Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

[Guest DWA]

 

 

Yes, but very often anecdotes are presented here as evidence of something.

 

Because it is, for people who first have read them; second have thought about them; and third understand how this science thing works.

 

For example, bigfoots climbing trees or tossing feral hogs. People will state these things are facts simply because of an anecdote.

 

Not serious people.  Unless they, you know, actually saw it.

 

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.

 

This is how one knows that someone hasn't looked at the evidence nor thought about it.  One wonders how many times this needs to be gone over, class.

 

A court of law is a different matter. 

 

No it isn't.  A court of law is science, in fact far more science-y than a lot of science (for example, ignant "scientists" pronouncing on evidence of which they have no knowledge.

 

 

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. 

 

Yes, and all those are in the "discard" pile.  And should not be confused with those that the field's preeminent experts have pronounced all but impossible to fake. (And the only reason the "all but" is even in the sentence is, you know, bigfoot.)

 

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.

 

Great!  Then get cracking.  Some of us have beaten you by, um, decades.

[dmaker]

The "all but" is in the sentence because no one can produce an actual bigfoot. It's one thing to say these tracks came from an unclassified species, but at some point you have to prove that species actually exists if you want to be taken seriously.

[norseman]

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.

Ive never heard John Green say anything about shooting them like varmints....he does advocate collecting a type specimen to prove their existence. Big difference.....but lets not allow any FACTS to get in the way of your hate filled diatribe.

[georgerm]

 

 

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. 

 

 

In order to discuss the science of bigfoot and its prints, existing viewpoints of qualified scientist needs to be studied. These individuals are much harder to fool with fake prints.

 

The video posted below is about 10 minutes and it's interesting.  have fun with it.

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJqCsPccRpk

[dmaker]

We have a resident self proclaimed scientist who was fooled with an obvious April Fools joke last year. Do self proclaimed scientists count, or only qualified, professional ones? Meldrum has also been fooled on more than one occasion. Remember Snow walker?

 

Youtube videos do not impress me. A peer reviewed journal article in a respected and recognized journal would be a good start. Monster shows on TV are not going to cut it, sorry. Even if the person talking is a qualified scientist, I want to see the findings in a different arena than sensationalist TV.   If their findings are valid, then peer review will demonstrate and validate the results. That is where they should be shared, not on silly TV shows.  

 

When you don't have the goods, you go on TV and talk about it. When you do have the goods, you publish in journals before you go on TV and talk about it. Same goes for publishing a book. Anyone can publish a book about anything. It would be better form to have your findings published in a peer reviewed journal before publishing a book about it. Yes, I am looking at you, Legend Meets Science.  Otherwise, you're just sharing your opinion--as educated as it may be.  When it comes to subjects like this, with a dearth of real evidence, you should learn to be cautious of mere opinions, especially when they are held by a tiny minority.

Edited February 7, 2016 by dmaker

[ShadowBorn]

We have a resident self proclaimed scientist who was fooled with an obvious April Fools joke last year. Do self proclaimed scientists count, or only qualified, professional ones? Meldrum has also been fooled on more than one occasion. Remember Snow walker?

 

Youtube videos do not impress me. A peer reviewed journal article in a respected and recognized journal would be a good start. Monster shows on TV are not going to cut it, sorry. Even if the person talking is a qualified scientist, I want to see the findings in a different arena than sensationalist TV.   If their findings are valid, then peer review will demonstrate and validate the results. That is where they should be shared, not on silly TV shows.  

 

When you don't have the goods, you go on TV and talk about it. When you do have the goods, you publish in journals before you go on TV and talk about it. Same goes for publishing a book. Anyone can publish a book about anything. It would be better form to have your findings published in a peer reviewed journal before publishing a book about it. Yes, I am looking at you, Legend Meets Science.  Otherwise, you're just sharing your opinion--as educated as it may be.  When it comes to subjects like this, with a dearth of real evidence, you should learn to be cautious of mere opinions, especially when they are held by a tiny minority.

Dmaker

Now I agree with you, it should not be up to T.V. shows to prove this creatures existence. It should be science that proves this amongst it's peers and placed in a respectable journal. This way it may be debated so that a plan may be made for action. Instead it has turned out to be a ratings fiasco with how much ratings we can make with this show. This is not science, it is just entertainment and making the masses see how silly this is. They are taking away a foundation of exploration of what we do not understand from science. So yes I  agree totally about T.V.

 

Meldrum has also been fooled on more than one occasion. Remember Snow walker?

 

  

But Dr. Meldrum has learned from it and I would bet now knows the difference between the real ones and the hoaxed ones. It is his job in a way to learn the difference. If I took casting of any of the prints that I have found I would trust him. It is when you get to a point that you can no longer deny they exist that you are forced to except them. I Believe that we have actually hit this point where all sides are now reached to that single point but are un willing to go further. There is a name for this in science ,but I cannot remember what it is called when all leads or sides have reached a single impact.

 

On most of the prints that I have found I had to reach down and feel the toes and heel with my fingers in the hard leafy ground condition. I never used my gloves and I would take them off so that I could feel the print better in the ground. So it does make one wonder if some of those casting with the finger prints on them might have been with the investigators feeling the print with their hand. IMO

[georgerm]

We have a resident self proclaimed scientist who was fooled with an obvious April Fools joke last year. Do self proclaimed scientists count, or only qualified, professional ones? Meldrum has also been fooled on more than one occasion. Remember Snow walker?

 

Youtube videos do not impress me. A peer reviewed journal article in a respected and recognized journal would be a good start. Monster shows on TV are not going to cut it, sorry. Even if the person talking is a qualified scientist, I want to see the findings in a different arena than sensationalist TV.   If their findings are valid, then peer review will demonstrate and validate the results. That is where they should be shared, not on silly TV shows.  

 

When you don't have the goods, you go on TV and talk about it. When you do have the goods, you publish in journals before you go on TV and talk about it. Same goes for publishing a book. Anyone can publish a book about anything. It would be better form to have your findings published in a peer reviewed journal before publishing a book about it. Yes, I am looking at you, Legend Meets Science.  Otherwise, you're just sharing your opinion--as educated as it may be.  When it comes to subjects like this, with a dearth of real evidence, you should learn to be cautious of mere opinions, especially when they are held by a tiny minority.

 

Let's stay on topic so we all can learn something. This is not about you scoring points but for all of us to learn about foot prints. Let’s not try to win debating points by veering off the topic.  The real foot print scientists and their methods of analyzing foot casts were shown on the video.  Being prejudice in regards to good foot print science shown on you tube means that you may not be able to objectively absorb foot print knowledge by truly qualified experts.  It will be a waste of my time and others to discuss this unless we can stay on topic.

 

We are not talking about the Snow Walker video with obscured snow prints but detailed foot print casts taken from hard to fake trackways.  Some casts are fakes and some are real. True experts can tell the difference. Sure peer review papers are needed in a perfect world, but we need to work with what we have. Are you qualified to write a peer review paper on footprints?

 

Is science stalled since what bigfoot information that we have is being cast aside?  How do we uncover foot print fakers that use plastic molds with dermal ridges? Will these fakers retard science or can science expose their schemes?

 

The video below is short and good.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=PJqCsPccRpk

Edited February 7, 2016 by georgerm

[SWWASAS]

I just had a thought.     Given that it is Superbowl Sunday,   maybe we are trying to get the wrong people interested in BF.    Science has no interest,  but you cannot tell me that if BF is at least part human,  the NFL has to be very interested in 9 foot,  900 pound football player.    Part human cannot be a problem because many of the players seem that way already.     I guess one problem being that personal fouls might be ripping an opponent's head off when he says your mother is as ugly as Patty.     Who knows a herd of deer and a few cheerleaders to play with might entice some male BF?  Just wondering.  

Edited February 7, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[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.

Ive never heard John Green say anything about shooting them like varmints....he does advocate collecting a type specimen to prove their existence. Big difference.....but lets not allow any FACTS to get in the way of your hate filled diatribe.

 

 

Read the NAWAC report by Bipto (Taking a Stand With Science) wherein such statements are referenced and check the Monograph log as well.  Is it hate or stating facts?

Edited February 7, 2016 by Yuchi1

[norseman]

They use the term VARMINTS????

Your claim.....go fetch.

[Yuchi1]

^^^ If all you can do is gripe about literary licence, your relevance is showing, sir.

Edited February 9, 2016 by AaronD
bring to compliance

[Oonjerah]

ShadowBorn: "when all leads or sides have reached a single impact."

 

Congruence?

 

SWWSP: "your mother is as ugly as Patty."

 

Patty's not ugly -- eye of the beholder. 

[georgerm]

I just had a thought.     Given that it is Superbowl Sunday,   maybe we are trying to get the wrong people interested in BF.    Science has no interest,  but you cannot tell me that if BF is at least part human,  the NFL has to be very interested in 9 foot,  900 pound football player.    Part human cannot be a problem because many of the players seem that way already.     I guess one problem being that personal fouls might be ripping an opponent's head off when he says your mother is as ugly as Patty.     Who knows a herd of deer and a few cheerleaders to play with might entice some male BF?  Just wondering.  

 

 

Yes, can you imagine a 800 pound BF carrying the ball for a needed gain!

 

DMaker, sometimes I take BF too seriousl,y and sorry if I stepped on your toes. My thoughts are if we don't get BF proved and protected, it may become extinct through out the USA. Canada may be the only place to find them in 50 years.

 

Hey, I may have made a break through with feeding bigfoot and collecting some correlating artifacts. I'll explain the pictures later.

Edited February 8, 2016 by georgerm

[hiflier]

Hello SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT,

 

...when he says your mother is as ugly as Patty...

"Patty" ugly? (See below.....)

 

 

@ Oonjera,

ShadowBorn: "when all leads or sides have reached a single impact."

 

Congruence?

I think the word is "consensus".

SWWSP: "your mother is as ugly as Patty."

 

Patty's not ugly -- eye of the beholder.

Said it before....Patty was a hottie. I think I'm probably the only one that thinks so.....uh....other than her boyfriend perhaps

Edited February 8, 2016 by hiflier

[dmaker]

Don't worry about my toes, georgerm. I wear steel capped shoes whenever I post