Scientific and Academic Corruption

[Huntster]

I have long been a critic of Big Science and academia regarding sasquatchery. It is my contention that, especially here in the U.S. and Canada,  they should invest something into looking into the subject.

 

Considering how Big Government and Big Church (it’s my contention that Big Church can include Big Science) corruption are all over in the news recently, it shouldn’t be surprising that science and academia should be similarly tested.

 

I came across this example of just how corrupt Big Science and academia can be:

 

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/04/feminist-journal-published-hoax-paper-about-dog-rape-culture/

 

A top feminist academic journal published a hoax paper about “dog rape culture” that was the product of a group of mischievous professors looking to repair the broken pieces of academia.

Breitbart News published two reports on the hoax paper before its true nature was revealed by its authors: academics Helen Pluckrose, James Lindsay, and Peter Boghossian. Boghossian and Lindsay perpetrated a similar hoax in 2017 when they submitted an academic paper, “The Conceptual Penis” to various academic journals. The paper, which argued, amongst other things, that penises caused climate change, was published in an academic journal after a peer-review process.

“Much like members of a zealous church or religious cult, argument, and persuasion no longer work to convince many of these people,” Lindsay said after the “Conceptual Penis” paper was published. “While an event like this will be unlikely to stop them, it can put a significant crack in the intellectual edifice they are using to protect and promote their ultimately morally motivated beliefs.”........

 

 

 

 

 

[ioyza]

I'm not sure which has done more to cultivate my disillusionment with scientific academia: my interest in bigfoot, or my employment in scientific academia. 

[NCBFr]

The main problem with Big Sciences is it is full of humans with the usual human issues plus a heavy dose of ego on the side.  I am not sure if I would call it corruption per say.  Just not what you would want in something that you want to be more altruistic and benefit all of human-kind.  Make sense?

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, NCBFr said:

The main problem with Big Sciences is it is full of humans with the usual human issues plus a heavy dose of ego on the side.  I am not sure if I would call it corruption per say.  Just not what you would want in something that you want to be more altruistic and benefit all of human-kind.  Make sense?

 

Yes, your words make sense, and I agree that science is made up of humans who suffer human weakness like us all, but I also believe that science as an industry, just like all other industries, can and does suffer corruption. Moreover, like current events are demonstrating, corruption in most (if not all) industries is literally at an all time high. 

 

In in terms of the corruption of science and academia with respect to sasquatchery, there is an especially high grade of disdain for the subject, but most importantly, the mere mention of funding for any level of study or research into sasquatchery is net with much more than disdain; any competition for money is met with fury, outrage, and the long knives. Like usual, when the money is involved, the corruption increases.

[Catmandoo]

^^^ Hunster, there was an operation that few remember. No results. Burned a lot of money. Funded by the Boston Academy for Applied Sciences and there is nothing to show for their funding ( big 6 figures ).  Give up on expecting money for 'research'. 

Those working in entertainment know how to get paid for failure........over and over again.

[bipedalist]

^ Sad but true, remind me of the old preacher circuit riders!

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

^^^ Hunster, there was an operation that few remember. No results. Burned a lot of money. Funded by the Boston Academy for Applied Sciences and there is nothing to show for their funding ( big 6 figures ).  Give up on expecting money for 'research'........

 

Well, you made me look it up; Peter Byrne’s gig. I thought he was funded entirely by Slick. Yeah, he looked like the type that could burn up some money, all right.

 

Oh, I never expected academia to fund anything. They’re the biggest mouth in the nest, devouring every worm government can show up with, abundant continually chirping for more to study the homosexual tendencies of echidnas or some such nonsense.

 

But government? Those guys actually have a responsibility in this situation. They’re the wildlife managers. The endangered species saviors. The folks that many people have reported these things to.

[Twist]

Corruption

 is always as big as ever because as humanity expands corruption follows.  Always has and always will. 

 

That being said, how would we exactly know about the governments research into BF if it found nothing?    Setting aside conspiracy theories, would they actually come out and claim they found no BF or would the just stop researching and move on the the Ivory Billed Woodpecker?  Lol.  Idk.  Is it merely an assumption that they haven’t looked based on not liking their results?  

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, Twist said:

.......That being said, how would we exactly know about the governments research into BF if it found nothing?    Setting aside conspiracy theories, would they actually come out and claim they found no BF or would the just stop researching and move on the the Ivory Billed Woodpecker?  Lol.  Idk.  Is it merely an assumption that they haven’t looked based on not liking their results?  

 

You brought up the perfect example; Peckergate:

 

http://www.worldtwitch.com/ivorybill.htm

 

Over $20 million dollars, over half of which was federal funding, went to Cornell University to find a woodpecker:

 

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/pastsearches/2005_2006/newsreleases/recovery

 

.......Or simply to grease palms in the area:

 

https://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/pdf/IBWFundingfactsheet.pdf

 

A decade later, the Navy (no, really!) has issued their conclusion:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory-billed_woodpecker

 

........In January 2017, a scientist at the

Naval Research Laboratory published a report of ten sightings of ivory-billed woodpeckers, including nine in the Pearl River along the Louisiana-Mississippi border and one in the Choctawhatchee River.[6] Three of the sightings are supported by video footage of birds with flights, behaviors, field marks, and other characteristics that do not seem to be consistent with any species of the region other than the ivory-billed woodpecker. Nobody has managed to obtain indisputable photographic evidence for the persistence of the ivory-billed woodpecker, but the paper contains an analysis based on factors related to behavior and habitat suggesting that such evidence is unlikely to be obtained in time to make a difference in the conservation of this species.......

 

 

 

 

[MikeZimmer]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

You brought up the perfect example; Peckergate:

 

http://www.worldtwitch.com/ivorybill.htm

 

Over $20 million dollars, over half of which was federal funding, went to Cornell University to find a woodpecker:

 

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/pastsearches/2005_2006/newsreleases/recovery

 

.......Or simply to grease palms in the area:

 

https://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/pdf/IBWFundingfactsheet.pdf

 

A decade later, the Navy (no, really!) has issued their conclusion:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory-billed_woodpecker

 

 

So apparently, science does not actually demand a body in every case.

 

 

 

 

 

[gigantor]

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

You brought up the perfect example; Peckergate:

 

Yup, I searched for "ivory billed" here at the BFF and a bunch of threads from BFF 1.0 (2006 - 2010) came up with your comment about it, lol. Below is the video that is provided as proof, it's laughable.

 

 

Confirmed Ivory-bill footage taken by Arthur Allen and colleagues in Louisiana's Singer Tract in 1935 (left) examined next to video taken by Collins near Pearl River (right).

[Huntster]

4 minutes ago, MikeZimmer said:

So apparently, science does not actually demand a body in every case.

 

 

That’s not how I interpreted that. Seems to me that the Navy is saying that, at this point, it doesn’t really matter if proof of the woodpeckers is finally obtained. There are clearly so few of them, that it’s likely too late to save the species.

 

My point, even back in 2006 when Peckergate started, is that a single film (of poorer quality than the PG film) of a purported Ivory billed woodpecker almost immediately and enthusiastically generated over $20 million, more than half of it coming from the federal government. The PG film generated complete and utter silence from both the California Fish and Game Dept. as well as USFWS and USFS. 

 

One of of the most remarkable aspects of sasquatch denial, even among science, is the emotion. Consider this from the 1971 report on the PG film from Dr. DW Grieve, anatomist of the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine:

 

http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/report_on_the_film_of_a_suppos.html

 

.......My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch on the grounds that the film would be difficult to fake, to one of

irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film.....

[Twist]

While the amount of money spent looking for IBWP is a bit ridiculous,  there is a slight difference in the fact that the money was put towards finding an animal that was once known to in fact exist.   BF has not been known to exist yet.   

 

I think if we even found fossil evidence here in the US of a large primate that could have walked upright there would be a good shot at getting funding for BF research.    

[Huntster]

46 minutes ago, Twist said:

While the amount of money spent looking for IBWP is a bit ridiculous,  there is a slight difference in the fact that the money was put towards finding an animal that was once known to in fact exist.   BF has not been known to exist yet........

 

Actually, it has been proven beyond doubt that both bipedal apes and hominids have existed in the past, and as recently as 12,000 years ago in the case of Homo floresiensis. However, there is much less evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life than there is of Bigfoot, and the amount of money spent on looking for little green men is staggering.

 

.......I think if we even found fossil evidence here in the US of a large primate that could have walked upright there would be a good shot at getting funding for BF research.

 

I can hear them now: “This doesn’t mean they’re still around”.

 

Admit it: they want Joe Sixpack to shoot one for them, they’ll take it away and begin the “research” that will get them money and fame galore, and they’ll prosecute him for poaching, or worse; murder. 

 

Think not? Look what they did to the guy who finally brought back the first gorilla carcass. This is from his 1903 obituary in National Geographic magazine:  

 

http://www.erblist.com/erbmania/duchaillu.html

 

.......In the book he told of gorilla, of which he had brought back the first specimens and which he had been the first white man to see and hunt; of the fierce cannibal tribes, the Fans, who filed their teeth to keep them sharp; of the ravages of the Baskouay ants, which marched in dense columns miles in length, and who were marshalled by officers and generals; of hunting elephants with pitfalls; of a new variety of snake, less than four feet long and six and eight inches thick, which lies in the open places in the woods and whose bite is instantaneous death, and of many other equally wonderful sights.

The book was greeted with shouts of laughter and derision from one end of the American continent to the other. Mr and Mrs and Miss Gorilla was the common jest, and the name Du Chaillu became a byword for a fanciful storyteller. Du Chaillu was only 26 when his first book was published. He was unable to answer satisfactorily the storm [p. 284] of questions hurled at him; consequently nobody believed him, except Harper and Brothers in the United States and the Royal Geographical Society in England, both of whom valiantly and vigorously defended his truthfulness........

 

......Gradually each of Du Chaillu's discoveries was confirmed by later explorers - by Schweinfürth, Stanley, Sir Harry Johnston, and others. Many years ago they were all verified; but the name Du Chaillu none the less still remains to most Americans that of a romance. In a certain sense Du Chaillu is himself responsible for this feeling, for all his descriptions are so vivid and are so thrillingly told that the reader feels he is reading a work of pure invention, rather than a narrative of actual experience........

 

 

[wiiawiwb]

There is little consequence to "investing" in IBWP research. You find one, no big deal. There is monumental consequence to finding a sasquatch. It would affect mass areas of land which will have to be set aside for habitat and protection. It would scare 90% of the people who recreate in the woods out of the woods, as they would not want to go where the real king kong lives. It would also cost immeasurable sums to monitor and protect them. Logging would be shut down in those areas as well. All-in-all, it would be a large financial outlay and the government at both the federal and state level would have to dedicate tremendous resources they don't have.

 

There is no incentive for the government to have a sasquatch officially found.  To the contrary, there are large financial reasons to keep it swept under the rug.  I'd bet dollars to donuts that Federal and state park rangers are under strict instruction to keep a lid on anything they see or of credible reports given to them.