Separating Fact From Fiction With Bigfoot

[Guest Lesmore]

How does one effectively separate fact from fiction...when it comes to establishing, what is real and what is not real...about Bigfoot?

[Guest]

THAT is a great question and one I look forward to see what kind of reactions there are to it. I wonder how many times a particular behavior or sound has to be described before people will consider that its possible for the creatures, providing they exist, to to execute it. I think there are some things most would agree on but since not all even believe that such a being has a chance to be real, this could be interesting.

Do you think facts can be enlisted to be debated here ?

Such as If the species is real, they are mammals, have hair, and are said to walk upright at least part of the time ?

Great idea for a thread Lesmore. Throwing in the term effectively might prove to be interesting as well .

Edited January 28, 2011 by treeknocker

[Guest Matt K]

It takes a very precise chain of events.

Step one: Actually getting out and going into the field to research.

Step two: Being fortunate/lucky enough to have a sighting/encounter/experience.

Step three: Being completely honest with yourself about your experience, and completely dissecting every single detail about the encounter.

Accomplishing the above will give you maybe a few small facts about a specific individual in a specific situation at a specific moment. That's as good as it's going to get.

There is no way for someone to truly discern between fact or fiction without being a firsthand in person witness to an event, and even then the facts are merely the observations of that witness according to their own perception of the event. Which will change from individual to individual.

Regardless of how intelligent, well-spoken, or knowledgeable a person presents them self, or believes them self to be, unless they were a first person witness to an event, they truly have no way of discerning fact from fiction, nor do they know anything factually. If you don't believe me just check out any of the various threads dedicated to the subject of the Patterson film.

Then again if it weren't for the know-it-all's with self-inflated egos running around patting each other on the back for arguing points,that in reality they know nothing about, and criticizing anything anyone else says while hiding behind the falsely claimed moniker of "peer review" the Bigfoot community would be reduced by at least 85%.

[Guest ajciani]

It is certainly a good question, and one that is extremely difficult to answer in a short manner.

First, you could be asking about how to tell if a witness account is real or BS. Presumably, if a witness account is real, then what they describe has a good chance of being fact. Second, you could be asking how to know which pieces of evidence are real and which are fake. That requires inspection, which is a skill developed over years, but as a general rule, if something looks or sounds off, then it probably is. The question then is how to go about proving or disproving your suspicions. Third, you could be asking how to know which of the individual theories about bigfoots are reasonably based on suspected evidence, or complete speculation without a basis. A good hypothesis will provide the evidence supporting it along with the reasoning, while wild speculation will frequently state a menagerie of facts without any interconnecting logic. While this might seem a strange statement, bad (e.g. fake or incorrect) evidence does not necessarily create bad theories. Ideally, as a theory is worked on and refined, the bad evidence will be contradicted by the good evidence, and ferreted out.

The first issue is also a question faced by many a criminal investigator. When my mother joined the FDA as an investigator, they sent her for several days worth of training on how to interview people, to determine the facts of a case. Basically, you question, and question again, and if something seems contradictory or missing, you ask about it. A fabricated account will have holes and contradictions, and as you inspect those problems, the whole thing will fall apart. There tends to be an escalation of counter-fabrication, in which the poorly thought changes made to fill in one hole open up several others. A false story can go from plausible to ridiculous within a few minutes of questioning.

A real story will also have holes, and maybe even some contradictions. They just naturally form, it has to deal with how we remember events. The holes and contradictions in a real story do not evolve in the same way that they do in a false story. The problems in a real story may not be resolved, but when they are, a new problem rarely ever develops. Essentially, a liar will change his lies, and then more frantically change his lies as the story unravels. A person who has simply forgotten, will stick to their story and try to remember. Unfortunately, there are also some people who will be as truthful as they can be, but when pressured to fill holes, they will create a filling, and cast doubt on everything. A famous example of this was Scooter Libby. Corroborating the story with physical evidence is a big plus.

[Guest ajciani]

criticizing anything anyone else says while hiding behind the falsely claimed moniker of "peer review"

I was thinking of writing an article about government funding of research. I was thinking of a title along the lines of, "Science Backed BS", or maybe, "Peer Reviewed Lies". The basic premise is that government funded research has been less effective than privately backed research because the government grants rarely enforce any accountability of research, and the grant administrators are deluged by exaggerated claims supported by peer reviewed articles, which stems from the fact that the peer review process itself is what I like to call a "circle jerk". The peers reviewing a paper are often chosen from a close knit network of people working on the same topic, a system which has perpetuated some rather unsupported, but widely accepted scientific myths.

For example, dinosaurs are warm blooded, active, feather covered avian predecessors vs cold blooded, lethargic, scale covered reptiles. The reptile view of dinosaurs is the "commonly accepted", but completely unsupported view. It originated when dinosaurs were first discovered, and the paleontologists just assumed they were reptilian, despite clear indications in the bone structures to the contrary (they also happened to lump in reptile fossils with dinosaur fossils, so there may have been some confusion). The assumptions were so accepted, that they even broke bones and placed joints at ungodly angles to make the mountings look "correct". If they had bothered to do anatomically correct mountings, the avian nature of the dinos would have jumped out and bit them on the nose. The warm blooded crowd had an uphill battle to start, because every time they identified avian features, they were hindered by peers who were stuck on cold, and refused to accept the new evidence as anything other than a mistake.

The peer review process perpetuates incorrect views, but it can also be used to create new, unsupported science. I would love to use the example of global warming, because it is the best documented conspiracy to create fake science, but it is "controversial", so I will use an example closer to home. We need peer reviewed evidence of bigfoot. How to go about getting it? Simple.

1) Farenbach submits a paper on footprint size distributions. He recommends Meldrum review it, because Meldrum has published on bigfoot foot structure. Meldrum thumbs ups it, and we get another peer reviewed paper.

2) Krantz (assuming he was still alive) submits a paper on bigfoot dermal ridges. Meldrum or Farenbach, now recognized experts on bigfoot feet, are recommended to review and approve. There's another paper.

Basically, it keeps building from there, like that. Discoveries of stick structures are compiled into another paper, linked to footprints, and then reviewed by like minded people. There's another peer reviewed paper. It goes on and on like that until we have peer reviewed papers detailing behavior, habitat and diet, all based on the "indeterminate" evidence that has already been collected.

[southernyahoo]

You've been channeling my thoughts, Matt K Thats a fact.

[Guest Lesmore]

I think we need to be careful, when assigning characteristics to BF that there is really no way of ascertaining...I think it takes away from credibility.

We need to separate what we imagine, from what is actually known.

[Guest Lesmore]

THAT is a great question and one I look forward to see what kind of reactions there are to it. I wonder how many times a particular behavior or sound has to be described before people will consider that its possible for the creatures, providing they exist, to to execute it. I think there are some things most would agree on but since not all even believe that such a being has a chance to be real, this could be interesting.

I find that some noises that are ascribed to being from BF, can actually be from other animals...such as Pileated Woodpeckers or Bitterns. Sometimes there are animals that are not common to a particular area (in some parts Cougars, Pine Martens which can make a sound that could curdle your blood) that make some unusual noises. I suspect that when you are looking for a BF and hear a loud, unusual noise that you may not be familiar with...sometimes it can be a self fulfilling prophecy that it must be from a BF.

We have to guard against the idea that if all we are familiar with is a hammer....then everything we see is a nail.

Do you think facts can be enlisted to be debated here ?

Such as If the species is real, they are mammals, have hair, and are said to walk upright at least part of the time ?

Great idea for a thread Lesmore. Throwing in the term effectively might prove to be interesting as well .

'Effectively' is a good word, in my experience.

[southernyahoo]

Philosophicly, and from a scientific stand point, "we" don't know anything about bigfoot. We compare the evidence to knowns to see where it fits. Thats all we "can" do without a body. You either use the science applied to knowns to ascertain what the evidence belongs to or you throw science out the window and believe what ever you want, fact or fiction. Science rules the roost on facts.

[Incorrigible1]

I think we need to be careful, when assigning characteristics to BF that there is really no way of ascertaining...I think it takes away from credibility.

We need to separate what we imagine, from what is actually known.

There's a whole group of folks here actively rewriting what's "known" about bigfoot. The conjectures and exaggerations soon enough become accepted. Stories rule in some sectors. It's amazing, really.

[Guest wudewasa]

Until an intact body is discovered and analyzed, we will continue to speculate. Only when we can delve into the carcass can we examine the eye tissue for reflective capabilities, the feet for the metatarsal joint, the scent glands for a pungent odor, the hands for dexterous movement, the limbs for both quadrupedal and bipedal locomotion and the presence of enlarged vocal sacs for enhanced vocalization behavior.

All the rest is hearsay and hypotheses based on stories and accounts that are difficult, if not impossible to accept as evidence.

[Guest Lesmore]

There's a whole group of folks here actively rewriting what's "known" about bigfoot. The conjectures and exaggerations soon enough become accepted. Stories rule in some sectors. It's amazing, really.

I agree. If conjectures and exaggerations become repeated enough, they can take on a life of their own and for some it can be a substitute for facts.

[Guest]

I invite those expressing anti-science views in this thread to jettison all facets of their life (let's start with the Internet) that have developed through the scientific process, including peer review of information published in scientific journals.

[Huntster]

I invite those expressing anti-science views in this thread to jettison all facets of their life (let's start with the Internet) that have developed through the scientific process, including peer review of information published in scientific journals.

Give me a break. We have to express total, complete, and undying love for science as if it is an expression of perfection?

Are we talking science here, or are we talking religion? We cannot discuss the flaws of science as an industry (or, as in this case, as an ideology) because the scientific method is perfection, yet those who claim to express themselves as scientists can condemn or rule over everything else simply because they are scientists?

Humanity now finds itself being increasingly ruled by those who claim scientific superiority in just about every way. People are using their supposed scientific superiority to dictate what we eat, wear, how we transport ourselves, how we heat our homes, how many children we have, how to control how many children we have, and on and on and on. We even find science being used to condemn religious faith. Yet we cannot point out how science as an industry cannot or will not even take action in simple biological questions like whether or not sasquatches exist like people have claimed for eons?

How is my acceptance of science, for example, with regard to electricity and electronics (which I'm utilizing to communicate with you right now) somehow to deny me the right to condemn "science" for it's refusal to invest in sasquatchery?

Hell, as a military man, do you think I don't often condemn the military sometimes for it's foolishness in so many areas? Why can't you see and admit the flaws of science as an industry?

Is science God? Perfection? Beyond question? Foolproof?

[Guest]

Hear, hear!