not apply to Sasquatch? I've never seen a completely unambiguous image of one, including  the PGF, ( I challenge you to present one)  but by this logic, there should be plenty. o present

 

 

Starling, you're cherry picking.  Maybe it doesn't apply to Sasquatch because 1) they don't travel in herds, 2) they hear the camera and get out of there and/or 3) they blend in with their surroundings as well as elephants.  I'm sorry the PGF is not unambiguous enough for you, but I'm also not going to get off my duff to go get something YOU want.  Just like your next beverage, get it yourself.

[Guest Starling]

When I point to an impressive body of evidence that Sasquatch are nothing more than a type of social folk meme I agree that it's a kind of special pleading. Your stance seems to be that your own special pleading is somehow superior for no other reason than that is the way your thinking has been biased. When you point to your mass of, apparently, consistent evidence you seem unwilling to recognise the immense scope of human ingenuity and creativity, both conscious and unconscious, that is applied to the reinforcement of social memes. I can think of several other modern mythological phenomena that have coalesced over time into ones with apparently consistent hallmarks and details, so despite what you say there's nothing unique about this. 

 

You joke that a French-owned company is more likely to be behind the phenomenon than the group-think possibility I suggest. And I would say that that is certainly more likely than the giant hairy hominid that exists in breeding population numbers but somehow evades human detection in seemingly miraculous ways despite the fact that modern technology and thousands of man hours have been brought to bear. You've done all the work that's necessary to conclude this satisfactorily, you say. Unfortunately for your argument science has come to other conclusions.  

 

As for the Patterson film, the best available as you put it has not been good enough otherwise the forests would be knee-deep in scientists. 

 

 

[Guest DWA]

^^^This is kind of where I am now.  Bigfoot skepticism uses that phrase 'special pleading' a lot, but it is the most mammoth special-pleading case I have ever seen in my life.  Look, here is a major exception to the duty of science.  Don't examine the evidence.  DON'T.  Go psycho-social; mix well with own comfort zone; crack a beer and done.

 

Think I will now.  Cheers, JC!

[Incorrigible1]

8 hours ago, JustCurious said:

 

Starling, you're cherry picking.  Maybe it doesn't apply to Sasquatch because 1) they don't travel in herds, 2) they hear the camera and get out of there and/or 3) they blend in with their surroundings as well as elephants.  I'm sorry the PGF is not unambiguous enough for you, but I'm also not going to get off my duff to go get something YOU want.  Just like your next beverage, get it yourself.

This seems to have become the latest ploy: "I won't provide evidence for you."

 

It's not just you, JC, but you've provided an example. Actually, as Starling posted, just try to provide a decent example image of bigfoot. Other than artist renditions, Patty is the go-to example, simply because of the dearth of any others. So rather than concede the point, a common response is to puff up one's chest and belittle anyone pointing out the scant amount of actual evidence. Sure, there are the occasional footprint or undetermined hairs, but physical evidence? But hey, don't dare ask anyone for that ::puff puff:: because you're too much of a city boy and you don't deserve that for which you ask (and which I'm unable to provide).

[hiflier]

30 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Other than artist renditions, Patty is the go-to example, simply because of the dearth of any others

 

Dearth- BAAAD; Plethora- GOOOOD. Except that plethora doesn't apply. Besides, I've always liked the word 'dearth' for some reason.

[Guest DWA]

8 hours ago, JustCurious said:

 

Starling, you're cherry picking.  Maybe it doesn't apply to Sasquatch because 1) they don't travel in herds, 2) they hear the camera and get out of there and/or 3) they blend in with their surroundings as well as elephants.  I'm sorry the PGF is not unambiguous enough for you, but I'm also not going to get off my duff to go get something YOU want.  Just like your next beverage, get it yourself.

 

This needs to be commented upon more. 

 

If proponents consider P/G legitimate

- and somebody JUST WROTE A WHOLE BOOK ON THIS, go talk to him -

then you don't get away with "I challenge you to get something better than P/G."  I challenge YOU to pick up a pair of reading glasses, you can get a three-pack, cheap.  No film in use in 1967 could get you better fidelity at that distance.  You'll have to go suck an egg whilst you wait for something clearer than P/G.  Know why?  Because when scoffers abound who aren't paying attention, people who don't know any better listen to them and don't exactly have a camera at the ready when unicorns ghosts goblins and the Loch Ness Monster cross the road in front of them.  Or they do...and totally forget that, and numerous reports attest to that, and oh, you would too.

 

Not only that, but bigfoot skepticism (hereinafter BS) wants the proponents to do its work for it.  I once read four 'critiques' of Meldrum's book.  The closest any of them came to actually talking about the book, and not their a priori BS, was when they asked where the thorough analysis was of their BS man-in-suit theory!  Look, if you have a bunch of BS that you are putting forth as a theory, YOU GET THE SAMMICH YOURSELF, BUDDY, and show us that a crock of cockamamie BS like that is worthy of time of day (something Jeff already knew - shoot, *I knew in 1967 when I was 11 years old* - wasn't). I recently got asked why I hadn't delved into the psycho-social phenomenon as the easy explanation for all of this.  My answer, en bref:

1.  I've read the studies; they don't touch the sasquatch evidence;

2. ^^^That, in case you missed it;

3.  Nothing is easy at the frontiers of science, and if this is giving you a nosebleed, it might not be yer cuppa;

4. The evidence you psycho-socials can't even bother yourself to look at, or think about, nothing like which has ever existed that wasn't pretty much what the evidence said.

 

BS is piling itself up on my Ignore list.  Reason?  They insist on not talking about the evidence.  Don't have time for that BS anymore.