what is a "scientist" ?

[norseman]

8 hours ago, dmaker said:

How do you know the picture is from her backyard? How do you know if she was playing games or not? I don't think she was identified, was she? They were anonymously mailed to the Sheriff's Department. 

 

You take much on faith, my friend. 

 

I don't.

 

Because I think it's a real animal in the picture.

 

Not that I'm aware of, but why do you take it on faith that she is a lying hoaxer? 

 

Regardless I'm simply trying to illustrate that many folks that see things are not "Bigfooters". So much so that they want to report a dangerous animal on the prowl but do not want their name associated with the subject.

 

So you think this photo is a result of a group of LARPing Bigfooters playing a hoax? Why remain anonymous? Would they not want the notoriety of the PGF, the Freeman film, etc? There must be a lot of top notch suit builders in the ranks of amateur Bigfooters.

 

If I saw that in my backyard? I'd let the air out of it.

[dmaker]

17 hours ago, 7.62 said:

I can understand on an anonymous forum you can question motives or claims that other members here have seen one .

Can I just ask you a hypothetical question ? Other than seeing one with your own eyes is there anyone in your circle of friends or family if they told you they saw one

would it convince you  they exist ?

 

Only reason I'm asking is I never thought much of the subject before this year until I talked to a person who is about as honest as honest can be.

It was just a off hand comment I made to him that got me interested in the subject . I won't go into detail about it now but the photos he showed me at his home

made me a believer .

No

[SWWASAS]

I've never seen an atom or an electron but I am pretty sure they exist.   I have to accept the determination of others that they do.    To accept absolutely nothing unless you have seen it with your own eyes rules out most of the animal and plant species on the planet.   Strange way of dealing with the world if  you ask me.   

[dmaker]

Nice strawman, SWWASAS.

[norseman]

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

I've never seen an atom or an electron but I am pretty sure they exist.   I have to accept the determination of others that they do.    To accept absolutely nothing unless you have seen it with your own eyes rules out most of the animal and plant species on the planet.   Strange way of dealing with the world if  you ask me.   

 

Dmaker isn't saying that at all. Any scientifically categorized species he accepts........no matter if he has seen it or not.

 

Again, this subject isn't a sub atomic particle in size. It's a large Primate. We need physical evidence before most people take this subject seriously. And I do not think that is being unreasonable.

 

I think Dmaker has his quirks and inconsistencies, but this isn't one of them.

 

 

[ShadowBorn]

58 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

I've never seen an atom or an electron but I am pretty sure they exist.

But they have been proven to exist even though we have not seen them with our own eyes. So yes I can see Dmaker side of things when it comes to these creatures. We might have seen them and maybe at the time thought to our selves is this really real. But to everyone else it is just a story till there is proof on the table. 

 

" A scientist is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge that describes and predicts the natural world. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science. "

 

" scientific method

noun

noun: scientific method; plural noun: scientific methods

1. a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    

   Another definition of a scientist :

   " scientist

   noun: scientist; plural noun: scientists

   1. a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

       

      " Natural science can be divided into two main branches: life science (or biological science) and physical science. Physical science is subdivided into branches, including physics, space science, chemistry, and Earth science " .

       

       think we kind a of become scientist when we run into these creatures or any animal that's unusual.

       

 

 

[7.62]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Dmaker isn't saying that at all. Any scientifically categorized species he accepts........no matter if he has seen it or not.

 

Again, this subject isn't a sub atomic particle in size. It's a large Primate. We need physical evidence before most people take this subject seriously. And I do not think that is being unreasonable.

 

I think Dmaker has his quirks and inconsistencies, but this isn't one of them.

 

 

That's why I phrased the question a particular way . A circle of trust is very small for most folks and you're lucky to have more than 1 or 2 real good friends in a lifetime .

My self I have only 1 really that I've known for 45 or so  years including both of us serving in the Marine Corps , best man at my wedding etc. . I get it though if a person like Dmarker has to see it himself. I read reports  of family members in particular , fathers telling their sons what they saw or experienced in the woods when they had an encounter .It's stories like that where it might keep the question or legend going for some researchers .

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is everybody is lying? Or people that have spent a lifetime in the woods can't tell the difference between a bear and something else .

 

[norseman]

Well that's the million dollar question.

 

I saw deep tracks in snow that I cannot explain. But I'm of the mindset that if it's out there it's a creature like any other. Which means we should be finding physical evidence of its existence. 

 

Lot of theories as to we ain't got none, including Dmaker's that there is nothing out there and there never was.

 

This is why I pack a .45-70 with me in the woods. I leave the door open to it's existence and nobody is going to argue with a body.

[Trogluddite]

On 5/26/2017 at 3:41 PM, dmaker said:

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think that gaming theory fits well for bigfooting. At least for me it does. I've always struggled with the notion that someone could truly believe that bigfoot exists. Given all the time and the lack of evidence, etc, it just creates a sense of puzzlement to me that I cannot get around.  Game theory has helped with that one. Bigfooting and enthusiast behavior make more sense when looked at from a gaming point of view. They don't truly believe, they are just pretending, mostly..... Or some other version like, they are fooling themselves and deep down know it, but never really think about it or voice it. Denial in other words. ...

Game playing helps to explain those things that I've always found odd about this subject.

 

You may have a point for some individual proponents, or snake oil salesmen as I would call them, but not all.  Particularly here, I'm confident that there are several proponents or, like me, cautiously skeptical optimists, that are involved out of a serious desire to provide an answer to this question.  

 

On 5/23/2017 at 10:53 PM, dmaker said:

....Nothing can be proven from reports..... 

 

If information over hundreds of reports (height, sightings by season, footprint size, etc.) has a bell-shaped distribution, which is the easier explanation - that people are reporting an animal that varies in a natural distribution like other animals or that hundreds of faked or miss-identified encounters were managed to ensure that they created a natural distribution.  While I agree that the ultimate proof of existence of Bigfoot won't be proven w/out a body, I'd like to think that intelligent inquirers looking at information intelligently can glean valid information from reports. 

 

On 5/24/2017 at 9:19 PM, WSA said:

Special problem: No thing has ever been purported to leave this amount of trace evidence and not been bagged. Non-existence is not logical to a large and increasing number of people, but the belief in non-existence creates as large a conundrum to be explained.

 

What I hope to learn is: How could either of these be possible?

 

That is the rubik's cube that hooked me after a solid 30 years of not thinking about this.

 

On 5/25/2017 at 3:05 PM, dmaker said:

....I am interested in the motivations and mindset of those that choose to participate in this phenomenon as proponents. So, when you started talking about a concerted effort to get to the bottom of the mystery, I was curious what you meant, since the "mystery" is not whether bigfoot exists or not. You still have not really answered that question, but that is your prerogative. It's not that important. 

 

It might not be a mystery to you, but it's an open question to me.  And I participate - in a quite time-consuming way now that I have the time to do so - in an effort to answer that question to my satisfaction. My answer might not change your mind but my goal isn't to change anyone's mind but my own. 

 

On 5/26/2017 at 3:41 PM, dmaker said:

....You're not really meant to find bigfoot. Ever. You even have people like DWA who regularly twist the basic tenets of evidence in an attempt to distract and add legitimacy to the hobby.   Anything to keep the game going and make it seem legit. Just never, ever, ever talk about the game. 

Again, I certainly think that certain people and groups have more of a business interest than an actual interest in actually finding anything.  But just like other pursuits - religion and political leadership come to mind - the fact that some charlatans take advantage of the situation doesn't detract from those who try to faithfully carry out their mission.  I guess the argument I would pick is that your argument sweeps too broadly.

[Guest DWA]

"....You're not really meant to find bigfoot. Ever. You even have people like DWA who regularly twist the basic tenets of evidence in an attempt to distract and add legitimacy to the hobby.   Anything to keep the game going and make it seem legit. Just never, ever, ever talk about the game."

 

This last sentence is the perfect indictment of bigfoot skepticism.  Never talk about, after all the efforts made by people to get you to pay attention and think with the whole brain, why you just can't seem to be bothered to read anything that might contradict your point of view.  Never let on that you want the world to be dull dull dull...a fate you don't fully understand, which only unrelenting exercise of the scientific mind can avoid.

Edited May 28, 2017 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

1 hour ago, Trogluddite said:

 

If information over hundreds of reports (height, sightings by season, footprint size, etc.) has a bell-shaped distribution, which is the easier explanation - that people are reporting an animal that varies in a natural distribution like other animals or that hundreds of faked or miss-identified encounters were managed to ensure that they created a natural distribution.  While I agree that the ultimate proof of existence of Bigfoot won't be proven w/out a body, I'd like to think that intelligent inquirers looking at information intelligently can glean valid information from reports. 

This.  But count on it, some people are bound and determined never to get it.  And they never, never, never talk about their game.

[Branco]

Forget the scientists; just get in the woods and prove their existences to yourself and friends that are also woods rats and seriously interested enough to spend the time and money to see and interact with a few. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do that, although I know two who have. Who cares what others think or believe? If they don't have the guts and interest to do that; what is their opinion actually worth?

 

Just over a week ago, a good friend - who is also a "knower" - took four semi-interested male college students to one of the active group's areas I have been working for years. They got cute with one of the resident males that typically come into that remote camp area when people are there at night. The boys were noisy and laughing when they heard a growling, stick breaking approach. One boy thought the sounds were made by others in the group, and walked around their truck and growled loudly. Immediately the male growled deeply and a lot louder and more aggressively and bluff charged him through the brush to within about ten feet of the truck. They all piled in it and left in a hurry. What the boy did - without knowing it - was to challenge and insult the male.

 

I and a another "knower" spent some time up there night before last before last to make amends, although the wind and the nearby river's high water flow prevented us from hearing anything except their distant "gathering call" about dark, and that was only possible through an amplified sound system. 

 

Several night visitors/camper who have been at that site have left in a hurry, sometimes leaving the bulk of their gear behind.

 

 

 

 

[wiiawiwb]

What is a scientist?

 

In my opinion, someone useless who comes in after-the-fact who contributed nothing to the effort until after the heavy lifting was over.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2017 by wiiawiwb

[dmaker]

8 hours ago, Branco said:

Forget the scientists; just get in the woods and prove their existences to yourself and friends that are also woods rats and seriously interested enough to spend the time and money to see and interact with a few. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do that, although I know two who have. Who cares what others think or believe? If they don't have the guts and interest to do that; what is their opinion actually worth?

 

Just over a week ago, a good friend - who is also a "knower" - took four semi-interested male college students to one of the active group's areas I have been working for years. They got cute with one of the resident males that typically come into that remote camp area when people are there at night. The boys were noisy and laughing when they heard a growling, stick breaking approach. One boy thought the sounds were made by others in the group, and walked around their truck and growled loudly. Immediately the male growled deeply and a lot louder and more aggressively and bluff charged him through the brush to within about ten feet of the truck. They all piled in it and left in a hurry. What the boy did - without knowing it - was to challenge and insult the male.

 

I and a another "knower" spent some time up there night before last before last to make amends, although the wind and the nearby river's high water flow prevented us from hearing anything except their distant "gathering call" about dark, and that was only possible through an amplified sound system. 

 

Several night visitors/camper who have been at that site have left in a hurry, sometimes leaving the bulk of their gear behind.

 

 

 

 

Cool story. I don't believe a word of it, however.

[JDL]

You do realize that you are actually just a figment of your own imagination?