Shortcoming of The Scientific Community

[Martin]

The reports require multiple species.

 

Social construct doesn't require multiple species when accounting for regional folklore 

 

I imagine the reports are more consistent from 2005 or so on.

 

The reports indicate hoax. Read them and you will understand.

[FarArcher]

1 hour ago, dmaker said:

Buses do not tend to bang on trailer doors, howl into the night, raid dumpsters, build stick huts in suburbia, etc, etc....

 

You stated these things are so large, no way they could escape confirmation for so long.

 

And this is your reply?

 

Clearly a case of Occhiolism.

[Yuchi1]

19 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

You may recall, I've not had the wrong person.

 

Oh, did you make a mistake?

 

Incorrigible1, would you be the same person (using that screen name) that had a running mate (of sorts) that claimed ownership of another third-party's photograph and subsequently filed a cause of action against yet another third-party, accusing them of claiming ownership of said photograph...which eventually turned out to be a bogus photograph, if the first place.

[Incorrigible1]

Old bachelor, here. Not me. Bark up another tree.

[dmaker]

1 hour ago, FarArcher said:

 

You stated these things are so large, no way they could escape confirmation for so long.

 

And this is your reply?

 

Clearly a case of Occhiolism.

My point was obvious, and you know it. You were going on about how easy it is to hide large, unmoving objects in the woods as a comparison to bigfoot escaping detection. You used a bus as an example, not me. You clearly neglected to mention all the non hiding type behaviour bigfoots do that parked buses do not. 

 

Occhiolism? Must be my small hands    

 

[FarArcher]

4 minutes ago, dmaker said:

My point was obvious, and you know it. You were going on about how easy it is to hide large, unmoving objects in the woods as a comparison to bigfoot escaping detection. You used a bus as an example, not me. You clearly neglected to mention all the non hiding type behaviour bigfoots do that parked buses do not. 

 

Occhiolism? Must be my small hands    

 

3 hours ago, dmaker said:

Buses do not tend to bang on trailer doors, howl into the night, raid dumpsters, build stick huts in suburbia, etc, etc....

 

I missed it.  

 

But now you have my attention - are you saying BF tends to bang on trailer doors, raids dumpsters, builds stick shelters, etc., etc - did you just say that?

[dmaker]

It is reported to do so. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't hold the reports up as the fountain of bigfoot truth, but ignore the parts you do not like. According to DWA, to do so you must PROVE every SINGLE, BINGLE, DINGLE one of the reports that mentions loud and attention drawing behaviour wrong. EVERY one of them. 

 

I don't give a rodent's posterior if you can hide a parked bus in the woods. What does that have to do with anything?

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by dmaker

[Yuchi1]

1 hour ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Old bachelor, here. Not me. Bark up another tree.

 

Thank you sir. Will make sure tree doesn't have a Wood Ape swinging in it.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

55 minutes ago, dmaker said:

It is reported to do so. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't hold the reports up as the fountain of bigfoot truth, but ignore the parts you do not like. According to DWA, to do so you must PROVE every SINGLE, BINGLE, DINGLE one of the reports that mentions loud and attention drawing behaviour wrong. EVERY one of them. 

 

I don't give a rodent's posterior if you can hide a parked bus in the woods. What does that have to do with anything?

 

 

The reality is that it can be incredibly difficult to "prove" a negative (e.g. Sasquatch aren't real) to yourself, when there are so many possibilities that can't be reduced. That's part of the reason why denialists are so fixated on this subject, and part of the reason why they're in denial in the first (they're not able to reduce the possibility of "Bigfoot" existing to a point where they eliminate cognitive dissonance, and the mental pain associated with it).

 

Convincing oneself that Sasquatch are real can be as simple as properly psychoanalyzing a single witness or identifying insightful patterns in sighting statistics or having a personal experience. It's not necessary to accept every report as being true if you don't think the interpretation of it (or any evidence) is good enough.

 

 

[scottv]

FWIW. Things that move are much easier to find/document than things that don't. So hidden buses (or crashed planes which people bring up from time to time) really aren't comparable to a moving animal. If there is a population of moving animals and you want to just document the species presence and not a particular individual then this is much easier. This is why trail cameras (especially if you're using 40 or 50) work so well and why animals with small home ranges or short daily movements are harder to document and why on another thread I postulated that if bigfoot is a real animal then the lack of trail camera data points to small home ranges and or short daily movements.

[Guest DWA]

Cricket said:

 

I don’t think anyone interested in BF or cryptids has to sit back and wait for outside scientists to do something with whatever miscellaneous information and/or raw data they have! I posted some rough ideas, for instance, regarding what could be done with the BF tree/branch structures in the ‘field methods’ forum—all it takes are some motivated people to think about how to approach a given issue (which would definitely require a literature search of what others in biology, anthropology, etc., have actually done to systematically investigate similar issues), come up with an appropriate research design, and run with it. It doesn’t always require a huge budget. So I would say that the only science that gets done is the science that people actually get to work and do.  I hope that doesn't sound snarky, because it is NOT meant to be.  I actually think it would be great to see that happen more than perhaps is occurring presently.

 

Precisely, Cricket.  I'd think that at least a number of the proponents have long since gotten used to the idea that the mainstream is done with this until there's a body.  Well, unscientific approaches demand a scientific response.

 

Mine, I've chosen, and it's focused on one thing: my own personal education enlightenment and fun. Fine, three things, but still.  I've made a careful reading of the evidence, and of the prominent people vouching for it, and have done a lot of thinking about it.  I may not have forgotten more about animals than most zoologists know; but I know a hell of a lot more than any zoologist ever has forgotten, I'll wager that.  To that I add going on 37 years in the woods, seeing hearing smelling finding tracks and otherwise encountering the animals and people that live and work and recreate out there.  I've been surprised how formidable that background can be when practically and properly applied.

 

My review has convinced me that these animals are real; that no pattern of evidence like this exists, or ever has, that isn't pretty much what the evidence says; and that no one who disagrees with me is applying themselves properly to the evidence.  All that stands until challenged; and it hasn't remotely been challenged yet.  (So there, once more, that's a challenge.)  So I guess I am talking to you field researchers out there who seem interested in proving it not just to yourself but to the society at large:  If you haven't made a thorough read of the evidence, DO IT.  You are going to find not only a serious dovetail with the time you are spending in the field, but a host of ideas for making that time more productive.  As Cricket says:  you are pretty much It, so I wouldn't wait for anyone unless you're OK with that. (Personally I'm in no rush.)

 

I'll add this:  there seem too many people dead set on precisely what this is.  I'd try to drop that.  My research and pondering have given me likelihoods that I express here.  But I have also had my mind opened by proponents who explained things I laughed at when I first heard them (including the idea that this might not be an ape, and might be something closer to us that many of us might think. Including those that think sasquatch might not be the only unlisted North American hominoid).  I'd let your research inform you and advise you to keep your methods and your minds open and remember something I like to say a lot here:  Observations are not taxonomy.

[Branco]

Exactly! The ones who want to learn more about the critters will understand, those seriously interested in the subject will objectively consider the possibilities, but the nay-sayers who want nothing more than to be spoon fed by "science" - which ain't gonna happen - will let info from those that put in the time and money to learn run off there heads like rain off a duck's back. If the old saying is true, they must live a blissful life.

[norseman]

On 6/7/2017 at 11:08 PM, scottv said:

FWIW. Things that move are much easier to find/document than things that don't. So hidden buses (or crashed planes which people bring up from time to time) really aren't comparable to a moving animal. If there is a population of moving animals and you want to just document the species presence and not a particular individual then this is much easier. This is why trail cameras (especially if you're using 40 or 50) work so well and why animals with small home ranges or short daily movements are harder to document and why on another thread I postulated that if bigfoot is a real animal then the lack of trail camera data points to small home ranges and or short daily movements.

 

Except looking at the data of what a troupe of Gorillas caloric intake is per day? Something twice as large as Bigfoot supposedly is? Cannot have a small home range. Not if they live in family groups. They would eat themselves out of house and home in short order. Plus conceivably stockpiling for winter....something Gorillas don't do, would add even more stress to the habitat.

[ShadowBorn]

Quote

This is why trail cameras (especially if you're using 40 or 50) work so well and why animals with small home ranges or short daily movements are harder to document and why on another thread I postulated that if bigfoot is a real animal then the lack of trail camera data points to small home ranges and or short daily movements.

If people believe that they live with in short home ranges then this is mis-information. If these creatures cannot be documented by trail cams then that is that they do not want to be photographed.  Just because we cannot get photo's of them does not mean that they do not exist. It only means that they have learned on how not to be discovered.

 

If they are a form of human/animal and have lived through out many years with us. Then they have discovered a way to evade us but have been spotted every so often.  Also they have learned to spot humans unwilling to do them harm and will communicate with them. By communicate with, I mean in such a way that they learned through out the years. We have no idea on what they know and it would be foolish to say that we do. We have no idea what their home range could be since we sit here arguing over if they exist or not. We must over come this argument whether they exist or not. Once this is accomplished we can then go on with what we need to figure out on how retrieve a body. I am all for going after extracting a body whether it being a living or a dead one. Just that it needs to be thought out with open minds.

 

 But science needs to be open to the idea that they exist. No exceptions !  

[Guest Cricket]

OntarioSquatch has mentioned the scientific method in a couple posts, and I wanted to respond. This post could apply to comments in several threads out there, but I don’t presently have the option to make multiple posts so I’m posting my thoughts here in response to any discussion about scientific methodology and mainstream scientists re: BF. Please bear with me, I will be thrilled when I have advanced beyond new member status and can post freely!

About the scientific method as summarized by OntarioSquatch:

I would say that most if not all those working in science today already have some theoretical framework from which questions are derived and which has some bearing on the observations made. Science in some incipient form or another has been around a very long time, and modern science came into being over the last few centuries, so most scientists are already working from within the framework of a given discipline’s body of knowledge. In paleoanthropology and primate evolution, for instance, there are some major questions that are generally of interest to those working in these fields, and I have some links here for some of those questions or issues, although not exhaustive. Every discipline has its big questions, even cryptozoology (!), so nothing unusual or suspect here. I think it’s important to bear these questions in mind when critiquing mainstream science and scientists regarding the subject of BF, a recurring theme on this forum. It won’t absolve them of the legitimate criticisms, but at least it will give some more nuanced idea of where they may be coming from. My personal experience with the disciplines and with some people in them gives me some insight that I can compare to what I see discussed so often here. I think it might involve more than the standard rationales I see repeated so often. Those standard rationales are likely operating to varying degrees at times, but there are additional considerations or contributing factors.

13 Big Questions in Paleoanthropology

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/origins/big_questions.php

Primate Origins

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-063016-015637

One of several big questions in primate evolution is where hominoids arose; Europe or Asia as opposed to Africa. Bigfoot located in North America, if a non-human ape, would be interesting, of course, not denying it, but it would not have direct bearing on the main questions in primate evolution. It would be inherently interesting in terms of its place in the diversity of life on the planet, but it would not be the first non-human primate to have existed in North America. I'm not saying it's not worth exploring because of that, only that this possibility for BF's biological identity would mean it would not be as 'revolutionary' of a discovery as some proponents may speculate. If, however, it was found to be more closely related to humans, then that would bear directly on more fundamental issues in human evolution occupying those working in that discipline. So it could be 1) an interesting deal but not bearing directly on the big questions, or 2) it could be a much bigger deal.

 

Early Primates

http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/early_2.htm

 

Miocene Apes

http://anthro.vancouver.wsu.edu/media/Course_files/anth-490-edward-h-hagen/begun-2010-miocene-hominids-and-the-origins-of-the-african-apes-and-humans.pdf

 

Miocene Hominoids

http://www.anthropology.utoronto.ca/Faculty/Begun/handbook.pdf

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that those in the mainstream relevant disciplines should not be viewed as monolithic. There will be primatologists who are primarily interested in studying extant primates, there will be those who are first and foremost interested in primate evolution and anatomy who also at times study living primates for insight into fossil primates, and there are those who are mainly interested in human evolution and anatomy and are primarily dealing with fossils, but do include some study of extant primates for insight. I would not expect their largely unsatisfactory reactions to the subject of BF (is it disinterest? resistance? hostility?) to be rooted in precisely the same considerations, even though it leads to generally the same place. Knowing the big questions that are involved in the relevant disciplines, however, might serve to help proponents to create a more resonant case for investigating Bigfoot, both for themselves and to outside scientists, assuming they want to do that. So again, my remarks are made in a supportive spirit.