153 replies to this topic

[3amfright]

I've heard it all. Skeptic & believer alike argue back & forth on what is fact & what is personal perception & what is based on fringe research or actual scientific research.

The hardest thing I have accepting is that either believes their evidence is fact or right. Doesn't all science first start off as fringe or unrealistic or simply impossible until proved otherwise or over a period of time accepted as main stream?

And isn't the main goal of scientific research or evidence to be NOT 100% full proof but to be 90% more towards what we currently know than that dark 10% that we need to explore more of yet? Isn't all research suppose to be progressive over time?

I think the hardest part with Cryptozoology in general is that we all, skeptics & believers alike, build theories & view evidence with eyes based upon theoretical structures or research we already know.

Over the last two decades I have watched avid Bigfoot researchers slowly base their views & research on Bigfoot upon the habits & evolution of hominids like apes & humans & even some theories based upon watching bears; known giant harries of the wilderness. I have also seen skeptics tear them down based upon our known idea of what we believe is possible where evolution is concerned as well as our known explored terrains or environments. I know it is our given nature to build theories & beliefs using what we do know on what is around us but is it possible to build a new theory, to rebuild our perceptions of Bigfoot, real or not, based upon that rare 10% we are still exploring?

What does everyone else think?

If we went backwards, took apart what we think we know & instead went off of what we don't?

And yes, I've seen the documentary "Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide". It was interesting. I enjoyed hearing all of their perspectives, believers & skeptics a like though agreeably there was more belief than skepticism. I'm ok with that. An open mind, no matter how little it is open, is still better than a closed one.


I can't tell you where you would begin, I think for every person it would be different. I'm an artist by trade, one of my skills honed over time is how things work anatomically. Muscle laid over bone structure & how they interact with everything else that in the end creates the person or animal that you see. One of my favorite lessons I was taught as an artist was being given a picture upside down & not being allowed to turn it while drawing it. This is to teach your mind to not create what you 'think' you see but to simply draw what it is you do see. The less you tried to imagine the whole picture turned the right way & the more you focused on the small 2" x 2" area you had in front of you the better you came to realize how every little line structure had to be treated as if it was the whole picture. One piece of the visible version of the rest of the imagined.

If I were to restart with Bigfoot I would go back to the collection of eye witness reports. The best forensic artists do not do drawings based upon known facial or body structures. Instead they base it off of shapes. You don't ask if the creatures nose was shaped like a bear. You ask if it was square, circular, rectangle or even just a line (hey, they could have lost their nose ). That's how I would treat the reports. With those four shapes alone you could build entirely knew shapes.

Of course the hard part is being able to go back to eye witness reports, especially if the witness has passed. Lol, never said it would be easy or perfect but it's something I'd like to try.

I know there is the holy grail of either evidence or best hoax ever out there with the Patterson film. Alas, because it is so middle road I would, for the sake of rebuilding the theory, remove it all together as anything but two men on horses with a camera that saw & filmed something. I'm not saying it was a real Bigfoot & I'm not saying it wasn't. I'm just listing the known visible facts. This would be where it has to stand for now for me or my judgement, my perception of 'what if' will already be clouded.

So,

after my long ramble, any takers? Or am I alone on this?

-Jessica

[orangepeaceful79]

3amfright, on 18 February 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

I've heard it all. Skeptic & believer alike argue back & forth on what is fact & what is personal perception & what is based on fringe research or actual scientific research.

The hardest thing I have accepting is that either believes their evidence is fact or right. Doesn't all science first start off as fringe or unrealistic or simply impossible until proved otherwise or over a period of time accepted as main stream?

And isn't the main goal of scientific research or evidence to be NOT 100% full proof but to be 90% more towards what we currently know than that dark 10% that we need to explore more of yet? Isn't all research suppose to be progressive over time?

I think the hardest part with Cryptozoology in general is that we all, skeptics & believers alike, build theories & view evidence with eyes based upon theoretical structures or research we already know.

Over the last two decades I have watched avid Bigfoot researchers slowly base their views & research on Bigfoot upon the habits & evolution of hominids like apes & humans & even some theories based upon watching bears; known giant harries of the wilderness. I have also seen skeptics tear them down based upon our known idea of what we believe is possible where evolution is concerned as well as our known explored terrains or environments. I know it is our given nature to build theories & beliefs using what we do know on what is around us but is it possible to build a new theory, to rebuild our perceptions of Bigfoot, real or not, based upon that rare 10% we are still exploring?

What does everyone else think?

If we went backwards, took apart what we think we know & instead went off of what we don't?

And yes, I've seen the documentary "Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide". It was interesting. I enjoyed hearing all of their perspectives, believers & skeptics a like though agreeably there was more belief than skepticism. I'm ok with that. An open mind, no matter how little it is open, is still better than a closed one.


I can't tell you where you would begin, I think for every person it would be different. I'm an artist by trade, one of my skills honed over time is how things work anatomically. Muscle laid over bone structure & how they interact with everything else that in the end creates the person or animal that you see. One of my favorite lessons I was taught as an artist was being given a picture upside down & not being allowed to turn it while drawing it. This is to teach your mind to not create what you 'think' you see but to simply draw what it is you do see. The less you tried to imagine the whole picture turned the right way & the more you focused on the small 2" x 2" area you had in front of you the better you came to realize how every little line structure had to be treated as if it was the whole picture. One piece of the visible version of the rest of the imagined.

If I were to restart with Bigfoot I would go back to the collection of eye witness reports. The best forensic artists do not do drawings based upon known facial or body structures. Instead they base it off of shapes. You don't ask if the creatures nose was shaped like a bear. You ask if it was square, circular, rectangle or even just a line (hey, they could have lost their nose ). That's how I would treat the reports. With those four shapes alone you could build entirely knew shapes.

Of course the hard part is being able to go back to eye witness reports, especially if the witness has passed. Lol, never said it would be easy or perfect but it's something I'd like to try.

I know there is the holy grail of either evidence or best hoax ever out there with the Patterson film. Alas, because it is so middle road I would, for the sake of rebuilding the theory, remove it all together as anything but two men on horses with a camera that saw & filmed something. I'm not saying it was a real Bigfoot & I'm not saying it wasn't. I'm just listing the known visible facts. This would be where it has to stand for now for me or my judgement, my perception of 'what if' will already be clouded.

So,

after my long ramble, any takers? Or am I alone on this?

-Jessica

I might take a stab at addressing some of your ideas/ questions when I have more time but for right now I am going to suggest that you read some of the previous threads on this forum.  Many of the things you say are addressed within. Most skeptics don't believe in bf because there is no irrefutable evidence for it.  Because of things like confirmation bias, pareidolia, and just the overall unreliable nature of eyewitness testimony it is not considered to be hard evidence for Bigfoot.  

I also have questions about our asking to form theories on the 10 percent of stuff we don't know about Bigfoot. We know zero percent about Bigfoot.  His existence is unproven.

[Night Walker]

The forensic artist approach has been attempted – I’d be interested in your assessment:

David Paulides widely promotes himself as a former police investigator and noted Bigfoot researcher who wrote a book entitled Hoopa Project: Bigfoot Encounters in California.

It is further well-known that Paulides had several of the eyewitnesses who appear in his books sign affidavits testifying to what they have seen, as he feels truth is important. Paulides, furthermore, utilized a forensic sketch artist (Harvey Pratt) to add illustrations to his books. This individual, allegedly, according to Paulides, worked with the FBI. Some critical analyses have pointed out that most of the “Bigfoot” drawings appear to be so human-like because of the significant influence of the police artist, not because of the nature of the creatures being described. A human forensic sketch artist mostly creates human-appearing art.

http://www.cryptomun...ews/bfchannels/

Some Bigfoot sketches by Pratt:




The Hoopa Project: Bigfoot Encounters in California - http://www.amazon.co...yptozoologi-20/

There are people here on this forum who claim various sightings of BF-like beings. Perhaps some may be interested to work with you in order to flesh out their encounters.

[3amfright]

Night Walker, on 19 February 2012 - 12:10 AM, said:

The forensic artist approach has been attempted – I’d be interested in your assessment:

David Paulides widely promotes himself as a former police investigator and noted Bigfoot researcher who wrote a book entitled Hoopa Project: Bigfoot Encounters in California.

It is further well-known that Paulides had several of the eyewitnesses who appear in his books sign affidavits testifying to what they have seen, as he feels truth is important. Paulides, furthermore, utilized a forensic sketch artist (Harvey Pratt) to add illustrations to his books. This individual, allegedly, according to Paulides, worked with the FBI. Some critical analyses have pointed out that most of the “Bigfoot” drawings appear to be so human-like because of the significant influence of the police artist, not because of the nature of the creatures being described. A human forensic sketch artist mostly creates human-appearing art.

http://www.cryptomun...ews/bfchannels/

Some Bigfoot sketches by Pratt:




The Hoopa Project: Bigfoot Encounters in California - http://www.amazon.co...yptozoologi-20/

There are people here on this forum who claim various sightings of BF-like beings. Perhaps some may be interested to work with you in order to flesh out their encounters.

That is the problem with working with some forensic artist or artists in general who are looking at what they are drawing with already given inclinations or perceptions.

I think the nice part (though it is a b**** personally at times) of doing Graphic Design work in my day job opposed to the freelance work I do is that 75% of my customers will come to me & say "I need a t-shirt. It has to represent "A" (lets say equality as an example) and be something "B" (say multiple generations) would buy". That is so passively vague & I can't tell you the number of times my firs set of designs are just "not what they had in mind" but since they had nothing in mind to begin with I can't disagree. What I can do is work with what they did like & move forward.

I'd like to approach the Bigfoot Theory the same way including in my artwork. Not in asking questions like "did it swing its arm like a chimp or a human" but in asking questions like "when it was swinging its arm, was it a smooth motion? Did it swing further back than it did front? Did it move any other direction like slightly up or down?" <- That is how you construct say a rotating joint, by the functionality & motion described.

I know, realistically 90% of all sightings are brief & the imagination interferes greatly with how we interpret or remember things but if eye witness accounts & legends is where the starting point begins then that's all I have for now.

[3amfright]

orangepeaceful79, on 19 February 2012 - 12:02 AM, said:

I might take a stab at addressing some of your ideas/ questions when I have more time but for right now I am going to suggest that you read some of the previous threads on this forum.  Many of the things you say are addressed within. Most skeptics don't believe in bf because there is no irrefutable evidence for it.  Because of things like confirmation bias, pareidolia, and just the overall unreliable nature of eyewitness testimony it is not considered to be hard evidence for Bigfoot.  

I also have questions about our asking to form theories on the 10 percent of stuff we don't know about Bigfoot. We know zero percent about Bigfoot.  His existence is unproven.

But what we do know is what people say or what legends have been passed down through cultures. I'm not saying "he looked like a man but with thick fur" what I'm looking for is "stood on two feet" <- that suggest bipedal. Or say "It had a fish in its mouth" < - that's a possible eating habit. Not relating it to the eating habits of other animals, just listing that it eats fish. I especially would like to avoid gender unless it is absolutely obvious.

Like I mentioned in a previous reply to someone else. We really only have legends & eye witness accounts & we know how to perceive them. If I removed skepticism & don't look for validation but just list facts like bipedal & fish eater, then I at least have a list that is unbiased. No relating it to humans or other animals, just giving it a category of its own for now.

[3amfright]

I think, perhaps I need to explain the starting point of the mind set I want to work with. (Granted I may be working alone here)

Every summer I go to the Pittsburgh zoo & at some point while I am there I make my way to the aquarium where you can walk under the water & see the fish including a large shark, swimming by & over you. Every time I see the sharks I think how magnificent they are, how deadly they are & how terrified I still am of being this close to them with nothing more than glass & water between us.

And I wonder.

What did people first think when they encountered sharks? When they got in their boats & decided to paddle out further than near the shore lines where they regularly fished?

Did they already know that further out the water would be deeper & hypothesize that larger fish then must exist?

Or did they paddle quickly back to shore & tell their fellow people about the large fish with sharp teeth that passed by or bumped the boat? How long till they saw it again, and again & again until enough had seen it to give it a name & think of it as simply another creature with a purpose they could yet not explain.

That is where I want to start. To be the people who have only heard of the tales, who have talked to others who have seen & who are slowly building what we hear into an image we may one day or may never see of in real life.

[orangepeaceful79]

3amfright, on 19 February 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:

I think, perhaps I need to explain the starting point of the mind set I want to work with. (Granted I may be working alone here)

Every summer I go to the Pittsburgh zoo & at some point while I am there I make my way to the aquarium where you can walk under the water & see the fish including a large shark, swimming by & over you. Every time I see the sharks I think how magnificent they are, how deadly they are & how terrified I still am of being this close to them with nothing more than glass & water between us.

And I wonder.

What did people first think when they encountered sharks? When they got in their boats & decided to paddle out further than near the shore lines where they regularly fished?

Did they already know that further out the water would be deeper & hypothesize that larger fish then must exist?

Or did they paddle quickly back to shore & tell their fellow people about the large fish with sharp teeth that passed by or bumped the boat? How long till they saw it again, and again & again until enough had seen it to give it a name & think of it as simply another creature with a purpose they could yet not explain.

That is where I want to start. To be the people who have only heard of the tales, who have talked to others who have seen & who are slowly building what we hear into an image we may one day or may never see of in real life.

That is all very mellifluous and beautiful, but what exactly would be the point of it?  What difference would it make, what value would be added to view Bigfoot through that sort of filter?  It still wouldn't prove anything.  I am interested in what you are saying and I do not want my questioning to seem like an attack.  It's not.  I just do not see where your approach adds anything to the discussion.  Distill your approach down to a couple of sentences so its clearer what you are proposing.  Help me understand.

[3amfright]

orangepeaceful79, on 19 February 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

That is all very mellifluous and beautiful, but what exactly would be the point of it?  What difference would it make, what value would be added to view Bigfoot through that sort of filter?  It still wouldn't prove anything.  I am interested in what you are saying and I do not want my questioning to seem like an attack.  It's not.  I just do not see where your approach adds anything to the discussion.  Distill your approach down to a couple of sentences so its clearer what you are proposing.  Help me understand.

I guess, I'm looking for an approach that would get skeptics & believers alike to work together & not by attacking one another. To get people to commonly & willingly agree with open minds that there is something to be explored of the legends. Of course only if people want to. For me, it would filter out all the other opinions & base a theory only on what I have knowledge of basing it on. That would be anatomy & how it functions. It is likely there would be no conclusion & anyone looking for one would be looking to close a door permanently. If the sightings or footprint castings suddenly stopped, then I would close the door, until that happens though I would like to see the approach to Bigfoot be less biased on both parts & mutually agreeable to what can be pointed at.

*Shrugs* I can't promise a productive outcome more than just listing & collecting data. But how much of science has been just that until that data has been found to be worth something or to add to something, even on just a level of understanding?

That might be more sentences than you like.

[Bavarian Raven]

an interesting take on looking at the whole sasquatch issue...as a sasquatch believer, i will be watching this thread.

Quote

s further well-known that Paulides had several of the eyewitnesses who appear in his books sign affidavits testifying to what they have seen, as he feels truth is important. Paulides, furthermore, utilized a forensic sketch artist (Harvey Pratt) to add illustrations to his books. This individual, allegedly, according to Paulides, worked with the FBI. Some critical analyses have pointed out that most of the “Bigfoot” drawings appear to be so human-like because of the significant influence of the police artist, not because of the nature of the creatures being described. A human forensic sketch artist mostly creates human-appearing art.

Though to be fair, imho, i believe that sasquatch are just very primitive humans (but modern humans) who have a simple genetic disorder that gives them their distinctive "hairy" appearance. Which would explain why DNA evidence always comes back as human, etc, and why bones are "never" found. But I digress... Half the fun of this forum is having respectful arguments XD

~

On the risk of sidetracking this convo, orangepeaceful79, is that profile pic actually a picture of yourself? (eitherway, no disrespect ment, but i find the picture creepy. it reminds me of the bully from my highschool who made many of my friends lives miserable :/).

Edited by Bavarian Raven, 19 February 2012 - 02:38 AM.

[orangepeaceful79]

Bavarian Raven, on 19 February 2012 - 02:37 AM, said:

an interesting take on looking at the whole sasquatch issue...as a sasquatch believer, i will be watching this thread.




Though to be fair, imho, i believe that sasquatch are just very primitive humans (but modern humans) who have a simple genetic disorder that gives them their distinctive "hairy" appearance. Which would explain why DNA evidence always comes back as human, etc, and why bones are "never" found. But I digress... Half the fun of this forum is having respectful arguments XD

~

On the risk of sidetracking this convo, orangepeaceful79, is that profile pic actually a picture of yourself? (eitherway, no disrespect ment, but i find the picture creepy. it reminds me of the bully from my highschool who made many of my friends lives miserable :/).

Sorry that it brings you bad memories, but sadly the pic is of my ugly mug.  No disrespect taken.  Maybe I need a different pic.  Lol. I am about as far from a bully as you can get.  More of a zen Buddhist actually.  I'll see what I can do.......

[hucksterfoot]

Bavarian Raven, on 19 February 2012 - 02:37 AM, said:

Though to be fair, imho, i believe that sasquatch are just very primitive humans (but modern humans) who have a simple genetic disorder that gives them their distinctive "hairy" appearance. Which would explain why DNA evidence always comes back as human, etc, and why bones are "never" found. But I digress.

Can you give examples of "DNA always coming back as human?"

Better yet, a source that clearly demonstrates that these so-called DNA samples (that always come back as human; according to you) came from a Bigfoot.

Bavarian Raven, on 19 February 2012 - 02:37 AM, said:

On the risk of sidetracking this convo, orangepeaceful79, is that profile pic actually a picture of yourself? (eitherway, no disrespect ment, but i find the picture creepy. it reminds me of the bully from my highschool who made many of my friends lives miserable :/).

Interesting quote below.

Quote

Half the fun of this forum is having respectful arguments

Edited by hucksterfoot, 19 February 2012 - 04:59 AM.

[hucksterfoot]

3amfright, on 19 February 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

(Snip)
For me, it would filter out all the other opinions & base a theory only on what I have knowledge of basing it on.

You mean like basing it on demonstrable facts.

[3amfright]

hucksterfoot, on 19 February 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

You mean like basing it on demonstrable facts.

Exactly. Guess you simplified it for me, I do tend to go on when I can't find the basic words. Thank you.

[orangepeaceful79]

hucksterfoot, on 19 February 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

You mean like basing it on demonstrable facts.

Too bad there aren't any.

[hucksterfoot]

orangepeaceful79, on 19 February 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

Too bad there aren't any.

I've seen a few disturbed mushrooms.