Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

[MIB]

 

And can we PLEASE drop all of the "woo". The "mind speak" and "portals" and the like. If sasquatch isn't a flesh and blood animal then we might was well forget science and break out the Ouija boards.

 

Nope.  Not gonna happen.  I'm after the answer, whatever it is, and I'm not going to ignore parts just because they make you uncomfortable.   Follow the facts wherever they go.   You will find the truth whatever it is.   Refusing to follow the trail is the one sure way to fail in the search. 

 

MIB

[hiflier]

Hello MIB,

 

This is a "Has Bigfoot Science Stalled" thread. Woo or what most folks call woo cannot be scientifically tested. So following where the facts lead isn't possible. Facts are called facts once they have been rigorously tested and can be repeatable by any scientist in the lab. Paranormal things, even though experienced by some, do not fall into that category except for those few experiencers. Generally speaking those experiences cannot be tested without a specimen which brings us back to square one- we need the physical specimen. In order to get science on board to get one if we don't first is to keep the "facts" in the physically measurable realm and even that is severely lacking to a point where science to date won't even bother. 

 

Need a body, my friend. No one is ruling out the woo as far as I can see but adding it to the equation doesn't help in promoting science's willingness to investigate the subject. Surely you can understand that. 

Edited January 24, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

 

 

And can we PLEASE drop all of the "woo". The "mind speak" and "portals" and the like. If sasquatch isn't a flesh and blood animal then we might was well forget science and break out the Ouija boards.

 

Nope.  Not gonna happen.  I'm after the answer, whatever it is, and I'm not going to ignore parts just because they make you uncomfortable.   Follow the facts wherever they go.   You will find the truth whatever it is.   Refusing to follow the trail is the one sure way to fail in the search. 

 

MIB

 

The only "woo" I would like to see dropped is the "woo" of acting as if the evidence and the scientists vouching for it somehow don't exist, never mind the "woo" of thinking that I care more for a clearly unschooled and unsophisticated opinion against my own ...which just happens to dovetail with those scientists.  Let's drop that "woo" shall we.  That really is the big "woo" in big-footery.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,
 

...The only "woo" I would like to see dropped is the "woo" of acting as if the evidence and the scientists vouching for it somehow don't exist, never mind the "woo" of thinking that I care more for a clearly unschooled and unsophisticated opinion against my own...

Must be nice to be able to put such blinders on. For myself I chose to NOT live in such a bubble.

[MIB]

 Two parts:

 

 

Woo or what most folks call woo cannot be scientifically tested

 

Ah, but it can be ... tested **enough**.  

 

Ever do any tracking?   Pick two tracks in sequence (accepted science).   The third is hiding (woo).   Do you give up on the trackway?   I look at the two I've got, use them to predict where the missing third could be, and try to leverage that to find the fourth.   You don't actually have to find the third to use it.   It is a good idea to go back, once you have the fourth, to figure out where the third is hiding because somewhere down the line you may be missing several in a row and knowing how that third hid may help locate them.

 

I'm not saying we need to prove telepathy / mindspeak, just consider the that it might exist and figure out what it suggests about what else we might be able to look at to find the next missing piece. 

 

And

 

 

doesn't help in promoting science's willingness to investigate the subject

 

We're not going to buy instututional science's cooperation by kissing their backsides to appear respectable   It has been tried.   They've made that abundantly clear.  

 

I don't agree with you about a body, but lets say for the sake of argument you're correct.   What if you can't obtain that body without investigating the "woo"?   Then what?   Do you stay stuck or do you plow forward?

 

What's more important, getting the truth or defending your paradigm?   At some point you have to decide what your priorities really are, identify hidden (even from yourself?) personal agendas, and then either stay stuck or chase leads.   

 

Even the leads that never pan out put me in the woods where new ones might appear.

 

What I'm trying to say ... do something, try something, no matter how silly it looks, no matter who disapproves.   If nothing else, by seeing who hassles you rather than supporting you, you've figured out who is not part of the solution, they're part of the problem.  

 

MIB

 

edit: having some issues with quotes.

Edited January 24, 2016 by MIB

[BigTreeWalker]

MIB,

I know you are saying to consider the possibilities whatever they may be and that some of it may initially appear to be woo. But, for those out in the field, here is a scientific method to assist with the tracking example you gave. If you have two or three recognizable tracks you can make a step stick using the distance between two tracks, heel to heel or toe to toe. This can then be used to follow a line of tracks even if all that can be found are just broken sticks or scuff marks. Of course you have to take various obstacles into consideration, logs, trees and whatnot. This may be obvious but it is a very simple and useful method.

[hiflier]

Hello MIB,

 

I also know what you are saying. But for science that third track- the one you call woo?- will have a physical reason for not being there.; not a metaphysical. Science will not jump from the physical to the metaphysical and back to the physical just to follow a line of thinking or explain a process. It will be nuts and bolts all the way and not just part of the way. That third track WILL have a physical reason for not being there and to say it isn't there because it resides in a portal but will reappear at the next opportunity to make the fourth track simply has never been science. It's been "what-if" with less proof than the creature itself.

 

I've already said I will not rule it out but if I were a scientist? I would have no choice but to ignore until I could test it and get those tests to repeat. Scientific results are empirical (measurable). If they weren't it would not be science. There is no room for woo no matter how real or deeply it is witnessed. Describing a metaphysical problem by creating a physical analogy (tracks) doesn't work in science even though I understand what you are saying- the analogy isn't lost on me. And whether I believe in mindspeak or not science needs a body and we need a way to either get one or figure out a way to make them get one.     

Edited January 24, 2016 by hiflier

[Incorrigible1]

 

 

And can we PLEASE drop all of the "woo". The "mind speak" and "portals" and the like. If sasquatch isn't a flesh and blood animal then we might was well forget science and break out the Ouija boards.

 

Nope.  Not gonna happen.  I'm after the answer, whatever it is, and I'm not going to ignore parts just because they make you uncomfortable.   Follow the facts wherever they go.   You will find the truth whatever it is.   Refusing to follow the trail is the one sure way to fail in the search. 

 

MIB

 

There seems to be only one animal / creature requiring such suspension of natural history and biological science. It's not that I'm "uncomfortable," it's that it's ridiculous to allow for such dispensation of the laws of nature in order to somehow cram bigfoot's uncanny existence into the books.

 

We may as well allow phantom or ghost wolves or bears of deceased animals to be possible, too.

 

Something about not having so open a mind as to allow one's brain to drop out.

[hiflier]

Hello All,

It's taken some time and thought but I think as far as I go? I've nailed down the issue for me with the Forum. What? You say you didn't know I had an issue LOL. Well I do but couldn't really nail down what it is/was. First of all I respect and admire ALL the BFF members. So what's the deal then? It's that I'm tired of opinion. Opinion is great and shows that folks are thinking but I'm weary of it. Do I have opinion? Sure I do but I'm weary of that too. Imagine that weary of my own opinion. You must be weary of it too then. This place is addicting. More addicting than the field for sure which is where I should really be.

 

Sometimes there's a spark here but it very quickly sinks back into opinion. My own threads do that too. Heck, they start OUT that way. Somehow I need to do better. Sure would like to solve this Sasquatch thing but I just don't have the deep pockets to so it. I don't even have SHALLOW pockets LOL. I do have a plan that I mentioned somewhere but it's not going to happen by tomorrow that's for sure. And I can work on that and wait for any possible results for the effort. But beyond opinion I've little else to say. Without science or a body I essentially have nothing to say of any worth that will advance this subject- which is how I define worth. I have left before and come back, left and come back.......um..........oh yes,........and left and come bask some more.

 

I think the field and my book are calling and I am going to immerse myself in them until I've taken them as far as I can take them. Just as if they were full time jobs.

[FarArcher]

We have a problem with Science "presets."

 

Take any artifact - a partial skull, partial bone - partial skeleton.   It's acceptable in sanitized, approved "Science" to do a reconstruction and even name or identify an entirely new species - based on a partial.

 

Now when they say it is X number of years old, how do we know?  Testing?  The strata found in?  We take their word for it - but the moment they removed something, there went the conclusive proof of their determination of what strata it was found in.  So we take a lot of anthropological evidence - on faith.  Like it or not.

 

Lucy.  Scattered bones over multiple layers of strata - and even when found meant nothing.  Not until much later, others reading of the bones started making something out of them - and they weren't even present.  Only THEN, were a scattered group of bones - nothing found in situ - assembled, reconstructed, filled in, extended, and extrapolations made and decided - not determined - that this was a new species that walked upright.  Baloney.

 

I have zero faith in BF.  I'm not a believer.  I had one run at me, in the open, and come really, really close.  I wasn't looking for one, I wasn't receptive to one, I wasn't pleased at all, and I wish I was still ignorant.  I wish it never happened.

 

No faith on my part.  No believing.

 

But there he was.  No mirage, no illusion, no delusion, no ****. 

 

I've never actually seen the great Giza pyramid.  But I have it on good faith - through the word of others - that it in fact exists.  Photos can be faked.  Films can be faked.

 

If I applied the same personal criteria to things I've never seen in person - as those who seem to make a way of life being BF skeptics - I think I'd be one narrow minded person.

[Incorrigible1]

Lucy.  Scattered bones over multiple layers of strata - and even when found meant nothing.  Not until much later, others reading of the bones started making something out of them - and they weren't even present.  Only THEN, were a scattered group of bones - nothing found in situ - assembled, reconstructed, filled in, extended, and extrapolations made and decided - not determined - that this was a new species that walked upright.  Baloney.

 

You're entirely wrong: Lucy was recognized immediately as ground-breaking. She was recovered in situ, and cause for overnight rejoicing. Might have been a little partying happening, that night.

 

Suggested reading: Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, by Donald Johanson. I've seen him speak at a local small college. A personal hero.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Incorrigible1

[georgerm]

We seem to be in a discussion that is running out of steam and clarity. Some of the discussion is well understood while other parts is hard to understand that is no fault of yours. It’s like a jig saw puzzle with large missing parts. Bigfoot science is a book that is still being written. We could get on track by describing what we consider to be bigfoot facts and stay away from the unknowns or woos for the time being.

So what are some bigfoot facts that is science due to observations from many sources? To be real science, we need to attach reports to each fact along with witness credibility.

 

Bigfoot throws stuff when you get in its territory.

Bigfoot leaves foot prints while walking away.

Bigfoot growls and screams when you are too close.

Bigfoot prowls around camps at night and gets into things………………………..  lots more to go.

 

What are facts we don't know yet?

Edited January 25, 2016 by georgerm

[Incorrigible1]

Bigfoot throws stuff when you get in its territory.

Bigfoot leaves foot prints while walking away.

Bigfoot growls and screams when you are too close.

Bigfoot prowls around camps at night and gets into things………………………..  lots more to go.

 

What are facts we don't know yet?

Those are suppositions, they are not, most assuredly, facts.

[Yuchi1]

IIRC, yesterday's woo was landing a human on the moon yet now, it appears to be today's fact.

[Incorrigible1]

IIRC, yesterday's woo was landing a human on the moon yet now, it appears to be today's fact.

The lunar landings obeyed the known laws of physics.