Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
pokingjoker

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

518 posts in this topic

You did not answer my question. Is the site I posted a fringe site or actual NA site?

Are going to say Piney is a liar also?

Not calling anyone a liar. They take Indian legends that may be similar, and a lot that are not, and try to say it is the same description we get today of Bigfoot.

Not sure who owns that site, did not look.

I think it may be the same site we got the name for our wolf from, but could be wrong.

Not a problem, I understand. I was never trying to use the existence of Indian beliefs in BF as proof that BF exists.

Sakari claims the Indians do not have a belief in BF, - although, I don't know why he says that, and all I posted were informations to show he is wrong, most Indian tribes do have their oral tradition expressing their belief in a big hairy man. Nothing could be clearer. There are several links of learned researchers giving their findings of the North American Indian beliefs in a BF like creature.

Same as above.

The problem with that article will be that it is posted at BFRO.net.

Just like if you link to an article about how a comet wiped out the dinosaurs on a creationist website, people will dismiss it due to the linked source, regardless of the original source.

I am not dismissing it because it is on a Bigfoot site am I?....I mean, they have no reason to say this?

I have looked, and never been able to find anything form actual Native Americans, other then white man stories, claiming they have believed in a 6 to 8 foot bi-pedal primate, that howls, and bangs on trees, and buries its dead. They have a ton of legends, and a few that people could grab and say " see, told you so ".

How did this article contribute to your conclusion?

That forums links in that topic did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Diechecker, take those names you have listed, copy/paste them into google. See what sites come up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Earl of trumps, here is one I googled from your list....And found nothing even close to Bigfoot.

Char Man ( from Hokan-Coahiltecan )

Here, near the bridge, the ghost of Char Man, a hideous burnt beyond recognition spirit, emerges out of the forest and attacks motorists, especially those brave enough to get out of their cars and yell from the bridge. So popular is his legend in the area, that the bridge has been dubbed "Char-Man Bridge".

Doesn't sound like bigfoot to me?

Google this one also : Honka

Edited by Sakari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That are 6 to 8 feet tall and weigh up to 800 lbs?.......And in civilized/populated areas?

Yes

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myth... until we see a live one caught or a corpse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does Bigfoot have a cone head?

Bigfoot has been synonymous with Sasquatch since the original Bigfoot series of hoaxes in Bluff Creek, 1958 (note that the editor of the newspaper that published and promoted the stories was in on the hoax) yet prior to that time Sasquatch was never described or depicted with a cone head by either Native Americans or Whites. Why is that? Any takers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That forums links in that topic did.

That does not really answer the question though.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes

Name it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bigfoot is real.. the guys over on Mountain Monsters said so.. and they wouldn't lie..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Name it.

Tapirus kabomani and saola

There are 2 for you

Edited by Kassekoe99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tapirus kabomani and saola

There are 2 for you

Not even close to what I asked.

Let me remind you.

"That are 6 to 8 feet tall and weigh up to 800 lbs?.......And in civilized/populated areas?"

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The height and weight specifically are irrelevant. The mere size of the listed animals and their given location in civilization proves that the possibility of finding a large animal/BF is quite possible.

Not even close to what I asked.

Let me remind you.

"That are 6 to 8 feet tall and weigh up to 800 lbs?.......And in civilized/populated areas?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

.

There is no “wonder” on my part as to why the mainstream scientific community has not launched the extensive research project into the North American Bigfoot I “personally desire”.

I do not “personally desire” a mainstream science research project into the North America Bigfoot .

I do not expect a research project from mainstream science. And I have stated why, previously, repeatedly.

I desired for you, Swede, to provide an example from your post below:

“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".” Post #374 Page 25

Bolding is mine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

.

.

Lockley, et al and Kim, et al, did in fact visit trackway sites before writing their “white papers”. They encountered the problem of too little information being available for some sites as well as the need for updating.

They then visited, studied, and collected data from some of the worldwide sites referred to in the study in each “white paper”. They used this collected data (measurements, etc.) in the content of these papers.

This is clearly noted in the papers themselves for anyone to read. This is why I considered them “field studies”.

The studies use the same trackway data. One, of 60 some worldwide hominid trackways. The other, of only about 11 of the same 60.

As far as your claiming that Meldrum “is not known for conducting a great deal of field work” where did you get this information? I have heard Meldrum say how much time he spends in the field looking for Sasquatch sign (his paper is on a giant North American hominoid trackway). However, since I cannot quote him exactly, I suggest you contact him and ask him for clarification of your claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

.

Are you sure you are not part of the same “sordid internecine activities” of which you insinuate I appear to be a part. Post #396 Page 27

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

.

This too is obvious to me, that the public does not have access to every (scientific) study out there.

However, and pertaining to the debate at hand, how would I know if any examples of a mainstream science study into the North American Bigfoot (no bigfootdom bedfellows plz) exist if I have no access to them? I won’t simply assume this to be true without corroborating evidence.

I frankly doubt mainstream science in general gives a darn about investigating the existence of a North American Bigfoot. Thus, my position in this debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

.

I quoted Loren Coleman from his Cryptomundo site because his quote was not fringe. I agree with it. Mainstream science has for some time on occasion tested submitted “evidence”. But as recently as 2005-2006 it still was not a commonplace practice, something the mainstream community “embraced” or I would guess, either was publishing the data in a mainstream journal. Post #393 Page 27

I quoted from a link in BigfootForums because it too was not fringe. The link is to the exact article in Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol.21No.2 February 2006, that you had listed, and where my exact quote from the scientists who tested the hair can be found. Post #393 Page 27

In the link to the Ketchum paper no fringe was involved either. I referred only to her Reference List. Out of 103 entries on her list it was odd, imo, how 6 out of the 7 on your list appeared all together as #4-9 on Ketchum’s Reference List. I explained why the Meldrum paper on your list was left off of Ketchum’s Reference List. I referred to Ketchum’s Reference List only, and only because of your list, Swede, not because of her “science”. And despite your accusations I was not inferring you copied from Ketchum ( I linked to your post of this same list on UM 2 years ago Post #398 Page 27) but rather that you both had to have copied from the same list, from somewhere for you both to list them in a group together. Post #406 Page 28

Not to mention, crediting your list to an anonymous source with no information as to why the list was compiled by this anonymous source (Post # 414 Page 28/ #398 Page 27) further encourages my assumption here Post # 406 Page 28 . That the list was intended, by whoever compiled it, to be examples of Pro-Bigfoot Science, and that some entries were erroneously chosen due to being selected by titles or authors (reputations) rather than contents.

However, in your use of Meldrum and Lockley, as authors on three of your papers, who hold fringe beliefs, their fringe beliefs are directly tied to their fields of expertise. You listed three papers showing Meldrum’s and Lockley’s, et al, scientific expertise concerning hominid trackways. As well as how they also use their expertise to support the naming of Anthropoidipes ameriborealis trackway. As well s Lockley, et al’s claim that no matter how one feels about Bigfoot those who are experts in ichnotaxomony should have the final say! You can’t separate their fringe from their science. Their science supports their fringe belief in a NA ape in the three papers. The three papers are interrelated as far as a fringe belief in NA ape foot trackways are concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

.

This exchange is what preceded the posting of your list. And I have included further clarification about your list you also posted. Anyone can trace the entire exchange in the thread itself Pages 25-29 to see how the posts follow and relate to one another.

Any red bolding in the following quotes is mine

Quite Contrary Posted 15 June 2014 - 04:01 PM Post #372 Page 25

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.

Swede Posted 15 June 2014 - 05:26 PM Post #374 Page 25

Hi QC,

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".

Quite Contrary Posted 15 June 2014 - 06:54 PM Post#375 Page 25

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

Swede Posted 16 June 2014 - 04:58 PM Post #387 Page 26

2) You should find the following to be of interest:

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: 567–570.

If memory serves, the archives of the following journals also contain relevant papers:

http://www.tandfonli.../gich20/current

http://www.sciencedi...ournal/10557903

http://www.sciencedi...ournal/0168583X

These are the Journals three papers on your list came from. Except for Ichno’ s possible popularity with your authors Meldrum and Lockley (and we’ve seen what that turned up) why would you think they contain any more “relevant” papers for mainstream NA Bigfoot studies?

Swede Posted 21 June 2014 - 02:42 PM Post #413 Page 28

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).

Swede Posted 21 June 2014 - 03:22 PM Post #414 Page 28

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:

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".

.

The methodology used by Lockley, et al, Kim, et al, to analyze 60 some known hominid trackways around the world in one white paper and then more specifically, 11 of those 60 in the other white paper, may very well be quality.

However, neither study included an Anthropoidipes ameriborealis trackway. These were not mainstream studies (specialized or expansive) of North American Bigfoot. Bigfoot was only mentioned, and oddly at that, in an aside to draw attention to Meldrum’s “impressive evidence” for a NA “bigfoot” and Meldrum’s reasoning for the naming of a NA ape foot trackway. However, a study of recent NA ape foot trackways was not in the scope of either paper.

So why include these papers on your list at all? If I ignore the Bigfoot support , they have nothing to do with an example of a NA Bigfoot study and if I consider the Bigfoot support out of “fairness” how are they examples of mainstream science or examples of any kind of studies of NA Bigfoot?

As far as my claim of Lockley’s papers as Pro-Bigfoot which you don’t understand? If I wanted to show scientist support for the existence of a North American Bigfoot I could point to contents in both Lockley white papers, even though the studies conducted in each paper were not about NA Bigfoot (trackways). And I could point to his The Eternal Trail book which he cites in both papers where he gives consideration to the existence of Bigfoot or Yeti (15-year-old book Apparently his belief in a NA Bigfoot is more cemented 9 years later).

Lockley (and Meldrum) did not fall out of the sky to author the papers on your list. They both have reputations, documented fringe beliefs, have used controversial and known hoaxed data to support a NA Bigfoot and to support the naming of a NA ape foot trackway, etc.

Read at least the “Introduction” in Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science by Meldrum and then read The Eternal Trail by Martin Lockley for interesting information on these two men. Dig around into some more papers by Lockley and his beliefs.

Swede, you possess a sense of “fairness” I do not. At least not when their fringe beliefs are entangled in their scientific field of expertise.

Then, after acquainting yourself thoroughly with these men, tell me why I should consider either scientist mainstream? Why I should not consider either scientist as a bigfootdom bedfellow? And then tell me why I should find theses 3 papers from your list of 7 “interesting” in my search for an example of a mainstream science study into the North American Bigfoot (no bigfootdom bedfellows plz)? Which I clearly stated when I asked for your examples. And your list was clearly posted as a response to (follow the secondly, second and 2). And this quote of yours also clarifies this specific list of 7, “None of these studies resulted in the various and assorted claims commonly bandied about in mediums such as the present.” Again, the reference between us of “secondly,” “second” and “2” linking our conversation.

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

The methodology in the Lozier, et al study used to make a comparison of ecological niches, may very well be quality science. But the very purpose of the study concludes that as far as a Bigfoot study the science could be problematic because all of their Bigfoot data was from a public database (BFRO). Did these scientists even talk to members of the public who submitted the BFRO reports? Were there any photos to accompany the reports? Did they scrutinize the investigations of these reports? It was not a serious study of NA Bigfoot piqued by a mainstream interest in studying the possible existence of NA Bigfoot.

The scientists counted on the Bigfoot mythos to make the tongue-in-cheek tone of the paper work. It isn’t even an example of a specialized study of NA Bigfoot because they used potentially problematic data as admitted by the purpose of the paper!

And likewise, if we are to heed their real world warning about the potential for problems when using public data (which requires scrutiny) then your two hair analysis examples (Sasquatch and Yeti) on your list are not good science as far as a “Bigfoot” study either. Even if the actual lab procedures used to identify the hairs (bison, ungulate) were quality.

What do the mainstream scientists hope to study about a North American Bigfoot from the analysis of a random alleged Sasquatch hair they already know is Bison bison? That Sasquatch might somehow be linked genetically to Bison bison (with no type specimen who knows, but highly unlikely). This was the joke of your Yeti hair analysis. Or, this particular bison hair is just that, from a known NA animal.

Or, in the case of the “Yeti” hair analysis it seems the purpose for mainstream science was to warn them to be more careful in their work-- and lighten up! If I apply this to Bigfoot studies this might be a good warning for footers too, but I’m not asking for warnings for footers. I want mainstream Bigfoot studies.

The scientists in your Sasquatch and Yeti hair analyses didn’t approach either analysis from an objective angle. They entertained no thoughts of possibly identifying an actual “Yeti” or

“Sasquatch” hair. (However it is a “Yeti” or “Sasquatch” hair analysis might confirm either creature) They poked fun at both creatures.

As far as the Yeren hair analysis performed in China? It was conducted for the purpose of testing instruments and methods not to specifically test Yeren hair. And published in Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research. The lab methodology used to analyze the hair may indeed be quality.

Their position that iron to zinc ratio is indicative of primate species and their conclusion that the iron to zinc ratio was higher than in all known primates including human beings- I’ll count this as a Yeren hair analysis that needs more investigating. It is not a specialized study of NA Bigfoot. I don’t even know if it is mainstream or strongly influenced/biased by some China scientists’ love for their country’s (Yeren) Wildman.

Do I even have to go into Meldrum’s paper: Data used, cited cohorts, shameless and obvious name dropping by mentioning PGF track cast duplicates, etc. are housed at the Smithsonian and National Museum of Natural History. So are the notes of some cryptozoologists housed at famous museums. Cryptozoologists or their estates often donate this stuff. It doesn’t indicate mainstream science’s acceptance of or even interest in any of it.

What my suspicion of your list boils down to is, out of all the innumerable legitimate and quality studies out there you speak of, that this list was the best you could do? And if it is the best you can offer then my argument still stands:

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

Because it is not evidence, they checked? ........NOT

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

Your list is composed of a very odd mix when offered as examples of mainstream science studies of the North American Bigfoot (no bigfootdom bedfellows plz) whether “specialized” or “comprehensive.”

Or, when offered as “specialized studies that have delved into the subject” I don’t see how “None of these studies resulted in the confirmation of the various and assorted claims commonly bandied about in mediums such as the present.”

That’s right, only the “additions” did. “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".

Additions (plural)? To what and when? Meldrum is completely and conspicuously left off Ketchum’s Reference List of 103. And if you followed the drama you’d know why she purposely excluded any Meldrum reference from the list, you two shared somehow from somewhere, and would not find it surprising at all that she did so. I choose to believe Ketchum left Meldrum off the original source rather than you added it to this list for “fairness”. At least until I see the original. Then I may or may not change my mind.

Only 1 on your list examined alleged “Sasquatch” hair and the scientists already knew it was Bison bison. None are examples of mainstream science delving into a NA bigfoot study.

The only thing linking papers on your list is upon initial inspection of the titles and authors one might conclude they are examples of scientific support of Bigfoot. Thus again, the reasoning for my Post #406 Page 28

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

How would I design my personal study of a mythological creature with no type specimen and no supporting data for its existence?

I personally wouldn’t, Swede. Budget: 0 dollars. Time: 0 hours

And neither has mainstream science.

Mainstream science does explore mysteries, but there has to be some reasoning behind why mainstream science would launch a study into a mystery. This is the difference I see between mainstream science and cryptozoology. Cryptozoology just needs a mystery. They don’t care what sense (common or scientific) the mystery makes or the quality of the data that supports existence of a mystery creature.

I also explained in previous posts why mainstream science’s random and occasional testing of footer “evidence” is not the “study” I am looking for. I do not consider “Sure, we will test your footer evidence” as active participation by science into the NA Bigfoot piqued by an interest into the existence of the creature.

I don’t know why scientists would consider a hair analysis of “Yeti” or bison hair as some kind of “specialized” “Bigfoot” study? Explained above as well.

And further, I contend mainstream science doesn’t care about the soap opera of characters and all the tricks the bigfoot mythos has played over the years. And further, would not use that as a reason to not investigate Bigfoot, had mainstream science any reason to entertain the thought that a NA ape was roaming NA.

Science is stopping mainstream science from studying the possibility of a NA Bigfoot roaming about, not because a limited number of mainstream science footer evidence analyses over the years haven’t found “Bigfoot” DNA. The data is problematic***, for one.

***Mainstream science in general has not embraced the testing of its own hands-on collected North American Bigfoot data. Data identified and collected based on some kind of standard, common sense, protocol, scientific reasoning and methodology.

But now we have scientists who are supportive of the existence of a NA Bigfoot demanding a revival in the science of hominid trackway analysis and naming. And they are quick to share their expertise in confirming NA ape foot trackway! (Lockley, et al, Kim et al, and Meldrum papers) No quotes from me, Swede. Read the “white papers” from your list. Pertinent bigfoot quotes are there for anyone to clearly see in context.

Have you considered if there could be any underlying motive, from scientists who share a fringe belief in the existence of a NA bigfoot, when it comes to their “legitimate” and “quality” hominid trackway proposals and analyses and theories?

4 out of 7 papers, after examining the evidence (Lockley had to have seen Meldrum's "impressive" evidence to support it), offer support for the existence of a NA Bigfoot and Chinese Yeren. And in 3 papers the scientists weren’t open at all to any possibility of the existence of Bigfoot or Yeti. They poked fun at the creatures’ alleged existences.

My quote that triggered your debate with me:

“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.”

Bolding mine

Mainstream scientists isn’t interested in investigating the NA Bigfoot, due to reasoning based on knowledge not because some limited and problematic footer “evidence” doesn’t support a NA Bigfoot: Including (hoaxed) trackways, footer collected hair for analysis and a questionable and controversial public database (BFRO).

There have been over the last 70 or so years, a list of well-known experts involved in the history and study of Bigfoot. However, when one narrows down the list to mainstream scientists, and further, to those in fields of expertise that would be of benefit to the study of a NA Bigfoot the list grows smaller. And after digging even deeper one encounters controversial issues that prevent establishing what is left of the list (composed of scientists) as examples.

However,

I there may be mainstream scientists who have launched actual studies into the North American Bigfoot from a position of genuine interest and not from a position of ridicule or bias or ego or greed, etc.

Who have not relied on infamous or not so infamous footer collected and "authenticated" “evidence”. But I have discovered it is necessary to dig a lot more into this to confirm or I was hoping to post them.

That is why I’ve taken so long to reply I’d hoped to offer examples but I’ve realized this will take a long to sort out.

Finally, we are not in hostage negotiations, Swede. We are arguing Bigfoot in a Cryptozoology, Myths, and Legends forum. And as much I like to discuss Bigfoot this has taken all the time and energy I care to expend, as I said I’m taking a couple or more months off. Have a nice summer or winter wherever you’re from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As far as the Native Americans and Bigfoot discussion I interrupted:

“Whatever might explain these differences, it is clear that indigenous cultures of northwestern North America reveal no single figure corresponding to the representation of the sasquatch that has developed among twentieth-century Euro-Americans. Of several features attributed to the modern sasquatch, only two (‘giant size’ and residence in mountains or woods) are associated with seven named categories drawn from a sample of Northwest coastal languages compiled by Suttles* Conversely, only two of the seven categories pertain to creatures characterized as ‘hairy’.”

Images of the Wildman in Southeast Asia: An anthropological perspective by Gregory Forth. 2008

*Suttles, Wayne, 1972. ‘ On the cultural track of the sasquatch’ Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 6(1):65-90.

If you research some northwestern North America Native American "wildman" myths, you will never look at wood knocking the same again. Emphasis on... *ahem* …"wood".

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That the list was intended, by whoever compiled it, to be examples of Pro-Bigfoot Science, and that some entries were erroneously chosen due to *** being selected by titles or authors (reputations) rather than contents.

***insert "the list"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now im a fan of cryptids and the what if thought line, and i personally believe bigfoot, sasquatch, yeti, yowie, or whatever name you want to give them are a real possibility. Just because you dont see something doesnt mean it isnt real. i mean cultures all around the world from early man to modern man have tales of sightings, stories, of these creatures, similar to the great apes of africa which we didnt think existed all that long ago. But i digress my reason for posting is simple, id like to get a feel for the people thoughts. So do you think bigfoot exists, why, why not. Please no bashing on others thoughts. thanks!

Bryan Sykes is a Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Wolfson College. Sykes published the first report on retrieving DNA from ancient bone.

He's also completed a comprehensive DNA study of hair samples from what have been described as Yetis, and other local names, throughout the Himalayas.

His analysis has revealed that the so called Yeti (etc) are in fact the descendants of an ancient admixture of the Polar Bear and the Himalayan Brown Bear. Note that the admixture is ancient, it isn't a recent thing. And this cross breeding is what has produced something that looks like neither a Brown Bear nor a Polar Bear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His analysis has revealed that the so called Yeti (etc) are in fact the descendants of an ancient admixture of the Polar Bear and the Himalayan Brown Bear. Note that the admixture is ancient, it isn't a recent thing. And this cross breeding is what has produced something that looks like neither a Brown Bear nor a Polar Bear.

Exactly, Bigfoot is most likely a misidentified bear. This answers the question as to how something that large can exist without there being more evidence.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That forums links in that topic did.

Could you be more specific as to which articles or links?

The main site's domain is in China and the forum is in Chinese. While it has the option for an English forum, it does not appear to translate well.

http://www.planta.cn/forum/index.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you be more specific as to which articles or links?

The main site's domain is in China and the forum is in Chinese. While it has the option for an English forum, it does not appear to translate well.

http://www.planta.cn/forum/index.php

Was in english for me.....The pdf I gave link to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no “wonder” on my part as to why the mainstream scientific community has not launched the extensive research project into the North American Bigfoot I “personally desire”.

I do not “personally desire” a mainstream science research project into the North America Bigfoot .

I do not expect a research project from mainstream science. And I have stated why, previously, repeatedly.

I desired for you, Swede, to provide an example from your post below:

“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".” Post #374 Page 25

Bolding is mine

Please provide a single example of a qualified study that has resulted in the confirmation of the presence of a large, bipedal, undocumented, North American primate. What ever "logic" you may be attempting to apply here is quite beyond me.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.