Trekker takes photograph of 'Yeti footprints'

[+DieChecker]

Snow leopard tracks sometimes appear to be in a straight line.

[PrisonerX]

Snow leopard tracks sometimes appear to be in a straight line.

Snow leopards are awesome.

Assuming a Yeti footprint is similar to a Sasquatch footprint, what would set it apart from a snow leopard's trail, aside from the anatomical features of the print itself, would be the stride length. A four legged creature, such as the snow leopard, wouldn't exhibit the same kind of sustained long stride that a large bipedal creature like the Sasquatch/Yeti is reported to display. A sustained long stride is one of the track features that makes cases like the 1851 Arkansas case I spoke of earlier ITT quite interesting.

Anyway, you may be correct about the tracks in the article. It's a distance shot with no frame of reference, so close examination is not possible. I'd not be surprised if they were made by a snow leopard.

[Horta]

Bindernagel's research is published in a book and is therefore available for scrutiny. That you will not do the reading is on you. Until you do, however, you're in no position to declare it as unscientific.

The same way alien research, quantum health, free energy and comics are also published in books and available for scrutiny. Anyone can publish a book. If you want science to take it seriously, there is a proper way to go about it.

You might take note of the way Sykes went about it. Gather the best "claimed" bigfoot evidence he could get. Then perform experiment. Then publish results in peer reviewed science journal so that other scientists will scrutinise it. Try to gain a consensus about results of experiments. Then publish stuff for 'footers.

Bigfoot "science" avoids this like the plague, preferring to pretend science isn't there. That's why so many 'footers, creationists, quantum health proponents etc. actively hate the process that real science uses. That's why bigfoot "scientists" submit their pseudo science to fring/alternate journals or go straight to science fiction paperback. They realize it isn't really science.

There is no bigfoot science (in support of bigfoot), none has ever been offered, there is plenty of bigfoot entertainment claiming to be science though.

You cannot just say that there are no scientists looking because you want to, it doesn't work that way. I've already proven you wrong by citing one.

Organised a scientific expedition to look for Leprechauns a while back. Was an enjoyable hike. Found no Leprechauns but some obvious tracks. Lots of other people using the trail, quite likely they were also looking for Leprechauns. After all, lots of wilderness. You can't say that isn't science just 'cause you want to, it doesn't work that way.

Lol of course it's seen by people more frequently around places were there are people more frequently. That makes perfect sense. Like I have already explained, most people do not go into the remote regions. That you think that is some sort of evidence against it's existence is just plain silly.

So bigfoot frequents the dumpster at the local fast food outlet, is seen running through industrial estates, under busy freeway overpasses, but leaves no real evidence of its existence because...wilderness! lol. Thanks.

US designated wilderness when taken together is slightly larger than the state of California.

Thought it would have been larger that that. Pristine wilderness areas amount to a vastly smaller area.

There is plenty of wilderness for bigfoot to survive in the US. Not as an uncatalogued species though. That is simply not possible in any practical sense. Far less so after the spate of sightings have grown to include the entire continental US. You will need to back that up with something a little more substantial.

It's all been explored (in the US) and anyway, what makes you think bigfoot is in such remote regions? According to your claims, people don't really go there to be in a position to know, remember?

Also, when talking sasquatch you have to talk all of N America. There's still vast regions of Canadian country that are yet to have any record of anyone exploring it by foot ever.

Possibly, but that is irrelevant to the populations of monsters running amok yet undiscovered by science over the entirety of the US for centuries. Such as the colony of 12' bigfoots living just outside of Santa Fe. The 10 acre block in Oklahoma aka "bigfoots aplenty" that after years of research has yielded nothing but stories. The bigfoots that have been hiding out in vast unexplored hobby farming areas of Kentucky for centuries and so forth...

http://www.kentuckyb...com/reports.htm

Lol your entire argument is more or less based on "because I said so". Nobody is looking for sasquatch for real, because you said so. LMAO. Meanwhile I cited a biologist and proved that nonsense claim wrong, yet you continue spouting it and looking desperate.

No, my entire argument is based on calling bs until someone offers genuine evidence. Not claims of evidence, but genuine scientific evidence. If your scientists have Ph.D they will fully understand how to submit these great findings to the science community. Strange they never do that.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Horta

[PrisonerX]

The same way alien research, quantum health, free energy and comics are also published in books and available for scrutiny. Anyone can publish a book. If you want science to take it seriously, there is a proper way to go about it.

You might take note of the way Sykes went about it. Gather the best "claimed" bigfoot evidence he could get. Then perform experiment. Then publish results in peer reviewed science journal so that other scientists will scrutinise it. Try to gain a consensus about results of experiments. Then publish stuff for 'footers.

Bigfoot "science" avoids this like the plague, preferring to pretend science isn't there. That's why so many 'footers, creationists, quantum health proponents etc. actively hate the process that real science uses. That's why bigfoot "scientists" submit their pseudo science to fring/alternate journals or go straight to science fiction paperback. They realize it isn't really science.

There is no bigfoot science (in support of bigfoot), none has ever been offered, there is plenty of bigfoot entertainment claiming to be science though.

The few scientists investigating the evidence are rightfully hesitant to submit papers to institutions that have little interest in taking them seriously. Much was learned from the plight of Grover Kantz. You might want to take note. With the unfortunate muddying of the waters by hoaxes, it's basically become taboo to entertain the notion seriously, and therefore can jeopardize one's career and funding. This is admittedly the reason Bindernagel has been relatively quiet in that regard, while still making an effort. You have to understand, there is a business side to scientific research, and scientists must largely conduct themselves as businessmen when choosing what to research.

That said, you're essentially just dodging the material by bringing scientific publication into this debate as a prejudgment to its value. The evidence is made available for scrutiny and it’s not any specific publication that ultimately determines its validity, rather it is the truth of the matter, however that may be presented. Your excuse for avoiding direct investigation of the evidence provided by certain scientists, however, has been noted.

Organised a scientific expedition to look for Leprechauns a while back. Was an enjoyable hike. Found no Leprechauns but some obvious tracks. Lots of other people using the trail, quite likely they were also looking for Leprechauns. After all, lots of wilderness. You can't say that isn't science just 'cause you want to, it doesn't work that way.

Bringing up expeditions was just a way for you to move the goal posts after I proved your claim, that no scientists were looking for Sasquatch, to be demonstrably false. Now you’re being sarcastic in an attempt to hide that fact.

So bigfoot frequents the dumpster at the local fast food outlet, is seen running through industrial estates, under busy freeway overpasses, but leaves no real evidence of its existence because...wilderness! lol. Thanks.

Context matters. It’s no surprise you must take my words out of context in order to attack them. I guess that’s to be expected, after all, it’s you’re only form or recourse aside from admitting you done goofed.

Thought it would have been larger that that. Pristine wilderness areas amount to a vastly smaller area.

There is plenty of wilderness for bigfoot to survive in the US. Not as an uncatalogued species though. That is simply not possible in any practical sense. Far less so after the spate of sightings have grown to include the entire continental US. You will need to back that up with something a little more substantial.

It's all been explored (in the US) and anyway, what makes you think bigfoot is in such remote regions? According to your claims, people don't really go there to be in a position to know, remember?

Well, then you thought wrong…again. That it’s impossible is merely your opinion, for as has been shown, there are plenty of wilderness regions for them to exist. You’re willfully ignorant if you continue to claim otherwise. That sightings have grown is likely in accordance with population growth and modern expansion. It’s been backed up with track evidence in many cases – the evidence you continue to avoid fully investigating yet continually downplay.

And what makes me think Sasquatch, if real, is in the remote regions? The answer is simple. It’s because that is the most likely place for them to move about more freely and avoid competition, while remaining largely hidden, and as a result, alive.

Possibly, but that is irrelevant to the populations of monsters running amok yet undiscovered by science over the entirety of the US for centuries. Such as the colony of 12' bigfoots living just outside of Santa Fe. The 10 acre block in Oklahoma aka "bigfoots aplenty" that after years of research has yielded nothing but stories. The bigfoots that have been hiding out in vast unexplored hobby farming areas of Kentucky for centuries and so forth...

No, it isn’t irrelevant. It’s very much important to take into account the prevalence of sightings, accounts, and track evidence from places such as British Colombia. The entire Pacific Northwest is one of the major regions in question. That you want to exclude all existing data and information from Canadian reports is telling.

No, my entire argument is based on calling bs until someone offers genuine evidence. Not claims of evidence, but genuine scientific evidence. If your scientists have Ph.D they will fully understand how to submit these great findings to the science community. Strange they never do that.

“If” my scientists have a Ph. D? Lol. Here’s what one Ph D. had to say about the research:

“The book lays out the evidence in just the way a scientifically-minded reader would want to see it. It uses relevant data for comparisons with the Great Apes in a wholly accurate way. The result is that the readers are challaneged by the many points of similarity between sasquatch anatomy and behavior [and that of the Great Apes].” – Dr. Vernon Reynolds, Institute of Biological Anthropology, Oxford University.

You’re in no position to call BS.

Edited February 16, 2016 by PrisonerX

[Myles]

The few scientists investigating the evidence are rightfully hesitant to submit papers to institutions that have little interest in taking them seriously. Much was learned from the plight of Grover Kantz. You might want to take note. With the unfortunate muddying of the waters by hoaxes, it's basically become taboo to entertain the notion seriously, and therefore can jeopardize one's career and funding. This is admittedly the reason Bindernagel has been relatively quiet in that regard, while still making an effort. You have to understand, there is a business side to scientific research, and scientists must largely conduct themselves as businessmen when choosing what to research.

You are spinning again.

Below are 2 scientific studies that were done and submitted. If these do not "jeopardize one's career and funding", I don't think bigfoot would. Of course, that would entail having actual evidence.

A study was conducted at the Babraham Institute to determine whether sheep were capable of recognizing the faces of other sheep. When the study concluded in 2001, the researchers had discovered that sheep could recognize the faces of fifty sheep about 80% of the time, and they remembered them for over two years, which is much better than my own sheep facial-recognition.

In 2011, researchers at Albany Medical College played songs by Beethoven and Miles Davis to rats, learning that the rats preferred silence, but would rather hear Beethoven than Miles Davis. Then the researchers injected some rats with cocaine while the rats were listening to Miles Davis because, y'know, why not? At this point they weren't even conducting a study, they were just enjoying some jazz, and dosing rats with cocaine, as you do. But anyway, they learned that those rats preferred the jazz music, even after the cocaine was out of their systems.

[Horta]

Ah those pesky skeptics always moving the goalposts with their strawmen tactics like...asking for evidence sufficient to back claims, pointing out obvious inconsistencies. lol.

It's obvious science refuses to look at bigfoot reflected in the way they bent over backwards to help Ketchum publish her paper (it was never rejected, it was withdrawn), the way the editor of Nature went out of his way to write an article encouraging Cryptozoology to "come in from the cold" and join real science by publishing, over a decade ago. The way the Sykes study which promised to objectively study bigfoot claims, had so much trouble getting published.

There real reasons for the lack of bigfoot papers is quite obvious to most, though congrats on joining the "conspiracy" set. Along with all of the other pseudo sciences.

Grover was an interesting scientist to say the least. Dahinden found him so infuriating due to being so extremely easy to fool, coupled with an equal inability to even consider that a possibility, that when asked what the biggest stumbling block to bigfoot research was he quipped "having a Ph.D". He tells a funny anecdote about Roger Patterson meeting him for the first time and going to Renee to inquire "Who is that guy? Gee he's gullible!" lol.

Though at least he was realistic enough to know he wasn't going to convince many scientists simply based on his personal belief regarding tracks. He also made a good point that "footers never seem to understand. The more sightings, the more widespread the are and the longer they continue without genuine scientific discovery doesn't make it more likely bigfoot exists, it makes it less so.

You missed the entire point re scientific Leprechaun research. Surely there is a viable predecessor who could have migrated along the Bering land bridge (unlike Giganto, we know the "hobbit" was bipedal and not restricted largely to eating bamboo). People have been seeing the "wee folk" long before bigfoot was ever dreamed up.

So the claim that Leprechauns are at least responsible for the smaller tracks and...say "dogman" is responsible for the bigger ones (dogman is regularly being seen in the US) seems to amount to exactly equal evidence being offered for bigfoot. (f you can't find anecdotes of "wee folk" sightings you probably aren't looking and anyway, that can be easily remedied).

They would all be claimed as leprechaun, dogman or bigfoot evidence based on unverifiable stories and the belief that such things exist.

This is why they are not considered evidence in a scientific sense. Until someone provides supplementary genuine reasons to suppose either leprechauns, dogman or bigfoot exists, they are simply more (belief based) claims.

Good luck convincing the heathens though. As yet the general public and the scientific community aren't swayed. That's because bigfoot running all over NA uncatalogued doesn't exist in this reality. If it were that a creature could be made of pseudo scientific claims, anecdotes, arguments, scams and fakes he would be over running the place. But he isn't and that's why 0 bigfoots have been discovered and catalogued.

Seems he exists in that other reality...where aliens travel from other galaxies to take people (for no apparent reason), where amateurs build "over unity" energy devices in their workshops and where people each create their own personal universe because of quantumflapdoodle somethingorother...and where science not falling all over their outlandish claims amounts to a conspiracy.

The obviously far more difficult problem continues to be that column that tallies..."Bigfoots found and catalogued - 0".

So rather than talking bigfoot into existence, it might be better to change that.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Horta

[Horta]

You’re in no position to call BS.

Biologists aren't expert bigfoot trackers (or necessarily trackers at all).

Anthropologists aren't expert bigfoot trackers (or necessarily trackers at all).

None of them have studied the foot of their proposed bigfoot, nor does anyone have one available for study.

Therefore none of them are in a position to credit them to bigfoot.

This is conjecture based on personal belief (pseudo science).

It isn't necessary to call bs. It is necessary for the claimants to support the claim. The science community at large have called bs on these unsupported claims by finding them irrelevant.