Civility in Research

[hiflier]

In my way of thinking when it comes to civility it doesn't mean one has to necessarily make nicey nice with anyone. There are folks who dislike a doctors bedside manner but that's no reason to not get treatment if the doctor is an excellent heath care provider. It means the patient has lost focus on why they are there in the first place.

 

Same goes here. There are brusk researchers out there who are not good schmoozers. So what. Focusing on the lack of social skills is wrong focus. Everyone no matter who should be focused on Sasquatch. THAT'S what is important. Infighting has no place here. And grudges held onto that get in the way of where the focus should be only serve to dilute the field so that it doesn't work together smoothly if at for solving the Sasquatch proof issue. This isn't being said to open the door to those that will say they don't need proof. It's only about allowing the slighting of one person by another interfere with the focus on the prize. That focus should far outweigh social and even professional infractions in order to work together on securing the prize.

 

Sure, it's idealistic but any effort at joining forces would be better than having the field diluted by personal grievances. It's called growing up.   

Edited October 11, 2016 by hiflier

[ShadowBorn]

44 minutes ago, hiflier said:

It's only about allowing the slighting of one person by another interfere with the focus on the prize. That focus should far outweigh social and even professional infractions in order to work together on securing the prize.

Hiflier

See I personally cannot see them as a prize. They are not a prize like a trophy like we do with big game animals. So yes I do have some beef with this. I am sorry that I do since I might see them a different way then what others may see them.

 

This forum has always had civil issues but with good reasons. We are dealing with some thing that is not suppose to exist yet does and I am sure a lot of us have a hard time trying to except this. Crap ! I still cannot except it and do every thing to deny it happens. Yet ! I keep getting the same results and see others with the same. So if this is happening how is it not to be civil and argue a fact that is happening in every part of the United States. It is like this and that is this. " those who know know ! and those who do not know well just do not know" Those who know just will not argue since it is not worth the argument.

 

My thing is how did they make it here? How were they created? and who created them? and why were they created? what purpose do they have? 

[hiflier]

OK, prize was the wrong word? Why couldn't you get past that and see the point? It IMMEDIATELY cast my post in the wrong light and created the wrong focus which only served to distract from the bigger issue. We knoe you've had experiences, we know that you "know". Others say they Know too. So what? Does that prove anything to the general proponent public or science. You could probably care less from the way it sounds but I don't think it a valid argument. I'm trying to be civil here LOL  You deserve no less for what you have contributed to this Forum. But I cannot for the life of me see how your post solves the problem for others or science. Again, not that you care about such matters.

[FarArcher]

16 hours ago, JustCurious said:

 

I'm very curious about what your experience has been that leads you to think these attributes are overrated.  Can you expound upon this post?

 

Philosophically speaking?  I've never tried it, but I've heard rumors that these characteristics may on occasion help one get laid.

 

Could have been satire.  Could have been sarcasm.  I never can keep those two straight - even though they're opposites.

 

But that's not the topic here.

 

So, my apologies for these four lines of off-topic material, likewise said in jest.

[ShadowBorn]

6 hours ago, hiflier said:

Again, not that you care about such matters

That's just it that I do care .  That science needs to progress another way in order to make a believer out of it. So far it has not and has just progressed the same road with no results or same results. Not one bit of evidence is there that can make one civil to a living entity that exist. If we had one dead specimen on a slab we would all be singing a different tune. I knew this forum in 2000 until now the present. It has changed a lot. One thing I do know is that these creatures change you when you see them.

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, ShadowBorn said:

One thing I do know is that these creatures change you when you see them

 

I have no doubt, my friend,  that what you say is true. It would certainly change me. And there are others that have been changed also. Some from kill to no kill even. And you are spot on about science keeping it same bent on the subject. It is said that one gets more bees with honey. That alone should be enough of a philosophy to create a civil collective viewpoint or at least rally scientists to see that tolerance to one another's ideas can expand knowledge. It seems counter productive to pick and choose what gets researched and what does not as science should seek to solve all unknowns. Especially when there is evidence. So as far as Sasquatch goes? Like I've said elsewhere there something else going on there. Thank you for not blasting me as I try to get to the bottom of such matters.

[JustCurious]

Thanks for clarifying FarArcher.  Now I sorta understand the tone of your post.

[Guest Waggles]

The level of "civility" is dictated by the individuals involved. We live in a more unruly society,and it's a know fact that civility is declining. Plus your dealing with an odd subject matter, and sometimes odd people, who are invoked with an extreemely "outlier" subject matter. Sort of the "Wild West". So of course anything goes. 

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

On 2016-10-11 at 0:50 PM, ShadowBorn said:

My thing is how did they make it here? How were they created? and who created them? and why were they created? what purpose do they have? 

 

Those are all the right questions. Also, I think more people should be asking themselves why Sasquatch choose to be elusive rather than how. After all, it's not like there's a physical limitation that prevents them from avoiding people's line of sight.

[hiflier]

Historically their experience with Humans may be a factor. But it also would point to the idea that they are more animal thn Human as that's a mannerism that nearly all animals possess- avoidance of Humans. But they do get sighted just like any other creature in the wild.

[MIB]

12 hours ago, hiflier said:

 as that's a mannerism that nearly all animals possess- avoidance of Humans

 

This "fact" you assert is not true.   Anyone who has lived in a rural area can tell that.   Probably anyone who has ever gone camping can tell you that.   Many species deliberately seek us out (not exactly a form of avoidance) and almost all others can be habituated.  

 

We had a herd of about 30 deer that would come by our house a couple times a day, maybe half time on our property, half time on national forest beyond.   We had a bunch of elk that'd appear on the lawn in the mornings in winter and only leave when we'd start stirring around.   Bear and raccoons.    My father killed a cougar in the crawl space under the house directly under his bed one year.   Regular visits by numerous bird species.   A flock of wild turkeys that'd pass the front porch 1-2 times a day.  

 

This is NOT "avoidance of humans".  The truth is quite the opposite: it was a pretty unusual species that did not show up at one time or another.    Even some reason to believe we had bigfoot visits though I didn't understand the evidence at the time.

 

Same thing camping .. even backpacking in wilderness areas where theoretically there isn't time for animals to habituate.   Critters figure out real fast who chases them and who doesn't.   Those that don't get used as a buffer between them and whatever out there they choose to avoid.

 

MIB

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

This "fact" you assert is not true.   Anyone who has lived in a rural area can tell that.   Probably anyone who has ever gone camping can tell you that.

 

That's why I said "nearly all"- because I wasn't born yesterday thank you very much.

 

Many species deliberately seek us out (not exactly a form of avoidance) and almost all others can be habituated.

Not true. And even though habituation can take place is not the same thing as coming cold out of the wild.   

 

We had a herd of about 30 deer that would come by our house a couple times a day, maybe half time on our property, half time on national forest beyond.   We had a bunch of elk that'd appear on the lawn in the mornings in winter and only leave when we'd start stirring around.

As would be expected.

 

Bear and raccoons.

Which probably also scattered when you started "stirring around".   

 

My father killed a cougar in the crawl space under the house directly under his bed one year.  

Did that cougar "seek" your father out then?  Doesn't sound like it if the animal was under the house. 

 

While you were sitting out in the yard? Or while you were out of sight in your house? 

 

This is NOT "avoidance of humans".

It is when, again animals don't hang around when Humans start "stirring around".

 

The truth is quite the opposite: it was a pretty unusual species that did not show up at one time or another.

Showing up is one thing. Doing it while Humans are present and they don't leave without being habituated is another   

 

Even some reason to believe we had bigfoot visits though I didn't understand the evidence at the time.

Now that would be cool had you known at the time.

 

Same thing camping .. even backpacking in wilderness areas where theoretically there isn't time for animals to habituate.   Critters figure out real fast who chases them and who doesn't. Those that don't get used as a buffer between them and whatever out there they choose to avoid.

That makes perfect sense. But it doesn't mean animals seek us out or otherwise will hang with Humans. You are more on point by saying they will if forced to with no other choice. And BTW that goes for animals that for some reason have been unable to secure food normally and approach because they are starving- or sick.

 

MIB

 

I can't see anywhere that counters my post. Nearly all animals by nature will avoid Humans and where different species are concerned- each other. Period. Even in a kill zone there is a pecking order. One will not see a wolf feeding next to a bear for example.

Edited November 7, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

It's easy to rationalize their extreme avoidance of people with generalizations such as it being normal for wild animals to avoid people. The problem with such a generalization is that it fails to explain why Sasquatch in particular avoid humans to the extent that they do. The quantity and wide spread of reports in combination with the reported behaviour itself suggests that there's a bit more to it than just a simple fear of humans. Also, humans can avoid other humans if they have the mentality to do so. From a logical point of view, the avoidance of humans isn't indicitive of whether or not something is human.

[hiflier]

Hi OS. As far as being "Human" goes I think the resemblance stops at the creatures general shape. It's a case of form gives rise to function. And I still think Sasquatch is far more animal than Human. The point that Humans can hide from Humans is valid of course and as you say it isn't therefore by itself an indication of being Human or not Human. It takes looking at all aspects filed in the reports to round out the total creature. So then, primitive existence, no fire, no wheel, and no apparent capacity for creating either places it quite deep in the animal side of things. I include language in that as well as many if not most animals have a language that a is understood within a species and it is a vocal language.

 

I read a study where foxes are thought to actually understand the languages of an estimated 20 mother types of creatures. Sasquatch after 30-50 years may understand quite a bit more than that. They seem to also have a unique trait that we Humans also possess. Curiosity. That to me speaks of a higher intelligence but while things reported like slapping buildings are believed to occur rarely if ever do occupants inside see what did the slapping. It is assumed it is Sasquatch as what other animal would do that kind of thing? Humans maybe but again, it doesn't that the practice makes or doesn't make something Human.

 

Only the complete picture of a certain level of abilities, accomplishments, and progressive technological advancements, like us, would determine "Human". Hypothetical question for you: In "Star Wars" would the Wookie character Chewbacca be considered Human?

 

Chewbacca could understand English, make repairs, handle a weapon, an do all kinds of things Human. Yes, a fictional character to be sure but if one's answer is "Yes, Human" or "Possibly Human" then think how much farther down the ladder Sasquatch is than a creature like the fictional Wookie.  

Edited November 7, 2016 by hiflier

[WSA]

The behavior that broadcasts "more human than not" to me is the avoidance.  It could be merely the kind of avoidance of the predator the prey habitually practices, but then again, as far as we know, humans have never hunted Sasquatch for food. It seems to be more like a product f our xenophobia, and probably could be explained by one enemy avoiding another, in an uneasy truce.  I've long believed we persecuted Sasquatch with our superior lethality for millennia, and that genetic memory by selective pressure is still in evidence. We hunted them for only one reason: They were too much like us and seen as a competitor for our resources and mating opportunities. (Well, maybe we also snacked on one or two when times were hard. I'm sure they've returned the favor as well)