Guest HucksterFoot Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Can't see your pic...firewall at work. I am sure it's a screamer though... It does take a bit of a leap to imagine it. The problem is they're just a bit elusive for me :] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 True, but in the case of science it can be often times very stubborn to new ideas. In the case of the hobbit many scientists have argued that the discovery was nothing more than a sickly midget Homo Sapien. Why is that a bad thing? Those scientists could have been correct. The consensus seems clear now that they weren't, but a few years ago the picture was quite a bit fuzzier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Umm wasn't it the bad old scientist that found the hobbit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HucksterFoot Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Why is that a bad thing? Those scientists could have been correct. The consensus seems clear now that they weren't, but a few years ago the picture was quite a bit fuzzier. I'd like to add; justified also. The consensus, subject to change of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Why is that a bad thing? Those scientists could have been correct. The consensus seems clear now that they weren't, but a few years ago the picture was quite a bit fuzzier. It's not, please reread my sentence after the one you qouted. I understand it's their job to attack the new picture that is upsetting the status quo. The more fantastical......the more scrutiny. I'm simply trying to point out that if the establishment is willing to rake scientitists over the coals over a SKELETON? What do amatuer BF researchers expect from the establishment when they produce a track cast or a fuzzy photo? Science is just doing it's job of seperating the wheat from the chaff. On the flip side of the coin though, when a witness believes without a doubt they have seen something with their own eyes? They have a emotional connection to the debate, nor do they always see things within a scientific context. They saw it, it's real, and if science says it's not real then science is bad. On top of that, the eye witness generally WANTS answers from government or science to explain what they saw, and when they are not taken seriously they usually clam up and become resentful. Perception is key here, and I see both sides of the argument. And of course my default position is produce a body or go home, but that doesn't mean I don't sympathize with some of the more viable eye witness stories out there. And I know that you feel the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Thanks Norseman. The jury is still out on the Sierra Kills story for so many reasons it makes my head spin, but I kind of expected an experienced hunter to be able to tell something about the flesh sample that the General has said he found. Guess I was wrong. It could literally be anything. I guess that is good and bad news. I guess I'm out of the loop on this story. But I'm rather certain that if you lay a black chimp hair next to a black black bear hair on a table in front of me? I'd be right 50% of the time..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xspider1 Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 (edited) Your average Scientist, as smart as they may be, is generally like most everyone else: in regard to things that they don't know or care about, they follow the mainstream, like cattle. Unfortunately, that is just human nature, for most. Those that are not compelled to follow the mainstream (for it's sense of security, normalcy, etc.) are almost always the true discoverers. The troublesome thing for me is that so many people (whether they work 'in science' or not) are so completely convinced that Bigfoot do not exist, when the exact opposite seems to be true. The evidence and testimony from eyewitnesses pretty much guarantees that Bigfoot are out there but; the fact that solid, irrefutable proof has eluded the mainstream, must keep some fairly well obsessed with the subject. (In my opinion and void where prohibited, of course.) Edited October 8, 2011 by xspider1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted October 8, 2011 Admin Share Posted October 8, 2011 (edited) I'm with you until: The troublesome thing for me is that so many people (whether they work 'in science' or not) are so completely convinced that Bigfoot do not exist, when the exact opposite seems to be true.... There is no conclusive evidence that BF exists. I agree that the number of eyewitness accounts is impressive, but that can be attributed to copy-cat reports from the initial BFRO database. If you read the sighting reports over time (as I have over the last eight years), the latest sightings all mimic earlier attributes reported in the database. For example, it was a huge controversy way back then, when the first report of a BF "stalking" was made, now it's a common feature. Most reports include stalking behavior. Then the list of attributes took off. Seven foot+ tall, no neck, red eye shine, talking, stinking, brush crashing, howling, rock throwing, "gift" giving, etc are now regularly included in sightings reports. I think people read the previous reports and "remember" the same behavior, then include it on their sightings report. Today, it's not a credible report unless it has some of these attributes. "Witnesses" read the previous sightings and augment their report... the database has basically become a contest of who can report the most number of preconceived attributes. It's ironic, the success of the global internet sightings database has made itself useless over time. Bummer, I had big hopes for it, but was obviously wrong. Didn't see it coming. Edited October 8, 2011 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 I guess I'm out of the loop on this story. Honestly? I think that is for the best. I certainly wish I was. I wish I hadn't heard anything about it all at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 It does take a bit of a leap to imagine it. The problem is they're just a bit elusive for me :] I can see it now! It's a boobsquatch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HucksterFoot Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 I can see it now! It's a boobsquatch! lol, :]]]Maybe a 15mm lens will clear the proportions up. :] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 (edited) We can only hope in the name of science that it does... Edited October 8, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HucksterFoot Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 All of the knowledge and advances science has gained and made over the last few centuries, in my opinion, has made it close-minded and arrogant. I see that as the exact opposite. I don't think I should have to give an example of a close-minded and arrogant societies of the past (observations that pull buried heads out of the flat earth sands). :] Going back too far? Why, do you think scientific principles are not being applied anymore? (the last few centuries till present, anyways) Science is tentative and subject to the review of new evidence, isn't it? :] My point, as well as the source of my frustration, exactly. Science has everything to gain and nothing to lose. They are happy to spend millions of man hours and billions of dollars sending protons in circles in search of something most don't think exist (which I think is VERY cool, by the way....I just doubt the return on the investment) but we can't set aside a few million dollars to figure out if we've got a relative wandering around the woods? Excuse me for having an issue with that. I don't have an issue with that either. I'm sure many with the money to fund such an adventure might have an issue. Whats wrong with amateur bird watchers, hikers, hunters, field biologists; Biscardi or Moneymaker/whatever stumbling upon good clear testable tangible evidence. Before all that: Do we really know what we are talking about when it comes to Bigfoot? does Bigfoot have multiple choice attributes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 With all the talk of scientists, and who has/hasnt taken the bigfoot issue seriously as a field of study, I immediately thought of one man. Alfred Kinsey.... My knowledge of the man came first from watching the (excellent) biographical film about him (Liam Neeson/Laura Linney), and then from doing some background reading about his life, and his work. He was an entomologist and zoologist who is famous for neither of those two fields of study, or at least not nearly as recognized for them. He tackled human sexuality, even "deviant" types of such, in a time when it was nothing but extremely taboo to do so. He put his name, his life's work, and his credentials on the line, and reached out to private funding sources to do studies about something he truly believed in, and felt could change how humanity viewed sexuality. As someone mentioned above- many of today's "bigfoot researchers" are hardly as devoted to the subject as Kinsey was to his... If they were, and obtained the amount/types of funding that he did- and were able to hire full time dedicated staff- who knows what could be achieved. It DOES seem that there is a hesitancy, for even the most well known figures in Bigfoot research, to take such chances, and put it all on the line. I realize one is studying a supposed "complete unknown"- but when you consider what/how most people viewed sexuality and some of the things that most people believed in regards to such- is the difference really that great ? I personally dont think it is... and I for one would be thrilled if someone undertook the same level of dedication and years of hard work that Dr Kinsey did in studying human sexuality. It was drive, persistence, and a will not to give up that made his effort and eventual groundbreaking work possible. Where has that been seen in the field of Bigfoot study ? Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 I believe dogmatic would be a better word here. The reason I used that particular word is due to the effort to win converts on the part of the hard core skeptics. They are trying to intercept the noobs and turn them to their position before they join the ranks of the proponents. I'm convinced that is why some of them are here. I liken the skeptical movement to a secular religion. Just my opinion of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts