Jump to content

State of Sasquatch Research


Explorer

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:


 

Do practitioners of astrology cause a decrease in college students choosing astronomy as a major?  
 



 

 

Astronomy is the study of things that are PROVEN to exist. You are comparing apples to oranges here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Wooly Booger said:

Astronomy is the study of things that are PROVEN to exist. You are comparing apples to oranges here. 

Exactly.

 

Most of those hard nosed science types are not shunning this subject because of memes.  It’s because the subject runs counter to accepted science.  They don’t care in the slightest that there are Bigfoot Facebook groups, shows, or knickknacks.  Those things could cease to exist tomorrow, and it wouldn’t change a thing.  
 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Exactly.

 

Most of those hard nosed science types are not shunning this subject because of memes.  It’s because the subject runs counter to accepted science.  They don’t care in the slightest that there are Bigfoot Facebook groups, shows, or knickknacks.  Those things could cease to exist tomorrow, and it wouldn’t change a thing.  
 

 

 

 

I confused. Bigfoot has nothing to do with astronomy. And astrology isn’t comparable to either. 
 

My point is, memes and jokes make a mockery of the subject. And so does woo. Neither of these things lend any air of scientific respectability to our mutual subject of interest. They are causing more harm than good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And who is the arbitor of what is inappropriate, and thereby making a mockery as you call it, and what is not?

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

And who is the arbitor of what is inappropriate, and thereby making a mockery as you call it, and what is not?

 

 

I am the arbiter. If you don’t like it, there’s the door. 

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

I am the arbiter. If you don’t like it, there’s the door. 

LOL! I jest  of course. But I do think it obvious what constitutes a mockery.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admin
3 hours ago, Marty said:

Real science needs a stronger social media presence and not tucked away on obscure portions of the internet. 

 

The problem is that social media platforms are not conducive to scientific discussions or data/idea sharing. Let's face it, Facebook is great to keep in touch with your friends and build your acquaintances, but that's about it, that's why it's called social media.

 

You can't have a discussion like we're having now on Twitter or Facebook.

 

That's why the BFF exists.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, gigantor said:

 

The problem is that social media platforms are not conducive to scientific discussions or data/idea sharing. Let's face it, Facebook is great to keep in touch with your friends and build your acquaintances, but that's about it, that's why it's called social media.

 

You can't have a discussion like we're having now on Twitter or Facebook.

 

That's why the BFF exists.

 

Exactly.  
 

And Facebook will attract a crowd with a more casual interest.  Most of it won’t appeal to those of us with a more serious interest in the subject.  The best that we can hope for is that some of those people start off listening to the podcasts and debating the red circles…and will eventually want to do more with looking into the phenomenon.  
 

Maybe they won’t.  But, at the end of the day…it doesn’t matter to me.  Their actions (especially online) don’t affect me or my efforts.  To me, the more people with an interest in the subject moves the needle on the right direction.


 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admin
2 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

he best that we can hope for is that some of those people start off listening to the podcasts and debating the red circles…and will eventually want to do more with looking into the phenomenon.  

 

It happens a lot. If you read through the new members introduction thread, you'll see that many of them mention becoming interested when they watched a show on cable.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

And who is the arbitor of what is inappropriate, and thereby making a mockery as you call it, and what is not?

 

 

 

The woo is a stain on the subject. End of story.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting!

I was just on BFRO site and looking for any expedition results. I got tired of looking. Anybody else find any?

I would also have to add to the "...committed groups who hit the field repeatedly and methodically..." that the ones that document and report their findings are even less.

"The rest of the story" is often left out.

No links in YouTube "researchers" posts to follow up with their "research."  Anybody find any? 

Perhaps I am speaking too soon. I have more to read here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2022 at 3:55 PM, MIB said:

Fair enough.    I have a different take-away though.

 

 

My analogy is icebergs.  10% above the surface, 90% below .. give or take.    I don't think it is our research practices or methods that are flawed, I think it is the assumptions that guide them .. a deeper, more fundamental flaw.  We're not inept.   I believe that if our assumptions were right, then our methods would have produced results.    

 

I don't know what the answer is but I am convinced that whatever it is, we're going to find that bigfoots aren't what we think they are.   


I think we need to step back and review the apparent crackpot theories.   Apply some science to them looking for ways they could succeed, not just for ways to dismiss them.    I think that because we are uncomfortable with aspects of them, we attempt to force failure so we don't have to face discomfort rather than looking into them to see how they might work thus suss out the answer to our mystery.    You might even say we use "pure science" as a means to hide intellectual cowardice.

 

MIB

 

Nicely said! Intellectual cowardice - love that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2022 at 1:04 PM, Wooly Booger said:

I fully agree. Everytime I try to find a quality Sasquatch documentary on YouTube the only programming that comes up is worthless crap posted by Small Town Monsters and other losers. 
 

It’s getting to be like the History Channel. Give me good old fashioned historical documentaries rather than Ancient Aliens, Ice Road Truckers, inbred hillbillies, and the lowest common denominator. 

 

I miss the old History Channel.

Just now, Annie Nore said:

 

I miss the old History Channel.

The original MTV, too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2022 at 1:37 PM, Marty said:

I will say this as someone who was on the outside with a passive interest, for a long time, the woo crap is probably 70% of the Bigfoot stuff you are exposed to. The nitty gritty actual science that some researchers do barely accounts for much if it's not being expressed openly to the public. 

Real science needs a stronger social media presence and not tucked away on obscure portions of the internet. 

Unfortunately, the general populace does not want real science in most areas not just Sasquatch Research. Most of the stuff out there is for entertainment and likes. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2022 at 2:59 PM, Wooly Booger said:

Stupid memes should be outlawed under penalty of flogging in the public square. 

 

Stupid being the operative word here. We all need to laugh at ourselves sometimes just to help keep it real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...