Separating Fact From Fiction With Bigfoot

[Guest]

Eventually this would prove to be true, but bear with me. The collection of data which may seem irrelevant at the time could prove to be positive indicators later.If you only pay attention to obvious tracks or what you might deem credible witnesses then you will allways be a day later than the guy who has payed the extra attention to more "possible" indicators. Patterns emerge from this. You might refer to it as data mining, but there is a reason for it.

Agreed . The possible indicators are sometimes things people blow off.. but it gets interesting when they start to be noticed later on in patterns. Particularly from independent sources who generally describe something or upon a visit you notice it again.

Just had that happen today with someone. Its not much, especially to the masses or an outsider, but it can be another exclamation mark. Especially if you talk to a series of people and .. somewhere down the line, someone brings it up out of the blue. If numbers start bringing it up, then your ears perk up and that might be what it takes to start including that particular observation whatever it is, into something you watch for regularly, whether in discussion or in the field.

All in all initial review is like what Fenris says, you look for all possible options before you consider BF as a candidate. But if there are tracks, vocals, scared people and descriptions, and a history.. along with current clusters of reports in or near the area you should definitely include it..as a possible source.

Edited February 4, 2011 by treeknocker

[gigantor]

But if there are tracks, vocals, scared people and descriptions, and a history.. along with current clusters of reports in or near the area you should definitely include it..as a possible source.

1) tracks: all of them are debatable. None have been confirmed.

2) vocals: the weakest kind of evidence, none have been confirmed.

3) scared people and descriptions: anecdotal at best. MisIDs more likely. Attention seeking and hoaxes highly likely.

4) cluster of reports: copy cat internet reports, fake reports, etc.

Edited February 4, 2011 by gigantor

[Guest]

Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that quantitative research is "better" than qualitative research. Neither is better than the other – they are just different and both have their strengths and weaknesses. The newest trends in research include both types of data, not one or the other. It is a valid method of research to collect qualitative data from sighting reports from disparate groups and individuals, spotting trends, and then converting that information into a quantitative format to show the statistical significance. Here is an example of taking a subject more geared towards qualitative research and converting the data into a quantitative format:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6854303

I believe the same thing can be done with this topic. A standard questionnaire could be developed for interviewing bigfoot witnesses. It would be an invaluable tool to use during an investigation for establishing trends that Southernyahoo and others above have mentioned. It would provide the statistical probability that something is definitely out there that warrants further research, if not proving that bigfoot exists.

[Guest]

1) tracks: all of them are debatable. None have been confirmed.

2) vocals: the weakest kind of evidence, none have been confirmed.

3) scared people and descriptions: anecdotal at best. MisIDs more likely. Attention seeking and hoaxes highly likely.

4) cluster of reports: copy cat internet reports, fake reports, etc.

Gigantor, well aware of your comments. My point: The more things that can be observed that tie together, particularly from the past AnD the present, suggest a better chance of what you are looking for. If the vocal is powerful, hurts peoples ears, terrifies them, I want to hear it. So that alone puts me in position where I want to record it, I dont care what it is. Particularly after I have them listen to a series of other sounds I have from known sources to mix and match. If they still cannot match it, maybe its a peacock. Maybe its a Cape African Water Buffalo that wandered off from the local exotic game ranch. Point is.. combine the factors for a better look at the chances of something going on.. thats all. Another example: IF there is a series of reports in the area, what are the details.. if there are none, does that render them viable ? Could they still could be? If you are wanting to know more

information you have to decide to invest the time. If its not worth it to you .. then another maneuver.. play pool.

Edited February 4, 2011 by treeknocker

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Anyone that doesn't want to try and convince the mainstream scientific community, I fully understand. Why bother if they are just going to mock you? I would hate that and not bother either.

However, anyone that can prove it needs to start yelling at the top of their lungs to science. If you don't, your actions may kill off the entire species. You heard me lol. I know I over-exaggerate everything, but this time I'm not. A study must be done to determine if their numbers are low because of us, and if it can be turned around. This will be high on the list for any scientist when or if they are found because of a possible urgency due to the data and lack of data we've had up to the discovery.

[Sasfooty]

However, anyone that can prove it needs to start yelling at the top of their lungs to science. If you don't, your actions may kill off the entire species.

Yeah, then the government could have a "War Against Bigfoot Extinction". That should just about finish them off.

Look how the War On Terrorism, War on Illiteracy, War on Drugs, War on Obesity, & War on Poverty are going.

[Guest ThePattyArcade]

I was watching some videos on Youtube made by MrMayDX08 (Henry May) and he said that Bigfoot like to eat peanut butter and candy bars. Has this ever been observed?

[indiefoot]

Anyone that doesn't want to try and convince the mainstream scientific community, I fully understand. Why bother if they are just going to mock you? I would hate that and not bother either.

However, anyone that can prove it needs to start yelling at the top of their lungs to science. If you don't, your actions may kill off the entire species. You heard me lol. I know I over-exaggerate everything, but this time I'm not. A study must be done to determine if their numbers are low because of us, and if it can be turned around. This will be high on the list for any scientist when or if they are found because of a possible urgency due to the data and lack of data we've had up to the discovery.

That would be great, ignore the phenomenon and then when proof shows up, shut down the lumber and mining industry.

[Guest Lesmore]

Anyone that doesn't want to try and convince the mainstream scientific community, I fully understand. Why bother if they are just going to mock you? I would hate that and not bother either.

However, anyone that can prove it needs to start yelling at the top of their lungs to science. If you don't, your actions may kill off the entire species. You heard me lol. I know I over-exaggerate everything, but this time I'm not. A study must be done to determine if their numbers are low because of us, and if it can be turned around.

This will be high on the list for any scientist when or if they are found because of a possible urgency due to the data and lack of data we've had up to the discovery.

Sounds good, except that no one can seem to pin point the existence of one BF, let alone a large enough, BF population sampling to enable a study to have credibility.

Without being able to find a BF population and the attendant data...then I'm afraid a study won't be able to get any wings to get off the ground.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

It doesn't have to do with all of these extremes listed above. It may, but it doesn't have to be. It doesn't have to be about a war against the problems of humans, the shutting down of entire industries, and we don't have to pinpoint any more to know certain things. It might take only one bf to know what they are eating, and where they are going. If they can study the pollen left behind on one frozen iceman and get tons of data to where it has been and what it was eating 5,000 years ago, why does it have to be so extreme about bf as the things listed above. Those sound like excuses to me. Excuses for what? Maybe you would care to explain further why you need to make such extreme excuses but I now already know because you just inadvertently told me. I appreciate that.

All is takes for us to destroy a species of anything is one little thing. One little bug spray that we use which can kill off entire populations of different animals. And we just don't know until we study. Some raptors for example. We found out and rebounded some. If we had just one bf, we might find out if we are killing off the animals themselves or their food supply. These people that study such things are quite clever with the limited data they have. But keep up making excuse about this and that if it makes you feel better. Selfish IMO.

[Guest Lesmore]

It doesn't have to do with all of these extremes listed above. It may, but it doesn't have to be. It doesn't have to be about a war against the problems of humans, the shutting down of entire industries, and we don't have to pinpoint any more to know certain things. It might take only one bf to know what they are eating, and where they are going. If they can study the pollen left behind on one frozen iceman and get tons of data to where it has been and what it was eating 5,000 years ago, why does it have to be so extreme about bf as the things listed above.But George, we can't even get one BF to study, let alone a few...is what I'm saying. That's not extreme...that's just common sense....we can't find one BF. Those sound like excuses to me. Excuses for what? Maybe you would care to explain further why you need to make such extreme excuses but I now already know because you just inadvertently told me. I appreciate that. It's not excuses...you can't study anything...unless you have at least one of what you want to study. That's practical...not excuses. Otherwise your just speculating, guessing, surmising...we want fact, not fiction. I'm sure you would agree.

All is takes for us to destroy a species of anything is one little thing. One little bug spray that we use which can kill off entire populations of different animals. Can you name one entire population of animal, that has been destroyed by a little bug spray ?And we just don't know until we study. Some raptors for example. We found out and rebounded some. If we had just one bf, we might find out if we are killing off the animals themselves or their food supply. These people that study such things are quite clever with the limited data they have. But keep up making excuse about this and that if it makes you feel better. Selfish IMO.

Excuses and selfish in what way ?

[gigantor]

Yeah, then the government could have a "War Against Bigfoot Extinction". That should just about finish them off.

:lol:

I think we finally agree on something Sasfooty...

Edited February 5, 2011 by gigantor

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Hi Lesmore,

I started this off by saying if someone can prove bf to science but they don't. If they have a means. If they have a family of 5 or 10 living in their backyard as claimed. I thought I would have a serious conversation for once but if the other party wants to get silly and do jokes that's fine too. I enjoy silly stuff too. (I don't mean you Lesmore btw)

When I talk about the extremes listed. It doesn't have to be about deforestation which could shut down the entire logging industries etc. It doesn't have to be about a major campaign launched that has an unreachable goal. It could be something simple with a quick fix. When we build a road or a fence that has an impact on the migration of certain animals like land crabs, turtles, or what ever little creature, we don't rip apart the road or tear down the fence. We find an easy alternate solution like tunnels and funnels to the tunnels. It doesn't have to be about directly killing off bf. What if it was something simple that we didn't know about. An example would be, what if bf sustained itself through a harsh winter by having 70% of it's diet being one type of plant and we are not knowing that we are killing that plants pollinators like bees, bats or birds. It doesn't have to be a direct impact on bf. It could be about anything in it's food chain that might have a fix but we aren't aware because that info is being purposely hidden. These thing may and can be found out if we had just one bf. These are just a few examples. There are many many more. We won't know until we can study. If someone denies that study because they cherish the relationship they currently have with the family of bf's living in their backyard, that is selfish, and could have devastating consequences.

I know I'm not the only one that feels as if the bf population is not healthy. Frankly, we don't know. If we had a means of knowing and those means are dismissed for any reason, that's not just selfish it's just plain (I'll let you guys fill in whatever word you want). These reasons for any trouble that bf may have might not be caused by us. I only use the above examples because we have been known to unknowingly throw quite a few species for a loop. We can only guess until we know. We won't even guess until we know. We probably won't know if that information is being purposely withheld.

The example of bug spray would be the devastating effects of DDT which we used for a hundred years that killed off many bald eagles and other raptors. We didn't know of the effects before hand. We found out through study. It wasn't a tough fix either. No major industries were shut down. Eagles bounced back in full force in a short time.

The reason for the excuses comment, well, you'll have to use your imagination as to what the old me would have accused these people of being. I'm trying to tame down my posts. It's tough, but I'm getting there slowly and have to choose every word wisely instead of just spouting off. I hate the new me.

Edited February 5, 2011 by FuriousGeorge

[Guest]

The ones living around here ought to be doing dandy with the variety of flora and fauna we have, even in suburbia. I just don't think that bigfoot is in any danger based on how well other things are doing. Although you hear about species dying off at a phenomenal rate, other than the bees not being numerous, I see more critters now than I ever did when I was growing up. However, I did notice several three legged grasshoppers that hung around my deck last summer. I don't know what that was about.

[Guest Lesmore]

Hi Lesmore,

I started this off by saying if someone can prove bf to science but they don't. If they have a means. If they have a family of 5 or 10 living in their backyard as claimed. I thought I would have a serious conversation for once but if the other party wants to get silly and do jokes that's fine too. I enjoy silly stuff too. (I don't mean you Lesmore btw)

When I talk about the extremes listed. It doesn't have to be about deforestation which could shut down the entire logging industries etc. It doesn't have to be about a major campaign launched that has an unreachable goal. It could be something simple with a quick fix. When we build a road or a fence that has an impact on the migration of certain animals like land crabs, turtles, or what ever little creature, we don't rip apart the road or tear down the fence. We find an easy alternate solution like tunnels and funnels to the tunnels. It doesn't have to be about directly killing off bf. What if it was something simple that we didn't know about. An example would be, what if bf sustained itself through a harsh winter by having 70% of it's diet being one type of plant and we are not knowing that we are killing that plants pollinators like bees, bats or birds.

I get you now.

It doesn't have to be a direct impact on bf. It could be about anything in it's food chain that might have a fix but we aren't aware because that info is being purposely hidden. These thing may and can be found out if we had just one bf. These are just a few examples. There are many many more. We won't know until we can study. If someone denies that study because they cherish the relationship they currently have with the family of bf's living in their backyard, that is selfish, and could have devastating consequences.

I know I'm not the only one that feels as if the bf population is not healthy. Frankly, we don't know. If we had a means of knowing and those means are dismissed for any reason, that's not just selfish it's just plain (I'll let you guys fill in whatever word you want). These reasons for any trouble that bf may have might not be caused by us. I only use the above examples because we have been known to unknowingly throw quite a few species for a loop. We can only guess until we know. We won't even guess until we know. We probably won't know if that information is being purposely withheld.

I agree with you when you say.."Frankly we don't know". I think this a good , blanket statement we could use for the whole of the BF issue.

The example of bug spray would be the devastating effects of DDT which we used for a hundred years that killed off many bald eagles and other raptors. We didn't know of the effects before hand. We found out through study. It wasn't a tough fix either. No major industries were shut down. Eagles bounced back in full force in a short time.

Very true. I recall when Bald Eagles were an endangered species and for a couple of decades I didn't see any. Now they are common...we have them in my city.

The reason for the excuses comment, well, you'll have to use your imagination as to what the old me would have accused these people of being. I'm trying to tame down my posts. It's tough, but I'm getting there slowly and have to choose every word wisely instead of just spouting off. I hate the new me.

I think the 'new' you is great. Your post is reasoned and logical. Your points are well made. Edited February 5, 2011 by Lesmore