The Squatch advantage

[NathanFooter]

5 hours ago, norseman said:

 

I dont disagree that they may very well be a distant cousin of humans. Maybe they would be classified as a species in the genus Homo? We simply do not know without a body.

 

But It changes nothing. Obviously they are not human enough for you to barter to marry the chiefs daughter because you have brought mirrors, beads and jelly donuts. You could then just swab yer brides mouth....

 

So where does that leave us?

 

Ill say no more because I do not want to be percieved as beating up one of my favorite researchers Nathan!

 

Stay safe out there bud!

 

 That would make things so much easier.  

 

 I have never perceived your posts in such a way,  no worries.

 

 I guess I am pointing out that my experience in 2009 has created my own limitations.        

[MIB]

1 hour ago, NathanFooter said:

 I guess I am pointing out that my experience in 2009 has created my own limitations.        

 

Nodding.   Yep.  

 

MIB

[NatFoot]

9 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

Nodding.   Yep.  

 

MIB

I see two clothed homo sapiens. Can someone help?

 

I may have read these before, but where can I find the experiences from the both of you?

[MIB]

I've given the broad brush picture a few times over the past couple years but I don't have it linked or anything.   It's a story I've gotten tired of telling.  There are also details I've chosen to gloss over.  The jist, however, is that the behaviors I experienced were too human-seeming to me.  Based on what I've experience to date I would no more kill one without provocation than I would kill you without provocation. 

 

Everyone has to find their own path.   We each have our own backgrounds, experience, morals, etc.   I can't any more pick a path for you or Nathan or Norseman or anyone else than I'd tolerate someone else trying to pick one for me and force me down it.   There's no room for group-think in matters of conscience.

 

MIB

[Patterson-Gimlin]

That is an awesome post. I could not agree more.Each to his own.I understand your stance based on your experiences.

It is great that you are sympathetic to what you perceive as human . Obviously if the creatures do exist then of course they are some kind of  hominid

 

It is very good of you to accept the beliefs and convictions of others. I am  in  complete agreement with Norse. As a scientist I think a specimen is essential.

Collecting one the conventional way has not worked. Left behind  viable DNA ,road kill , live capture. That leaves us with only one viable alternative .

Shoot and kill just one specimen. As I do support this, I must say I am okay for the most  with it not happening and the mystery continuing to flourish for those of us that enjoy  the mystery. 

 

On the other hand , the curious part of me wants to know if I have been wrong all this time and they really do exist. 

 

 

[ShadowBorn]

Quote

Shoot and kill just one specimen. As I do support this, I must say I am okay for the most  with it not happening and the mystery continuing to flourish for those of us that enjoy  the mystery. 

 

On the other hand , the curious part of me wants to know

I am with you and Norseman on this as well. But how far do we push it before it decides to push back. Have some of us reached that point with them? I felt like I have at one point and I have stepped out and have not gone back.  But this still does not solve what Midnight Owl has been experiencing and I am not ruling it paranormal at all but am relating it to these creatures abilities. It always goes of track to what they are capable off and folks do not want to admit to it since science has no way of proving what is going on with it. I am not going to deny what they can do if they could not do these things that people are hiding. There would surely be a creature on a slab. If they were so man like or even animal like and even chimp/ape like they would have been shot by now and placed in a lab. Crap that day on my stand I would have struck it with an arrow if I would of been able to see it. Fear can do a lot to a person when it comes to surviving.

 

Now I love the mystery but at the same time my mind wants to know what the hack they are. Midnight Owl draws this out of me since he had the tools to be able to get some thing that is thought provoking. I do not see these creatures the same way that others do and I am ok with it. I have learned a lot and not sure that I would be able to shoot one now. For myself it would to be for them to offer a body as an ok to be studied. It would have be a pure thought on my part in order for this to happen.This is how I see them and If it ever happen no one would never know. The world would remain with a mystery. The lab would make their own judgement to release what they have. Photo's would be destroyed. laws suites would be in place of any type of release of any photos.

[ioyza]

8 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

As a scientist I think a specimen is essential.

 

As a fellow scientist I think a specimen is unnecessary. 

 

And I do absolutely think "harvesting a specimen" in this case is immoral, but that's not really the reason I choose to butt heads on the topic anymore; they don't need people like me looking out for them. It's because I treasure my experiences with them, even as limited as they are compared to many others', and I just want that for other people. I believe they want that for people too. You simply can't have those encounters through the scope of a rifle.

 

Going out there and approaching them with earnest respect is the established methodology, it is the only experimental design that gives consistent, repeatable results. I fail to see how refusing to acknowledge their advantage and stubbornly insisting on only considering results obtained in the most technical and technological ways is in any way scientific. We've already learned far more about them from "go and see" than we ever could from a body on a table.

 

The real reason we need the body is to grab peoples' attention, and scientists have no different stake in it from laymen in that regard.

[hiflier]

We have two scientists in "Patterson-Gimlin" and "ioyza". This is good! So the title of this paper https://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/10/1431/2010/nhess-10-1431-2010.pdf (2010) is "Mesopause temperature perturbations caused by infrasonic waves

as a potential indicator for the detection of tsunamis and other geo-hazards". It discusses how infrasound waves moving through what they are calling 'airglow' create compression followed by decompression of the atmosphere as the waves move through the air medium. The compression creates an increased temperature flux that can be picked up by temperature sensitive equipment. Obviously this is on a very large scale that result from things like tsunamis but in the case of the videos on this thread the principles should also apply if what is showing on the videos is in fact a slight rise in air temperature due to the air being compressed by a moving ultrasonic wave from some source.

 

In truth, I pretty much doubt if the thermal imagers that the researchers are using would be sensitive enough to detect a tiny temperature rise caused by a fast moving infrasound wave but as scientists I thought I would reach out  and perhaps get a definitive "no" regarding a thermal imager being able to detect such a possible compression/temperature fluctuation that small. This may not be your within your respective fields of discipline but a nice "I doubt it" would be pretty cool "  Then  can let the whole thing go with the follow up question, in theory,  of whether or not science could create such a sensitive device in order to monitor elephants or other infrasound emitting creatures.

 

My apologies to everyone for being so tenacious on this point but I can see the logic behind creating such small devices. Just don't know if any existing thermal imagers are capable of this kind of detection.

Edited May 31, 2018 by hiflier

[ioyza]

hiflier, here's what my first step would be in testing your theory: Does the anomaly in the video move in the correct range for the speed of sound? You won't be able to get a super-precise answer, but you should be able to make some estimate of the distance it travels over the span of time we see it in the few frames in which it appears. If it's in the ballpark for speed of sound (I'm kind of doubting it is, tbh), then go to the next step, trying to track down the actual temperature changes the imager is responding to, checking them against the expected temperature change from infrasound from the equations in the paper you found. 

 

If it's moving at the speed of sound, and the temperature change is in the expected ballpark, then I'll be very intrigued!

[hiflier]

7 minutes ago, ioyza said:

If it's moving at the speed of sound, and the temperature change is in the expected ballpark, then I'll be very intrigued!

 

Good grief, me too, LOL!! And since the speed of sound is directly dependent the density of the air, which in turn is directly dependent on the ambient air's temperature then knowing the ambient air temperature at whatever elevation (also a density factor) would be kind of important. I doubt that the effect on the normal 330, m/sec speed of sound would be impacted much though. The video's text claimed a one second detection but the distance the artifacts traveled certainly wasn't 330 meters! So in effect it does answer the question.

 

It would therefore appear that they couldn't possibly BE infrasound waves. And even though NathanFooter is likely correct in the first video (tree limb and leaves in the forground?) because of the slow speed of the artifact, the second video shows something quite a bit faster than the observer walking past a tree lib with leaves. The reason we can see these artifacts at all is because they are slightly warmer than the surrounding air. Thank you for taking the time to help me sort this out.  

[norseman]

5 hours ago, ioyza said:

 

As a fellow scientist I think a specimen is unnecessary. 

 

And I do absolutely think "harvesting a specimen" in this case is immoral, but that's not really the reason I choose to butt heads on the topic anymore; they don't need people like me looking out for them. It's because I treasure my experiences with them, even as limited as they are compared to many others', and I just want that for other people. I believe they want that for people too. You simply can't have those encounters through the scope of a rifle.

 

Going out there and approaching them with earnest respect is the established methodology, it is the only experimental design that gives consistent, repeatable results. I fail to see how refusing to acknowledge their advantage and stubbornly insisting on only considering results obtained in the most technical and technological ways is in any way scientific. We've already learned far more about them from "go and see" than we ever could from a body on a table.

 

The real reason we need the body is to grab peoples' attention, and scientists have no different stake in it from laymen in that regard.

 

I think that the history of time, especially post PGF in 50 YEARS has shown your position to be incorrect. Its utterly necessary.

 

You talk about going out and having “experiences”. Fine. But as a scientist you of all people should know none of that is quantifiable.....

 

In biology anyhow we need a type specimen in order for science to recognize a species. Its not good enough to simply have a hypothesis like say astrophysics. I cannot go capture a black hole in a butterfly net. Or dig up its fossils in a cave. But it is possible with a living creature. So where is the proof? Instead of being put off by this question, proponents need to embrace it. If a person finds shooting one immoral? Then they better be prepared to be collecting stool, hair and saliva samples. And a DNA clinic on speed dial.

 

And if you say your not concerned with proving its existence? Then you better not whine when people call you names and make fun of you and your endeavors.....

 

I’m very happy for science to rule our society today. Im also happy we no longer throw people into volcanos.....or read the future with chicken bones. I like reality. And I like proof. Its what keeps our existence on this little blue marble as sane as possible.

 

If Bigfoot is real? We need a body or parts thereof. Or dang good DNA. Fossils in north America would be great, but would not settle the extinct vs extant question.

[ioyza]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

I think that the history of time, especially post PGF in 50 YEARS has shown your position to be incorrect. Its utterly necessary.

 

And I think 50 years with no body has shown how futile those attempts are. So we're stuck.

 

1 hour ago, norseman said:

You talk about going out and having “experiences”. Fine. But as a scientist you of all people should know none of that is quantifiable.....

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/#usa 

There's one way they're quantifiable. I think the folks here working on parsing and analyzing all that data have even more ideas.

 

But again, we're back to this issue of science needing to "be sciencey" - to have numbers, or technology, or just some highly technical aspect that puts it out of reach of lay people and into the hands of experts. Yet genetics began with Mendel counting his pea plants and noticing simple ratios, Darwin simply noticed the beaks of finches were a little different on each island and had a hunch about it. And don't worry, I wouldn't fail to mention Goodall and Fosey...

 

1 hour ago, norseman said:

In biology anyhow we need a type specimen in order for science to recognize a species. Its not good enough to simply have a hypothesis like say astrophysics. I cannot go capture a black hole in a butterfly net. Or dig up its fossils in a cave. But it is possible with a living creature.

 

And what if it's not? A lot of this has to do with a failure to recognize just how novel what we're dealing with is, and that's sort of the topic of this thread. It's not wildlife biology, it's anthropology (or, you know, something else entirely).

 

1 hour ago, norseman said:

Instead of being put off by this question, proponents need to embrace it. If a person finds shooting one immoral? Then they better be prepared to be collecting stool, hair and saliva samples. And a DNA clinic on speed dial.

 

And if you say your not concerned with proving its existence? Then you better not whine when people call you names and make fun of you and your endeavors.....

 

I confess. I'm a scientist who thinks science has no place here. I think that pursuing them as subjects to be studied is... I mean, that's not quite immoral, but I guess I'd characterize it as rude, and moreover it's unproductive.

 

That's what it boils down to for me, and why I think I AM being scientific - I'm interested in understanding them, and in order to do that, I need to figure out what works, and what doesn't. It's painfully obvious after 50 years what doesn't work. You have a LOT of people saying to you, essentially, "Hey, they'll warm up to you eventually, but there's a catch... a big one..." 

 

So fine, cherry pick your data with big grains of salt and disbelieve people and make fun, I'm not whining. 

 

Or go perform an experiment and see what results you get.

[indiefoot]

If for discussions sake we assume they exist, what rights do they posses? I hope we can learn from our past mistakes. I suggest we ere on the side of caution.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

8 hours ago, ioyza said:

 

As a fellow scientist I think a specimen is unnecessary. 

 

And I do absolutely think "harvesting a specimen" in this case is immoral, but that's not really the reason I choose to butt heads on the topic anymore; they don't need people like me looking out for them. It's because I treasure my experiences with them, even as limited as they are compared to many others', and I just want that for other people. I believe they want that for people too. You simply can't have those encounters through the scope of a rifle.

 

Going out there and approaching them with earnest respect is the established methodology, it is the only experimental design that gives consistent, repeatable results. I fail to see how refusing to acknowledge their advantage and stubbornly insisting on only considering results obtained in the most technical and technological ways is in any way scientific. We've already learned far more about them from "go and see" than we ever could from a body on a table.

 

The real reason we need the body is to grab peoples' attention, and scientists have no different stake in it from laymen in that regard.

I respectfully disagree . The protection of something undocumented  that has no basis of concrete proof. Seems to be a waste of time and is futile. Without a type A specimen. 

No fossil record yet discovered,   No  concrete DNA,no proven hair samples,no specimen to examine evaluate and reexamine. Questionable foot prints,hand prints ,sounds,knocks,

tree breaks  and the worst of all eyewitness reports. One awesome film over 50 years ago that can't be easily dismissed. Anecdotal and certainly not proof.

 

Now having said that ,I am  very interested in the subject matter  and have been for over 50 years.  Hoping to be disproved of my own beliefs and conclusions.

If they do exist I agree with conservation. As the habitat decreases in the name of progress and population of men in the dark forests. I think a one sacrifice ,one body on the slab will be in the best interest if the remaining species is to survive. This should force documentation and preservation. If  they do exist .Without it they will pass into myth , legend and great  campfire stories. 

[norseman]

3 hours ago, ioyza said:

 

And I think 50 years with no body has shown how futile those attempts are. So we're stuck.

 

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/#usa 

There's one way they're quantifiable. I think the folks here working on parsing and analyzing all that data have even more ideas.

 

But again, we're back to this issue of science needing to "be sciencey" - to have numbers, or technology, or just some highly technical aspect that puts it out of reach of lay people and into the hands of experts. Yet genetics began with Mendel counting his pea plants and noticing simple ratios, Darwin simply noticed the beaks of finches were a little different on each island and had a hunch about it. And don't worry, I wouldn't fail to mention Goodall and Fosey...

 

 

And what if it's not? A lot of this has to do with a failure to recognize just how novel what we're dealing with is, and that's sort of the topic of this thread. It's not wildlife biology, it's anthropology (or, you know, something else entirely).

 

 

I confess. I'm a scientist who thinks science has no place here. I think that pursuing them as subjects to be studied is... I mean, that's not quite immoral, but I guess I'd characterize it as rude, and moreover it's unproductive.

 

That's what it boils down to for me, and why I think I AM being scientific - I'm interested in understanding them, and in order to do that, I need to figure out what works, and what doesn't. It's painfully obvious after 50 years what doesn't work. You have a LOT of people saying to you, essentially, "Hey, they'll warm up to you eventually, but there's a catch... a big one..." 

 

So fine, cherry pick your data with big grains of salt and disbelieve people and make fun, I'm not whining. 

 

Or go perform an experiment and see what results you get.

 

What attempt!?

 

Bob Gimlin covered Roger Patterson with a .30-06 rifle. It was IN his hands. If they had collected Patty instead of filming her? Imagine our world today! My whole life I would have known as fact that wild Sasquatch roamed the state in which I was born...... Huge.

 

Instead? Its just a elaborate hoax.

 

Many of the people on this forum working on the SSR support collecting a specimen. Its a means to an end. 

 

Peas and genetics, sure. But at some point an idea is proven right.....or not. Its not being “sciencey” its about reality. Hello?

 

We have no idea if its anthropology....... without a body. And I have no idea what you mean by “something else”. Are you talking about aliens, spirits, portals?

 

Are you sure your a scientist?