OK…explain: why SHOULD he submit it to a scientific journal, WHAT would that mean to YOU, and WHAT would it accomplish? Do you think anyone would care? Would it be detrimental to his career? Do these journals just accept anything? Would they consider it rubbish? Also…what, and who, in the hell are we talking about? The club-footed track that went on for 1,000-some prints?
What did you read? Like I said, his writing and mindset is even-handed in regards to these issues (which translates as “credulousness” when it comes to anomalies, I guess…any “incredulous” individual would dismiss them immediately). In fact, his chapter on sasquatch ended with these words: “One does not have to be a rigid, unbending dogmatist to resist (the existence of sasquatch) in the absence of a body or living specimen. This sort of skepticism, eminently defensible, is on thing; dogmatic denial is another (hint: he’s talking to some of you folks).” Now…does that sound like “credulousness”?
If the above is any indication of your knowledge of the word, then I would hope not.
1.) The “well, if it’s in (a) ______, it MUST be TRUE!” witticism, while still amusing and convincing, is rather cliche. I emitted a smirk and what might be considered a chuckle, NOTHING like the gut-wrenching belly laugh such trenchant, faux-acceptance might have garnered a few decades ago when it was still fresh in the populace’s collective mind. What I mean, DavidB is…work on it a little, OK?
2.) Weren’t you supposed to have “trashed the piss” out of this (specifically the “skunk-ape” picture) by now? Tsk.
Articles published in scientific journals are subject to peer review. That means other experts in the field look at the potential article and decide if it has merit. These are experts in the field, not a bunch of guys off the street. If it does appear in a scientific journal, the article would have much more credibility.
I agree and understand completely. You don’t think his “peers” would look at the report, read the word “sasquatch,” or, even worse, “bigfoot,” and say, “Next!”?
Why would he need to use those words, considering the baggage they carry? Is the phrase “previously unidentified North American bipedal primate” somehow not descriptive enough?
Submission to a peer-reviewed journal would also clear up any questions regarding the methodology of examining the scat or hair samples. He wouldn’t just be able to say “It’s unidentified”, he would be able to show just what was checked, what it was checked against, and what warranted the conclusion. The judges would suggest tests which had not been performed, or alternate interpretations of the results. This helps to assure that the conclusions reached are accurate and not subject to the whims and oversights of the investigator.
And I can assure you that there are many primatologists and other scientists who would sell their grandmother to the Bey of Algiers for the opportunity to prove the existence of a previously undescribed bipedial ape.
You seem vaguely familiar, Recent. I am sure I know you from somewhere…
My point was that any time you take a lot of measurements that are subject to random fluctuations you tend to get a Gaussian distribution. It’s also called the normal distribution, precisely because it’s so ubiquitous in nature:
So while this distribution (of, say, foot sizes) is to be expected from a population of sasquatch, it is also to be expected from a population of hoaxers. Sapunov apparently disagrees; I’m just curious what his argument is, and I have no way of checking the citation: Sapunov, V.B. {1988} A mathematical analysis of “Snowman” {Wildman} eyewitness reports. Cryptozoology. 7: 61-65.
Can you summarize his arguments?
Also, the problem of the lack of remains and/or descendants along the only possible migratory route is still on the table. The fact remains that all apes are tropical and that since their appearance, only cold weather migration routes have existed. Without human mastery of fire and hunting and, I suspect, the gregarious associations that allowed us to hunt large mammals like mammoths and caribou, we would likely not have colonized the Americas. Neither sasquatch nor the skunk ape is suggested to have any of these characteristics.
Recently Digested: Regarding the scientific journal stuff, others have already done a fine job of answering.
You also said:
What do you want, names of articles and books? Sorry, I don’t recall. I’ve only been following this sort of thing for a decade and a half now, in one form or another. Believe it or not, I don’t keep a running tally of every article and book. You don’t want to believe me? That’s your choice. But I can tell you, when it comes down to a choice, who is the more credible person around here.
As I noted when it came in, that had pretty much been done already. The fact that you choose to ignore anybody who points out the flaws doesn’t mean those flaws are gone. It just means you live in your own little world. I hope you have fun there.
…I have no idea. I’d swear I’ve always heard that anthropology is the study of animals, but I just checked dictionary.com and apparently it’s not, heh. Replace “anthropology” with “whatever the name for someone who studies animals and animal behavior” (what IS the name for that? Anyone?).
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by David B *
**
S’funny…everyone ELSE has to give inane specifics like that. I read that invisible dancing elves took over Manhattan last year. Sorry, I don’t recall the name of the book though. Just trust me on it, heh…(and yes, you’re 6143 post count makes you more credible, but if you told me about the elves, it wouldn’t make it true)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Recently Digested *
**
**
Ditto on that. Even if he used a fancier group of words to describe it, it would translate into “Bigfoot” in everyone’s head and they’d be automatically reading it as a joke. Just like if they sent in a report about invisible dancing elves. And to give the report a good review and such is to join the “Bigfoot weirdos” side and put your own career/credibility on the line…if no one else agrees, then you look like a crazy person, just like the Bigfoot guy. Even if you WANT to be the one to find the thing, there’s no way you’ll risk your career unless it’s 100% sure, which requires a carcass for DNA testing, which requires people to take the thing seriously, which requires a carcass for DNA testing…
And on a completely unrelated note: have some banana bread next chance you get, for it is the greatest form of bread there is, oh yes…
Tsugumo (“the only difference between brilliance and stupidity is in how many people agree with you”)
Recently Digested asked if I had ever read anything by a certain author. I responded that I had. He asked what it was. I responded, “What do you want, names of articles and books? Sorry, I don’t recall.”
From here, Tsugumo, “thinking” he had an opportunity to take this thread on a tangent because he’s been unable to present any evidence for his bizarre claims, said:
Really? I don’t recall asking you about your reading list for the past decade or two. Oh, wait, you must mean when we ask you to back up your strange claims. So I guess, to you, not remembering which specific books and articles from a certain author I have read in the last 15 or so years is equivalent to not providing evidence in support of extraordinary claims?
And, from what you’ve said here, you probably believe it.
So you really do equate a bizarre claim with a simply ordinary claim. No wonder you are unable to separate fact from fiction.
It’s not my post count that makes me credible. It’s me that makes me credible. Similarly, it’s your promotion of bizarre claims, not your post count, that makes you not-so-credible.
Woah, man…you got like 2 sentences in the middle of the post where I was simply pointing out that the general SDMB rule seems to be that you have to back your points (such as calling an author credulous with nothing to back it up other than “I read it, didn’t like it, and so I say so”).
Again with the quick personal shots, while you ignored everything else in the post (you didn’t even spend a word to say what the study of animals is, heh), just like the first time.
A species existing that we haven’t found a body for yet, just like we find every day and in that Onza link…bizarre indeed.
Anyway, I wouldn’t have posted this reply (because I have no wish to go off on a tangent) if you hadn’t thrown in some off-hand insulting (err…“classification of my posts as crap”, which is okay).
Tsugumo (for the “record”, I could argue the other side of the debate because I really don’t care either way, but SOMEONE has to be on the “wrong” end or there wouldn’t be any posts, heh)