The "How To Hunt" Channel and Sasquatch Commentary

[ioyza]

17 hours ago, norseman said:

With that said if you watch a group of bigfeet build a teepee over Im guessing a decent amount of time? Do you own a cell phone?

 

The witness was twelve. He thought they were indians at the time because they'd been learning about them in school (you know, the one covered in red hair... must be the "red man"?). Listen to the dang thing man, it's within the first 12 minutes.

 

Does the phrase "working hypothesis" mean anything to all of you? You're allowed to have hunches that you can't prove yet in science... case reports get published in medicine, even if everyone realizes you need more than n=1 to really demonstrate a phenomenon, people still know how to log it in the ol noggin and give it the appropriate consideration.

[Twist]

MIB, no doubt that each case is different and Im not surprised if a particular area has repeat events.   In general though there are certainly ppl that claim activity no matter when or where they are and this dilutes both the quality of reporting and expectations of BF research.   By no means do I have particular individuals in mind, just as a whole.   BF activity or not I prefer to camp in different locations, see different scenes.    

[norseman]

53 minutes ago, ioyza said:

 

The witness was twelve. He thought they were indians at the time because they'd been learning about them in school (you know, the one covered in red hair... must be the "red man"?). Listen to the dang thing man, it's within the first 12 minutes.

 

Does the phrase "working hypothesis" mean anything to all of you? You're allowed to have hunches that you can't prove yet in science... case reports get published in medicine, even if everyone realizes you need more than n=1 to really demonstrate a phenomenon, people still know how to log it in the ol noggin and give it the appropriate consideration.

That’s not the same thing as declaring on a YouTube video that Sasquatch built this stick structure! How do you know? Well the logs are big and there are no men around and this is what Bigfoot reportedly does..... so yah Bigfoot built it!

 

The twelve year old? Ok.... I can give him a pass for not having a phone. But you know exactly what I’m talking about. Lots of BS is passed off as evidence. It’s ok to have a working “hypothesis”. But proclaiming supposed evidence or proof that isn’t there as a you tube Star isn’t science.... it’s propaganda.

 

If you want to be a scientist? Shut up, do your job meticulously and when you have the real tangible evidence to convince science it’s real? Write a paper and go public. Build a real case. If groups of Bigfeet are running around forests coast to coast building log teepees? This should be easy.

 

 

[Twist]

MIB, no doubt that each case is different and Im not surprised if a particular area has repeat events.   In general though there are certainly ppl that claim activity no matter when or where they are and this dilutes both the quality of reporting and expectations of BF research.   By no means do I have particular individuals in mind, just as a whole.   BF activity or not I prefer to camp in different locations, see different scenes.    

[ioyza]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

But you know exactly what I’m talking about. Lots of BS is passed off as evidence.

 

I know exactly what you're talking about. Lots of evidence that's highly suggestive to those that are well acquainted with what they're looking at, though not conclusive in a "beat you over the head with a club of quantifiable data" sort of way.

 

47 minutes ago, norseman said:

If you want to be a scientist?

 

We've been through this. I am a scientist, as in, by profession. But if you mean do I want to be a bigfoot scientist? Nope. Science is not the way to learn anything in this field. Never will be. At least not "science" in the way the word is implicitly defined in these circles, which mostly boils down to "forensic science." That's merely one proposed path of least resistance through the obstacle of others' incredulity. On this point Mr. Isdahl and I are in complete agreement I'm sure.

 

[norseman]

18 minutes ago, ioyza said:

 

I know exactly what you're talking about. Lots of evidence that's highly suggestive to those that are well acquainted with what they're looking at, though not conclusive in a "beat you over the head with a club of quantifiable data" sort of way.

 

 

We've been through this. I am a scientist, as in, by profession. But if you mean do I want to be a bigfoot scientist? Nope. Science is not the way to learn anything in this field. Never will be. At least not "science" in the way the word is implicitly defined in these circles, which mostly boils down to "forensic science." That's merely one proposed path of least resistance through the obstacle of others' incredulity. On this point Mr. Isdahl and I are in complete agreement I'm sure.

 

Simple biology. New species are being discovered all the time. So it does work in the field but just not in this field?

 

Are we now talking about ghosts and goblins or?

[ioyza]

17 minutes ago, norseman said:

Are we now talking about ghosts and goblins or?

 

Sasquatch. We're talking about sasquatch. Which is completely novel in terms of intelligence and behavior.

 

20 minutes ago, norseman said:

So it does work in the field but just not in this field?

 

Correct. As has been pretty thoroughly demonstrated by now.

[norseman]

14 minutes ago, ioyza said:

 

Sasquatch. We're talking about sasquatch. Which is completely novel in terms of intelligence and behavior.

 

 

Correct. As has been pretty thoroughly demonstrated by now.

If Sasquatch is a living breathing creature. It poops, sheds hair, dies and decomposes, gives birth, mates, etc, etc, etc..... in the field in question.

 

No amount of intelligence in the wild is going to shield flesh and blood Sasquatch from forensics. Your a scientist..... you should know this.

 

So this either means one of two, or three things. 
 

1) They don’t exist.

2) They exist in very small numbers and science just hasn’t found the smoking gun yet.

3) They are everywhere like many people proclaim. But completely sanitize their existence from science. (That means hair, saliva, blood, semen, birth discharge, urine, feces, skin cells, etc.)

 

Number one means we are all delusional.

 

Number two means many of us are delusional.

 

Number three is impossible. Nothing is perfect all of the time. Especially not a large population. And especially not something that lives in a forest.

[WSA]

You forgot #4 Norseman:  There is ample, congruent, independently  confirmed, historically consistent, biologically predictable evidence already. The only fault of this evidence is it happens to argue for the existence of something that mankind as a whole doesn't want to face, and it is therefore shunned, ignored and met with actual hostility. This would not be the fault of the evidence.  The evidence can't be blamed if mankind is not interested in following it towards iron-clad proof. If and when mankind decides in sufficient numbers that this evidence can be faced head-on, it will be proven, but not before that. We ain't there yet though. While we are here we'll have to count on dumb luck... the kind of luck that helped  a couple of cowboys wahooing through the woods to film one. It could be another fifty of 75 years until that happens again though. If a body is of an impatient temperament, Sasquatch theory is probably the last thing they want to be thinking about. 

[norseman]

22 minutes ago, WSA said:

You forgot #4 Norseman:  There is ample, congruent, independently  confirmed, historically consistent, biologically predictable evidence already. 

Like what?

[MIB]

I had a slightly different #4 in mind, but yeah, there is another factor at play: intelligence.   Many animals are "intelligent."   Not many can think in abstract, imagine rather than observe, consider how choices might play out, and then strategically choose that which seems most beneficial.  

 

So of your choices, Norseman, I believe #2 / #3 are both on target an off.   I think there are concentrations of bigfoots in some places but I think many large areas don't have a resident population.  I think a small number of individuals pass through some areas occasionally.   I suspect that they do deliberately hide their sign when they spend extended amounts of time near people, but I think when they are on the move, they do not try to hide their tracks, etc.    They aren't going to be around long enough for that sign to lead to being "found."   I think the Bossberg tracks are an example .. straight line beatin' feet from here to there, no concern about hiding "sign."   But also not vulnerable to be discovered.  

 

We are up against an unfamiliar paradigm.  We can describe it but we don't know how to act on it.    Imagine something with characteristics of Ishi, an Amazon tribe, and a wolverine.   By this I mean something quite rare, with essentially zero technology to detect, including fire, yet adapted to the environment, and having the ability to reason.    Our assumptions for tracking / locating people fail.   Our assumptions for tracking / locating animals fails.    I'm sure there is a methodology but I do not know what it is .. yet.    Our thinking is trapped between 2 boxes, 2 paradigms, and we have to break free enough to learn a third.   We are not doing it.   

 

There's an old song by Dire Straights with a line "two men think they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong."    We fail to consider the possibility that NEITHER is Jesus.   Same thing with bigfoot.   We have a set of preconceived ideas about "people" and a preconceived set of ideas about "animals".   I think stiffly clinging to those sets of assumptions forces us to fail.    The truth, I suspect, has components of both, but also new things, things outside our current experience.   We need to be open to learning something new rather than just fighting over which of the old things they have to be.

 

Just my view, of course.  And I'll be the first to admit that whatever is needed, it is a whole lot easier to say a new things is needed than it is to find that thing and do it.  

 

MIB

 

Edited March 10, 2020 by MIB

[ioyza]

28 minutes ago, norseman said:

Your a scientist..... you should know this.

 

The only relevant things I seem to know as a scientist over others in this field of sasquatch interest are the limitations of scientific methodologies. They don't have to be perfect; they just have to be good enough, relative to our over-inflated opinions of our own abilities. Number three is your winner winner chicken dinner, and WSA's #4 is more of a component of that, by which I imagine he means footprints.

[MIB]

6 minutes ago, ioyza said:

by which I imagine he means footprints.

 

This is a good point.  Casts are tangible.   Delusions do not leave footprints.   Not proof, hoax has to be considered, but tracks that have been cast certainly go beyond the boundaries of "seeing things."

 

MIB

Edited March 10, 2020 by MIB

[WSA]

This field has a lot of blinkered observations, and evidence just doesn't reveal itself that way.  Norseman, if after all you've read and observed you seriously are still wondering where the evidence is? I got nothin'.  All this stuff fits together...but yeah, you could start with footprints. Something that leaves footprints does a lot of other stuff besides. We've got plenty of evidence of what that other stuff is, but no, it won't come summarized, notarized, and in a certified letter written on National Geographic Association bond letterhead with a signet ring wax seal and  signed by Sir David Attenborough.  If that is what you need (or its biological equivalent) I'm just sayin', you're going to be disappointed, plenty.

 

[norseman]

1 hour ago, WSA said:

This field has a lot of blinkered observations, and evidence just doesn't reveal itself that way.  Norseman, if after all you've read and observed you seriously are still wondering where the evidence is? I got nothin'.  All this stuff fits together...but yeah, you could start with footprints. Something that leaves footprints does a lot of other stuff besides. We've got plenty of evidence of what that other stuff is, but no, it won't come summarized, notarized, and in a certified letter written on National Geographic Association bond letterhead with a signet ring wax seal and  signed by Sir David Attenborough.  If that is what you need (or its biological equivalent) I'm just sayin', you're going to be disappointed, plenty.

 

And do you know why you and I got nothing? That’s because we put the cart in front of the horse and call it a success. And when it ends up in a crash we blame science.....

 

My only grubstake to this whole entire subject? IS footprints. No one in the public or academia cares about footprints. Bigfootdom should care about footprints because it will lead us to the beast. Instead we pour dental resin into the print and declare victory!

 

How many people have shot an azimuth off of a trackway and followed it for 20 miles? Do people even think to document a azimuth off of a trackway?

 

Science only cares about what can be measured and proven. Skin, hair, scat, etc... Tracks cannot do any of that. So they are not evidence unless we can up our game. Again, we need to get to the bone of the issue. It’s really cool that a researcher thinks Bigfoot makes teepees. But can he or she prove it? Is there hair in the wood? Scat close by? Tracks to follow to a nesting site.... to then look for hair, scat, something tangible?

 

And stop the excuses.... well I don’t care about proving anything. M’kay.... nice “stick structure”? What that really means is “Don't criticize me”. Ok then? Don’t post up your Bigfoot themed camping trip..... It’s OK to be a proponent that is also skeptical. It’s also OK to be a proponent and expect more. The definition of an idiot is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Don’t attack the messenger. It is what it is.

 

I don’t even bother anymore with samples because I have no where to send them too. Someone suggested 23 and me but to my knowledge they take saliva samples. I’ve found hair and scat samples.... Probably bear. So without anyone taking samples cheaply? What’s left?