Why can't we find and study Bigfoot?

[bipedalist]

@MIB 

And along these lines in the Legend Meets Science DVD  were kinesiology studies done showing Patty with rotational tortions of hip and knock-kneed gait that is reminiscent of Chewbaca but not your typical human; moreover they espoused in the studies it is somewhat responsible for the in-line gait.  That is little science that was never refuted or accepted. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by bipedalist

[hiflier]

Challenge science to replicate the suit, the motions, and the relative dimensional body ratios of Patty. Science will fail. And they may not admit their conclusions when they do fail. Dr. Meldrum should be insisting on this real-world challenge. But he isn't. He will write a book about it instead, and even after that he has not pressed anyone to the point of actual replication of the subject in the film. Has anyone? And would science be afraid of such a challenge. And if science make excuses for not engaging in this kind of science, because gait analysis, which I do believe has been done, was short of the creation of the suit according to it's ratios and putting everything together in one specific study.

 

Hmmmmmmm....where to go with this........and to whom. See? there's more than one way to argue this existence thing.  

Edited January 31, 2020 by hiflier

[SWWASAS]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

I don't think this is exactly true.   "Science", the institution, with the capital S, may be divided.  "science", the process, with the little s, is not.   Let me explain:

 

"Science" has decided bigfoot does not exist.   They start with the conclusion they wish to support, then cherry-pick, nit-pick, etc the PGF to eliminate or devalue any evidence which doesn't support the foregone conclusion, then they analyze what is left and find the predetermined conclusion. 

 

When "science", with the little s, the process, is applied to the PGF, the conclusion consistently favors authenticity.  

 

What you'll see, when "Science" addresses the topic, is essentially a series of strawman arguments.   They very clearly do not accurately represent what is in the film, but when those essentially irrelevant arguments are shot down, they are presented to us as conclusive proof of hoax, misidentification, etc.   We have to remember that they are NOT proof because they are not relevant, not representative of the film content.   It is trickery to support that same ol' predetermined conclusion.

 

MIB  

I see what you are saying.   In what few videos I have seen where a group of scientists examine the evidence some believe enough is there,  some need more evidence,  and some do not believe it possible.   I understand people that hold all three positions.  Nothing definitive has been presented.     If I were a primatologist I would not subject myself to professional ridicule on the basis of viewing and endorsing a 50 year old film made by two cowboys;    some aspects of which even proponents cannot explain.     Proof needs to be better than that.  

 

Expecting those who disbelieve for any reason, to disprove any and all evidence of proof,  is unrealistic when acceptable proof has yet to be submitted.   The time to do that is when a body or skeleton is available to study. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by SWWASAS

[MIB]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

And would science be afraid of such a challenge.

 

Rhetorical, I assume?   Because from what we've seen, obviously the answer is yes.   Just a thought .. I do not think challenging the scientific community will work, people can individually, quietly, opt out.   The challenge, if issued to a specific member of the community might go farther.   Even at that, that person would have to have budget to make the attempt and I think they can, honestly and fairly, decline if they do not.   So in a way Meldrum, or whoever, would have to themselves provide the funding for the person they are challenging if we really want to see that person's very best effort.   Kinda circular, but if we don't do the circle, the same fault I see can be seen against us.

 

MIB

 

 

 

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

......when acceptable proof has yet to be submitted.   The time to do that is when a body or skeleton is available to study.

 

I would respectfully have to disagree. Your context requires that "acceptable proof" would have to be something recognized as such by science. My disagreement stems from not being of the mind where "The time to do that is when a body or skeleton is available to study." Sure that would be irrefutable, there's no question of that and we all agree on that. But to WAIT until that happens? The genetics technology of today says we don't have to wait and my efforts are directed toward that end.

 

DugasCajun stated that the USGS will do anything, and is permitted to do anything, that is requested and funded from the other regulatory agencies. And the USGS can do that because they are NOT a regulatory agency. It's something I never knew before. In my way of thinking it's a game changer and a viable avenue to pursue further. Claudia Ackley's lawsuit, even though aimed at the wrong agencies, mainly California's, had the potential for opening up a push against the Department of Agriculture. If it was successful then funding would have had to be appropriated for an investigation into the Bigfoots. My thinking is that the USGS would end up being the boots on the ground.

 

If that had happened what would the USGS have for resources in order to conduct a study? Their resources would lie in their genetics lab in Fort Collins which is involved in a heck of a lot more environmental genetics research than folks realize. I mean, outside of DugasCajun, who here has even heard of the facility? But if one doesn't know about such things then how is one supposed to work out a plan. It takes putting ALL of the pieces together to come up with a strategy for moving ahead. Plan the work, then work the plan.

   

6 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

Rhetorical, I assume?   Because from what we've seen, obviously the answer is yes.   Just a thought .. I do not think challenging the scientific community will work, people can individually, quietly, opt out.   The challenge, if issued to a specific member of the community might go farther.   Even at that, that person would have to have budget to make the attempt and I think they can, honestly and fairly, decline if they do not.   So in a way Meldrum, or whoever, would have to themselves provide the funding for the person they are challenging if we really want to see that person's very best effort.   Kinda circular, but if we don't do the circle, the same fault I see can be seen against us.

 

MIB

 

 

 

 

You have a point. I just don't know if it's strong enough in the general sense. If one is in for the long haul, then one can afford to establish the long, careful, plan. As more and more information comes to light avenues of pursuit become clearer. IOW, nothing has to remain circular anymore.  

Edited January 31, 2020 by hiflier

[Twist]

In 5 years I bet we are still debating the same things.   I didn’t think we’d be here in 2015, yet here we are.    This subject is circular.

[bipedalist]

https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/ecosystems

Yep, who would of thought USGS did anything biological/ecological/molecular/DNA wise

Power-packed website for sure

The lidar program at this address would seem to hold promise too:

https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-geospatial-program-garners-elevation-award

Edited January 31, 2020 by bipedalist

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Twist said:

In 5 years I bet we are still debating the same things.   I didn’t think we’d be here in 2015, yet here we are.    This subject is circular.

 

Obviously, the history of this subject and how it has been approached in the past would firmly support your take on things. And you're not alone in that way of thinking. It's why some folks get frustrated enough to 1) leave the subject, and 2) take action. Outside of going into the woods, which is kind of the usual historical approach, we need more 2's aiming for modern scientific applications  It really is time to step into this millennium with the aim of using MODERN scientific tools. At least one of us has to do that 

 

I mean, it's obvious that everywhere we look the scientific community is in the field and using e-DNA, and they're using it EVERYWHERE every chance they get. Also, new protocols for targeting specific taxa are being developed all the time now. But since no novel primate DNA seems to be being found then we should realize more so than ever that the field needs the Bigfoot's DNA in the data banks to run samples against. So, for myself, I have seen this for several years as the most important piece of data that is needed. I have also surmised that there may be ways to determine a projected hypothetical DNA genome, and this is where my focus is and why I needed to speak in person to someone in that discipline.

 

Believe me, it has taken a lot of time to narrow down this focus because every time that I thought I had a plan I realized that I had to keep asking about the steps to succeed. And then those steps required more and more background research in order to get to the meat of the issue. The meat of the issue is the development/procurement of a genome......or shoot one/find a carcass. I've come to the conclusion that there is almost nothing in between those two extremes that will result in proof. Shoot one it's a done deal. Get DNA and science will go get one and it's a done deal. The difference? ZERO risk for the DNA side as opposed to ALL of the risks associated with killing one, or even finding a body, with finding a body carrying much less risk of shooting one.

 

Since I do not hunt, the e-DNA path is the one that I've chosen to pursue. And even then, it needs to be handled as delicately and as scientifically as possible because credibility is at stake. Talking to someone in the field of animal/DNA studies requires educating oneself in the language scientists will listen too. It also gives one a better understanding of process and protocols which means stepping into a conversation much further ahead than just going in cold knowing nothing about the subject. It's just like anything else. People here that talk about guns, ammo, loads, grains, and other item leave me in the dust. And that's fine. I have just focused on learning different stuff but we all have the same goal: Solve For Bigfoot     

Edited January 31, 2020 by hiflier

[Huntster]

5 hours ago, MIB said:

........"Science", the institution, with the capital S, may be divided.  "science", the process, with the little s, is not.   Let me explain:

 

"Science" has decided bigfoot does not exist.   They start with the conclusion they wish to support, then cherry-pick, nit-pick, etc the PGF to eliminate or devalue any evidence which doesn't support the foregone conclusion, then they analyze what is left and find the predetermined conclusion. 

 

When "science", with the little s, the process, is applied to the PGF, the conclusion consistently favors authenticity......

 

Excellent explanation. I agree fully. So the bottom line is that the science of Science isn't science at all. It's an ideology or religion, making the leaders of Science (those little bald headed mystery men carrying their unorganized briefcases from board meeting to board meeting) nothing more than organized criminals or chief priests. 

 

4 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

.........In what few videos I have seen where a group of scientists examine the evidence some believe enough is there,  some need more evidence,  and some do not believe it possible.   I understand people that hold all three positions.  Nothing definitive has been presented.     If I were a primatologist I would not subject myself to professional ridicule on the basis of viewing and endorsing a 50 year old film made by two cowboys;    some aspects of which even proponents cannot explain.     Proof needs to be better than that.........

 

This does not explain or justify the complete and haughty refusal to fund any accredited look into the phenomenon. It is completely left to unfunded amateurs.

 

2 hours ago, Twist said:

In 5 years I bet we are still debating the same things.   I didn’t think we’d be here in 2015, yet here we are.    This subject is circular.

 

It is not the subject that is circular. It's the route to official discovery.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Huntster

[MIB]

3 minutes ago, Huntster said:

or chief priests

 

This is my perception.   They like the power that being the people who get to define the dogma for others, to basically be both judge and jury if not executioner, gives them via those few letters after their names.    Ironically, there's a saying that those who can, do, and those who can't, teach.   Academic "scientists" may need a reminder.

 

MIB

[SWWASAS]

Part of the problem of getting scientists to look into something is that graduate students need to get the blessing of their departments to take on a project for credit.   So in a way the high priest department heads are controlling who studies what.   I knew a PHD candidate who wanted to do a study that questioned the way higher education was taught.   His thesis was toxic and he was not allowed to enter the doctoral program.     Propose a study that is critical of human created global warning and you will be blown out of the water.    That is scientific heresy and will be until the glaciers are closing in on Manhattan Island again.    Since bigfoot does not exist,   propose a population density study and you will be laughed out of the department head's office.    Some of what is studied is related to the availability of grant money.   Most grad students or PHD's are not independently wealthy.   Find a benefactor and you might be allowed to take on controversial topics.    One of the major problems with bigfoot research is that it is primarily being done by amateurs,  who do not have the right backgrounds,   and have to rely on their own funding and lack of available time.        A team of qualified, dedicated,  funded professionals might be better able to advance bigfoot research.    That does not necessarily mean the right people are all scientists but they need to be involved to have credibility.    All one has to do is study the history of the Manhattan Project development of the Atomic bomb and you can understand why a project staffed by academics is very similar to trying to herd cats.  Not that being successful with bigfoot research will be that costly,   but it appears to me that the project is well beyond the means of most individuals.    I myself have had a constant stream of ideas to attack field work, but I cannot begin to fund them.    At least I am not sequestering myself from other researchers and sharing what ideas I have on the forum.   It seems the Olympic Project and other groups are sequestered and keep a tight lid on their findings.    The only way we seem to find out anything is leaks from within the organization and what they choose to discuss at conferences.    Bigfoot does not belong to them or any other organization. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by SWWASAS

[hiflier]

Here, SWWASAS have a few more: + + + + + + + + +  

[Twist]

3 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

It is not the subject that is circular. It's the route to official discovery.

Be that as it may,  It’s at the same place it was 5 years ago.  Most likely will be in the same place 5 years from now.  Other than the millions that have been made by TV.   
 

[hiflier]

I have to interject here (hopefully) one more time. One can say things are circular. That's the easy part. The hard part is saying why it is circular. There is a reason after all and the reason is us. I mean, sure, we try to progress in the subject, but even given what we generally know, few of us are in a position to do that. Then what does it take? How dose one break out of the circular aspects of the Bigfoot dialogue and experience. One way is educating ourselves in the processes in a way that would make a difference.

 

Even if we wanted to get science involved, in the face of how much we criticize it, most of us still won't know what it is they can tell us, or what they are capable, or incapable, of doing. The only way to know that is to become a scientist, or at least get to the level where we can fathom what it is that science can do. I have consistently refused to make the science end of things an us-and-them situation. But in order to do so, I've had to understand where science is regarding the areas that could make headway on the Bigfoot front. It's easy to shy away from that kind of effort on our part, but when we do the result is, and has been.....wait for it.....circular dialogue. For me, that was no longer unacceptable. The trick was to suss out a way to break out of the dialogue and into a realm where some possibly really good answers were.

 

Result? After two years, I'm there, or at lest at the threshold. And here's the thing, even after I spoke my piece with a PhD, I am back to the drawing board to learn even more for the next meeting- because there will be one, and I need to advance my knowledge to ask the next round of questions. My research currently is revolving around which genes are unique to a creature, primarily Humans and Great Apes. Humans have a unique gene that only Humans have (actually four versions of the same gene). That's BIG folks. This weekend I need to do the same research for the different Great Apes. And I don't think I need to explain why after all I've said over the past few weeks. So, circular dialogue? Nuh-uh. Not for this guy  

 

    

Edited February 1, 2020 by hiflier

[norseman]

8 hours ago, Twist said:

In 5 years I bet we are still debating the same things.   I didn’t think we’d be here in 2015, yet here we are.    This subject is circular.

I used to think that way with UFO’s as well.