Separating Fact From Fiction With Bigfoot

[Huntster]

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

Nope. I'm calling him the kind Professor, and I hope he will eventually reconsider his opposition to official inquiry by our wildlife management agencies.

You seem to have a problem with all academics, all scientists and the scientific community.

You're "seeming" is inaccurate.

Yes, you are the one with the issues.

I don't know about the issues. I do, indeed, have plenty of issues.

Just like everybody else.

Your finger pointing at how certain members of society should conduct their professional lives is getting old.

Then stop reading it.

That was simple, wasn't it?

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!

I don't much give a rip how Dr. Meldrum deals with his contemporaries. It's my opinion that his work is a waste. It falls on deaf ears, and it's the deaf ears that are "the issue".

If you disagree, congratulations. Take that disagreement to the local coffee shop and see if you can get a cup of Joe with it.

[Guest]

Helpful: Coordinating a Questionnaire for hunters and fishermen to be tallied in districts much the same way that cougar and wild boar are investigated by various game departments.

Why: Perhaps some additional evidence could be observed and verified through this procedure over time. This may strengthen locations on the map that people either suspect or maybe even already know about. Locations with activity seem

to be key during field time (pardon the sarcasm): If there is evidence to go with annecdotal it increases the chance of a viable observation. I do understand it proves nothing. But it suggests another location where people could spend time investigating, particularly if numerous claims with casts/ cast photographs are made regarding a sasquatch.

NOT so Helpful: Whizzing contests that become personal.

Why: Although whizzing is said to be a possible attractant for the target spp, it is probably not much of an asset in the

assessment of what is factual and what is not. I would like to see less of it. I get it that many people feel there is NOTHING to this and sasquatches either never were, became extinct in the 70s or are so rare there is no point in looking for them. But after a truckload of private talks, spanning over a decade, I am not so sure about that. So for that reason,& others, it would be nice to reasonably discuss what is up with possible information that might be lukewarm.. or better. Southern Yahoo, nice post. Yeah, I know that the above reference to a questionnaire has about a zero chance of happening in most areas, but people have been successful talking to INDIVIDUALS in game departments about the subject and if people would just try, there might be one place somewhere that a similar procedure actually works out. IF just one place let it happen there would be a chance to double that in time.. and then the chain has begun. Wishful thinking ? Probably. But nobodys shoes were stained.

Edited January 30, 2011 by treeknocker

[Incorrigible1]

If there is evidence to go with annecdotal it increases the chance of a viable observation. I do understand it proves nothing.

I get it that many people feel there is NOTHING to this and sasquatches either never were, became extinct in the 70s or are so rare there is no point in looking for them.

The thread topic is "Separating Fact From Fiction With Bigfoot."

You're seeking to add non-facts to the thread? Just curious why you feel compelled to do so.

[Huntster]

Helpful: Coordinating a Questionnaire for hunters and fishermen to be tallied in districts much the same way that cougar and wild boar are investigated by various game departments.

Why: Perhaps some additional evidence could be observed and verified through this procedure over time. This may strengthen locations on the map that people either suspect or maybe even already know about.

I agree fully. Good idea.

Another one would be an anonymous poll of official wildlife managers and any experience or knowledge, as well as a requirement to report any such experience or knowledge. At the very least it would show support from on high.

[Guest]

The thread topic is "Separating Fact From Fiction With Bigfoot."

You're seeking to add non-facts to the thread? Just curious why you feel compelled to do so.

Pardon. The point I would like to make is what starts out as annecdotal could grow into a situation where

compelling evidence could arise. If that were to happen, then it would be a fact to the

individual(s) that experience(s) it. Whether or not that fact could be brought home (put in a bottle, camera, on ice, or in a truck) would be determined by a whole set of other factors. IF 57 people over a period of time make similar isolated/independent observations, regarding something that could be a sasquatch, it would seem it should garner attention to at least warrant checking things out. If the number 57 is way too unlikely, than perhaps there could be

a magic number significantly smaller than that that still provokes a review of the claims. That likely would vary with different individuals. The annecdotal portion of the procecure is necessary to complete the process which potentially ends in fact.

[Incorrigible1]

Whether or not that fact could be brought home (put in a bottle, camera, on ice, or in a truck) would be determined by a whole set of other factors.

Do it. Then we'll talk. Until then, stories prevail. Interesting, compelling, fascinating stories. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Guest Matt K]

My understanding of the original question posed is how does one distinguish between truth and speculation when presented with information about Bigfoot. That was what my initial post was based upon. Facts are going to vary from individual to individual. Not all facts are going to be possible to prove, especially without direct observation at a given moment. Facts are also going to be based on an individual's perspective, and while one fact may apply to an individual Bigfoot or encounter with one, that doesn't mean it is a fact that can be given to all Bigfoot in every situation. Now add to the equation that the Bigfoot community is comprised of all different types of people. Let's face it, not all of those people are honest. Some have motives, some have psychological problems, some are dealing with social issues and looking for a place where they can feel important or superior. In other words, some facts can be made up. Even if they have numerous people claiming to have experienced or observed them. Others mix actual true facts with made up ones as well. Why, I don't know. It can be extremely difficult to distinguish between who is telling the truth, and who is not.

For instance, I can present you with the fact: There is a lighter on my desk.

Is it a fact, or did I make it up? How could I prove it to be a fact? You could ask for a photo, but I in turn could say I don't have a camera, or that the lighter is no longer on the desk. I could also provide you with a photo, but how do you know it's even my desk? Maybe I just grabbed a photo of a lighter sitting on a desk off the internet. The only way you could know for sure would be to come here yourself and see the lighter on my desk. Does that make it any less of a fact though?

Let's say you do accept my word on it and consider it a fact, which by the way, it is. Does that mean there is a lighter on every desk? Of course not. Does that mean there is always a lighter on my desk? Nope. What if someone else hears about me having a lighter on my desk, so now they start telling people they have a lighter on their desk too? Just because mine was a fact, doesn't mean theirs was as well. See, while the internet has opened new doors for all of us to communicate and share information about Bigfoot, it has also made it extremely easy for people to gather enough information where they can in turn lie about having encounters themselves.

Before I lose everyone in my babbling, the point I'm getting at is this is where gray areas start to form. Facts start becoming obscured between what is factual about Bigfoot itself, and what is factual in terms of observations made by individuals. So once again, the question was posed, how does one distinguish between fact and fiction. You can't. All you can do is get out there and collect facts based on your own observations. Even then, those facts will be limited to your own experiences.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Matt, If you tell me you have a lighter on your desk, I'll believe you. Something that I find interesting about these creatures. I can only say that this is true in KY, I don't know about other places, but dogs here are absolutely terrified of these creatures. I've read where some folks elsewhere report Bigfoot running with coyotes and such but I just can't see it happening in Ky. I've seen it first hand here. A big bad mean man biting dog was reduced to a wimpering little pup cowering on it's belly. So I would say it's likely fact that these creatures terrify dogs (here in KY anyway). I'd bet the farm on it.

Chris B.

[Incorrigible1]

Good posting, Matt K. I think. Hell, maybe it's a terrible posting. I can't really tell, since you bring into doubt everything about any posting.

All I can do is to interact with various posters upon this forum. I do my best to decipher whether they're believable and thus probably telling the truth within their postings. As you post, there is absolutely no proof the things they describe are actually true. Such is life, eh? Hell, I could be a chicken farmer posing as a military hero. It's been done before, to right fair extent.

Where does this leave us? Nowhere, really. The folks claiming cigarette-smoking, seventeen foot upside down peekings might be completely on the up and up, or they might be bat shyt crazy, posting away to their heart's content. None of us can truly know. All I can do is try to discern, from their postings, the veracity of what they state.

That being said, until proven otherwise, I tend to not believe those claiming repeated, verifiable interaction unless they prove their word. I'm funny that way. As has been stated within this thread, nobody can truly know whether anything stated by another poster is true of not. Still, the bounds of intelligent interaction requires we accept certain aspects of common life. I'm still not willing to extend unquestioned belief to those claiming extraordinary events. It's as simple as that.

Those claiming extraordinary events, occurring regularly or even occasionally must provide a modicum of evidence. I did not state "proof," rather I asked for "evidence." Disparage me all you wish, point out in my Omaha existence I do not encounter large, hairy, bipedal creatures. I'm still compelled to require a certain amount of evidence to extraordinary claims. I'm not among those willing to suspend logical belief to accept extraordinary claims. Nor am I bound to jump through those willing participant's hoops.

Show me something, show me anything. I'm not a denialist, but I am one that needs some small modicum of evidence. Curse me for that all you wish, it doesn't bring your claims any closer to acceptance.

Edited January 30, 2011 by Incorrigible1

[Guest ajciani]

There are a lot of possible facts available concerning bigfoot, but there are also lies and conjecture floating around. We can always question the vetting of an eye witness, but there are also reports of physical evidence which might be questioned as well. Now, to be clear here, I want to draw a distinction between evidence, hypothesis, speculation, and fantasy, because people confuse all four of these when they talk about "the facts".

A "fact" is a piece of possible evidence, which is not a fabrication.

At about 3:00am, a large shadow passed over a tent, which strongly resembled that of a man. Everyone reports they were asleep at 3:00am. The only noises heard during the observation were sporadic sharp sounds, similar to the ground being crushed, which seemed to originate in the direction of the source of the shadow. The shadow strongly resembled a human's, and was observed down to the ground. The shadow was first observed near the "foot" end of the tent, moved slowly to the "head" end, and then fell off the tent. The camp was a remote location, and additional humans were not observed near the area. Several large depressions were found beside the tent, which resembled a human footprint with fallen arches. Photographs with measurements were taken. One print was cast.

A hypothesis is a reasoning to explain one or more facts, which is supported by the available facts, and provides a means to be tested.

The shadow was either that of a bigfoot or a large human, as it had the outline of a human. Possibly, it was a bear standing on two legs, casting a shadow which might have been confused with a human outline. Because the camp was remote, and everyone reports that they were asleep in their tents, it was either a bigfoot, bear or trespasser. The locations of the depressions correspond with the movement of the shadow and associated sounds, and were likely created by the source of the shadow. The source of the shadow can be determined by evaluating the features of the depressions against the known footprints of the likely candidates. Bigfoot prints lack an exemplar, so the elimination of non-bigfoot sources will be used. If the prints are not consistent with likely non-bigfoot sources, nor other wildlife recognized in the area, then by elimination we can conclude they were created by a bigfoot or a human wearing footwear inconsistent with normal attire, which would also be the likely source of the shadow.

Speculation is a reasoning to explain one or more facts, but is poorly evaluated with respect to the available facts.

Bigfoot came up to my tent to check me out, because it heard me snoring. -- While this may well be true, it is not known that the shadow was even cast by a bigfoot. Even if the prints suggest that it was likely the shadow of a bigfoot, even if you are known to snore, there is no evidence to suggest that you were snoring at the time of its approach. Furthermore, the movement of the shadow indicates that it was just passing by. Sure, it might have moved on after you awoke, stopped snoring and noticed it, but there really isn't any way to show it.

Fantasy is rather unrelated to the available facts, although it may involve them.

A bigfoot stepped through a dimensional door, and appeared at the foot of my tent. It walked up toward my head so it could whisper me a message without waking the others. I could see its glowing red eyes through the fabric of my tent as it bent in toward my head and whispered, but I couldn't understand it, as its language sounded like someone wadding up a plastic bag. The bigfoot then walked out through another dimensional door. -- OK... Where to begin?

Discussion of the individual issues (not to be confused with peer review) is the best way to discover what is a reasonable hypothesis, speculation or fantasy. Discussions can also be used to evaluate the authenticity of a possible fact. For example, you would find out that the Skookum cast is real (probably from people who were there or who have seen it), while you would find out that the SquatchMaster tree shaking video is a hoax.

BTW, it seems that people are confusing peer review with the processes of discussion and reproduction. Peer review is a check valve in the publishing process. What may be published can range from observations all the way to the testing of a hypothesis. Peer review is an editorial process which is supposed to weed out the poor observations and poorly tested hypotheses.

A reviewer (and it usually is just one) can pass something with nothing more than a "yes, this is interesting and important." If a reviewer rejects something, then they should give a reason, "bigfoots do not exist, and so the author has erroneously analyzed the biomechanics of obviously fake footprints." Of course, the author gets to respond (depending on the editor), "it is easily demonstrated and long practiced that the traction and normal forces of a foot in contact with the ground shift the earth into what we call a footprint, and that the contours of that print can be traced back to those forces and the order in which they were applied, which in turn leads back to the biomechanics of the foot which made them. The reviewer makes no effort to address the physics of footprints or the methodology used to interpolate the biomechanics from them, and so has clearly rejected this paper out-of-hand, without cause or reason, simply because it contradicts his preexisting belief that bigfoots do not exist. That belief is partially based on the speculation that all bigfoot footprints were created as hoaxes; a speculation disproved by the careful and methodical work presented in this paper." Of course, the editor might just say, "the existence of bigfoot, as implied by your paper, is difficult for me to accept as well, and so I will not seek a second review. The topic is interesting, and the work appears to be well done, so I hope that you can find a journal which will accept it."

Of course, us readers never actually get to see the exchanges made during peer review.

As for Saskeptic's challenge, I would rather not answer it, as specific examples and even the general findings would lead to irreconcilable arguments, out of place on this forum. I will present this final thought on the matter.

As I contemplated many of our world's technological marvels, I realized that the academic process of publication and peer review has been of little consequence, instead being superseded by publication as production and "peer review" as the dollars of the discoverer's customers. Indeed, had we more stringently adhered to the whims of peer review, and those scientists had been less tenacious and industrious in promoting their discoveries, then the great discoveries would have fallen as fanciful nonsense, and we would live much as the Amish. The situation became even worse as I moved beyond the discoveries of a technological nature.

What I could not determine is how much harm peer review has prevented. Clearly, science has suffered some because of abuses and sloppiness in peer review, but there is no indication of how much more nonsense might be polluting science without it. Indeed, there is plenty of non-science polluting this world, despite the best efforts of peer review to squash it.

[Guest]

BTW, it seems that people are confusing peer review with the processes of discussion and reproduction. Peer review is a check valve in the publishing process. What may be published can range from observations all the way to the testing of a hypothesis. Peer review is an editorial process which is supposed to weed out the poor observations and poorly tested hypotheses.

is plenty of non-science polluting this world, despite the best efforts of peer review to squash it.

This is not true. Peer Review is a general term applied to a mechanism of checks and balances, validation for a method. It includes journal peer review but is not limited to just that. I do peer review on the nurse practitioners I supervise when I am observing their clinical skills.Read further down in Wiki's definition. These are excerpts from that defintion

Peer review is a generic term for a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia the term is often used to denote a prepublication review of academic papers; reviewing an academic paper is often called refereeing.

Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs. The following terms could be used to make these distinctions, but generally those in any given field just rely on the generic term. Even when qualifiers are applied, they may be used inconsistently. For example, Medical Peer review has been used to refer specifically to clinical peer review, to the peer evaluation of clinical teaching skills for both physicians and nurses,[3][4] to scientific peer review of journal articles, and to the secondary rating of the clinical value of articles in peer-reviewed journals.[5] Moreover, "medical peer review" has been used by the American Medical Association to refer not only to the process of improving quality and safety in health care organizations,[6] but also to the process by which adverse actions involving clinical privileges or professional society membership may be pursued.[7] Thus, the terminology has poor standardization and specificity, particularly as a database search term.

You have Class A sightings, then Class B and so forth when you view some reports. Class B's can be used as indicator that a Class A sighting could occur if enough time and energy is spent in the area. By discussing methods to draw in a bigfoot, you are in essence talking about different techniques used and this is a form of peer review.

Edited January 30, 2011 by Jodie

[indiefoot]

Fact

The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concept. wiki

Bolding mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Is there a definition of fact that the Bigfoot community can accept? I'm pretty sure the one above or one very similar is what the skeptical crowd is clinging to.

I would describe the next level of information down the food chain as data or findings..... information that is pending verification.

[Guest]

What few sightings there are where the observed critter can't possibly be any other animal or human, it leaves you with an observation of an unidentified species. That is a fact. So should we rename our sighting reports SUS's ( Sightings of an Unidentified Species)? Calling them bigfoot sighting reports are assuming it's a bigfoot. Or perhaps all reports are SUS's until proven otherwise. Maybe we need to rename the forum SUS Talk or Simply SUS or some such nonsense.

Edited January 30, 2011 by Jodie

[Guest]

Do it. Then we'll talk. Until then, stories prevail. Interesting, compelling, fascinating stories. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Working on it. At least the stories offer suggestions on where to go if the interest takes you that way. When things happen that match other claims, stories or whathave you, then the motivation kicks in for more experience. Proof: Fortunately there is some out there, it just comes in guarded circles and that is not typically available. Why not ? Now its politics . No answer here that would suffice. If track casts, good ones, vocalization recordings that dont match anything else, (especially ones that sound loud and terrible and affect you both emotionally and physically) or significant men and women of significant positions testimony do not cut it, best of luck. Probably ought to try another hobby. Or just go out and experience it yourself. Best way to do that ? Repeated attempts over time. Focus on the areas that others have had claims. By no means believe them, but still go to an area where numbers of people have had alledged experiences. (Especially numbers of people in areas that are dotted with numerous independent reports that offer both sightings and vocalizations and tracks. It is not that easy to just casually go and expect things to happen. Bear for example, there are places where they repeat visit. In the past it was garbage dumps so it was easy to see them. This critter is a different deal. Random, careful, nocturnal more often than not (according to the stories) so the likelihood of seeing or experiencing them is reduced. Try making noises in the dark. Interesting noises. There are methods available online and right here in various threads. If you follow patterns in enough places it can happen for you.,. (definition: Not only returned sound, but possible walk ins and possible observations) if not interested enough or cannot do this, understood. Regarding facts, kind of a crime scene situation.. or typical wildlife one. Fleeting. Does it add up? Sure. Does it prove capable of facts ? I suspect for most no. Just story. Good luck!

By the way I do not have a lighter on my desk but there is a flash light that needs new batteries.

True statement. I checked the batteries yesterday. I know, that is more believable because of my tendency not to replace batteries. I gotta quit milking them for all they are worth.

So where does this leave us? In various locations scattered along the trail of question and wonder I suppose. Or as others would say, disbelief. Consider though that either the people reporting their story on the subject are all mistaken or great fabricators OR if just one of them is not.. then sasquatch is a real species. l. (That is a fact.) Sasquatch makes more sense when you start to experience things. That seems to be the difference maker... if its personal, at least it is your story. Then you know and some then go on to the next hobby. Or start the chase..

Edited January 30, 2011 by treeknocker

[Huntster]

That is yet another excellent post, Matt. Thanks for that.

......It can be extremely difficult to distinguish between who is telling the truth, and who is not.

For instance, I can present you with the fact: There is a lighter on my desk.

Is it a fact, or did I make it up? How could I prove it to be a fact? You could ask for a photo, but I in turn could say I don't have a camera, or that the lighter is no longer on the desk. I could also provide you with a photo, but how do you know it's even my desk? Maybe I just grabbed a photo of a lighter sitting on a desk off the internet. The only way you could know for sure would be to come here yourself and see the lighter on my desk. Does that make it any less of a fact though?

Excellent example. About the only way it can be accepted as fact by a pure denialist is if they go to your desk and see the lighter there, and even then, the lighter might have been placed there after you claimed it was there and before the denialist went to see it.

Denial has almost no bounds. That is why just about everything accepted is done with some measure of belief. Those who hate the word or connotations of "belief" will likely twist a screw at that statement, or accuse me of the serious and unforgivable crime of religious banter, but it is a simple fact that they cannot deny without rejecting the dictionary definitions of such words as fact, doubt, belief, denial, etc.

Let's say you do accept my word on it and consider it a fact, which by the way, it is. Does that mean there is a lighter on every desk? Of course not. Does that mean there is always a lighter on my desk? Nope. What if someone else hears about me having a lighter on my desk, so now they start telling people they have a lighter on their desk too? Just because mine was a fact, doesn't mean theirs was as well.

And lighter report densities, comparisons, timing, etc from various places could be an interesting way to statistically bolster a belief on lighter reports.

So once again, the question was posed, how does one distinguish between fact and fiction. You can't. All you can do is get out there and collect facts based on your own observations. Even then, those facts will be limited to your own experiences.

Excellent. I agree.