Separating Fact From Fiction With Bigfoot

[Guest]

Once you get a body, then all of a sudden the information already collected might actually make more sense to some.

As Green said, if bigfoot exists, then we already know a lot about it.

For as many people who would scream foul and no way,there is another body of folks that would likely agree.

Information continues body or no body. But the level of acceptance to the public likely stays the same. So for now,

it doe not officially exist. That makes no sense to me but I understand it. A lot about bigfoot does not make sense.

Is that why so many prefer to not say a word ?

[indiefoot]

I can't accept the premise of the question posed in the op

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

Fact and fiction are the two extremes, one is proven and the other is made up. Just because data can't be proved doesn't make it fiction.

[Guest Lesmore]

I can't accept the premise of the question posed in the op

Fact and fiction are the two extremes, one is proven and the other is made up. Just because data can't be proved doesn't make it fiction.

I'm the OP. How about this....I wrote this in a later post in this thread:

"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 Knuck]

I'm the one that provided the "rather long list." It seemed on topic with what the OP requested. I am not a bigfoot denialist. I've butted heads with the denialists many times on this very forum. Nor am I a witness. I've not had that opportunity.

Perhaps you know for a FACT (as you put it) the creature exists. Awesome. Bully for you, I'm envious. Yet it's not a FACT to anyone but you. You mention "those that HAVE/HAD direct ongoing contact with them." Of that I am quite skeptical, and I'll readily admit that. Providing evidence, let alone proof, seems beyond their grasp. When that's pointed out, the witnesses or their supporters sometimes huff, puff, and proclaim their indignation. So be it. I state again, until some evidence is provided their truly extraordinary claims remain just that.

Work with me. Provide something/anything to back up the statements. If one continues to make the claims and then states they either can't be bothered for evidence or that the asker isn't worthy of it, then the story's veracity takes a fatal hit.

JMHO

I1, I understand you have made the point that you are not a denialist before. I am it seems being misunderstood. I am not bragging at all. I'm just stating that those that know, have the facts already. (I can't help it if I have personal proof, and not back-up for others to beleive.) Some people may have all day and night to cook up "stories". I do not. Nor do I expect you or anyone else to take what I say as proof. However,just because others don't know the truth, does not make my or anyone elses REAL knowledge of existance any less FACT than they are.

I totally understand everyones want/need for proof. I wish it was easy to provide. It is not. Part of this is because they apparently watch a person for a long time and learn their habits before making contact. They have to really trust a person first. Anything done that is not your routine, or everyday activity is seen with suspicion. If you present a camera, (which you don't carry around all the time)and point it, it seems to be percieved as a weapon. No I don't think they know what a camera is. But they may perceive a camera as other than harmless. When they see men point gadgets at animals, the animals die.

Sorry I have drifted off topic here. Just trying to help with understanding the difficulty of obtaining simple evidence, without destroying a fragile bond with these aboriginal people. JMO-I don't expect belief. I don't want to post that much to begin with.-Knuck

[Guest]

This is where I may be misunderstanding. By fact, what do you mean exactly in regards to bigfoot?

I can't tell you how many times I've started a thread about a supposition regarding bigfoot based on a fact that we know about some other species's biology or physiology. Every single time I get " Well there is no point in discussing this because we don't know". Ok, well was there any point in discussing atoms before electron microscopes were invented? You have to start somewhere. The logical place to start is with what you do know about the world and try to fit that into a framework that includes bigfoot. I've heard some say that kind of wool gathering hurts the topic! How?

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 28 January 2011 - 06:59 PM, said:

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.

My original post was simply to reinforce that while a body is good and needed, much more study will have to be done in order to collect sufficient facts about the animals so that we have a reasonable idea of how they live. But I totally agree that a body will produce the biggest and most important fact of all about them...that they exist. And yes, one it has been determined that they do exist, then the other studies will follow quickly on the heel of the discovery.

Yup. Until their noses are rubbed in a stinking carcass, it will continue to be "peer review", denial, Bob Heironimous and holes that he jumped in, hoaxes, etc. A carcass elevates the phenomenon beyond "peer review". It kills denial once and for all.

[indiefoot]

I'm the OP. How about this....I wrote this in a later post in this thread:

"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.

Does anyone actually think amateur Bigfoot research has any credibility to be taken away from? Credibility with whom? The News media? Mainstream science? If someone is worried what other people think of their hobby, I'd try stamp collecting.

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

How can we do that when "what is actually known" is arguably nothing. I keep hearing terms like "fantasy" and "imagine" to categorize a lot of peoples efforts, opinions, and conclusions.

If my conclusions don't meet someone elses standards, that does not make them "imagined" or "fantasy". It doesn't necessarily mean my standards are too low, nor does it mean theirs are too high. It means they haven't seen what I have.

[Guest Lesmore]

I'm the OP. How about this....I wrote this in a later post in this thread:

"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.

Does anyone actually think amateur Bigfoot research has any credibility to be taken away from? Credibility with whom? The News media? Mainstream science? If someone is worried what other people think of their hobby, I'd try stamp collecting.

Your right, most things to do with Bigfoot have very little credibility. That's also what I'm saying. No argument there.

But if individuals' talk about what they think BF does, how it lives, what it doesn't like...etc...and this talk, is all based on pure speculation and imagining, then that is not fact...it's pure fiction and fantasizing and just confirms to many that well that's what BF is all about. IMO, doesn't help, just reaffirms to those who don't believe that BF is nothing more than a myth. That does nothing for the very limited amount of credibility, of BF....IMO.

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

How can we do that when "what is actually known" is arguably nothing. If that is the case and it could well be, then it doesn't provide much of a case for BF, does it? As my kid's tell me.."..I'm just saying...". I keep hearing terms like "fantasy" and "imagine" to categorize a lot of peoples efforts, opinions, and conclusions.

Opinion, is just that opinion...not fact, just what someone believes.

If my conclusions don't meet someone elses standards, that does not make them "imagined" or "fantasy". It doesn't necessarily mean my standards are too low, nor does it mean theirs are too high. It means they haven't seen what I have.

I'm not questioning what you saw and what I haven't seen. I'm not saying BF doesn't exist. I don't know.

The thing I have an issue with is after so many years, so many reports, so many alleged sightings, how come we have just blurry pictures and as you say and I agree and quote you..."what is actually known" is arguably nothing."

Basically what I'm saying, is to paraphrase Sergeant Friday, of the old Dragnet TV police series, who used to say..." Just the facts, please..."

By that I mean, I think it is important to confine oneself to the facts, such as they are.

To engage in untrammeled speculation and imagining, is fun...but in a number of instances, seems to lead to eventual confusion, between what is factual and what is fictional.

It blurs the border and eventually speculation / imaginings seem to find a place as 'facts', when they really are not facts.

BTW...my comments are general comments. I am not referring to anything you have said.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Lesmore

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

I also agree that a body would be the ultimate answer. In the meantime, while we are waiting for a body to fall into someone's lap, should we not look? Try to solve the puzzle? Or at least be able to deem certain puzzle pieces worthy or not worthy? If you are building a jigsaw puzzle about kittens and one of the pieces in the box is Darth Vader, well something might be wrong here. Or does it have to be right without question? Everything said has to be accepted as truth until we find a body? Under that logic, well here we go then, bf makes a living selling chocolate covered crayons to small overseas markets, sweats pure titanium and will evade you by spouting clouds of ink like an octopus. These statements are all true and unquestionable? Science schmience? C'mon.

I think it would be wonderful if an ever increasing number of people who happen to be outside; hunters, campers, hikers, loggers, etc..... everyone who is basically outside in the PNW would accept bf as commonplace so they hopefully notice signs that they would otherwise miss or dismiss. That is my ideal pre-body scenario. Secondly, everyone else. Ideas can come from anywhere, not just the field. Tall tails discourage most, science would reinforce in most. Hopefully. There are certain people right here on this forum that have persuaded me to be open to certain possibilities that I otherwise would have just dismissed because of the input I previously had was a farce. I used to be a little more close minded when it came to some reports. Now at least I will say "maybe you're right" and examine (unfortunately only by asking abrupt questions here). I never thought I would even give things like infrasound a fair shake but now there is a small "maybe" lingering in the dark corners of my brain. This only happened because there are many bf enthusiasts who seem rational to me. I consider them to be able to separate fact from fiction. I won't list them but they are very convincing in a few areas. I used to have a "closed for the winter" sign on my brain but I now know first hand that convincing people about this topic can be accomplished when fact is separated from fiction.

[Guest]

NOW it is starting to get interesting. Just what ARE the facts ? Are there really facts that are agreeable by everyone?

Some do not think they go on all fours, some think they swim, some think they do not climb trees, some think that normal wildlife can easily account for the majority or all of the sounds heard, or even all of them, etc. Where is the line drawn? Is there a line?

How can this creature be real if it does not make sounds, leave real footprints, eat anything or ever be seen by anyone (assuming that ALL the reports are faked, hoaxed, other spp misinterpreted, really a homeless person or a linebacker walking home from the football field wearing gear or just a tall guy in a hoodie, a stump, or an unusual rock) ?? Whoops, forgot bear and the rear end of an ungulate (fill in the blank, lots to choose from ___________________). My point is.. since a number of people here do not even believe that the species is possible (or so I am told) how can we discern what the facts are? I suggested laying some down earlier in the thread .. but I wonder if we will be able to do that given the wide take people have on the subject matter at this time.

ps Agreed on the pictures so far.....

Furious George, nice post. Your comments make it sound that some people are actually open to the idea that the species is real. People that normally do not consider it as a possibility. But the problem is where do you draw the line on fact ? If they are real?

Edited January 29, 2011 by treeknocker

[Huntster]

I also agree that a body would be the ultimate answer. In the meantime, while we are waiting for a body to fall into someone's lap, should we not look?

Somebody sure should. Biologists come to mind.

Amateurs can sure do so, too, but they'd better be prepared for the "peer review" guys, who will pooh pooh whatever is found by the amateurs that is less than a carcass.

Everything said has to be accepted as truth until we find a body?

If you accept something to everything as truth, you believe. There's nothing wrong with that. I certainly believe certain things with regard to sasquatch. Certainly not everything.

Under that logic, well here we go then, bf makes a living selling chocolate covered crayons to small overseas markets, sweats pure titanium and will evade you by spouting clouds of ink like an octopus. These statements are all true and unquestionable?

I don't know. I certainly don't accept them, but there are people on this forum who claim that sasquatches smoke cigarettes that they leave out for them. Do they even believe their own stories? I don't know.

But what I do know is that:

1) People have been reporting bipedal apes or primitive hominids throughout recorded human history

2) These reports continue

3) There is fossil evidence to prove that such creatures existed in the past

4) Science, as an industry, has not shown enough interest in the above facts to invest much in finding any more facts

Science schmience?

At this point, yeah. They simply aren't in the game. MIA. Back at the ranch.

I think it would be wonderful if an ever increasing number of people who happen to be outside; hunters, campers, hikers, loggers, etc..... everyone who is basically outside in the PNW would accept bf as commonplace so they hopefully notice signs that they would otherwise miss or dismiss.

I've spent a lifetime working and recreating in the woods, mountains, deserts, tundras, bays, and coasts in California and Alaska. I've seen good sign of sasquatch once and once alone. That tells me that they're out there, but very, very rare.

(Here is where a denialist usually pipes up to ask about sasquatches in Oklahoma City or some such nonsense..........let's see if it happens again............)

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

haha well Saskeptic is looking at the particulars that Treeknocker, Incorrigible1, and many more including myself on this page are speaking about or asking about. Huntster, I am fully aware that you are trying to persuade an answer from Saskeptic. Sorry for the interference. You have a great list of facts. I previously stated that there are more. Yours are a great starting point to be examined. The Mars rovers finding no prints would be a good finishing point. What's in between? What's in between to me are things like Saskeptics thoughts (uh oh here it comes) on the habitat and human population density of Oklahoma City and such. I won't judge him for examining. I will judge the findings. He does make sense to me. What holds true there does not (blah blah blah insert your own latin logic phrase Ad whateverdium) in the PNW. I agree with him and I agree with you. How does that work? If there were more like you, the answer to bf would be closer. Same goes for Saskeptic. By examining the particulars as they arise.

Some will ask......Why don't I go into the field and gather my own data? Forget that. When I want a glass of water, I don't have to reinvent glass. I go to my cupboard and take a glass that has been pre-made. It's a lot easier. If someone hands me a paper plate and tells me it's a glass. Well it's time to re-evaluate.

[Huntster]

Huntster, I am fully aware that you are trying to persuade an answer from Saskeptic. Sorry for the interference.

Kinda', sorta'. I like to poke some "inconvenient truths" at the Professor simply because I believe that he is who he says he is, and as such, he has way more power than I do to help bring this mystery to an end. If our institutional wildlife management agencies get active in this issue, it would be a huge thing.

Mars rovers finding no prints would be a good finishing point. What's in between? What's in between to me are things like Saskeptics thoughts (uh oh here it comes) on the habitat and human population density of Oklahoma City and such. I won't judge him for examining. I will judge the findings. He does make sense to me. What holds true there does not (blah blah blah insert your own latin logic phrase Ad whateverdium) in the PNW. I agree with him and I agree with you. How does that work?

I don't understand that statement. With regard to Oklahoma City, Saskeptic likes to use reports from there to illustrate a ridiculous position: that there are sasquatches everywhere. With regard to that, I point out Glickman's report density theory. That points out that people do manufacture reports, but the density of reports with regard to human population density is different in different areas. Reports in the PNW more closely resemble what would be expected of reports of an uncatalogued animal. Saskeptic has still not successfully countered that theory, as far as I'm concerned.

Some will ask......Why don't I go into the field and gather my own data? Forget that. When I want a glass of water, I don't have to reinvent glass. I go to my cupboard and take a glass that has been pre-made. It's a lot easier. If someone hands me a paper plate and tells me it's a glass. Well it's time to re-evaluate.

Similarly, some have asked my why don't I go out there and hunt down a sasquatch. The answer is simple. I've written it time and time again:

I believe that these creatures are extremely rare, they primarily inhabit the most remote and difficult to access areas, and I simply don't have the time and resources to conduct such a hunt with any measurable hope of success.

[southernyahoo]

But if individuals' talk about what they think BF does, how it lives, what it doesn't like...etc...and this talk, is all based on pure speculation and imagining, then that is not fact...it's pure fiction and fantasizing and just confirms to many that well that's what BF is all about. IMO, doesn't help, just reaffirms to those who don't believe that BF is nothing more than a myth. That does nothing for the very limited amount of credibility, of BF....IMO.

I recomend re-reading Matt K's post in the first page of this thread. People aren't going to agree what the facts are until they are mutually experienced. All that the dedicated researchers can do is present what their methods are and what their findings are in such a way that others can duplicate it and get the same results. Repeatability and consistency of the results is the only way forward. Certain results (evidence) is lacking definitive explanation or proper identification. The perponderance of that evidence does carry the suggestion of an uncataloged hominid species when taken as a whole.

You can try and make a list of what the acceptable and unacceptable facts are, but you'll play hell getting a majority to agree which is which. There might be a couple different variants of bigfoot out there that divides the witnesses on numerous levels, Who knows?

[Guest wudewasa]

Hmm, so basically you are calling Saskeptic a "chicken" because he won't do what you want him to?!

You seem to have a problem with all academics, all scientists and the scientific community. Yes, you are the one with the issues. Your finger pointing at how certain members of society should conduct their professional lives is getting old.

As far as the peer review process goes, why not ask Dr. Meldrum how he has dealt with all these big bad academic naysaying bullies regarding his publications? You'd be surprised at his answer, I believe!