Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

[Incorrigible1]

 

And could compel some to fabricate personal stories just to feel a sense of inclusion.

 

Could indeed and likely does.   That, however, does not invalidate the stories those doing the fabricating are trying to fit in with.   100% accuracy separating the two is not needed.   75% would be far more than good enough since it only takes one authentic report to make bigfoot real.   ... you knew that already though, right?

 

MIB

 

Maybe there's only one authentic bf. That would explain the dearth of compelling evidence.

[MIB]

^^^^ Dearth of evidence compelling to YOU.  

 

There's plenty of evidence.  The sheer volume and consistency are sufficient to be compelling to someone doing real science.  That is, in biology, the basis for chi-square, a measure of repeatability.  And, as we've heard over and over here, scientific repeatability is the key to something being real or not.   Compelling indeed ... for a scientist.

 

MIB

Edited June 10, 2016 by MIB

[SWWASAS]

 

 

 

 

Here's a generally useful fact:  The thousands of witnesses who've been in the knowing presence of a Sasquatch? They universally find the confirmation of their experiences by other witnesses to be generally useful. Like others experiencing gravity, they find 100% confirmation from those who've experienced it too.

 

I guess what I'm left with is just an abiding sense some just resent being left out. I would probably feel that way too if I ruled out the probability of everything on earth I had not experienced personally.  Must suck.

I have wondered about that myself.    Certainly some of the most ardent skeptics on the forum are those that have believed at some point but never had the encounter experience.    They seem most bitter.     There are three factors a play relative to having an encounter.    Opportunity is the first.      Someone that never goes into the woods in BF habitat is not likely to have an encounter.   Pure chance is the second.     BF are very rare and seclusive.  Having one blunder into you is very unlikely.    And I think that blunder is what has to happen for someone to have an encounter.   If they know you are there and where you are, you are unlikely to have an encounter because they will avoid it.     Lastly,  and this will be controversial,   if an encounter is not a blunder, and intentional on the part of a BF,   you have to be worthy or at least interesting.       Children,  especially handicapped children,  and women seem to be in this category.    No offense to the ladies, but BF or not,  a young male is likely to be interested in you as a female.     The worthy thing may related to trust or what you are observed doing.     Certainly if you are in the woods shooting every animal in sight,  I don't think a BF is likely to show itself.   Hunters may be given a pass since we think that BF hunts also.     I wonder if some of our life long woodsman have put themselves in this category without knowing it by just shooting squirrels,   and coyotes and other things they do not eat?.       

[Incorrigible1]

^^^^ Dearth of evidence compelling to YOU.  

 

There's plenty of evidence. 

Just as there were compelling vids beside P/B, according to you. Those you mentioned were found wanting. Your definition of "compelling" differs significantly from that accepted by Webster's.

[Incorrigible1]

Oops, "P/G" above.

[ShadowBorn]

 

Just as there were compelling vids beside P/B, according to you. Those you mentioned were found wanting. Your definition of "compelling" differs significantly from that accepted by Webster's.

^

 

Incorrigible1

So what ya trying to say there?

[TritonTr196]

 

 

Just as there were compelling vids beside P/B, according to you. Those you mentioned were found wanting. Your definition of "compelling" differs significantly from that accepted by Webster's.

^

Incorrigible1

So what ya trying to say there?

 

 

He might have better luck than Bobo did.

Edited June 13, 2016 by AaronD
Removed quote of deleted post

[georgerm]

Wow, we derailed big time!  Get the train on the track. We are allowed to have well stated opinions on the forum but 'snarky' or sarcastic ones are foul. The fact that the P/G bigfoot film appears to be fake to someone, this is not the place for this comment or the 'large latex' ................... what evers........................ Wow let's get back to 'has science stalled?'

 

This thread is exceeding my expectations, and I’m thrilled so many have posted.  One goal is to keep this thread on solid scientific footings. Can I take an active hand?  A few pages back the discussion was disappointing since only SWWA, Cryptic, me, and one other had some fair discussions.

If we on the bigfoot forum expect to expand our knowledge of the creature, then read all posts, and the quality of your  posts are paramount.  Facts and proper writing are necessary.  Not too long or too short is a good rule of thumb. Half of the posts don’t meet these objectives …………………… let’s raise the bar. Many times errors are missed when I read my posts ……. Ouch.

 

Below is an example of a post by SWWA that enables us to learn. Can you post an example?  

 

Swwa says, “Lets throw out conventional wisdom and timelines and hypothesize.         Humans have evolved from preexisting species in pretty much the last 5 million years.    The Carboniferous era was 300 million years ago.      We have had major extinction events about every 65 million years going back a long time.     Given that, and a measly 5 million years to evolve humans,   other than the lack of fossil evidence, who is to say that humans could not have evolved and been destroyed several times in hundreds of millions of years?..................................... and more.â€

 

Happy posting move the science needle ……………………..

Edited June 12, 2016 by georgerm

[MIB]

Harvey Pratt's forensic sketches from witness testimony, and again with hair removed, right?

 

Despite my personal "belief" they are most likely very near relatives of ours, I'm not comfortable blindly jumping on the bandwagon.  The question ... which is valid science ... is how much of that is witness input and how much is artist bias, from standpoint of a) personal belief and human is what he knows how to draw?   In other words, COULD Harvey draw a giraffe or would he produce a really tall person with a skinny neck?

 

Something we all need to think about, not scoffing, not snark, but seriously, how do we go about vetting our "experts"?    What does our willingess to accept the testimony of one expert but not another show about or own biases?  

 

MIB

[Guest DWA]

I vet my 'experts' on whether they are applying scientific method.

 

The standard in this field, unfortunately, seems to be to vet them on what one badly wants to believe, and both skeptics and proponents tend to be guilty.

[hiflier]

I vetted a well known organizer of a well known Bigfoot conference in a thread a couple of months back. The number of comments I received was......wait for it.....ZERO. I brought up that a Sasquatch type that might be considered and discussed as more likely to be predators could be the ones with reported to have canines. Number of comments or opinions addressing that?.....wait again.....ZERO. I mentioned what I think is an important aspect of field research- Sasquatch utilizing steep inclines for observation, ambush, and escaping. Commentts returned? Darned near none.

So I don't know what you are really expecting here. This is not to say that I don't respect what you are trying to do on this thread because I do respect you. I'm simply not surprised when things devolve and you shouldn't be either? Connecting such dots like the ones that I have brought up IMO does help in looking at the greater picture when pursuing the subject by adding the small details that come to mind when actually studying the creature's mannerisms as relayed by witnesses.

Some of those ideas might be dependent on season, terrain, abundance of prey, and other criteria but I haven't seen anyone bring up much if anything in the way of breaking down any of those ideas. I've often wondered how far lines of thought get carried out. Whenever something like Sasquatch using slopes gets brought up I see no one saying whether or not they look for that kind of sign in the field or that the concept plays a part at all in their forays into the field.

Even something as simple sounding as using slopes could have a major impact in how we look at the problem of discovery. I don't get it. Maybe you could comment on why there seems to be so little interest in things that I consider relevant and why they get so little consideration- at least publicly?

Edited June 13, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

I vetted a well known organizer of a well known Bigfoot conference in a thread a couple of months back. The number of comments I received was......wait for it.....ZERO. I brought up that a Sasquatch type that might be considered and discussed as more likely to be predators could be the ones with reported to have canines. Number of comments or opinions addressing that?.....wait again.....ZERO. I mentioned what I think is an important aspect of field research- Sasquatch utilizing steep inclines for observation, ambush, and escaping. Commentts returned? Darned near none.

So I don't know what you are really expecting here. This is not to say that I don't respect what you are trying to do on this thread because I do respect you. I'm simply not surprised when things devolve and you shouldn't be either? Connecting such dots like the ones that I have brought up IMO does help in looking at the greater picture when pursuing the subject by adding the small details that come to mind when actually studying the creature's mannerisms as relayed by witnesses.

Some of those ideas might be dependent on season, terrain, abundance of prey, and other criteria but I haven't seen anyone bring up much if anything in the way of breaking down any of those ideas. I've often wondered how far lines of thought get carried out. Whenever something like Sasquatch using slopes gets brought up I see no one saying whether or not they look for that kind of sign in the field or that the concept plays a part at all in their forays into the field.

Even something as simple sounding as using slopes could have a major impact in how we look at the problem of discovery. I don't get it. Maybe you could comment on why there seems to be so little interest in things that I consider relevant and why they get so little consideration- at least publicly?

I have replied to predator canine threads, slope use, etc.

Yes this has been looked into and many similar things.

No, you don't get many responses but when you do.

It is disagreement os be happy that you don't have to argue.

 

Those that argue usually don't have a very good grounding or anything to add but, hey they like arguing.

 

Of course forums like this seem to be built around argument for argument's sake.

 

So what I see is this.

There are two (or three) groups that you are addressing.

1) The first are ill informed but have strong opinions, they don't bother to do their homework but quickly assume you have not done yours (and) they like to argue.

2) Lurkers who don't comment so no way to know what is going on on their minds.

3) Those that know a bit and are knowledgeable on the subject. Since they already know a lot of what you are saying they are trying to see if there is any intelligent life out there where they can learn more. They usually don't comment and get bored easily and have their favorite people to talk with who are also knowledgeable and perhaps not on BFF).

 

The 2 types I found most irritating are those 1) who won't read or learn anything but from the internet (they don't like books or have a low reading comprehension and don't think education or science amount to anything unless mentioned on you rube as supporting a pet theory which is usually not fact based or completely hallucinatory) or you rube and think that constitutes anything. The frequently dismiss things like evolution, or Dr. Meldrum, or science in general as they think that makes them appear more knowledgeable.

even worse 2) regurgitate your ideas as if they discovered them first and then try to argue with you using information they likely got from you. Classic social climber techniques that again they hope makes them seem smart or at least popular.

 

OK, so I'm being totally cynical, but sometimes that is a good thing.

 

The type that I enjoy is the person who has learned interesting facts and mastered a field of knowledge and is sharing that and synthesizing new knowledge that was previously unavailable to me.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[SWWASAS]

Vetting experts?    One of the biggest problem with BF research is that we have too many "experts".     Some of the biggest names in the field have never seen a BF but have no restraints about speaking with authority on the subject.  .    We have way more "expert" opinion and supposition than we have hard supportable evidence.     I am as guilty of this as anyone.   When there are no observed behavior to report; supposition, myth, groupthink, and conjecture kicks in.    While pictures or videos may not be proof of anything at least they are evidence if authentic and can be compared one against the other.   But we have little to compare.    If Patty is real we should be able to compare her to other pictures of mature female BF.   But we don't have any so we endlessly argue about costumes.     Artists drawings, while better than nothing, are just that, an artist's interpretation of what a witness describes.    They are not worth much more than if they were a cartoon drawing of Fred Flinstone that is supposed to represent a Neanderthal.     Finally I get the feeling that the truly dedicated field researchers numbers are declining.  Dying off one by one or quitting in despair.     The instant gratification mentality of the younger generation just cannot deal with years of field work with long periods of time between findings.     Not their thing.      The only way experts are of any real use is when they have data and evidence to analyze.    That comes from the field not conference rooms or internet forums.    The best vetting indicator to me is someone that admits they don't know.   Someone that speaks with authority on BF behavior is blowing smoke.  Beyond that because of the real dearth of data,  there is little to work with other than Meldrum's footprints.  

 

The answers are in the field waiting to be found by someone willing to invest the sweat equity.    It is not easy.     The first step is to be able to repeatedly locate BF in the wild.    Probably the next step is to get and compare pictures.   Is it one species or more?   We really do not know.   We should at least know that before we secure a body.    If there are two or more species we certainly do not want two bodies of the same one.    

 

Yesterday when we flew I commented to BTW that there could be thousands of BF in the woods we were flying over.      Much of it has no road access.      We could see old logging roads, abandoned, and completely grown over with vegetation.    When one thinks of the jungle you think of abandoned structures and ruins quickly overgrown by the advancing jungle.     The rain forests of the PNW are very similar.     Those that have acreage know that you have to keep hacking it back to keep from being quickly overgrown.     It does not take long for a volunteer seedling to grown into a 20 foot fir tree that keeps on growing.   I have no idea about the numbers of BF in the wild.   But with crumbling infrastructure in the forests,  and corresponding restrictions to human access,  that has to be improving their habitat.    As I said yesterday,  I have the gut feeling that there are remote locations where tribes of BF live in numbers.    They are there for the finding.     BTW noticed a remote hanging valley, seemingly untouched by logging, with the nearest ground access many miles away.      Who knows what lives in that valley? 

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

I know, Bigfoot ! 

[ShadowBorn]

 

The type that I enjoy is the person who has learned interesting facts and mastered a field of knowledge and is sharing that and synthesizing new knowledge that was previously unavailable to me.

CM

What if there are people out there who do have this knowledge but have no idea how to give this knowledge? We all do not know every thing, that would just be way to arrogant. But we do have experience and that is knowledge that is gain in the field. There is a difference between the two knowledges that I am talking about. Sure we have those book smart people and do not think that they are not important. There minds are nothing but data, filled with knowledge that you are not going to find on a computer.

 

Right now bigfoot is like big market as far as mechandize goes, books are writen that furthers research. People are coming out to meetings and listening about Bigfoot. Yet Bigfoot feels like it is in a stand still, I would call it a stall. You know the type where you have to push the nose of the plane forward and recover. That type of stall, where people are tired of the same ol bs. I am kinda of tired of the same ol ting as well. What we step in to the woods to find tracks and then what reported to be ragged on. Why ? because it is the same ol evidence that keeps getting found time after time. Nothing new Right ! Science Stall

 

You know I thought that it would up the game with the yeti evidence in science. But it did nothing but prove that bears do live high in the Hymyalayas. So again at square one.