Where should professional scientists review bigfoot evidence?

[Guest DWA]

13 minutes ago, WSA said:

I've also stated here often enough my opinion that the proposed gold standard of proof...a carcass or an identifiable piece of one...is not going to solve the issue as neatly or as cleanly as some might imagine. The same old problems will arise, only on a larger scale. With the ante being that much greater, we can assume even more disputes about chain of custody, access, evidence preservation, NDA's, sight and sound rights,  etc.  We should be aware that if we've failed to solve these issues on a relatively small scale, blowing up the stakes exponentially is just going to make them worse.  

 

What I've said, more than once.  When the first platypus came to Europe, they looked long and hard for a sewn-on bill.  This is *not* going to be shoot-and-done.  First of all, your chain of custody will flat demand your primary science contacts to be proponents.  NO issues there, I mean how the heck could there be?  WHAT COULD GO WRONG... . There is no way in the clinically-documented bounds of Hades that my carcass goes to "an impartial jury of peers" (read: 'numskulls when that suits them and oh will it here') without a stack of proponents (read: scientists) in tow.

With of course the issue:  people that no one in the mainstream have been listening to, and they will now, why? But can't risk otherwise.

 

12 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

Yes, at this point in the process, it is EXACTLY how it has to be done because it is what is available.    This is discovery **in progress**.   Without the scientific establishment on board, the absolute only source of information is the amateurs who are doing the heavy lifting in the field.    There's a saying ... people who respect the law or sausage should not watch either being made.   It is the same thing here: if you are trying to put science on a pedestal, you should not watch the discovery process in progress.    Real science will never live up to your expectations.    The result may but the process won't.  

 

MIB

 

I wouldn't take the evidence to a kindergarten class, a bus full of seniors, or any OTHER (harrumph) forum demonstrably unprepared to deal with it.  Professional stoneskulls need not apply.  In fact I am not sure the process of presenting to the public should include *any* scientists other than proponents.  The mainstream has shown an unacceptable bias on this one; I simply wouldn't trust them to separate an opposable hallux from a hole in the ground.

Edited June 19, 2017 by DWA

[MIB]

5 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Ok, how do you know this hasn't happened? How do you know conversations have not happened between professional scientist proponents and professional scientist skeptics? How do you know that did not happen and perhaps the skeptic remained unimpressed and felt no compulsion to write a book about how unimpressive bigfoot evidence is?

 

I don't, in fact, I suspect it has happened.   However, expecting all scientists to assess the data identically, when they have different expertise in different areas, is like expecting a deep water shark to act exactly like a high lake trout just because they're both fish.  It's more than silly, it's outright stupid.    The fact is, though, when a scientist IS impressed and does write a book, you label a proponent and you write them off just like you have everyone else who is a proponent.   Examples: Meldrum, Sykes, Bindernagel, Krantz ... etc.   

 

MIB

[WSA]

Of course it has that possibility, and nobody wants it more than I do. BUT....we need to be realistic and look how this has panned out on a much smaller scale before now. Not pretty, and those issues need to be addressed or, once a piece of a BF is recovered, the mess is going to be even larger and do even more damage to the science we are trying to nurture.  None of us here should kid ourselves it will be simply a matter of somebody holding up a toe bone of an unidentified species and everyone else will shrug and list the new species. It will be very, very messy on an epic scale.

[dmaker]

4 minutes ago, norseman said:

Baloney.

 

A complete body would steam roll everything in its path.

Of course it would.

[Guest DWA]

EVERY SCIENTIFIC PROPONENT IS A MAINSTREAM SCIENTIST.  Didn't want that to get lost there; IOW, they know just what they're doing and don't need any Deny-A-Peers in their company when presenting evidence.

[norseman]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/650204462/Skeptics-think-Bigfoot-researcher-is-a-big-joke.html

[dmaker]

3 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

I don't, in fact, I suspect it has happened.   However, expecting all scientists to assess the data identically, when they have different expertise in different areas, is like expecting a deep water shark to act exactly like a high lake trout just because they're both fish.  It's more than silly, it's outright stupid.    The fact is, though, when a scientist IS impressed and does write a book, you label a proponent and you write them off just like you have everyone else who is a proponent.   Examples: Meldrum, Sykes, Bindernagel, Krantz ... etc.   

 

MIB

My question is, why does that scientist choose to write a book rather than a scientific paper submitted for peer review? That is a huge question this field should seriously consider. 

 

My opinion is that it speaks to the confidence level in the evidence. I believe the scientific proponents know the evidence would not pass peer review, so they publish books instead. And if the evidence is agreed to not be strong enough to pass peer review, then what evidence is out there uncontested? Right now, for bigfoot findings to be properly reviewed, they must be submitted for peer review. That is the process. That they are not, should be a message in itself. 

 

None of this hand waving nonsense about taboo and how journals would not even look at them. Nature looked at Ketchum's paper and the referee comments show no anti-bigfoot bias whatsoever.  Why choose to publish a manuscript, rather than a ground breaking scientific paper? Seems odd to me.

 

Edited June 19, 2017 by dmaker

[WSA]

And, like any steam roller, it is likely to move at a glacial pace.  If you bagged one Norse, or somebody with your same views on the idea? I'd say it would be a "done" event. HOWEVER....you know the possibilities here as well as anyone. In the hands of one of the "I drew the Gold Ticket" crowd? It will be a Charlie Foxtrot like you've never seen.

[dmaker]

3 minutes ago, DWA said:

Didn't want that to get lost there; IOW, they know just what they're doing and don't need any Deny-A-Peers in their company when presenting evidence.

Odd. They why do you constantly bemoan that bigfoot will never be proven without the full participation of mainstream science? 

5 minutes ago, norseman said:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/650204462/Skeptics-think-Bigfoot-researcher-is-a-big-joke.html

There is no doubt that some feel that way, obviously. But from the same article you have things like "However, the university backs Meldrum. "He's a bona fide scientist," said John Kijinski, dean of the school's College of Arts and Sciences."  Also, that article is 11 years old. Since then we have had the Sykes study, we have had the Ketchum paper accepted and reviewed by Nature (albeit sent back for revisions). We've also had large upticks in bigfoot popularity in the last 11 years. 

[norseman]

Here it is boiled down to brass tacks.

 

Dmaker is right about the lack of evidence that will not stand against a peer review. Scientific bias or not? It will not hold against real physical evidence.

 

I dont agree with the "wilds and woodsman" stuff. There are plenty of people out there collecting samples and attempting to get an answer. 

 

Its just that to date? It has yielded nothing concrete.

 

Which is why some of us? Start flipping over supernatural stones for answers....

[Guest DWA]

11 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

I don't, in fact, I suspect it has happened.   However, expecting all scientists to assess the data identically, when they have different expertise in different areas, is like expecting a deep water shark to act exactly like a high lake trout just because they're both fish.  It's more than silly, it's outright stupid.    The fact is, though, when a scientist IS impressed and does write a book, you label a proponent and you write them off just like you have everyone else who is a proponent.   Examples: Meldrum, Sykes, Bindernagel, Krantz ... etc.   

 

MIB

Meldrum's scoftic colleague Hackworth says in so many words (in that article norse posted) "scientists shouldn't be believers."  That is professional-numskull, writ large, and shows no attempt to even figure out what Meldrum is doing.  And that is most of the mainstream.

[WSA]

Since I've defined the problem of access to evidence here, let me propose the solution: A collaborative process with open access.

 

Those who have read about the analysis and classification of H. naledi, already know this could solve the issue.  You stand ready and willing to have any number of scientists examine your stuff and collaborate on a conclusion. With fossils, you have the ability to send out 3-D printer parameters of your bones...how cool is that?

 

So far, I think only Munns and Ketchum have offered anything like this. 

[norseman]

5 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Odd. They why do you constantly bemoan that bigfoot will never be proven without the full participation of mainstream science? 

There is no doubt that some feel that way, obviously. But from the same article you have things like "However, the university backs Meldrum. "He's a bona fide scientist," said John Kijinski, dean of the school's College of Arts and Sciences."  Also, that article is 11 years old. Since then we have had the Sykes study, we have had the Ketchum paper accepted and reviewed by Nature (albeit sent back for revisions). We've also had large upticks in bigfoot popularity in the last 11 years. 

 

Meldrum is a bona fide scientist. 

 

Its the only way he could survive dabbling in cryptozoology at a major university.

 

But the longer he lacks real physical evidence and holds on to his plaster cast collection? The more and more he looks like a crackpot.

12 minutes ago, WSA said:

And, like any steam roller, it is likely to move at a glacial pace.  If you bagged one Norse, or somebody with your same views on the idea? I'd say it would be a "done" event. HOWEVER....you know the possibilities here as well as anyone. In the hands of one of the "I drew the Gold Ticket" crowd? It will be a Charlie Foxtrot like you've never seen.

 

It would resemble a mushroom cloud, not a glacier....

[Guest DWA]

5 minutes ago, WSA said:

Since I've defined the problem of access to evidence here, let me propose the solution: A collaborative process with open access.

 

Those who have read about the analysis and classification of H. naledi, already know this could solve the issue.  You stand ready and willing to have any number of scientists examine your stuff and collaborate on a conclusion. With fossils, you have the ability to send out 3-D printer parameters of your bones...how cool is that?

 

So far, I think only Munns and Ketchum have offered anything like this. 

The naledi example is a pretty exciting one.  And with all the gloom and doom we are doing here, when the mainstream *knows* there is a real thing to look at, as they have (wrongly) defined it here, getting truly interested and open-minded people might not be a major problem. And the skeptical are going to have to match their skepticism up against something maybe harder to ignore than a footprint cast.

[dmaker]

22 minutes ago, WSA said:

Since I've defined the problem of access to evidence here, let me propose the solution: A collaborative process with open access.

 

Those who have read about the analysis and classification of H. naledi, already know this could solve the issue.  You stand ready and willing to have any number of scientists examine your stuff and collaborate on a conclusion. With fossils, you have the ability to send out 3-D printer parameters of your bones...how cool is that?

 

So far, I think only Munns and Ketchum have offered anything like this. 

Offered where? What you propose already exists--it's called peer review.

20 minutes ago, norseman said:

But the longer he lacks real physical evidence and holds on to his plaster cast collection? The more and more he looks like a crackpot.

He has also pronounced positive on known hoaxes, such as Snow walker. But I don't wish to create a Meldrum bashing thread. I only mention errors like that because it highlights the need for peer review, in my opinion. That way we don't have an unorganized volley of opinions. We could have a concentrated, scientific analysis of the evidence. 

 

This does not happen and I do not believe it has all that much to do with bias or the inherent subject matter.

Edited June 19, 2017 by dmaker