Sasquatch: Bear In Human Form?

[Guest DWA]

Think what you want, dood.  Moving on...they're real, btw.

[FarArcher]

I'd be curious how high the percentage of science is that relies entirely on observations.  

 

Then I'd be curious on how high the percentage of science relies almost entirely of mathematical calculations/mathematical theories - which attempt to explain, but never quite do - for behaviors based on observations.

 

Even these mathematics of a lot of "scientific" calculations are a compromise, but inaccurate.  They tend to "average" things away which by definition is very unscientific if one wishes to fully understand and fully explain the mechanisms they're using to "cover" a whole lot of other things going on.

 

In law, it's a fairly common practice to find a man guilty of first degree murder and even sentenced to death based on eyewitness accounts.  Life or death decisions are made on observations and subsequent identifications of people, and even describe what this person actually did.  There may be a little bit of circumstantial evidence, but not even enough to arrest a suspect on - until eyewitness testimony closes the deal.

 

Then we have scientists who for their own personal reasons - frequently from a position of elitism - refuse to accept generally accepted evidence, even a preponderance of evidence, and demand that their own personal preference will be the only evidence they'll accept.  Gets back to their artificially contrived assumption of grandeur - which is most unscientific.

 

In microbiology, observations on effects on microbes are almost the entire basis for satisfactory evidence levels that attain the status of proof.  But that same "scientist," even with a Ph.D, may assume mistakenly that electricity flows through an electrical wire.  It doesn't.  Yet he's a scientist.  He's just wrong.

 

The many splinters and varying disciplines within the large "field of science" has different levels of evidence required to be considered proof.  A microbiologist will have different levels of observations that are considered "proof" than say, an electrical engineer, which would be different from an anthropologist, which would be different from a materials physicist.

 

The biological, geological, anthropological, and archaeological sciences are mighty free in their speculation - and there need not be any proof whatsoever - merely acceptance of their postulations being accepted by their small circle of kindred spirits.  

 

So when I hear of someone telling me they need "proof," they're really not saying they need actual "proof," what they're saying is that they are so uninformed about the reality of anything to do with the past, or biological entities - and how much blatant speculation occurs daily in those disciplines - that they have no real idea of exactly what they're demanding.

 

If I got a body, and from that body took ten different tissue samples, scores of up close photographs, even of taking the tissue samples - accompanied by sworn statements by a medical doctor, an anthropologist, a MRI radiologist, a DNA specialist, a state medical examiner, and three solid citizens that this beast was truly dead, and their examinations were careful and real, that would not satisfy a tenth of the so-called skeptics.  No.  They'd demand a personal examination - or it doesn't count.  Ten million personal examinations - which isn't practical - but that's the level some so called skeptics would demand in terms of "scientific proof."

 

Ran into this problem already in another field.  It's just a lot of folks who I think are bitter as they weren't breast fed, they feel they got a raw deal on that, they were probably dressed funny and made fun of in school, girls wouldn't give them a tumble, so they pursued other interests that include unyielding, unrealistic levels of "proof" that just happens to suit their contrary nature.

 

They are to be pitied.  They don't even know what they don't know.  

 

That's one sorry state of existence. 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

According to the gospel of DWA and Saint Bindernagel. Don't be offended please. As I said I enjoy your nearly 10000 posts of the same nothing new to report.

[norseman]

8 hours ago, FarArcher said:

I'd be curious how high the percentage of science is that relies entirely on observations.  

 

Then I'd be curious on how high the percentage of science relies almost entirely of mathematical calculations/mathematical theories - which attempt to explain, but never quite do - for behaviors based on observations.

 

Even these mathematics of a lot of "scientific" calculations are a compromise, but inaccurate.  They tend to "average" things away which by definition is very unscientific if one wishes to fully understand and fully explain the mechanisms they're using to "cover" a whole lot of other things going on.

 

In law, it's a fairly common practice to find a man guilty of first degree murder and even sentenced to death based on eyewitness accounts.  Life or death decisions are made on observations and subsequent identifications of people, and even describe what this person actually did.  There may be a little bit of circumstantial evidence, but not even enough to arrest a suspect on - until eyewitness testimony closes the deal.

 

Then we have scientists who for their own personal reasons - frequently from a position of elitism - refuse to accept generally accepted evidence, even a preponderance of evidence, and demand that their own personal preference will be the only evidence they'll accept.  Gets back to their artificially contrived assumption of grandeur - which is most unscientific.

 

In microbiology, observations on effects on microbes are almost the entire basis for satisfactory evidence levels that attain the status of proof.  But that same "scientist," even with a Ph.D, may assume mistakenly that electricity flows through an electrical wire.  It doesn't.  Yet he's a scientist.  He's just wrong.

 

The many splinters and varying disciplines within the large "field of science" has different levels of evidence required to be considered proof.  A microbiologist will have different levels of observations that are considered "proof" than say, an electrical engineer, which would be different from an anthropologist, which would be different from a materials physicist.

 

The biological, geological, anthropological, and archaeological sciences are mighty free in their speculation - and there need not be any proof whatsoever - merely acceptance of their postulations being accepted by their small circle of kindred spirits.  

 

So when I hear of someone telling me they need "proof," they're really not saying they need actual "proof," what they're saying is that they are so uninformed about the reality of anything to do with the past, or biological entities - and how much blatant speculation occurs daily in those disciplines - that they have no real idea of exactly what they're demanding.

 

If I got a body, and from that body took ten different tissue samples, scores of up close photographs, even of taking the tissue samples - accompanied by sworn statements by a medical doctor, an anthropologist, a MRI radiologist, a DNA specialist, a state medical examiner, and three solid citizens that this beast was truly dead, and their examinations were careful and real, that would not satisfy a tenth of the so-called skeptics.  No.  They'd demand a personal examination - or it doesn't count.  Ten million personal examinations - which isn't practical - but that's the level some so called skeptics would demand in terms of "scientific proof."

 

Ran into this problem already in another field.  It's just a lot of folks who I think are bitter as they weren't breast fed, they feel they got a raw deal on that, they were probably dressed funny and made fun of in school, girls wouldn't give them a tumble, so they pursued other interests that include unyielding, unrealistic levels of "proof" that just happens to suit their contrary nature.

 

They are to be pitied.  They don't even know what they don't know.  

 

That's one sorry state of existence. 

 

All I hear in that statement is a lot of excuses and whining as to why Biology WILL NOT accept a new species without rigid qualifications. This field isn't quantum physics, In Biology we can dissect a specimen in a lab....it's all right there before us to discover. And these rigid qualifications are why Pixies and Unicorns are not real animals.....but folklore.

 

And if you took your specimen to the Smithsonian or any major University biology dept? You would not need to show it to millions of skeptics. Just one Ph.D. In biology would do.

 

I blame much of this on Bindernagel as he has spread this anti science rhetoric around. But it's simple. You need PHYSICAL proof that the animal exists before science will take this seriously.

 

Too many Todd Standings and Rick Dyers in the world.

 

If your squeamish about killing the creature then invest in hair traps and biopsy darts.

 

This is not a personal attack, this is something I feel needs to be said in order for this field to move FORWARD. We are not going to change anything by sitting around bellyaching about how the system is rigged against us. 

 

We need to produce physical proof.

[FarArcher]

Norse, what you hear and what is written often has nothing in parallel, as in this case.  In the pursuit of simply saying something argumentative, the real topic of the post was what's considered "proof" in the "SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY," and how proof differs depending on what discipline of science one may consider.'

 

Rather than just calmly consider the concepts - and so far you have shown no inclination nor ability to, the measures of proof in SCIENCE varies, whether you can grasp that or not.  Here's what is maybe going over your head - SCIENCE is a very broad area, and proofs, depending on disciplines - are wide and varied.

 

If I took a specimen to the Smithsonian - it would likely disappear as other anomalous skulls and skeletons have disappeared.  And no, the word of just one Ph.D biologist won't do.  Scores of large skull, and entire skeletons of gigantic, odd hominids have been taken to the Smithsonian, not one is on display, and they say they have none for examination in the storage rooms.  

 

You further ignore that SCIENCE often is invested in preferred narratives - they have a narrative, and will only alter their peer-approved, sanitized, narrative with kicking, screaming, and gnashing of teeth.  How can I say this?  I have other interests and have seen it time and again.  I've seen them do a study, test, find the results troubling, retest, same results, over and again for weeks, and rather than admit and present the proven evidence - they'll trash the entire work they've been getting identical results on - over weeks and weeks.  

 

Yes, the system is rigged against us, but you will lose even if you're successful in getting one, and then attempt to do things as you propose.  

 

My universe is not limited to these things.

 

"If you're squeamish about killing the creature then invest in hair traps and biopsy darts."  You actually said that.

 

Quick question - if I never had a problem legally hunting and taking human predator scalps, what, pray tell, makes you think I'd have a problem taking one of these?

 

Yuchi and I don't agree on the kill/no kill thing, but I have the highest respect for his position because he actually has good reasons for changing is position from the kill column, to the no-kill column.  Very good reasons that I actually understand, as he's actually been up close and it got personal - whoa! - just like me.  Yuchi actually knows - not guesses - but KNOWS exactly what these things can do and are capable of doing.  

 

It's almost getting to be comical as a few of those who may believe, but never got up close and personal are the BF community's biggest experts.

 

This is not a personal attack - but to move forward - the community better be getting the basics right.  And I'm not seeing it. 

 

 

 

[Yuchi1]

10 minutes ago, FarArcher said:

Norse, what you hear and what is written often has nothing in parallel, as in this case.  In the pursuit of simply saying something argumentative, the real topic of the post was what's considered "proof" in the "SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY," and how proof differs depending on what discipline of science one may consider.'

 

Rather than just calmly consider the concepts - and so far you have shown no inclination nor ability to, the measures of proof in SCIENCE varies, whether you can grasp that or not.  Here's what is maybe going over your head - SCIENCE is a very broad area, and proofs, depending on disciplines - are wide and varied.

 

If I took a specimen to the Smithsonian - it would likely disappear as other anomalous skulls and skeletons have disappeared.  And no, the word of just one Ph.D biologist won't do.  Scores of large skull, and entire skeletons of gigantic, odd hominids have been taken to the Smithsonian, not one is on display, and they say they have none for examination in the storage rooms.  

 

You further ignore that SCIENCE often is invested in preferred narratives - they have a narrative, and will only alter their peer-approved, sanitized, narrative with kicking, screaming, and gnashing of teeth.  How can I say this?  I have other interests and have seen it time and again.  I've seen them do a study, test, find the results troubling, retest, same results, over and again for weeks, and rather than admit and present the proven evidence - they'll trash the entire work they've been getting identical results on - over weeks and weeks.  I believe Dr. Ketchum would attest to that fact.  BTW, most of her attackers hereabouts are totally ignorant of what really was occurring, behind the public narrative being promoted by them.

 

Yes, the system is rigged against us, but you will lose even if you're successful in getting one, and then attempt to do things as you propose.  

 

My universe is not limited to these things.

 

"If you're squeamish about killing the creature then invest in hair traps and biopsy darts."  You actually said that.

 

Quick question - if I never had a problem legally hunting and taking human predator scalps, what, pray tell, makes you think I'd have a problem taking one of these?

 

Yuchi and I don't agree on the kill/no kill thing, but I have the highest respect for his position because he actually has good reasons for changing is position from the kill column, to the no-kill column.  Very good reasons that I actually understand, as he's actually been up close and it got personal - whoa! - just like me.  Yuchi actually knows - not guesses - but KNOWS exactly what these things can do and are capable of doing.  

 

It's almost getting to be comical as a few of those who may believe, but never got up close and personal are the BF community's biggest experts.

 

This is not a personal attack - but to move forward - the community better be getting the basics right.  And I'm not seeing it. 

 

 

 

 

None are so blind as those that will not see.

[Twist]

11 minutes ago, FarArcher said:

You further ignore that SCIENCE often is invested in preferred narratives - they have a narrative, and will only alter their peer-approved, sanitized, narrative with kicking, screaming, and gnashing of teeth.  How can I say this?  I have other interests and have seen it time and again.  I've seen them do a study, test, find the results troubling, retest, same results, over and again for weeks, and rather than admit and present the proven evidence - they'll trash the entire work they've been getting identical results on - over weeks and weeks.  

 

Far Archer, care to expand on this ?  What exactly was the scenario/subject of the testing that occurred ? 

[Yuchi1]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

 

All I hear in that statement is a lot of excuses and whining as to why Biology WILL NOT accept a new species without rigid qualifications. This field isn't quantum physics, In Biology we can dissect a specimen in a lab....it's all right there before us to discover. And these rigid qualifications are why Pixies and Unicorns are not real animals.....but folklore.

 

And if you took your specimen to the Smithsonian or any major University biology dept? You would not need to show it to millions of skeptics. Just one Ph.D. In biology would do.

 

I blame much of this on Bindernagel as he has spread this anti science rhetoric around. But it's simple. You need PHYSICAL proof that the animal exists before science will take this seriously.

 

Too many Todd Standings and Rick Dyers in the world.

 

If your squeamish about killing the creature then invest in hair traps and biopsy darts.

 

This is not a personal attack, this is something I feel needs to be said in order for this field to move FORWARD. We are not going to change anything by sitting around bellyaching about how the system is rigged against us. 

 

We need to produce physical proof.

 

And yet, your Project Grendel is predicated upon pursuing a medieval myth no more real animal(s) than Pixies and Unicorns....or, are Pixies and Unicorns actually real?

[Incorrigible1]

6 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

Far Archer, care to expand on this ?  What exactly was the scenario/subject of the testing that occurred ? 

Another plank of the Bigfoot Mythos. That taking a specimen to the Smithsonian or another of the halls of science, and the specimen is "disappeared."

Edited August 23, 2016 by Incorrigible1

[Guest DWA]

 

29 minutes ago, FarArcher said:

Norse, what you hear and what is written often has nothing in parallel, as in this case.  In the pursuit of simply saying something argumentative, the real topic of the post was what's considered "proof" in the "SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY," and how proof differs depending on what discipline of science one may consider.'

Exactly.  Saturn doesn't exist, and you can't prove it to me.  The photos are 'shopped...and do you have a Saturn on a table for me?  Careful.  Your response to this will prove that you have placed too much trust in BS you have been fed.  Remember:  scientific studies are found to be wrong and fraudulent with regularity.  Look at those photos of Saturn.  Come ON.  You are buying THAT...?  Rings?  Hooey.

 

Quote

 

This is not a personal attack - but to move forward - the community better be getting the basics right.  And I'm not seeing it. 

 

There's a good reason the community never gets the basics right.  The entire community, skeptic and proponent alike, skates right past the evidence.  No one cognizant of science can avoid the glaring fact that eyewitness testimony is the absolute and utter core of science.  What, do they *blindold themselves* before they do any analysis?  And do you not, public, accept, as the primary bulk of your 'knowledge'...stuff you have been told and not tested yourselves?

 

How can people look at databases full of encounter reports, wave them aside with barely a look, ...and then come up with all these mansplanations of how no one is seeing them?  How does anyone know what they're looking for and where and how to look?  The first - never mind the other two - of those are...wait for it, class...100% dependent on the testimony of eyewitnesses.

Steelhead are not just fish.  Let me leave it at that. 

 

11 hours ago, FarArcher said:

 

 

If I got a body, and from that body took ten different tissue samples, scores of up close photographs, even of taking the tissue samples - accompanied by sworn statements by a medical doctor, an anthropologist, a MRI radiologist, a DNA specialist, a state medical examiner, and three solid citizens that this beast was truly dead, and their examinations were careful and real, that would not satisfy a tenth of the so-called skeptics.  No.  They'd demand a personal examination - or it doesn't count.  Ten million personal examinations - which isn't practical - but that's the level some so called skeptics would demand in terms of "scientific proof."

 

The rest of this post comes highly recommended, but I'll just note here that these same people accept as gospel what they have been told as 90% or better of their entire knowledge base.  Just sayin.

 

Edited August 23, 2016 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

 

All I hear in that statement is a lot of excuses and whining as to why Biology WILL NOT accept a new species without rigid qualifications.

And will naysay and laugh and shout down all efforts to start the process that must be started to meet those qualifications.  Sounds fair(ly stoopid) to me...

 

I blame much of this on Bindernagel as he has spread this anti science rhetoric around.

WHAT!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!  OK, so you didn't read his books?  His second one is a science textbook if there ever was one.  He's not spreading anti-science; he's calling out people who call themselves scientists, but don't act like it.  Why is there this unceasing tendency here to call the dunderheads who too frequently practice it "science"?  Science is a PROCESS, and they don't seem to get how it works.

 

We need to produce physical proof.

There is only one way to get that, and that is to follow a pile of consistent evidence that, for this animal, exceeds, by quantum leaps, the pile mankind has compiled for anything else over his entire existence before the society accepted it.  To not advocate following that pile screams 'I am not a scientist.'

 

[FarArcher]

38 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Another plank of the Bigfoot Mythos. That taking a specimen to the Smithsonian or another of the halls of science, and the specimen is "disappeared."

 

Yet again, so uninformed.  

 

 

[norseman]

16 minutes ago, FarArcher said:

 

Yet again, so uninformed.  

 

 

 

Being cautious is is prudent with thee discovery of the 20 th century.

 

So take a body part in, keep the rest hidden.

 

No worries.

57 minutes ago, Yuchi1 said:

 

And yet, your Project Grendel is predicated upon pursuing a medieval myth no more real animal(s) than Pixies and Unicorns....or, are Pixies and Unicorns actually real?

 

If you can prove Pixies and Unicorns real? Go for it. The point is the process is the same for them as Bigfoot OR a new species of Amazonian ant.

[Rockape]

12 hours ago, FarArcher said:

If I got a body, and from that body took ten different tissue samples, scores of up close photographs, even of taking the tissue samples - accompanied by sworn statements by a medical doctor, an anthropologist, a MRI radiologist, a DNA specialist, a state medical examiner, and three solid citizens that this beast was truly dead, and their examinations were careful and real, that would not satisfy a tenth of the so-called skeptics.  No.  They'd demand a personal examination - or it doesn't count.  Ten million personal examinations - which isn't practical - but that's the level some so called skeptics would demand in terms of "scientific proof."

 

Ran into this problem already in another field.  It's just a lot of folks who I think are bitter as they weren't breast fed, they feel they got a raw deal on that, they were probably dressed funny and made fun of in school, girls wouldn't give them a tumble, so they pursued other interests that include unyielding, unrealistic levels of "proof" that just happens to suit their contrary nature.

 

They are to be pitied.  They don't even know what they don't know.  

 

That's one sorry state of existence. 

 

Why ya' gotta be like that? I'm sorry that there are those who don't believe that have pissed you off, but people who say they have actually seen a BF have to realize those who haven't have damn good reason to be skeptical or refuse to believe. That's just the way it is. There have been too many hoaxes and fakes to accept things at face value when it comes to BF.

 

And you make the same mistake so many others do, there is a difference between a skeptic and a scofftic/denialist. Scofftics/denialists have a closed mind and will not even entertain the possibility BF exists. Skeptics, which I am myself, question things offered with an open mind. Wadding everyone who questions or doubts into the same ball as scofftics/denialists is the same thing scofftics/denialists do when they wad believers/skeptics into the same ball that believes all the wild stories about BF.

 

And yeah, there would be a few who try to continue denial even with an entire body examined by top scientists. I think there are people who still believe the earth is flat. Some people you just can't do anything with, but when it comes to established scientific fact, the naysayers voice is a fringe element and generally deemed unworthy of the time of day. A body or body part, DNA confirmed by science cannot be denied by reality. It will become scientific fact.

 

 

[Yuchi1]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

If you can prove Pixies and Unicorns real? Go for it. The point is the process is the same for them as Bigfoot OR a new species of Amazonian ant.

 

Are you saying that Grendel was a real, flesh & blood creature?