Justin Smeja Incident?

[Arvedis]

Science is historically based on observation.  That's how you collect the majority of your data to prove something. Though, as the sciences as a whole become more crazy complex, you have to rely on predictability modeling, algorithms, and artificial intelligence that can compute faster than our brains ever could. Most science these days is the analysis after super tech turns crazy math into results. Theories can be drawn and scientists then make sense of those refined data points. For new species identification that is resistant to our intent to study it, scientists have to get really creative. But what would be their motivation for this effort? To be made fun of by their peers? At least fungi or even some undiscovered primate deep in the Congo doesn't run away when you try to observe it. That is much easier to focus on. This way you have data in addition to provable observation.

 

The scientists of all stripes who chime in whenever BF topics become mainstream news don't dish out ridicule right away. They look at your data to verify the level of sincerity of the claims. If the data is a mess, it gets ignored. If the data is wrong, then criticism and ridicule follow. That is the biggest issue with BD data is it's historically been bad or unreliable data. Layer on top of that crazy talk like Ketchum's unprovable hypothesis, everything bombs.

 

What data is needed to show BF is a legit species? Sightings reports won't do it and DNA or eDNA testing can only take you so far without a provable hypothesis. Ironically, a few approaches were kicked up in the BF forums reality show thread. Wasn't the entire point of that idea to do it better than the insincere reality shows?

 

My idea kind of piggybacked off @SWWASAS. Find a hot zone, preferably one that already has trail cams set up, map it with LiDAR from the air and start building 3d models with object recognition of their known habitats. It's a big project and a lot more complex when you start dealing with algorithmic predictability of food sources in the area, migration patterns, other things that are common to studying animals. BF is not an animal but he may as well be since he is a wild man.

 

This would of course need funding and boots on the ground as well as the air. The idea of drones and thermal gets too complex at night so this is all just daytime habitat mapping as a start. That was the idea anyway.

 

 

Edited June 12, 2021 by Arvedis

[vinchyfoot]

5 hours ago, MIB said:

 

Untrue.   That is the ideal, not the reality.    There is a difference between big-s "Science" and little-s "science".   What you are describing is little-s "science", the process, but what we are confronted with is big-s "Science", the institutions and their priests we call "Scientists."   It is pretty clear that in this instance they are more interested in preserving the current belief paradigm than they are in exploring / seeking new knowledge.    That makes them priests of a religion, not scientists.   There is no such thing as settled science, that makes it religion, dogma which cannot, by "rule", be examined by scientific processes else the person doing the examining is a heretic to the religion.

 

I am in the camp with Huntster ... I just want to see (another) one, this time for a longer period with time to study.   I'm not interested in trying to shove proof down the throats of people who wish not to accept existence.   That has never been one of my needs.

 

MIB

 

So in the interest of fairness and discussion, what is a prime example of evidence that you would cite?

[Wooly Booger]

3 hours ago, ShadowBorn said:

They do not need to be protected since they are the Apex. So they are not at all endangered since there is no way to tell if they are. Why do we keep talking about them being endangered.  It is not like we keep finding a dead Bigfoot every where we look in our natural forest. So how can you say or even mention Endangered Species Act when we cannot even get a bead on one.

 

How far has research gone with out looking into the woo side of these. Where are we at in the field of research now. No closer then we were years back. Unless we move forward with open minds we will still be in the same place for years to come. If you want to separate yourself from the woo crowd then that's fine . All I can say is that you may find your self like others who have never had an encounter. The woo to me does not mean opening up portals, mind speaking, or even that shape shifting.  But finding those hot spots and reaching out to them and having them reach back and make contact with you. That does not take science but knowledge of what others have used and succeeded.  Proven methods. In other words leave science behind. If you keep on thinking that they are primates or some type of sub-humans then you have it all wrong. But look up the success rate of what others have tried . Make a graph if it will help you . But there you will see a failure rate .  I am not trying to pick on you at all. But I see allot of scientist as very close minded.  I gave up my time in the field but every so often i get that bite. All I can say is that I am not ready to deal with it again.    

An apex predator can't be endangered? Have you heard about what happened to tigers? Bigfoot very likely are endangered. If there were a high population of these animals they would have been scientifically documented by now. They are intelligent and elusive. But they are NOT THAT intelligent and elusive that they could have evaded detection for so long if they had a high population density. 

 

Granted, I am convinced that a government cover up has alot to do with why Bigfoot haven't been scientifically documented by now. But if this species had a high population density there is no amount of government secrecy in the world that could cover up Bigfoot's existence. Brown Bears are a potentially dangerous and fairly intelligent apex predator.  But the government wouldn't be able to cover up their existence because their population density is too high and sightings are too numerous. You might say that Brown Bears don't exactly have a high population density and you would be right. But what then does this say about Bigfoot's population density?  It is that much lower. 

 

The BFRO has estimated the population of this species is no greater than 2,000 animals in the entirety of North America. I personally would concur with this estimate. 

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, Arvedis said:

BF is not an animal but he may as well be since he is a wild man.

 

I saw you trying to slip that in, A It's, at best, an assumption with not enough supporting evidence to be definitive. But I'll gladly accept it as an opinion since there are no real-world samples to examine. And DNA WILL prove a hypothesis. If that wasn't possible then Meldrum and the rest would simply skip that costly step and not bother deploying the technology at all.

[hiflier]

4 hours ago, ShadowBorn said:

They do not need to be protected since they are the Apex. So they are not at all endangered since there is no way to tell if they are.

 

A mild logic would say that since one cannot tell if they are endangered then one also cannot tell if they are not endangered, apex or otherwise? It may be more prudent to err on the side that they are endangered just to cover all the bases.

 

Granted that sets up the pressure of an unknown timeline regarding extinction, but it's probably better to do that than just walk away.

Edited June 12, 2021 by hiflier

[ShadowBorn]

7 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

The BFRO has estimated the population of this species is no greater than 2,000 animals in the entirety of North America. I personally would concur with this estimate.

Even if the BFRO estimates there population might be 2,000 creatures. You have to place that they are spread out through North America. Our wilderness in North America is large. We have no idea what their age limit might be so this could limit on their repopulation. There is no fossil data so that might say allot about about these creatures. As vast as is our wilderness there still undiscovered holes that we have yet not stepped into. These creatures have no problem surviving. So they can pretty much roam wherever they seem fit.

 

If Justin's story is true then from his account we know that they do travel with their family members. In one of my encounters I was looing through a starlight scope and seen what looked like a teenage being stand next or was about five yards to my right. Where in the middle was a swaying larger creature and to it's right was another creature standing in this running motion.  So for Justin to say that he had seen two little ones come at him says allot to what I had seen and what others who were with me had seen that night.

 

So to be able to roam freely with out worry to me makes them an apex. Anything that can just tear a deer apart with out cutting it makes them a apex Some thing that can place fear in you with out being seen and then spotted makes them a apex. I do not believe that we would want more of these creatures running around in our wilderness. Some how nature has selected them with some type of population control. But I am not sure if science will ever figure this out. Since science will not even try to get a start on discovering. Only a few selected few have gone down that path. Some have not wasted their time. But have died never knowing the truth.     

[Arvedis]

44 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

I saw you trying to slip that in, A It's, at best, an assumption with not enough supporting evidence to be definitive. But I'll gladly accept it as an opinion since there are no real-world samples to examine. And DNA WILL prove a hypothesis. If that wasn't possible then Meldrum and the rest would simply skip that costly step and not bother deploying the technology at all.

 

 

Definitely an opinion. I've seen enough to conclude animal origin angles would not go anywhere.

 

What tech does Meldrum use other than a microscope? What data has Meldrum actually put to use in any of his theories? Not hot air, not casual talk on a reality show, podcast, interview, conference talk etc. - data. Nor has he mentioned a reference to a DNA sequence of any kind.

 

I have not heard any DNA hypothesis from any testing, at any time. It's all just been surprise at the results or disbelief or dismissal of it for one reason or another. I haven't actually heard a hypothesis put forward prior to testing. Anyone please feel free to correct my assumption and memory on that.

Edited June 13, 2021 by Arvedis

[ShadowBorn]

25 minutes ago, hiflier said:

A mild logic would say that since one cannot tell if they are endangered then one also cannot tell if they are not endangered, apex or otherwise? It may be more prudent to err on the side that they are endangered just to cover all the bases.

 

Granted that sets up the pressure of an unknown timeline regarding extinction, but it's probably better to do that than just walk away.

Yes Boss, ( just kiddin  ) that does make more sense.  To err on the side of caution is better. We still do not have an outcome and all this can change. We do not have the answers. If we did we be looking at a Yeti or a North American Great Ape in the zoo. All I Know is that I did not feel like I was the apex or the one in charge of the event. If that is what chimps or apes do then that is what we were dealing with. 

[hiflier]

12 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

All I Know is that I did not feel like I was the apex or the one in charge of the event.

 

I get that, my friend, and can appreciate your wisdom and experience. Thank you for the rest of what you said as well, Boss (J/K too), as you are right that with so many unknowns things can change

[ShadowBorn]

11 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

What tech does Meldrum use other than a microscope? What data has Meldrum actually put to use in any of his theories? Not hot air, not casual talk on a reality show, podcast, interview, conference talk etc. - data. Nor mention a reference to a DNA sequence of any kind.

I know that he has pushed about the mid tarsal break among the print finds. The mechanics on how this creature might walk with the weight that it carries. The only thing that I found just a few weeks ago was. That he was not the first to discover the mid tarsal break amongst apes and chimps. There was another Dr. back in the 1930 who had discovered this. But I believe that Dr. Meldrum was who explored the idea about these creatures having a Mid tarsal break. Which I am not positive but made him believe that these creatures may be a type of ape. But kept going back and forth with the idea that they may be ape or may be human. I would have to find my essay and look things up. But I learned allot from how he explained about the foot and the way these creatures walk. Good science. Between Dr. Meldrum and Cliff B they both have the largest collection a foot prints of these creatures in the world. 

[hiflier]

25 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

 

 

Definitely an opinion. I've seen enough to conclude animal origin angles would not go anywhere.

 

What tech does Meldrum use other than a microscope? What data has Meldrum actually put to use in any of his theories? Not hot air, not casual talk on a reality show, podcast, interview, conference talk etc. - data. Nor has he mentioned a reference to a DNA sequence of any kind.

 

I have not heard any DNA hypothesis from any testing, at any time. It's all just been surprise at the results or disbelief or dismissal of it for one reason or another. I haven't actually heard a hypothesis put forward prior to testing. Anyone please feel free to correct my assumption and memory on that.

 

Good points to be sure. The only reference he has made to DNA that I'm aware of (although I've not watch that Prime Video documentary yet) was when he scooped Dr. Disotell by a few months by announcing that the DNA results from the initial nest find showed degraded Human DNA which contained no indication of a novel primate.

[Wooly Booger]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

Im not a big fan of woo. But with that said? Woo has nothing to do with the respectability of Bigfoot. An undiscovered 800 lbs apeman wandering the forest of North America is plenty enough for science to scoff, jeer and laugh at the subject.

 

The Yeti gets a tad more plausibility because of where it supposedly resides in the world. Asia has fossils of apes and ape men. It has extant apes living there today. North America does not with the exception of Homo Sapiens.

 

Science makes fun of our lack of evidence. Plaster casts and sightings reports do not impress them. If a tooth or a finger bone were produced in a controlled fashion, (X bone came out of Y excavation) then science would possibly sit up and take notice. But even then it may be a fight.....

 

http://patagoniamonsters.blogspot.com/2019/12/more-on-erectus-calvaria-from-chapala.html

 

So science isn’t questioning the validity of the skull cap..... it’s questioning WHERE it was found. Someone could have just flown it across the Pacific and dropped it in Mexico.

 

A Bigfoot bone collected by a amateur is going to face similar scrutiny. 
 

It’s best unfortunately to have a bloody corpse in tow. Which means we are on our own for the foreseeable future.

 

 

I agree that proof is ultimately what is needed. Whether in the form of bones, a DNA sample, or a type specimen. And that is what most of us here are after. Proof. Whether for the purpose of scientific discovery, or for the purpose of self gratification in the case of those who don't care about scientific discovery. But proof is still proof regardless. 

 

And while the idea of the existence of an 8ft 800lb hairy giant roaming the wilderness areas of North America might raise more than a few eyebrows in the scientific community, most scientists have not even bothered to look at the evidence that is available. Those who have looked at the evidence, and it is overwhelming, soon realize that the mainstream position that Bigfoot "does not exist" is truly untenable. 

 

But here's the catch. The reason that most scientists refuse to look into the subject of Bigfoot is that the subject itself is associated with the paranormal in the popular mindset. While in reality this is far from the truth, as most Bigfoot researchers are flesh and blood advocates who a scientific in their approach to one degree or another, their are still enough fringe theorists that the subject has become associated with the paranormal. Walk into any book store and you'll see what I mean. The books about Bigfoot are lumped in with books about magic, tarot cards, ghosts and other rubbish. 

 

If we could present our subject and our pursuit as a scientific endeavour, we might just find that we will get scientific backing. 

[Arvedis]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

...which contained no indication of a novel primate.

 

Finally, a hypothesis emerges! 

 

[Mike Rowe narrating]" On this episode of Bigfootforums.... the team sharpens its knives and braces for more infighting. Meanwhile, Hiflier may have started a chain reaction that finally leads to scientific credibility...." 

 

[norseman]

19 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

I agree that proof is ultimately what is needed. Whether in the form of bones, a DNA sample, or a type specimen. And that is what most of us here are after. Proof. Whether for the purpose of scientific discovery, or for the purpose of self gratification in the case of those who don't care about scientific discovery. But proof is still proof regardless. 

 

And while the idea of the existence of an 8ft 800lb hairy giant roaming the wilderness areas of North America might raise more than a few eyebrows in the scientific community, most scientists have not even bothered to look at the evidence that is available. Those who have looked at the evidence, and it is overwhelming, soon realize that the mainstream position that Bigfoot "does not exist" is truly untenable. 

 

But here's the catch. The reason that most scientists refuse to look into the subject of Bigfoot is that the subject itself is associated with the paranormal in the popular mindset. While in reality this is far from the truth, as most Bigfoot researchers are flesh and blood advocates who a scientific in their approach to one degree or another, their are still enough fringe theorists that the subject has become associated with the paranormal. Walk into any book store and you'll see what I mean. The books about Bigfoot are lumped in with books about magic, tarot cards, ghosts and other rubbish. 

 

If we could present our subject and our pursuit as a scientific endeavour, we might just find that we will get scientific backing. 

 

Bud, your selling the same message DWA was 10 years ago. The mountain of evidence would finally break down the barriers and scientists would finally see the light..... problem is? It’s never happened. It’s not about quantity it’s about quality. Quality here means physical evidence.

 

Secondly? Never mind the woo crowd. Your never going to divorce yourself from the Rick Dyer and Tom Biscardi crowd. So long as people are out there with fake stompers and hairy suits? It’s all horse manure to science.

 

You know how many new species are discovered? The bush meat trade. Or a hunter or bushman leading some under grad by the hand out into the jungle and points out a new species. So that some gray bearded fellow in Boston can name it..... that’s how it works. Even after discovery the Bush man is still looked down upon. Doesn’t matter....

 

We are on our own. My advice is to you? Don’t worry about what others are doing. Just stick with what you can do within your own limitations. We NEED physical evidence. That should be our main focus. 
 

If you are an archeologist? Find some caves in the Olympic NP, pull the necessary permits and perform a dig. This is an angle few are pursuing. Heck I bet the BFF would try and drum up some cash for such an endeavor! There is no way, no possible way that there are not bones to be found in some cave somewhere!

[Doug]

7 hours ago, Wooly Booger said:

I sometimes present myself when I have a strong position on the subject.

 

I'm guilty of doing this sometimes too.