Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[Guest DWA]

But I am working on it, WSA, and as soon as the paper for the fourth set of calculations is loaded into *that* truck, it's all on its way to you.  You're on the hook for gas and recycling.

 

Bigfoot skepticism is the most relentless refusal to examine something I have confronted.  It's also about the least fun, interesting, and yes the synomym is "scientific" mindset that I have been made aware of.

[kitakaze]

"Bigfoot skepticism is the most relentless refusal to examine something I have confronted.  It's also about the least fun, interesting, and yes the synomym is "scientific" mindset that I have been made aware of."

Barbara: "Hi *****, I've been at Conservation Northwest for more than a decade and in that time we've never seen evidence of Bigfoot in our hundreds of cameras. I can't speak to if someone else would want to withhold evidence that is scientifically feasible, if there were any, but good science reveals all evidence, not just the results you expect. Thanks for the thoughts--interesting."

Edited April 3, 2015 by kitakaze

[norseman]

Kit, do you agree that there is a stigma attached to this subject?

[Guest DWA]

Bigfoot skeptics are responsible for most of that stigma.  And science is so *not* about stigma.

[norseman]

But it bears the question? What would a young biologist do if he or she had an image they couldn't explain?

[norseman]

But it bears the question? What would a young biologist do if he or she had an image they couldn't explain?

Check my logic for a second, we have accredited scientists telling us that there is in all likely hood something out there. From a Biologist to a physical anthropologist, among others. Not many believe them.

So what does a Biology BA degree cost? 150k?

And with no evidence other than your camera trap photo? Your going to go to your supervisor and show them this picture? That he is surely going to proclaim a hoax and suspect you may well be in on it?

I don't think so, my bet is on hitting the delete button and keeping your mouth shut, regardless if you think it's real or not. No grand conspiracy but certainly a career killer because of the stigma attached.

If you go up the chain of command with a grainy photo? You better be dragging a body part along.

[Guest DWA]

...but that stigma is entirely due to incredulity.  Period.

 

Footrprints bearing distinctive markers of a non-human source; numerous sightings, referring over and over again to characters generally known only to specialists; and a film that has been shown over and over again (and just got *proven*) not to be a human.  "Human" was an insupportable conclusion in 1967.  Why did it happen?

 

Incredulity.  Science is so *not* about incredulity.

[Faenor]

But it bears the question? What would a young biologist do if he or she had an image they couldn't explain?

Check my logic for a second, we have accredited scientists telling us that there is in all likely hood something out there. From a Biologist to a physical anthropologist, among others. Not many believe them.

So what does a Biology BA degree cost? 150k?

And with no evidence other than your camera trap photo? Your going to go to your supervisor and show them this picture? That he is surely going to proclaim a hoax and suspect you may well be in on it?

I don't think so, my bet is on hitting the delete button and keeping your mouth shut, regardless if you think it's real or not. No grand conspiracy but certainly a career killer because of the stigma attached.

If you go up the chain of command with a grainy photo? You better be dragging a body part along.

A bs degree from a state school 50,000 or less. A young biologist is going to be excited by data that doesn't fit the norm and share with another member of the group or lab with more experience.

Scientists generally like big finds.

[norseman]

My daughter is currently going to MSU, I only wish you were right.

And a camera trap photo is no find.

...but that stigma is entirely due to incredulity.  Period.

 

Footrprints bearing distinctive markers of a non-human source; numerous sightings, referring over and over again to characters generally known only to specialists; and a film that has been shown over and over again (and just got *proven*) not to be a human.  "Human" was an insupportable conclusion in 1967.  Why did it happen?

 

Incredulity.  Science is so *not* about incredulity.

Science attacks hypothesis that lack proof. But regardless of why the stigma is there or if it's justified?

We can all agree it's there.

[Guest DWA]

Science attacks hypothesis that lack proof. But regardless of why the stigma is there or if it's justified?

We can all agree it's there.

Oh sure.  But scientists attacking a hypothesis *examine the evidence* marshaled in favor of the hypothesis.  They don't turn the other way; don blindfold and earmuffs and say, "NOTHING TO SEE HERE" over and over as loud as they can.

A bs degree from a state school 50,000 or less. A young biologist is going to be excited by data that doesn't fit the norm and share with another member of the group or lab with more experience.

 

Who, if it has anything to do with this topic, will provide a BS response and deep-six the data.

Scientists generally like big finds.

 

And don't we have a whopping exception here.  Unless you can point me to a scientific criticism of Meldrum, Krantz or Bindernagel that I can't show you holds not an ounce of water.  (You can't.)

[Faenor]

It is really on the proponents to prove that there is a conspiracy in which all scientists are hiding and destroying the bigfoot evidence they have found.

[kitakaze]

But it bears the question? What would a young biologist do if he or she had an image they couldn't explain?

Post it on the camera trap project website and ask "What is it?" is literally what they did...

http://cascadescarnivoreproject.blogspot.jp/2014/01/what-is-it.html

[Guest DWA]

It is really on the proponents to prove that there is a conspiracy in which all scientists are hiding and destroying the bigfoot evidence they have found.

No it's NOT.  It is only on the proponents to lay virtual proof of the animal's reality at the feet of science.  This they have done.  And if you disagree, you are wrong.  I love how easy science can be, relying only on, you know, facts and all.

 

Of course, scientists aren't taking up their obligation, so we have amateurs using their vacation time and weekends.  Sorry skeptics.  You are bringing this on yourselves.  You'd get proof sooner if you had an ounce of curiosity.  But that does not seem to be present.  Does it.

BTW, the only proof I need is the scientists who say the shush-up-don't-talk-or-yer-fired has been done *to them.*  As always:  them over you.

Post it on the camera trap project website and ask "What is it?" is literally what they did...

http://cascadescarnivoreproject.blogspot.jp/2014/01/what-is-it.html

And it's a bear, which proves what.

 

Really simple thing, you know, to simply delete any images one is uncomfortable with.

I am not sure I have seen anyone take the concept of "trusting soul" to a higher plane than bigfoot skeptics.

Edited April 3, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Divergent1]

Well Divergent1, if your world includes people who would creep up to an armed camp at night and reach through an open window to tag somebody sleeping with a loaded weapon, I guess your reality and mine will never mesh. The mental operations to accomplish this perspective are way beyond my ken.

You only have their word for it that it even happened. 

Bigfoot skeptics are responsible for most of that stigma.  And science is so *not* about stigma.

That's not entirely true either.

Oh sure.  But scientists attacking a hypothesis *examine the evidence* marshaled in favor of the hypothesis.  They don't turn the other way; don blindfold and earmuffs and say, "NOTHING TO SEE HERE" over and over as loud as they can.

But when there is nothing to see how do you validate the testimony? Using the window example, if a bigfoot reached into a window and grabbed at you it's a golden opportunity. The person is out there to see bigfoot, find bigfoot, and shoot it so he should be mentally prepared, right? The only explanation I can conclude from that particular reported incident is that it never happened. 

[Guest DWA]

You only have their word for it that it even happened. 

 

We have only scientists' word for most of what we accept.  Sooner or later, somebody has to accept somebody's word.  This does not mean accepting it as one's proof, but accepting the account as coming from an honest person. If one is cataloging things that happened, which this monograph is, it's easy to say "absent proof, they are lying."  Presuming people liars would extend to scientists as well; and where would we be then?  Science only proceeds when someone accepts someone else's word.  Really.   It's the fundamental nature of human transactions.  Accepting someone's word simply means you have something to test and stack with other stuff you've tested.  If every single thing a scientist said  or wrote had to be documented by proof it happened...no scientific papers would ever get accepted; everyone would basically be doing the submitter's work, all over again.  (Including videorecording his every waking moment...a bit of a problem before video, wot?)They'd cut that out after a bit...hopefully, to start taking people's word absent good reason not to.  (Which is how scientific frauds get exposed, *not* by proof for every word the scientist says or writes.)

That's not entirely true either.

 

Science is utterly without, and does not deal with, stigma.  Scientists?  That's a completely different matter.  When I say the two words I mean two vastly different things.  Science, perfect.  Scientists?  Um, not.

But when there is nothing to see how do you validate the testimony? Using the window example, if a bigfoot reached into a window and grabbed at you it's a golden opportunity. The person is out there to see bigfoot, find bigfoot, and shoot it so he should be mentally prepared, right? The only explanation I can conclude from that particular reported incident is that it never happened. 

 

So.  When someone tells you they went to the bank and to two meetings before lunch with you, you conclude they're lying?  That's your right, I suppose.  If you honestly - honestly - *conclude,* based on an absence of proof, that something *never happened,* everyone's a liar and how do you, um, get through a day?  I prefer reality, myself.

Oh, and keep in mind:  the scientists you are *relying* on for your opinion on this have not one jot of evidence for their contention.   How do you square that with the other things you have said?  At least the scientists backing me review the evidence, and show their work.