|Is this man really a scientist?|
|There are 80 pages of this complete overblown pseudoscience, plus notes.|
Get the full four megabyte PDF here: http://1drv.ms/1BnR9hm
Watch the Johnny Dagger identity blend with the College Nerd one here, on his YouTube page: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTlzHFvjLHkqYvF8w-vE4QA
HERE IS OUR TRANSLATION, FOLLOWED BY THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE TITLE AND ABSTRACT PARAGRAPH:
Studying some decaying bones and tracks we think were left by a predator we look at the shape of the pile and chewing marks on three piles of dead stuff found near a volcano in Washington.
We found three piles of bones and some things that looked like tracks near Mount St. Helens that we thought we could study for the decay of the bones and look of the tracks that to us could only be a new kind of predator. This mountain is in Washington, in a long western range going up to Canada from NorCal. We want to sound pretentious in this paper that pretends to show facts and coherent thought about some dead bones and tracks we found. But I already said that. We're comparing three piles of this junk and some tracks. Our assumptions about this will be compared to a bunch of other widespread claims people make (about Bigfoot). We think we've gotten rid of all other possible animals that could have left this piling of bones, and we thought we'd better consider all kinds of theories from all over the place, and pretend to be scientists. This took us like years, so we hope others will like our paper and look for their own piles of dead stuff. Heck, maybe we can even impress some real scientists or academic dudes? Maybe they'll take us seriously and look into this stuff we pretentiously present in this overwritten paper. We use some big words that aren't really necessary, then we tell some stories about our "research," then we tell you about how we looked at this stuff and presumed Bigfoot did it, so we call for more people to look at what we're saying.
The Original Text:
"Using Biotic Taphonomy Signature Analysis and Neoichnology Profiling to determine the identity of the carnivore taxa responsible for the deposition and mechanical mastication of three independent prey bone assemblages in the Mount St. Helen’s ecosystem of the Cascade mountain range
The discovery of three independent prey bone assemblages and track evidence within a 17 mile radius of Mount St. Helen’s [SIC] presented a unique opportunity to establish baseline Taphonomic and Neoichnologic profiles of a currently unclassified carnivore taxa. Mount St. Helen’s is located within the Cascade Mountain range ecosystem of central Washington State. This mountain range extends from Southern British Columbia to Northern California. The methodologies for this scholarly essay will focus upon chronologically presenting facts, measurements, and analysis based upon the discovery, collection, and synthesis of physical post mortem forensic evidence within an integrated Taphonomic and Ichnologic research framework. These individual and categorical conclusions will then be cross compared in the process of illuminating potential commonalities and evidence based linkages to geographically separated site and evidence profiles. The careful elimination of all of currently classified biological possibilities that may have been responsible for the deposition of this physical evidence required the expansion of methodology and scope of inquiry to include all possibilities both geographical and theoretical in the search for truth as required by the foundations of scientific inquiry. Furthermore, the conclusions drawn from this multi-year research effort should help to enable the collection and comparison of further regionalized prey assemblages against the baseline results of this study as well as encourage additional scholarly attention from anthropologists, forensics scientists, and wildlife biologists in a renewed effort to bring further understanding and clarity to the conclusions illuminated within this treatise. This effort is organized into the following main categories: taphonology and ichnology, discovery and collection narrative, taphonomic and neoichnologic research frameworks, evidence examination, evidence analysis, evidence conclusions, and a call for expanded cross disciplinary examination and discussion."
WHICH ONE MAKES MORE SENSE TO YOU?
What does this mean?: "...expansion of methodology and scope of inquiry to include all possibilities both geographical and theoretical in the search for truth." Nothing specific. It means, basically, having an open mind to everything, because we can't explain it otherwise, looking at all theories across the planet for this "truth" thing, because we all know that "science" doesn't know it already. This is CLASSIC bullshit paranormal-speak, pseudo-scientific babble, disguised as scientific discourse.
The paper features just about THE worst "Bigfoot" track ever.
Yes, there is no way it could have been... a porcupine.
Want some more information and some interesting clues? Read more on Reddit and the Bigfoot Forums:
"Scientific papers are for sharing your own original research work with other scientists or for reviewing the research conducted by others. As such, they are critical to the evolution of modern science, in which the work of one scientist builds upon that of others. To reach their goal, papers must aim to inform, not impress. They must be highly readable — that is, clear, accurate, and concise. They are more likely to be cited by other scientists if they are helpful rather than cryptic or self-centered."