Peer Review, The Scientific Arguments And Cross Applying To Bigfoot

[Incorrigible1]

This could be a cart/horse situation. IF such a leg fossil had been recovered, why not let's consider that and wait for any conclusions and/or evidence to come from that before throwing it into the mix?

One thing at a time. First, we need to even know whether such a fossil were truly discovered.

[Guest]

Sas, you wrote that you,'...have long advocated that bigfoot hunters would have better luck cruising the streambanks for fossils than camping out in the woods call-blasting and what-not.'

I recall that last year David Paulides and Ketchum spoke very briefly about a leg bone specimen that had been found in a riverine setting. If I am not wrong, and this sample's DNA is meaningfully similar to the current blood work being done, then what is a reasonable conclusion?

Yes they did in their first joint radio interview, something happened by the second interview however because they would no longer talk about it. Melba said the bone was huge and that it could only be from a few things. I guess we are just going to have to wait to see if it was included in the study.

[southernyahoo]

Stay away from the "entrepreneurs."...you will never get the science or the money or the fame from them. That's not the game they play. They will stack the deck with NDA's and press conferences and cable shows so they make the fame and money and everything and everyone else can go to the hot place. If nothing else, that is the lesson to be learned from the current extravaganza.

You have to choose which path you want to take. Science or Georgiafoots.

Those are just my opinions. Saskeptic may disagree (of course, in that case, he'd be wrong).

I have a different slant on this Parn, you see , proponents have been caught in a catch 22 for too long. No money is to be made in the research or search for bigfoot. This leaves untrained people to do the collection of evidence and data. Few have the skills to properly analyse the data, and very little of that could amount to proof which would bring funding to the research.

What this field needed was a genetics expert who was not bound to funding and time constraints already committed to other research. Someone who had the freedom to explore other horizons within their field, and who carried no bias or preconception on BF and would be willing to publish results. So an entrepreneur is a candidate given what peer pressure can be like within academia. Check

Then we needed a benefactor to fund the research. Check.

Then we needed to do the unthinkable, give the hardest evidence to the geneticist. Check.

Now the geneticist is publishing, There's not much more we could ask for actually. You see that underlined part in your post? It's about greed, and it's that very thing that has been so divisive in this field it's a wonder any evidence gets shared, let alone given to science for proper study.

[Guest]

good points Southern Yahoo and Mitch

To Saskeptic - the point I am making is observation can be taken now w/o proof. The response one must have proof to know what they are collecting is circular. It is possible to collect from the material and observational data associated with BF activity. Building that data and evaluating it seriously is valid, there are many disciplines to draw from...and to eliminate bad evidence (think Skookum cast here..had that been vetted by Elk experts it may not have been a chapter in a book).

Again, everything to be gained in my mind by creating and publishing serious research within our field..rather than wait on the few PhD's involved....all with their own funding/goal restraints that don't seem to align well with those of us seeking to understand BF's rather than prove (seems these are not mutually exclusive...one deals with traditions of science and recognition, the other with reality...now...and how to best understand it for the future)

So, a Journal/Society can set certain standards...fro video submission to casts...and at the least begin a shared repository of reliable evidence, UN-fettered by commercial gains..... this wont prevent any from capitalizing on their finds....but will stop those just full of BS w/o having to address them negatively - they just don't have submissions.

had to edit it double posted

Edited December 7, 2011 by apehuman

[Guest]

To Saskeptic - the point I am making is observation can be taken now w/o proof. The response one must have proof to know what they are collecting is circular. It is possible to collect from the material and observational data associated with BF activity. Building that data and evaluating it seriously is valid, there are many disciplines to draw from...and to eliminate bad evidence (think Skookum cast here..had that been vetted by Elk experts it may not have been a chapter in a book).

So let's say I publish a paper on alleged bigfoot footprints but it turns out they were hoaxed. The analysis could have been completely above-board and statistically sophisticated, but it ultimately was not bigfoot evidence. The activity of humans, birds, other mammals, wind, etc. has been variously considered "bigfoot activity" - people can collect observational data associated with such things but no where has it been demonstrated that any of it is actually bigfoot activity. Not being able to demonstrate that the data you're collecting has come from the thing you claim is a fatal flaw, and unpublishable by a reputable journal.

As for the Skookum Cast, I agree that it is evidence of mammals other than bigfoot. You will find, however, dogged support for it as bigfoot evidence here on the BFF. Try the "search" function . . .

[Guest mitchw]

A new species of dinosaur has been identified from fossils long stored in a museum. Looks like if you've got the goods....

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/07/new_horned_dinosaur/

[Guest]

That'd work too, mitchw. Many here are convinced that "bigfoot" is simply awaiting discovery in a drawer of larger-than-average human remains.

There's also a significant group of people who think that "bigfoot" is the modern manifestation of a species already described, such as Homo erectus. That's possible, but to determine if it's indeed the case, we'd need some extant bigfoot material to compare with the fossils of the things we hypothesize bigfoots might be.

It's really difficult to escape the need for unambiguous physical evidence because that is the standard by which all species are named and described, and it has been since the allegro molto from Mozart's Symphony No. 46 was the latest hit on Casey Kasem's American Top 40. "Coming up, we've got a newcomer to our countdown whose melodies are softer than the powder in his wig. All the way from Salzburg, Austria, here's Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart debuting at number 17 with the allegro molto from Symphony Number 46."

[Guest mitchw]

Very good, Sas. Remember when k515 was all the rage? I posted the link to demonstrate how powerful a body is, and that the pursuit of bigfoot needs to meet a high standard of proof.

[Guest]

I posted the link to demonstrate how powerful a body is,

Yes, thanks. One interesting facet of this in paleontology is the likelihood that things we consider to be different, though closely related, species can sometimes be different age classes or populations of the same species. Systematics based on fossil evidence alone is a recipe for errors of commission.

[Guest]

yes.

realistically, much as I love the sounds of the wild, no sound recordings are ever going to be anything probative. Like imprints, reported visual encounters and broken branches, there is no way to prove they weren't made by man, nature or some other animal. When I hear an elk sound, I use that to find the elk. I may not get a shot, but I can at least get pictures, poop, etc. That is the utility of sounds. The Michigan Recording Project (as I understand it), to a scientist, would be ludicrous: Years of sitting in lawn chairs, listening????!!! while the greatest discovery in history is 100 yards away? come on....

It's either divergent DNA or a body for proof (I in no way condone, recommend, or suggest attempting to kill one); or clear, stable, unobstructed photographic/video (not thermal) images to get financial support. So use the sounds to help obtain these kinds of evidence, or to find out what other source there is for the sounds...you might be surprised.

You should be in contact with your local wildlife agencies and a university zoologist, if you want credibility in science and want to avoid wasting years of time, effort and money. Many studies seem to show good results but, under scrutiny, are pretty worthless because the study wasn't properly planned before a single bit of data was obtained. You can't play the game outside their rules and still expect that your supposed "touchdown run" won't be "called back" because of an "illegal formation".

Stay away from the "entrepreneurs."...you will never get the science or the money or the fame from them. That's not the game they play. They will stack the deck with NDA's and press conferences and cable shows so they make the fame and money and everything and everyone else can go to the hot place. If nothing else, that is the lesson to be learned from the current extravaganza.

You have to choose which path you want to take. Science or Georgiafoots.

Those are just my opinions. Saskeptic may disagree (of course, in that case, he'd be wrong).

I think this is the 1st time I have agreed with you, but don't get your hopes up, you have a long way to go to flip me to the dark side.

Edited December 7, 2011 by zigoapex

[Guest parnassus]

That'd work too, mitchw. Many here are convinced that "bigfoot" is simply awaiting discovery in a drawer of larger-than-average human remains.

There's also a significant group of people who think that "bigfoot" is the modern manifestation of a species already described, such as Homo erectus. That's possible, but to determine if it's indeed the case, we'd need some extant bigfoot material to compare with the fossils of the things we hypothesize bigfoots might be.

It's really difficult to escape the need for unambiguous physical evidence because that is the standard by which all species are named and described, and it has been since the allegro molto from Mozart's Symphony No. 46 was the latest hit on Casey Kasem's American Top 40. "Coming up, we've got a newcomer to our countdown whose melodies are softer than the powder in his wig. All the way from Salzburg, Austria, here's Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart debuting at number 17 with the allegro molto from Symphony Number 46."

we're sending it out to Mary Jane in Berlin, Germany, who waited 3 years for her sweetheart Gunther to return from the wars, only to learn that he had defected to the French and come out of the closet.

[Guest]

StankApe said-

''When one claims to have made a completely new Species(or Genus especially) discovery, well you have to have a body most of the time.''

Ultimately we will have to have a body, however until then it isn't like our hands are tied. There is still quite a bit that can be done to continue moving forward in the study of Bigfoot and the collection of evidence.

Parnassas said-

''You have to choose which path you want to take. Science or Georgiafoots.''

My point was we aren't using ALL the available science provided in previously peer reviewed studies. By thinking in narrowed parameters we've overlooked much which possibly applies to the already collected evidence, observations and reports.I'm actually advocating we use MORE science, not less.

Saskeptic said-

''I would suggest that if bigfooters innovated their own thinking to follow the evidence that they'd reach the same conclusion I have: there is no bigfoot.''

Actually until all avenues available to researchers have been exhausted we don't know what the outcome will be. As all the evidence certainly hasn't been cross-referenced with every study that may be applicable, weighed measured, and whatever else we just can't know either way.

It's just too easy to give reasons why things can't be done. As valid as these three arguments seem on the surface, they in no way invalidate furthering Bigfoot research by

exploring more unorthodox thinking. Doctors and drug companies do it all the time. For example using pharmacuitcals for other than the intended research. Many drug side effects actually safely and suprisingly address ''other than intended'' conditions. You used to take an asprin for a headache, but in the last 10-15 yrs it's now standard practice to give a 81mg. asprin for heart disease.

We as advocates for Bigfoots possible existance need to begin using more and better science in the form of cross applying existing studies to the evidence we have and looking to see what, if anything, comes of it. Depending on ONLY physical anthropologists, ONLY on dermal experts, ONLY on paleo anthropologists, ONLY on primtologists leaves out

too much for me. It's too narrow a defination that we have become so married to, it's become our achillies heel.

[Guest StankApe]

Oh i agree grayjay. DNA evidence, IMO, is the gateway to species confirmation. If, as alleged, all the various details are covered properly and there is undeniable evidence of an unknown primate then the next phase is to confirm the findings as indeed a BIGFOOT via specimen gathering. Once you grab a critter, (not even having to kill it but a filmed tranquilization followed by blood drawing would suffice) then you compare said blood (sealed as if maintaining a forensic chain of evidence like in crime scenes) to the original Ketchum results and if they match, bingo Bigfoot is confirmed!

[Guest Jodie]

Here is something cool that claims no connection with bigfoot, but it does make you wonder if our assumptions for bigfoot and infrasound are off. I don't know if it will make bigfoot sightings easier to accomplish but for a small investment, no more than buying a good winter coat, researchers can certainly try one of these suits to find out:

http://www.hecsllc.com/research.html

Look at any branch of research and you might find connections for a lot of aspects from various reports. That is where you get your ideas for innovative research. You just have to read more to pick up on it, not be married to your assumptions, and keep an open mind about things. The best place to start in improving research in this area, it's not quite a "field" of research yet, would be getting past the psychology and motivations of the researchers involved IMO.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Jodie

[bipedalist]

Well wood-knocking and call-blasting (now amuse Sasquatch when produced by us) and may have led us to the front door, but it's time to wipe our feet on the door mat, and proceed to knock the blasted door off it's hinges (yah, you got my permission to quote me on it).