Thoughts on the Types of Information we Use

[Twist]

Well which is it hiflier,  in one post I do not bring up alternative methods to yours and the next you say I bring up a body on a slab often?   Do I or do I not have an alternative option to your method of E-DNA?     
 

You say I bring it up quit a bit, do you want me to start looking at my total posts vs posts about a body on a slab vs.  your total posts vs. E-DNA?  I think you’ll be surprised how much less I harp on my method compared to you.  

[norseman]

1 hour ago, MikeZimmer said:

A lot of views expressed here are generally well articulated. I thank people for contributing to the thread. In line with the original topic, some of the views here may be correct. They cannot all be.

 

I only get back to BFF sporadically, since for me it is more than entertainment, but a minor passion. Thinking about Sasquatch is for me, a vehicle for exploring some of the issues around epistemology and belief. However, the existence of relict hominoids is one of the least important issues of the day as far as I can see. Although it is quite compelling for me and others who come to this forum, it is not on the radar of most folks.

 

One of my passions is determining the truth or falsity of things, and I have many notebooks filled with amateur ramblings on epistemology and belief, starting with early thoughts jotted down in the 1960s, and now maintain a generally unread blog on this topic. Also, writing things down on this fulfills a need in me I suppose. It also helps me clarify my thoughts. If you are somewhat masochistic, see https://ephektikoi.wordpress.com/2020/04/30/the-fundamental-problem-is-belief/

 

" ...  It has always seemed to me that the problems in the world are both epistemological and ontological. Even more fundamental a problem, maybe the fundamental problem, is belief. How do we know what to believe? How do we know what is true? These are not trivial questions – not abstract, not divorced from everyday concerns. That does not mean that they are everyday concerns for most people; they definitely are not. However perhaps they should be.  ...""

 

What I’m reading from your post is that this forum could be devoted to Pixies, Unicorns or little green men. It matters not to you. Your simply studying the rats in the maze and how we formulate beliefs based on a lack of science. Does that about sum it up?

[hiflier]

24 minutes ago, Twist said:

Do I or do I not have an alternative option to your method of E-DNA?     

 

No, you do not. Your "body on a slab" is an OPINION. You are not actively trying to make it happen. Norseman is actually the one with the alternate method. On the other hand I AM actively trying to make my method happen. I write emails, I make phone calls. I am pushing to get someone to seriously consider the e-DNA concept. I'm not just hanging around someone else and saying "gee I like that idea". And you know? over the years he as mentioned actively hunting and shooting a Bigfoot many times-  IF he didn't run across a dead one first. But I never hear you complain to him about how often he mentions it. So I suggest you drop this whole thing because taking inconsistent pot shots is looking a bit silly.

[Twist]

So I have an opinion and alternative method but because I’m not out there hunting it myself you don’t like it.   Keep moving goal posts buddy! 

[MikeZimmer]

52 minutes ago, norseman said:

What I’m reading from your post is that this forum could be devoted to Pixies, Unicorns or little green men. It matters not to you. Your simply studying the rats in the maze and how we formulate beliefs based on a lack of science. Does that about sum it up?

 

No, you have pretty much misread what I am saying. Maybe my writings were not clear enough.

 

Research into the existence Sasquatch is credible and interesting, although often not good enough - not that I could do better. Those other things you mention are not only highly unlikely, but of no interest.

 

I know you are a strong proponent of actively working to put a body on a slab. Can't say I am in sympathy with that approach, but it might resolve the controversy, iff the results ever saw the light of day. There are a few caveats there, which others have noted from time to time. Anyway, that is a different discussion.

 

I did study rats at one time, but they were not in a maze.

 

I am interested in finding out the truth of things, but believe it is a lot harder than most people think. I am interested in the truth in more important areas - politics, deep state operations, false flags, health, medical treatments, governmental and organizational corruption, .... You might sense that I am a proponent the frequent occurrence of large scale conspiracies. If so, you would be right.

 

UFOs are also interesting, although I have not devoted the hours to that topic. I don't spend any time engaging with that community. I think that the implications of the UFO area are vast, going far beyond the existence of relict hominoids. Of course, some people link them. I am not in the least convinced that this makes sense.

 

Cryptids id general and relict hominoids in particular are quite interesting. I did take courses in anthropology and physical anthropology, and have always been interested in human evolution.

[ShadowBorn]

50 minutes ago, norseman said:

What I’m reading from your post is that this forum could be devoted to Pixies, Unicorns or little green men. It matters not to you. Your simply studying the rats in the maze and how we formulate beliefs based on a lack of science. Does that about sum it up?

I think what it means is that we are all individuals with different beliefs. Not one of us is going to believe the same as the other individual. Science lacks belief since science is just that. Science is a method to prove and not used as a method of belief. If some one comes on here with a story of a sighting we are all going to have a different side of belief to this story. That is what makes us different as humans.  I do not see my self as a rat nor do I see you as a rat in a maze that is being studied on how we believe.  As humans we are all individuals in thinking and beliefs.. This is why there are so many opinions on this subject relating to Bigfoot. I and nor can anyone else change the way you think unless you are willing to change your belief as an individual. That's just the way it is.

Twist

I have no problem being corrected. How else will I learn. I would rather be corrected then not be corrected. But you did see my point about how people do hide behind these little icons. Rather then debate the issue it is easer to just post an icon. Where is the individual thought process with that. If you have some thing to say then speak up about it ( I am not saying that this was you either ) But why hide behind a icon.  Debate your thought on the subject. So that we can get some form of input. After all we are looking for answers. Silence should not be an option. If we want to get any closer to the truth then we need to get input from others who are bright in their thinking. Is this not what open forums are meant for.   

[hiflier]

19 minutes ago, Twist said:

So I have an opinion and alternative method but because I’m not out there hunting it myself you don’t like it.   Keep moving goal posts buddy! 

 

But this is what you do, Twist, you put words in my mouth to slant in your favor as you see fit. Because I NEVER SAID I DIDN'T LIKE IT. I only said it's an OPINION. Lots of people have opinions. But they don't come after me like you do. Give it up.

 

@MikeZimmer My apologies for all of this Mike.

 

Edited June 15, 2020 by hiflier

[MikeZimmer]

4 hours ago, hiflier said:

...The thing is, we don't have to be chasing misinformation, disinformation or hoaxes. We have enough real world science to keep the ball rolling and that's where our time and effort should go. And I'm convinced real world science can solve this thing. But they need our support in the way of letting scientists know that we WANT the answer. And not just one person either,  but many people need to voice that request. Things can and will change if science hears from enough of us. I'm convinced of that. And doing that with any success will be much better that seeing or good friend Norseman take such a risk with himself that we all know could bring some serious trouble for him. I've been pushing on academia as hard as I can to see if his potential situation can be at all avoided. I agree with his goals and methods but, good grief, if he doesn't have to go through with it then he would be so much better off all the way around.

 

Interesting comment from Jeff Meldrum at https://beta.capeia.com/zoology/2017/12/15/paradigm-shifts-and-the-search-for-relict-hominoids:

 

Jeff Meldrum10. Jan 2018

"On the contrary Robert. Doug's remark was directed at the scientific community. As one who operates within that community I assure you that while there are those with open minds, they do not fell (sic) at liberty to display that open-mindedness. "

 

"Career limiting move" is what Meldrum is suggesting. Meldrum and Krantz both received a lot of flack over the years according to reports I have read. This is the problem that I think your own efforts face, but I am pretty sure that you realize it.

 

It takes a lot of courage to buck the established wisdom in academia. It helps to have tenure. In a bureaucracy, I suspect there are even more pressures to conform. I spent most of my working life in bureaucracy, and it seems to me that those outside the mainstream were quickly marginalized, ignored in discussions, and were not considered to be management material.

 

 

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, MikeZimmer said:

It takes a lot of courage to buck the established wisdom in academia. It helps to have tenure. In a bureaucracy, I suspect there are even more pressures to conform. I spent most of my working life in bureaucracy, and it seems to me that those outside the mainstream were quickly marginalized, ignored in discussions, and were not considered to be management material

 

I agree on that.

 

1 hour ago, MikeZimmer said:

This is the problem that I think your own efforts face, but I am pretty sure that you realize it.

 

HAH! Indeed I do, but then I expected as much. As far as that goes, I don't think I've reached the end of the road though. A bear turns over a lot of rocks in the talus field looking for moths in August. And that's a lot more difficult than what I've been doing  The thing is, the science questions I'm asking about have nothing to do with Sasquatch as far as science is concerned. They are only science questions involving e-DNA sampling.

 

I'm basically asking if science could find an escaped Gorilla in North America by DNA sampling the environment in an area the Gorilla is thought to be in. Of course that's a simplified overview. But for the Forum, it gets the point across. Mainly to show that one doesn't have to mention Sasquatch at all when addressing academia. All one needs is a parallel inquiry to see if such a methodology is feasible. And that's really all I want to know at this point. It's an entirely empirical question based on today's e-DNA capability. I say the answer is yes, but I would sure like to hear it officially from a geneticist.

 

It has taken a lot of study and research to even get to the question but that's fine with me. And I will gladly pass on the question to anyone who wishes to ask any of their local PhD's or biologists. Could be time for a thread just on that. Or else dig up the Sasquatch e-DNA thread once more and stick it there?

[MikeZimmer]

34 minutes ago, hiflier said:

It has taken a lot of study and research to even get to the question but that's fine with me. And I will gladly pass on the question to anyone who wishes to ask any of their local PhD's or biologists. Could be time for a thread just on that. Or else dig up the Sasquatch e-DNA thread once more and stick it there?

 

I wish you success in your approach.

 

[hiflier]

Accepted. Thanks.

[Twist]

5 hours ago, hiflier said:

No, you do not. Your "body on a slab" is an OPINION. You are not actively trying to make it happen. Norseman is actually the one with the alternate method. On the other hand I AM actively trying to make my method happen. I write emails, I make phone calls. I am pushing to get someone to seriously consider the e-DNA concept. I'm not just hanging around someone else and saying "gee I like that idea".

 

4 hours ago, Twist said:

So I have an opinion and alternative method but because I’m not out there hunting it myself you don’t like it.   Keep moving goal posts buddy! 

 

Your post, my response. 

 

Sorry if you misconstrued my point, I was not trying to put words in your mouth but based on your reply it sure seemed obvious to me you take offense in my lack of hunting BF personally.  A guy that hunts for BF can have the same opinion as me in regards to our best option for discovery and his is considered an "alternative" option because of said hunting?

 

So if I were to hunt a BF once would it change from my OPINION of the best option to solve the BF mystery to a legit "alternative" option? 

Edited June 16, 2020 by Twist

[hiflier]

58 minutes ago, Twist said:

it sure seemed obvious to me you take offense in my lack of hunting BF personally

 

I take offense to having someone being singularly critical of me when I mention e-DNA as often as I do as a method, but not critical of others who mention their methodology even more often than I do. Norseman has been talking about his method in all of the 7 years I've been here. I've been talking about my method for 8 months. I don't see you coming out of the woodwork every time he mentions "body on a slab". But you seem to like doing that to me as if it was personal or something. You always show up with some negative remark.

 

Sure, I bring e-DNA up across threads but how often does "body on a slab" get mentioned all over the General Forum and beyond? What your issue is, is that I pressure members for help. Norseman doesn't. But then it's a different kettle of fish altogether. He's one man against one Sasquatch. I'm one man against the scientific establishment. I also am simply trying to get an answer to a scientific genetics question and could use some support in that and I've not been able to understand people's fear in doing so.

 

So. It's not your lack of hunting, Twist. It's your apparent need to somehow for keeping me in a corner. I mean, I don't hunt either, so why would I be critical of you or anyone else for what I don't do myself? Think about it. Also, there are plenty of members who are no-kill here. How come you can't promote e-DNA as a method instead of killing a Bigfoot? I mean if folks really don't want the thing shot, and they know people are out there trying to shoot one, then where are they when it comes to the e-DNA subject? One is no-kill but doesn't support a method guaranteed NOT to kill? That makes no sense to me.

 

Example: People have been very vocal and adamant at conferences in the past when NAWAC was the speaker. It sometimes got physical. But if those folks are that passionate and dead set against killing a Bigfoot then where are they when it comes to supporting a program meant to keep Bigfoot from getting killed? So yes, I get pushy, but only because things people sometimes say and do, or don't do, don't make sense to me. I simply don't do well with certain levels of hypocrisy and am unabashedly and unapologetically vocal about it.

Edited June 16, 2020 by hiflier

[ShadowBorn]

I might be wrong on this Hiflier for lack of understanding.  But the problem might be the acceptance of E-DNA. First you must find a match to what you are looking for in the E-DNA.  If there is no match within the data then the sample is at a loss. I can see how E-DNA can work at finding a new species. But how are they going to compare the sample. When there is nothing to compare too which should be the question. They need something to compare this E-DNA with. If this E-DNA comes back as Human, then we are still stuck with from where we started in the first place. With nothing novel.  We would need this DNA to be totally new from all Humans in order to declare it to be from a Sasquatch. It would have to be also from a new species of ape to declare it to be a new species. So far none of this has been able to be proven. That is why advocating a body on a slab is the only way to prove what these creatures might truly be. I do not agree in the killing of one nor do I agree in the finding of one and tearing or cutting a limb, head or any part of the body. I say this since they look so human that it would be shocking in the act of doing so. E-DNA might work if two or three samples from different parts of the country were taken and were to match. That if this E-DNA matches up exactly to a T. How could these labs explain this match up then? There would be no way to prove them wrong and the samples could then be novel. No contamination and would have to be accepted by science. Now this is just my opinion. I am not trying to be critical of the idea. But just that maybe there might be flaws.  There would have to be taken a fresh sample in order for E-DNA to be effective. Not just one sample but more then just a few to properly document this creature. Just my opinion.

[Twist]

Hiflier,
 

All I’m hearing is you playing the victim.   
 

Shadowborn made a comment about why he gets smirk emojis and you get downvotes.   I gave him my opinion on why that happens.   It turned into this.  I’m done discussing it because all I see are wall of texts that always move goal posts and somehow circle back to you harping on E-DNA.  
 

Good day sir.

Edited June 16, 2020 by Twist