If Bigfoot Were Real.

[Guest DWA]

That article is a pile of nonsense unworthy of a scientist.  It's based on nothing but assumptions and fails to address the evidence that it's clear he hasn't read or thought about sufficiently.  In fact, I have responded to this article, here, many times, before it was even written.  It's standard skeptic hogwash, Ben Radford swill only not as arrogant in its ignorance, and Naish really should know better.  He himself once put up an article on the PGF that was a sterling example of the scientific mind at work.  One only wonders what happened to that.

 

I am starting to believe that science is a discipline with few adherents; there are few if any true scientists.  What Naish is doing here is what well-qualified techies have been doing forever, refusing to believe something so deeply - because it cuts against the cant that's been rammed into their heads - that they don't bother to do any analysis, just cut to the dismissals.  It's transparent to anyone who knows how science works.  Again, class:  science does not work on proof.  Proof is for the dummies who don't know what's going on.  Science works on observation and analysis.  And while we are on observation.  Anyone who styles himself a scientist, and thinks he can skate without a detailed factual debunking of clearly qualified scientists, showing their work, has shown that, whatever he may know about his specific discipline, he doesn't know how science really works.

 

(I did cut this article to ribbons elsewhere.  My work is done, I'm not repeating it here.  Denial of facts gets tiresome, Mr. Naish; get yer chops back.)

Edited July 2, 2016 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

I really should have mentioned the most damning piece of evidence - see how true scientists rely on that pesky thing? - against this article:  its title.

 

One might as well finish the sentence:  "...there would be all of this stuff which there isn't."

 

First of all, THERE IS!  Second of all:  scientists never assume.

Edited July 2, 2016 by DWA

[Incorrigible1]

Close the thread. Nothing to see here. Move along.

[Guest DWA]

"A million Naishes spouting that view is no more valuable to science than a million bee-lee-vers spouting the opposite. They are cut of the same cloth, and neither help get at the truth."

 

Exactly.  And getting at the truth is what science is all about.  ("Scientific American."  Sheezh.  Stop the downhill slide, SciAm.)

 

What WSA is saying there is:  show me Naish is right.  If you cannot...you have balled that article up, and thrown it in the trash.  And good riddance.

[Guest DWA]

Close the thread. Nothing to see here. Move along.

There wasn't from the very first post.  We're just telling you we knew that. But isn't that bigfoot skepticism.

[SWWASAS]

The academic skeptics stereotype BF researchers as country bumpkin, tobacco chewing,  hillbillies who do not know the difference between a bear and a BF.    There are so many errors in that logic, the least of which is that hillbillies probably have seem more bear in their life that most academic skeptics.    You don't need a PHD to know what is a bear and what is not.      On the other hand,   most of our resident skeptics, by what I can gather are not exactly woodsman.    They certainly are not out looking for anything that will change their mind about existence.   They don't need to because they already "know".    What bothers me is the state and federal field biologists who are out there seeing things, who feel the need to keep quiet about it.   OK keeping their job is probably good for their family but they should be questioning why the government wants to keep a lid on BF.   

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Are you not bothered by the simple fact that most sightings occur  where the bear population is the highest. The PNW for example.

I spend a lot of time in the great outdoors of Florida. The weather is realatively good year around. A friend of mine who is a wild life officer tells me that most sightings here are by tourists. Rarely by locals. Once again this points to bears and wishful thinking.

Edited July 2, 2016 by Patterson-Gimlin

[MIB]

P-G:

 

Not bothered at all.   They use many of the same food sources so of course they SHOULD be found in the same places.   Considering them from a biological standpoint, I would be more bothered if it were otherwise.

 

I know bears.  I grew up in a bear preserve.   We'd see up to a dozen a day.   At certain times of year we had a lot of problems with them getting into fruit trees, garden, and trash cans as well as our boats which sometimes smelled of the fish we caught.   When I was guiding with customers bears were a regular thing.    I understand bear anatomy, physical proportions, size, behavior ...

 

What I saw was no bear.   Not the first, not the second, and not even the "maybe" because whatever it was, it had broad shoulders to the side of the torso, not arranged under it to carry (I almost said "bear" ) weight. 

 

MIB

[Patterson-Gimlin]

↑

Thank you for the much  more polite and respectful post than your last one directed at me.  I very much appreciate it.  I also appreciate your explanation  in regards to bears and your experience. Perhaps, I misjudged you.  However, as a scientist  obviously  I need more concrete proof.  I hope that comes sooner than later. 

Edited July 3, 2016 by Patterson-Gimlin

[Guest DWA]

Are you not bothered by the simple fact that most sightings occur  where the bear population is the highest. The PNW for example.

I spend a lot of time in the great outdoors of Florida. The weather is realatively good year around. A friend of mine who is a wild life officer tells me that most sightings here are by tourists. Rarely by locals. Once again this points to bears and wishful thinking.

Naah.  Many of my deer sightings happen where the bear population is one of the highest on earth.  So have my bobcat sightings.  I had no problems making the species identifications.

 

The identification with bear country is, in fact, an extremely powerful authenticity indicator.  Data on food habits - copious for sasquatch - make it clear that their diet is similar to the diet of bears.  No surprise, this; so is the diet of coyote and fox, only differing in the proportions of food eaten.  In the north temperate zone, in fact, what a scientist would predict is that a large primate would be an opportunist omnivore, like bears are.  Only one problem:  the people making these sightings, and reporting these food habits, aren't scientists.  So where are they getting this information?  I don't think they're channeling.  I think they're where the animal is, which is where a scientist would predict it to be.

 

The descriptive terms used in the reports - this is why you read them - make it very clear that the sighters were not seeing a known animal.  Most definitely not a bear.  They make it very clear, in fact, that they were seeing a member of the primate group Hominidae.  So:

 

1.  They're all lying;

2.  They're all hallucinating;

3.  They're all innocently mistaken; or (and keep in mind this next is, by far, the LEAST LIKELY SCENARIO)

 

4.  ...some random mix of the foregoing.

 

You would seriously bet one of those?  No you wouldn't, not if you approached this objectively.  And neither would I.

 

Why do skeptics bely their title by swallowing - whole, bones and gristle and spikes included - the crazy  notion that thousands of people in bear country, who know what bears look like, are reporting them as something they  know they will be ridiculed for reporting?

 

I know.  No rational person bets that one either.  All one needs to do to get to the rational presumption that these animals are authentic...is approach it objectively.

Edited July 3, 2016 by DWA

[ShadowBorn]

 

Why do skeptics bely their title by swallowing - whole, bones and gristle and spikes included - the crazy  notion that thousands of people in bear country, who know what bears look like, are reporting them as something they  know they will be ridiculed for reporting?

Could it be a part in that the mocking is a process of a assuring that the truth never be told. Why as deny the existance with out properly researching this in the field. It seems like it is easer to make fun of the people who are reporting some thing real, even worse is ignoring.  But what has me is the denial of people who have put their life work on the line.  Three Doctors  who may or may have not had encounters but have seen evidence first hand. Being put down for their opninions that I value more then any other person who says they know these creatures.

 

I am sure that there are other professors getting on board with this .  They are just not ready to go open with what they have yet. So who knows who is hidding what. That does not matter, what matters is the value of the person doing the research. How fair they will truely be and be critical where it is needed.  I cannot be critical of the three doctors he mentions in this article.

 

Dwa

I can see where people can mistake these creatures for bears at a distance amongst some tree's back ground.  I knew what i was looking at and what I saw and they were not no bear. there was no mis identifycation. I knew what i saw and what happen.

[Guest DWA]

I'm really doubting, though, that anyone in a circumstance in which confusion would be conceivable would just cut to sasquatch.

 

I might have seen a sasquatch in Shenandoah National Park once.  But I doubt it.  There's no particular reason for me to doubt it, because I couldn''t see or hear enough to be certain either way.  But I didn't file a sasquatch report and I very doubt that anyone would.  Yet the skeptics say that's happening.  a lot.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

 

If Bigfoot were real I would feed them cookies.

You're more likely to catch a Bobo Fey doing that.

 

Once again  I appreciate your perpestive.  I would bet on your  explanations. I am a scientist  and have concluded  that  the creature does not exist.  I so wish it did. . Sadly, it does not.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

 

 

If Bigfoot were real I would feed them cookies.

You're more likely to catch a Bobo Fey doing that.

 

Once again  I appreciate your perpestive.  I would bet on your  explanations. I am a scientist  and have concluded  that  the creature does not exist.  I so wish it did. . Sadly, it does not.

 

I'll feed Bigfoot and Patterson Gimlin cookies...

[Lake County Bigfooot]

You can explain away a lot of things, and much of what is considered evidence of Sasquatch, but you cannot explain away all the print finds, too many defy hoaxing and cannot be explained by the human foot. If you ignore this perhaps you convince yourself they do not exist. Circumstantially, I find myself in this quandary, hearing something distinctly knocking with hands, finding no humans present, and then not being able to substantiate with a foot print. It defies our ability at times to get the evidence we need, they are that smart. I think that avoidance of detection is their strongest adaption and means of survival, that is why they are still present, and that ability must not be underestimated. I just got a FlIR for my I phone, so now I have one more means of trying to detect them, we'll see how that goes...it is very hard to prove either way...so the vast majority of us are operating on a belief, I do not pretend to be otherwise...I have not seen them with my naked eyes, and till I do it is simply a belief, perhaps a logical one to some extent..

Edited July 4, 2016 by Lake County Bigfooot