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

[regeneratia]

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".

.

Oh yeah?

http://blogs.discove...n/#.U6cirajDIZ0

http://www.unexplain...cies-discovered That face haunts me.

Oh wait. Dogmatic science KNOWs evcerything, that is until it discovers something new. Oh yes, I remember now. Our current scientists know it all. Nothing exists until dogmatic science says it does.

Admit it, there is far, far more that mainstream science DOESN'T know than it does know.

I repeat, again and again and again, we double our scientific knowledge every three to five years (mid-1990's estimate and out of date). Just think about that for a while.

Edited June 22, 2014 by regeneratia

[Swede]

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**

We have previously been over the bulk of the above. It is not a matter of "not believing" per se. The simple reality is that despite the volume of purported "evidence", there has yet to be any unambiguous data presented in support of a large, undocumented, bipedal, North American primate. Nor have any of the sample testings that you refer to led to any conclusive information. Furthermore, the numerous mufti-disciplinary environmental/anthropological/archaeological studies that have been conducted for many decades have also not yielded any data that would confirm (or even support) the existence of the speculated primate. And we again have the issue of the many documented hoaxes, faking of evidence, falsifiable photography, etc. This latter aspect is further compounded by the rather broad array of wholly amusing explanations that have arisen amongst the "true believers" in an attempt to rationalize the dearth of conclusive data (multidimensional entities, shape shifting, association with UFO's, etc.). And then we have the tales of urban "Bigfoot", train-hopping "Bigfoot", habituated "Bigfoot", ad infinitum. Not to mention the widely disparate physical descriptions of this undocumented primate.

With the above in mind, is there any wonder on your part as to why the professional community is, for the most part, rather skeptical of the legitimate presence of said undocumented primate? And is thus reticent to fund and launch the expansive research project that you personally desire? Particularly in light of the resources already committed to studies that one would expect to result in viable data related to the topic?

.

[Swede]

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

Once again you are glaringly guilty of taking quotations out of context and attempting to utilize them in support of your poorly substantiated position. Your "assumption" is inaccurate. The field studies referred to are those mentioned in the incorporated paragraph and were included to illustrate the broad general data base available for evaluation. In no manner was it stated or inferred that the specific studies of Meldrum and Lockley were included in this categorization. It should be further noted that Meldrum is not known for conducting a great deal of field work and the paper by Lockley et al (2008) is also not a field study. It may serve you to learn to distinguish between field research/reports and the often more cumulative data presented in white papers.

.

.

[Swede]

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.

Others may interpret your quotes in a somewhat different manner. The rest has been addressed above.

.

[Swede]

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.

1) This would be the second time that you would appear to have deliberately avoided exerting the mental effort to construct and present even a skeletal research design for the research expenditure that you would appear to be so passionate about. This does not speak well of your ability/desire to seriously engage the topic or the numerous real-world complexities involved.

2) There would appear to be a few additional factors that may be beneficial to your understandings:

• How one could perceive such papers as Lockley et al 2008 (pp. 106-125) as "pro-Bigfoot" is really quite beyond me and may be reflective of your unfamiliarity with white papers. Perhaps you could provide a contextually accurate quotation that would support your perception?
  
• In the realm of scientific research it is not at all uncommon to encounter researchers with rather definite positional stances. This can, not infrequently, lead to "public" (research/journal) exchanges that can last for decades. Adovasio vs.Haynes and Stanford-Bradley/Solutrean would be comparatively recent/current examples.
  
• The element that you do not appear to grasp is that it is the quality of the research that has the greatest effect on journal publication. "Science" is not, despite the misconceptions of some, a monolithic entity composed of clones reiterating a standardized mantra. Nothing could be further from the truth. Credible research is highly dynamic and opposing positions are frequently given voice. It is from these (sometimes heated) exchanges of research data/analysis/evaluation that significant advances are achieved and true (scientific) theories are established.
  

.

[Swede]

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.

Am uncertain as to the specifics of your query. However, the following should be noted:

• A notable amount of the actual multidisciplinary research/data resides in what is known as the "gray literature". This information consists of the actual reports written based upon the results of a given specific field study and generally includes rather highly detailed metrics/analyses/mapping/etc. and can also include interpretation, etc. Such reports are generally filed with the federal/state/tribal/local/private agencies/stakeholders involved and may not always be available to the general public.
  
• While the "internet" may be considered by some to be a wealth of information, it does not, by any means, provide a complete and comprehensive reference base in regards to the professionally published literature. To access such literature, one may wish to consider acquiring membership to the journals of one's particular interest or utilizing such sources as JSTOR.
  

.

[Swede]

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.

Is it to be understood that you do not consider Coleman, Bigfoot Forums, or the Ketchum "report" to be "fringe"?

.

[Swede]

Oh yeah?

http://blogs.discove...n/#.U6cirajDIZ0

http://www.unexplain...cies-discovered That face haunts me.

Oh wait. Dogmatic science KNOWs evcerything, that is until it discovers something new. Oh yes, I remember now. Our current scientists know it all. Nothing exists until dogmatic science says it does.

Admit it, there is far, far more that mainstream science DOESN'T know than it does know.

I repeat, again and again and again, we double our scientific knowledge every three to five years (mid-1990's estimate and out of date). Just think about that for a while.

As explained above, scientific research is hardly dogmatic. Any personal perceptions along this line simply demonstrate an unfamiliarity with the reality.

As to the crania/Red Deer "culture", my apologies for not grasping your point. Have you considered such basic elements as geography and timeline?

.

[Myles]

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.

But there has not been one proved to be true. However, many have been proved to be false.

I do believe that they are all lying or mistaken.

[LDJ]

But there has not been one proved to be true. However, many have been proved to be false.

I do believe that they are all lying or mistaken.

I respect your position. However, I think it is important to understand that proving the existence of NAB has never been the intent of any endeavor of a true believer. Protection of the species has always been the intent and trumpeting proof of their existence would only jeopardize them. I can assure you that most of us would rather the world continue thinking of them as a myth and leave them alone.

[TheGreatBeliever]

I think big foot sightings around the world r most likely bears or monkeys

[Myles]

proving the existence of NAB has never been the intent of any endeavor of a true believer.

I must disagree with that. I think that is the intent of most true believers. I will agree that many believers would like to see bigfoot stay hidden, but to say that NONE of them want to prove the existance is absurd.

[LDJ]

I must disagree with that. I think that is the intent of most true believers. I will agree that many believers would like to see bigfoot stay hidden, but to say that NONE of them want to prove the existance is absurd.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I stated mine. The point I think you missed is that the constant barrage of "prove it" every time NAB is openly discussed is tedious and a waste of breath. There is no obligation on anybody's part to prove a damn thing to anybody else. It is what it is. Secondly, if NAB sat in a lawn chair on my deck and had coffee with me every morning the absolute last thing I would do is tell anybody, much less take pictures, gather scat, and pluck a few hair samples.

While I have no doubt you are correct that there are those who would strive to prove the existence of NAB, even to it's detriment, it is a far more minimal number than those who would seemingly require the proof of existence and ensure it's detriment.

[Myles]

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I stated mine. The point I think you missed is that the constant barrage of "prove it" every time NAB is openly discussed is tedious and a waste of breath. There is no obligation on anybody's part to prove a damn thing to anybody else. It is what it is.

That I agree with. It is what it is. A story about an animal that has not been proven to exist. An animal which leaves no carcasses. An animal that cannot be photographed clearly. An animal intelligent enough to stay hidden yet makes loud noises and slowly walks out in the open. An animal who survives without leaving a mark of its existance on the ecosystem.

You cannot blame those who require evidence before believing. Do you believe in the Loch Ness Monster or would you require evidence of such a beast? How about the various dinosaurs said to exist in different rain forests? Aliens visiting Earth?

[LDJ]

That I agree with. It is what it is. A story about an animal that has not been proven to exist. An animal which leaves no carcasses. An animal that cannot be photographed clearly. An animal intelligent enough to stay hidden yet makes loud noises and slowly walks out in the open. An animal who survives without leaving a mark of its existance on the ecosystem.

You cannot blame those who require evidence before believing. Do you believe in the Loch Ness Monster or would you require evidence of such a beast? How about the various dinosaurs said to exist in different rain forests? Aliens visiting Earth?

hahaha.. I rule out nothing!! My belief is that all things are as likely as they are unlikely. I do believe the universe keeps secrets.

[Myles]

hahaha.. I rule out nothing!! My belief is that all things are as likely as they are unlikely. I do believe the universe keeps secrets.

I guess we are at opposite sides of this. Maybe we should both be closer to the middle.

I believe some things are much more unlikely than others. Life on other planets - Likely. Giant monster in a loch without enough food to support it - Unlikely.

[LDJ]

I guess we are at opposite sides of this. Maybe we should both be closer to the middle.

I believe some things are much more unlikely than others. Life on other planets - Likely. Giant monster in a loch without enough food to support it - Unlikely.

I guess I think of myself as being in the middle. I accept what there is and what there isn't. I don't really try to convince anybody of anything. The fact that I don't rule out every possibility doesn't make me pro anything. As far as Loch Ness, if a huge ass whale can survive on something as small as plankton, who am I to doubt that Nessie could survive on something similar? In any event, there is one thing I do have my doubts about. Green Jello. Since it has never been on my dinner table I doubt it really exists.

[Myles]

I guess I think of myself as being in the middle. I accept what there is and what there isn't. I don't really try to convince anybody of anything. The fact that I don't rule out every possibility doesn't make me pro anything. As far as Loch Ness, if a huge ass whale can survive on something as small as plankton, who am I to doubt that Nessie could survive on something similar? In any event, there is one thing I do have my doubts about. Green Jello. Since it has never been on my dinner table I doubt it really exists.

It exists. I've seen it. I've even seen the rare green Jello with chunks of fruit inside.

Unfortunately the peat makes Loch Ness so murky that the limited light makes for very little plankton.

I had put you far from the middle based off of a couple of your comments like - I believe everything is as likely as it is unlikely. There are some on here who believe everything until you prove to them it doesn't exist.

[LDJ]

Finally proof!! While out walking at an undisclosed location I felt like I wasn't alone. Sure enough I turned around real quick and caught them off guard. I lured them out in the open with some Certs and a half eaten pepperoni stick. I was able to get a quick picture. Here is all the proof needed!!! After a few remarks about world hunger and property values they climbed into a Hummer and snuck back into the forest.

[Insanity]

Sure...

Use the search function here on Bigfoot, and read through the last 5 to 7 years of the same replies I have put in numerous times. Even replies pointing people to replies from my past.

You can even search my name, or go to my profile. Dig through my 11,000 something posts, and narrow it down to Bigfoot.

Sorry man, I am tired of repeating myself, and repeating others facts. As I said, it is a broken record, " Groundhogs Day ".....It goes over, and over, and over..

No matter how many times things are pointed out, facts are given, hoax's are shown, theories are busted. They get buried, and months to years later new topics of the exact same thing, with the exact same questions, and theories get posted. Even though they have been answered and busted hundreds of times.

That is nothing personal, it is how this topic is.

I am not however, going to keep posting the same things over and over anymore. If a new thing pops up ( video, claim, etc. ) I will join in. But I am tired of singing the same song.

edit to add :

I all ready said in this topic, within the last 2 pages, I used to " believe ".....And, I am not typing it again on how I changed my mind, but it will answer part of your question.

Research / Try :

Biology

Ecology

Apes

Pacific Northwest Biology

Live in the PNW, and hunt and fish there....

Anyway, search away, lots and lots of posts from both of us, with links also.

One thing that you do repeat is your opinion on the subject, but that is not what I was asking about.

You, and Slave2Fate as well, had said that you've done research on biology, habitat, breeding populations, which lead you to conclude Sasquatch does not exist and has not existed.

I was interested in what literature you have read which apparently is something you haven't mentioned.

If one does go through this forum, they can see that while you have mentioned some of the above subjects, you really haven’t posted any links to references.

Breeding population

Biology

Habitat

One list of references you did post was apparently for some basic information.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=225319&st=30#entry4263821

Have you read these? They are good sources, but are not detailed studies on those topics.

If you have read any other literature, I'd be interested in the sources.

[Sakari]

One thing that you do repeat is your opinion on the subject, but that is not what I was asking about.

I was going to help you out on my sources. But the above first sentence changed my mind.

Sarcasm just turns me off.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Sakari

[+DieChecker]

I was going to help you out on my sources. But the above first sentence changed my mind.

Sarcasm just turns me off.

What about "funny" sarcasm?

[Sakari]

What about "funny" sarcasm?

I do get turned on by funny sarcasm

And, point taken.

Insanity.....Sorry.

I can not give you exact links, magazines, or books. Mostly articles, and journals on the net. I search, and read what looks good. And, is legitimate. Not from the World News or anything like that.

I have read journals from UCLA, Stanford, Duke....I do remember that.

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/

http://www.socialpsy...rg/journals.htm

As for Biology.....Same thing. I have read up on Apes, Deer, Bear, Elk, Salmon, Steelhead, etc,etc,etc....

I also have had about 32 years of camping and hunting ( mainly bow ). During those times I learned a lot from Fish and Game classes and talking to them. Going to fish hatcheries, and fishing. Helped Fish and Game do counts of Sage Grouse in Nevada for a few years. 99% of what I learned on habitats, and breeding, came from this time. It was experience, and learning to help me understand.

My Father was a Fish and Game instructor, for gun safety, hunting, etc.

I have posted here, I did still think " bigfoot " ( and other things ) could possibly exist, until I joined this site, and actually did start researching. The " knowledge " I had before was pretty good for biology, when it comes to fishing and hunting. So, the United States basically. When it came to ignorance of understanding " populations and effects on environment " etc,etc,etc...This place steered me in that direction. I searched on my own, and as said, mainly journals and random articles on the internet.

If you are dead serious, and have a specific thing you want me to try to find, I can search for it and try to see if I can find what I read.

We are talking though, about 18 years total of actual reading of some of these things.

I am 48 years old, and it is true. The older you get, the wiser you become. The memory does go a bit though.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Sakari

[Insanity]

Yes I was serious about what you have read.

If you're willing to search, I'd be interested in what you read on breeding populations.

[Sakari]

Yes I was serious about what you have read.

If you're willing to search, I'd be interested in what you read on breeding populations.

I will try tomorrow. It is my last day off before another 90 plus hours, 6 to 7 day stretch of work.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Sakari