Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

[Cotter]

Hasn't worked publicly.

 

;-)

[norseman]

 

And I think woo or even human hybrid theories are born out of desperation, because we havent produce one. So they must be X,Y or Z in order to defeat mankind thus far.

Norseman

Can you explain why the Human hybrid theories are born out of desperation? I do not understand why you would word it that way since not one has not been place on the table yet.

 

Maybe  and remember this is my opinion, back in the old times when they were shot , they seen some thing in them that they feared. I am positive that the first one that was ever shot back in the day was studied. But really and truly ask your self what would you do if you were the first back in those days to shoot one. Back in those days when there was no internet or form of telecommunication. Would you not have studied it, looked it over and tried to figure out what you have just shot.. Maybe even brag about what you have done like everyone else does with a nice buck. 

 

But some how in those old articles the word man is some how involve, so science can take on many forms. Just as you use data to predict where this animal might be ( I say might be since it has not proven so far) .

I did explain it. In order for them to remain undiscovered now, we must perscribe human intelligence or above human intelligence to them. And if that fails then it goes to the supernatural.

And back then the internet didnt exist but jars of formaldehyde did......go look at a natural history museum sometime.

IMO, desperation is the constant companion of the BF hunters/killers as it hasn't worked (officially) in ~49 years.

I would disagree. People out hunting these things go where the evidence points, and do not feel the need for special pleading.......unlike other proponents.

You think they are humans, so show me evidence of their humanity. A flaked hand axe is well over a million years old. And this despite the fact that you claim they have Gorilla plus like strength. There is a very good reason a gorilla cannot manufacture a stone tool unfortunately.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

[ShadowBorn]

 

And back then the internet didnt exist but jars of formaldehyde did......go look at a natural history museum sometime.

Have you ever thought that maybe science chose not to reveal, knowing what you know now. That back then it would be wrong to save the body of these unknown entities, bones are surly hidden. It would be a change for us all, one I have been dealing with for awhile now. What we know of history could be wrong and right depending how you look at the world and our past.

[Oonjerah]

I'm sure this has been mentioned before:

 

The Gorilla was mythical.
http://listverse.com/2010/04/16/10-beasts-that-used-to-be-mythical/

 

1847 physician Thomas Savage obtained gorilla bones & a skull.

Did most folks remain skeptical, saying, "Doesn't prove anything."? 

 

Panda, Komodo dragon, kangaroo, platypus, unicorn ...

 

The gorilla was mythical to Europeans for a long time, because it lived in a remote area. It wasn't trying to hide.

After they were found, they must have been a prize for big game hunters. After a few of them had been shot, did they

learn about guns? Did they realize this new weak-hairless-ape was even more dangerous than the local men they knew?  

 

Though bigfoot appears to have 0 tech, they may still be able to learn plenty about homo sapiens & to pass the information

around to their kin. Indeed, among people, there are plenty of us who just don't get tech, but we sure can talk.

[norseman]

 

And back then the internet didnt exist but jars of formaldehyde did......go look at a natural history museum sometime.

Have you ever thought that maybe science chose not to reveal, knowing what you know now. That back then it would be wrong to save the body of these unknown entities, bones are surly hidden. It would be a change for us all, one I have been dealing with for awhile now. What we know of history could be wrong and right depending how you look at the world and our past.

Sorry...Im not following

I'm sure this has been mentioned before:

 

The Gorilla was mythical.http://listverse.com/2010/04/16/10-beasts-that-used-to-be-mythical/

 

1847 physician Thomas Savage obtained gorilla bones & a skull.

Did most folks remain skeptical, saying, "Doesn't prove anything."? 

 

Panda, Komodo dragon, kangaroo, platypus, unicorn ...

 

The gorilla was mythical to Europeans for a long time, because it lived in a remote area. It wasn't trying to hide.

After they were found, they must have been a prize for big game hunters. After a few of them had been shot, did they

learn about guns? Did they realize this new weak-hairless-ape was even more dangerous than the local men they knew?  

 

Though bigfoot appears to have 0 tech, they may still be able to learn plenty about homo sapiens & to pass the information

around to their kin. Indeed, among people, there are plenty of us who just don't get tech, but we sure can talk.

But your Gorillas comparison has shot you in the foot.

Because the poor hapless Gorillas are still being slaughtered like cattle 150 years later!

But a Sasquatch skull would stick a fork in skeptics once and for all.

[bipedalist]

I had the same problem with the pinecones being thrown as Crow did. The person filming is sitting there pointing his camera past a tree and into the sky. Then stating where the cones are coming from. You can hear them falling all around him as he sits under a fir tree. Then he pans the camera around and low and behold there's a squirrel running by with a cone in its mouth. This is typical squirrel behavior, cut the cones loose, drop them on the ground, then go down and pick them up. This is the usual that needs to be eliminated before we can even begin to proceed to the unusual. If you come across something happening that can't be explained through the usual means then you may be onto something. But remember, coincidence does occur quite often, rocks do roll down hill, things do fall out of trees, and trees do tip over by themselves occasionally for no apparent reason. Until we look and try to figure out the cause it doesn't do us our anyone else any good to go directly to supposition.

 

Squirrels do the same with cluster stems of acorn-laden oaks, and seed-laden maples too,  So guess that could also make a racket. 

[Guest DWA]

..............

And I think woo or even human hybrid theories are born out of desperation, because we havent produce one. So they must be X,Y or Z in order to defeat mankind thus far.

 

It's more like WE must be - and in fact are - X, Y or Z, and really much more than that, including, yes, desperate, and that is why we have defeated ourselves thus far.

[georgerm]

I had the same problem with the pinecones being thrown as Crow did. The person filming is sitting there pointing his camera past a tree and into the sky. Then stating where the cones are coming from. You can hear them falling all around him as he sits under a fir tree. Then he pans the camera around and low and behold there's a squirrel running by with a cone in its mouth. This is typical squirrel behavior, cut the cones loose, drop them on the ground, then go down and pick them up. This is the usual that needs to be eliminated before we can even begin to proceed to the unusual. If you come across something happening that can't be explained through the usual means then you may be onto something. But remember, coincidence does occur quite often, rocks do roll down hill, things do fall out of trees, and trees do tip over by themselves occasionally for no apparent reason. Until we look and try to figure out the cause it doesn't do us our anyone else any good to go directly to supposition.

 

Your point about scientist jumping to conclusions is well taken. One time I was embarrassed when I showed a sheriff a site where it appeared a bigfoot had left prints. The sheriff explained how the mechanical equipment had left the impressions. wow .............. talk about feeling like a fool.

 

A girl scout adult leader told me of a time when they set up a tent camp on a flat area in the forest. It was in a very remote area of southwest Oregon, and it was only their troop out there. She said in the middle of the night rocks started hitting around the sleeping girls. She said no one else was around nor could be heard. The girls packed up and left in a hurry.

 

Ok, let's plug in suppositions of science. We need to ask questions and investigate as scientist do: Did humans do this? Did escaped chimps do this? Did bigfoot do this? Were hairs attached to the rocks? Were finger prints on the rocks? Were foot prints found from the rock throwing area? 

 

A scientist must answer these questions if possible. The conclusion may not rise to the 'fact level'. If foot prints are found, and one unknown mammal hair fiber is stuck to the rock, then we could move to a fact level. Now if a heat sensing camera also pictures bigfoots throwing rocks then the 'fact level' increases. Can we now say bigfoot threw the rocks with certainty? There is a point when suppositions begin to turn to facts. If we act and think like scientist, then stalled science will keep creeping forward even though it appears stalled.

 

go bigfooters ............................ be science hounds and get the facts!

Edited January 26, 2016 by georgerm

[BigTreeWalker]

Yes, as you state, our conclusions are then based on further investigation and found facts supporting those conclusions. That is how knowledge is correctly advanced. Investigate rather than speculate.

I will say this though, tracks are good evidence for a good tracker. It's not how good the tracks are but the context in which they are found. It is also the easiest way to confirm what other animals are in an area. They may not convince science to existence, but very few scientists are good trackers. (I said few for those that take offense to this.)

[Oonjerah]

Quote Norseman, 25 Jan 2016 - 5:51 p.m.

"But your Gorillas comparison has shot you in the foot.

"Because the poor hapless Gorillas are still being slaughtered like cattle 150 years later!

"But a Sasquatch skull would stick a fork in skeptics once and for all."

 

I beg your pardon, Norseman; I wasn't clear. But you've made my point for me.

 

Gorillas started bein' shot by men with guns 150 years ago. They're still bein' shot with guns today. ...

They didn't learn to hide from men with guns.

 

According to stories that I've read, fiction or fact, Bigfoot was shot by men with guns more than 150 years ago and

even up until the early 20th century. ... But not lately?  Instead nowadays, they're more likely to be shot with cameras. 

But I keep reading that Bf, most of them, are camera-wise and avoid those too.

 

My point is that Bigfoot learned what the Gorillas have been unable to learn. This may show that Bigfoot reasons  

and learns from experience.

 

But if Bigfoot can reason-learn-adapt, why doesn't he make tools?

 

That one's easy, assuming his brain is similar to ours but not identical. In us, left & right brain functions are different. To greatly over-simplify, the left brain is analytical; the right brain is intuitive.

 

I suggest that Bigfoot is as intelligent as we are in right brain functions. But he never got around to developing much

left brain function. Or perhaps his left brain developed differently than ours. 

 

He may see us as an unwelcome guest in the woods or even a serious enemy. That didn't motivate him to invent the spear.

He's well able to throw rocks and large chunks of wood.

 

As for sticking a fork in skeptics, I suspect they're a bit too right-brained to get it.

 

(edited by Oonjerah for spacing.)

Edited January 26, 2016 by Oonjerah

[southernyahoo]

There is no Bigfoot science. There is objective evidence, science, and the repeating result therein. False belief brings false negatives and or positives.

[Bodhi]

Most cannot produce the animal because that simply is not their intentions, and they are not geared up for that. Thats assuming of course that there is an animal out there to produce at all.

The science we have tried to employ is crunching sighting data to up our odds in getting ahead of the creature (when, where, elevation, etc) Along with identifying seasonal plants such as skunk cabbage and huckleberries and laying in wait. I've tried organizing bigger expeditions in the past but its very tough. Most of our stuff is single individuals or small groups going out in a attempt to produce one for science.

And I think woo or even human hybrid theories are born out of desperation, because we havent produce one. So they must be X,Y or Z in order to defeat mankind thus far.

I agree and it smacks of the special pleading fallacy, IMO.

[Bodhi]

Quote Norseman, 25 Jan 2016 - 5:51 p.m.

"But your Gorillas comparison has shot you in the foot.

"Because the poor hapless Gorillas are still being slaughtered like cattle 150 years later!

"But a Sasquatch skull would stick a fork in skeptics once and for all."

 

I beg your pardon, Norseman; I wasn't clear. But you've made my point for me.

 

Gorillas started bein' shot by men with guns 150 years ago. They're still bein' shot with guns today. ...

They didn't learn to hide from men with guns.

 

According to stories that I've read, fiction or fact, Bigfoot was shot by men with guns more than 150 years ago and

even up until the early 20th century. ... But not lately?  Instead nowadays, they're more likely to be shot with cameras. 

But I keep reading that Bf, most of them, are camera-wise and avoid those too.

 

My point is that Bigfoot learned what the Gorillas have been unable to learn. This may show that Bigfoot reasons  

and learns from experience.

 

But if Bigfoot can reason-learn-adapt, why doesn't he make tools?

 

That one's easy, assuming his brain is similar to ours but not identical. In us, left & right brain functions are different. To greatly over-simplify, the left brain is analytical; the right brain is intuitive.

 

I suggest that Bigfoot is as intelligent as we are in right brain functions. But he never got around to developing much

left brain function. Or perhaps his left brain developed differently than ours. 

 

He may see us as an unwelcome guest in the woods or even a serious enemy. That didn't motivate him to invent the spear.

He's well able to throw rocks and large chunks of wood.

 

As for sticking a fork in skeptics, I suspect they're a bit too right-brained to get it.

 

(edited by Oonjerah for spacing.)

Just a few things as we seemed to have strayed off the topic of whether the science has stalled.

I believe the whole left brain/right brain thing has been shown to be mostly incorrect (sort of like that "we only use 10% of our brain capacity trope").

Accepting your premise that sasquatches were hunted by man and have thus learned to hide from man; Why then are the majority of reports found civilization-adjacent? Why does sasquatch seem to have a propensity for walking near roads, hiking trails, campgrounds (as per geotherm in this thread). I see not internal logic in sasquatch reports, does it avoid man but not understand what a campsite is, or a road, or vehicles? This inconsistency is yet another reason I feel this is a cultural phenomenon rather than a physical animal.

Gorilla, in the vast majority, have consistent behavior within it's species, as does every other physical animal. Why doesn't sasquatch, if it's flesh and blood. (no woo please. this is a science thread).

[Lake County Bigfooot]

I would have to say yes, we have taken it only so far, now we need the professionals to step in. I know that will offend some, but very few of us have the expertise of say a Bindernagel or a Meldrum. We need field biologists out there doing the ground work, studying habitat, gaining a knowledge of the movements of these creatures. While the amateur researchers have done a great deal in terms of locating creatures, very little in terms of evidence has been brought forth. One point of encouragement is the Olympic Projects find of a likely bedding area. I am glad to see they brought in professional help after the discovery. If we are going to understand these creatures, we need to do it with live specimens being studied in the field. The obvious difficulty is locating them and staying far enough away to observe them without them being aware, which I think will take some ingenuity particular to this matter, someone may need to invent something in order to get it done, which is why I held out hope for the Falcon Project. Simply because it may take something outside of the box to solve the puzzle of field observation, they simply do not lend themselves to observation. If that obstacle is to be overcome, then we need scientific minds to come together to determine what means might prevail. Military satellites can observe very small spaces from outside the earths atmosphere. Well you see what I mean, if that type of technology could be brought to the subject, well I think we could move ahead. Not that satellite observation is an answer, only that technology could help solve the dilemma we find ourselves in.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Guest Crowlogic]

^ What are professionals going to do that's anything different from the current crop of looking for it?  All anyone has to do is ask Dr's B&M where to look and why to look there and you will have the professional expertise.  There isn't 3000 professional bigfoot scientists.  There are what half dozen?  Anyone that has been in the  field  for years such as NAWAC are professionals by now.  What can an academic do that a seasoned field person can't.  Most likely less.  There is a different elephant in the room that prevents bigfoot discovery and it isn't lack of PHD's in the field.