“Never try to teach a pig to sing. You will just waste your time and annoy the pig.”

1. “In brief, the main problem with Bigfoot, in my view, is historical: the concept of Bigfoot can be seen to rest on shaky historical foundations, and to have evolved mostly under the influence of cases likely to have been hoaxes. The paranormal sasquatch came first:…”

Well, yeah. And so did the gorilla who was said by natives of its territory to kill women by squeezing them. That fell by the wayside as people got to know the real animal. The “historical…concept” is common in the bestiary; classical and medieval texts have all kinds of hair-raisingly wrong presumptions about animals that were known to exist. Why would the sasquatch be different?

2. “Many influential cases are totally unsubstantiated (Roe, Ostman) while a very strong possibility of hoaxing haunts the remainder (Patterson, Bluff Creek, Cripplefoot, Blue Mountain, Jacko, and so on).”

Well, no. ALL cases are totally unsubstantiated, if that means that scientists never followed up to derive substance. That’s been the problem; not history, but scientific followup, which is driven by $$$$, which scientists are notably timid about spending speculatively. Which is, OK, not that hard to understand. As for the “strong possibility of hoaxing,” it’s been pretty much determined - 40 years and not a whisker of, well, substantiation - that P/G is almost inconceivable as a hoax, and that Cripplefoot is just too implausible as one. As to the acutal, debunked hoaxes: they are as little grains of sand on a beach of evidence. It’s just too easy to focus on them, and ignore the real animal that folks are obviously seeing. (And of course I ignore what you see on Youtube. That is to the sasquatch as Dumbo is to the real African elephant.)

3. “we have the great mass of sighting reports. Most of these are simply unverifiable assertions. … And, the eyewitness database is therefore useless, in practical terms,…”

Well, no. Sighting reports set up an eminently testable proposition: an animal corresponding to the one described in these reports can be found here. It’s just that, other than a few ill-equipped (usually) and totally strapped for time (invariably) amateurs, no one is testing. And what is right there, waiting for scientists to use for the test? The eyewitness database. I can say, with impunity, that I know more about the sas than any scientist who does not believe that the evidence is worth following up. Period. That’s not a presumption; that’s a fact, because every scientist who knows close to what I do is a proponent of further study. (Unless, of course, the scientist doesn’t think it’s worthwhile because he knows the sas exists, but doesn’t care.)

4. “Either they’re too rare to hit by cars, or they’re so common that tens of thousands of eyewitnesses have encountered them.”

You forgot the third possibility: the latter, but there are no collisions that have been made public. (And again, there are reports of them in the database. At least one I read was likely fatal.)

5. “But reports can not simply be believed, not without corroborating evidence.”

Which scientists just need to go out there and get. Because the data is there to search. Me, I’d prefer it to mouse lemurs. (The sas would probably be easier to find.) You can’t “believe,” i.e., get confirmation, until you look. That’s how the gorilla the okapi the giant panda the orangutan etc. finally got found. There are tens of thousands of species known to exist about which less is known than we know of the sasquatch. All the dinosaurs, for example. We just need to do what preceding generations were pretty good at, and accept knowledge AS knowledge.

6. “Non-paranormal animal sasquatches, in turn, have less prior plausibility than hoaxes and misinterpretations, …”

I definitely think the animal has MORE prior plausibility than the actual case that someone who doubts their existence of necessity must be making: that everything out there - all the data - can be chalked up to lie hoax and misinterpretation.

All of it bad data? No way that happens. Because never in the history of our species has anything like it happened.

Off for two weeks to New England, starting tomorrow. First week: a solo backpacking trip in Coos County, NH (one report in the BFRO database). I’m walking aware.

Well, let’s review the skeptical case.

Anyone interested in my full review of the case for and against Bigfoot is encouraged to read my extensive two-part article in Skeptic (Vol. 11, #2 and 3).

In brief, the main problem with Bigfoot, in my view, is historical: the concept of Bigfoot can be seen to rest on shaky historical foundations, and to have evolved mostly under the influence of cases likely to have been hoaxes. The paranormal sasquatch came first: a heterogeneous mix of talking, metaphysical, human-looking, stone-covered, or otherwise un-Bigfoot-like creatures representing the universal human tendency to imagine ogres and wild-men.

We can actually watch this mixed tradition evolve into Bigfoot through the historical record. Unfortunately, the star cases which drove this evolution (and which created the culture of expectant attention in which the great mass of sighting reports are embedded, and which got many of us interested in this idea in the first place) are problematic overall. Many influential cases are totally unsubstantiated (Roe, Ostman) while a very strong possibility of hoaxing haunts the remainder (Patterson, Bluff Creek, Cripplefoot, Blue Mountain, Jacko, and so on).

Against that historical shakiness and the compromised star cases, we have the great mass of sighting reports. Most of these are simply unverifiable assertions. We know for a fact that some sightings are misinterpretation errors, and we know for a fact that some are hoaxes. No one knows if any cases remain once these known factors are ruled out — we can only hope. And, the eyewitness database is therefore useless, in practical terms, as evidence: we have no idea which bell-curves or other patterns may capture information about sasquatch, and which are artifacts of wildlife sightings or intentional mischief.

1. No body. (We don’t know that.)

No, we don’t know that in any ultimate sense — ain’t none of us omniscient. (Who knows — perhaps Ray Wallace was telling the truth when he said a boatload of sasquatch carcasses on ice were sold off in Hong Kong? But I doubt it.)

All we do know is that no information ever offered has ever led to a body. (That’s not for lack of false starts. Several outrageous wild-goose chases has ensued as a result of fraudulent claims of either a live-captured sasquatch or carcass.)

This might not be a problem, except for all those sighting reports. People apparently see Bigfoot fairly routinely across a tremendous range, so the eyewitness evidence suggests they’re neither that uncommon nor that elusive. People frequently report seeing Bigfoot over a rifle sight or the hood of their car. If we can see them, we can shoot them; if they dodge across highways, some will be hit by cars; if they live, they will leave carcasses. (Numbers game again. Being smart isn’t bulletproof armor. Even humans get shot by hunters and hit by cars.)

2. No one’s hit one with a car. (We don’t know that.)

No, but there’s no evidence whatever that this has ever happened. Unfortunately, it is a prediction of the “real animal” hypothesis such mechanisms as automotive collisions should lead the to availability of a carcass. The only response I’ve ever heard that does better than outright special pleading is the notion that the animals are so exceedingly rare that their luck may still hold out for many more years. Unfortunately, this badly undermines the eyewitness database. Either they’re too rare to hit by cars, or they’re so common that tens of thousands of eyewitnesses have encountered them .

3. No one’s shot one. (If reports can be believed: wrong several times over.)

But reports can not simply be believed, not without corroborating evidence. “Physical evidence is available” (carcass, DNA-ladened blood spatter) is definitely a prediction of the “shot several times” hypothesis, but so far nothing has come of that.

We simply can’t prove the paranormal (the nice way of putting it); so why try? The sasquatch simply is in another league, period.

Paranormal claims can be easily verified, even if the mechanisms are beyond us. Controlled demonstrations of telepathic communication, shape-shifting, or what-have-you with sasquatches in the lab would do the trick. The problem isn’t that paranormal sasquatches are unverifiable, but that they have less prior plausibility — which is why you reject them. Non-paranormal animal sasquatches, in turn, have less prior plausibility than hoaxes and misinterpretations, for the simple reason that some sasquatch cases have proven to be hoaxes and misinterpretations, while no sasquatch cases have thus far proven to involve actual sasquatches.

That said, evidence is the final arbiter of scientific questions, such as “sasquatches exist” or “sasquatches levitate.” So, we keep looking at those claims, despite the prior plausibility.

1. No body. (We don’t know that.)

2. No one’s hit one with a car. (We don’t know that.)

3. No one’s shot one. (If reports can be believed: wrong several times over.)

4. Hardly anyone sees them. (Many do; and no reasonable person could toss, out of hand, even a twentieth of the ones I’ve read. The random liars whose stuff never even gets before the public? Of course they don’t count; and how would you count them? The animal exists, or not, them or no.)

5. Of all the evidence how much of it was hoaxed? One percent? Not even. Proving the trackways alone to be hoaxed would be to reveal the greatest hoax of all time, virtually inconceivable to pull off. A man in an ape suit, once again, could not be considered a reasonable explanation of most of the reports I’ve read. RSR; and you will know how very, very, very strong that evidence is. Again: you’re not educated on the evidence if you haven’t. To focus only on stuff you can hold in your hands is to commit the Fourth-Grade Science Fair Error.

It comes down to, far as I can see: GIT.

A case has to rest on solid debunking of keystone evidence, such that the remainder is exposed as shaky to extremely unlikely. There is precious little such debunking. Actually, there is none. (And all of it that’s been done has been done by proponents! Which makes sense. They know.) All the crown jewels of sasquatch evidence remain intact, most of them after decades. Every proven hoax has been, putting it mildly, a joke that doesn’t cast a shadow on the toenails of the remainder. Skeptics have had 40 years with the Patterson film alone; and online polls (the latest one taken on AOL yesterday) show a majority of respondents to think the animal is, or might be, real. I frequently hear skeptics discount those - and then use public opinion as part of the “case” against the sasquatch. The polls simply show the poverty of the skeptical argument, and the persistence of the mounting evidence.

Then there’s all that, yes, evidence, waiting to be explained.

And that last sentence is a red herring. (Particularly when skeptics know full well how effectively silly stuff like that plays with the public.) We simply can’t prove the paranormal (the nice way of putting it); so why try? The sasquatch simply is in another league, period.

I’m saying this. And I’m a SKEPTIC.

So I guess you could say mine is the true skeptical argument.

One notes in the ’skeptical’ commentary that, in the absence of a case for their proposition…they simply say “that animal is implausible.”

Of course this is an exaggeration: the skeptical case is, sadly, all too strong.

Be that as it may, we all in fact agree that assessing a priori plausibility is an important part of how one must approach claims. Yes, evidence is the final arbiter, but humans make billions of claims a day — they cannot all be probed in detail. Like skeptics, cryptozoologists themselves systematically assess cryptid claims in terms of a priori plausibility. That is why giant ape stories from the Pacific Northwest are granted greater weight than tales of paranormal Hawaiian sasquatches. In most cases, the evidence is the same in both categories (and the wide range of categories between) — someone said it.

Paranormalists can and do sneer at the close-mindedness of cryptozoologists who reject eyewitness testimony on the grounds that shape-shifting telepathic sasquatches are implausible…

Sightings - and who made them, and when, and how they jibe with other sightings elsewhere - are FACTS.

If you can’t trouble yourself with them, no need for me to trouble myself with what you dimly suspect is an argument, but ain’t.

One notes in the ’skeptical’ commentary that, in the absence of a case for their proposition - for which they are most certainly responsible, if they want to be taken seriously by proponents, or by true skeptics - they simply say “that animal is implausible.” Riiiiiiiiiiiight. The coelacanth and the gorilla too, dude. And don’t get me started on worms feeding away in 600-plus-degree sea water. The General Implausibility Theorem (GIT) isn’t an argument. It isn’t a case. It is a BELIEF. Like Catholicism, Wicca or child sacrifice. In the interest of GITworship, ’skeptics’ simply turn human nature on its head. You never hallucinate, none of you. Unless you saw a sasquatch, all of you. Now none of you are credible. Voila! GIT at work.

If you want to be taken seriously on this board, GIT to work to overcome the blinkers of GIT. RSR! It most certainly is evidence. And it is most certainly your job to explain what these people are seeing and why everyone else needs to just look away, nothing here, citizens, nothing here.

If, that is, you want to be taken seriously, here.

1. My position, stated succinctly, is: Science has not adequately addressed the proposition of the sasquatch’s existence. There is much evidence - as mystery_man points out, more than there is for many things science accepts - that has been met with utter silence, and is most eminently testable and provable. (Some concepts of physics that are commonly accepted are darn near paranormal by comparison, as m_m also points out.)

2. As dogu4 says well: when there is no Bigfoot culture, people have no template into which to pigeonhole their experiences. So they shovel, and shut up. [hotkey] RSR! Especially those from the ’20s through the early ’60s, before Bigfoot was a nationwide byword. They flushed what they saw - because they had no explanation, and thought they were either nuts or likely to be seen that way - until, one day, they saw in the newspaper, or on TV, what they had seen, long before there was TV. [hotkey] RSR! Your sasquatch education is otherwise not ready for prime time. PERIOD.

3. “Given what we know about nature and human nature, the literalist view concerning “sightings” are, most of the time, the least plausible explanation on that sliding scale. This is why “sightings” are not the be all and end all that the believer believes.” Wrong. And wrongheaded. That someone saw what they saw is one of the foundation principles of human social existence. If it weren’t for eyewitnesses there would be no criminal justice system. There’d be almost no knowledge. It is the skeptic’s great blinker that “what we know about human nature” is always conveniently shelved by the skeptic when the sas is under discussion. (”Believers” are not under discussion, and not to be “believed.” This club runs on one thing: evidence. There is way more than an abundance of that for this animal.)

“You have gotten it wrong if you think the skeptic has to explain all the sightings away (especially to your satisfaction). The burden of proof is on you. You believe there are bipedal apes unknown to science, running wild throughout the United States. Go get one.”

Wrong, and wrongheaded. No one has to prove anything. Science has wallowed in its ignorance before, and always will. Science is perfect, until scientists step into the picture. What they do is up to them. That the skeptic has no case - and in the case of the sasquatch, never has - is irrelevant to the animal’s existence, one way or the other. Either it does or it doesn’t, and all the evidence says it does.

Yes, your last paragraph reflects a truly naive view. We can wait until you get over it. If you want to equate those things to a simple critter for which tons of testable evidence exists, your problem, not ours.

In science, you take the circumstantial evidence and propose a hypothesis and you test against this hypothesis. In the case of Bigoot, we have a situation where the hypothesis is that there is a large bipedal ape wandering around and yet this hypothesis has not been concretely proven in a definitive manner. This still does not mean that the hypothesis is invalid, however and we shouldn’t dismiss what is there (sightings) when it has been proven that animals are discovered that were only known through sightings before. A lot of what is widely embraced in science is still basically conjecture supported by loose (where there’s smoke there’s fire) type evidence. Higgs Boson particles, anyone? They have never even been so much as glimpsed.

We should be careful with sightings, certainly, but are we really ready to say they are all bogus? I don’t feel we are. The habitats where these things are said to exist are feasibly capable of harboring these creatures and circumstantial evidence remains fairly strong in my opinion, so I am still open to the idea of Bigfoot. I still think there is enough there to warrant further investigation. I agree that a lot of sightings are probably quite explainable, but some are not and I don’t feel that dismissing them is necessarily a responsible way to handle them. I am open to other explanations, but Bigfoot is still a possibility in my own opinion.

Let’s remember that these are not isolated incidents of “ghosts peering through windows” or “horse men”, but rather a recurring phenomena of many diverse people in far flung places, seeing basically the same thing. Granted, Bigfoot sightings can be kooky too, but there are enough interesting ones to make me wonder. Even if Bigfoot is not real, it makes for an intriguing phenomena.