Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

[Yuchi1]

Even Hustlers, Hoaxers and Hairy Men have their day!

[hiflier]

Indeed they do.

[georgerm]

BF Science has not so much stalled, but it continues to buck a quintessential human need to find comfort in the evidence not found, to help discount evidence that has been found.  That, and the overarching need to identify the narrative and reach a conclusion. We see it a lot here, and you know it is coming when the statement begins with something like, "Over 50 years of BF research and what has it shown...?"  Well, the person typing things of that kind most certainly has no interest in looking closely at what has been shown to date. That person wants a tidy narrative, and has extreme discomfort when not given one on the timetable they've created for others to meet.  (This, I should add, is what drives those on the other side of the question to propose ever more outlandish explanations of what BF is, and what it is capable of)

 

In one sense, science thrives on the need to create a narrative explanation of observed phenomena, of course. But science is advanced (or not) by those practicing science, who also happen to be human. A human timeline is often completely unsuited to scientific exploration of this kind, where the narrative is elusive and the prospect of "Ah-HA!" resolution is always in doubt.  When an attempt is made, and it is perceived as a failure because it doesn't supply the Ah-HA! resolution, the human mind tends to reach for another narrative, which is typically, "This is all a sham, folklore and a myth."

 

I've long said, the stomach for his kind of search is best found in the ability to keep an open question suspended for as long as it takes, even for a time outside of yours on earth, and the ability to resist grasping at a convenient narrative...one you'll be seduced by and one you have to sandbag against. You have to be able to constantly remind yourself that you don't know, and be o.k. with that. Until you are dead, if that is how long it takes.

 

Interesting post WSA. This statement seems especially true in the case of bigfoot. 

 

Sham, folklore, and myth are all part of the search. Folklore and myth inspires some to search since seeking the truth is powerful. Seek the truth and the truth will set you free is a well known quote. Some are driven by the need to know while others act out the sham role. Others use the search for profit that may warp the scientific method. If someone spends lots of time researching BF, then some profits can be justified.

 

Along the way of the search, we have shams that take advantage those on the quest for the truth. This is just part of the process.

 

Quest for the truth should fall within the Scientific Method framework. From here scientific papers are created that are intended for other bigfoot researchers to read. This forum is a casual form of creating science papers. Your information can be extended into a paper. Individual members could and should put their knowledge into the form of a 'peer review' paper.  Hopefully. it will get in the hands of university biologist.

 

Can someone post a simple peer review paper on any mammal? We need to get some of these people onto the search for BF.

 

Is bigfoot tainted with the paranormal scary stuff and night camp violence, so most won't and shouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole as the Phaige warns? Searching for the Woodland Caribou is much less threatening.

 

 Below is a list of endangered mammals for the Pacific Northwest. Use this URL for your area.   http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/ad-hoc-species-report-input

Imagine the frustrating search for these mammals that some PHDs are doing as we talk. Someone is looking for the Columbia Basin Pygmy Rabbit. 

 

Brachylagus idahoensis Columbia Basin Pygmy Rabbit Emballonura semicaudata rotensis Pacific sheath-tailed Bat Lasiurus cinereus semotus Hawaiian hoary bat Odocoileus virginianus leucurus Columbian white-tailed deer Pteropus tokudae Little Mariana fruit Bat Rangifer tarandus caribou Woodland caribou

 

 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/ad-hoc-species-report-input

Edited May 3, 2016 by georgerm

[WSA]

I think so Geogerm, yes. One of the universal truths about humans is: Criticisms of others will tend to supersede and be secondary to self-criticism. If you look for something and fail, the go-to is you've been thwarted by some force, plan or circumstances outside your own control. This is often employed on the side of proponents, sorry to say. How many "MIB" explanations do we see to explain why evidence isn't available to us?  We have no way of knowing how many of those might actually be true, but they forever will sound like "special pleading" to those less convinced.

 

So you have this (presumed) mammal that some are searching for, but for which none have yet gotten us to that "Ah-HA!" moment. They/we fail, and fail again. At least that is the standard perception by the greater population, and especially of the more vocal skeptics. They feel then you are vulnerable to the argument, "Of course you failed, because it doesn't exist." And on most any other subject but this one they'd be absolutely justified in making this observation.  So, is BF research "special" in this regard? Yes, it is. Just the way it is. As DWA will remind us: There is more evidence for this animal than any other animal not yet confirmed by science. And to which I would add, "By a huge margin."   

 

I am drawn to this question by virtue of this fact alone. You can go on all day about leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, et al,  and claim them to be of a kin with BF, but that would be demonstrably false.

 

I'm sure the pygmy rabbit is a beast worthy of attention, and no less important to the workings of the creator than I am, but I am intrigued far less by it. No, the BF question is a special case, and I think it is this fact that intrigues so many of us here.

 

I'll also hazard this prediction: If searching for a pygmy rabbit is your calling in life, it is highly doubtful you will be intrigued by the search for BF, or you would be doing it already with no prompting from us.         

Edited May 3, 2016 by WSA

[SWWASAS]

I was just reading through this thread and the pygmy rabbit comment is appropriate.    We have graduate students devoting their life and staking their careers on pygmy rabbits or some rare shrew in Africa.      Meanwhile we have something stomping around the woods of North American whose massive footstep sounds are second only to what one could have heard 65 million years ago from a bipedal dinosaur.     All we need to do is get the right scientist or group of scientists to the right place at the right time to have that experience.    Somehow a pygmy rabbit will never be the same for them.    I will never forget the sound of that BF moving through the woods directly towards me.    Good heavens, I have been supersonic dozens of times but that pales in comparison to a BF encounter.    We need to share that BF encounter experience with more scientists.      They will not be able to ignore that.     That said, I don't know how to do that other than some Jane Goodall type situation where you can take people into an active area.    Maybe someone here can get that going someplace.    It would be difficult but is not impossible.   

[BigTreeWalker]

At the Anthropology conference we presented at in March; there were several grad students that were interested enough in our presentation to ask questions later. Their work was with bones and determining NA diets in the past. It's a slow process getting any of academia interested. But it's the young, up and coming, possible PhDs, that might make a difference. As WSA has said, it takes time. It might be the next generation that could get the job done.

[SWWASAS]

I think in most cases they need to have an encounter to trash their career plans and go to what is considered the fringe of BF research.    I think it takes a significant event for that to happen with some pragmatic scientist.    I do not blame them at all for that.   You do the best you can with what you know.  

[WSA]

I'm glad to know the young and ambitious are taking up the challenge BigTreeWalker.  We are in a disruptive time on many fronts, and maybe the field of BF studies is ripe for one of its own, you know?  As a father of two, I can tell you that when you present the evidence to a young mind with no predisposition to have an opinion one way or the other, the most likely reaction is: Why not? For the sake of scientific progress, that is exactly the narrative you want them to entertain. "Why not" is one of the most elegant and beautiful expressions of a fully functioning mind. It doesn't commit the speaker to be judged right or wrong. It suspends judgment and invites others in to participate and help you to know what is the truth. Every thing created in human history...from the sewing needle to the hadron collider... began with that simple question.  

[georgerm]

At the Anthropology conference we presented at in March; there were several grad students that were interested enough in our presentation to ask questions later. Their work was with bones and determining NA diets in the past. It's a slow process getting any of academia interested. But it's the young, up and coming, possible PhDs, that might make a difference. As WSA has said, it takes time. It might be the next generation that could get the job done.

 

BigTree, can you tell us more about the content, the audience size, and method of presentation. Did the audience ask questions?

[BigTreeWalker]

The content I have shared here on the forums. As I have said, it is of interest to forensic anthropologists. We had fifteen minutes to present an abbreviated version of our research. I was available to share the bones we have with those interested at the end of the presentation and to answer questions. There were about 30 people in the room. Since four presentations were going on simultaneously in other rooms, that wasn't a bad turnout. Interest can be garnered little by little. We will continue to move ahead with our research. Maybe we can make a difference before that body comes in. Remember, submitting papers for publication does not happen overnight. Being able to present at this conference is a step in that direction.

[Guest DWA]

People may tend to underrate the attention you're getting.  In this field, it's seismic.  One takes what one can get; to me, even more important is knowing what one knows.

[Guest DWA]

I think so Geogerm, yes. One of the universal truths about humans is: Criticisms of others will tend to supersede and be secondary to self-criticism. If you look for something and fail, the go-to is you've been thwarted by some force, plan or circumstances outside your own control. This is often employed on the side of proponents, sorry to say. How many "MIB" explanations do we see to explain why evidence isn't available to us?  We have no way of knowing how many of those might actually be true, but they forever will sound like "special pleading" to those less convinced.

 

There is just no reason, some of us see it, to entertain any explanation other than:  insufficient interest in the pursuit to confirm, for loads of totally explainable human reasons.  I'd even say the Government knows...and just has more important things on its plate (many more, make that) than opening this particular vat of worms. I, in fact, utterly endorse that approach there, Government.

 

So you have this (presumed) mammal that some are searching for, but for which none have yet gotten us to that "Ah-HA!" moment. They/we fail, and fail again. At least that is the standard perception by the greater population, and especially of the more vocal skeptics. They feel then you are vulnerable to the argument, "Of course you failed, because it doesn't exist." And on most any other subject but this one they'd be absolutely justified in making this observation.  So, is BF research "special" in this regard? Yes, it is. Just the way it is. As DWA will remind us: There is more evidence for this animal than any other animal not yet confirmed by science. And to which I would add, "By a huge margin."   

 

I even go further than that:  Anything with this pattern and volume of evidence has been proven.  Except this.  That ain't natchal.  And sure enough, it ain't.  It's us, our going against natchal being what we natchally are like.  We have never seen anything, anything close to anything like this...that isn't what it appears to be.  This is an undocumented primate.  Not only the science but the entire history of science screams it, from the rooftops.

 

I am drawn to this question by virtue of this fact alone. You can go on all day about leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, et al,  and claim them to be of a kin with BF, but that would be demonstrably false.

 

It's intellectual bankruptcy to dispute ^^^this.  Not to mention ignant.

 

I'm sure the pygmy rabbit is a beast worthy of attention, and no less important to the workings of the creator than I am, but I am intrigued far less by it. No, the BF question is a special case, and I think it is this fact that intrigues so many of us here.

 

I'll also hazard this prediction: If searching for a pygmy rabbit is your calling in life, it is highly doubtful you will be intrigued by the search for BF, or you would be doing it already with no prompting from us.         

 

I think that this is actually behind my own particular stab at a Theory of Relativity Discovery:  scientists, for the most part, are not.  They are techies, well qualified in a tiny fragment of scientific endeavor, but not more qualified than any other regular Joe to address anything outside their specialty.  The mainstream opinions on sasquatch and yeti could not be a clearer illustration.  One is a scientist if one thinks carefully, about everything, and discards no possibility that evidence does not make reasonably safe to discard.

 

For now.

 

 

I'm glad to know the young and ambitious are taking up the challenge BigTreeWalker.  We are in a disruptive time on many fronts, and maybe the field of BF studies is ripe for one of its own, you know?  As a father of two, I can tell you that when you present the evidence to a young mind with no predisposition to have an opinion one way or the other, the most likely reaction is: Why not? For the sake of scientific progress, that is exactly the narrative you want them to entertain. "Why not" is one of the most elegant and beautiful expressions of a fully functioning mind. It doesn't commit the speaker to be judged right or wrong. It suspends judgment and invites others in to participate and help you to know what is the truth. Every thing created in human history...from the sewing needle to the hadron collider... began with that simple question.  

Called "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind."  If one does not have it...one is not a scientist, and that is all.

Edited May 4, 2016 by DWA

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

 

I think so Geogerm, yes. One of the universal truths about humans is: Criticisms of others will tend to supersede and be secondary to self-criticism. If you look for something and fail, the go-to is you've been thwarted by some force, plan or circumstances outside your own control. This is often employed on the side of proponents, sorry to say. How many "MIB" explanations do we see to explain why evidence isn't available to us?  We have no way of knowing how many of those might actually be true, but they forever will sound like "special pleading" to those less convinced.

 

There is just no reason, some of us see it, to entertain any explanation other than:  insufficient interest in the pursuit to confirm, for loads of totally explainable human reasons.  I'd even say the Government knows...and just has more important things on its plate (many more, make that) than opening this particular vat of worms. I, in fact, utterly endorse that approach there, Government.

 

So you have this (presumed) mammal that some are searching for, but for which none have yet gotten us to that "Ah-HA!" moment. They/we fail, and fail again. At least that is the standard perception by the greater population, and especially of the more vocal skeptics. They feel then you are vulnerable to the argument, "Of course you failed, because it doesn't exist." And on most any other subject but this one they'd be absolutely justified in making this observation.  So, is BF research "special" in this regard? Yes, it is. Just the way it is. As DWA will remind us: There is more evidence for this animal than any other animal not yet confirmed by science. And to which I would add, "By a huge margin."   

 

I even go further than that:  Anything with this pattern and volume of evidence has been proven.  Except this.  That ain't natchal.  And sure enough, it ain't.  It's us, our going against natchal being what we natchally are like.  We have never seen anything, anything close to anything like this...that isn't what it appears to be.  This is an undocumented primate.  Not only the science but the entire history of science screams it, from the rooftops.

 

I am drawn to this question by virtue of this fact alone. You can go on all day about leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, et al,  and claim them to be of a kin with BF, but that would be demonstrably false.

 

It's intellectual bankruptcy to dispute ^^^this.  Not to mention ignant.

 

I'm sure the pygmy rabbit is a beast worthy of attention, and no less important to the workings of the creator than I am, but I am intrigued far less by it. No, the BF question is a special case, and I think it is this fact that intrigues so many of us here.

 

I'll also hazard this prediction: If searching for a pygmy rabbit is your calling in life, it is highly doubtful you will be intrigued by the search for BF, or you would be doing it already with no prompting from us.         

 

I think that this is actually behind my own particular stab at a Theory of Relativity Discovery:  scientists, for the most part, are not.  They are techies, well qualified in a tiny fragment of scientific endeavor, but not more qualified than any other regular Joe to address anything outside their specialty.  The mainstream opinions on sasquatch and yeti could not be a clearer illustration.  One is a scientist if one thinks carefully, about everything, and discards no possibility that evidence does not make reasonably safe to discard.

 

For now.

 

 

I'm glad to know the young and ambitious are taking up the challenge BigTreeWalker.  We are in a disruptive time on many fronts, and maybe the field of BF studies is ripe for one of its own, you know?  As a father of two, I can tell you that when you present the evidence to a young mind with no predisposition to have an opinion one way or the other, the most likely reaction is: Why not? For the sake of scientific progress, that is exactly the narrative you want them to entertain. "Why not" is one of the most elegant and beautiful expressions of a fully functioning mind. It doesn't commit the speaker to be judged right or wrong. It suspends judgment and invites others in to participate and help you to know what is the truth. Every thing created in human history...from the sewing needle to the hadron collider... began with that simple question.  

Called "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind."  If one does not have it...one is not a scientist, and that is all.

 

Zen mind is the same as God consciousness.

So, in theory, we all have it.

[BigTreeWalker]

Call it what you want. I call it curiosity and the search for knowledge.

[Guest Crowlogic]

In the event bigfoot gets proven and embraced by science I imagine it'll be sort of like Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story.  "You mean all that training at the academy was for nothing?"