Believing in Bigfoot
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on February 2nd, 2010
(Media Credit: Osazuwa Okundaye)
Sasquatch draws a metaphorical line in the sand and, like other “monster” sightings, beckons the masses to cross the line and assert their belief or stand in opposition to it. Upon reading the word “Bigfoot” most people automatically kick into one of two modes: rabid believer or dismissive.
The majority of people would fall into the dismissive scoffer category, but there are many misconceptions about the majestic primate known as Sasquatch. The perception most people have of Bigfoot exists only in grainy photographs and tabloid papers. Publications like the “Weekly World News,” who tout articles such as “I was Bigfoot’s Love Slave” paint the portrait that the Yeti exists only in the minds of crackpot loonies that photograph shadowy creatures in the more out of focus areas of the Pacific Northwest. But it might surprise you to know that Bigfoot sightings happen all over America, especially in Texas.
One of the first reports from Texas dates back to 1837 in the lower Navidad area, which is northeast of Victoria, Texas. In this encounter a group of men chased down a large furry bipedal creature, but their horses were reported to be so frightened they refused to get close, leading to the creature’s escape. The Karankawa America Indian Tribe, which once hailed from the coastal areas of Texas have stories that told of a tribe of hairy creatures that inhabit the woods that are now called the Piney Woods.
But the question still remains, why do so many people disbelieve so adamantly in the possibility of Bigfoot? Among the many arguments, two stand out in frequency. Some people will say that they cannot believe in a creature that has never been conclusively photographed or captured on video. But to answer this challenge, let us look to another elusive creature, the Colossal Squid.
The Colossal Squid was a creature chalked up to superstitious sailors, conjuring stories of a vengeful sea that held vast merciless creatures. Skepticism was rampant until 2007, when a live specimen was inadvertently captured by a New Zealand fishing vessel off the coast of Antarctica. Previous to this encounter the only evidence that existed was a few severely decomposed specimens – tentacles and beaks found mostly in the stomachs of Sperm whales.
“The most common reason given for discrediting the possibility of an undocumented primate in North America is the absence of a body or other compelling forms of physical evidence,” said Alton Higgins, assistant professor of biology at Mid-America Christian university and board member at the Texas Bigfoot Research Center, TBRC.
But this argument is truly unfounded, according to Higgins because of the habitat that the Bigfoot species seems to favor. Heavily forested areas, with rainfall and dense vegetation do not preserve remains well, not to mention forest scavengers, insects, bacterial and fungal agents that break down and decompose bodies very quickly.
“In my opinion the best evidence exists in the form of the body of sighting accounts that have accumulated since the early days of European settlement,” Higgins said. “These reports correlate closely with the prehistoric oral histories of nearly all American Indian tribes that include clear descriptions of Sasquatch-like creatures.”
Higgins, a wildlife biologist, isn’t the only scientist convinced of the existence of Bigfoot in North America, but for many scientists the stigma that comes from voicing their beliefs on the subject is not worth the ridicule. But support and evidence for Sasquatch exists, with sightings throughout the country. It not too far-fetched to believe that another ape-like species could exist, and like the Colossal Squid, is only waiting for the day when mankind documents it.Richard Creecy
The Battalion Online
Richard Creecy is a senior classics major and special to the Battalion.
- Similar Phenomena:
As Loren, Grover Krantz, and others have said, “believe” is the wrong word. I accept the possibility of Sasquatch’s existence.
Now, what if I had to wager a substantial sum of my own money on its existence? I know this is an overused illustration, especially by me, but I have yet to find a simpler way for pinning down which way someone really leans on a given issue. (Actually, I’d like to see a poll posing that question.)
I would, with great reluctance, have to bet “no,” but I would never be happier about losing money if I was wrong.
The article’s point about Texas highlights an issue about this critter. It’s much easier to believe we’ve missed getting a body if the animal has a restricted range. If it has a much broader range than the rain forests of the PNW, and/or if it migrates, the odds of an accidental kill go up considerably, and the question of why one has never been nailed by an elk hunter or a logging truck would seem longer.
What ever happened to the one the Canadian logger captured all those years ago? It was exhibitited and then poof, gone never to be seen again. No I’m not talking about the frozen “rock ape”(orang pendak) you refer to as the ice man carnie attraction from days past.
Excellent post!
MattBille–I hear what you are saying. I could not agree with you more. Believe is a emotional tie, either for or against, the existence of BF. You accept the possibility of BF. But do you accept the “probability” of BF.
Judging by your question, “Now, what if I had to wager a substantial sum of my own money on its existence?” You stated that you would have to say, “no”.
Your question really hit home with me today. I was actually contemplating that very question. And as part of my consideration, I narrowed down my contemplation, with those exact words, “what if?”
So I did some thinking about it and I did so objectively and without emotions. I came to a different conclusion than you. If I were a betting man, I would have to answer your question with a profound, “yes”.
Why did I reach a different conclusion than you, when pondering the existence of BF? “Possibilities” seemed to be to broad of a word and I had to narrow the parameters. So I thought in terms of “probabilities”. So we have to rephrase the question, taking out emotions and base our answers with objectivity. Is it more likely than not, that an undiscovered primate or BF exists in America or in other geographic locations around the world?
To answer that question, we have to use some common sense and any evidence we have to date. We also have to take into account expert opinion as well as the opinions of witnesses. We must also scrutinize the evidence for it’s credibility. We have to consider the credentials and frame of reference of those supplying those expert opinions. We must consider film, photos, DNA evidence, and even vocalizations caught on tape. We must consider this evidence in light of food supplies available to sustain such a creature and we must consider any and all theories contrary to such evidence, that may contradict the support of BF’s existence.
As far as history and eye witness accounts, Loren has illustrated that point most efficiently in the above post. We also have eyewitness accounts coming in almost every week across the US. We have some photographic evidence, most of which is debatable. But one piece of evidence does stand up to scrutiny and has done so for years, and that is the PG footage. That footage has held up to scrutiny over the years and so has the witness, Bob Gimlin. He is very credible.
We must not discount the long eyewitness testimony, going back hundreds of years. Yes, some of those accounts can be chalked up to misidentification or whackos who want some attention. But most and many of those accounts hold up to scrutiny. You can’t discount that. And in a court of law, that testimony could easily lead a jury, an objective jury, that there is enough credible eyewitness testimony, to say BF probably exists.
We also have DNA evidence that has been analyzed and was determined that it was not human, but some type of unknown primate. That would make most people objectively support the existence of BF.
We also have to look at what experts say, based on their frame of reference and agendas.
Jeff Meldrum is extremely credible and has the credentials to back up what he concludes. He has analyzed a lot of evidence in way of footprints. His conclusion is that an unknown American primate does exist. Hey, I’m no expert, but Jeff Meldrum is. In a court of law, his testimony would stand. The dermal ridges he has identified discount the probability of any hoax.
But that is only one expert opinion. Do other experts agree with Dr. Meldrum’s conclusions? Yes, world famous primatologist and anthropologist, Jane Goodall, concludes that there is probably an unknown or yet known primate, that exists in North America. Again, I am not an expert but would have to take her opinion and conclusions as fact. There are many other experts that agree with Dr. Meldrum and Dr. Goodall. There are also other experts like Loren Coleman who objectively answer questions by those engaged in the debate over BF’s existence. Many skeptics ask Loren, “Why have we not found a body or bones of a BF?” Loren has answered that question and backed up his conclusion with documentation. I believe he even dedicated a chapter to that observation and conclusion in one of his books. Would a cryptozoologist of such stature as Mr. Coleman, agree with Dr. Meldrum and Dr. Goodall, based on his analysis of the evidence or lack there of? Loren?
When analyzing all of the evidence brought to light objectively, I would have to say it is not a matter of belief. Objectively speaking, if I were a betting man, I would have to answer, “YES”, to your question. I capitalized the letters in the word yes because the evidence tells me, it is not a possibility but a probability for the existence of BF.
It’s ironic, we both look at the same evidence and do so objectively, and both of us come up with different answers to your fantastic question. “What if…”
I do not believe in coincidences. I asked myself that same question today as did you. And although we reached different conclusions, I loved the fact that you asked that exact question I asked myself this morning.
Therefore, I felt compelled to offer a counterpoint to the point you were trying to make in your post.
Thanks for asking such an astute question!
That was an interesting article. Thanks to Mr. Woolheater for posting it. There were a few issues that really leaped out at me. To begin with, I found it odd that Mr. Creecy, whom I’m sure is very astute, seemed to be experiencing some type of cognitive dissonance when he spoke about Bigfoot being sighted all over America yet citing rain forest conditions to account for the lack of bones and other remains. A massive two-legged land mammal lives all over America and no bones have been found? How come we have bones for all the other massive land mammals that live all over America? It can’t be rarity. You can’t live and breed all over America, causing countless sightings, and be rare. Even all the rare land mammals we have bones for. Spirit bears are extremely rare – less than 400!, live in the PNW rain forest, are extremely shy and elusive, and are active at night, and yet we have their bones? What makes Bigfoot so special?
Next, I find it strange that Mr. Creecy would attempt to use the Colossal Squid as an analogy for Bigfoot. The Colossal Squid, or Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni, has a circumpolar Antarctic distribution. Is it really effective to compare an animal found and documented in the dark depths of Antarctic oceans to an as of yet undocumented animal living in two of the most industrialized nations on Earth? That of course is excluding the various other wildmen from around the world. I think Mr. Creecy may have missed that. More troublesome is that he got his basic facts wrong. He said that the existence of M. hamiltoni was in doubt until a specimen was recovered in 2007. Creecy wrote…
Unfortunately, Mr. Creecy did not take the five minutes of basic research necessary to realize he was completely wrong. We have had physical evidence of M. hamiltoni since 1925, including a number of full body specimens in good condition. The Colossal Squid found in 2007 was simply the first mature specimen ever obtained. Here is a timeline of specimen findings M. hamiltoni followed by a link to a detailed documentation of all of them…
1925 – Species was first discovered in the form of two tentacles found in the stomach of a sperm whale.
1981 – A Russian trawler in the Ross Sea, off the coast of Antarctica, caught a large squid with a total length of 4 metres (13 ft), which was later identified as an immature female of Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni.
2003 – A complete specimen of a subadult female was found near the surface with a total length of 6 m (20 ft) and a mantle length of 2.5 m (8 ft).
2005 – A specimen was captured at a depth of 1625 m while taking a toothfish from a longline off South Georgia Island. Although the mantle was not brought aboard, the mantle length was estimated at over 2.5 m, and the tentacles measured 230 cm. The animal is thought to have weighed between 150 and 200 kg.
2007 – The largest recorded specimen was captured by a New Zealand fishing boat off Antarctica. It was initially estimated to measure 10 m (33 ft) in length and weigh 450 kg (992 lb). The squid was taken back to New Zealand for scientific study.[9] A study on the specimen later showed that its actual weight was 495 kg (1,091 lb), but that it only measured 4.2 m (14 ft) in total length as a result of the tentacles shrinking post mortem.
List of Colossal Squid specimens and sightings
Now for Bigfoot on land running around all over America we don’t have any specimen of any age in any state of preservation. The attempted analogy obviously falls on its face.
The next problem I found is that neither Mr. Creecy nor Mr. Higgins seems to understand the problem with citing an ever increasing amount of sightings. What they and many Bigfoot believers are missing is that they are actually shooting themselves in the foot by talking about a huge and ever growing number of sightings. Bigfoot would actually be more believable if you were talking about a very limited number of sightings. For all the dozens or even hundreds of times we are told Bigfoot is sighted every year, that’s one more instance that we may have gotten some proof of Bigfoot but didn’t. Mr. Creecy’s article talks about Bigfoot sightings in Texas and features quotes from Alton Higgins of the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy. What the article does not tell you is about the TBRC’s Operation Forest Vigil – a “camera trap project ongoing since April 2006 in Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, utilizing state-of-the-art high-speed Reconyx and Cuddeback cameras.” Four years the TBRC has had game cams all over the place in alleged Bigfoot country and not once have they photographed something that even remotely resembles Bigfoot.
You can learn more about that effort here…
Operation Forest Vigil
Finally, the last issue that struck me is when Higgins said “These reports correlate closely with the prehistoric oral histories of nearly all American Indian tribes that include clear descriptions of Sasquatch-like creatures.” I would wager that Mr. Higgins would be hard pressed to find a single oral history of an American Indian tribe that fits Bigfoot as described by modern believers. I’m sure he will have no trouble finding stories of boogeymen, cannibals, and demon sorcerers, but what he will not find is an American Indian tribe that has a history of Bigfoot as an animal or any Bigfoot artifacts. If Bigfoot were real, one of the first things Europeans would have encountered of Bigfoot is their pelts and bones belonging to certain native tribes. Sadly, we’ve never had anything like that.
In my opinion, Mr. Creecy is going to have to come up with a lot better if he really wants to improve the credibility of Bigfoot’s existence.
Photo, I know that some people I admire, with far more expertise and more investigative experience than I’ll ever have, have come down on the YES side. Many more have come down on the NO side, although the YESes argue the NOs haven’t given the evidence a fair examination (while the NOs say the YESes are too credulous in their acceptance of evidence.)
What this all comes down to is two possibilities. One is that a lot of sane, sober people have made major mistakes about what they saw, and that there are some really strange-minded humans wasting a lot of time and effort making believable tracks in sometimes-remote areas. The alternative is that, of all the land animals on this continent, where the last mammal described was (IIRC) a shrew from Alaska in 1972, we have missed getting hard evidence of only one – and that one is the most spectacular and one of the largest. Neither of these options goes down well logically, but one of them has to be the truth.
(BTW I should credit the betting test back to its original author, Richard Ellis who used it in writing about Cadborosaurus.)
May the search continue – and may my gut feeling on this be wrong.
Albert Ostman was the name of the individual kidnapped by Bigfoot and taken to a camp of Bigfoot where he met the others and he believed he was a mate for a younger female. It’s a fascinating story and recounted to the great Rene Dahinden as the photo would suggest. It’s quite a story and worth looking into. Also, try Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life: The Story Of Sub-Humans On Five Continents From The Early Ice Age Until Today from the legendary cryptozoologist and my own personal favorite, Ivan T Sanderson. I want to believe.
I thought it was a good article when you consider the usually media attention paid to Cryptozoology makes us out to be bunch of psychopaths who will believe anything. With regard to Reality’s comments just keep in mind that this is a college newspaper, and this was a guest article at that. That is no excuse for poorly researched journalism, but I really don’t think the comparison to the squid was all that off base. Of course “believe” is not the right word, but keep in mind that the author is a classics (a liberal art) major, not a scientist.
Reality Bytes. Yes it does, and there’s both stuff that makes lots of sense and stuff that doesn’t in his post.
First, he’s totally right about the Colossal Squid. It’s a very bad analogy. Not only are there other species of big squid complicating the discussion, but it’s in a place few humans ever see. Many analogies used by proponents fall flat. The saola would be a better one, but still not too good. For the reasons RB states, the sasquatch is sui generis. But to anyone familiar with the evidence, the reasons for that are slam-dunk plausible.
Now as to this: “The next problem I found is that neither Mr. Creecy nor Mr. Higgins seems to understand the problem with citing an ever increasing amount of sightings. What they and many Bigfoot believers are missing is that they are actually shooting themselves in the foot by talking about a huge and ever growing number of sightings. Bigfoot would actually be more believable if you were talking about a very limited number of sightings.”
No it wouldn’t.
How the HELL could something like this hide like that?
This argument just shows how little RB and many like him – including, BTW, most of the proponents – have actually thought about this. Well now you are talking to someone who HAS. And his take is, simply, what is actually happening: MANY people are seeing this thing; there is lots of evidence besides sightings, all of it compellingly associated with sightings; and science – with very few exceptions, and we all know their names – simply refuses to seriously consider any of it.
There, wasn’t that simple? Yes.
People seem to think that science is some multi-tentacled omniscience that is all over the place, seeing and recording all. It’s NOT. Shoot, it can’t even tell me whether beer is good for me or not! (Hint, Your Omnisciences: IT IS.) Something can be seen by many people, the number really doesn’t matter…and not be scientifically confirmed. How does it happen? Easy, friends: science has a built-in bias against the topic, and doesn’t allow it to be taken seriously. When I look at the scientific take on the sasquatch, negative division, THAT IS HAPPENING. There is not a single scientific “argument against” that isn’t, precisely, the same as the numbnuts knownothing “arguments.” You think I am wrong? Show me. (Hint: SAVE IT. I have heard it, and you are wrong.)
Frequency and coherence ARE EVERYTHING in scientific searches for unknowns. So, RB, a few sightings would be easy to dismiss. I would, in fact, do so with a sweep of my hand. A huge pile of consistent sightings, growing by the year, and a pile of associated evidence, ditto, not so much.
And Alton Higgins is a scientist, and KNOWS that. Are you?
And Matt Bille: my unhesitating bet, up or down, if I had to bet everything I own: YES!
It is the ONLY bet a scientist, properly acquainted with the evidence, COULD make. Which is the really simple way you know the vast majority of them are not acquainted with it, at all.
And BTW: camera traps take a long time to catch anything elusive. I would expect zero results from any such effort for the very short time any such effort has been conducted.
RB: and as to
“Finally, the last issue that struck me is when Higgins said “These reports correlate closely with the prehistoric oral histories of nearly all American Indian tribes that include clear descriptions of Sasquatch-like creatures.” I would wager that Mr. Higgins would be hard pressed to find a single oral history of an American Indian tribe that fits Bigfoot as described by modern believers. I’m sure he will have no trouble finding stories of boogeymen, cannibals, and demon sorcerers, but what he will not find is an American Indian tribe that has a history of Bigfoot as an animal or any Bigfoot artifacts. If Bigfoot were real, one of the first things Europeans would have encountered of Bigfoot is their pelts and bones belonging to certain native tribes. Sadly, we’ve never had anything like that.”
That last sentence is like the entirety of the scientific “case against”: a subjective assumption, wholly unbacked by evidence. It may as such be dismissed.
Native cultures across the continent do indeed describe the animal people see today. (Hint: any ethnographer can tell you, readily, that legends don’t tend to jump cultures.) Scientists have seen Native paintings and carvings, and concluded – NO EXCEPTIONS – that they had to represent giant primates…WHEN THEY WERE NOT TOLD THE SAMPLES WERE FROM NORTH AMERICA. The ones that were so told – EVERY ONE – said they had to be something else! What does that say to you? If it doesn’t say the only thing it should say…now you know what’s happening! That simple. Scientists are like anyone else; they have a bad tendency not to consider stuff that makes them uncomfortable.
I can’t BELIEVE RB thinks Higgins just tossed that statement up there. And this raises ANOTHER thing I will absolutely never, ever get. Okay, at least RB is challenging a scientific proponent. Most so-called skeptics (I’m looking at YOU, Ben Radford) NEVER DO! They just come here and debate it with amateurs, and when they are challenged to challenge the Meldrums and Higginses: presto! They disappear! Why, it’s almost paranormal.
I don’t think a main reason for people to doubt the existence of the creature can be the lack of photographic/video evidence, as there is always the highly disputed Patterson/Gimlin footage, and countless other examples.
The main reason to doubt the existence of the creature is, as touched upon here, we have zero physical evidence (apart from the controversial casts of tracks, of course), and no fossil record tracking a great ape, if it is such, to North America (ok, other theories abound, granted). Basically, for the beast to survive in any given remote area you would need a breeding population of 500 plus (some experts say double) to maintain a healthy population over the past few centuries, say. And if there are hundreds of these creatures wandering around, then why do we not have one conclusive bone sample, or hair sample. That’s all it would take- a whole well-preserved corpse would not be needed.
Comparisons with the colossal squid are also futile for a couple of reasons- firstly, the habitat, as the squid probes the murky depths, and we know more about the surfaces of some nearby celestial bodies than we do about a large part of our own planet, a far off environment indeed, whereas the Sasquatch supposedly lives close to human inhabited areas (on dry land). You’d have to place chances of human contact with the Sasquatch as many many times higher, given these circumstances. Secondly, before 2007, even given the habitat of the squid, we still had physical evidence of its existence, which is not the case for Sasquatch. So the whole comparison is a very tenuous one, and I don’t think it holds water.
Those are the reasons to doubt the existence of Bigfoot. Personally, I’d fall into a third camp, as in I don’t believe or disbelieve, I accept the remote possibility of the existence of such a creature, and like many here, would like it to exist, and find the idea very exciting. I wouldn’t be wagering the mortgage on it, though.
I was talking about a Canadian logger who captured and exhibited a bigfoot years past. Around 1954 or so as I recall. What you’re talking about is vaguely similar to a creationist novel called Monster. Wild book, mad scientists, bigfoots, a mutated ape that fights the bigfoots, a woman taken in by a tribe of bigfoot during a mutant ape fight, etc.
PhotoExpert: very good point here:
“We must not discount the long eyewitness testimony, going back hundreds of years. Yes, some of those accounts can be chalked up to misidentification or whackos who want some attention. But most and many of those accounts hold up to scrutiny. You can’t discount that. And in a court of law, that testimony could easily lead a jury, an objective jury, that there is enough credible eyewitness testimony, to say BF probably exists.”
The kneejerk response by skeptical scientists to this is: science has much more stringent standards for proof than the court system. Which is to laugh.
No it doesn’t.
The difference is this: science CAN prove something exists. The court system CAN’T PROVE A CRIME HAPPENED. That event is gone, and utterly unprovable. The only thing that could constitute proof is the crime, right there, for everyone to see. “See this, folks? Here’s the theft.” You can’t produce a theft, like you can a body, as proof. That is the difference.
So what are you left with? You accumulate evidence, as much as you can, so that – according to the standards for proof in the case, either preponderance of evidence or beyond reasonable doubt – the jury is swayed to believe that it happened. Period.
(No. A video of the crime, in progress, is NOT proof. That could have been faked, or staged. Date stamp, time stamp, whatever. If you believe that to be proof, than you think P/G is a bigfoot. Period. You have no out. No you don’t. You believe the figures on the bank video are the defendants; which means you believe that things are what they look like. P/G looks like a bigfoot, so it is. Stop arguing.)
Science recently confirmed a monkey as real BASED ON A PHOTOGRAPH. That’s no better than the court system. They had other evidence, but they did not have absolute proof, only proof that – to them – was considered beyond doubt. The only absolute proof is a body, period.
So PhotoExpert hits it on the head. I might not say “there is enough credible eyewitness testimony, to say BF probably exists.” (Note: some scientists have.) But I would say, and enthusiastically, and correctly: “There is more than enough credible eyewitness testimony” – and there is much, much more than just that – “to sweep away any reasonable reservations to advocating a concerted scientific effort to confirm the animal.”
And I’m right.
MattBille–It was a pleasure discussing the “What if(s) with you. May the search continue!
Reality Bytes–I think I understand what you are attempting to say in your post. You asked two questions. They were: A massive two-legged land mammal lives all over America and no bones have been found? How come we have bones for all the other massive land mammals that live all over America?
Do we? Do we have hundreds of bones of moose, elk, bear, etc? Since there are thousands upon thousands of those creatures distributed across the US, one would conclude that we would be able to find thousands of those bones scattered all around. But we do not find those bones in the hundreds. In fact, how many of those bones do we find? Loren dedicated a chapter in one of his books, just on this subject. You may want to read up a bit on that. Yes, I agree with you, one would think that we would find hundreds of bones of common large mammals in North America. But we do not. The geography is part of the problem. Perhaps were BF lives is so isolated and remote, that humans rarely enter that terrain. And the sightings of BF are do to seasonal migration of healthy specimens. Therefore, the probability of finding BF bones or a carcass are even more remote. But read Loren’s book addressing that very subject and then see if you might gain some more insight and have your questions answered, after reading his explanation.
Your point about the camera traps is not a very good argument either. Camera traps were set up for years in hopes of catching a photo of an elusive rhino and different types of leopards. The geography covered was not as expansive as Texas. Therefore, it would be easier to obtain a photo of a cryptid creature. But even with the limited geography, government funding, hundreds of camera traps set up for years on end, only one or two photos of each animal was obtained. Now, expand the limited number of camera traps used by a BF Research Organization and then expand the geography where you set up those traps by 100 fold. Good luck in getting a photo of an elusive creature such as BF. So that does not surprise me or most people, that there are no photographs yet, from these camera traps. Not a very strong argument at all. And if BF was able to avoid human contact for years, being an elusive primate, well, given extraordinary scent detection, better night vision than humans, and probably better hearing than humans, a BF could easily avoid a camera trap. That argument is as valid as yours.
You went on to state: “If Bigfoot were real, one of the first things Europeans would have encountered of Bigfoot is their pelts and bones belonging to certain native tribes. Sadly, we’ve never had anything like that.”
Well, there is quite a bit of documentation and artifacts concerning the Native American culture and BF. There are wooden carvings, drawings in caves and totem poles. That would be tangible evidence. Your assertion that Europeans would have encountered BF by pelts and bones being possessed by native tribes is somewhat ridiculous. Let me explain why I say that. It is not to take a swipe at you personally. But you are being very dismissive as well a showing an ignorance of tribal people.
First of all, Native Americans considered BF a person and not an animal. Some called him the man of the mountains or referenced forest men. They did not consider BF an animal. So they would not hunt a brother or fellow human being. Maybe that is why we have no pelts and bones from Native Americans. There is also another reason beside the one I just gave you. BF was considered a spiritual creature as well, by the Native American tribes. They considered BF a sacred creature. If you know anything about tribal communities, they would not hunt a sacred creature that they considered to be spiritual, a man, or a brother.
When in the Amazonian jungle, the descendants of tribal people that I encountered, considered the fresh water dolphin there and the anaconda sacred. I never saw a single snake skin or dolphin skull adoring any of those South American natives. Why? These animals were considered sacred. Once an large anaconda entered our camp. It was not killed by the native people. It was however removed and relocated downriver. One night our camp was raided by tribal people. The only thing they took from camp were coke and beer cans. The next day we went to trade fish hooks for blowguns. Upon our arrival, they ran into the jungle. It was odd since they did not do that before. Why did they do it this time? Well we had sunglasses on. Being of caucasion persuasion, they thought we were some type of spirit coming to get them. A couple of white guys with big eyes(sunglasses). After taking off the sunglasses, they came out of the jungle. We began the trade. We noticed that adorning their necks were some kind of tooth necklace, probably tapir teeth or some other mammal. However, unlike before, the necklaces now had coke and beer can tabs interlacing the teeth. Metal was a rarity to them. They were fascinated by the metal pull tabs. But what was blatantly absent were anaconda skins, bones, or teeth. What also was absent were freshwater dolphin teeth, bones, skull or remains, since these animals are considered sacred to the tribal people in that location.
Therefore, your argument about Europeans not seeing any BF remains with the Native Americans is just a ludicrous argument or at least shows your ignorance on the subject.
My suggestion is to read a bit more before criticizing and taking a position on the subject. You know, I might have even have thought like you prior to reading various articles and actually going out in the field and living amongst native people. I was at one time, ignorant on the subject as well. But I was always willing to learn. And now, I don’t speak so brashly or with such authority, without having facts or knowledge of animals, people and their beliefs.
So do a little more reading and see if you don’t reconsider your stance on this subject. If not, you might have to change your screen name to something like Ignorant Bytes or WhatIOnlyThink Bytes or NonFactual Bytes. Anything but Reality Bytes. Because what you have argued here is anything but the reality that exists.
According to Reality Bytes, the Spirit Bear is extremely shy and elusive, however, according to a website I found called “Spirit Bear Youth Coalition”, the opposite is true. They feel the isolation of this bear (which is a black bear with a recessive gene), has made it less fearful of humans, and allows greater interaction or observation. So, which is it?
Also, you claim there are bones of the spirit bear. That’s fine, but were they discovered accidentally by hunters or others in the woods? Also, regarding no Native American or Indian tribes treating Bigfoot as a real animal is not accurate. True, some accounts are purely supernatural, but if memory serves, many show a belief in an animal.
Matt Bille says
“The article’s point about Texas highlights an issue about this critter. It’s much easier to believe we’ve missed getting a body if the animal has a restricted range. If it has a much broader range than the rain forests of the PNW, and/or if it migrates, the odds of an accidental kill go up considerably, and the question of why one has never been nailed by an elk hunter or a logging truck would seem longer.”
I’d disagree because that isn’t the way to think.
The evidence must show frequency and coherence for me, or science, to be interested. The broad range coincides with many more sighting reports – which show the kind of consistency one associates with real animals. One cannot toss that aside in favor of unsubstantiated assumptions. To say that it’s less likely based on the subjective assumptions about an accidental kill or hunter score doesn’t really wash. The evidence is what washes; and it is showing a very widely distributed – and consistently reported, across that range – animal.
In fact, I’d argue that a very restricted range makes the dragnet much harder to evade. And that is at least as valid as Matt’s assumptions. Wide dispersal does NOT increase one’s chances of being found. Spreading out a small population at least subjectively DECREASES those chances. (Ask the FBI whether they’d rather search the US and Canada, or the metropolitan area of Topeka, Kansas.)
DWA:
Thanks for your input. I’m glad we agree that the Colossal Squid comparison was poorly made. Now to address your comments…
You stated,
“How the HELL could something like this hide like that?
This argument just shows how little RB and many like him – including, BTW, most of the proponents – have actually thought about this. Well now you are talking to someone who HAS. And his take is, simply, what is actually happening: MANY people are seeing this thing; there is lots of evidence besides sightings, all of it compellingly associated with sightings; and science – with very few exceptions, and we all know their names – simply refuses to seriously consider any of it.”
I enjoy your confidence in the amount of consideration you’ve given to Bigfoot’s existence, but I assure you I have not given small thought to the possibility. I do not consider the existence of Bigfoot as a biological impossibility. I could very well imagine a small, isolated population of elusive apes living in a place far removed from man. I still think that we would know about it, but I’ll gladly entertain the idea. However, we both know that that is not how Bigfoot is reported. You state as fact that many people are seeing Bigfoot, but like it or not, you are expressing a belief. You have no more basis to state that as fact than I do.
What you didn’t address is how a huge land mammal maintains a viable breeding population with bottlenecking itself across America and Canada, yet we have no type specimen or any part of one. Can you give me one single example of another animal we can say this for in North America? Can you give one single precedent for a huge land animal living across modern nations such as America and Canada in size, geography, and population without a type specimen or one single bit of reliable evidence? You mention evidence compellingly associated with sightings. I can not be the judge of what you might find compelling, but I can ask you to provide me with one single piece of evidence for Bigfoot in which a mundane, known phenomena such as human fallibility is unreasonable versus an explanation involving an actual unidentified NA ape. I will gladly give it my full attention. You may want to cite Meldrum, but I’ll tell you in advance, while I do not doubt the man’s intelligence, I can’t help but think of his failure to recognize what was the cast of an obvious elk lay or understand how a creature with the size and morphology of Bigfoot with a mid-tarsal break would hardly be able to walk, let alone the wild sprints we hear about.
You go on to state…
“People seem to think that science is some multi-tentacled omniscience that is all over the place, seeing and recording all. It’s NOT. Shoot, it can’t even tell me whether beer is good for me or not! (Hint, Your Omnisciences: IT IS.) Something can be seen by many people, the number really doesn’t matter…and not be scientifically confirmed. How does it happen? Easy, friends: science has a built-in bias against the topic, and doesn’t allow it to be taken seriously.”
The beer thing was funny, but I would venture to say that science can tell quite easily tell you if beer is good for you or not. You can tell your doctor how much beer you drink, and if it’s too much, he or she will surely let you know. If you’re still wondering, you can have a look down, and if you don’t see as much of your feet as you’d like, the beer is probably not helping.
I couldn’t help but notice some cognitive dissonance on you part in the above statement. You say that science is not some omniscient all-knowing entity, seeing all and recording all, but then you go on to anthropomorphize science by saying it has a built-in bias against the subject of Bigfoot. Science does not have a bias against anything. Science is simply a systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. You would, of course, tell me that it is the scientific establishment within North America that has a bias and supresses any potential knowledge of Bigfoot. When it comes to a huge land mammal living across America and Canada, the idea of scientific bias becomes moot. The animal is real and out their in your world doing the things that animals do or it isn’t. Yes, I’m coming back to a body or part of one. There is no reason why we shouldn’t have at least that that can withstand scrutiny. Proponents can talk about acidic soils, rain forest conditions, and scavengers all they like – it’s a simple numbers game. A big animal with the range and population of Bigfoot will be found and any scientist can poo-poo a carcass all they like, the reality will not change.
You state here…
“And BTW: camera traps take a long time to catch anything elusive. I would expect zero results from any such effort for the very short time any such effort has been conducted.”
And PhotoExpert states here…
“Your point about the camera traps is not a very good argument either. Camera traps were set up for years in hopes of catching a photo of an elusive rhino and different types of leopards.”
That’s interesting. Here’s something with both you and PhotoExpert in mind. The TBRC’s Operation Forest Vigil has been going since 2006 in three states targeted in the specific areas where their data is telling them Bigfoots are supposed to be. PE mentioned elusive rhinos with camera traps set up for years. Here is what PhotoExpert doesn’t know. The Indonesian goverment along with the World Wildlife Fund and two other groups in Indonesia’s Ujung Kulon National Park set up thirty camera traps in December of 2007. They then proceed to obtain footage of nine individual rhinos from a population of an estimated 50. The park encompasses an area of 1,206 km². See for yourself…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTELuPmncGM
Now let’s talk Sumatran rhinos. From an April 2007 press release…
Scientists estimate there are only between 25 and 50 rhinos left on the island of Borneo. These last survivors of the Bornean subspecies of Sumatran rhinos are believed to remain only in the interior forests of Sabah, Malaysia — an area known as the “Heart of Borneo.” The rhinos are so secretive that the first-ever still photo of one was captured last year”
“The video camera trap that captured the rhino footage was developed by Stephen Hogg, Head of Audio Visual at WWF-Malaysia. After successfully testing the newly developed camera trap on Malayan tigers in Peninsula Malaysia, it was set up in Sabah to capture the Sumatran rhino. Photos and video footage can determine the condition of rhinos, help identify individual animals and show how they behave in the wild.”
“We did a pilot test with two of my video cameras in an area that the field team had determined was used by rhinos. The first time we checked them, after four weeks, there were these fantastic images,” Hogg said. “This is further proof that these video cameras do work and are of value to our conservation work. This footage is awesome and could not have been better.”
http://www.pixcontroller.com/News/Rhino/Borneo-Rhino-Video.htm
Two cameras, four weeks, the island of Borneo. That’s some fantastic wildlife research.
Finally, I want to address some statements by PhotoExpert…
“Do we have hundreds of bones of moose, elk, bear, etc?”
Yes, PE. I’m surprised anyone would ask this. We have had thousands of bones, bodies, the whole nine yards for moose, elk, and bear to examine for hundreds of years now. Remains from any number of situations. Why Bigfoot is so special is beyond me. PE states…
“Perhaps were BF lives is so isolated and remote, that humans rarely enter that terrain. And the sightings of BF are do to seasonal migration of healthy specimens.”
Again, I see cognitive dissonance at work. Maybe Bigfoot lives in terrain to remote for humans but we see them in areas we inhabit when they migrate. Well, I’d say it doesn’t matter where they were coming from and where they were headed to – coming within areas of human habitation enough to be seen hundreds of times a year is invariably going to lead to the documentation of a species, big or small. Unfortunately, Bigfoot works great as a social construct and terrible as a living, breeding species.
Reality Bytes: lots to shoot at here, so here goes.
“I enjoy your confidence in the amount of consideration you’ve given to Bigfoot’s existence, but I assure you I have not given small thought to the possibility.”
If that’s all I’d done, I’d be where you are on this. But I read the evidence; your comments indicate you still need to do that. To wit….
“You state as fact that many people are seeing Bigfoot, but like it or not, you are expressing a belief. You have no more basis to state that as fact than I do.”
Nope, actually, that’s a fact, because I’ve read the vast majority of them.
You need to explain, if you don’t think the sasquatch exists, where all those reports are coming from, if people aren’t reporting what they saw. (And you won’t have a valid opinion if you have not read them first.) I assure you, it’s a far, far loonier thesis to say they’re all mistaken or lies than simply acknowledging the possibility of the animal’s existence. That’s why scientists who have looked at it to the extent I have…well, they sound more like me than like you. ALL of them.
“What you didn’t address is how a huge land mammal maintains a viable breeding population with bottlenecking itself across America and Canada, yet we have no type specimen or any part of one.”
You just expressed a belief, unbacked by evidence. No bones, anywhere? Nothing, in anyone’s possession? Show me your evidence. To toss it off by saying (who IS “we?”) that they would have brought it in shows a little too much confidence. Says here, if the animal is real, skeletons or parts have been found…and I’ll be damned! There are accounts of just this happening…but not brought in, for reasons that are quite plausible. If, of course, you’ve read the accounts. Says here, if the animal is real, “cow bones” have been tossed off construction sites more than once, or found in the woods and misidentified…or somebody(ies) somewhere has(ve) a really interesting doorstop(s), or a museum drawer that might get opened once a century.
“I can ask you to provide me with one single piece of evidence for Bigfoot in which a mundane, known phenomena such as human fallibility is unreasonable versus an explanation involving an actual unidentified NA ape.”
Uh, no you can’t. That’s your job, and you’re kind of falling down on it. READ UP.
Oh, I could give you many. bfro.net; texasbigfoot.org. Read up. That’s just a start. I can assure you, the vast majority of sightings I have read would require a hospitalizable condition for the person’s “fallibility” to be an issue. Or they were flat lying. To postulate that (or even stranger – if you have read the evidence and you haven’t – a concatenation of mistakes, lies and hallucinations) as a first principle is not only incurious in the extreme, but downright weird. We are a species that lives by its eyes, pretty durned infallibly, day after day for decades. (Tell me the last time you drove a trash can; deposited a cow in the bank, or made love to your dog. Um, er, skip the last one.) Occam says: these are reports, of what people say they saw; and if some at least are not accurate, then the weirdest trick man has ever played on himself is under way. But you haven’t read the evidence, so you don’t know that.
(Why do they keep going on and on like this, and not even wonder why scientists, in relevant fields, disagree with them? Speaking of that…)
“You may want to cite Meldrum, but I’ll tell you in advance, while I do not doubt the man’s intelligence, I can’t help but think of his failure to recognize what was the cast of an obvious elk lay or understand how a creature with the size and morphology of Bigfoot with a mid-tarsal break would hardly be able to walk, let alone the wild sprints we hear about.”
Dude! I don’t doubt your intelligence either; but wait up here. Meldrum has the credentials, and no one has offered a shred of evidence that Skookum – I presume that’s what you’re referring to – was an elk
(hint: no elk tracks in the cast; ever see an elk get up? They don’t levitate)
- and at least two people with the required (world class) credentials say that in fact it IS a primate (one was a scoffer – until he saw the cast)…and until you offer your credentials, they are RIGHT.
Now, as to mid-tarsals and wild sprints: Meldrum’s academic specialty is primate locomotor adaptations. Know what that means? What’s yours? I’m going with him over you there, too; both he and Grover Krantz calculated, very carefully, what would have to obtain for something that big with a midtarsal break to do what it does. Guess how big? Right; people are reporting, consistently, an animal that size. And a hunter who had shot one in Washington state (so much for another unfounded assumption) described to Krantz, because he had noticed it particularly, precisely the size and shape of foot Krantz had speculated.
You’ll just say that’s made up. Really. What’s your evidence? No evidence, for any proposition in a scientific discussion, equals sloppy supposition. Read: THERE IS NO SKEPTICAL CASE AGAINST THE SASQUATCH, because such requires EVIDENCE. There is just a bunch of people who have not looked at the evidence, tossing anything to the wall to see what sticks. Why not just follow the evidence and find out what’s up? Is that so hard?
“The beer thing was funny, but I would venture to say that science can tell quite easily tell you if beer is good for you or not.”
They’re doing it ALL THE TIME! It changes every three years, on average.
“Science does not have a bias against anything. Science is simply a systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.”
Practiced by scientists, who on the whole are about as unbiased as a Baptist revival meeting. Ever talk to any? I have.
“Yes, I’m coming back to a body or part of one. There is no reason why we shouldn’t have at least that that can withstand scrutiny.”
Another sloppy supposition. What’s your evidence that this must be the case? You don’t have any. That’s a totally subjective take; put it against the evidence and it vanishes. Trust me, I have, and I totally understand all the reasons we don’t have what you think we must. I see 50 things in the news every day that stretch credulity more than that.
Totally, absolutely unbiased science has one precept: AGAINST EVIDENCE, SUBJECTIVITY COUNTS FOR NOTHING. Address the evidence, not your pet peeves.
As to the rhino: PhotoExpert and I know all that. What you don’t know is…um, hey, you WROTE IT.
“The rhinos are so secretive that the first-ever still photo of one was captured last year.”
REeeeeeeeallllly, now.
So, they knew about this rhino for, what, four weeks before they got THAT photo?
That’s a piddly-brained rhino, on an ISLAND, ferpetes, an ISLAND that has so little rhino habitat left that there will be none by the time I buy my next car. All the shots you are talking about came as a result of the years – that’s years of full-time effort
(number of full-time sasquatch researchers on the planet, zero)
– that went into that first photo.
“Coming within areas of human habitation enough to be seen hundreds of times a year is invariably going to lead to the documentation of a species, big or small.”
No it won’t. Not if every observation is treated as a mistake. Somebody needs to take PSYCH 101.
“Unfortunately, Bigfoot works great as a social construct and terrible as a living, breeding species.”
Yuz kids yuz, and everything you know that scientists who say it works great as a living species don’t. Not to worry; by forty you won’t know everything anymore.
PhotoExpert’s right. You need to read, a lot, and check in when you’re up to speed.
(Why do people think they can come here no info and all attitude?)
RB: You use the rhino camera as proof Bigfoot should have been found by now. However, the cameras were set up where field teams already found the rhino. Bigfoot camera traps are set up in areas where maybe only one or two sightings have occurred. Not quite the same. There are hundreds of sightings of Bigfoot. But not hundreds a year.
I love when you said ’science does not have a bias’. Perhaps, if science was a living, breathing entity. But it isn’t. Science is a discipline practiced by humans, who most certainly do have biases. (Usually, how much funding can I get?)
You seem to accept no eyewitness evidence. That is weak science. Many scientists claim that eyewitness evidence isn’t helpful, but, as in the discovery of 125,000 gorillas in 2006-8, eyewitnesses told the scientists where to look. OOPS! How do scientists, who said for years and years there are only 100,00 gorillas, miss 125,000 more!? Bias, perhaps? Unwillingness to accept eyewitness testimony, perhaps?
You state that ”Bigfoot with a mid-tarsal break would hardly be able to walk, let alone the wild sprints we hear about.” What? If I’m not mistaken, chimpanzees exhibit a mid-tarsal break, and they can walk. And if an animal developed an adaptation to fit it’s environment, your argument falls apart. And I’m pretty sure that’s what animals do.
You claim that thousands of bones of other animals have been discovered across America in all sorts of environments. Really? I live in Arkansas, a state with thousands upon thousands of deer. Deer hunting is huge and ultimately necessary in this state. I’ve talked to hunters. I’ve asked about carcasses. They don’t come across them on a regular basis, if ever. And unlike Borneo or the Congo or other places, there are no ‘native’ groups truly living in the deep forests of the Pacific North West. And be honest, you wouldn’t believe them either. Another thing, forests are not like the concrete jungles of the cities. Bodies just don’t remain.
Primates are not quite the same as deer, elk, or moose. They show a marked intelligence in comparison. If they are shy or retiring, and undoubtedly small in number, the chances of finding a carcass are slim.
And honestly, how many people would have the guts to tell the world they ran over a Bigfoot in their car? What are the chances they kill it instantly? Hunters who claim to have seen Bigfoot won’t shoot because it ‘feels’ wrong when they see the creature. Guilt, fear, and persons with like attitudes to your own make it more difficult by orders of magnitude for persons to come forward.
And I think you should stop calling reasoning on the matter as ‘cognitive dissonance’. It’s only cognitive dissonance if there is a logical inconsistency to one’s thoughts. What has been argued on this post is far from that.
Finally, if hair samples are found, or perhaps a bone or piece of skin, there is no template or baseline to compare it to. If it comes back ‘unknown primate’, the ‘it has to be an escaped zoo animal’ will be the most that mainstream science will look at. Which explains why the evidence we do have is commonly ignored. And that purposeful ignorance is the saddest part of this whole discussion.
gavinf: nice post! to which I will add:
“However, the cameras were set up where field teams already found the rhino.”
What I said, only better; once they had a photo, they knew where to set up for more photos; they’d found a place where these creatures of habit (who had gone without a photo op for over a century) could be conclusively documented, and set up at what they now knew to be more of such places. One photo of a sasquatch, and the dominoes will fall just like that. If they don’t think it’s a man in a suit, which would be just like them. No bias there. And believe you me, no surprise.
“in the discovery of 125,000 gorillas in 2006-8, eyewitnesses told the scientists where to look. OOPS! How do scientists, who said for years and years there are only 100,00 gorillas, miss 125,000 more!? Bias, perhaps? Unwillingness to accept eyewitness testimony, perhaps?”
NO WAY.
It is rampant in science, and I see it here all the time: if it doesn’t exist, it CAN’T, and here’s why. Tell it to the coelacanth, brains. On a recent blog here, a scientist said, and here is her argument, no lie: the sasquatch can’t exist, because apes are gorillas. You don’t believe me? It’s right on this site. Now there is a typical scientist, when an atypical subject comes up. All their alleged curiosity evaporates, and is replaced by credulous, muddy thinking.
“You claim that thousands of bones of other animals have been discovered across America in all sorts of environments. Really?”
Really not. I live in places where there may actually be more deer than people. In those places I have seen not bone one; and a handful of them (and deer bones are big) despite having hiked regularly, for 30 years, in places packed with them.
“Primates are not quite the same as deer, elk, or moose. They show a marked intelligence in comparison. If they are shy or retiring, and undoubtedly small in number, the chances of finding a carcass are slim. “
Well, funny you should mention that, gavinf. Meldrum’s book talks about a scientist who is hunting, concertedly and specifically, in heavily-used chimpanzee habitat for chimpanzee remains, and finds them…well, never would be really close. AND HE IS LOOKING! Did I mention that?
“Finally, if hair samples are found, or perhaps a bone or piece of skin, there is no template or baseline to compare it to. If it comes back ‘unknown primate’, the ‘it has to be an escaped zoo animal’ will be the most that mainstream science will look at. Which explains why the evidence we do have is commonly ignored. And that purposeful ignorance is the saddest part of this whole discussion.”
Can I borrow that paragraph?
How many times has that happened? Willful, indeed, and ignorance, beyond doubt. When one not only feels but KNOWS, for objective fact, that one is better-informed than the scientists on a topic BECAUSE THEY ALL BUT ADMIT IT WITH EVERYTHING THEY SAY, some people with sheepskins have a lot to answer for.
If you are ignorant on a topic, at least have the good sense to keep your mouth shut.
(Why do people who know nothing about crypto come here to feel superior? Does this ever happen in, um, physics? And physicists are known kooks.
)
And I had to make special note of this from Reality Bytes:
“Yes, I’m coming back to a body or part of one. There is no reason why we shouldn’t have at least that that can withstand scrutiny.”
When you – and all the other skeptics on this question – keep on and on and on coming back to the same well, it simply shows how dry that well really is.
Proponents are offering, and continue to offer, compelling evidence. You must show that you have read it, because we lose interest, rapidly, in repeated trips to the same old well of unsubstantiated assumptions.
If you are coming here to get educated, Grasshopper, sensei are here to handle that for you. But coming here with an arrogant cardboard front – well, we know what’s behind that curtain because we have seen it before. And it ain’t nothing a scientist is obliged to consider.
The scientists who have truly weighed the evidence show the way for their profession on this topic. In the meantime, this will suffice: if every single appearance of this animal is dealt with as, you didn’t see that, it is IMPOSSIBLE to confirm it scientifically.
That’s not an opinion; that is FACT, confirmed every day by every one of us. Slam dunk.
Re the comment:
“Scientists have seen Native paintings and carvings, and concluded – NO EXCEPTIONS – that they had to represent giant primates…WHEN THEY WERE NOT TOLD THE SAMPLES WERE FROM NORTH AMERICA.” This one piques my curiosity. When was this exercise done, and by who?
A thought on evidence: We do have many skeletons of every other N. American land animal, of every size. For some species, museum back rooms contain thousands of skeletons, skulls, and loose bones.
I don’t know if anyone has ever tried to figure out what percentage of osteological material in museums comes from what sources – hunting trophies collected from Native Americans, animals deliberately killed as scientific specimens, brought in by modern hunters, taken from accidental kills, etc. That would be an interesting study.
I have to agree with the commenters who say there doesn’t seem to be a convincing reason why we should have large quantities of bones from every large mammal and zero from one species. If one ventures to explain that by such factors as uncertainty among hunters, etc. remember where the burden of proof lies. It’s quite properly on those arguing for a new species. Photographs were accepted for a new monkey because the animals were under regular scientific observation: that narrow exception has never applied to sasquatch.
All we need is a finger or some similar piece off a sasquatch, not a whole animal. It is very hard to accept (maybe not impossible, but very hard) that no event which should have left some proof has ever happened: no Native American was ever found who had taken a squatch bone for a trophy, no vehicle ever had a major collision (which would legally have to be reported, and would leave hair, blood etc. even if the sasquatch survived), no hunter ever fired too quickly thinking that brown shape was an elk, etc.
Very interesting posts, especially the exchanges between RB, DWA, and PE.
Creecy’s statement concerning the alleged Navidad sighting in early Texas should be challenged. Given the age of the story and its nature as folklore, one could consider the account as really nothing more than a tall tale handed down. It should also be noted that the complete tale of the “Wild Man (or Woman) of Navidad” has a solution, according to some versions of the story, in the denouement of the mystery: the discovery of an escaped slave who had been living in the wilds near a settlement.
Concerning Dr. Meldrum: please feel free to challenge my statement, but I am fairly certain that I ran across a casual statement once that stated Dr. Meldrum had been a “believer” in bigfoot since he was a teenager, having been converted by a youthful viewing of the Patterson film. If this is true, then Dr. Meldrum’s advocacy should be seen as predating his scientific credentials. For me, this would explain why Dr. Meldrum’s book on sasquatch, while entertaining, seems on occasion to be an exercise in rationalization.
DWA, if I am reading you correctly, I think you have misunderstood RB on eyewitnesses. He is suggesting that just because you accept eyewitness reports at face value, it does not necessarily follow that eyewitness accounts are factual. You may plead a case for eyewitness accounts, but that is not the same as holding such evidence as being conclusive. You and I have gone around on this very issue, and I can only repeat that most eyewitness stories are just images on paper or on your computer screen and have not been vetted in any serious manner. Take them as “true” at a peril.
Greetings All,
This is one of best posts and on-going discussions about Bigfoot in a while. Craig wrote a very good article with some good questions.
However, I can tell you from personal experience the species exists. The footprint we found in the wet sand on the ledge in Granite’s Gorge in 1973 was no hoax. Nobody was that crazy and if we hadn’t been so young we wouldn’t either.
It wasn’t anything human that chased us out of the forest road in August of 2008. There were at least two of them and they did it in a coordinated planned movement.
We had enough firepower to take down several BF but that wasn’t our intent or why we went there.
The naysayers and dismissers will always be with us. The few of us though who have gotten close know the truth and eventually everybody will know the truth. It’s just a matter of time and the outcome should have quite a few humorous after effects.
I still maintain that if you go into an area where the species is known to habituate you will eventually find some decent evidence of their presence. They will know you’re there and may or may not respond. This seems to be the case especially where the expeditions of the BFRO and TBRC are concerned. My best to all and let’s keep looking.
Just for clarification airforce47, this article was not authored by Craig, it was posted by him. The long quotation is from Richard Creecy of The Battalion Online.
MattBille–Look what we started with our point and counterpoint discussion. LOL
DWA–Hey buddy! It was great seeing you in the forum again. You made some outstanding points as usual. You usually pick up where I leave off or drop the ball. I guess the old saying is true–”Great minds think alike”. You know, we sometimes try our best to help or guide people to evidence and they just don’t wish to drink. They would rather go thirsty than quench their thirst for knowledge and truth. In other words, they do not wonder about the “what ifs?”
loopstheloop–I think many of us fall into that third camp with you.
gavinf–You had some excellent commentary during this thread that added greatly to the discussion. I am a very busy person and can’t get back here as often as I like. I read some points made by posters such as RB that I would like to comment on and you saved me the time and effort by beating me to the post. Thank you for that!
Reality Bytes–Where do I begin? Nevermind. I will just say this: DWA pointed out exactly what I would have pointed to in your posts. He did an excellent job of beating me to the punch and answering you the exact same way I would have answered you. I would just reiterate one suggestion that we have both already made. I believe you should do some more reading. You have some partial truths in some of your statements. But a little knowledge is just enough to get you into trouble. It makes you think you have a total grasp of the entire picture. Just as in the Native American scenario I pointed out above, your idea of tribal people having pieces of BF adorning them–is way off base and nonfactually based in reality. A neophyte to BF research might seem confident of your assertations. However, someone who studies tribal people, has lived with them, understands their culture and beliefs, and has seen their artifacts and art concerning their history with BF, would just laugh at your example. Your assertion would make you look ignorant and on many levels. Not that ignorance is a bad thing. Ignorance will sometimes make people dig deeper and gain knowledge in their quest for truth. But many of the things you posted, how do I put this, show a profound lack of knowledge or in the very least, not taking many other variables into consideration. Anyway RB, I did enjoy your commentary and appreciate any differing point of view you hold. I may not agree with it but that would make for a boring forum here at Cryptomundo if every poster was in agreement with one another. What makes this forum fun is that there are some who we can disagree with and have some fun if it is done in a civil manner. I do appreciate your civility in our discussions. Do some reading though. That way, the next time, we can have a more in depth and informed discussion when you are making a counterpoint to any point I may have made. It’s been fun!
jerrywayne–Thanks! And some very interesting points brought up by you.
You posted: Concerning Dr. Meldrum: please feel free to challenge my statement, but I am fairly certain that I ran across a casual statement once that stated Dr. Meldrum had been a “believer” in bigfoot since he was a teenager, ….
I felt free to challenge your statement. So here goes–Are you implying that Dr. Meldrum’s objectivity might be called into question because he predisposed himself as a “believer”, in a casual statement he may or may not have made? I see where you are going with this. Dr. Meldrum may or may not have said that. But let’s say he did say that. I don’t find that problematic. I understand your point. Your point is: Dr. Meldrum’s might not be completely objective, if in fact, his advocacy for BF’s existence, predates his scientific career. I get that. I understand what you are implying, well, make that, actually stating. I might agree with you on that, depending on what you mean. When you say Dr. Meldrum was a believer, in his youth, before becoming a scientist, I would ask you what your definition of “believing” is. I would also have to ask Jeff Meldrum what he meant, if, and this is a big if, if he actually made that statment to begin with. You were a little fuzzy on that and I can not take that as fact. But for the sake of argument, let’s continue as if he did say that. You know, I might believe that one NFL team may beat another, even if the statistics say it is otherwise improbable. And I may not be really be convinced that the team I am rooting for will win. But since I am a fan of that team and I would like to see my team win, I would say that I believe The X’s are going to win that NFL game on Sunday, even if in my heart, I also think they are going to lose. Rationally, I know my team may lose and am 99% convinced they are going to lose. But I publicly say, I believe they can win. Depending on my level of belief, I may stay grounded and remain entirely objective as other fans cheer around me. I might not wear a team jersey to the game or even applaud out loud. I will just watch the game. I may even conclude that my team will not win and still think about the possibilities. They are on the field in front of me and score is 0-0. So my objectivity does not come into question. If the score is 40-0 and I am standing up and cheering, then my belief in my team winning is entirely subjective and I am not being realistic. So if Jeff Meldrum did say that, perhaps he meant that there is a lot of evidence out there concerning BF. Maybe his believing was the belief that there is some credible evidence concerning BF and he would like a chance to analyze that evidence for it’s scientific validity. That statement does not make him a “believer” in BF. He can still be entirely objective in his analysis. I do not think Dr. Meldrum would put his career and reputation on the line, if during his years of investigation, saw there was no credible evidence to date. He has even stated that there are many hoaxed footprints. However, he has also stated that many would be almost impossible to hoax. The dermal ridges make that clear. But it is almost a mute point in debating Dr. Meldrum’s objectivity in this matter because you are unsure if he even made that statement. Even if he did make that statement, I do not think it precludes his objectivity for the reasons stated above. I have to consider ALL the evidence. And if I do that, I have to take to heart what Jane Goodall concluded. I don’t think she made any statements about herself being a believer in BF during her youth. You brought up some interesting points and I applaud your skepticism. We have to challenge all evidence objectively. Very interesting observations by you, jerrywayne.
airforce47–I could not agree with you more! This has been one of the best posts and discussions in quite a while, here at Cryptomundo. You are one of those witnesses that adds credibility to a discussion. I would love to know more about what happened to you in 2008. I think if some posters here, had that same experience you had, they might be in a different camp or at least be posting differently. I have not had such a BF experience and do not know if I would embrace it. Then again, the only thing I would have on me in the way of firepower, to shoot, would be a camera. I am not sure if that would deter two BF or not.
OK. Lively thread here.
PhotoExpert – thanks. You’re a lot nicer than me; I tend to get teed off if I think people are opening fire without ammo. I can say for sure that it’s always nice to have an expert on your side.
RB – you really do need to read up, because no one with a good grounding in the evidence could say what you’ve said. I sense your name is supposed to be a cold bucket of water on wild-eyed True Believers. Well, the bloggers here – and such as Mystery_man, Matt Bille, PhotoExpert and me – have no truck with them. We are sold on one thing – evidence – and are skeptical to the core. You could not have me here saying what I do were the evidence not enough to persuade a scientist – as it has; and it is no coincidence that all of them rank, with no deniers among them, as the top thinkers on the subject…at least that don’t post here.
Matt Bille – the reasons the evidence doesn’t say “sold” to me, you provide. I provide as the counter the evidence; and when the evidence looks like this, the history of science says a natural cause outside of the observers produced it. In fact, there is no other postulated cause in scientific history with this much behind it that hasn’t been confirmed as real. At least I can’t think of one; and in the several times I have said this here, no one has pointed one out to me. I agree with you. What we lack is indeed odd. But I believe it can almost – almost – wholly be accounted for by the wall of disbelief and ridicule the bold must scale. (We have a clear film – something considered utterly beyond doubt with almost any other subject – that got laughed out of court. As strange as no bones, if not stranger, if you ask me.) And the rest I can chalk up, with ease, to: stranger things, by far, have happened. The reason? The evidence.
jerrywayne – hey, amigo! I was wondering where you were.
I don’t have the book in front of me; but if Meldrum’s interest predated his scientific involvement, well so did mine. (It still does.
) The first stills I saw of Patterson were compelling – and they came with an unbiased look at the evidence. But when I first saw the film, I stifled a laugh. It’s a guy in a suit! But I knew what that was: it was an involuntary reaction, that I remember having the first time I saw a penguin (it’s a guy in a tuxedo!) or a chimp (in a tuxedo) or my first closeup of an orangutan (horror; THAT’S A PERSON!!!!!). Well, not so much, right? It is improper to say that someone who stifles his incredulity and puts his mind to analysis has somehow become a True Believer. What Meldrum and I did IS WHAT A SCIENTIST MUST DO. Or else, he must profess an open mind, and otherwise keep quiet. To a person, every scientist I know of with anything close to a command of the evidence for hairy hominoids is either convinced of their reality, or open to the possibility (and that’s a cautious public stance; I bet I know which way they are leaning by what they say).
I have said and say again: whether real or not, this body of evidence compels scientific attention, because without exception, the phenomena that have anything close to this body of evidence behind them have been proven real. I can understand yours, Matt Bille’s, and others’ reservations; they are mine too. But that is no excuse to say the evidence is unworthy of followup, in the field. It is that strong.
Jerrywayne: something additional needs to be said about this:
“DWA, if I am reading you correctly, I think you have misunderstood RB on eyewitnesses. He is suggesting that just because you accept eyewitness reports at face value, it does not necessarily follow that eyewitness accounts are factual. You may plead a case for eyewitness accounts, but that is not the same as holding such evidence as being conclusive. You and I have gone around on this very issue, and I can only repeat that most eyewitness stories are just images on paper or on your computer screen and have not been vetted in any serious manner. Take them as “true” at a peril.”
Who takes them as true? Not I. How could I? I haven’t done the research to confirm the phenomenon. So how could I know?
And as to “not being vetted in any serious manner,” that’s not what my read of reports on the BFRO and TBRC websites tells me. A huge number of those reports have been followed up – as anyone can see who simply reads them. To say, one can go no farther, these are fake…well, if you say that, then you say the Internet must be avoided at all costs, because it’s all fake. In fact, if you hold that these reports haven’t been vetted, and the evidence plainly visible to a reader is that they have, then I hope you don’t Internet shop or date, because you are violating your own logical precept that Internet shoppers and daters are fools. (My experience holds otherwise, on both counts.)
Quicker: there’s nothing to lead any serious thinker to believe that the vetting of sasquatch reports is any less authentic than anything else on the Internet.
What I have said here, many times, is that the evidence appears, to any in-depth read, compelling. To go no further than that yourself…well, we all have lives. But to pronounce it, prima facie, as fake is not what a scientist would do, for his science would absolutely forbid such a foolhardy stance.
Excellent posts. I would add, any criticism of Meldrum over his childhood beliefs is nonsensical unless you have a bias against those who accept we have a real animal here. It’s like saying, ‘well, that cetacean expert was a big fan of Moby Dick, so if he’s investigating white sperm whales, he’s clearly biased…’ or some such rot. A scientist may be fascinated by ufo’s and aliens as a child, and then grows up to become involved in S.E.T.I. Is he/she biased? Will they automatically assume (like in the silly movies) that the first signal they hear is extraterrestrial intelligent origin? No! Of course not! They have spent years and degrees and thousands of dollars and thousands of hours learning and unlearning the science and facts from the fantasy behind their childhood fascination.
Meldrum is no different.
Matt Bille:
“no hunter ever fired too quickly thinking that brown shape was an elk, etc.”
Right. The hunter in Manitoba in 1941 fired too quickly thinking that brown shape was a MOOSE. (Totally plausible, when you read the account; unlike the utter implausibility of seeing a moose and thinking it’s an ape.) And he killed it, with one shot, and examined the body thoroughly enough that an eyewitness sketch could be drawn from it…that looks like a bigfoot to me. And until he saw a still from the P/G film, more than 26 years later, he had no idea what it was. When he saw the still, he knew immediately. And no, he didn’t bring it in, or breathe a word to his buddies (they had separated) when they came back together…and if I were him neither would I.
Who says it was proof? It’s not fake because there’s no proof.
I know of one other hunter who killed one (see post above); and at least one other (and a nonhunter who had a gun) who wounded one pretty badly. They didn’t stick around; I wouldn’t have, either; and it’s not fake because there is no proof.
And there is no way, given what I have seen of the “skepticism” on this topic, that anyone would ever hear of it if I found a sasquatch carcass tomorrow. I ain’t chopping a thing off it; and I suspect that almost no one who killed one – and definitely no one who found one, because they wouldn’t be equipped – would, which easily covers the sample size, I bet. And any scientist who is sitting on something, and not telling, is wrong; I understand him; and he is excused.
I have seen nothing in my life close to approaching the ironheadedness of the scientific attitude toward this topic. To tut-tut on the one hand, and laugh at the bold who come forward on the other, sets human records for disingenuousness that may never be touched.
Matt Bille:
1. The reference to the carvings (I said paintings too; whoops, sorry) above is from the book “Manlike Monsters on Trial,” of which I don’t have a copy to hand. Krantz’s review of the book here contains a reference to it.
For those who don’t want or need to be bothered, here it is:
“3. Roderick Sprague describes and illustrates some aboriginal stone carvings from the Columbia River area that look like ape-like heads. Zoologists who did not know their source unanimously declared them to be representations of nonhuman, higher primates; those who knew the source insisted they must be something else!”
That is a brief comment on an article, which is of course considerably longer. Can’t get my hands on it yet but am looking.
As to the Manitoba hunter account above, here it is.
jerrywayne: and since knowing you I know you’ll jump on this:
“Who takes them as true? Not I. How could I? I haven’t done the research to confirm the phenomenon. So how could I know?”
Let me make sure you know that the above means not that I have done no research, but that I haven’t confirmed the sasquatch, nor has anyone else.
But a number of us have done sufficient research into the evidence to know that if this thing isn’t real, there’s never been anything in history like it. (If it IS real, now, there HAS. Doesn’t THAT tell a betting man how to bet.
)
PE,
Thanks for your comments.
I apologise if my words were misleading. I did not mean to imply that I read where Dr. Meldrum himself acknowledged a pre-credentialed belief in bigfoot. I meant only that I read a comment to that affect. Now, let me back track a bit. Since I post at a work comp (off the clock!), I do not have my file research papers near by. I go on memory sometimes. So, I dug around at home and found my source (and it reads a little different than I recounted).
In a 12 paragraphed article about Dr. Meldrum issued on the Net by SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, dated Nov. 19, 2007, and titled “Bigfoot Anatomy”, Meldrum is discribed as a scientist “who has followed Bigfoot lore since he was a boy” and later says of Meldrum “he explains that his interest in the subject arose when he was 11 and saw Roger Patterson’s now famous film of an alleged Sasquatch….”
Is this fact pertinent to Dr. Meldrum’s advocacy of and case for bigfoot? I do not know. I would say that childhood beliefs sometimes stay with one well into adulthood, or forever. Myself, I was in my 30’s before I realised that Chevys were not inherently better cars than Fords, a “fact” that my Chevy owner dad would often “indoctrinate” me with.
I also know that some well known Christian fundamentalists, raised as children on the dogma of an inerrant Bible, purposefully majored in zoology or biology or other life sciences in order to be credentialed in relevant fields of science when later, as “scientific” creationists,
they would “refute” the part of modern science called Darwinism.
It is possible Dr. Meldrum open mindedly looked into one of his favorite childhood subjects as a more knowledgeable adult and found it even more compelling because of his acquired, specialist understanding.
On the other hand, Dr. Meldrum’s enthusiasms, gained in less critical youth and still held, may play a part in his treatment of the evidence. This is also a possibility. This might explain why he signed off without caution on tracks found (or planted) by P. Freeman, a source of dubiousness I think it is fair to say.
DWA, mi amigo, I once found a quote on the Net (here I go again) by John Green commenting on the fact that today the overwhelming majority of sightings are not followed up on, primarily because there are too many! Now, if we look at perhaps the most famous sighting of all, the Roe sighting of the 1950s, might you be a tad bit surprised to know that Green, who brought it to light, never even met Roe? What does that tell you about “sightings” and bigfoot advocacy?
I think RB has many fine points in his posts. However, I think he errs a bit when he suggests that native populations should have had artifacts of bigfoot the same as they have elk and bear. His point that if bigfoot is a real animal, we should have evidence of it as we do other NA large animals is a valid point(despite protestations from advocates who never really seem to get their minds around this fact). Yet RB forgets that to many aboriginals, “sasquatch” was not an animal like a bear (or an ape), but rather a human, in fact, a very tall race of fellow aboriginals (with customs and native languages and so on).
While I’ve only glanced over some of the comments, I have to say that I’m surprised that so much interest was sparked by this article.
Let me state that I had nothing to do with the actual writing of the piece. The student, Rick Creecy, did not run any content by me prior to publication (although I didn’t ask him to). He asked my opinions regarding several questions and I gave him a fair amount of information and several links to additional sources.
I enjoy interacting with college students and I hope Rick’s article sparks some interest among those who aren’t often exposed in the subject.
jerrywayne: I don’t know much about Green and the Roe sighting. But Roe’s account, absent commentary or interaction by anyone, squares with the bulk I’ve read. It’s never been debunked, which means there’s no more reason to consider it fake than there is to consider it authentic.
I guess my take on this, amigo, is that science really needs only do one thing: stop scoffing and cherrypicking and keep an open mind, because the evidence demands, at the very least, that. Whether or when they look is up to them. I agree with Napier, though, that the confirmation of this animal will be an indictment of science; and the evidence says it’s real.
I suspect that among the many reasons we may have so little record of actual interaction between sasquatch and aboriginal cultures is that from the earliest colonial accounts, several of which I’ve read, the a priori bias against the reality of the animal has prevailed.
jerrywayne–Thanks for clarifying your original post.
Jerrywayne: had to note this too.
“His point that if bigfoot is a real animal, we should have evidence of it as we do other NA large animals is a valid point(despite protestations from advocates who never really seem to get their minds around this fact). ”
Many advocates may not seem to get their minds around this. I assure you, however, the best thinkers on the subject are not among them.
We have long ago gotten our minds around this. It is very simple.
1) Few remains if any will be found, by anyone, even searching deliberately (as the chimp example cited above demonstrates).
2) Remains HAVE BEEN FOUND. There is nothing to indicate that any of the accounts of this are lies or misperceptions, including: a huge jawbone; a decomposing foot of what appeared to be a juvenile, and was reported twice, so either a re-find (was in the same area) or two separate finds, and yes, both finders left it behind, as I suspect I might do with something like that; an intact eight-foot skeleton; and an enormous hominoid jaw. All of these finds were in SE Alaska. And all left behind. You know there have been others, unreported. Logic dictates this. But skeptics seem unable to get their minds around it.
3) If every piece of evidence is treated as a mistake or a lie or a hallucination, legitimate finds will go unconfirmed and even unreported, as people know the circus they will face. If P/G was laughed out of court by scientists this evidence would be too. But skeptics seem unable to get their minds around it.
4) To debunk these accounts REQUIRES EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE FALSE POSITIVES. Absent this, there is nothing to do but take them at face value. But skeptics seem unable to get their minds around it.
In short: the remains “issue” is a slam dunk toss, because – as I like to say, and say well – in the face of the evidence, subjectivity is worth nothing.
But skeptics seem unable to get their minds around it.
(You are going to say: but you can’t take these as proof! Amigo: I KNOW. And you can’t take them as false either, which is what I mean by face value. They must go in the big pile that says to science: this doesn’t interest you AT ALL? Tut tut.)
And because I just raised an outstanding point, let me drive it home.
“If P/G was laughed out of court by scientists this evidence would be too.”
It is a common skeptical refrain that P/G is a suit guy, and we need bones. Not to beat a dead horse, but P/G IS BONES. It is easy for any scientist, paying attention to his science, to discern that there is much subtly but definitely not human about that figure, and that ape-suitdom holds not even a near to close analogue. It is in fact easy to say that the reception to P/G is the clearest possible indication that advocates shouldn’t bother to bring to science anything but a body. Bones will be dismissed by science, without analysis. Sure they will. Isn’t hair? Aren’t footprints – even though advocates have clearly demonstrated the near-impossibility of many of them being anything but what they look like?
Just nod. Or accept that you are a true believer in the boring and mundane. HINT: ALL NATURE DISPUTES YOU.
DWA,
You had me very excited for a moment. Point number two: we have HARD EVIDENCE after all. I have been totally wrong! Phone Ben Radford and gloat! We have a “huge” jawbone and an “enormous” one too, as well as a decomposing “juvenile” foot found twice (does a decomposing “juvenile” bigfoot foot look like an adult human foot, even if seen twice? Just wondering). And, most remarkably, we have an intact 8 foot in length skeleton of bigfoot! Now, THIS is the real deal, the evidence to shut the mouths of scoftics forever!
I looked at your post to find where all these important finds are now being housed. Then I ran across the word “accounts” and realised where resides such important evidence: in ACCOUNTS.
Oh amigo, you tease but you don’t deliver!
(Smile)
jerrywayne:
This is the problem with skeptics. (Sorry, so called.
) They don’t understand the difference between EVIDENCE and PROOF; and they unthinkingly label eyewitness accounts – from members of a species that lives, almost infallibly, for decades on the information provided by its eyes – as fake.
Those ACCOUNTS I gave you count for more, far more, all by themselves, than all the evidence provided by so called skeptics that this is all a farce. (NONE.)
Then there’s the avalanche of data that supplements those.
Oh, Dr. DWA delivers. Copiously. Believe it, bro. But if scientists don’t accept the package, to even open it and see what’s inside, well, where are we, amigo?
Here’s a blog to look at, Tetrapod Zoology.
And if you’d rather just see an excerpt, here’s one, not from the blog itself but from the responses, and from a guy who seems to know what he’s talking about:
“As to the lack of evidence, keep in mind the old adage that lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. Furthermore, keep in mind that there is a certain mentality in the realm of august authority that holds to the unviable view that we know more than we really do.
“In short, the lack of fossil records regarding apes in Asia (especially northern Asia) [and, Dr. DWA might add, in North America] is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Fossil apes haven’t been found because they are not there to be found. Therefor there is no reason to go looking for fossil apes, which means fossil apes aren’t being found because no one is looking for them. Now, if some local finds something that might be an ape fossil, it can’t be an ape fossil because the local is not an authority on the subject and must therefor be mistaken. (A PHD in any discipline is a far better indicator of one’s skill at convincing a panel to grant you a PHD than it is an indication you actually know what you’re talking about.)”
A-men. A sheepskin can cover deep-seated ignorance better than just about anything else.
And, because it’s good to do so, another response to the blog in my last post:
——————————
“[another responder to the blog] says, “lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
“I disagree. Lack of evidence is not *proof* of absence, but in the face of circumstances which should allow abundant evidence to be collected, it is certainly *evidence* of absence.”
——————————–
I might tend to agree with this guy.
I’ve always turned up my nose at the “absence of evidence…” quote. (Which the guys above mangle a bit; it’s not “lack of evidence.” The parallel structure, I think, is what makes it so appealing to people.) It’s a bit facile, and not quite correct, and, in fact, damaging to the proponents’ cause!
There is a *lot* of evidence for the sasquatch, a fact the proponents discount with this quote. How’s that for shooting oneself in the foot? On the other hand, there is also – there seems at least to be – “circumstances which should allow abundant evidence to be collected” if the animal is real. While those of us acquainted with the evidence clearly understand good reasons that we might have a real animal but no proof (see my previous post), it is still a bit odd; and it’s why many of us, while acknowledging the scientific viability of the evidence, cannot call ourselves proponents. “Enlightened skeptics” works better for us; because the long period without proof does make this problematical to us.
A lack of *proof*, in other words, for a long period of time, *is* evidence of absence.
Just as the copious sighting data is strong – very strong, in scientific terms, in fact, much stronger – evidence of *presence.*
And I need to add.
You know why I agree with the guy in my last post?
Unlike almost all the other “skeptics” I have heard on this question, he actually understands the difference between evidence and proof.
DWA,
The question, as I see it, is not the line between “evidence and proof”. Rather, it is a question of types of evidence relating to cryptids. I’ll put it this way: there is Evidence Type 1 (tangible, “hard”, primary, conclusive, etc.) and Evidence Type 2 (“soft”, secondary, less tangible and more open to interpretation than ET1, inconclusive).
You have tried to counter the lack of ET1 relating to bigfoot in a post above by citing “accounts” of ET1. This really doesn’t help you because the “accounts” are in reality ET2. Put it this way: If I ask you why there are no ET1 relating to bigfoot (as a reasonable person would expect to have), and you reply that someone has reported seeing a bigfoot body, you have not presented ET1, you have presented ET2 (and are back to square one).
I grant you ET2 relating to bigfoot can be tantalizing because it IS evidence. However, it does not suffice as a guarantee of truth or reality and can not be used conclusively. Why? Because in all such evidence relating to bigfoot, such as sightings, photos and films, trackways, and the rest, we cannot eliminate, on principle, the possibility of human error or human manufacture. Period.
Now, I might grant your often stated point that the ET2 relating to bigfoot is intriguing and should be examined by science. OK. But you go farther and often argue as if bigfoot ET2 is
sufficient to render a verdict in favor of bigfoot’s existence. And before you protest and state that only a body (or other hard evidence) will satisfy science (which is the skeptic’s point all along), look at your post above where you say you would bet all your fortune on the question of the reality of bigfoot by affirming YES! Your hearty affirmation is built on an edifice of (by its very nature) inconclusive evidence. (This puts you in the position of basing the conclusive on the inconclusive—I wonder what Aristotle would say?)
Generally, bigfoot sightings are seen as virtually
determining its reality by advocates because they compare such events to other nature events, such as seeing a golden eagle or an elk.
One would not discount my testimony if I said I saw a bluejay outside earlier today. So why discount someone else who has a nature event that includes seeing a sasquatch?
But, what if we removed bigfoot sightings from the realm of nature event and place it in the domain of paranormal event? Then, instead of conjoining bigfoot with mundane nature events (and thus giving it a pass on an absence of ET1 by raising its innate plausibility level), we have bigfoot sightings likened to sightings of space aliens, fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, dead Elvis, lizard man, werewolves, etc.Think about it. We have sightings of such things as ghosts and fairies, as we have of bigfoot, and also like bigfoot, these entities are supported by ET2 but absolutely lack confirming ET1.
If we take bigfoot sightings as paranormal events instead of nature events, then sightings become better explained as CULTURAL EVENTS, instead of nature events. Ghosts or Dead Elvis Alive can be seen as projections of cultural folk beliefs, believed in but not submittable to confirmation. May we do the same with bigfoot?
I see two advantages to accepting bigfoot sightings as cultural events rather than nature events. First, it explains why sightings are so numerous and wide spread and yet no real animal is ever found. Second, it explains why bigfoot sightings have grown in number virtually geometrically in steadfast congress with the spread of pro-bigfoot entertainment found in broadcast and cable TV documentaries. The bigfoot is an ape explanation does not have the same explanatory power concerning these two issues.
To move from the theoretical to the actual, I’ll close on this sighting case. In an interview with bigfoot writer Joshua Blu Buhs conducted at Bigfoot’s Blog, concerning sightings Buhs mentions the following: “I tell the story in my book about a sighting that John Green investigated. A bunch of people swore that they saw a huge beast along the road that could run at superhuman speeds. It turned out that the Bigfoot was a kid in a hat standing alongside the road. Now, that doesn’t mean that any of the witnesses were crazy or liars. Just that we can’t always trust our eyes.”
Elementary, my dear Dr. DWA.
jerrywayne: elementary indeed.
So elementary, that everything you say in your post about the quality of eyewitness testimony, I have said, and continue to say. Repeatedly.
THIS IS ABOUT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN EVIDENCE AND PROOF, PERIOD.
The accounts stand. The forensic evidence stands. Unchallenged. And together they read like biodata. Normal curves, everywhere one looks. Obedience to biogeographical rules. Frequency. Coherence. “Unknown primate.” (But you don’t know this because you don’t read them.)
They will never lead to proof unless they are FOLLOWED UP.
There is more than enough evidence to interest science in extended field work to find out what the evidence represents.
The problem is: science doesn’t seem as a body to be able to get its arms around this elementary fact.
And what pray tell is this?
————————————————
If we take bigfoot sightings as paranormal events instead of nature events, then sightings become better explained as CULTURAL EVENTS, instead of nature events. Ghosts or Dead Elvis Alive can be seen as projections of cultural folk beliefs, believed in but not submittable to confirmation. May we do the same with bigfoot?
I see two advantages to accepting bigfoot sightings as cultural events rather than nature events. First, it explains why sightings are so numerous and wide spread and yet no real animal is ever found. Second, it explains why bigfoot sightings have grown in number virtually geometrically in steadfast congress with the spread of pro-bigfoot entertainment found in broadcast and cable TV documentaries. The bigfoot is an ape explanation does not have the same explanatory power concerning these two issues.
———————————————–
HUNH???????????????????????????????????????????
So, getting you straight here (and yes, I am): deciding, a priori, on an interpretation that fits what you want to believe gives you, presto! the answer that you want to believe! Events become “better explainable” as the thing as which you WANT them to be explainable. You just neatly ignore what you don’t want to see, which is easy now!
In other words: it is about BELIEF with you. It is not about EVIDENCE. (Hey! On topic.) You want, badly, to BELIEVE it doesn’t exist. So you choose, a priori, a “paranormal event” interpretation. In other words: you doctor the data – by naming it – then pronounce what it is, which is, of course, what you just named it!
(Hint: the “paranormal cultural explanation” is beyond-goofy dismissable, by anyone who just looks at the evidence without pre-concocted beliefs of how to treat whatever it is he is going to see, i.e., as if he didn’t see it.)
The advantage to NOT calling the data ANYTHING, until you have reviewed it, is this:
When you see the things that should automatically interest a scientist – and if you are a scientist, or like the good Doctor here, think like one – you are AUTOMATICALLY interested. Because you learned, in school, that you SHOULD be interested WHEN IT LOOKS LIKE THIS.
The problem with most scientists? They did what you are doing. THEY PRE-LABELED the data, which told them, before they read a thing, WHAT THEY SHOULD THINK OF IT. And – their continued employment and personal biases being good incentive – they proceeded to think that, no matter what they saw. People do it all the time.
The good Doctor? He knew what the culture was telling him to think. But he kept an open mind, and voila! The data influenced him, by its scientific-validity earmarks, rather than the other way around, which latter any scientist should tell you is WRONG.
You let the data tell you what it is.
But “skeptics” – and this is why they are NOT, but rather True Believers – tell the data, up front, WHAT THEY WANT IT TO BE.
That is belief. Tooth Fairy stuff, amigo!
This is about EVIDENCE. Which loudly cries: follow me up, and the proof won’t be far behind.
(Why sas sightings have mushroomed with the Internet: now people are able to easily see copious evidence that the culture may just be wrong on this and they DID see what they saw. What you say happens never happens, to normal people.)
(And one more aid for you: nothing can be confirmed in science by reading reports. Field work is required. I seem to keep hearing that we need to Lay Hands on the data and divine what it is. Not done in science, amigo.)
Wow, I’ve been too busy to post here for awhile, but it looks like I missed out on a major thread here.
There has been so much said here and so many things to comment on, that I wouldn’t even know where to begin. I’d throw in my two cents, but it looks like the embers are dying down on this one.
What an all around great discussion and debate. This is the kind of thing that makes this site great.
Sorry I missed it.
m_m: your two cents welcome here anytime! But you knew that.
And because there is so much targetage on this blog from so-called skeptics, here’s another (from Reality Bytes):
“I can ask you to provide me with one single piece of evidence for Bigfoot in which a mundane, known phenomena such as human fallibility is unreasonable versus an explanation involving an actual unidentified NA ape.”
Yes, he can. Even though I said no, he can ask. Now, as I did tell him, it’s his job to read up and get educated before he comes on here and acts all know-it-all-y. (Is that a word?) But he can ask. Anyone can toss a red herring, as he did here.
One single piece of evidence where human fallibility (the mundane explanation neatly tied up in that very bundle, of course) is “unreasonable”? HUMAN FALLIBILITY IS NEVER UNREASONABLE. Last time I checked, we were, I dunno, fallible, that’s it! I could tell you “hey, I went grocery shopping today, and got eggs!” That might be a total PCP hallucination, or it could result from my thinking groceries are cars and eggs are Mercedes; or any one of a zillion other things, right? One single piece of evidence should not sway ANYONE, of sound mind, that is. Unless it is, say, a body, i.e. PROOF as science recognizes such. (When do they? When they DO. And that’s final. Sort of.)
It is the VOLUME of evidence, and the CONSISTENCY of it, that leads to the general overall UNREASONABILITY of calling ALL OF IT a false positive. Unless you have EVIDENCE – that would be case-by-case conclusive debunking, at it Sherlock! – that is IS all a false positive, YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! As in: that don’t happen on the planet you inhabit, son!
And you can’t beg off by saying that’s too hard. I have to debunk all of it? You certainly do, son. Case by case, at least until you have PROVEN so many cases false positives that it begins to become unreasonable to think the remainder might have a real one in there. Keeping in mind that if ONE IS REAL, the animal is. Man. How many would that be? You still have to do it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You always say that.
RIGHT?
Your evidence, please. Or I can sweep your extraordinary claim – that this has all managed to be a crock behaving like an animal – into the dustpan with the other trash.
DWA, be careful about terminology. You do not know of sasquatch remains and kills. You know of REPORTS of remains and kills. You obviously have found some of these sincere and persuasive, but the distinction is still important. A report of a dead sasquatch is, by itself, no more or less persuasive or important than a report of a living one. Neither is going to be accepted as a type specimen.
DWA,
You and I have been down this road before. I’ll try to clear up some issues raised in your last post.
Would you not agree that “proof” is “evidence”? If “proof” is evidence, then of course it belongs at the top of an evidence hierarchy. It becomes a question of where the evidence for bigfoot is found in this hierarchical scheme, and as we both seem to know, bigfoot evidence is at the inconclusive end of the hierarchy, a distance from the “proof” end.
Since evidence such as sightings is inconclusive without supporting hard evidence, one is perfectly right, reasonably speaking, to withhold belief until confirming evidence is found. So far, I think you would agree with me about this.
Now, we do seem to have some sort of disagreement here, so where is THAT fault line?
It is here: You seem to dismiss, even disdain, my skepticism concerning the existence of bigfoot. But, why is that? You admit the evidence is inconclusive, right? If it IS inconclusive, then why should I not be skeptical?
(Remember, I am not saying the existence of an anomalous ape native to modern America is impossible, or even a ridiculous notion. All I am saying is that I doubt such a creature really exists, based on the inconclusive nature of the evidence put forward so far).
Now I do have a serious disagreement with you over the notion that a skeptic needs to produce counter evidence concerning every sighting. This, of course, is an unattainable and unreasonable demand.
Take this example as a thought experiment: A fellow says he saw a bipedal, hairy, ape-man crossing a country road late one night. He is sure it was a real animal.
Now, as a thought experiment, let’s pretend he really did see a man in an ape suit, a prankster, and he failed to recognize the prank because he was startled and tired and it was dark. Also, because he had always heard of “bigfoot”, his imagination may have played a role in his description of the event.
Let’s also pretend the prankster did not tell anyone what he did, kept it solely to himself, and enjoyed reading about the bigfoot sighting he inspired in the newspaper days later.
Now let’s pretend you and I have no knowledge of this event except that the fellow was interviewed by a bigfoot organization and his account was posted on their website. With your argument stated in your post above, we would be inclined to accept this event as a bigfoot sighting. Why? Because there is no countering evidence to contradict the fellow’s words or perspective concerning the event.
Now if I protested such a ready acceptance of this “sighting” by suggesting that he may have been mistaken about what he saw, YOU would say that my view is nothing more some sort of stubborn, preconditioned, willful ignorance, because I cannot produce CONTRARY EVIDENCE that would show the sighting was a non-sighting. Yet, your view that the sighting, being consistent with other sightings and thus likely valid, would be wrong—the fellow saw a man in an ape suit!
In the above example, the only way to produce counter evidence would be to have attained a camera image of a costumed man crossing the road at the very moment the sighter was driving by. Yet, this is, I hope you would grant, an unreasonable expectation.
I understand why you hold this position: the evidence, while not conclusive and not “proof”, is impressive enough to warrant scientific scrutiny. I would not necessarily disagree with you here. But my suspicion is that your view, if unhindered by stabs at “scientific correctness”, would really read more like this: The evidence is strong enough to conclude that bigfoot exists, it has convinced me, and it is time now for science to do its job and confirm the existence of bigfoot by capture through expeditionary means. Now, if you do not believe thus (and I figure you will protest against it), then why all the slings and arrows aimed at anyone here that doubts the evidence points exclusively to a real animal? (Especially since you seem to share the skeptic’s view the evidence is inconclusive).
My suggestion that we move bigfoot sightings from a nature event to a paranormal event, in theory, is not as you characterize it. In fact, I make this suggestion because of the tug of realism, not in the face of it. You have to explain why bigfoot is sighted all over the place, and according to you sighted even more than reported, and yet always remains a fugitive to irrefutable confirmation. This is a burden that is simply ignored by advocates, or glossed over as if it were really a non-objection. Give me a reasonable explanation for this FACT, please, and I will change my mind.
I think advocates have become so acclimated to the IDEA of bigfoot, they fail to see how strong the objection really is. I accepted the probability of bigfoot once because it was allegedly native to the vast wilderness of the PNW, very rare in numbers, and reclusive. With the spread of the IDEA of bigfoot, we have a continent wide population of bigfoot, not so rare, and apparently not very reclusive based on the sheer number of reported sightings. You have to explain why we have such a state of affairs coupled with the fact of no hard evidence.
I think you err too when you talk about the “VOLUME” and “CONSISTANCY” of the evidence giving it substance it wouldn’t have otherwise. Logically, if you add up tons of “inconclusive”, you do not get “conclusive”. If the bigfoot phenomena is a cultural artifact, then the spread of “sighting reports” may have begot the “consistency” you find and tout. Such consistency may also be attributable to a real biological entity. How can we favor one explanation over the other? Maybe we can’t. Or maybe it is telling that we have had a spread of sightings corresponding to the spread of the IDEA of bigfoot, and NOT corresponding to the attainment of hard evidence.
Matt Bille: no terminology adjustment required on my part. Nothing you said in your post do I have any disagreement with at all, because what you said in your post is what I think.
If we had proof, we wouldn’t be here talking about this. What we have is a solid and cohesive body of evidence, that says, as precisely as such a thing can be said short of scientific confirmation, what we are looking for, and where and how to look. It is now the obligation of science to look. How they handle that obligation is up to them.
jerrywayne: you’re saying there’s no proof. Um, don’t I say that, pretty much continually?
“Since evidence such as sightings is inconclusive without supporting hard evidence, one is perfectly right, reasonably speaking, to withhold belief until confirming evidence is found. ”
THIS ISN’T ABOUT BELIEF. And if no one is going to look, who, praytell, is going to FIND (verb) that confirming evidence? Science has a long and distinguished history of not waiting on its hands for a carcass. Proof requires, in science, FIELDWORK. And fieldwork to follow up the solid body of sasquatch evidence is, well, about a half-century overdue.
“I understand why you hold this position: the evidence, while not conclusive and not “proof”, is impressive enough to warrant scientific scrutiny. I would not necessarily disagree with you here.”
GREAT! Shake. We’re done here!
Jerrywayne acknowledges the only point I feel needs to be made about the evidence for the sasquatch. It is impressive enough to warrant scientific scrutiny. FACT. It is.
(So good to run into a skeptic who gets it.)
There are other things he says however that warrant comment (and actually contradict the above, albeit incorrectly and perhaps unintentionally).
“My suggestion that we move bigfoot sightings from a nature event to a paranormal event, in theory, is not as you characterize it. In fact, I make this suggestion because of the tug of realism, not in the face of it.”
Not true. You make the suggestion because of what you want to believe. THIS IS NOT ABOUT BELIEF. “The tug of realism” is said another way in science: THE EVIDENCE. The tug of realism in science says, irrefutably and always: Follow the evidence! No matter what you want to believe, the evidence leads to the truth. Follow it, not your beliefs.
“You have to explain why bigfoot is sighted all over the place, and according to you sighted even more than reported, and yet always remains a fugitive to irrefutable confirmation.”
No I don’t, no way no how no never. Don’t gotta explain nothin’.
THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THAT PROPOSITION. Follow the evidence!! Talking about “why” it is that way at this point has another name, both in science and in the everyday. It is called “putting the cart before the horse.” Irrefutable confirmation has NOTHING to do with how many sightings there are, or where. It relates only to how scientists dispose themselves toward evidence. There could be 200 million sasquatch, living only in suburbs, and only under the foundations of apartment buildings, and hitching rides to work every day, and if science simply didn’t want to consider the evidence, i.e., behaved exactly as it is behaving: voila! No confirmation! The evidence says that, no matter how impossible that quote sounds to you, it is happening. FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE. (Hey, I’ll be danged! I did explain it! OK, you have to change your mind now. LOL)
“I think you err too when you talk about the “VOLUME” and “CONSISTANCY” of the evidence giving it substance it wouldn’t have otherwise. Logically, if you add up tons of “inconclusive”, you do not get “conclusive”.
No. I am right.
Volume and consistency (frequency and coherence) automatically validate evidence as worthy of scientific scrutiny. AUTOMATICALLY. They tell anyone who understands how science works: it is time to figure out what is generating all this evidence. Because everything else that has ever looked like this has been proven real.
Of course you are right about adding up tons of inconclusive. So what? That is not the point. The evidence is inconclusive. Conclusive requires field research to obtain the proof, and the evidence says, as strongly as anything short of proof can: GET OUT AND GET THE PROOF ALREADY.
Dang amigo—I thought we shook on it and we were done?
To clear up this issue a bit. I doubt bigfoot exists. However, I understand I could be wrong. Let’s present the evidence and hope some impartial scientific organization might investigate.
Now, if such a study is commissioned and undertaken, would you accept its conclusions if it concludes bigfoot does not exist? Or, would you insist science present precise counter-evidence of the type you seem to imagine is required? By that I mean, if such an inquiry concludes sightings are attributable to human error or dishonesty or unduly influenced by preconceived beliefs, would you cry FOUL and DEMAND every sighting instance have tangible counter-evidence to refute it? (Such as, farmer John sees a 7ft tall ape walking on two legs one night. The sighting stands as evidence unless a scientific team has uncovered a video of farmer John actually seeing something else that night?)
I know this seems like a ridiculous demand on your part—–but you do seem to be making it!
What if this scientific team decides the Patterson film is too inconclusive to use as evidence? Would you say: NO ITS NOT! IT IS EVIDENCE. YOU GUYS HAVE TO PROVE IT IS NOT A GIANT BIPEDAL APE AND INSTEAD PROVE IT IS A MAN IN AN APE SUIT! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!
In your advocacy, you miss and entirely overlook another type of evidence—-negative evidence. If you say you saw a cat in a bank vault and then closed and locked the door, that is certainly evidence of a cat in the vault. However, if we open the vault that has been closed since your sighting, and find no cat or cat droppings or cat hair, then we can not confidently say that the vault once held a cat.
Why? Because we have negative evidence—-
there is no cat in the vault.
What if we find some old money bags crumpled up in the corner of the vault and we can see how one might mistake them for the shape of a cat? What if we find you had a belief antecedant to your sighting about paranormal cats being seen in vaults all over the land. Could we use this in our understanding of the “sighting” you had?
According to you——NO! We have EVIDENCE that a cat was in the vault: your sighting! We have no counter-evidence in which to call in question your evidence. An empty vault means nothing to you. An empty vault needs no explanation, according to you.
Apply this little story to alleged bigfoot sightings everywhere and hard evidence nowhere.
Come to respect the skeptic: He is your friend!
I can’t shake and done when there are still so many targets to shoot at! Sorry. It’s my nature, amigo. But I did try.
Given that we DO agree that scientific investigation is warranted…
(pause for impact and isolation of the important fact)
…we must also agree that it requires an open mind to the evidence, and not a priori decisions that we will use a “mundane” explanation for anything we can’t explain. The skeptic is my friend. HE IS ME. I AM ONE! And I am very skeptical of any toss-off assumption that comes without evidence.
P/G is not negative evidence. IT IS EVIDENCE. That the scientific mainstream cannot get its arms around that is not my problem. It looks like no other ape suit, ever (and all the others look alike, in their human proportions if in nothing else); no skeptical analysis has ever been done of it (just toss-off assumptions); scientists in relevant fields say it is authentic. IT IS EVIDENCE, and must be admitted, or you bet, as a hard-core skeptic, I will cry foul. You have labeled yourself a scoffer if you don’t give P/G a fair hearing. Period. It is as clear as any subject shot at that distance with that equipment could possibly, ever, be. You don’t have a good reason for not admitting it. (Inconclusive is not a reason; nothing short of proof IS conclusive.)
Note: negative evidence dries up and blows away in the face of positive evidence. And we have tons of that. That it isn’t proof owes to one thing: science hasn’t said it is. That’s the only criterion of proof, science’s say-so. Don’t let anyone tell you different; you’re not a skeptic if you don’t get this point.
“Now, if such a study is commissioned and undertaken, would you accept its conclusions if it concludes bigfoot does not exist?”
Depends. Based on what I’ve seen of science’s track record first, I’d have to see what the study looked like, how many a priori assumptions it made, how much it looked at the evidence, etc. You can bet your bottom dollar that science inspires no confidence in me when it comes to crypto. I would have to see what they did, chapter and verse. Hint: no Hilary Yeti Smear allowed.
“Or, would you insist science present precise counter-evidence of the type you seem to imagine is required?”
Seem to imagine? THIS IS WHAT SCIENCE DEMANDS MUST BE DONE! What are those people seeing? DON’T IMAGINE IT; SHOW ME YOUR EVIDENCE!!! (Sorry, amigo, that was for mainstream scientists, not for you….I hope….
) What kind of examination do you IMAGINE is taking place if science makes its case without EVIDENCE? How, praytell, could science “conclude sightings are attributable to human error or dishonesty or unduly influenced by preconceived beliefs” without the very kind of evidence that I am asking for?
It should occur to you right about now that if I am making what sounds like an unreasonable demand, maybe it’s impossible to assemble a skeptical case.
In which event science demands an impartial field investigation of the evidence.
Period.
Whether scientists choose to do what science demands they do is their issue. Not mine. I’m just skeptical, that’s all.
I misstated something – and very, very seriously – in my last post. I say of P/G:
“…no skeptical analysis has ever been done of it (just toss-off assumptions); …”
This is, obviously, not true.
A number of very seriously skeptical analyses – cross-checking every calculation, taking into account any reasonable alternative explanation – have been done.
BY PROPONENTS. And only by proponents. And each of them, as it should, rates it “highly likely” that that is a sasquatch.
But as the best of the proponents are unfailingly skeptical – in the true sense of that word – this is only what we should expect.
Gavinf, I am more than happy to address your issues.
Gavin:
RB: You use the rhino camera as proof Bigfoot should have been found by now. However, the cameras were set up where field teams already found the rhino. Bigfoot camera traps are set up in areas where maybe only one or two sightings have occurred. Not quite the same. There are hundreds of sightings of Bigfoot. But not hundreds a year.
Gavin, first of all, I think it’s important we have clarity on what constitutes proof. I did not use the cites of the Javan and Sumatran Rhino camera trap projects as proof that Bigfoot should have been found by now. I really hope I only need to say this once. I can not prove that Bigfoot doesn’t exist. The entire concept is unscientific and makes little sense. I can not prove a negative nor is there anything I can offer that would be satisfactory to a community of people that are invested in the belief of Bigfoot. You might as well be a Scientologist taunting me that I can not prove Xenu exists. You might want to counter that there are not hundreds of people claiming to have seen Xenu, but I would ask you before you bother doing that, can you please give me a specific requirement of what would constitute proof for you that Bigfoot doesn’t exist?
Scientifically, all that we can do is eliminate the negatives, not prove them. You might ask me to explain how all the people who have ever claimed to see Bigfoot are lying, crazy, or mistaken. It isn’t complicated, I absolutely have no problem with the concept that every Bigfoot report ever made is either a fabrication, a misidentification, or some other form of human fallibility. Wishful thinking happens, creating stories for attention and acceptance happens, seeing things that aren’t there doesn’t happen. These are proven and studied facts, Bigfoot is not. I would ask you to explain to me how plausible that every person who claimed to see a Reptoid or Grey alien is lying or crazy. Social constructs happen. These things occur and are the product of human behaviour.
You had an issue with my cites of the Javan and Sumatran Rhino projects. Let’s use the Javan rhino project in Ujung Kulon National Park. Yes, the Indonesian government knew that there were rhinos in the park. What they did not know was exactly how many were there or any idea where they were. That’s why they and the World Wildlife Fund went in December of 2007 with 30 cameras around the 1,206 km² park in areas they thought the animals might come to. They were then able to obtain footages of nine individuals, including a mother and calf from an estimated population of about 50.
I think before we continue that we should have a look at the park we are talking about so you can get a sense of the scale of what 1,206 km² of Indonesian deep jungle looks like. Have a look at this Google satellite image.
The park is that entire peninsula you see there as well as Krakatoa and the surrounding islands. Now let’s flip it over to the previous example I provided with the TBRC’s Operation Forest Vigil. You said “Bigfoot camera traps are set up in areas where maybe only one or two sightings have occurred.” I don’t know what made you pull that random pseudo-factoid out of the air, but it simply is a gross generalization that has no basis in reality. It seems as is often the case, the skeptic is more informed than the Bigfoot enthusiast and indeed, I think you are selling the efforts and commitment of those whom devote themselves to the search for bigfoot far too short.
One of the TBRC’s main research areas is the Big Thicket National Park in East Texas where the TBRC estimates 80% of Texas Bigfoot sightings occur. Here from the TBRC’s Daryl Coyler.
In Texas, 80 percent of the sightings in the Lone Star State came from East Texas, Colyer said, where most of the land is densely forested, receives lots of rain and is sparsely populated. Of those interactions, hunters, who as a practice go out of their way to find remote places, report most of the sightings.
Now compared to 1,206 km² of Indonesian deep jungle, Big Thicket comprises a paltry 97,830 acres or 395.9 km2. The area occupies much of Hardin County, Liberty, Tyler, San Jacinto, and Polk Counties. You can read more about Big Thicket here.
And check out Craig Woolheater’s Cryptomundo blog about efforts in the Big Thicket here.
Now compared to your “one or two sightings”, let’s have a look at what the reality is for recorded alleged sightings is in Operation Forest Vigil’s main research area. The TBRC’s own website gives us a total of 35 sightings for the area. The BFRO gives us a total of another 20. See for yourself.
That’s a a mountain more than your one or two sightings. Looks like you were shooting from the hip on that one, to say the least. Now what we need to do is check out exactly how well the TBRC has outfitted themselves for this comparison. We need to know exactly how many cameras they’ve been employing and for how long. I can tell you exactly that. Here you go.
Additional camera traps will be added to current arrays as TBRC personnel and interested donors contribute funds or equipment for the operation, and/or as grants are acquired. As of May 2007, the TBRC had approximately 20 digital camera traps deployed; by December 2007, roughly 30 digital camera traps were deployed. The long term goal is to have 100 camera traps in the field and fully operational by 2012.
Now, being 2010, I don’t know how close the TBRC has gotten towards their goal of 100 camera traps, but I know in 2007 they had at least 30. So let’s see what we have here. 30 camera traps set up in 1,206 km² of Indonesian deep jungle based on what researchers thought was good rhino habitat from December of 2007 yielding shots of nine rhinos within months versus up to 30 cameras in 395.9 km² of flat Texas woods in the Big Thicket running since 2006 – four years later: bupkis. We can have a look here at all the things the TBRC did get on camera, though…
I think the TBRC is to be commended for their perserverence and commitment to finding Bigfoot, I can only say that their failure to find their quarry after four years of camera traps in an area with so many sightings is disappointing. For me, the reason is simple – there were never any Bigfoots in Texas to begin with. For you, it’s excuses time. It’s that point where you have to unload on me all the excuses about intelligence and infrared this, heightened hearing/vision that. You know, being an intelligent, elusive, and rare ape never stopped Bili apes from being caught on camera traps.
I guess Bigfoot is so amazingly intelligent that not only can it recognize game cams and comprehend their function, intent, and threat to their elusiveness, that they will outright avoid food and water in their habitats to avoid them. Other times, however, they will become flippant about their stealth and risk pain and death at the hands of humans to go scream at them and toss pine cones their way. LOL
But there is actually another very telling failure of appearance on camera by Bigfoot. Here is something very interesting that very few proponents of Bigfoot have any knowledge of. When I say Bigfoot, one of the very first images that is going to pop into the mind of believers is the visage of Patty turning towards us on Patterson’s shaky film. Indeed, Northern California should be considered the spiritual homeland of Bigfoot. That is where the modern myth was born. What you don’t know is that since the mid-nineties there has been a vast array of camera traps set up across the forests of Northern California for conservation research. You see, there is this little magnificent creature called the American marten, a member of the mustelid family including otters, minks, weasels, badgers, and wolverines. In NorCal, the martens have slightly larger cousins called fishers. For some reason, whether it be due to changes in the landscape such as logging, or something else, the fishers were thriving while the martens numbers were dwindling. This was important actual wildlife work and so the array of cameras along with track plates were set up across the northern part of the state to observe the martens and other animals.
But then, in 2008, something totally and completely unexpected happened. No, calm down. It wasn’t Bigfoot. It was a wolverine! A wolverine in the wild of California for the first time in 86 years! Wow! There it was right on video clear as day.
The animal was recorded in Tahoe National Forest, just a hop, skip, and a jump from the Six Rivers National Forest where Patty was filmed. What happened then was everybody went nuts trying to find the animal. And they did. Hair and scat samples were obtained and DNA work was done by ten federal scientists who concluded that the animal, a lone male, had come from a population in Idaho with a 73% confidence level versus less than a 5% chance of being from any other North American population. So what I am on about the wolverine for?
Tell me this, how could a vast camera array in Northern California detect the first scientifically confirmed wolverine there in 86 years, but they missed the breeding population of 8 ft apes skulking around? They can find one big weasel but they can’t find Bigfoot? Wow.
You know, if I was really interested in the reality of bigfoot’s existence, I would be thinking carefully about why it doesn’t turn up in exactly the places that it’s supposed to be. I’d start considering not abusing Occam’s Razor and suspecting that rather than super anti-camera ninja techniques, maybe Bigfoot just isn’t there.
Moving on, Gavin states…
You seem to accept no eyewitness evidence. That is weak science. Many scientists claim that eyewitness evidence isn’t helpful, but, as in the discovery of 125,000 gorillas in 2006-8, eyewitnesses told the scientists where to look. OOPS! How do scientists, who said for years and years there are only 100,00 gorillas, miss 125,000 more!? Bias, perhaps? Unwillingness to accept eyewitness testimony, perhaps?
I’m going to help you be a better Bigfoot proponent by showing you how poor of an analogy that was, in the hopes that you will find one better. Here’s a quote from the NPR story on this…
One of the main reasons the gorillas have been thriving is obvious to anyone who’s ever spent time in the swampy forests that make up what explorers like Richard Ruggiero of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sometimes call the “green abyss.”
“You go into it, and it’s a world unto itself,” said Ruggiero, who wasn’t involved in the current research but who has studied gorillas and elephants in central Africa for 15 years.
“These swamp environments are extremely difficult to get along in,” Ruggiero said. “There’s literally no place to pitch a tent and sleep.”
And since there aren’t any logging operations in the heart of these northern forests, Ruggiero said, roads are all but nonexistent. That, in turn, has led to low levels of poaching or subsistence hunting. Basically, there aren’t many humans here, Ruggiero said.
Let’s see… a vast “green abyss” with no roads, no hunting, and no humans where you can’t even pitch a tent to sleep. Oh yeah, and it’s in the Congo and surrounded by war and strife all around. No, I could never understand how scientists missed that. LOL Not really a fine anaolgy for Bigfoot in America, is it, now? If I find a better analogy you can use, I’ll let you know.
Gavin states…
You state that ”Bigfoot with a mid-tarsal break would hardly be able to walk, let alone the wild sprints we hear about.” What? If I’m not mistaken, chimpanzees exhibit a mid-tarsal break, and they can walk. And if an animal developed an adaptation to fit it’s environment, your argument falls apart. And I’m pretty sure that’s what animals do.
Gavin, I suppose the futility of comparing the foot morphology of a habitual quadruped that would be about approximately 1/8 the weight of a full grown sasquatch that is bipedal kind of went over you head there. Hint – chimps/Bigfoot > locomotor anatomy comparison = fail. But of course, don’t take my word for it. I am no expert on bipedal locomotion and foot anatomy. But before you let a guy, Meldrum, who’s had a case of the Bigfoots since he was a kid, have the final word, maybe I could convince you to hear what Dr. Richard Eisner, D.P.M. has to say about Meldrum’s ideas about mid-tarsal breaks and Bigfoot as well as the way Meldrum has reacted to that criticism (not good). Have a read and listen.
It seems Meldrum in his desire to rationalize features of Bigfoot prints that could easily be accounted for by hoaxing, has overlooked some anatomical basics for what Bigfoot would need to walk.
You claim that thousands of bones of other animals have been discovered across America in all sorts of environments. Really? I live in Arkansas, a state with thousands upon thousands of deer. Deer hunting is huge and ultimately necessary in this state. I’ve talked to hunters. I’ve asked about carcasses. They don’t come across them on a regular basis, if ever. And unlike Borneo or the Congo or other places, there are no ‘native’ groups truly living in the deep forests of the Pacific North West. And be honest, you wouldn’t believe them either. Another thing, forests are not like the concrete jungles of the cities. Bodies just don’t remain.
Oh my goodness. Gavin, could you please take the 30 seconds to google “deer carcass” or “dead bear” or whatever it is you need to do to get rid of that silly idea? If we’re going to debate Bigfoot existence here, you’re going to have to take off the training wheels. Here, I’ll help you. Dead carcass Arkansas.
Here’s a caption… “This carcass was found next to an Entergy power station inside the city limits of Hot Springs, Arkansas, 100 yards from Central Avenue, the main vessel of traffic within the city.” Trust me on this, the Bigfoot believer’s tired old “you never find blah blah blah” that they trot out every three days or so is stinkier than that dead deer. If you need a pile of bears dead in the woods, let me know. I can set you up.
Finally, Gavin states…
Finally, if hair samples are found, or perhaps a bone or piece of skin, there is no template or baseline to compare it to. If it comes back ‘unknown primate’, the ‘it has to be an escaped zoo animal’ will be the most that mainstream science will look at. Which explains why the evidence we do have is commonly ignored. And that purposeful ignorance is the saddest part of this whole discussion.
Gavin, please, please, please, do me a favor and take this interview on Monster Talk with New York University Professor of Anthropology, Prof. Todd Disotell, and pass it around to DWA and any of your Bigfoot believer associates so as not to perpetuate that stinker you just dropped. You can learn all about exactly where we stand with Bigfoot and DNA. Enjoy…
I look forward to your reviewing the material I supplied you with and any response you may have.
Reality Bytes:
Before we go on and on about reality, I’d get the name of the Big Thicket National PRESERVE correct. Big diff there.
Lotta stuff you put up there. I can shoot it down pretty quick, and I won’t need any references.
OK, training wheels off. I won’t even need to talk about the rhino, or the bear, because the rhino and the wolverine and the bear are, precisely, apples and apples. (And apples.)
What happened when somebody got a bad photo of a wolverine? I’ll let you tell us:
“The animal was recorded in Tahoe National Forest, just a hop, skip, and a jump from the Six Rivers National Forest where Patty was filmed. What happened then was everybody went nuts trying to find the animal. And they did. Hair and scat samples were obtained and DNA work was done by ten federal scientists who concluded that the animal, a lone male, had come from a population in Idaho with a 73% confidence level versus less than a 5% chance of being from any other North American population. So what I am on about the wolverine for?”
Boy, I’d like to know, I really would. But I DO. And thanks for the help! “Everybody went nuts.” Wow. EVERYBODY! This is what happens with a BAD photo of a wolverine. A BAD PHOTO. TEN FEDERAL SCIENTISTS! Who believe each other’s statistics! And give each other credit for decent research! Not a bunch of amateurs, the vast bulk of whom spend a significant percentage of their almost-negligible time fighting and discrediting each other, and most of whom aren’t even scientists!
“Tell me this, how could a vast camera array in Northern California detect the first scientifically confirmed wolverine there in 86 years,…”
I’ll tell you how. VAST, key word there, VAST camera array. As in money dough buckage and plenty of same, compared to sas researchers who have to use their own money and unpaid time. SCIENTIFICALLY CONFIRMED, key words there, as in SCIENTIFICALLY CONFIRMED species, as in, when a scientist says here’s one, EVERYBODY GOES NUTS!
“….. but they missed the breeding population of 8 ft apes skulking around? They can find one big weasel but they can’t find Bigfoot? Wow.”
No. EASY, pal! You didn’t see one of those because THERE ARE NONE. You didn’t see one of those because cows and horses are pretty big, and we know what happens to them when you’re on drugs, right? And by the way THERE ARE NONE
[can't talk about the one I saw, it would be my job if I did]
…oh, and, oh, THERE ARE NONE.
We get A GOOD MOVIE of one of those animals of which THERE ARE NONE, and what do we get?
A whole bunch of people who know nothing of what they are talking about who say, THAT’S not a Bigfoot!
(And yes I’m including scientists; because when they looked at P/G their comments made their ignorance clear.)
And a few brave and technically-qualified souls, bucking the weight of scientific ignorance, who have a pretty good idea of what that is…whom the ignorant feel comfortable ignoring, because the whole society, basically, is comfortable enough with its ignorance to agree with the vocally ignorant.
RB, you’ll just need to see a sasquatch one day to understand what I’m talking about I guess.
And if you have me down for a believer, you don’t pay attention. Which is how EVERYBODY GOES NUTS! over a stupid weasel. And the zoological discovery of the last two centuries will be delayed, if it’s real of course, until everyone but the scientists knows already.
One thing a solid perusal of the copious evidence for the sasquatch will tell you, in spades: people don’t pay attention, period.
Actually it’s worse than that: people are very, very determined not to see stuff that they just don’t want to.
(BTW: Eisner’s counter-analysis of Meldrum’s midtarsal break theory: flawed. And you don’t even need to be a scientist to pick them out. Talk about not seeing what you don’t want to.)
Oh, and adding something else: gavinf is absolutely right about sasquatch DNA, and Disotell, the enlightened know well, is just another manifestation of what gavinf is talking about.
Which, of course, those determined to Grasp Every Straw in their effort to keep science from getting off its duff just take at face value, because it agrees with what they want to think. I mean, look how BUSY RB got up there! Did he really think that was doing something? Does he really think a photo of a dead deer says ANYTHING in a discussion about a giant primate? It wows me, folks. Address THE EVIDENCE FOR THE APE. Is this THAT hard to grasp? (As Disotell shows, science doesn’t. Wotta crock.)
[sigh] True Believers – in existence or otherwise – just tend to get in the way, don’t they, Gavin…?
And while we’re on belief, the bigfoot skeptics (and the fringe proponents) really need to read this, because Doyle has them down:
While I might quibble a bit about “all the evidence” (seems to me that that’s called “proof,” one way or the other), he’s got it nailed as it needs to be.
This isn’t about
1) belief;
2) whoring yourself to Institutional Skepticism, harrumph, Todd;
3) calling for people’s tenure when you don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about;
4) attempting to explain something for which science doesn’t even look at the evidence in terms of things for which science automatically accepts the evidence, RB (that was a lot of WORK you went to for nothing up there, I mean like, Gavin and I KNEW ALL THAT, man!);
5) deciding before you even look what you want the evidence to say, rather than looking at the evidence, then deciding what the evidence should say to you (actually, RB, you may qualify under this one too! A twofer, man! Excited for you!);
6) not reading up on your topic before bloviating, because you know that ignorant people will look at the letters behind your name before they ask what you know about the topic.
All the negative takes I’ve seen on the sasquatch can be lumped under one of the above. ALL of them. Sorry, that’s a fact. If you are feeling peeved at this, maybe that is a signal that you need to raise your game and live up to science.
(Hint: THERE IS NO PROOF. We know that! STOP REPEATING IT OVER AND OVER. The only difference between evidence and proof is SCIENCE’S SAY-SO, which can’t happen until science has reviewed the evidence. We’d like you to use some of that time you have been wasting so far perusing the evidence, and telling us what you think of it.)
Oh, and I’ve got to add, because I think I missed it: I agree with gavinf on the gorilla too. (And apples.)
Gavinf says this, just reminding everybody:
“You seem to accept no eyewitness evidence. That is weak science. Many scientists claim that eyewitness evidence isn’t helpful, but, as in the discovery of 125,000 gorillas in 2006-8, eyewitnesses told the scientists where to look. OOPS! How do scientists, who said for years and years there are only 100,00 gorillas, miss 125,000 more!? Bias, perhaps? Unwillingness to accept eyewitness testimony, perhaps?”
I’d say so! Wouldn’t you guys? Sure you would. But RB alleges Green Hell, totally impenetrable to scientists.
Any minute now, I know somebody is going to tell me how someone, anyone, anyone AT ALL could possibly have gotten into that green hell with no trails no roads no place to sleep and, my God, no breathable atmosphere, surrounded by 24-hour total war, TO CONFIRM, TO COUNT FERPETESAKE, ONE HUNDRED, THAT IS ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND GORILLAS IF THAT AREA IS TOTALLY INACCESSIBLE.
And let’s say nobody had gone in there. The place is on maps, isn’t it? Don’t you think they could have just looked at a map and said: Heeeeeeeeyyyyyy, our population counts don’t include THIS HUGE AREA THAT IF WE DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT’S IN THERE, MIGHT NOT A LOT OF GORILLAS BE IN THERE?
Right! (I love it when you folks are paying attention. Good answer!)
So this just illustrates one more time those nagging issues that “bigfoot skeptics” have.
1. They’re NOT skeptics. They’re ready to swallow anything that fits the puzzle they want to see.
2. They can’t figure out that you can’t use any info about scientifically confirmed species to compare to the situation for something science simply refuses to acknowledge no matter what.
3. They continually confuse evidence and proof. Despite copious evidence, which gavinf and I note well, scientists missed 125% of the acknowledged population of gorillas. There wasn’t proof they were there, but there was tons of evidence that, well, we might be missing some gorillas here.
4. And if they don’t buy that, they need to deal with their unflagging faith in the infallibility of science.
5. They get their scales mixed up. This is a restricted geographical area with a dense population of animals. The sasquatch is a much thinner animal on the ground – with a lot more ground to cover. Further camouflage is scientists’ inability to believe the animals could be there. (Total camouflage = no one looking for you.)
If scientists can miss those gorillas, fact is, missing the sasquatch is a piece of cake for them. As they are showing.
Oh, and I forgot to add one other gorilla thing.
Ruggiero’s Green Abyss comments (which RB swallowed whole) are a most classic case of mainstream science covering its ignorant butt.
DWA, I find it entertaining how increasingly incoherent you become when faced with reality, though it is quite difficult to discern any meaningful arguments from your shrill ranting.
1) Bad wolverine photo? LOL. Somebody needs a trip to Lenscrafters. Try completely unambiguous quality video from a distance of about 8 feet in broad daylight against a white background. I don’t know what you were looking at but it wasn’t the great big video I put in front of your face.
2) The game camera and track plates set up all over Northern California have recorded every known mammal of marten size and larger living there. No Bigfoots. Can’t handle it, can you?
3) I’ve been looking at Bigfoot claims for 25 years. Not once have a I ever seen any reliable evidence. Feel free to present some. You keep prattling on about it in your comments and yet you never present any. What’s with that?
4) Eisner’s critique of the basic anatomical failure of Meldrum’s midtarsal break theory is flawed? That’s interesting how you just toss that out there like people or just going to take your word for it. I presented readers the information to review themselves and the best you have in your arsenal is “it’s flawed.” LOL. Why do you guys always do that kind of thing? DWA, not only are the training wheels on, you’re sitting on the bike backwards with the helmet pulled down over your eyes.
5) Same thing with Disotell. You said, “Address THE EVIDENCE FOR THE APE. Is this THAT hard to grasp? (As Disotell shows, science doesn’t. Wotta crock.)” LOL. DWA didn’t even check the Monster Talk interview with Disotell. Todd is devoting his own time and lab’s resources to examining alleged evidence for the ape all the time. DWA didn’t address a single sentence Disotell said. The irony, it burns.
6) You utterly failed to comprehend the futility of comparing a large population of gorillas that flourished in a dense mass of Congo jungle cut off from roads, logging, hunters, human activity in general to Bigfoot. Please feel free to demonstrate the relevance to claims of a massive upright ape living across two of the world’s most industrialized nations from Alaska to Nova Scotia to Arizon to Florida often in human inhabited areas.
7) “(Total camouflage = no one looking for you.)” LOL! Oops, I fell down. *wipes tears from eyes* DWA, you are hilarious. Nobody looking for them… Yeah, tell that to Craig Woolheater and the TBRC breaking their butts looking for them. Tell that to Mr. Money at the BFRO and his multi-millionaire backer, Wally Hersom. Tell that to the people of their 28 expeditions last year and the up to 100 expeditions they have planned for this year.
Nobody looking for them… Who is this guy? Can somebody get Gavin or Photoexpert back in here? ‘Cause I’m bee-boppin’ and scattin’ all over this DWA character.
RB: we’re gonna cut you some slack. Posts like this sort of reveal the young, naive and ready to swallow anything.
I’m just gonna number your paragraphs and respond.
1) Compared to P/G: bad. BAD. You guys who don’t look at evidence are never gonna understand that it’s easy to see what Patty is. Show me a suit like it. Ever, anywhere.
2) Answered that one. You can go back over it and read it. (They throw the bigfoot hairs out. As to track plates: what tracks? I didn’t see any tracks.)
3) What would you call reliable evidence? PLEASE don’t answer that question; just read my posts first so you’ll know why you’re wrong. (CONSTANT failure to understand evidence, proof, or what science – and they themselves = consistently does to evidence that doesn’t comport with what they want to think. Am I right, people?) No evidence reveals your, um, need to read up like this paragraph.
4) No. It’s interesting that Eisner (and lots of other armchair experts like him) does that, not me. Summing him up, real neatly; he has no idea who he’s talking to. He’s a VW mechanic, calling Meldrum, who by comparison has designed top-selling cars for a dozen companies, a LAYMAN of all things. He’s on Meldrum’s ground; and he can’t understand how a compliant gait (NOT characteristic of humans, ya loon) and a midtarsal break AND a human-like foot can combine to be VERY biomechanically efficient for an animal traversing steep backcountry slopes. Shoot, that was EASY for me to grasp. So who’s the expert? I’m taking an architect over a hardhat, and a design guru over a single-species foot fixer, every time. People who don’t know enough to follow common sense? They won’t. (Meldrum has found subfossil evidence of midtarsal break in a hominoid with, wait for it, a humanlike foot. Now watch RB come back and assert he’s smarter than Meldrum. These guys make me laugh.) I’ll leave out the people who report seeing Meldrum’s foot in operation, firsthand – having no idea of Meldrum’s research at all.
5) Disotell devoting his own resources to it? You have got to be kidding me. And you don’t know SKEPTIC Magazine? Institutional skepticism – at least on this topic – walks around with its hands over its eyes and its fingers in its ears. Where’s Disotell’s book? Let me have that and I’ll reduce it to TP. No, it is NOT worth the effort for me to look for it or pay for it. SKEPTIC Magazine. He brings Parakeet Liner on here. SHEESH. Hint to the young fearless and naive: anything with Ben Radford’s name attached to it – “panel,” sheesh, stop killing me here – put down and walk away, slowly. He’s the Scoftical Patron Saint.
6) Shows an absolute inability to comprehend what I wrote. Ok, copy and paste. Just in case.
“I’d say so! Wouldn’t you guys? Sure you would. But RB alleges Green Hell, totally impenetrable to scientists.
“Any minute now, I know somebody is going to tell me how someone, anyone, anyone AT ALL could possibly have gotten into that green hell with no trails no roads no place to sleep and, my God, no breathable atmosphere, surrounded by 24-hour total war, TO CONFIRM, TO COUNT FERPETESAKE, ONE HUNDRED, THAT IS ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND GORILLAS IF THAT AREA IS TOTALLY INACCESSIBLE.
[Hint: cut off from general human activity probably means there are 400,000 gorillas in there. That it? Sheesh, they COUNTED them, the area is so absolutely inaccessible.]
“And let’s say nobody had gone in there. The place is on maps, isn’t it? Don’t you think they could have just looked at a map and said: Heeeeeeeeyyyyyy, our population counts don’t include THIS HUGE AREA THAT IF WE DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT’S IN THERE, MIGHT NOT A LOT OF GORILLAS BE IN THERE?”
[Right. Scientists don't look at maps. Gotcha. Eunice? I think we've isolated the problem!]
“They get their scales mixed up. This (that would be where all these gorillas are, Dr. Fever) is a restricted geographical area with a dense population of animals. The sasquatch is a much thinner animal on the ground – with a lot more ground to cover.”
[Watch. He'll show again that if he read it, he don't get it.]
7) No, YOU are hilarious. Have you seen how often TBRC updates their website? Oh yeah, they are on this all the time. Shoot, I have ten things I spend more time on than they do bigfoot research. Their real jobs have nothing to do with science, but for a few exceptions; and for them, sas ain’t paying no bills. NO ONE LOOKING FOR YOU. Can you read?
OK, folks, did I tell you they repeat themselves, over and over? Watch, he’ll do it again.
But I do have one specific question for RB, who writes in his tear-stained letter:
“3) I’ve been looking at Bigfoot claims for 25 years. Not once have a I ever seen any reliable evidence. Feel free to present some. You keep prattling on about it in your comments and yet you never present any. What’s with that?”
Dunno, RB. The same thing that’s with you, must be. 25 years. Twenty-five years. TWENTY-FIVE.
OK, I have shown, repeatedly, on this site that if you know (Schaller) what I (Bindernagel) know (Swindler), you (Meldrum) th(Mionczynski)ink what I (Goodall) think (Chilcutt)(Krantz).
And you GOT NUTTIN’.
TWENTY-FIVE YEARS!
Either you are not reading it; you are drooling on it; [hmmmm, both...?] or you…gosh, what ELSE are you doing to it?
(Hint: the National – and Skeptical – I(E)nquirers don’t count.)
(Hint 2: 4) above. Eisner presents NO EVIDENCE FOR WHAT HE THINKS other than his opinion (which he clearly states as such) and the old chestnut about how P/G can’t be analyzed. Evidence: kinda, ya know, required in a scientific debate. Find somebody with longer horizons, if you really want to make a point. Other than how quickly you swallow stuff.)
Watch him come back and tell us he’s smarter than all those guys. That’s their favorite one. Then you ask for evidence for THEIR claims and you’re being UNFAIR. Lightweights.
(Watch him come back with how the proponents need to provide the evidence. Which they HAVE. Did I include “boneheaded refusal to understand how this stuff works”?)
Shoot. one more thing. About RB’s number 7).
He clearly doesn’t pay any attention to what’s on the websites. And that’s the return on pitifully part-time work. Almost every BFRO or TBRC outing I’ve read about has encountered stuff that would be pretty hard to attribute to known species – but not so hard to attribute to the animal people are seeing. Then the three days are up, and everyone has to go back to work.
Does it require any kind of mental stretch to ask what a full-time outfit might bring back?
For some people, way too much of one, I guess.
I’m sorry. RB puts up this HYOOOGE BARREL and there are SO MANY FISH IN IT!
“6) You utterly failed to comprehend the futility of comparing a large population of gorillas that flourished in a dense mass of Congo jungle cut off from roads, logging, hunters, human activity in general to Bigfoot. Please feel free to demonstrate the relevance to claims of a massive upright ape living across two of the world’s most industrialized nations from Alaska to Nova Scotia to Arizon to Florida often in human inhabited areas.”
HAHAHAHAHAHA! *I” didn’t fail to do the comprehension, dude; YOU DID! You’re the one who went to all that trouble to point out all this stuff that is totally irrelevant to the discussion, not me! Wasn’t I the one who told you to stick to the ape WE ARE TALKING ABOUT? Follow my advice next time, Hansel! As Dr. DWA points out, in his inimitable fashion, but of course RB ain’t reading…..AGAIN:
“2. They can’t figure out that you can’t use any info about scientifically confirmed species to compare to the situation for something science simply refuses to acknowledge no matter what.
“3. They continually confuse evidence and proof. Despite copious evidence, which gavinf and I note well, scientists missed 125% of the acknowledged population of gorillas. There wasn’t proof they were there, but there was tons of evidence that, well, we might be missing some gorillas here.”
So, class, what RB went to all that length to help me with – and provides even MORE help in the above passage – are the following:
1) He’s right. Comparing sas and gorillas is ridiculous (so why did HE do it??? One can guess, can’t one? Hint: RIDICULOUS.
) Gavinf used that gorilla info in the RIGHT way, to show that….
….2) Scientists can on occasion display in spades the sort of raging incompetence – OK, we’ll just call it the sort of whoops, forgot to look at a map here! – that would make missing a few thousand apes on a continental land mass many times the size of that isolated-and-smaller-by-the-day Congo jungle, well, quite the plausibility, wot?
OK, it occurs to me that Reality Bytes is probably:
1) doing more research into more known species to do precisely the comparison I told him was futile…before HE SAID THE SAME THING, thinking that was HIS point;
2) coming up with more brickbats and assertions that he’s smarter than any scientist I’ve listed (*my* 15-year-old thinks so, too);
3) wasting time he could spend talking about the evidence. If he ever read it.
So in an effort to save him time, I just want to tell him it’s time to move on.
Every Institutional Skeptic I talk to does the same things, over and over. And it’s kind of sad, actually. Here’s RB’s entire point. First his quote, then my translation:
” I’ve been looking at Bigfoot claims for 25 years. Not once have a I ever seen any reliable evidence. Feel free to present some. You keep prattling on about it in your comments and yet you never present any. What’s with that?”
translation:
“I am looking for PROOF. I just don’t know the difference between evidence and proof. I don’t understand that you can’t give me proof because science – having not reviewed the evidence – hasn’t proven it yet, and they are the ones RESPONSIBLE for proof in our society. (sub-translation: no matter the phenomenon, it IS NOT PROVEN UNTIL MAINSTREAM SCIENCE SAYS SO.) I know you say there is no proof, but I don’t know what that means. I know you say that the evidence demands followup to a conclusion, but since I am a true believer in what makes me comfortable, I’m not comfortable with that, so I just let it go in one ear and out the other. So I keep asking you for proof, just like the other guys and gals like me you have tried to educate, and continue to fail to understand that if it were proven – if science had just looked at the evidence and followed it up – we wouldn’t even be talking about this here because the sasquatch wouldn’t be a cryptid.”
Does anybody else wonder, with me, what is behind the extreme lack of CURIOSITY among these folks? What motivates all that spinning of wheels up there? What motivates all the denial that there’s anything for science to look at? What motivates the smugness? What motivates, well, the ignorance of how science works, and the extreme lack of desire to learn about that? WHAT IS BEHIND THE EXTREME, STULTIFYING, AND INSISTENT CHAMPIONING OF THE MUNDANE?
This isn’t about hope, faith, desperation or anything like that. It’s about evidence. Who wouldn’t want to know about this? Who wouldn’t want to see the evidence followed up and ignorance lifted? Who in his right mind would want to DISCOURAGE scientific inquiry by wholeheartedly joining the Donkey Chorus?
Somebody believes in something here all right. Isn’t it kind of sad? Isn’t enlightened, informed, true skepticism more FUN? (Nod.)
I am more than happy to let my posts stand. Because they’ve answered RB many times over. Just read ‘em, pal. And have some coffee somewhere in there, you need a wake-up call, and read a book or two on the topic, ferpetesake.
Wow. Onward. More scoftical fish to fry. But done here.