Bigfoot: real or myth? -- Why? -- Why not?

[Swede]

And to clarify again, Swede.

I am not trying in some convoluted way to say that somehow bigfoot exists but there just hasn’t been any good mainstream studies to prove it for us skeptics, and non-believers, yet.

Rather, I contend that mainstream science has not conducted a “grassroots, in-depth, mainstream, proper study of a NA bigfoot” not because they lack funding, not because they are afraid of some stigma but because mainstream science does not think this bigfoot creature roams North America. Period. Even with all the ALLEGED evidence put out there. Even alleged evidence and theories put forth by some scientists.

What do I mean by “grassroots”? A study that begins at its own beginning. At its very own fundamental level of this creature’s existence. Not something that stands on the shoulders of the footers! Or, that simply involves the testing of bigfoot evidence submissions. (This is something that has been going on visually, long before DNA testing, every time someone says “This is bigfoot scat” and the other party says “Are you an idiot? It’s obvious bear scat and see the bear tracks around it?”)

Do we need DNA and other sophisticated evidence testing methods? Of course. But a mainstream science study collecting their own definition of “evidence” would prove much more of an “in-depth and proper” study, imo.

But again, I don't think mainstream science has an interest in conducting a study of the NA bigfoot creature because they do not think it is out there.

Am (again) limited on time but will attempt to address the specifics of your contribution #398 in detail at a later date should you desire. However, a couple of points in regards to your contributions #398/399:

• The list was indeed compiled and presented over two years ago. And was compiled well before the release of the "Ketchum Report". Therefore any associations that you would attempt to make are erroneous.
  
• The link to the Meldrum paper was provided to you in my contribution #396.
  

As to your current contribution, your clarification is appreciated. However, it is also unrealistic on a number of levels:

1. You have apparently invented your own definition for the acceptability of technical reports. My apologies, but that is not consistent with research practices. Can elaborate on this point if desired.
   
2. As previously discussed, and acknowledged by yourself, there is, to date, no credible documentation for any form of large, unknown, bipedal, North American primate. Rather dislike being redundant, but why would any agency or organization be inclined to invest vast resources in pursuit of a currently mythological entity without at least some form of viable data?
   
3. Your personal "priority" (and apparently the "priority" of a minor percentage of the North American populace) admittedly does not fall within the highest priorities of current research, for the obvious and previously stated reasons. To put it more bluntly, the voluminous and varied studies currently (and formerly) in process are not particularly concerned with verifying what is currently folklore. Nor should they be. The only exception here would be certain ethnographic studies.
   
4. As you are aware, there are, however, innumerable field studies that, when compiled, provide significant insights into the geological, climatological, glacial, environmental, anthropological, archaeological, etc., understandings of the North American continent. To date, it would appear that none of these studies have resulted in data that would support the presence of "Bigfoot". This aspect should not be taken lightly.
   

As evidenced by your own contributions, you have apparently formulated your own concept of how credible research should be conducted and what the priorities of said research should be. However, it would be personally postulated that you have not really put this "concept" into hard terms.

For your own benefit and the benefit of the other readers, you may consider constructing and presenting at least an outline of the research design that you are envisioning, including budget. Please include detailed specifics. This research design could then be evaluated and critiqued. You may find this process to be quite informative.

Edit: Format.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Swede

[Q-C]

As to your current contribution, your clarification is appreciated. However, it is also unrealistic on a number of levels:

1. You have apparently invented your own definition for the acceptability of technical reports. My apologies, but that is not consistent with research practices. Can elaborate on this point if desired.
   

Elaborate on each reference you listed and explain how each fits into your own words quoted here:

"And, once again, one would appear to be observing a conundrum within the "Bigfoot community". A legitimate report is published. It does not support the mythology. Therefore the various fields of scientific inquiry are at fault. Yet there is the ongoing plea for "serious scientific research". Amusing."

bolding is mine

Your quote here: "As to your tabulation, we have six legitimate papers and one quite pointed, insightful, and acknowledged April Fool's "paper"."

bolding mine

You accuse me of using fringe sources and yet you use M.G. Lackey and Meldrum authored papers? Where both acknowledge belief in a NA bigfoot. If, and I quote you:

1. As you are aware, there are, however, innumerable field studies that, when compiled, provide significant insights into the geological, climatological, glacial, environmental, anthropological, archaeological, etc., understandings of the North American continent. To date, it would appear that none of these studies have resulted in data that would support the presence of "Bigfoot". This aspect should not be taken lightly.
   

then why did you include three of them on a list you are claiming are "acceptible technical reports"? Acceptable to whom and for what? The naming of bigfoot tracks? Again I quote you

"And, once again, one would appear to be observing a conundrum within the "Bigfoot community". A legitimate report is published. It does not support the mythology. Therefore the various fields of scientific inquiry are at fault. Yet there is the ongoing plea for "serious scientific research". Amusing."

bolding mine

Do you think that just because a paper is published in a Journal the information therein is accepted by the mainstream scientific community?

You accuse me here: "apparently invented your own definition for the acceptability of technical reports. My apologies, but that is not consistent with research practices"

Do all acceptable or "legitimate" reports contain a belief in bigfoot and use bigfoot tracks and bigfoot science and scientists to hedge their paper?

Apparently, you decide what "fringe" and who "on the fringe" is acceptable for your purposes.

You include a Chinese study that ends "All these hair analyses suggest that a kind of unknown primate, called wildman or Yeren (in Chinese) may exist in China." How does this again fit your definition of your list offerings? I quote you again here:

"And, once again, one would appear to be observing a conundrum within the "Bigfoot community". A legitimate report is published. It does not support the mythology. Therefore the various fields of scientific inquiry are at fault. Yet there is the ongoing plea for "serious scientific research". Amusing."

bolding mine

Once again, I ask you to address my concerns over each reference you listed. Including every concern in this post.

Coltman, D. and C. Davis

2006 Molecular Cryptozoology Meets the Sasquatch. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21: 60–61.

Kim, J. Y., K. S. Kim., M. G. Lockley, and N. Matthews

2008 Hominid Ichnotaxonomy: An Exploration of a Neglected Discipline. Ichnos 15: 126–139.

Lockley, M., G. Roberts, and J. Y. Kim

2008 In the Footprints of Our Ancestors: An Overview of the Hominid Track Record. Ichnos 15: 106–125.

Lozier, J. D., P. Aniello, and M. J. Hickerson

2009 Predicting the Distribution of Sasquatch in Western North America: Anything Goes with Ecological Niche Modelling. Journal of Biogeography 36: 1623–1627.

Meldrum, Jeffrey D.

2007 Ichnotaxonomy of Giant Hominoid Tracks in North America. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science 42:225-231

Milinkovitch, M C., A. Caccone, and G. Amato

2004 Molecular Phylogenetic Analyses Indicate Extensive Morphological Convergence Between the ''yeti'' and Primates. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31: 1–3.

Wu, X., X. Zeng, and H. Yao

1993 Analysis of a Single Strand of Hair by PIXE, IXX and Synchrotron Radiation. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B75: 567–57

Edited June 19, 2014 by QuiteContrary

[Q-C]

Am (again) limited on time but will attempt to address the specifics of your contribution #398 in detail at a later date should you desire. However, a couple of points in regards to your contributions #398/399:

• The list was indeed compiled and presented over two years ago. And was compiled well before the release of the "Ketchum Report". Therefore any associations that you would attempt to make are erroneous.
  
• The link to the Meldrum paper was provided to you in my contribution #396.
  

Edit: Format.

I never said that you copied from Ketchum. When I searched those on your list her paper came up. There they were, all in a row on her paper. I said your list was obviously a list from another list. I posted both her paper and the UM links so anyone could make their own conclusions as to timing. I have no idea where you got your list from. . Any erroneous association, between you and Ketchum, you or anyone else makes, was not my intention, and is not my problem.

I found the Meldrum paper easily and I noted that in a subsequent post.

Edited June 19, 2014 by QuiteContrary

[Q-C]

1. 
   
2. Your personal "priority" (and apparently the "priority" of a minor percentage of the North American populace) admittedly does not fall within the highest priorities of current research, for the obvious and previously stated reasons. To put it more bluntly, the voluminous and varied studies currently (and formerly) in process are not particularly concerned with verifying what is currently folklore. Nor should they be. The only exception here would be certain ethnographic studies.
   

Edit: Format.

--I never said anywhere that a bigfoot study should be anyone's priority. And it certainly isn't mine. Please post where I did say this.

--A bigfoot study it is not a priority because it is "folklore"? Do you mean it is not a priority because science does not believe a bigfoot creature is roaming NA? I've said that. Repeatedly. Repeatedly.

Edited June 19, 2014 by QuiteContrary

[Q-C]

oops

Edited June 19, 2014 by QuiteContrary

[Q-C]

As to your tabulation, we have six legitimate papers and one quite pointed, insightful, and acknowledged April Fool's "paper".

.

Let's cut to the chase, Swede. I have read every reference on your list and know Pro-bigfoot science articles when I read them.

This is what I think has happened:

It is obvious you copypasta’d a list some time ago from somewhere.

It is obvious 4 out of 7 of the references are Pro-bigfoot and whoever posted this list never knew the April Fool’s paper was a joke. That makes 5 out of 7 and never removed it off their list before it was copied around. Sorry, but your “one quite pointed, insightful, and acknowledged April Fool's "paper", after I pointed out it was an April Fool’s joke, doesn’t sit well with me.

You’ve never read all the references (you have to pay for a couple) and you mistakenly posted them on here, as bigfoot mythbusters.

The Coltman and Lozier articles were selected for the Pro-bigfoot list I would gather because of their titles.

This is painfully obvious. Anyone else see this? Anyone else ever read through each one on his list? Some are kind of long but you have to read them thoroughly.

Any uncertainty start with Ichnotaxonomy of Giant Hominoid Tracks in North America. D. Jeffrey Meldrum

http://www.cryptomun...rth_america.pdf

*Ketchum copied the same list from somewhere but left off Meldrum as she left off any reference to Meldrum in her entire Reference List , from what I can tell. Odd, when discussing science and bigfoot. But bigfoot makes angry bedfellows.

I have lots of bigfoot books both Pro and skeptical. I wonder if it isn't a reference list someone copied and posted straight out of a book. They are all about the same time 2004-2009. With one from 1993.

Edited June 19, 2014 by QuiteContrary

[Q-C]

1. As you are aware, there are, however, innumerable field studies that, when compiled, provide significant insights into the geological, climatological, glacial, environmental, anthropological, archaeological, etc., understandings of the North American continent. To date, it would appear that none of these studies have resulted in data that would support the presence of "Bigfoot". This aspect should not be taken lightly.
   

Are you saying that all the scientific studies that have gone on all over our planet, that have led to theories and discoveries and subsequently scientific knowledge, have an influence on the overall question of a NA bigfoot’s existence?

How is this not a given? Because mainstream science does not think bigfoot is roaming NA (which I have stated many times, is what I believe) I assume they have reasoning for this.

And their reasoning (based on this knowledge from various disciplines) is why mainstream science has not conducted a grassroots, in depth, proper Study of NA Bigfoot.

Edited June 19, 2014 by QuiteContrary

[Q-C]

1. As you are aware, there are, however, innumerable field studies that, when compiled, provide significant insights into the geological, climatological, glacial, environmental, anthropological, archaeological, etc., understandings of the North American continent. To date, it would appear that none of these studies have resulted in data that would support the presence of "Bigfoot". This aspect should not be taken lightly.
   

As evidenced by your own contributions, you have apparently formulated your own concept of how credible research should be conducted and what the priorities of said research should be. However, it would be personally postulated that you have not really put this "concept" into hard terms.

For your own benefit and the benefit of the other readers, you may consider constructing and presenting at least an outline of the research design that you are envisioning, including budget. Please include detailed specifics. This research design could then be evaluated and critiqued. You may find this process to be quite informative.

Edit: Format.

Why do I need to submit a study outline and budget to prove my point that there has been no mainstream NA BIGFOOT studies?

It is not necessary. I made two stipulations only. No bigfoot scientist studies and no “send us your bigfoot evidence and we will test it”. Which is essentially what the Ecological Niche Modelling study did.

I want a mainstream study that defines and collects its own evidence or information and it knows and everyone else knows it is a NA Bigfoot study.. This has not been done for a NA bigfoot.

that I am aware of. You did not provide any examples on your list of 7 of any NA Bigfoot studies that fit these criteria.

Fossil digs and other “innumerable field studies” in N. America, that haven’t turned up any bigfoot possibilities, etc., are not defined/labeled as “NA Bigfoot studies”. However much the knowledge gained may weigh-in on science's reasoning when it it comes to their position on the existence of a Bigfoot running around NA. So quit going there.

Edited June 19, 2014 by QuiteContrary

[regeneratia]

With all due respect, it should be kept in mind that "current science", particularly the anthropological/bioanthropological/archaeological fields of study are hardly involved in what those of a more delusional bent would be inclined to consider a "suppression of data". The reality is, of course, quite the contrary. This latter aspect is well evidenced in both the qualified literature and the ongoing studies/advancing technological applications that are providing us with ever more detailed understandings of the hominid/hominin lineage.

.

Sorry, I don 't believe the ongoing studies/advancing technological applications with their ever more detailed undersranding of the honinid/hominin lineage issuances of what they merely want us to know.

I have little trust that the truth is anywhere near what they are releasing into public knowledge.

Science is NOT infallible. That is WHY it is science.

[regeneratia]

Whoops, do you think this will make anyone forge a new neuropathway? I have found that many do not want new neuropathways.

http://www.scienceda...40619142204.htm

Skulls with mix of Neandertal and primitive traits illuminate human evolution

Date:

June 19, 2014

Source:

American Association for the Advancement of Science

Summary:

Researchers have analyzed the largest collection of ancient fossil hominin species ever recovered from a single excavation site, shedding light on the origin and evolution of Neandertals.

----------

The possibility exists that the homo tree's dead branches may not be all that dead.

We add to our knowledge base every three to five years. I think that one can say that the possiblity exists that some of the homo branches did not die out. Just admit the possibility. I am not talking probabilities here, just possibilities.

Edited June 20, 2014 by regeneratia

[Sakari]

I have little trust that the truth is anywhere near what they are releasing into public knowledge.

Who are " they " ?

[regeneratia]

Who are " they " ?

Yes, that is the question, isn't it? Who are they? I need names. And personal drones to spy on THEM.

[Swede]

Elaborate on each reference you listed and explain how each fits into your own words quoted here:

"And, once again, one would appear to be observing a conundrum within the "Bigfoot community". A legitimate report is published. It does not support the mythology. Therefore the various fields of scientific inquiry are at fault. Yet there is the ongoing plea for "serious scientific research". Amusing."

bolding is mine

Your quote here: "As to your tabulation, we have six legitimate papers and one quite pointed, insightful, and acknowledged April Fool's "paper"."

bolding mine

You accuse me of using fringe sources and yet you use M.G. Lackey and Meldrum authored papers? Where both acknowledge belief in a NA bigfoot. If, and I quote you:

1. As you are aware, there are, however, innumerable field studies that, when compiled, provide significant insights into the geological, climatological, glacial, environmental, anthropological, archaeological, etc., understandings of the North American continent. To date, it would appear that none of these studies have resulted in data that would support the presence of "Bigfoot". This aspect should not be taken lightly.
   

then why did you include three of them on a list you are claiming are "acceptible technical reports"? Acceptable to whom and for what? The naming of bigfoot tracks? Again I quote you

"And, once again, one would appear to be observing a conundrum within the "Bigfoot community". A legitimate report is published. It does not support the mythology. Therefore the various fields of scientific inquiry are at fault. Yet there is the ongoing plea for "serious scientific research". Amusing."

bolding mine

Do you think that just because a paper is published in a Journal the information therein is accepted by the mainstream scientific community?

You accuse me here: "apparently invented your own definition for the acceptability of technical reports. My apologies, but that is not consistent with research practices"

Do all acceptable or "legitimate" reports contain a belief in bigfoot and use bigfoot tracks and bigfoot science and scientists to hedge their paper?

Apparently, you decide what "fringe" and who "on the fringe" is acceptable for your purposes.

You include a Chinese study that ends "All these hair analyses suggest that a kind of unknown primate, called wildman or Yeren (in Chinese) may exist in China." How does this again fit your definition of your list offerings? I quote you again here:

"And, once again, one would appear to be observing a conundrum within the "Bigfoot community". A legitimate report is published. It does not support the mythology. Therefore the various fields of scientific inquiry are at fault. Yet there is the ongoing plea for "serious scientific research". Amusing."

bolding mine

Once again, I ask you to address my concerns over each reference you listed. Including every concern in this post.

1) As previously alluded to (and elaborated upon in the following), you would appear to have a deficit in close reading skills and/or maintaining accurate contextual understandings. The quotation that you cite dealt specifically with Coltman and Davis (2006). Therefore,the rest of your protestations are irrelevant.

2) Lackey and Meldrum are qualified and acknowledged researchers. These qualities are to be considered distinct from the questionable prattle that is not uncommon on fringe websites. "Acceptable technical reports" refers to the credibility of the methodology and presentation incorporated in such reports as evaluated by the journal peer-review process. Such review and subsequent publication does not insure that the information presented will meet with acceptance from other researchers in the relevant field(s).

In all, you have demonstrated a consistent lack of familiarity with credible scientific methodology, documentation, practices, and presentation.

.

[Swede]

Let's cut to the chase, Swede. I have read every reference on your list and know Pro-bigfoot science articles when I read them.

This is what I think has happened:

It is obvious you copypasta’d a list some time ago from somewhere.

It is obvious 4 out of 7 of the references are Pro-bigfoot and whoever posted this list never knew the April Fool’s paper was a joke. That makes 5 out of 7 and never removed it off their list before it was copied around. Sorry, but your “one quite pointed, insightful, and acknowledged April Fool's "paper", after I pointed out it was an April Fool’s joke, doesn’t sit well with me.

You’ve never read all the references (you have to pay for a couple) and you mistakenly posted them on here, as bigfoot mythbusters.

The Coltman and Lozier articles were selected for the Pro-bigfoot list I would gather because of their titles.

This is painfully obvious. Anyone else see this? Anyone else ever read through each one on his list? Some are kind of long but you have to read them thoroughly.

Any uncertainty start with Ichnotaxonomy of Giant Hominoid Tracks in North America. D. Jeffrey Meldrum

http://www.cryptomun...rth_america.pdf

*Ketchum copied the same list from somewhere but left off Meldrum as she left off any reference to Meldrum in her entire Reference List , from what I can tell. Odd, when discussing science and bigfoot. But bigfoot makes angry bedfellows.

I have lots of bigfoot books both Pro and skeptical. I wonder if it isn't a reference list someone copied and posted straight out of a book. They are all about the same time 2004-2009. With one from 1993.

The following will refer to both your contribution #398 and the above:

1) Let us review the exact initial exchanges. Some material deleted for the sake of bandwidth:

Posted 15 June 2014 - 11:26 PM

QuiteContrary, on 15 June 2014 - 10:01 PM, said:

Of all the evidence for bigfoot, none of it interests mainstream science. Why?

Because it is not evidence, they checked?

Or, because science does not think a bigfoot creature inhabits NA? Period.

Hi QC,

You may be misunderstanding a point or three.

First, one may wish to define (credible) evidence. One may also wish to be cognizant of the extensive amount of field research conducted by any number of trained and qualified individuals involved in environmental/biological/anthropological research, for numerous agencies and firms, on a continental level. And the vast number of observations and reports that are issued as a result of these investigations.

Secondly, there actually has been, over the years, a number of qualified and specialized studies that have delved into the topic. None of these studies resulted in the confirmation of the various and assorted claims commonly bandied about in mediums such as the present. Please note that the studies referred to do not include such tragic shams as the "Ketchum Report".

Lastly, it may be inaccurate to believe that the professional community has been/is ignoring the topic. The simple matter is, as is well evidenced on pages such as this and many others, that there has yet to be a single shred of unquestionable "evidence" to support the various claims. There has, however, been a rather voluminous amount of hoaxes, fraudulent claims, faked data, bizarre scenarios, etc., etc. Thus, over the years, and quite understandably, professional interest in the topic may not always be of the highest priority. The final Sykes' report may be of interest. (Emphasis added).

Second, please cite for me these number of qualified and specialized studies (no bigfootdom bedfellows plz) that have delved into the topic. (QC #375).

2) You should find the following to be of interest: (Swede # 387).

In the above exchanges you had not yet introduced your self-derived and irrelevant "grass-roots, etc." definition. Therefore any commentary on your part inferring that the references should meet this non-existent criteria is equally irrelevant.

Nor was it ever stated or implied on my part that all of the references were in support of the non-existence of "Bigfoot". To elaborate further on this point in regards to some of your insinuations:

As previously noted, and cited by yourself, the supplied bibliography was initially presented in 2012. As you cited the reference, one may presumed that you actually read it. If so, you would have noted the following:

*Note: Credit is due to the contributions of another researcher for the initial compilation of a number of the above references (Swede #35).

One of the aspects incorporated in some of the additions on my part was, in the interest of fairness, the inclusion of papers that may have supported the existence of "Bigfoot". Therefore, once again, your various protestations are based upon limited close-reading skills and lack of contextual incorporation combined with an apparently rather vivid imagination.

.

[Swede]

Why do I need to submit a study outline and budget to prove my point that there has been no mainstream NA BIGFOOT studies?

It is not necessary. I made two stipulations only. No bigfoot scientist studies and no “send us your bigfoot evidence and we will test it”. Which is essentially what the Ecological Niche Modelling study did.

I want a mainstream study that defines and collects its own evidence or information and it knows and everyone else knows it is a NA Bigfoot study.. This has not been done for a NA bigfoot.

that I am aware of. You did not provide any examples on your list of 7 of any NA Bigfoot studies that fit these criteria.

Fossil digs and other “innumerable field studies” in N. America, that haven’t turned up any bigfoot possibilities, etc., are not defined/labeled as “NA Bigfoot studies”. However much the knowledge gained may weigh-in on science's reasoning when it it comes to their position on the existence of a Bigfoot running around NA. So quit going there.

The purpose of the exercise would (hopefully) be to stimulate you to define your obviously vague concept and place such concept into practical, efficient, and cost-effective terms. In addition to some of the other personal deficits previously referred to, it has long been apparent that you have little or no real-world understanding of qualified research. In your (minimal) research design outline you will wish to incorporate such factors as:

• Specific definable attributes that would contribute to resolving the issue. What are these attributes? How will they be defined? Analyzed? Cataloged? Categorized? Etc., etc.
  
• Specific sampling strategy. What will be your sampling strategy for each selected attribute? What geographic areas will be subject to sampling? How are these geographic areas chosen and why? How large will these sampling areas be? How do you justify said selections and in what manner do you believe that such strategies will be effective? Etc., etc.
  
• Which agency/organization will be responsible for the accessioning/curation of any data recovered? Which agency/organization will be responsible for the publication of the results of the proposed research?
  
• What will be the detailed budget of the proposed research? Which agency(ies)/organization(s) will you approach to fund the proposed research? In what manner can you justify the expenditures of the proposed research? Etc., etc.
  

Rest assured, the above is skeletal at best.

Once again, without a defined and realistic research approach, your "stipulations" and "wants" are nothing more than youthful fantasy. And you would hardly appear to be in the position to define research "criteria" of any sort.

.

[Swede]

--I never said anywhere that a bigfoot study should be anyone's priority. And it certainly isn't mine. Please post where I did say this.

--A bigfoot study it is not a priority because it is "folklore"? Do you mean it is not a priority because science does not believe a bigfoot creature is roaming NA? I've said that. Repeatedly. Repeatedly.

You will note that the term "priority" was placed, quite deliberately, within quotation marks. However:

Last, why would hoaxes, fraudulent claims, faked data and bizarre scenarios have anything at all to do with professionals not making studies of a bigfoot type creature a priority? That makes no sense to me. Please cite how this is indeed the case (Underline added) (QC #375).

I am inclined to say, rather, it is a non-belief in the existence of a bigfoot type creature inhabiting NA that has made bigfoot studies not only low on science's priority list but not any list at all (Underline added) (QC #375).

.

[Swede]

Sorry, I don 't believe the ongoing studies/advancing technological applications with their ever more detailed undersranding of the honinid/hominin lineage issuances of what they merely want us to know.

I have little trust that the truth is anywhere near what they are releasing into public knowledge.

Science is NOT infallible. That is WHY it is science.

Quite the contrary. If one follows the literature, one will find that the volume of credible information currently available vastly exceeds the information availability of any previous point in human history. Do, however, be aware, that the "internet" contains only a small percentage of the truly credible information.

And, of course, science is not infallible. Ongoing studies are the very function of scientific research. However, up-to-date qualified research could rather reasonably considered to be superior unsubstantiated "speculation".

.

[Swede]

Late edit Re: Contribution #414. "Presumed" should read "presume".

[Q-C]

The following will refer to both your contribution #398 and the above:

1) Let us review the exact initial exchanges. Some material deleted for the sake of bandwidth:

Posted 15 June 2014 - 11:26 PM

QuiteContrary, on 15 June 2014 - 10:01 PM, said:

Of all the evidence for bigfoot, none of it interests mainstream science. Why?

Because it is not evidence, they checked?

Or, because science does not think a bigfoot creature inhabits NA? Period.

Hi QC,

You may be misunderstanding a point or three.

First, one may wish to define (credible) evidence. One may also wish to be cognizant of the extensive amount of field research conducted by any number of trained and qualified individuals involved in environmental/biological/anthropological research, for numerous agencies and firms, on a continental level. And the vast number of observations and reports that are issued as a result of these investigations.

Secondly, there actually has been, over the years, a number of qualified and specialized studies that have delved into the topic. None of these studies resulted in the confirmation of the various and assorted claims commonly bandied about in mediums such as the present. Please note that the studies referred to do not include such tragic shams as the "Ketchum Report".

Lastly, it may be inaccurate to believe that the professional community has been/is ignoring the topic. The simple matter is, as is well evidenced on pages such as this and many others, that there has yet to be a single shred of unquestionable "evidence" to support the various claims. There has, however, been a rather voluminous amount of hoaxes, fraudulent claims, faked data, bizarre scenarios, etc., etc. Thus, over the years, and quite understandably, professional interest in the topic may not always be of the highest priority. The final Sykes' report may be of interest. (Emphasis added).

Second, please cite for me these number of qualified and specialized studies (no bigfootdom bedfellows plz) that have delved into the topic. (QC #375).

2) You should find the following to be of interest: (Swede # 387).

In the above exchanges you had not yet introduced your self-derived and irrelevant "grass-roots, etc." definition. Therefore any commentary on your part inferring that the references should meet this non-existent criteria is equally irrelevant.

Nor was it ever stated or implied on my part that all of the references were in support of the non-existence of "Bigfoot". To elaborate further on this point in regards to some of your insinuations:

As previously noted, and cited by yourself, the supplied bibliography was initially presented in 2012. As you cited the reference, one may presumed that you actually read it. If so, you would have noted the following:

*Note: Credit is due to the contributions of another researcher for the initial compilation of a number of the above references (Swede #35).

One of the aspects incorporated in some of the additions on my part was, in the interest of fairness, the inclusion of papers that may have supported the existence of "Bigfoot". Therefore, once again, your various protestations are based upon limited close-reading skills and lack of contextual incorporation combined with an apparently rather vivid imagination.

.

The only evidence we have for a NA bigfoot is footer evidence. Does mainstream science have any evidence for the NA bigfoot? Not that I am aware of.

We have photos, videos. tracks, footprints, hair samples, scat samples, encounters, eyewitnesses, etc, from footers: From the "Bigfoot Community" and bigfoot believing scientists.

Mainstream science gets sent this stuff on occasion and they are asked to test it. That is the extent of involvement of mainstream science into footer evidence. And hardly a reason to completely discount a NA bigfoot creature because some tested hair, or scat samples have not produced anything of interest to mainstream science.

I contend that mainstream science does not believe in the existence of a NA bigfoot and is not even interested in footer evidence BASED UPON SCIENTIFIC AND MULTIDISCIPLINARY KNOWLEDGE. Not based on their scientific testing (checking) of Footer evidence which is VERY SPECIFIC: scat, hair, tracks, etc.

Do mainstream scientists even follow footer evidence?

**lncuding Meldrum's?**

I stand by my post:

Of all the evidence for bigfoot, none of it interests mainstream science. Why?

Because it is not evidence, they checked?

Or, because science does not think a bigfoot creature inhabits NA? Period.

**edit to add**

Edited June 22, 2014 by QuiteContrary

[Q-C]

1) As previously alluded to (and elaborated upon in the following), you would appear to have a deficit in close reading skills and/or maintaining accurate contextual understandings. The quotation that you cite dealt specifically with Coltman and Davis (2006). Therefore,the rest of your protestations are irrelevant.

2) Lackey and Meldrum are qualified and acknowledged researchers. These qualities are to be considered distinct from the questionable prattle that is not uncommon on fringe websites. "Acceptable technical reports" refers to the credibility of the methodology and presentation incorporated in such reports as evaluated by the journal peer-review process. Such review and subsequent publication does not insure that the information presented will meet with acceptance from other researchers in the relevant field(s).

In all, you have demonstrated a consistent lack of familiarity with credible scientific methodology, documentation, practices, and presentation.

.

1) How about this quote which is the same only includes ( I would assume) all legitimate field studies and Meldrum and Lockley's studies were field studies and you've already claimed they are legitimate and they are qualified and acknowledged researchers as well as citing their "credibility of the methodology and presentation incorporated in such reports":

“As you are aware, there are, however, innumerable field studies that, when compiled, provide significant insights into the geological, climatological, glacial, environmental, anthropological, archaeological, etc., understandings of the North American continent. To date, it would appear that none of these studies have resulted in data that would support the presence of "Bigfoot". This aspect should not be taken lightly.”

bolding mine

when in fact they do offer data or refer to data that does. This has absolutely nothing to do with peer review and acceptance of these papers, Swede. It has to do with your review of these papers and claiming they do not contain data that support the presence of bigfoot when they in fact do

Edited June 22, 2014 by QuiteContrary

[Q-C]

You will note that the term "priority" was placed, quite deliberately, within quotation marks. However:

Last, why would hoaxes, fraudulent claims, faked data and bizarre scenarios have anything at all to do with professionals not making studies of a bigfoot type creature a priority? That makes no sense to me. Please cite how this is indeed the case (Underline added) (QC #375).

I am inclined to say, rather, it is a non-belief in the existence of a bigfoot type creature inhabiting NA that has made bigfoot studies not only low on science's priority list but not any list at all (Underline added) (QC #375).

.

This quote of mine has nothing to do with me thinking that it should be a priority for anyone at all. It is simply referring that it should be a priority if indeed SCIENCE felt differently today and that a mainstream NA bigfoot study was warranted. But they don't and it clearly hasn't! The whole point of my position in this debate.

Edited June 22, 2014 by QuiteContrary

[Q-C]

The purpose of the exercise would (hopefully) be to stimulate you to define your obviously vague concept and place such concept into practical, efficient, and cost-effective terms. In addition to some of the other personal deficits previously referred to, it has long been apparent that you have little or no real-world understanding of qualified research. In your (minimal) research design outline you will wish to incorporate such factors as:

• Specific definable attributes that would contribute to resolving the issue. What are these attributes? How will they be defined? Analyzed? Cataloged? Categorized? Etc., etc.
  
• Specific sampling strategy. What will be your sampling strategy for each selected attribute? What geographic areas will be subject to sampling? How are these geographic areas chosen and why? How large will these sampling areas be? How do you justify said selections and in what manner do you believe that such strategies will be effective? Etc., etc.
  
• Which agency/organization will be responsible for the accessioning/curation of any data recovered? Which agency/organization will be responsible for the publication of the results of the proposed research?
  
• What will be the detailed budget of the proposed research? Which agency(ies)/organization(s) will you approach to fund the proposed research? In what manner can you justify the expenditures of the proposed research? Etc., etc.
  

Rest assured, the above is skeletal at best.

Once again, without a defined and realistic research approach, your "stipulations" and "wants" are nothing more than youthful fantasy. And you would hardly appear to be in the position to define research "criteria" of any sort.

.

Objectivity would be a good start for a mainstream study, would it not? Again, something I consider a given.

An objective mainstream study does not consist of footer scientists as 3 of yours do. Possibly 4 since verification of (Russian or) Chinese scientists, their very existence, their opinion on unknown hairy hominids and their participation in any study although a "paper" exists, can be hard to verify. So since it is your list, what is their stance are they "footers" or mainstream?

And an in-depth study of a NA bigfoot does not consist of a scientist's (s') one time testing of some footer evidence hair sample. As 2 of those on your list do (plus another mentioned above 1 is a Yeren hair and concludes it very well could be).

That isn't too tough of criteria to assume and digest is it? Or rub against the grain of a mainstream in-depth study, does it?

"In the above exchanges you had not yet introduced your self-derived and irrelevant "grass-roots, etc." definition. Therefore any commentary on your part inferring that the references should meet this non-existent criteria is equally irrelevant."

And as far as your above claim about my "grassroots" or "in depth" or "proper" study criteria. I posted this before #376 you posted your list in Post #387. Almost 24 hours earlier.

I'm not responsible for which post you refer to at the exclusion of any of my other posts. That is an easy out, but not able to be confirmed and it is not my problem that your list is not what I asked for. You never adapted your list you've only "defended" your list.

So exactly what difference do my criteria in post #376 make? None, according to you. And therefore none according to your list. That's fine.

So if you'd like to exclude my "irrelevant" criteria how about just addressing the "mainstream" one above? That criteria I hope was clear from the beginning. It was in my post#372, that you addressed specifically before posting your list.

And address the objectivity and mainstream qualification of each of your 4 out of 7 references that support data for a bigfoot and Yeren.

Kim, J. Y., K. S. Kim., M. G. Lockley, and N. Matthews

2008 Hominid Ichnotaxonomy: An Exploration of a Neglected Discipline. Ichnos 15: 126–139.

Lockley, M., G. Roberts, and J. Y. Kim

2008 In the Footprints of Our Ancestors: An Overview of the Hominid Track Record. Ichnos 15: 106–125.

Meldrum, Jeffrey D.

2007 Ichnotaxonomy of Giant Hominoid Tracks in North America. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science 42:225-231

Wu, X., X. Zeng, and H. Yao

1993 Analysis of a Single Strand of Hair by PIXE, IXX and Synchrotron Radiation. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B75: 567–570.

Edited June 22, 2014 by QuiteContrary

[Q-C]

The purpose

And to avoid any misunderstanding (even though I said you could ignore my "in-depth" criteria to answer by post directly above^). I do not mean that a mainstream hair analysis of alleged bigfoot hair would not be "in-depth" but that a scientist's (s') one time only testing of any kind of footer submitted bigfoot evidence is not a mainstream "in-depth" study of the NA bigfoot. Which is what you provided on your list.

---------------------

And you mentioned something to the effect that not all studies are published or available to the public (I'm too tired to look for the quote). That, I guess, means I should somehow get over your posted list and accept your word that they exist.

If this is the case, and you feel they are pertinent to the discussion to bring it up. Why didn't you post any? How can I assume these exist, that is any mainstream NA bigfoot studies, unless I've read any or you post them to quell my ignorance? But I am back to my criteria for any, whether you like it or not. No footers and no "Here's our footer evidence, test it".

Or, do you think the number of (single??) mainstream testing studies that have tested submitted footer evidence and haven't turned up any possible bigfoot DNA is statistically significant enough for mainstream science to base an opinion that there is no NA bigfoot roaming around?

How many of these mainstream tests of footer evidence have there been, then? Who are the mainstream scientists who say that is what they base their opinion on? What scientists follows them?

I am taking a week break, Swede. May check in but not posting. Then in a week post any replies to you and take the summer off UM.

Edited June 22, 2014 by QuiteContrary

[Q-C]

And further, Swede. Which reference on your list supports the submission of footer evidence to mainstream science for testing, as evidence of anything one way or the other about the NA bigfoot in general?

The one you posted as being a properly conducted study that warns against (the very real world) possible problems with the use of "public" databases including the BFRO database?

How much weight should mainstream science put on the evidence submitted by the public "I saw/heard/smelled bigfoot, this is its hair, scat" when it comes to a cryptid which means there is no type-specimen?

The analysis shows Johnny did not get a Sasquatch hair (it was deer) off his fence in Ohio or there was no analysis possible for what animal left it. Does it mean he didn't see a Sasquatch? Does it mean he could have but he just collected his evidence poorly?

I admit whatever bit of Joe public's evidence tested by mainstream science so far and that has come up with a known animal identification, might not seem to bode well for bigfoot's existence, but what weight should it have on science's opinion of the existence of bigfoot?: How many sample analyses are necessary? By what labs? And by what criteria the evidence source and collection? Florida everglades? Suburbia? PNW? Bigfoot "experts" Anyone? Any age?

Does some kind of evidence protocol or standard, reduce even further the already low number? of bigfoot evidence tested by mainstream science?

______________

And please list all of the "fringe" sites I've quoted from or linked to. You've accused me of that as well. Ketchum? It was to point out my assumption that your list is taken from a list that others have used. NO "fringe" there.

Edited June 22, 2014 by QuiteContrary

[LDJ]

While in no way am I trying to minimize or devalue the lengthy ongoing debate between Swede and QC, (it has been fun in a train wreck sort of way), it has done little to shine any light on whether or not NAB really exists. I'm a simple man (yes Swede, I know.. left the door wide open for you there). I like my eggs over easy. I like vanilla ice cream. I vote Democrat. Lengthy studies, footnotes, convoluted references, and biased opinions have little or no relevance for me when compared to the multitude of actual sightings and sounds.

I agree that most of those sights and sounds could very likely be ruled out under the bull**** umbrella we all use, but then there are those which cannot be so easily dismissed. Professional law enforcement officers, the military, folks who have spent their whole lives hunting, fishing, and tracking, or the up close and personal events can't ALL BE LYING OR MISTAKEN. Of the hundreds of sights and sounds that can't be dismissed easily, if only one is true, then NAB exists.

I would suggest that given the above, science should stop focusing on "if" and focus more on "why." It's amazing how when the question is posed correctly the answers seem less forced or contrived.