Guest DWA Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 The great majority of scientists, Kuhn explains, are not busy contesting accepted knowledge or falsifying major claims but instead repeat - with relatively small variants - the work of their predecessors. Moreover, scientists are organized in distinct and incommensurable communities, each shaped by a different disciplinary matrix, and they work exclusively within the framework of that matrix. - Ilana Lowy These are the people for whom peer review makes sense, the people who need to be kept within the guideposts set by "the work of their predecessors." Does this conform to theoretical boundaries? Is this a proper extension of the work on which it was based? In biology, proof by type specimen has long been the standard of adding new species to scientific canon. There is a perfectly good and reasonable basis for that: the vast majority of animals we know about were introduced to communal knowledge *without benefit of prior informed discussion.* There was a need for a body, because no one in the community had the foggiest notion that the animal could possibly exist prior to receiving one for review. Such was the nature of communication; such were the limits of knowledge. This is a profoundly different circumstance. There have been many tons of informed commentary on a large and consistent body of evidence. In the very terms scientists use, there is literally no reason to pause - and we've been on pause, at minimum, roughly a century and a half*** - in the effort to push forward knowledge about the sasquatch, because there has been *so very much* informed commentary about this topic that almost the only thing left to obtain is the specimen without which we can't get to specifics like eyeshine and fossil lineage. We don't need the body to prove it is real; we've been done on that one for a LONG time. We need one - and we will sooner or later - to *find out more about it.* And with current technology, we might not even need it for a lot of that, with exceptions as I noted above. For the mainstream to involve itself now as if informed comment has not happened is the height of misinformation. The mainstream has shown, by its refusal to gear up for a full-time push for a specimen, total ignorance of the topic. And once again, people: scientists are probes of reality and not arbiters of it; and if you aren't playing in reality, best we leave you behind here till YOU decide to get caught up. Which would be a century and a half, now, we've been waiting for that. And done. ***Since about 1871, when the New York Times said in an editorial: there are so many extremely consistent Wildman sightings that for God's sake put it to rest already.
dmaker Posted June 21, 2017 Author Posted June 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, DWA said: And done. If only you were.
JDL Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 4 hours ago, norseman said: Thats because DWA doesn't care what advances the forum. And he certainly isn't worried about poor taste....like dredging up ancient threads to evidently bury newer ones. Your beating up the wrong guy. I'm not taking sides between hiflier and anyone else and, honestly, I almost never read any of DWA's posts (sorry guy). I couldn't even tell you what argument he is losing because I don't read most of the threads anymore. I simply object to hiflier's behavior when he starts lording it over other members. Recall his comments about weeding certain people/perspectives out of the forum. I know for a fact that some of the longstanding members refrain from posting simply because they don't care to interact with him. I, myself, would rather dialogue with an objective skeptic than a self-important proponent who runs from thread to thread like a Bantam rooster in a barnyard trying to control and direct something larger than himself. To paint the contrast, fewer people post now than before hiflier jumped in. So far as I can tell, DWA hasn't tried to weed out the forum or discourage anyone else from posting. I'd just like to see hiflier play nicer with others. 2
dmaker Posted June 21, 2017 Author Posted June 21, 2017 5 minutes ago, JDL said: So far as I can tell, DWA hasn't tried to weed out the forum or discourage anyone else from posting. Not that I would wish this on anyone, but you may want to read his posts. He has, in direct words even, said that if you disagree with him, your opinion does not matter. I would say that discourages people from posting. Not me, of course. Quite the opposite
JDL Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 Nobody's opinion should be censored. It's our own choice whether or not to read/listen. That's the best measure of whether or not someone's opinion matters. I skip over ninety percent of his posts, along with those that seem to be solely directed at him. The arguments surrounding him don't interest me. Seems to me, though, that he stimulates more discussion instead of suppressing it. From the outside I see one guy backed into a corner and surrounded (and maybe he deserves it, can't say), and another guy trying to control who comes through the door (that's what bugs me). Dunno, maybe I'm part of the problem too. 1
hiflier Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 (edited) JDJ, I apologize. I am certainly part of the problem as I have had nothing of note to add from any research I have done. But this isn't to say that regarding Sasquatch that there isn't enough evidence already. There is. And it's good evidence. We have plenty of footprint casts at the very minimum. At the maximum? There is physical evidence that is even better. Many here don't know that, and I'm not allowed to talk about it as it's in the Premium section. All I'm saying is that it's there and it needs to get to the right people. And rather than argue whether the creature exists or not, or whether science is hiding it's head in the sand, or people are ignorant because they are perceived by some to not read the reports, I choose to not do any of that. I choose to keep moving forward and it costs me 20 bucks a year here to do that. I'm sorry if I stepped on any toes in my zeal to push past dialogue that is only circular at best and the necro posting recently proves that beyond doubt. And it continues unabated. But it does nothing to slow down my absolute confidence in being able to break out of the cycle. Something that I've heard so many complain about- circular discussions that simply keep repeating themselves. I have refused to thing I am the only one that seriously wants progress; something that is needed and very possible given the right approach. Call it control if you will but the fact remains that if ANYONE wants to get the answer on Sasquatch existence then there is a way forward for that. Finding out who really wants that isn't easy so fault me for trying to discover which members are truly serious about having mainstream science get on board. Again, If me tactics are questionable then I apologize. But if folks don't understand that yet another footprint cast isn't going to do then maybe it's time for them to find out what will. This is what adults do and we are adults so........it CAN be done. But only if people are in agreement that it can be done. And call it what you will but I think there are those that do NOT want a conclusion to the mystery of Bigfoot and so work to thwart any impetus to do so. A work that only succeeds in bring the subject back into the circular it has resided in for decades. And I'm saying we can all do better. I'm just trying to keep that message alive- call it whatever you wish. It's a message that is getting buried by the practice of feverish necro posting though. So I've been trying to keep it at the surface: They is a solution for getting science involved and it doesn't lie in the mere discussion of why science doesn't and then bashing it. You don't know this but I AM in the Forum's court 100%, always have been. All one has to do is be able to look past my idiosyncrasies. Edited June 21, 2017 by hiflier
gigantor Posted June 22, 2017 Admin Posted June 22, 2017 Listen up... There is no "problem". This board is here to facilitate conversation, argument and disagreement between members. It's ok, we want debate. What we do not want is: 1) Personal Attacks. Attack the argument, not the member. 2) Thread Highjacks. Stay on topic. Do not go off on tangents. 3) Be reasonably civil toward each other. Also, grow a thick skin, you're bound to be offended at some point. Get over it. 4) Behave like adults. The game of baiting each other in order to report your opponent to the mods is over. This is the reason why nobody wants to be a mod. It must stop. It's not much to ask. It's no secret we are having a moderator shortage at the moment. I am not a moderator, nor want to be one. I have no moderator powers in the BFF. However, I do have Firewall/Sysadmin powers which are very crude, blunt instruments, like shooting a fly with a .45. I've never used them on a member and hope I never have to. But I will if I have to... keep that in mind. When the Gig pulls the trigger, your BFF membership is over, permanently. We are going to have a bit of an honor system until the mods regroup, in the mean time, please: Behave! 2
Twist Posted June 22, 2017 Posted June 22, 2017 Every now and then a lot of us need the reminder that we should all act as adults. Being guilty of this myself, thanks for the reminder.
FarArcher Posted June 22, 2017 Posted June 22, 2017 On 6/19/2017 at 3:00 PM, dmaker said: Let me see if I got this right. A paper describing an extinct species may actually be a bigfoot paper because bigfoot might be that extinct species, extant? er... Maybe there are published papers. But they may be under a different heading. Like Neanderthals, or Erectus. Just because some folks say these things are extinct - like the same folks said the Coelecanth went extinct - are just mistaken. Like the fun made of little people like Leprechauns, but then find the real-life Hobbit. Maybe the Hobbit group was more widespread than that one island, and maybe the others didn't go extinct, either. Just because one hasn't had a recent body - it's a stretch as not - that they no longer exist. Maybe they just hide better now. Yeah, dmaker, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. One must admit there are bones and skulls of other species in museums scattered all over the world. Other bipedal species - really existed. If one admits that as a truth, then one must admit that it's not impossible that one of these species - or more - did NOT in fact go extinct. The fossil evidence is right there - other things besides humans - existed. Some at the same time of humans. You have the Red Deer Cave folks, the Dmansi group, the Neanderthal group, the Hobbit group, the HomoErectus group, the Habilis group - all species that walked upright - but they weren't human. And it seems every few years, we discover another species, or are able to eliminate some of the previously subspecies as not subspecies but one of the other groups, just with a slightly different appearance. Now the bare-skinned representations in museums - a very, very biased viewpoint - simply has to be BS. And the human characteristics they give them in both body/face characteristics, and mass characteristics - those just aren't honest - and I'd say - very dishonest. So. Another two-legged, upright critter walking around? Absolutely possible - through the existing fossil record - AND a wealth of narratives and physical representations - from all over the world. Caution: The sanitized, approved narrative of OUT OF AFRICA, carefully contrived and widely supported - won't even allow them to consider such a possibility. Not due to actual potential for providing multiple species that this large current species may have originated from - or be - but it will throw everything they've crafted - into the scientific blender. Entire reputations have been made on finding a species - papers and notes have been altered - determinations left out - all to bend the available fossils to fit a preconceived narrative. They fake more crap than the law allows to support their contrivance - and they can't even consider the obvious that sits right on their shelves. You watch. BF will be one of these species, or a hybrid of these species. Because what I saw was a primitive man. Don't know what kind - but it was a man. And a man that has field skills and doesn't want to be found - won't easily be found. BF is simply one of these primitive men that science dare not even look at.
JDL Posted June 22, 2017 Posted June 22, 2017 I also think it probable that Bigfoot is already part of the known fossil record. My money is on the larger Heidelbergensis specimens. Wouldn't surprise me if there is a Bigfoot skeleton in the archives of a museum or university somewhere also.
Guest Cricket Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 23 hours ago, FarArcher said: Now the bare-skinned representations in museums - a very, very biased viewpoint - simply has to be BS. And the human characteristics they give them in both body/face characteristics, and mass characteristics - those just aren't honest - and I'd say - very dishonest. Caution: The sanitized, approved narrative of OUT OF AFRICA, carefully contrived and widely supported - won't even allow them to consider such a possibility. Not due to actual potential for providing multiple species that this large current species may have originated from - or be - but it will throw everything they've crafted - into the scientific blender. Entire reputations have been made on finding a species - papers and notes have been altered - determinations left out - all to bend the available fossils to fit a preconceived narrative. They fake more crap than the law allows to support their contrivance - and they can't even consider the obvious that sits right on their shelves. 17 hours ago, JDL said: I also think it probable that Bigfoot is already part of the known fossil record. My money is on the larger Heidelbergensis specimens. Wouldn't surprise me if there is a Bigfoot skeleton in the archives of a museum or university somewhere also. Yes, it is entirely possible that some fossils are misidentified or not recognized for what they are. When I was an undergraduate one of my friends did some field work in South Africa and found a partial Paranthropus skull at the museum in storage that had not been recognized for what it was. My graduate advisor also remarked in class that there could very well be more Gigantopithecus fossils in museums in China that were inadvertently mixed in over the years with other material, and a survey could very well generate something. But in order to know what’s there, one has to know precisely what characteristics are used to identify members of Homo and other taxa, and what traits researchers identify to describe and assign any given hominin fossil. Those who are interested in phylogenetic relationships might consider becoming familiar with cladistics: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad1.html The concept of cladistics itself is pretty straightforward; it’s the application to specific situations that gets knotty. Some scenarios require more gymnastics than others if one adheres to a cladistics framework. As I wrote to DWA: whatever scenario one proposes—and anyone can propose whatever scenario they want--it will have implications, and a coherent proposal attempts to address these. And the difficult part of primate evolution (or any animal’s lineage) is that what appears to be a solution to one issue inevitably creates many more issues than it solves. So all of that is how you begin to tell the difference between the plausible ideas and those notions that are simply not grounded in reality. And I’ve said the following several times already on this forum, but I’ll keep saying it: In order to really understand the issues, one must access the primary literature in paleoanthropology. You cannot really get enough specific and critical information from stories in the popular press or other popularized types of accounts. So: I would be sincerely interested to know which fossil remains that anyone thinks are closely related to BF, and more critically, what precise morphological characteristics are involved that lead to that conclusion. What is it about H. heidelbergensis (or any other fossil hominin) that indicates it could be related to BF? Regarding the proposed timing of relative hair loss in hominin evolution, there is a convincing hypothesis involving inferences gleaned by comparing lice in humans and the African apes, which I think is pretty dang clever. I’ve been searching for a primary scholarly paper on it, I’ll keep searching, but so far this popularized account is what I’ve found: https://www.livescience.com/41028-lice-reveal-clues-to-human-evolution.html I would also be interested in hearing why museum representations of fossil humans are “very, very biased” and “very dishonest.” (If this is partly in reference to Vendramini’s hypothesis, I did post something on that earlier this week in the Neanderthals thread). My husband was the director of a university anthropology museum for many years. He researched, designed and constructed the museum exhibits, and for a couple years as a scientific illustrator and museum assistant I worked for him in the construction of the museum’s exhibits, including a very good Neanderthal exhibit. I can say that our exhibits were extremely well researched and backed by reputable work. Of course I can’t vouch for all museum exhibits, but I doubt major museums, or those in academic settings, would put something out there there doesn’t have some pretty solid backing at the time they are designed and constructed, bearing in mind of course that all conclusions in science are tentative. And lastly, I recently posted a couple comments about the impact that BF would have on physical anthropology, but because I’m a newer member, I don’t think many saw what I wrote so I’ll repeat again it here: "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 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 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." While it would of course modify some things, I don't think "it will throw everything they've crafted - into the scientific blender." Stereotypes about scientists on the one hand, and about BF proponents on the other, are both likely and largely the result of a lack of familiarity on the part of each regarding the other, and I think they are actually harming the pursuit of knowledge. There are jerks in every walk of life, and science is no exception, BUT the vast majority of people I knew or encountered in paleoanthropology were dedicated, honest and intelligent people who really cared about what they were doing. And from my brief time here on the BF forum, I would say the same thing about BF proponents. OK, Cricket will get down off the soapbox.
Rockape Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 On 6/21/2017 at 2:31 PM, JDL said: Nobody's opinion should be censored. It's our own choice whether or not to read/listen. That's the best measure of whether or not someone's opinion matters. I skip over ninety percent of his posts, along with those that seem to be solely directed at him. The arguments surrounding him don't interest me. Seems to me, though, that he stimulates more discussion instead of suppressing it. Yep, and though they would be loathe to admit it by resurrecting old threads he has brought about some interesting discussion to what of late has been a rather moribund forum. He's the stick that stirs the pot. That most of us would like to hit him with that stick is beside the point.
dmaker Posted June 23, 2017 Author Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) Reviving old threads to add something unique or new is one thing, but to say the same exact thing in every single, bingle, dingle, zingle, I worship Bindernagle-ingle, thing in every one? That is a whole new level of obnoxious. Edited June 23, 2017 by dmaker
Martin Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 18 minutes ago, dmaker said: Reviving old threads to add something unique or new is one thing, but to say the same exact thing in every single, bingle, dingle, zingle, I worship Bindernagle-ingle, thing in every one? That is a whole new level of obnoxious. DWA style is similar to that of Eric Beckjord. Beckjord would declare that bigfoot was paranormal based on reports and the PGF film instead of simply proven. Beckjord then claimed superior intellect over the plebes who didn't agree. He demand proof that all of those Joe Blows did didn't actually see that bigfoot coming out of the flying saucer they reported. He felt the need to spam para-squatch on every thread on every board he could find. DWA is a self proclaimed scientist and Beckjord was a self proclaimed MENSA grad from Stanford by way of USAF Officers Candidate School. In real life Beckjord was a person who seemingly struggled thru life friendless and near broke.
JDL Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, Cricket said: Yes, it is entirely possible that some fossils are misidentified or not recognized for what they are. When I was an undergraduate one of my friends did some field work in South Africa and found a partial Paranthropus skull at the museum in storage that had not been recognized for what it was. My graduate advisor also remarked in class that there could very well be more Gigantopithecus fossils in museums in China that were inadvertently mixed in over the years with other material, and a survey could very well generate something. But in order to know what’s there, one has to know precisely what characteristics are used to identify members of Homo and other taxa, and what traits researchers identify to describe and assign any given hominin fossil. Those who are interested in phylogenetic relationships might consider becoming familiar with cladistics: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad1.html The concept of cladistics itself is pretty straightforward; it’s the application to specific situations that gets knotty. Some scenarios require more gymnastics than others if one adheres to a cladistics framework. As I wrote to DWA: whatever scenario one proposes—and anyone can propose whatever scenario they want--it will have implications, and a coherent proposal attempts to address these. And the difficult part of primate evolution (or any animal’s lineage) is that what appears to be a solution to one issue inevitably creates many more issues than it solves. So all of that is how you begin to tell the difference between the plausible ideas and those notions that are simply not grounded in reality. And I’ve said the following several times already on this forum, but I’ll keep saying it: In order to really understand the issues, one must access the primary literature in paleoanthropology. You cannot really get enough specific and critical information from stories in the popular press or other popularized types of accounts. So: I would be sincerely interested to know which fossil remains that anyone thinks are closely related to BF, and more critically, what precise morphological characteristics are involved that lead to that conclusion. What is it about H. heidelbergensis (or any other fossil hominin) that indicates it could be related to BF? Regarding the proposed timing of relative hair loss in hominin evolution, there is a convincing hypothesis involving inferences gleaned by comparing lice in humans and the African apes, which I think is pretty dang clever. I’ve been searching for a primary scholarly paper on it, I’ll keep searching, but so far this popularized account is what I’ve found: https://www.livescience.com/41028-lice-reveal-clues-to-human-evolution.html I would also be interested in hearing why museum representations of fossil humans are “very, very biased” and “very dishonest.” (If this is partly in reference to Vendramini’s hypothesis, I did post something on that earlier this week in the Neanderthals thread). My husband was the director of a university anthropology museum for many years. He researched, designed and constructed the museum exhibits, and for a couple years as a scientific illustrator and museum assistant I worked for him in the construction of the museum’s exhibits, including a very good Neanderthal exhibit. I can say that our exhibits were extremely well researched and backed by reputable work. Of course I can’t vouch for all museum exhibits, but I doubt major museums, or those in academic settings, would put something out there there doesn’t have some pretty solid backing at the time they are designed and constructed, bearing in mind of course that all conclusions in science are tentative. And lastly, I recently posted a couple comments about the impact that BF would have on physical anthropology, but because I’m a newer member, I don’t think many saw what I wrote so I’ll repeat again it here: "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 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 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." While it would of course modify some things, I don't think "it will throw everything they've crafted - into the scientific blender." Stereotypes about scientists on the one hand, and about BF proponents on the other, are both likely and largely the result of a lack of familiarity on the part of each regarding the other, and I think they are actually harming the pursuit of knowledge. There are jerks in every walk of life, and science is no exception, BUT the vast majority of people I knew or encountered in paleoanthropology were dedicated, honest and intelligent people who really cared about what they were doing. And from my brief time here on the BF forum, I would say the same thing about BF proponents. OK, Cricket will get down off the soapbox. Welcome. Your expertise and experience are valued. I'm sure some will want to explore both the facts and assumptions underlying commonly accepted scientific positions in your field. With regard to bigfoot, I favor the hypothesis that they are near human and can interbreed with humans (based on Native American and other accounts) but, most importantly, from direct observation of their behavior and apparent intelligence. I expect that a Bigfoot skeleton may not be immediately distinguishable from an unusual human skeleton at first glance by someone who might not consider the possible existence of Bigfoot. Using the assumption that they are near human as a starting point, I would wonder what characteristics they might have retained/developed as the megafauna representative of our family tree. What bio mechanical adaptations would be required and which would be advantageous for a species that eschewed technology in favor of physical capabilities. I also have an interest in evidence of a large race of Native Americans in the past. My father was a geologist in Northern Nevada and in the 60's and 70's I had the opportunity to view several times naturally mummified remains of seven and eight foot tall Si-Teh-Cah skeletons recovered from various caves in Nevada, along with associated and distinctive stone, wood, and textile artifacts. The Bureau of Land Management has since taken possession of them. These people were still using the atlatl in a period when the bow had long been in use, presumably because available materials for bow construction could not withstand the stresses required of a proportionally large bow, and because the longer moment arm provided their longer arms gave them more power and distance with this weapon. I'm looking forward to your posts. Edited June 23, 2017 by JDL 1
Recommended Posts