Night Walker Posted November 30, 2012 #101 Share Posted November 30, 2012 --Why aren’t BF more like us? Tools, dwellings, fire, etc. BF, according to what we "know", seems to have “lost” most of its human traits except bipedalism. There have been claims of Bigfoot using tools, fire, and dwellings. What Bigfoot is and does is dependent on which angle is considered to be dominant in the Bigfoot-lore and what is deemed credible by the individual seeker. Everyone is pursuing an agenda when it comes to Bigfoot - closely human, hybrid, relict hominid, Gigantopithecus, multiple species, interdimensional, alien, etc. When it comes down to it none are more or less valid/ridiculous than any of the others. "Bigfoot" is really only the combination of many individual/local folkloric versions revolving around a common theme - the Wild/Hairy-Man. What Bigfoot really is is of little importance. What Bigfoot is to you (the individual seeker) is what matters and which version of Bigfoot is considered to be dominant within the lore is what matters most of all. We all experience Bigfoot according to our beliefs. With the recent DNA claims pushing Bigfoot as a different human or human-hybrid you can be sure that it will be followed by more Bigfoot claims involving human-like behaviours and cultural activity. The Bigfoot-as-American-ape crowd have some highly influential advocates and, as much is at stake, they will not take this new threat to their position lying down so watch out for more claims supporting that side as well. Try watching the unfolding chaos as part of the sub-cultural war for dominant position in the Bigfoot-lore. More conferences, merchandising, and TV shows to follow. To the victor goes the spoils ($$$ and cryptozoological fame/infamy) yet the mystery will remain elusive/illusive... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-C Posted November 30, 2012 #102 Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) There have been claims of Bigfoot using tools, fire, and dwellings. What Bigfoot is and does is dependent on which angle is considered to be dominant in the Bigfoot-lore and what is deemed credible by the individual seeker. Everyone is pursuing an agenda when it comes to Bigfoot - closely human, hybrid, relict hominid, Gigantopithecus, multiple species, interdimensional, alien, etc. When it comes down to it none are more or less valid/ridiculous than any of the others. "Bigfoot" is really only the combination of many individual/local folkloric versions revolving around a common theme - the Wild/Hairy-Man. What Bigfoot really is is of little importance. What Bigfoot is to you (the individual seeker) is what matters and which version of Bigfoot is considered to be dominant within the lore is what matters most of all. We all experience Bigfoot according to our beliefs. With the recent DNA claims pushing Bigfoot as a different human or human-hybrid you can be sure that it will be followed by more Bigfoot claims involving human-like behaviours and cultural activity. The Bigfoot-as-American-ape crowd have some highly influential advocates and, as much is at stake, they will not take this new threat to their position lying down so watch out for more claims supporting that side as well. Try watching the unfolding chaos as part of the sub-cultural war for dominant position in the Bigfoot-lore. More conferences, merchandising, and TV shows to follow. To the victor goes the spoils ($$$ and cryptozoological fame/infamy) yet the mystery will remain elusive/illusive... Yes, there are those who have and will claim how BF is like us in its habits and lifestyle but, we haven't found physical evidence of this. Finding a hair a long a path he was seen taking, would be far more difficult than human/intelligent design dwellings in areas he and his clan supposedly reside. And it is true that what he is is of little importance because he is a myth not a real creature. At least for me. But I still wanted to understand how these "scientists" fit their theory (ies) into the history of humans since the thread article claim is "Part Human!" Edited November 30, 2012 by QuiteContrary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Walker Posted November 30, 2012 #103 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Yes, there are those who have and will claim how BF is like us in its habits and lifestyle but, we haven't found physical evidence of this. Finding a hair a long a path he was seen taking, would be far more difficult than human/intelligent design dwellings in areas he and his clan supposedly reside. Well, that depends on one's definition of "evidence". Those whose belief in the reality of Bigfoot claim there is much evidence - so much so that it is incredulous that Bigfoot isn't officially recognised as a species. There is evidence of tool use (stone tools too large for human use) and dwelling construction (tree bends and other stick formations). Of course, these aren't verified in any scientific manner but instead are examples of interpretive evidence - natural and artificial occurences/formations interpretted as signs of Bigfoot. (Will Bigfoot DNA be the same?) Although it may seem ridiculous to outsiders like us, such "evidences" are powerful reinforcers to those with the appropriate Bigfoot belief. The largest portion of Bigfoot claims these days are coming from people and groups who fully expected to see/experience Bigfoot via their pre-existing beliefs - this is something that needs to be explored further. And it is true that what he is is of little importance because he is a myth not a real creature. At least for me. But I still wanted to understand how these "scientists" fit their theory (ies) into the history of humans since the thread article claim is "Part Human!" Well, Melba's seen Bigfoot. I'm not sure if Burtsev has seen a Yeti but he remains convinced by the Carter Farm Bigfoots which may have contributed samples to this study. I'm not sure if David Paulides (not a scientist but a key player in this drama) has seen Bigfoot but is a radical Bigfoot author who has been pushing this unique human tribe angle. I suspect these people are less interested in the actual history of humans and more about how they can interpret and promote the evidence in order to justify their pre-existing belief in Bigfoot. Speculation about Bigfoot is part of the attraction of the phenomenon - because the experiences are largely subjective anyone can be an "expert". Who are the other scientists/players? Examine their pre-existing Bigfoot beliefs and I bet they are largely compatible to those of the other players. Watch the statements of the powerful opposing Bigfoot-faction who have invested in giganto-speculation (like Meldrum and Moneymaker). I reckon we are on the cusp of the Bigfoot Wars. Science is coming to Bigfoot via Sykes DNA study so the players, factions, and speculations will have to appear more sciency to gain/maintain dominance. Or things might just get a whole lot wackier - the paranormal Bigfoot is lurking... Interesting times... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-C Posted November 30, 2012 #104 Share Posted November 30, 2012 "Science is coming to Bigfoot via Sykes DNA" NW NW, explain this a little more. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakari Posted November 30, 2012 #105 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Remember Henner Fahrenbach's 2008 conference? LINK Ketchup is old hat. 30 foot strides.......Damn TY 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-C Posted November 30, 2012 #106 Share Posted November 30, 2012 "Once upon a time..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stardrive Posted November 30, 2012 #107 Share Posted November 30, 2012 "Science is coming to Bigfoot via Sykes DNA" NW NW, explain this a little more. Thanks I can't speak for NW but what it means to me is let's see what Dr. Sykes finds. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaperS_ParadoX Posted November 30, 2012 #108 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Iv heard that Bigfoot could just be a Shaman thats chosen to live in the wild and off the land and over the years hes become more animal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakari Posted November 30, 2012 #109 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Iv heard that Bigfoot could just be a Shaman thats chosen to live in the wild and off the land and over the years hes become more animal And travels all over the US and Canada? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-C Posted November 30, 2012 #110 Share Posted November 30, 2012 I can't speak for NW but what it means to me is let's see what Dr. Sykes finds. Link Thanks! Looks like we don't have long at all to wait. I wonder what the results will prove to all the sides in this subject, as NW pointed out. There is always wiggle room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Walker Posted November 30, 2012 #111 Share Posted November 30, 2012 "Science is coming to Bigfoot via Sykes DNA" NW NW, explain this a little more. Thanks I can't speak for NW but what it means to me is let's see what Dr. Sykes finds. Link Yeah, that's the one. The peer-reviewed Bigfoot DNA study minus shenanigans. Interesting to see how it will turn out... Iv heard that Bigfoot could just be a Shaman thats chosen to live in the wild and off the land and over the years hes become more animal And travels all over the US and Canada? There is no one answer fits all when it comes to Bigfoot. The Shaman explanation may account for a small proportion (also in Australia, too) of alleged sightings but due to the secret/sacred nature of the Shaman it is difficult for outsiders to explore such possibilities... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsowersby Posted November 30, 2012 #112 Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) The tracks for me are most compelling. DNA is great too but a track is something much more personal. I've never seen a BF track but know from tracking other animals and people (for fun) that you can tell a great deal about what you are tracking from the tracks they leave. And, I find it very hard to beleive that a hoaxer with intimate knowledge of anatomy and engineering for that matter, (one would need to engineer a foot that moves according the individual physiology of individual BFs) is making tracks in the middle of now where for people to find, without leaving his own tracks. I think the animal is intelligent and more attune to its environment and able to escape detection easily. After all, have you seen the people looking for this thing? Flashlights, talking to each other as if the thing is deaf or something. They need to step up their game if they want to really find the thing. Hire some special forces people that can actually go in undetected. After reading the announcement, DNA as they are describing cannot be faked. Edited November 30, 2012 by jsowersby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Walker Posted November 30, 2012 #113 Share Posted November 30, 2012 The tracks for me are most compelling. DNA is great too but a track is something much more personal. I've never seen a BF track but know from tracking other animals and people (for fun) that you can tell a great deal about what you are tracking from the tracks they leave. And, I find it very hard to beleive that a hoaxer with intimate knowledge of anatomy and engineering for that matter, (one would need to engineer a foot that moves according the individual physiology of individual BFs) is making tracks in the middle of now where for people to find, without leaving his own tracks. Where are these tracks documented? Most likely the people who make the tracks are the same as those who "find" them and "report" it. Furthermore, it doesn't take an intimate knowledge of anatomy and engineering to fake a track which somebody believes to be real. Belief/bias distorts one's perceptions to suit. Not much of a mystery, really... After reading the announcement, DNA as they are describing cannot be faked. DNA cannot be faked but people's claims about what the DNA really tells us sure can. This is the World of Bigfoot, after all... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsowersby Posted November 30, 2012 #114 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Where are these tracks documented? Most likely the people who make the tracks are the same as those who "find" them and "report" it. Furthermore, it doesn't take an intimate knowledge of anatomy and engineering to fake a track which somebody believes to be real. Belief/bias distorts one's perceptions to suit. Not much of a mystery, really... DNA cannot be faked but people's claims about what the DNA really tells us sure can. This is the World of Bigfoot, after all... Claims can be faked, otherwise know as lies. I suppose there is financial gains to those claims. It was pretty straight forward what was in the DNA samples, what left it is not clear. The tracks that have been documented with plaster casts vary in quality but the most intriguing tracks show ridges in the skin, different arches than human feet, old injuries meaning injuries that have healed over time and left the foot slightly deformed, and physiologic shifts where the movement of the bones of the feet are moving while the print is being left. Depth of the print, length of stride, width of the prints, direction, location are things to look at. Tracks in a line indicate traveling to a known location like food or water sources. You're right in saying if someone wants to find a track they will see tracks everywhere. But, the best plaster casts of BF tracks are compelling. If someone is faking such tracks, they are wasting their time as a hoaxer and should be in special effects. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-C Posted November 30, 2012 #115 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Claims can be faked, otherwise know as lies. I suppose there is financial gains to those claims. It was pretty straight forward what was in the DNA samples, what left it is not clear. The tracks that have been documented with plaster casts vary in quality but the most intriguing tracks show ridges in the skin, different arches than human feet, old injuries meaning injuries that have healed over time and left the foot slightly deformed, and physiologic shifts where the movement of the bones of the feet are moving while the print is being left. Depth of the print, length of stride, width of the prints, direction, location are things to look at. Tracks in a line indicate traveling to a known location like food or water sources. You're right in saying if someone wants to find a track they will see tracks everywhere. But, the best plaster casts of BF tracks are compelling. If someone is faking such tracks, they are wasting their time as a hoaxer and should be in special effects. "the most intriguing tracks show ridges in the skin, different arches than human feet, old injuries meaning injuries that have healed over time and left the foot slightly deformed, and physiologic shifts where the movement of the bones of the feet are moving while the print is being left. Depth of the print, length of stride, width of the prints" Who has made these claims? Where is mainstream peer review documentation of these tracks with the same amazing conclusions: 1) These characteristics are indeed true for some tracks. 2)Some tracks are real and indicate an as of yet undocumented animal. Only my opinion, but what scientist worth his salt couldn't/wouldn't share with colleagues and get other scientists on board with this evidence to have pushed Sasquatch into the mainstream by now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad hoc Posted November 30, 2012 #116 Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) whole thing rings false as usual. the kind of jump-the gun hyperbole and conclusion grasping that scientists with careers to worry about don't tend to do. >< Her career must be really at rock bottom to pull a stunt like this though... because when it (almost certainly) proves to be nonsense, it's kinda hard to come back from that and enter respected circles... I think an earlier comment about her conducting her research from a meth lab sounds worryingly believable. Anyway, at least her name will have a ring to it when she begins employment at mcdonalds. Edited November 30, 2012 by ad hoc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakari Posted December 1, 2012 #117 Share Posted December 1, 2012 whole thing rings false as usual. the kind of jump-the gun hyperbole and conclusion grasping that scientists with careers to worry about don't tend to do. >< Her career must be really at rock bottom to pull a stunt like this though... because when it (almost certainly) proves to be nonsense, it's kinda hard to come back from that and enter respected circles... I think an earlier comment about her conducting her research from a meth lab sounds worryingly believable. Anyway, at least her name will have a ring to it when she begins employment at mcdonalds. Not when it comes to the Bigfoot community...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsowersby Posted December 1, 2012 #118 Share Posted December 1, 2012 "the most intriguing tracks show ridges in the skin, different arches than human feet, old injuries meaning injuries that have healed over time and left the foot slightly deformed, and physiologic shifts where the movement of the bones of the feet are moving while the print is being left. Depth of the print, length of stride, width of the prints" Who has made these claims? Where is mainstream peer review documentation of these tracks with the same amazing conclusions: 1) These characteristics are indeed true for some tracks. 2)Some tracks are real and indicate an as of yet undocumented animal. Only my opinion, but what scientist worth his salt couldn't/wouldn't share with colleagues and get other scientists on board with this evidence to have pushed Sasquatch into the mainstream by now? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsowersby Posted December 1, 2012 #119 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Or maybe it's Shaq jogging in remote regions of the U.S., for centuries... An undiscovered tribe of very big humans, dressing in ape costumes? A hoaxer(s) making prints in the wilderness for thousands of years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-C Posted December 1, 2012 #120 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I am aware of Dr. Meldrum's work. Where are his mainstream colleagues who agree? This would be a once in a lifetime discovery. Why are his claims ignored? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-C Posted December 1, 2012 #121 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I mean, Dr. Meldrum has actual physical evidence for colleagues to look at and study. Meldrum is not just quoting hearsay and first-person stories. But claims actual hold in your hand evidence that show "ridges in the skin, different arches than human feet, old injuries meaning injuries that have healed over time and left the foot slightly deformed, and physiologic shifts where the movement of the bones of the feet are moving while the print is being left." Why then the skepticism in the scientific community? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insanity Posted December 1, 2012 #122 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I am aware of Dr. Meldrum's work. Where are his mainstream colleagues who agree? This would be a once in a lifetime discovery. Why are his claims ignored? Mainstream scientists are often not willing to consider the possibility, simply due the lack of approval they may receive from colleagues, the potential negative impact on their careers or loss of reputation. There are politics in science. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-C Posted December 1, 2012 #123 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Mainstream scientists are often not willing to consider the possibility, simply due the lack of approval they may receive from colleagues, the potential negative impact on their careers or loss of reputation. There are politics in science. Yes, I certainly am not speaking from the experience of being a part of the scientific community, and I know that. But for me, I can't just ignore the skepticism in the scientific community either and blame it on politics or any number of other possibilities, other than scientific reasoning itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakari Posted December 1, 2012 #124 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) Mainstream scientists are often not willing to consider the possibility, simply due the lack of approval they may receive from colleagues, the potential negative impact on their careers or loss of reputation. There are politics in science. Sorry, this does not work. As discussed in another topic where Dr. Meldrum made a few replies, Idaho State University is paying Dr. Meldrum to teach there, and he has taught at other places also. ( resigned and moved on for better positions ). They are also helping him with a Bigfoot Blimp project ( handling the donations for the project ). They let him use the campus for Bigfoot lectures. They also let him store, and work on his Bigfoot castings on the campus. If the " Scientific " community frowned on this, and Scientists were afraid to speak up, this would not be happening. As a matter of fact, main stream scientists do not accept the possibility do to the lack of ( no ) evidence to support it. Not to mention, the many things that show it to be impossible. They are not out there thinking Bigfoot exists, but afraid to say how they feel....They do say how they feel. Edited December 1, 2012 by Sakari 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Walker Posted December 1, 2012 #125 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Claims can be faked, otherwise know as lies. I suppose there is financial gains to those claims. It was pretty straight forward what was in the DNA samples, what left it is not clear. The tracks that have been documented with plaster casts vary in quality but the most intriguing tracks show ridges in the skin, different arches than human feet, old injuries meaning injuries that have healed over time and left the foot slightly deformed, and physiologic shifts where the movement of the bones of the feet are moving while the print is being left. Depth of the print, length of stride, width of the prints, direction, location are things to look at. Tracks in a line indicate traveling to a known location like food or water sources. You're right in saying if someone wants to find a track they will see tracks everywhere. But, the best plaster casts of BF tracks are compelling. If someone is faking such tracks, they are wasting their time as a hoaxer and should be in special effects. Faked Bigfoot claims are only "lies" if you take them seriously in the first place. "Stories" are a more accurate term and without the negative connotations of "lies". Everyone tells stories (Do parents lie to their children before bedtime or do they tell them stories?) and Bigfoot stories are an example of folklore-in-action. No more, no less. The so-called "dermal ridges" found on some Bigfoot tracks are artifical artifacts formed by the casting process: http://www.csicop.or...igfoot_evidence http://madsciencewri...ng-bigfoot.html http://orgoneresearc...eview-material/ Where are the best plaster casts of tracks? The bulk of Professor Meldrum's collection was inherited from well-known hoaxer Paul Freeman and his Meldrum's book also contained photos of Ray Wallace's stomper impressions which he somehow considered to be authentic. Perhaps Meldrum saw "physiologic shifts in the movement of bones" with those too. But that's the thing - if you believe in Bigfoot then you will fall for fakery which confirms your pre-existing beliefs time and time again. Is this not the lesson of Bigfoot? You don't have to be a special effects wizard to fool someone with fake tracks - you just need a basic level of craftiness and to be able to spin a good yarn while people's pre-existing beliefs fill in the details... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now