Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[Patterson-Gimlin]

↑

A faked film from a known hoaxer does not make a strong case for existence.

[FarArcher]

On 10/23/2015 at 10:17 PM, BigTreeWalker said:

Why because you don't like the way I think and look at things? Because I don't fit into your idea of how a PhD would look at things? Which is one big reason why no progress is ever made in regards to BF research. The only progress that will ever be made is if someone like Norse or fararcher brings in a body, or I continue in my research and shake up the scientific community enough to take an honest look at the subject.

 

You do your own thing.  

These others are hunting and trying to get photos or video of animals.  That's their first mistake.

But that is the anticipated means to accomplish what they seek.  And anticipated - that's their second mistake.

One may fish, but you don't fish for bream like you fish for flounder, like you fish for sharks.  That's their third mistake.

[Guest DWA]

One major problem with the way Ph.D's look at things outside the very narrow confines of their fields:  They stay in the grooves that got them the Ph.D's.  Outside those narrow grooves, they're no better at the science thing, by and large, than you and me.

 

Sasquatch is where I started challenging this long-standing notion that people in scientific fields are "scientists."  Is a VW mechanic an automotive designer?  Most of us wouldn't think so.  The skills are for the most part unrelated.  A mechanic uses standard procedures to fix the kind of things that he and other mechanics have fixed many times before; a designer produces something that is always, at least to some degree, new.  By the same token, a well-qualified techie follows the grooves of prior research, and doesn't do well with something presented to him against which his training biases him.  A scientist has a pretty good idea how to evaluate any claim made in any scientific field.  He knows what the claimant needs to present, even if he can't "do sums" in the vernacular of that specific field.  He knows that a scientist never says that something isn't, or probably isn't, or can't be, real.  He knows that a thorough grounding in the evidence is absolutely required to pronounce upon it. He knows that compelling evidence that more needs to be done is far more important that proof.  He understands how utterly insignificant, to the scientific mind,  *your* needing to know is.  What's important is what *he* knows. He'll take care of you later (mainly because he needs to get paid; and helping ignorant people "know" stuff - i.e., believe what he tells them - is how).

 

I have never heard a "scientist" with a negative take on sasquatch who showed an understanding of how science works in his rationale.  That is telling, brothers and sisters.

 

 

Edited July 20, 2016 by DWA

[Incorrigible1]

4 minutes ago, DWA said:

One major problem with the way Ph.D's look at things blah blah blah lecture lecture.......

 

You seem to have a unique way that you view science. And you remind us of that with each posting. Carry on.

[Guest DWA]

I know.  It's the way that...wait for it...a scientist does.  Which, as we see in this field but actually in others as well, every day, is....wait for it...not the way most "scientists" or for that matter most people do.  And this is why most people can't handle things their training or life experience haven't prepared them for.  Scientists are notable for their abilty to do that.

Edited July 20, 2016 by DWA

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Science needs data.

You have a couple of films, one decent, taken at medium distance with medium resolution.

You have a few hundred foot prints of any quality.

Eyewitness accounts are a dime a dozen and don't meet the test for science study or observation (sorry witnesses, this is true).

 

Of course the witness reports would make a great science study of the social behavior of those who participate in the behavioral aspect of bigfootery.

As well as forum participants.

 

In fact the forum would be great for that, we could start a number of surveys with question like how many years since your last employment, how many sticks does it take to make you think bigfoot built it, why do you think it is bigfoot poop since we don't have any DNA or known bigfoot  food groups to establish a baseline. (no, not elk again, to the back of the class for you).

 

 Turn the telescope inward, don't ya know?

 

Self knowledge is wisdom, wisdom of the masses, the wise fool, you can explore it all.

Nothing is off limits or taboo.

 

Edited July 21, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[Guest DWA]

Science has data.  Know who knows that?  The scientific proponents...and they show how all of it - most particularly the eyewitness accounts - can be used.

"Eyewitness accounts are a dime a dozen and don't meet the test for science study or observation"  is patently false.  Science only advances through observation.  Which.Is.What.Eyewitness.Accounts.ARE.

 

Ask yourself.  How would science advance if the attitude was:  I'll accept it when somebody brings me a body?  Every animal and plant confirmed by science - and before science - was confirmed when someone followed inconclusive evidence to procure a specimen.

 

Here is what is stalling bigfoot research:  an utter lack of understanding - most particularly among scientists - of how science operates.

 

(This is why I am starting - singlehanded - a movement to Stop Calling People With Science Degrees "Scientists."  They are not, unless they can show that they understand how science operates...in cases like this.)

 

(Oh.  The footprints would themselves count as proof.  If the people who are stalling this bus understood that.)

 

OK?  No.  I am right.  The only chance you have of showing me I am wrong is:

 

Read Meldrum; read Bindernagel; read Krantz; and debunk them.  In detail.  For starters.

 

Edited July 21, 2016 by DWA

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

The only data you have are a few hundred footprints and a couple of films.

There is not a whole lot of science that can be done with that data.

I suppose you could endlessly analyse the P-G film or dermal ridges and mid tarsal breaks.

Or how many potential sightings of unknown statistical significance of truth or falsehood fall within the waxing gibbous phase of the moon during July after sundown on any given Sunday.

 

 

 

 

 

[BobbyO]

"Taps fingers"

[Guest DWA]

 

34 minutes ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

The only data you have are a few hundred footprints and a couple of films.

There is not a whole lot of science that can be done with that data.

Actually, nope.  That's the beauty of searching on consistencies in data.  And the beauty of - I cannot overemphasize this - reading ALL the reports, both encounters and trackway finds.

 

When one has done that, one is forced to consider what kind of world one would have to be living in for this kind of data to happen.  One is left with three choices:

 

1) World-class anthropologists with funding equal to the GNPs of nations have been working together for centuries with world-class material fabricators on man's most complicated and complete deception; or

2) Thousands of people have been scrupulously weaving accounts together, again for centuries, to produce an uncanny consistency, with the incredible chance injection of what looks like way-serious scientific chops, for reasons that are possibly history's most impossible to guess at.

3) A yet-unclassified animal is making these reports happen.

 

You betting 1) and 2) ?  I'm sure not.

 

Again:  one is inexorably led to one or the other of those first two conclusions if one speculates a comprehensive false positive.  PERIOD.

 

If you don't think that:  you haven't read them...and you haven't, even if you read them, thought about them properly.

 

There is nothing in the history of our species, anything close to like this, that hasn't been what the data said it was.

 

PERIOD.

 

DOESN'T ANYONE! Ever ask! why the scientific proponents are where they are on this?

 

NO.  Incredibly...no one ever does.

 

As a frequent poster here puts it:  WE AIN'T THAT GOOD.  And we ain't.  No way; and all the evidence of my life tells me so.

Edited July 21, 2016 by DWA

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

10 minutes ago, DWA said:

 

Actually, nope.  That's the beauty of searching on consistencies in data.  And the beauty of - I cannot overemphasize this - reading ALL the reports, both encounters and trackway finds.

 

When one has done that, one is forced to consider what kind of world one would have to be living in for this kind of data to happen.  One is left with two choices:

 

1) World-class anthropologists with funding equal to the GNPs of nations have been working together for centuries with world-class material fabricators on man's most complicated and complete deception; or

2) Thousands of people have been scrupulously weaving accounts together, again for centuries, to produce an uncanny consistency, with the incredible chance injection of what looks like way-serious scientific chops, for reasons that are possibly history's most impossible to guess at.

 

You betting those?  I'm sure not.

 

Again:  one is inexorably led to one or the other of those two conclusions.  PERIOD.

 

If you don't think that:  you haven't read them...and you haven't, even if you read them, thought about them properly.

 

There is nothing in the history of our species, anything close to like this, that hasn't been what the data said it was.

 

PERIOD.

 

DOESN'T ANYONE! Ever ask! why the scientific proponents are where they are on this?

 

NO.  Incredibly...no one ever does.

 

As a frequent poster here puts it:  WE AIN'T THAT GOOD.  And we ain't.  No way; and all the evidence of my life tells me so.

DWA I notice you only reply without addressing the fact that you can,t use eyewitness account as "science".

that is not just me saying it and wishful thinking will no help you, in fact it makes me wonder if you know of what you refer when you say "science".

Trackways are relevant if the are recorded in a professional fashion including measurements and if they are obviously hominid and you have photographs or casts.

Hearsay, absent evidence, though, is not an acceptable parameter.

And, no, a report is not evidence, it is only evidence of a report.

Minus supporting physical evidence it is meaningless for study and analysis though may be useful for your own personal quest or background knowledge (although inaccurate as including many false positives and poorly remembered or identified eyewitness accounts of unknown quality ((and, no, BFRO classification only means something to the BFRO, it is not a science baseline or science based classification)) it cannot become part of a rigorous framework of testing as it is unsubstantiated.

By substantiated I mean by physical evidence.

It seems obvious to me or any other "science" people.

 

[Guest DWA]

Eyewitness accounts ARE SCIENCE.  This is the fundamental fact of science!

 

What, does an advanced degree make one infallible or ultimately trustworthy?  NO.  (Look at all the frauds who published fraudulent papers.)

 

In the end, we are always - ALWAYS - left with our reliance on what someone saw.  And, fine, reported, recorded, repeated, etc.

 

But in the end we are always TRUSTING someone to tell us WHAT THEY SAW.

 

Period.

 

That is not just me saying it and wishful thinking will not help you, in fact it makes me wonder if you know of what you refer when you say "science".

(Thanks for that line!  Helpful.) 

 

 

I ask, AGAIN!  Does anyone here ever wonder how the scientific proponents got where they are on this?

 

NO.  No one ever, ever does.

 

You know what you're saying, right?  Here it is:  without proof a scientist can do NOTHING.  No.  That is what you are saying.  That is the very literal meaning of this sentence:  "Minus supporting physical evidence it is meaningless for study and analysis."  I JUST SHOWED YOU WHY there is zero chance that the encounter reportage and the footprints are unreliable!  And still you insist:  unless a scientist is handed proof...he can do nothing.

 

In other words:  there is no such thing as science.  This is the very literal conclusion to which you have come.

Edited July 21, 2016 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

This is science:  

 

I tell you something he tells you something you tell you something he tells you something they tell you something. I tell you something he tells you something you tell you something he tells you something they tell you something. I tell you something he tells you something you tell you something he tells you something they tell you something. I tell you something he tells you something you tell you something he tells you something they tell you something. I tell you something he tells you something you tell you something he tells you something they tell you something. ...

 

...and then you go out, and *verify it.*

 

That's science.  That's why you are here; that's why you are out there looking.

 

Isn't it.

 

It is.

Edited July 21, 2016 by DWA

[hiflier]

37 minutes ago, DWA said:

....You know what you're saying, right?  Here it is:  without proof a scientist can do NOTHING.  No.  That is what you are saying.  That is the very literal meaning of this sentence:  "Minus supporting physical evidence it is meaningless for study and analysis."  I JUST SHOWED YOU WHY there is zero chance that the encounter reportage and the footprints are unreliable!  And still you insist:  unless a scientist is handed proof...he can do nothing....

 

^^^

Plussed you for this, DWA. Excellent logic. But in a sense science postures for the public according to ploiciy that's been laid out by others. In other words we don't really know WHAT they do or know regarding this subject.

Edited July 21, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

Well, no.  No one can say what's going on behind the "nothing to see here" bloviation.  I consider it flat impossible that "the mainstream's position" on this is what almost all of them are thinking, to themselves.  

The question then becomes, what to do about that?