Guest DWA Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 No, actually, the stranger thing to do is to presume a world in which scientists are always correct, and their models always flawless, with no reference to the truth on the ground. That's strange, buddy. (You see what I did there. Didn't read the post, just extrapolated a response based on data collected so far. How close did I get? Close enough, the data says.) (And if I didn't...we just saw the value of extrapolating from models and calling your work done. Didn't we.)
Guest DWA Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 But once again we have that tissue of assumptions, which any honest scientist will tell you cannot provide a solid foundation for rational thought, which depends on the proper interpretation of evidence. Again. Close enough? If not...we have a continuing demonstration of the seriousness with which we need to view the Cascade Carnivore Project. With regard to just this topic, now. That whole extrapolation-from-flawed-nonexistent-or-flat-unrecognized-data thing. You see it; you dismiss it. You see it; you bring it to your boss; your boss dismisses it. We have ample evidence that both things are happening to presume that at least it cannot be discounted as an explanation of what's going on here. (Denial is a bad defense of denial. Anyone ever notice that...?) Anyone who can tell me why any NA animal is an appropriate stand-in - even theoretically - for a temperate-zone ape, a concept scientists don't even recognize, I'm all ears. Otherwise, one's model may be appropriate for animals of which one knows much. Not for an animal for which one recognizes nothing.
WSA Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Consider this animal to be a fish, why don't you? If you are setting a specific rig/bait for one species of fish, and you don't catch another kind, are you to conclude the other kind is not present in that water? No, you wouldn't, or at least you shouldn't. If you want to confirm that other kind is there, you change your rig and/or bait and see what that does for you. You also consider the stories of other fisherman who can give you information to f/u on. I think that simple point is all that is being stated here. (The lack of economy of words from all of us noted, and notwithstanding that) We really can't dispute this simple conclusion, can we? Should we? I think, "no." Compounding the problem is a decided lack of information about what rig/bait this fish likes. It may be the answer is "none." What then? Give up? Is that a satisfactory outcome to anyone here? Is that what skeptics truly want to see happen? Is the skeptical view merely a call for everyone who just throw in the towel on this problem? Is that a realistic outcome? When has that ever happened, that you know of? Bears thinking about. As I often say, it always pays to define success so you'll better know how to get it, and recognize it when you get there. Proponents know what their success looks like, how about those of the opposite view, hmmmm?
dmaker Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) ^^ Yes, WSA I understand your fish analogy. But what I think is being overlooked by you and DWA is that these studies captured virtually all species of medium to large sized mammals in that area. It is not like it was calibrated to a single species and therefore ( according to your and DWAs logic) should only be expected to capture that one species. And even if some were calibrated based on a model for a single species, they still report back images of multiple species. This leaves us with the mystery of why sasquatch does not show up when every other medium to large sized mammal did regardless of what one was hoping to capture images of on the cam. If I go trout fishing and I catch every conceivable type of fish reported in that body of water except for what could arguably be the first or second largest species present, you can be rest assured that I should be quite puzzled why I have one of everything else except of that species. A species that would be hard to miss I might note. "Is the skeptical view merely a call for everyone who just throw in the towel on this problem? " WSA No, it is a call for proponents to stop accepting non-conclusive evidence as proof of existence and/or making up outlandish excuses for things like this current topic. If, and this is a big IF, if proponents truly want to find out what is behind this phenomenon, then piling excuses on top of mysteries is not going to do that. If all you want to do is huddle about and tell spooky stories and convince yourself that a track is a bigfoot, or that bigfeets can avoid trail cams for whatever list of reasons rather than accept the reality of situations, then fine continue to do so. But please do not pretend you want to see what is causing all this circumstantial evidence. Because you don't. You just want people to keep telling you that it's bigfoot. I see this in the threads here all the time. In fact there is a recent one where a member reports what I believe is just an audio encounter. Some whoops and rock activity. Everyone is immediately jumping in and patting her on the back and confirming that she encountered a squatch. Excuse me, how do you even go to confirming an NON VISUAL encounter as a squatch?? This type of nonsense is going to get you no closer to the heart of the so called mystery. But I suspect quite strongly that is not really the goal of most people here. Edited January 14, 2014 by dmaker
WSA Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) Gad, I hate to see my own typos quoted back to me...! Thanks for not making a point of that, BTW. Speaking for me my own personal self only: I've never confused any of the evidence to date as proof. There's only strong, middling, weak and laughable evidence out there. We all get to say which is which for us, you too. But yes, some seem to, but then again, I don't have any idea what their level of experience is. There needs to be a whole lot more of that kind of allowance here, if you ask me. I invite you to check in on this topic on the thread I just posted. Define your goals as a skeptic for us. Really, I'm interested. But to bounce the analogy back to you, if you catch every kind of fish in the pond, what if you still haven't caught any of the turtles? No turtles there, then? Sasquatch just might be the turtle in that pond, for all we know of it, and that ain't much. Edited January 14, 2014 by WSA 1
Guest Urkelbot Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 If routine fish and wildlife surveys turn up no turtle evidence. Cameras monitoring the lake capture no turtles. Remote underwater cameras find no turtles. Dredging the lake and searching surrounding lake has not discovered any turtle bones or remains. Turtle traps have never caught a turtle and no live turtle has ever been captured at the lake. But people claim they see turtles and vague poor pictures exist with turtle shaped objects. A good reapectable scientist should of course say "There must be turtles in this lake let's throw more time and money searching for turtles here"
Cotter Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 ^you're not suggesting that the cascades project 'dredged' the forest? What was it again? 60 traps or something?? What's that per acre anyway?
Guest Urkelbot Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 No it's meant to be a representation of all forest research to date and Bigfoot. There are zero holes in my example just try to find any!
Cotter Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Logs. Did they look in the logs when dredging? HOLE FOUND! LOL!
bigbear Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 I feel it this topic isn't just about the cascades project but brings the trail camera question into light for every state. The cascades project is just a well documented instance that was able to produce some impressive results regarding the wolverine. For me this whole question expands. For instance, Pennsylvania. BFRO has 101 sightings listed, some as resent as last year and many from 2006-present. PA has some decent forest but a lot of sightings take place in semi rural areas. Take my back yard Cambria County, I can drive from my house and be at 4 of the 6 sightings locations in less than 10 minutes, it boggles my mind to think there are BF sightings here? in 2012 PA reported close to 950,000 hunting licenses sold state wide. (just a guess) but lets say 1/10th of those people use camera traps that is close to 100,000 cameras state wide. Sure PA boasts 2.2 million forested acres 1/4 of that being the Allegheny national forest, that is still 1 camera/22 acres (that is not to shabby) Factor in that probably another 1/4 of the forest acreage is comprised of hundreds of small areas that are no more than 10-300 acres in size that are buried amongst cities ect... the 2.2 million acres sounds less impressive and the number of camera traps/acre would seem better still. In short, where are the pics? Jacobs photos.... ehhh not IMO. on side note check out this awesome interactive map PA game commission has for hunters... or anyone, lists all state, national forest ect... allows drawing on it for distance, acres ect... awesome map for free. http://pgcmaps.pa.gov/pgcpublicviewer/
Guest DWA Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 Anyone who thinks that camera traps anywhere are providing us with all the information we need...well, fantasies are nice, but the ones involving cameras I can do without.
bigbear Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 ^ I don't believe anyone made that claim, but someone might play the odds and sooner or later BF has to slip up...right?
Guest Urkelbot Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 Super stealth, intelligence at or above our own, infrared vision, infrasound cloaking, the sense abilities of an alpha coyote, adamantium skeleton, government conspiracy. Come on bigbear Bigfoot doesn't have to do anything on your schedule.
Recommended Posts