Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

[norseman]

My point Norseman was that some people here to do accept anything from any source. I should have used the word "accept" instead of "believe." They even pick and choose the scientists that they choose to accept. Meldrum bad, Sykes good.

Well ya dont use the term belief.....

If I was to argue on your behalf I would say that reports we have crunched have shown seasonality to them. Thats hard data, albeit we are not scientists.

But if reports are just liars making up stories, then the data should look like a random shotgun blast on a wall. But we are only looking at the Pac NW.....but as of yet we dont see this. And the work is ongoing.

[georgerm]

This thread has bigfoot science in the title, yet people talk of old newspaper clippings and anecdotes still. 

 

 

Can't agree with the logic here ................. ...  Let's not derail the thread. We have bigger issues to discuss.

 

Observations are a huge part of the scientific method. Reporting observations is critical so other scientist can progress. Reporting can be done in journals or newspapers. Part of science is checking credentials of those reporting. PHD or 1850 sheriff.

 

Science is a process such as building a house. Questions are asked. It has a start and an end when the truth is found. The foundation is dirty work done by those observing, getting sick, or taken by a tornado. A question is asked and predictions are made. Next come the trained scientist that talk to those observing, take blood samples of the sick, or measure tornado speeds. Science can start small such as a word of mouth report, followed by an expedition that seeks the truth and captures a rare animal. The start and the end are all part of the scientific method imho.  

 

Seek the truth and the truth will set us free.

 

Finally truth is found and we are safe again.

Edited February 5, 2016 by georgerm

[SWWASAS]

This thread has bigfoot science in the title, yet people talk of old newspaper clippings and anecdotes still.

And the typical assertions of "superman of the forest" stuff, superior vision, hearing, sense of smell, ripping any poor human killer of bigfoot asunder, etc. Can I get a "4-footed locomotion" claim?

As far as I am concerned newspaper clippings are historical documents. Something does not have to be in a bound book to be historical. If anything the process of writing a book means a lot of word smith and introduces fabrication. Newspaper reports 100 years ago were pretty much documentation of what was observed at the time. Only in modern times do reporters introduce some sort of change the world political agenda and are frequently caught fabricating details.

You will be in for a rude awakening.

 

http://www.readex.com/readex-report/tallest-tall-tales-using-historical-newspapers-unearth-secrets-cardiff-giants-success

 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3450700241/tall-tales.html

So what do you believe then? We cannot trust witness reports, newspapers, books, videos, etc etc. Science itself has foisted some of the largest fables on humanity. Being skeptic is an easy job. You don't believe anything. What a sad way to live your life.

The age of the anecdote has no relationship to its truthfulness.

I am sure you can read old newspapers from Salem. Does that mean witches really existed then, or people just thought they did?

I have met witches or people that claim to be them. I am sure they think witches exist. The only way you can say is that witches do not exist is to deny what the witches themselves think they are. Of course denial seems to be a big part of the skeptic methodology. But what is really going on here is we have people who think they know everything there is to know. There is a word for that, delusion.

Objective truth is not about trust. Testing evidence using scientific methods has nothing to do with trust. If something cannot be tested to determine its truth (falsifiability) then it has no place in a conversation claiming to adhere to scientific principles. You cannot falsify an anecdote. Even if that anecdote is found in a century old newspaper.

You must have missed it. The administrators a few months ago pointed out this is not a science forum. This is a forum dedicated to a discussion about bigfoot. That allows anecdotal evidence, even newspaper reports. I really get tired of the same old diatribe: because some newspaper reporters were fooled, all have been, because some footprints have been hoaxed, all have, because some pictures are faked, they all are, because some witness do not know the difference between a bear and a bigfoot, none of them do. The fallacy of such logic is profound and obvious.

Edited February 5, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[dmaker]

 

This thread has bigfoot science in the title, yet people talk of old newspaper clippings and anecdotes still. 

 

 

Can't agree with the logic here ................. ...  Let's not derail the thread. We have bigger issues to discuss. Observations are a huge part of scientific method. Reporting observations is critical so other scientist can progress. Reporting can be done in journals or newspapers. Part of science is checking credentials of those reporting. PHD or 1850 sheriff.

 

How is this a derail? The topic is bigfoot science. It should be defined properly. The value of anecdotes is highly overrated in this subject. In a topic about "bigfoot science", I am going to point that out. Sorry if you don't like it or agree.

 

You must have missed it. The administrators a few months ago pointed out this is not a science forum. This is a forum dedicated to a discussion about bigfoot. That allows anecdotal evidence, even newspaper reports. I really get tired of the same old diatribe: because some newspaper reporters were fooled, all have been, because some footprints have been hoaxed, all have, because some pictures are faked, they all are, because some witness do not know the difference between a bear and a bigfoot, none of them do. The fallacy of such logic is profound and obvious.

 

Randy, you are misrepresenting my position with your parade of strawmen. I have never said because someone was fooled, then all were fooled. My position on anecdotes is very simple: they cannot be tested for truth using the scientific method. Therefore they have extremely limited value. Some here equate them almost with proof, which is a very big mistake and a great way to not be taken seriously by people doing proper science. 

 

This thread is about bigfoot science,so I don't think my comments are out of line. 

[ShadowBorn]

Dmaker

I have always liked what You have to say, in other words I like your input just as much as anyone one else here. I feel though that so far I have accomplish what is set forth by what is meant by the scientific method . By Definition scientific method states : 

 

The scientific method is an ongoing process, which usually begins with observations about the natural world. Human beings are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear and often develop ideas (hypotheses) about why things are the way they are.

 

Followed by this chart:

 

 

 

So in a way I feel that I have full filled my part in this method as well as other have who have posted on this forum.  It is the minds of science who have stalled and refuse to go further knowing that the evidence we have now shows that there is a living entity abroad. It is them who refuse to accept and refuse and fund people like Dr.Meldrum, Dr. Berdangle, and other doctors who want to pursue this avenue of exploration. Since this is what science is all about ,exploring what we do not know and asking our selves why it is there and how. History is there so that we can learn from and not to be tossed away , other wise a Dictator would be running our world.

 

Why would people lie of a creature back in the 1700 - 1900's and why would they about shooting it if they were not scared of it. Those three football players it would not take them three minutes but seconds to tear them apart. It would be like an attack of a large cat where you would not see from where it came from.

 

When I seen that rock that was on that sitting log I knew that it had my name on it. If it would have heard my pull my slide on my gun I think that it would have beat me with the rock. One of the people who came up there seen that it was crouch down as it walked around the fire ring. He thought that it was one of us , but we were asleep in the camper. So it did have an ape feature as to the way it walked into camp. But it does have a distinct fear of guns or maybe I should a respect for them.  

[georgerm]

Randy, you are misrepresenting my position with your parade of strawmen. I have never said because someone was fooled, then all were fooled. My position on anecdotes is very simple: they cannot be tested for truth using the scientific method.

 

The anecdote is not being tested. No one is trying to prove Joe Blows sighting of bigfoot climbing trees was true. The anecdote sparked a whole new question to prove such as, "Do bigfoots climb trees."  Joe Blow may be reliable, and his report started the science process.  

 

The anecdote is not the focus of the hypothesis. The anecdote is the beginning of the scientific method. If a scientist reads one article about Joe Blow seeing bigfoots living in caves, no one wants to test his observations. It may spark a greater question or hypothesis such as, "Do bigfoots live in Caves". 

 

They (anecdotes) cannot be tested for truth using the scientific method which is not the goal here.

[dmaker]

Yes, but very often anecdotes are presented here as evidence of something. For example, bigfoots climbing trees or tossing feral hogs. People will state these things are facts simply because of an anecdote. And, again, it has nothing to do with trust. You simply cannot ascertain the truth of an anecdote, so it should not be presented as evidence of something, particularly when discussing scientific methods. A court of law is a different matter. 

[BigTreeWalker]

Speaking of stalled science here. In the furtherance of science. I had a request for you georgerm up thread. Just wondering if you noticed it?

[norseman]

BTW,

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/53158-elk-carcasses-and-weathered-body-parts/

[BigTreeWalker]

Thanks Norse. Sorry George, I didn't see that.

[ShadowBorn]

Yes, but very often anecdotes are presented here as evidence of something. For example, bigfoots climbing trees or tossing feral hogs. People will state these things are facts simply because of an anecdote. And, again, it has nothing to do with trust. You simply cannot ascertain the truth of an anecdote, so it should not be presented as evidence of something, particularly when discussing scientific methods. A court of law is a different matter. 

 But how I see it is that thse anecdotes have evidence that back them up in our present time. Evidence in the form of Footprints and that means that not all foot prints can be hoaxed and that is what science is not willing to except. The same goes with DNA  and that means once it is able to except it by science then shall science move forward with further research. Look at how far that you have come and you have returned. But you are opening to the possibilities. Thats science ! Your willing ness to be open. This is science and how it should be IMO ( hard core skeptical) question everything until proven wrong. Science does not want to find the answers , so it attacks it. But I am just an amateur who has no buissness in the woods right ! Never seen them right ! So far I have held up with the evidence thats on your servers. (Server) Science is suppose to proggress not stop.

[Yuchi1]

There's the saying that if you want to truly learn something, you have to get your hands dirty at it.

 

While they have oft been referred to as the "Four Horsemen" of Sasquatchery, Green, Byrne, Krantz & Dahindren have one thing in common....none ever had a personal encounter with the actual subject of their efforts.

 

Green, in particular published comments that (IMO) were obscene, brutish and rendered (to most readers) the notion, perhaps we aren't as "developed" as often giving ourselves credit therefore with the atrocious aspect being these utterances were predominately predicated upon gross ignorance of the subject. Really?

 

IMO, then as now with the overwhelming majority in the current crop of proponents, it remains the fatal flaw endemic in this endeavor.

 

How can things be stalled out when they really never got started in the first place?

 

Perhaps, a total reassessment of where things have been, where they currently are and more importantly, where they're headed is requisite before any real progress is truly attainable?

 

Otherwise, IMO, the SNAFU of Sasquatchery will continue to be SS/DD.

 

edit: grammatical

Edited February 6, 2016 by Yuchi1

[georgerm]

There's the saying that if you want to truly learn something, you have to get your hands dirty at it.

 

While they have oft been referred to as the "Four Horsemen" of Sasquatchery, Green, Byrne, Krantz & Dahindren have one thing in common....none ever had a personal encounter with the actual subject of their efforts.

 

Green, in particular published comments that (IMO) were obscene, brutish and rendered (to most readers) the notion, perhaps we aren't as "developed" as often giving ourselves credit therefore with the atrocious aspect being these utterances were predominately predicated upon gross ignorance of the subject. Really?

 

IMO, then as now with the overwhelming majority in the current crop of proponents, it remains the fatal flaw endemic in this endeavor.

 

How can things be stalled out when they really never got started in the first place?

 

Perhaps, a total reassessment of where things have been, where they currently are and more importantly, where they're headed is requisite before any real progress is truly attainable?

 

Otherwise, IMO, the SNAFU of Sasquatchery will continue to be SS/DD.

 

edit: grammatical

 

 

What does the phrase in blue say when translated?

 

How can you say bigfoot science never got started in the first place? This make no sense so please explain. Most responding to this thread have agreed bigfoot science has been well on its way for years. The science appears to be stalled because proof of its existence seems to be lacking. 

 

SS/DD  ???

[Yuchi1]

Green basically stated they shot be shot like varmits and were "fit" only to be either laboratory experiment subjects or zoo inhabitants, et. al. and basically relegated them to status of a nuisance entity all the while totally ignorant of what these entities may well be due to his own lack of practical field encounter(s). That, IMO, is such heinous behavior that it warrants total classification as irrelevant to most anything said individual ever published or uttered.

 

When I think of science, it means any standard mainstream scientist effort with coordinated work via the scientific method.  Can you point us to any instances of such?

 

SS/DD, same S__t, different day.

[dmaker]

 

Yes, but very often anecdotes are presented here as evidence of something. For example, bigfoots climbing trees or tossing feral hogs. People will state these things are facts simply because of an anecdote. And, again, it has nothing to do with trust. You simply cannot ascertain the truth of an anecdote, so it should not be presented as evidence of something, particularly when discussing scientific methods. A court of law is a different matter. 

 But how I see it is that thse anecdotes have evidence that back them up in our present time. Evidence in the form of Footprints and that means that not all foot prints can be hoaxed and that is what science is not willing to except. The same goes with DNA  and that means once it is able to except it by science then shall science move forward with further research. Look at how far that you have come and you have returned. But you are opening to the possibilities. Thats science ! Your willing ness to be open. This is science and how it should be IMO ( hard core skeptical) question everything until proven wrong. Science does not want to find the answers , so it attacks it. But I am just an amateur who has no buissness in the woods right ! Never seen them right ! So far I have held up with the evidence thats on your servers. (Server) Science is suppose to proggress not stop.

 

Of course all footprints could be hoaxed. You are still leaving out misidentification, however.  Hoaxing bigfoot tracks has been demonstrated to be a fairly trivial thing to do. 

 

I do not know what you mean by " how far" I have come. I am open to the possibility of anything that can be demonstrated with evidence. That this precludes bigfoot has nothing to do with the openness of my mind. If there was compelling evidence for bigfoot, then I would be more inclined to consider bigfoot to actually exist.