Separating Fact From Fiction With Bigfoot

[Guest Matt K]

Well according to anecdotal reports, Bigfoot do in fact exist. If no proof is demanded of these anecdotal sightings, then I guess we all agree Bigfoot is real. But wait, people still have choice. Choice to either believe or disbelieve. If you want someone to change their position from disbelief to belief, or in turn knowledge, you must convince them to do so, generally by providing proof. If I were to approach a scientist with a casting of a track, and told them it was the track of a Bigfoot, they would more than likely either dismiss me outright or ask me how I knew it was from a Bigfoot. If I were to then tell them because I saw the Bigfoot that made the track, they are then going to ask me where my proof is. Otherwise all of these tracks that have been cast throughout the years would be sufficient evidence to at least look into the possible existence of these creatures. But since these tracks are coming from a yet to be proven subject, they are ignored.

For some reason I feel that if Jane Goodall or some other well known and respected scientist were to approach their peers with a first hand sighting account, it would would garner much more interest and investigation than if it came from someone such as myself. Even though in most cases it shouldn't. It's all about the credentials. I respect Dr. Meldrum a great deal. I applaud him for the time and effort he has put into this field as a scientist. I wish there were more like him. But Dr. Meldrum was by no means the first person to notice that some of the tracks are in fact from a living creature, nor was he the first to notice a midtarsal break, or notice the weight displacement aspects found evident in the tracks.

One can evaluate and analyze evidence and information without attacking it. What I meant by dissection was not breaking it down and looking at it piece by piece, but dissection as in ripping it apart with assumptions and obvious conclusions. I.E. it is and always will be possible for a track to be the result of a hoax. I don't care how good it is. Therefore I do not feel it is necessary to instantly dismiss it as such based on the possibility that it was. Casting artifacts can cause dermal ridge like features. That does not however mean that dermal ridges should be ignored because of that possibility. Evidence is often times dependent on the anecdotal story that accompanies it to determine its degree of significance. When taken out of that context it is easy to dismiss all of it based on possibilities other than having originated from a Bigfoot.

So yes, I do feel at times the only way to reach the truth is by going through doors that have not previously been opened by scientific proof. Sometimes you do just have to go with your instincts. Sometimes you do need to take those anecdotal stories as a possible truth and see where that assumption leads. Sometimes, more often than not, those paths lead to a dead end. But that one time it doesn't makes it all worth it. If we learn from our mistakes, what do we learn by playing it safe and not making any? Some stand in one place waiting for the proof to reveal itself. Others move forward until they find it. Which ones do you suppose will obtain it first? We didn't have to fly into outer space to learn the Earth was not flat.

[Guest Lesmore]

Well according to anecdotal reports, Bigfoot do in fact exist. If no proof is demanded of these anecdotal sightings, then I guess we all agree Bigfoot is real. But wait, people still have choice. Choice to either believe or disbelieve. If you want someone to change their position from disbelief to belief, or in turn knowledge, you must convince them to do so, generally by providing proof. If I were to approach a scientist with a casting of a track, and told them it was the track of a Bigfoot, they would more than likely either dismiss me outright or ask me how I knew it was from a Bigfoot. If I were to then tell them because I saw the Bigfoot that made the track, they are then going to ask me where my proof is. Otherwise all of these tracks that have been cast throughout the years would be sufficient evidence to at least look into the possible existence of these creatures. But since these tracks are coming from a yet to be proven subject, they are ignored.

For some reason I feel that if Jane Goodall or some other well known and respected scientist were to approach their peers with a first hand sighting account, it would would garner much more interest and investigation than if it came from someone such as myself. Even though in most cases it shouldn't.

Why shouldn't it be ? It is, as you say a question of credibility. A well established and respected scientist with a report would certainly have more credibility, than the average guy. For one thing I would think that a scientist...say a biologist... would be more knowledgeable in the area of mammalia, would be more objective, would question him/herself more thoroughly than an average person. This is not meant to be insulting to Joe Average...I count myself as part of this grouping. It's all about the credentials. I respect Dr. Meldrum a great deal. I applaud him for the time and effort he has put into this field as a scientist. I wish there were more like him. But Dr. Meldrum was by no means the first person to notice that some of the tracks are in fact from a living creature, nor was he the first to notice a midtarsal break, or notice the weight displacement aspects found evident in the tracks.I don't think there is a problem acknowledging that a scientist...say a biologist...is more likely to be a better evaluator of aht he/she saw...it's a matter of training and professional discipline. If my Buick sedan's complicated electronically managed engine is not running correctly...I would take it to an expert...a mechanic, not a biologist, not a clerk at the drug store, not my G.P.

One can evaluate and analyze evidence and information without attacking it. What I meant by dissection was not breaking it down and looking at it piece by piece, but dissection as in ripping it apart with assumptions and obvious conclusions. I.E. it is and always will be possible for a track to be the result of a hoax. I don't care how good it is. Therefore I do not feel it is necessary to instantly dismiss it as such based on the possibility that it was. Casting artifacts can cause dermal ridge like features. That does not however mean that dermal ridges should be ignored because of that possibility. Evidence is often times dependent on the anecdotal story that accompanies it to determine its degree of significance. When taken out of that context it is easy to dismiss all of it based on possibilities other than having originated from a Bigfoot.

So yes, I do feel at times the only way to reach the truth is by going through doors that have not previously been opened by scientific proof. Sometimes you do just have to go with your instincts. Sometimes you do need to take those anecdotal stories as a possible truth and see where that assumption leads. Sometimes, more often than not, those paths lead to a dead end. But that one time it doesn't makes it all worth it. If we learn from our mistakes, what do we learn by playing it safe and not making any? Some stand in one place waiting for the proof to reveal itself. Others move forward until they find it. Which ones do you suppose will obtain it first? We didn't have to fly into outer space to learn the Earth was not flat.

Well I think instincts are fine and we should use them and if they do lead us somewhere closer to Bigfoot, then at that point, it would be wise, IMO, to ensure that scientific methodology takes over.

[Guest fenris]

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.

Right about now, maybe it's just me, but I'm starting to see the sides forming a wee bit, but I think that's a good thing. You see the conjecture slowly (or maybe not so slowly) become accepted as fact, and this kinda thing, pardon my bluntless, pollutes the newbies. It is imho the right thing to call conjecture and speculation exactly what they are, insist upon critical thinking, and not just canonise the so called experts. They should be questioned to, many are too simply in a position to have an agenda.

[norseman]

A carcass kills the denial (which needs to happen, and the sooner the better). The "behavior, thought processess, interaction with its environment, etc" will come afterward.

BINGO!

Buy this man a drink!

[norseman]

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

I think a good rule of thumb on a personal level is "seeing is believing". In other words that guy's story is very nice and you politely nod and ask questions that interest you. But in the back of your mind your guarded. Especially when the story turns from a forest animal to a space alien or shape shifter. Then my mind goes from guarded to ad nauseum. Not taking someone's story at face value is not mean spirited. Everyone should be a bit of a cynic in life. But a person doesn't need to be rude about it either.

And some stories are more convincing than others, and accompanying trace evidence certainly makes the whole thing more plausible. Look at the PGF......40 years later and we are still bonking each other over the head about it.

The only thing that is going to bring this whole thing into the realm of reality is a body.....dead or alive unfortunately. Until then tracks, photos and video are going to be dismissed as a hoax and nothing is ever going to come of it. I don't hold much hope out for hair or other DNA evidence either. The forest has a way of claiming man and beast pretty quickly. And evidently they were not stupid enough to fall into the La Brea tar pits either to be fossilized for posterity.

I laugh to my self when I hear (even well known) field researchers say that they are going to get "conclusive" video of the creature. I would ask them.......conclusive to whom? The PGF is pretty conclusive to me, not 100%, but it's up there. While for others it looks like a guy in a horse hide gorilla suit complete with shoulder pads and helmet. That's the problem, it's all in the eye of the beholder. At no point do I hold any hope for a video proving that Sasquatch is real.

No, in the big picture, I think a body is the only way, and I don't expect the skeptics to budge an inch until one is produced. And that's the only way we are going to separated "fact" from "fiction". And for those that have already seen it in flesh and blood, they don't have to have proof it exists, but science does.

[Guest Lesmore]

I think a good rule of thumb on a personal level is "seeing is believing". In other words that guy's story is very nice and you politely nod and ask questions that interest you. But in the back of your mind your guarded. Especially when the story turns from a forest animal to a space alien or shape shifter. Then my mind goes from guarded to ad nauseum. Not taking someone's story at face value is not mean spirited. Everyone should be a bit of a cynic in life. But a person doesn't need to be rude about it either.

I agree.

And some stories are more convincing than others, and accompanying trace evidence certainly makes the whole thing more plausible. Look at the PGF......40 years later and we are still bonking each other over the head about it.

Even though some, I'm sure, may brand me as a relentless cynic, I still vividly recall attending the PGF presentation during Mr. Patterson and Mr. Gimlin's tour through the Western US and Western Canada. It was over 40 years ago, I was a young man (now an old man ) and my friend and I had a front seat, right smack dab by the screen in the Civic Auditorium. I saw the original film close up and listened intently to Mr. Patterson as he spoke about the incident. His presentation was quite convincing, more convincing, by far than anything else I've read, seen, viewed or listened to in the ensuing 40 + years.

The only thing that is going to bring this whole thing into the realm of reality is a body.....dead or alive unfortunately. Until then tracks, photos and video are going to be dismissed as a hoax and nothing is ever going to come of it. I don't hold much hope out for hair or other DNA evidence either. The forest has a way of claiming man and beast pretty quickly. And evidently they were not stupid enough to fall into the La Brea tar pits either to be fossilized for posterity.

Quite true. I've seen freshly killed, road killed deer in the winter, in the Canadian Shield, that I've passed early in the morning on my way to a ice fishing, or wildlife photography spot. On my way back in the late afternoon, I've passed that same deer...not much left but bones and hide...picked clean by predators...both of the mammal and bird variety...Ravens, Crows, Bald Eagles. If I go back a few days later, sometimes all that's left is parts of hide...I assume the bones, etc...were taken care of by rodents, etc...mice. Doesn't take long...part of nature's bounty.

I laugh to my self when I hear (even well known) field researchers say that they are going to get "conclusive" video of the creature. I would ask them.......conclusive to whom? The PGF is pretty conclusive to me, not 100%, but it's up there. While for others it looks like a guy in a horse hide gorilla suit complete with shoulder pads and helmet. That's the problem, it's all in the eye of the beholder. At no point do I hold any hope for a video proving that Sasquatch is real.

I think you're right.

No, in the big picture, I think a body is the only way, and I don't expect the skeptics to budge an inch until one is produced. And that's the only way we are going to separated "fact" from "fiction". And for those that have already seen it in flesh and blood, they don't have to have proof it exists, but science does.

The only totally convincing evidence will indeed be a body.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Lesmore

[Guest]

If no proof is demanded of these anecdotal sightings, then I guess we all agree Bigfoot is real.

I agree that bigfoot could be real. If you know that bigfoot is real because you've seen one than why do you care if some pointy-headed scientist isn't convinced?

If I were to approach a scientist with a casting of a track, and told them it was the track of a Bigfoot, they would more than likely either dismiss me outright or ask me how I knew it was from a Bigfoot. If I were to then tell them because I saw the Bigfoot that made the track, they are then going to ask me where my proof is.

Right. In this case you would be making a claim that, even if it were true, you would be unable to substantiate. It is appropriate for that scientist to ask you demonstrate the veracity of your claim.

For some reason I feel that if Jane Goodall or some other well known and respected scientist were to approach their peers with a first hand sighting account, it would would garner much more interest and investigation than if it came from someone such as myself.

On a superficial level stuff like this can happen, but it really doesn't matter who reports an anecdote, it's still anecdotal.

Casting artifacts can cause dermal ridge like features. That does not however mean that dermal ridges should be ignored because of that possibility.

You're right. But assume you had a cast in which "dermal ridges" were visible but (somehow) casting artifacts could be ruled out. What then? Would that be sufficient information to provide a description for a new species? What process should we use to determine that the apparent dermal ridges were in fact impressions of the pattern on the sole of a living foot? Would it be enough to have 2 or 3 researchers involved in the analysis to announce their interpretation of their analysis on an episode of Monsterquest?

Sometimes you do need to take those anecdotal stories as a possible truth and see where that assumption leads.

To what end though? If your objective is to prove the reality of bigfoot, then the standard is physical remains. An anecdotal account might tell us something about where bigfoots are supposed to live and what kinds of habitats they use. We've known both of those things for quite some time now, yet every BFRO expedition seems to end with people "experiencing" bigfoot yet never bringing one back.

Bigfooting is fine and fun for a lot of people, but if the objective is to provide proof of bigfoot, the only thing that's going to accomplish that is a body or part thereof. In the meantime, I'd be thrilled to at least see some unambiguous photography.

So my unsolicited advice for you would be to either enjoy your bigfoot experiences and not worry about providing proof of bigfoot or, if this is your primary aim, dedicate yourself to doing the things that could provide that proof. Have fun,

~Saskeptic

[Guest]

1) People have also been reporting fictional creatures throughout human history.

Can you give us some examples of that?

If you're discussing extraterrestrial aliens, that can set me off on yet another derail regarding the actions of science as an industry..............

Vampires, dragons, miracle performing Godmen, angels, witches, etc... All reported, basically since the beginning of recorded time, across racial and cultural boundaries, and, for most to all of that time, reported as factual entities. Dragons are forgivable, entirely understandable, and in some ways humbling. Ancient "ignorant" unscientific people had a leg up recognizing the avian characteristics of dinosaurs millennia before paleontologists ever caught on. And scientists still have yet to give them much credit. Am I the only person who recognizes this? Never heard anyone else explore that dynamic, maybe I should write a paper. Actually, come to think of it, this might support your point in a round about way. Run with that if you want!

Even so, that doesn't forgive first hand eye witness accounts of all of the above. All of them fiction, all of them nonsense to critical review, all of them pervasive throughout all of human history.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

As for "hiding behind science." What I mean by that is this; Let's say that yesterday you saw a flamingo in your yard. Nobody else saw it but you. You went to get your camera to take a picture of it, but when you returned it was gone. You did however find a partial track of the flamingo where it stepped into your flowerbed. There are no zoos in your area. You have no neighbors that own a pet flamingo, and you live in an area where flamingos are not native. You in turn post of your flamingo sighting on the forum. I read your post. I know that there is no way for you to prove, especially not scientifically, that you in fact saw a flamingo. I post a response telling you that I demand you prove it to me in a scientific manner. I already know this can't be done since it was an event in time that occurred and cannot be proven by scientific means. But never the less I demand scientific proof of your claim. That is what I mean by "hiding behind science." What about the partial track? That's real physical evidence supporting your claim. But alas, everyone knows it can be faked. So once again, you can't prove scientifically what you saw actually happened, I already know this, yet I ask you to do so anyway. It happens all the time.

The flamingo analogy is good and easier for me to understand what you meant. It is not that far off from my major stance on trying to prove such claims.

Here is what i would do to try to prove it. First off, I would not use alchemy to try to transform the evidence into gold. I would use the scientific method. Under the circumstances that you provided as an example, I would come up empty handed. But there might be more data. Suddenly there is. My neighbors report seeing a different flamingo. This flamingo leaves; prints, nests, feathers, makes sounds, has a smell, and eye shine. Pictures were taken and evidence was examined to all come back as inconclusive. Uh oh, not good for my claim. A picture is forming.

Now as far as my sighting, I need help because perhaps I am misusing science because I am not qualified but I'm in luck. The National Audubon Society has agreed to setup shop in my backyard and hopefully validate my claims. My neighbor then comes over and says he has seen a different flamingo and it lives in his backyard. Every night at 7:30 they watch Wheel of Fortune and the flamingo always wins. My other neighbor comes over and says he is never able to get a picture of the flamingo because it morphs into a tree whenever he clicks the button on the camera. The Audubon folks says "check please" and bail without investigating. Does this mean my sighting didn't happen? No. Can I prove it? Apparently not now. Thanks a lot neighbors. Will it be proven in the future? Maybe, but not with the help of my neighbors. Should I quit trying to prove it? Never, I will try to collect more data than the insufficient data I currently have until it is proven to be true or untrue. And in the meantime, hopefully my neighbors will clam up because although they think they are trying to help, they are making it worse for me to get a proper study conducted for my claim.

[southernyahoo]

Heh, Furious do you really think any funded research would magicly show up to prove bigfoot if every one clams up and doesn't say a word about bigfoots existence or what they are confident that they do? Really?

Do you think everyone should just say yep, there is a dumb ape running around in the woods all over North America, we just suck real bad at finding them or a carcuss? Would that make more sense to science?

[Guest The big grey man of ben ma]

I feel that if Jane Goodall or some other well known and respected scientist were to approach their peers with a first hand sighting account,

Shes not had a sighting, but she believes they do exist,

[Guest]

She's nice. I think that's important to remember.

She probably smells good too.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Heh, Furious do you really think any funded research would magicly show up to prove bigfoot if every one clams up and doesn't say a word about bigfoots existence or what they are confident that they do? Really?

Do you think everyone should just say yep, there is a dumb ape running around in the woods all over North America, we just suck real bad at finding them or a carcuss? Would that make more sense to science?

Hi SY,

Often as a response to the specific particulars in my posts, they often come back as generalizations. I'm not sure why. My specific neighbors claims turns into "everyone"?. This is misleading and strays from my point. I don't want everyone to clam up. Just my neighbors who say outlandish things. What is outlandish? This is the problem and the subject of the thread. The big difference is to know what the general population considers to be outlandish, which some people cannot do. If something seems absurd yet it is still true, it should be reported. Conversely, if something absurd happens and it is reported, I'm going to yell out bullspit as loud as I can. So what's the difference? Why should certain people clam up? Not everyone SY, not everyone. Okay? Not everyone? I will try my best to explain in the next paragraph. So no, I'm not talking about everyone and I'm not talking about anything magical. Do you believe that everything that is said by everyone about flamingos bigfoot is true? Everything?

As the topic asks for, I would hope that we can try our best to separate fact from fiction but it a difficult task. Is it fair to say that some people here on the forum have more input data on the subject than the general population as a whole? When something absurd enters the picture, and I mean really absurd (some can't tell the difference) the general population may hear about it and tie it together with the whole bundle and dismisses the subject altogether. <- -That is what I care about most on the subject . A study by them will not take place because of these supposed fictional gems. Would they study it if the absurdities were not present? Still a toss up, but at least it's not a definitive "no". These absurdities are not given by everyone as data. Only some. They don't help when they are probably intended to. They only hurt. So what is an absurdity? What is a fact? Fiction? It's not what we consider to be that matters to warrant an investigation, it's what the general population including "science" will see. If anyone wants me to be more specific about what is absurd, well then you had better be referring to bigfoot as Rickmatt because there is no difference in your eyes. If you don't call it a Rickmatt, well then congrats, you know what absurd means.

[Guest ajciani]

If I were to approach a scientist with a casting of a track, and told them it was the track of a Bigfoot, they would more than likely either dismiss me outright or ask me how I knew it was from a Bigfoot. If I were to then tell them because I saw the Bigfoot that made the track, they are then going to ask me where my proof is.

Right. In this case you would be making a claim that, even if it were true, you would be unable to substantiate. It is appropriate for that scientist to ask you demonstrate the veracity of your claim.

It is sad to say, but maybe 80 years ago that would have been fine to validate what created the print. Now-a-days, there is just so much hoaxing that more would be needed. Of course, in such a case, it is unlikely that more could be obtained.

It is strange what scientists will object out-of-hand, and what they will lap up. There was not so long ago this "new Einstein" of a young scientist, who was making and publishing fantastical discoveries at a rapid rate. If one of his papers came across my desk for review, I am pretty certain my BS detector would have sounded the alarm, but the scientists reviewing his work were so trusting, that they approved his articles and even gave him medals. Eventually, the BS detectors did start going off in the heads of the people trying to reproduce his work, and it went off loudly enough in one head to cause that scientist to look back through this fraud's papers, and discover strong evidence that they were all fiction. I mean, how else does someone publish three papers a month?

I guess the point is, there are liars, cheats and scoundrels out there. In some subjects and fields the lies are atypical and can go unnoticed, while other subjects are chock full of them. Someone could publish a completely fake paper about the composition of coyote feces in Orange County, CA (perhaps to push an agenda) without much difficulty or challenge, but if someone tried to publish a factual and faithfully researched paper on the composition of bigfoot feces found in Calaveras County, CA, they would likely get 20(+) questions and a rejection.

[Guest dozy]

As for "hiding behind science." What I mean by that is this; Let's say that yesterday you saw a flamingo in your yard. Nobody else saw it but you. You went to get your camera to take a picture of it, but when you returned it was gone. You did however find a partial track of the flamingo where it stepped into your flowerbed. There are no zoos in your area. You have no neighbors that own a pet flamingo, and you live in an area where flamingos are not native. You in turn post of your flamingo sighting on the forum. I read your post. I know that there is no way for you to prove, especially not scientifically, that you in fact saw a flamingo. I post a response telling you that I demand you prove it to me in a scientific manner. I already know this can't be done since it was an event in time that occurred and cannot be proven by scientific means. But never the less I demand scientific proof of your claim. That is what I mean by "hiding behind science." What about the partial track? That's real physical evidence supporting your claim. But alas, everyone knows it can be faked. So once again, you can't prove scientifically what you saw actually happened, I already know this, yet I ask you to do so anyway. It happens all the time.

That's actually not a good analogy, and doesn't serve to advance sasquatch.

What if:

a.) the kids next door had built a model flamingo, had put it in your yard for a laugh, and when you ran to get your camera, they retrieved it?

b.) you had a realistic dream of the flamingo to the point where you were fairly convinced you were awake and that it actually happened?

c.) you were actually talking nonsense and engaging in a form of wish-fulfillment, including faking the footprint?

There's no way to separate these three possibilities from the above case that you mention, each of which could explain your experience equally well. That's why the scientists get fussy. All three of the above demonstrably have happened and continue to happen. In short, you assume the truth of a subjective event and then proceed to demonstrate how it can't be scientifically proven. Why make that assumption to begin with? It could be erroneous.

Secondly, the analogy is problematic in another way: Flamingoes are known to exist. There are hundreds of thousands of them. Even living in the UK (as I now do), I could take you to see some (with no 'wood knocking', thermal cameras, or feelings-of-spookiness necessary) within an hour's drive of where I live. They've been studied and observed for hundreds of years, including being the stars of some of the highest-definition, highest-quality nature footage ever shot. If you wanted to take more footage of the same, it wouldn't be hard to find them and get it; we know where they can be found and we know their habits. Contrast this with Sasquatch.

So, please, let's have no more hand-waving nonsense over "hiding behind science". There's a good reason that the scientific method is the way it is; it's to try and eliminate as many of the different ways of being wrong as possible. Does that mean it's sometimes late getting to things that some people have known about for a while? Yes, but it also means that when it gets there that everything's been to done to rule out a mistake having been made along the way. Whenever people use flowery rhetoric and bad analogies to suggest that we ought to admit "more ways of potentially being wrong" as valid, it doesn't highlight the flaws in science (there are some), it actually puts the proposer in a bad light, as the natural conclusion is, "What would someone's motives be for wanting to do that?"