Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[norseman]

I see. Was this incident included in the encounters described in the report published? I don't recall reading of this in the paper.

You understand that I'm not a spokesperson for the NAWAC?

[OKBFFan]

Yes of course I do. Just thought of you as a person with a certain amount of insight with whom I agree.

[Guest DWA]

This is pretty funny right here.

But super serious dwa is right go to google scholar and look up journal articles on wildlife research they are identical to the nawac monograph. I wish more scientists would include pictures of rocks in their research articles nothing says good science like pictures of rocks.

Some are determined not to get stuff.

 

But I have never seen so many people as bound and determined not to get stuff as bigfoot skeptics.

 

I'm not sure you'd be able to do this, but if you honestly think you can point me to wildlife research that contradicts what's going on in X...you are, well, I keep saying 'not paying attention,' but that's worse.

This is a lecture, so pay attention:  in science, you show what is wrong with the monograph, how the monograph is not reflecting scientific method and why its conclusions are, you know, wrong.

 

You won't.  Yours will come down to 'no proof yet,' 'cos that's what all bigfoot skeptics do...and you just failed the course.  Please go read up.

The monograph says, in big capital letters easily readable by anyone familiar with wildlife research:  UNCLASSIFIED ANIMAL HERE, YO!

 

If you cannot show otherwise:  please just step aside and let science work here, K?

[Faenor]

If area x wasn't a secret and the location was revealed one could simply pull up all the previous wildlife and plant research and surveys that took place in the proximity. A group of large apes should leave behind some sign that the researchers would pick up on. Unless "insert bigfoot conspiracy". Most wildlife research papers include the area they don't keep it secret to avoid someone ruining their fun. Since the monograph does not include the location other researchers cannot visit to confirm or deny the activity reported in the paper.

I used to do something similar to the nawac I belonged to a group that went into the woods. We didn't put on camo and parade around with guns with names like operation forest vigil foxtrot. We would wear armor or robes and carry swords and staves. We would have missions to slay the demon king or necromancers nephew.

[Guest DWA]

Really.  Researchers told that "if you have anything to say about bigfoot keep it to yourselves or get fired" are just gonna come back and say, no, bigfoot's real, no really really, look at this...!

 

Like everybody reacted, you know, to a movie of one that has been pretty much inescapably confirmed as genuine.

 

You may trust denial.  I do too.  To deny.  But it's not good for anything else.

 

The day the mainstream actually ventures a critique of the relevant scientists who say they're wrong, I'll start listening to them.  Not expecting it to ever happen.

And no, wildlife papers routinely conceal locations because of concerns about stuff like, you know, poachers and extinction and stuff.  You are confusing "I accept the report because I accept it for the reason that, no, it is acceptable to me" with full disclosure.  Which does.Not.Happen.

And OK.  If we so know just where X is, and skeptics are saying we do...where is "mainstream!  Get in there and prove these loonies wrong!"  Why's that not happening.

 

Because skeptics don't want to be proven wrong.  That is why.  Unless it's just that they don't understand how science, um, yaknow, works.

I am tired of the skeptical mumbojumbo secret squirrel excuses.  If you are so sure the proponents are wrong, you should be screaming for the mainstream to prove it.

 

Oh Gawd.  I just left another opening for the "you can't prove a negative" crowd.  That is the worst mumbojumbo secret squirrel excuse of all, and anyone who understands how science, um, er, yaknow, works knows that.  And knows why.

[Guest Divergent1]

 

The most probable answer a "sane" person could come up with might be incompetent researchers misinterpreting natural events.

 

Not true.  Not to someone practicing common sense.  Which requires *being informed* as to what is being experienced, and the *likelihood* of misinterpretation given what is before one.  Bigfoot skeptics - I have found, and expect to find, no exceptions - have shut themselves up in a box of tightly-fitted black-painted plywood with their preconceptions.  They don't read, or think about what they read (because they didn't read it).  Given their preconception - *this cannot be true!* - sure, *anything that makes it true cannot be.*  Those of us paying attention - and haven't we gone over what that means, over and over and over here - don't have this problem.  It might be obvious that Great Britain must overthrow its fascist dictator, Adolf Hitler...if one has shut oneself up in a box with the preconception that Hitler rules Great Britain.  Doesn't make the conclusion common sense, hmmmm?  There is no way that incompetent researchers are misinterpreting natural events.  I know these people personally; I know what they bring to the table; I know what the rest of the evidence says, and you don't; and it's about as likely that they are routinely misinterpreting natural events as it is that you are hiding Saddam Hussein.  That conclusion, given facts on the ground, is flat irrational in the universe we inhabit, the diff between us being that, having the information base you and most other people have forbidden yourselves - *I know that.*

 

I'm sure that NAWAC has the goods if their stories are true. They can simply collect some scat from the multitude of wood apes finding refuge on their 10 acre plot or pluck a hair from a large tree after they watch a wood ape ride it to the ground or collect some blood samples from a wounded wood ape after they throw a bunch of lead down range and scare off the owner's relatives. Easy peasy lemon squeezy! Simple, common sense. What are they waiting on?

 

Common sense.  Which tells them, because they have tried it, see you aren't reading are you?  that those things don't yield results.  And a body will.

 

But see, no need to feel bad about this.  I'm just at the cutting edge of this science, which it is easy to be, right now, because most other people were told by their mommies and daddies to choose the plywood box, and some of us just opted out, preferring an open mind.  This is routine in science; any number of things have any number of really regular Joes working on them, at any given moment, that most people are simply unaware of.  You have simply accidentally stumbled upon one.  I, on the other hand, am not here by accident.

 

It looks like you are doing all of your thinking inside the box, that, or you aren't sure how to use the quote function properly. 

Edited March 29, 2015 by Divergent1

[Guest DWA]

I used it just fine.  If you can't suss what's there, not my fault.

I answer the way *I* want.  The way *I* want is what you see there.  You  aren't telling me you can't see the difference between what I am responding to and my response.

 

Are you...?

 

See:  we cutting edge types go *outside* the box.  All you see is the box you want to.

BTW:  you didn't prove bigfoot's not real.  You  know that, right.

 

When am I gonna see somebody responding to my *points?*  Oh, right, this is not the place for that.  But actually, bigfoot skepticism is not the place for that, is it.

To paraphrase what they say in Minnesota:  *that's* divergent.

[Guest Divergent1]

Now see, anyone who read this knows that humans are in no way doing this.  To make that one's *first assumption* indicates the degree to which one hasn't thought about it.

Have you personally been invited to visit area X? If not, then I would say you are making an assumption about what is or isn't possible out there. You could accuse me of being skeptical of bigfoot, yet again, another assumption. That seems to be your "go to" response to avoid seriously discussing any flawed research or analysis. There is absolutely nothing wrong in questioning research of any kind. If you can show me why it's preposterous to consider human interference then I'm ready to listen. 

[Guest DWA]

You really think that humans are doing that?  Then prove they are.  Saying "humans could be doing that" says nothing.  And no one has gone any further than that, and no one has shown Inkling One of what a scientist *must* do:  really think about the *probabililty* that humans are doing that.

 

Which is?  Nil.  Unless you can *prove* it, it's a far more preposterous notion than a boring garden-variety ape.

It is absolutely scientific anathema to brush off something like this with, oh, a secret society of the greatest athletes in human history, wearing ape suits and *including very small children*, is doing this, and if you don't think that either that or "they're lying" are the only reasonable explanations...you didn't read it.

I mean, the only reasonable explanations other than, you know, a garden-variety primate, doing what they, you know, do.

[Guest Divergent1]

Quite honestly, I have no idea who is doing what at Area X. As for your points? What points? All I see are statements from you that NAWAC's research is beyond question. 

 

You point blank said humans weren't doing this, but you didn't expand on it. Why is it impossible that humans are hoaxing NAWAC? You never answered my question, have you been to Area X and made your own personal observations to be able to state emphatically that NAWAC's research or observations are above question? 

 

My comment about your quoting technique was to point out the irony of you commenting inside of the box as you were talking about thinking outside of the box. I guess the irony escaped someone as cutting edge as you are, I see that you don't get it. 

Edited March 29, 2015 by Divergent1

[Faenor]

Really.  Researchers told that "if you have anything to say about bigfoot keep it to yourselves or get fired" are just gonna come back and say, no, bigfoot's real, no really really, look at this...!

 

My god of course the most sane logical explanation. The is no evidence from all the surveys in the area because conspiracy. Since the nawac has to be seeing bigfoot and it's impossible that they are lying, or being hoaxed, or hoaxing themselves, or playing a game. Bigfoot evidence must have been found in the area and covered up. There really are no other explanations and nobody can prove otherwise. Just like in the x-files "ROSWELL ROSWELL!"

Let's hope these jacked up g-men don't turn their swarthy eyes on the nawac operation and deprive us of more photographs of rocks.

[Guest DWA]

OK, look, when somebody who provides his name and demonstrates his scientific credentials *says* *using his words* that this is going on, because he and a number of colleagues have experienced it, him over you.  Period.  When a couple calls in a track find to the USFS; gets laughed at; and an employee calls them back, and in a whisper tells them, some of us are keeping a database, what did you find?  um, you know for damsure they are lying, precisely how?

 

Right!  Because your TrueBelief says they must be.  And done.

 

(I wish I knew where people got this weird notion that I have to persuade them, particularly when I know nothing short of a body dumped on their doorstep would.)

 

Do you understand (I'm presuming "no") that there is a ground between "they're wrong" and "they have proof" that goes:  this is interesting, let's see what else happens? 

 

If you don't...you are a bigfoot skeptic.  Once again:  you have nothing to offer.  Just say that, and wait for more information.  Them over you, every time.  Why?  I know them personally; know their credentials...and, um, er, am very well acquainted with yours as well.  You have taken ample care of that.

 

Them.  Over you.

 

I can't help it if anything other than instant gratification frustrates you.  Your problem entirely.  Not mine.

Edited March 29, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Divergent1]

Well you just said anyone who read the monograph would know humans aren't doing this, so now you are saying you don't know for sure outside of a dead body? Did I read that right? I'm not asking you to prove anything, I simply want to know how you know what you know. You have yet to answer my question or can I take the above reply as back pedaling? 

Edited March 30, 2015 by Divergent1

[Guest Stan Norton]

I've actually looked into papers pertaining to the Ouachitas ecosystem. Found a cool one on bears involving radio tagging plus another on the small mammal assemblage. I'm sure there are more but if you think those mountains are all surveyed out you may be mistaken. Even the state park websites are woefully lacking in decent info on flora and fauna.

[Guest DWA]

Well you just said anyone who read the monograph would know humans aren't doing this, so now you are saying you don't know for sure outside of a dead body? Did I read that right? I'm not asking you to prove anything, I simply want to know how you know what you know. You have yet to answer my question or can I take the above reply as back pedaling? 

Humans aren't doing this.  Know how I know?  The scenario that would require humans to be doing this, which skeptics never seem to understand the need to conjure in their heads.

 

Is there another North American species we know of that does this?  No.  The ones that we know of that do?  Apes.

 

Will I know until I have a confirmed animal?  No.

 

What is so inconsistent about holding these beliefs?  Nothing.

 

It's a *challenge*, gang.  When one enters a thesis in a scientific discussion, one must provide evidence backing the thesis.  Period.  I have never seen, in a half-century, a scrap of evidence backing the skeptical thesis of a comprehensive false positive.  So how in the heck could I consider it possible?

 

It's the skeptics' fault.     Especially for not understanding that to have a conclusion, one must have something from which to conclude, eh?  

 

Not that I don't understand that lots of people require black and white, regardless whether the world works that way.

Edited March 30, 2015 by DWA