what is a "scientist" ?

[dmaker]

It's always funny when you stand up in front of a group of people who spend a great deal of their time searching for bigfoot, some on a daily basis, some on weekends with their local bigfoot group (there are dozens of these groups across North America), and tell them they are wasting their time.

 

Yet you say there is no real effort being made. I'd be pretty insulted if I was spending a fair chunk of my free time putting in the effort that you so casually dismiss as meaningless. 

 

Many important species discoveries have been made by non professional scientists.  You are full of many contradictions. On the one hand, you bemoan scientists for not doing proper science; and then on the other, you dismiss your fellow enthusiasts as incapable of finding bigfoot because you're waiting for scientists to get involved. 

Edited May 26, 2017 by dmaker

[Twist]

1 hour ago, DWA said:

There are two ways for a scientist to look at this, or he's not one:

 

1) IF HE HAS PERUSED THE EVIDENCE TO A SIGNIFICANT DEGREE:  I think that this is a real animal OR I think that follow-up research in the field is required/justified (or suitable variants on these two responses, depending upon the degree of perusal).

2) IF HE HAS NOT:  I await the proof and wish the searchers luck.

 

THAT'S IT.

 

Nothing else has accumulated this much evidence of this breadth and depth - not even close - prior to its acceptance as real by the society at large.  It's five decades past full-court-press time. The animal should have been confirmed in 1968, latest.  The total effort since P/G hasn't gotten up to the level required to have done that. 

 

Period. If sasquatch is confirmed - our comprehensive species stone-headedness forbids "when" - it will be a comprehensive indictment of the professional practice of science.

 

Can't have your cake and eat it too.  Is NAWAC doing their job or not?  Have they not read enough reports??? 

 

Edit:  IB4 More posts in capital letters proclaiming if you do not agree with DWA, YOU are wrong.  

Edited May 26, 2017 by Twist

[Guest DWA]

NAWAC is doing their job.  Know why?  They're READING REPORTS (and compiling them to boot).  And they think about them.  And on their own time with their own money, they've seen more sasquatch than 99% of the posters here combined.  (And I've explained a gillion times why they haven't shot one yet.)

 

Know what a scientist does?  Peruse the evidence.  The eyewitness testimony is one of the three unshakeable legs of sasquatch evidence, and every proponent scientist knows why:  you absolutely cannot discount them without proving - that is proving - every single one to be a false positive. They defy, to those who are familiar with them, every attempt to brush them off.  People, we the knowledgeable know, are not like this; they don't make up from thousands of disparate reports just the kind of animal a scientist would predict.  They don't make up out of whole cloth - knowing nothing about the topic - a hominid primate, with traits only known to be characteristic of those animals by primatologists.  They only describe what they saw, in the varied voices of a continent, and are not copycatting lying or makiing stuff up. But one only understands this if one has read them and, harrumph saskeptic! THOUGHT ABOUT THEM. Bigfoot skeptics (who aren't skeptical, they're True Believers) simply dismiss them with assumptions, which any scientist knows one cannot do.  There is no other record of eyewitness reportage in the history of our species like the one for sasquatch.  For those who have read them and applied themselves to, HELLO, actually thinking about what they have read, they are compelling by themselves.  But they aren't by themselves; there is a footprint avalanche that scientists have all but proven impossible to fake.  Then there's a film that could not bring those two threads together better than it does.

 

How come I know this, and all you people are reduced to making jokes about work you have not done, which points up your lack of grounding in the subject matter, hmmmmm? How come I have effective arguments against you, the kind a scientist would make, and yours are ineffective, the kind any unschooled noob makes, hmmmm?  I read and think; that's the work of science.  I connect disparate threads to one another, assess commonalities, and drop outliers.  I know who's a crock and who isn't (seeya, Justin Smeja!). I seem to know a lot more about this than a lot of people who are putting in significant field time; and the reason is that field time is insufficient unless you, you know, KNOW WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.

 

There should be a lot more solid content on this site than there is.  There isn't because too few people like to do science.  They prefer empty speculation and making stuff up out of whole cloth.  One could examine the evidence.  Which one doesn't need a science degree to do.  One only needs a brain and the willingness to use it.

 

But I am not, you know, seeing much stepping up on that count.

 

Am I.

 

(I honestly wish a LOT more of you would have ME on your Ignore lists. I wish that super bad.)

 

 

25 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

More posts in capital letters proclaiming if you do not agree with DWA, YOU are wrong.  

Any scientist would know:  that is right.  ;-)  AND STOP USING ALL THOSE^^ CAPS.  Reserved for scientists.  Thank you.

14 minutes ago, DWA said:

NAWAC is doing their job.  Know why?  They're READING REPORTS (and compiling them to boot).  And they think about them.  And on their own time with their own money, they've seen more sasquatch than 99% of the posters here combined.  (And I've explained a gillion times why they haven't shot one yet.)

 

Know what a scientist does?  Peruse the evidence.  The eyewitness testimony is one of the three unshakeable legs of sasquatch evidence, and every proponent scientist knows why:  you absolutely cannot discount them without proving - that is proving - every single one to be a false positive. They defy, to those who are familiar with them, every attempt to brush them off.  People, we the knowledgeable know, are not like this; they don't make up from thousands of disparate reports just the kind of animal a scientist would predict.  They don't make up out of whole cloth - knowing nothing about the topic - a hominid primate, with traits only known to be characteristic of those animals by primatologists.  They only describe what they saw, in the varied voices of a continent, and are not copycatting lying or makiing stuff up. But one only understands this if one has read them and, harrumph saskeptic! THOUGHT ABOUT THEM. Bigfoot skeptics (who aren't skeptical, they're True Believers) simply dismiss them with assumptions, which any scientist knows one cannot do.  There is no other record of eyewitness reportage in the history of our species like the one for sasquatch.  For those who have read them and applied themselves to, HELLO, actually thinking about what they have read, they are compelling by themselves.  But they aren't by themselves; there is a footprint avalanche that scientists have all but proven impossible to fake.  Then there's a film that could not bring those two threads together better than it does.

 

How come I know this, and all you people are reduced to making jokes about work you have not done, which points up your lack of grounding in the subject matter, hmmmmm? How come I have effective arguments against you, the kind a scientist would make, and yours are ineffective, the kind any unschooled noob makes, hmmmm?  I read and think; that's the work of science.  I connect disparate threads to one another, assess commonalities, and drop outliers.  I know who's a crock and who isn't (seeya, Justin Smeja!). I seem to know a lot more about this than a lot of people who are putting in significant field time; and the reason is that field time is insufficient unless you, you know, KNOW WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.

 

There should be a lot more solid content on this site than there is.  There isn't because too few people like to do science.  They prefer empty speculation and making stuff up out of whole cloth.  One could examine the evidence.  Which one doesn't need a science degree to do.  One only needs a brain and the willingness to use it.

 

But I am not, you know, seeing much stepping up on that count.

 

Am I.

 

(I honestly wish a LOT more of you would have ME on your Ignore lists. I wish that super bad.)

 

 

Any scientist would know:  that is right.  ;-)  AND STOP USING ALL THOSE^^ CAPS.  Reserved for scientists.  Thank you.

Y'all could be SO MUCH more fun.

 

Edited May 26, 2017 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

(And don't ask me how my post wound up duplicating itself.  There must be a female somewhere.  I did add a line at the end. Be more fun, gang.  Read up, think up.  THAT'S a scientist.  See, on topic!)

Edited May 26, 2017 by DWA

[dmaker]

37 minutes ago, DWA said:

They don't make up out of whole cloth - knowing nothing about the topic - a hominid primate, with traits only known to be characteristic of those animals by primatologists.

You keep making proclamations like this, but you never back them up. I have asked you numerous times to provide some examples of these primate traits supposedly known only to primatologists.  You won't because you can't because all of these traits you covet could easily be known to anyone that has been to a zoo, watched a documentary or two and has a computer or tablet. 

 

Do you know how ridiculous it sounds when you rest your case on the unfalsifiable? Especially when you add the impossible charge of proving every anecdote to be false. They cannot be proven true, nor can they be proven false. Hence why they have a diminished value as evidence.  

 

22 minutes ago, DWA said:

(And don't ask me how my post wound up duplicating itself.  There must be a female somewhere.

That's insulting to women. 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2017 by dmaker

[Guest Cricket]

Hello again to those on this thread!  Here's something I was thinking about recently after seeing many descriptions of the eyeshine of Bigfoot at night.  If we are talking about primates, then that feature is attributable to the tapetum lucidum, which is characteristic of Strepsirrhine primates.  The Strepsirrhines include lemurs, lorises, and bush babies.  Thus if Bigfoot has a tapetum lucidum, then it is either an ancestral trait shared with the Strepsirrhines, or a derived trait in Bigfoot, something it developed independently, and how that happened should be elaborated upon.  Anthropoids do not have a tapetum lucidum, so this characteristic would distinguish Bigfoot from Haplorhines (tarsiers, NW monkeys, OW monkeys, apes & humans).  I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts on this.  If the reports from those who have seen Bigfoot are to be taken seriously, then implications such as this should be taken into account.   

Edited May 26, 2017 by Cricket
to clarify a term

[Twist]

2 hours ago, dmaker said:

 

That's insulting to women. 

 

 

 

Big surprise considering the superiority complex already displayed. 

[Guest DWA]

There is no superiority complex, in history, like bigfoot skepticism.  I get sick of it and just prefer to bash it in the head.  Heat, kitchen, etc.

And look at all those delicious counterarguments. Man, I could be all day responding.  Wow.

 

What is a scientist?

 

SO NOT THAT.

Edited May 26, 2017 by DWA

[Twist]

 Is anyone ever going to fess up to DWA being their alt. account created for comedic value?  I always have a great chuckle at his posts and ideas regarding science and scientist.  

[Guest DWA]

And so too often it goes here.  Yawn.  When you have something of substance to say, let me know.  While we're on NOT comedic value.

Edited May 26, 2017 by DWA

[norseman]

19 hours ago, dmaker said:

Absolutely. I agree quite strongly. I would even take it a step further and postulate that many already know the creature does not exist, and that for them bigfooting is more of an adult live action role-playing game.

 

 

 

 

I do not agree with the LARP theory at all.

 

If that were the case any myth would be as good as the next. You would have "Finding Pixies" on the Discovery channel.

[Incorrigible1]

14 hours ago, dmaker said:

Many important species discoveries have been made by non professional scientists. 

Eight-year-old boy discovers early turtle fossil that solves the mystery of the turtle shell

Turtle shell initially evolved for burrowing, not protection

A new fossil of the oldest proto turtle, Eunotosaurus, discovered by then 8-year-old Kobus Snyman on his father's farm in the Karoo in South Africa, suggests the turtle shell initially evolved not for protection, but rather as an adaptation for burrowing. The broadened ribs and the beginnings of the turtle shell provided Eunotosaurus with a stable base from which it could use its large hands and spatula-shaped claws to burrow into the ground to escape the harsh arid environment found in South Africa 260 million years ago.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160719091725.htm

[dmaker]

We've had mermaids, megalodons, ghosts, etc on the Discovery Channel.

[norseman]

As a docu drama, yes.

 

Are there organized groups of real people with boats out hunting for mermaids?

[dmaker]

Not mermaids, no. I think Dogman is gaining traction in some places.