Separating Fact From Fiction With Bigfoot

[Huntster]

Is there a definition of fact that the Bigfoot community can accept?

I like using the dictionary because, in this day and age, lots of folks like to create definitions that fit their needs.

Fact:

–noun

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Hi Matt, great first few posts but I disagree with a reoccurring theme that appears in a couple of your posts. In my opinion there are no shades of grey. I hope I'm not "hiding behind science". I try not to since I don't know how one does that, but is there is or is there aint? Nothing between IMO.

The lighter comparison was good to grasp the essentials of a lie but what if there never was such a product as a lighter and you still claimed it was on your desk?

Also, I feel the catch phrases that you are interjecting over and over are unfair ("Cries from the angry mob"). This places anyone with an opposing position into a category. Although my screen name says differently, I'm actually very stoic. I don't wish to be placed into that group you are referring to simply because my opinion differs.

[Guest Lesmore]

Interesting reading.

As the OP, what I have gleaned so far from posts is:

• There is difficulty separating fact from fiction, for some.
  
• Sweeping generalizations about BF, are not uncommon. In other words if one believes a certain thing to be true, even without being able to verify the 'belief' as an actual fact... still it must be true and factual.
  
• Many arguments are circular.
  • It's hard to arrive at commonly accepted definitions.
    
  • Given that developing commonly accepted definitions are difficult to arrive at, it's no surprise that an agreed on process, wouldn't be able to be developed.
    

Reviewing all this, to me it would be wise to try to develop, commonly accepted definitions, about what is fact, what is fiction, then to develop a process that individuals should follow. I know others have suggested something along this line before.

It does make sense to me, but I am under no illusions that it will happen. Trying to organize definitions / processes...drifts towards 'science' a bit too much for some, I suppose.

In the end, this thread tends to reinforce (to me), why science methodology is important. But given that science requires fact, supported by evidence...I also see why science generally tends not to put too much credence into the Sasquatch question.

Because there doesn't seem to be a lot of fact, surrounding this beast.

But there are lot's of anecdotes, suppositions, assumptions and blurry pictures.

These.. ....suppositions, anecdotes, assumptions, blurry pictures....seem to have a tendency to eventually 'evolve' into what passes for fact.

So...where to go from here ?

BTW, after all that...I'm not saying that BF doesn't exist....I'm on the fence.

Edited January 30, 2011 by Lesmore

[Guest]

Dont feel bad Les, lots of people are. It will probably take an experience before you can get off the fence though. Some of us do it the hard way.. spent over half a lifetime wondering about it before I made up my mind.. or shall we say had my mind made up for me...

[Guest Lesmore]

Dont feel bad Les, lots of people are. It will probably take an experience before you can get off the fence though. Some of us do it the hard way.. spent over half a lifetime wondering about it before I made up my mind.. or shall we say had my mind made up for me...

I've spent much time in forests....camping, fly fishing, wildlife photography. I've seen many an interesting thing in forested areas, lakes, etc...both Canada and the USA....over the decades....actually since the '50's.

But not BF. Who knows, maybe one of these days I will see my first BF. I'll have my digital, single lens reflex camera and 300 mm (462mm - 35mm equivalent) telephoto at the ready.

No flash....just fast ISO....800 +.

Hopefully Bigfoot will when I press the shutter button.

Les

[Guest]

I've missed a lot in this thread, so I apologize for not responding to specific questions that might have been directed at me. Some thoughts:

In science, the things established as "factual" or "truth" always come with a degree of uncertainty. It's not about some "realize that there is no spoon" kind of thought process, it's about analyzing observable data and making some statement about what the data indicate. If the data indicate something that could also be something else with an unacceptably high level of probability, then there is low support for what we think the data indicate. If the probability is very low, then we have great confidence that our interpretation is correct.

In this context, it's not a fact vs. fiction dichotomy, it's more a "fact vs. something-that-could-also-be-true-but-for-which-the-evidence-is-insufficient-to-determine" spectrum.

The way scientists evaluate data is primarily through the peer-reviewed literature. The process of peer-review applied to scientific publication is by no means perfect, but there is no escaping that it is the scientific standard that has developed over the past, say, 200 years. Those who reject that process as corrupt are both ignorant about its success rate in determining "fact" from "fiction" and insulting to the thousands of people like me who every year respectfully and objectively engage that process by serving as the peers who review others' work. Of course there are cases of abuse in the process, but insinuations that these are the norm are simply wrong.

Therefore, if we are interested in establishing the facts about bigfoot, the best thing to do (short of obtaining a physical specimen*) is to attempt to establish those facts through publication in the relevant scientific literature. It is the people who are in possession of data that are potentially factual about bigfoot who have the responsibility to analyze those data and subject their analyses to legitimate peer review. Ergo, if you want "mainstream science" to take an interest in bigfoot, then I recommend you devote your energies to encouraging the one guy who seems to holding all the cards: Jeff Meldrum. Meldrum knows about peer review, and he's alleged to be in possession of some interesting and potentially factual bigfoot data. Meldrum's a big boy and he can handle himself quite well in negotiating the peer review process. The reason he does not engage that process in any kind of meaningful way boils down to two things in my estimation: either the data he has are nowhere near the quality that he thinks warrant scientific publication or he intentionally avoids that process because it is oddly in his best interest to do so.

*Yes, "science" could go out and get their own bigfoot specimen I suppose, but it's the topic for another thread why that ain't happening anytime soon.

[Huntster]

Ergo, if you want "mainstream science" to take an interest in bigfoot, then I recommend you devote your energies to encouraging the one guy who seems to holding all the cards: Jeff Meldrum. Meldrum knows about peer review, and he's alleged to be in possession of some interesting and potentially factual bigfoot data. Meldrum's a big boy and he can handle himself quite well in negotiating the peer review process. The reason he does not engage that process in any kind of meaningful way boils down to two things in my estimation: either the data he has are nowhere near the quality that he thinks warrant scientific publication or he intentionally avoids that process because it is oddly in his best interest to do so.

There could be other reasons. He may have reached my own conclusion:

Nothing but a corpse will do.

*Yes, "science" could go out and get their own bigfoot specimen I suppose, but it's the topic for another thread why that ain't happening anytime soon.

We've had such threads before. They went nowhere.

Nothing but a corpse will do, and a scientist will not be the one to obtain one.

Too bad, that.

[Guest ajciani]

Jodie, I'm glad to see that you looked up the definition of peer review on Wikipedia, but that gets an automatic 'F'. Unfortunately, the Peer Review article on Wiki has been heavily edited by people pushing agenda based science, who want to confuse the editorial process of peer review with the more general process of science. Their aim is to equate peer review with mainstream acceptance, such that they can claim mainstream acceptance just because a paper promoting their agenda might be found in a peer reviewed journal.

BTW, peer review is great, because its general purpose is to improve papers. I also diligently review the papers I agree to review, but I have also known those who were... less thorough. I have certainly known those who recommended friends as reviewers, to obtain an easy review. I have also started working in the field of solar power. The amount of widely accepted and touted BS is just staggering, and I am becoming sick of swimming upstream through it, so there is a reason I have been tough on peer review as of late. I guess we just need to remember that scientists are humans, and humans (fill in the blank).

Publishing possible bigfoot evidence is a great idea, but what journal would be a good one? I guess the first step would actually be to improve the quality of the investigations, because I don't think any journal would want a simple witness account, no matter how well trained the investigator was. I think if the witness account could be corroborated by some good physical evidence, then a journal might accept it as an observation, but I am still not certain which one. The ecologists tend to stay away from anthropology turf, so it would need to be an anthropology journal that still has the taste for exploration.

Then again, maybe we could just make The Journal of Bigfoot Research as an electronic, quarterly or biannual publication dedicated to research on bigfoot, sasquatch, yeti, yowie, yeren, and other bipedal non-human apes. We would just need to find someone willing to be the editor, an initial list of reviewers, and a site to host the issues. We could include letters to the editor, reports of investigated encounters with substantial physical evidence, hypotheses on physiology and behavior, and observation techniques.

edit: Seriously, I had to replace hard with tough... give me a break.

Edited January 31, 2011 by ajciani

[southernyahoo]

Interesting reading.

As the OP, what I have gleaned so far from posts is:

• There is difficulty separating fact from fiction, for some.
• Sweeping generalizations about BF, are not uncommon. In other words if one believes a certain thing to be true, even without being able to verify the 'belief' as an actual fact... still it must be true and factual.
• Many arguments are circular.
  • It's hard to arrive at commonly accepted definitions.
  • Given that developing commonly accepted definitions are difficult to arrive at, it's no surprise that an agreed on process, wouldn't be able to be developed.

Reviewing all this, to me it would be wise to try to develop, commonly accepted definitions, about what is fact, what is fiction, then to develop a process that individuals should follow. I know others have suggested something along this line before.

It does make sense to me, but I am under no illusions that it will happen. Trying to organize definitions / processes...drifts towards 'science' a bit too much for some, I suppose.

In the end, this thread tends to reinforce (to me), why science methodology is important. But given that science requires fact, supported by evidence...I also see why science generally tends not to put too much credence into the Sasquatch question.

Because there doesn't seem to be a lot of fact, surrounding this beast.

But there are lot's of anecdotes, suppositions, assumptions and blurry pictures.

These.. ....suppositions, anecdotes, assumptions, blurry pictures....seem to have a tendency to eventually 'evolve' into what passes for fact.

So...where to go from here ?

BTW, after all that...I'm not saying that BF doesn't exist....I'm on the fence.

Keep in mind Lesmore that many of the suppositions of fact here are speculated answers to skeptical questions for the purpose of evaluation as explanations to account for what is witnessed in this phenomenon. Many are plianly offered as speculation but are alternately labled as accepted fact by people pushing the pseudoscientific label of bigfoot enthusiasts.

[Guest Matt K]

Hi Matt, great first few posts but I disagree with a reoccurring theme that appears in a couple of your posts. In my opinion there are no shades of grey. I hope I'm not "hiding behind science". I try not to since I don't know how one does that, but is there is or is there aint? Nothing between IMO.

The lighter comparison was good to grasp the essentials of a lie but what if there never was such a product as a lighter and you still claimed it was on your desk?

Also, I feel the catch phrases that you are interjecting over and over are unfair ("Cries from the angry mob"). This places anyone with an opposing position into a category. Although my screen name says differently, I'm actually very stoic. I don't wish to be placed into that group you are referring to simply because my opinion differs.

Hello FG, thanks for the kind words and civility shown in your response. When it comes to factual information about something, there are no gray areas. It is either a fact, or it isn't. What I was attempting to convey is that gray areas are formed in this community when non-facts and personal opinions start being presented as factual information. How one person may perceive a single event may not always be factual. For instance, if you watch a magician make a car disappear, according to perception, the car DID disappear. But factually it did not. Certain individuals may believe that what they observed truly was a car disappearing, and they will relate their observations as such. Now imagine that it isn't just one person viewing the magician's trick, but a crowd. You might have 5 people that see it as an illusion, and 5 others who think the car really did disappear. So for 5 of those people, the car disappearing would be considered a fact. For the other 5 it would not be considered a fact. In the field of Bigfoot, 5 individuals may report the fact that they lost view of the BF they were observing, while 5 others may report that the BF vanished into thin air. That is what I mean by gray area. Is the information an actual fact, or is it the mistaken perception of an observation made? Since it is an event that cannot be repeated and tested, it allows for gray areas of uncertainty.

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.

I was not meaning to use a "catch phrase" or lump anyone together based on opinion. I simply meant that I grow tired of everyone pushing science and the scientific method in a case where it cannot be applied. There is no way to scientifically prove Bigfoot exists short of a specimen. There is no way to prove scientifically that a sighting occurred. Why people continue to demand scientific proof when knowing it cannot be provided bothers me greatly.

[Guest]

Why people continue to demand scientific proof when knowing it cannot be provided bothers me greatly.

Hi Matt, and welcome to the BFF. What you describe in your example would bother me too, and be bloody annoying. Your perception of the demand for scientific proof is, however, a bit misplaced.

If you seek out some of those examples that so bother you, I think you'll find, almost universally, that they are communicated in response to someone else making a claim about the significance of such-and-such piece of purported bigfoot evidence. Our recent threads about the Skookum Cast provide a great example. If people want to interpret that impression as having been made by a bigfoot, I don't have a problem with that. If, however, people claim that it has been analyzed and shown to be a bigfoot I do have a problem with that. The distinction is subtle, but important. Check out threads on dermal ridges, mid-tarsal breaks, bigfoot hairs, bigfoot DNA, etc. I predict you'll almost invariably see claims about the significance of the analyses of such things that have not been critically peer-reviewed, and you'll see those claims before people like little ol' me ask where such things have been published.

There are many bigfoot proponents/believers/knowers who are very careful in their statements to acknowledge that we have nothing analyzed or analyzable that can serve as description of a bigfoot. I applaud their discretion and caution. Some others - perhaps a vocal minority? - will trumpet just about anything they see or hear as groundbreaking evidence and it simply isn't so, or at least, it can't be shown to be so without proper engagement in the scientific process. If folks don't want science calling them on their ill-supported claims then they should avoid stating that their claims are scientifically supported.

[Guest Matt K]

Saskeptic, thanks for the welcome. I'm no stranger to the BFF, I just chose not to rejoin until recently. I try to stay grounded in science when it comes to this or any other subject. Not everyone does that though, and each person is their own individual that can do what they please. Both sides of the field, skeptics and believers, don't always play fairly nor abide by the rules that others feel they should follow. When it comes to my perceptions being misplaced, I suppose we'll just have to disagree. In my 10+ years of experience I have seen it occur quite often and regularly. And that 10 years is just a drop in the bucket compared to others in this field who have dealt with it time and again.

I do however agree that a lot of the evidence collected is scientifically worthless. I also feel that as researchers we have been extremely sloppy and insufficient in our task. These are just my opinions on overall standards. Of course there are instances that all of the above is untrue. Another problem is that the line in the sand is no longer so definitive. Where it used to be one side of believers vs. one side of non-believers, it is now separated into many factions. While one side, the non-believers, remains a somewhat single front, the other side has been split into many sub-categories. You have the ones who have had sightings, the ones who haven't, the ones who believe it to be an animal, the ones who believe it to be human, the ones who believe it to be flesh and blood, the ones who believe it to have supernatural abilities, the ones who believe they have language, the ones who believe they don't, the ones who believe habituation (I really disagree with that term), the ones who don't believe habituation occurs, and so on. Unfortunately, in the eyes of the non-believers, the other side is all lumped together even though that's not the case. The believer side does a lot of the damage to itself when it comes to credibility, but a lot of it is beyond our control. There is no way to dictate how people conduct their research, nor is it possible to shut certain ones up from expressing their views or making ridiculous claims. All you can do is be concerned with how you conduct your own research, and how you present your findings.

Now, let's just lay our cards on the table. I am being completely honest and sincere. I realize you do not know me, and have no reason to believe what I say, but for the sake of discussion humor me. I had a high amount of interest in the subject of Bigfoot growing up, which is why I originally became involved in this endeavor. I did not know if they existed or not. I met numerous people who seemed very genuine that had their own stories of sightings and encounters, but that still did not convince me. It wasn't that I thought they were being dishonest with me, just that I knew there were other possibilities, and it was not enough to prove to me that they did in fact exist. I went out with various people to numerous locations. I found tracks, heard vocalizations, found limb formations, etc. I saw that there were in fact various types of evidence out there that would suggest this thing may exist. However, for myself, it was not enough to prove it to me. Proof for me came in the form of a sighting with my own two eyes. At first I searched for other explanations. Did I misidentify something? Did my mind cause me to see something that wasn't really there due to the context of my surroundings? Was it just something that could be attributed to psychological factors? There were still yet possibilities, so it left me feeling a bit uncertain, even though I had witnessed it first hand. It wasn't until a later experience that things started to really sink in. During an outing I experienced rock throwing first hand. I was in a location with several other individuals. We were all accounted for, and nobody had any previous knowledge of where we would be. The only way into the area by means of transportation would be going directly through us. We were in a national park, out in the middle of nowhere. On one side was the treeline, and on the other a creek. The woods were several miles deep before they eventually reached another road that paralleled them. We had heard something which seemed large and bipedal moving through the thick brush inside the treeline. Once again, it seemed as such, there is no way to verify we were hearing it correctly. However, things settled down, the movement stopped. Moments later, rocks start flying over our heads and into the creek behind us. You could hear them hit the water, you could look up and see them flying through the air, you could hear them hitting trees. I know for a fact they were rocks, nothing of considerable size mind you, because as I was leaning against the hood of a vehicle that was parked between myself and the treeline, one of the rocks landed on the hood of the vehicle, bounced up, hit myself in the stomach, and then landed at rest on the hood of the vehicle. This was witnessed by another researcher standing next to me. The trajectory of the rock placed it at coming from within the treeline. It was that experience that really started solidifying things for myself. There was no explanation other than something from within the treeline was throwing rocks towards us. They did not fall from the trees downward. They were thrown. It couldn't have been an animal. It is extremely unlikely that a person had parked their car along a stretch of highway, walked numerous miles through the woods in the middle of the night on a bearing that led them directly to our group, managed to find rocks in the dark with no source of light, and then decided to sit there and throw them at us. But it was still a possibility.

Since then I have had two other sightings that I am personally 100% certain were Bigfoot. One of which had three witnesses other than myself. It was those two sightings that proved their existence to me with absolute certainty. Because of those sightings, I believe my first sighting was genuine, and the rock throwing I have also attributed to Bigfoot. I do however realize that this cannot be considered proof to anyone other than myself.

So now I pose this question; how do I prove they exist to anyone else? What evidence could I provide that would warrant scientific interest? I have no formal training in the collection of evidence, I have no credentials, I'm not a scientist. I'm just an "average Joe." What could I possibly present that would be taken seriously or even looked at by the scientific community? What could I provide that would cause enough interest that a scientist would actually take time to investigate this thoroughly? What form of evidence would hold up to scientific scrutiny, that is out of the realm of possibly being faked? We have no specimen, therefore nothing can be authenticated or compared. DNA? What do we compare the DNA with? If the DNA results come back unidentifiable they are considered contaminated or insufficient. Hair samples? Hair means nothing. We have no cataloged Bigfoot to compare the hair samples with. Tracks can be faked. Anything with dermal ridges can be attributed to casting artifacts whether it really is or not. Scientists are only concerned with the observations and evidence collected by other scientists. So if nothing myself or anyone else outside of the scientific community can provide will be sufficient to warrant scientific inquiry, what is the point? Why have any of these forums? Why do field research? Why even discuss it at all?

A specimen. That's the only thing science will accept. So I guess anyone who is not out there trying to either kill one or trap one, should just call it quits. For myself and others out there that do know they exist, we can't even discuss our evidence, or at least share it with anyone, without someone stepping in and demanding our proof. Once again, proof that is unobtainable by scientific standards. If all of the skeptics and scientists demanding this proof would quit attacking and dissecting the evidence we do bring in, and instead pointed out what we were doing wrong and gave us guidance on how to do things properly, we might get somewhere.

[southernyahoo]

We have no specimen, therefore nothing can be authenticated or compared. DNA? What do we compare the DNA with? If the DNA results come back unidentifiable they are considered contaminated or insufficient. Hair samples? Hair means nothing. We have no cataloged Bigfoot to compare the hair samples with.

Sufficient DNA from tissue samples attached to the root of a hair would allow for comparison to human and non-human primate genomes. Computer analysis of complete sequences of various genes can establish the donors phylogenetic placement on the tree of life and establish whether it is a new hominid or not. Recently, scientists extracted DNA from a 40 K year old pinky bone and proposed a new hominid race called the Denisovans.

[Guest]

If all of the skeptics and scientists demanding this proof would quit attacking and dissecting the evidence we do bring in, and instead pointed out what we were doing wrong and gave us guidance on how to do things properly, we might get somewhere.

Sorry - I disagree with your central premise, i.e., that the skeptical community (whatever that is) demands "proof" from people like you who claim anecdotal encounters with bigfoot. If your objective is to provide evidence to warrant the description of a new species, then you're not doing anything "wrong" in reporting an anecdotal encounter. There's nothing you could do to an anecdotal account to raise it to that level. (This is why there are so few skeptical comments in the "Sightings" sections.)

Like any anecdotal account, we could pose some hypotheses to explain your claim and attempt to rule them out to see which one ends up being best supported. As you described well, however, it's really difficult to determine the most likely among them. I've engaged in discussions with several people who've had experiences like yours, and the furthest we can take it is "I don't know how to explain your experience" closely followed by "I can't write out a specimen tag to describe a new species based on your story." If you've had scientists demand that you provide proof of your anecdotal account then I submit that you weren't conversing with real scientists in those instances. You also weren't dealing with people who understand what anecdotes are.

Sometimes people will make claims of multiple encounters over a long period of time in a particular area. We might call these cases "habituations", but I don't think everyone agrees on when that term applies. In cases like this, I'm much more likely to ask for some evidence to support the claims because, presumably, the "witness" is in an excellent position to collect some. I never expect any, however, so I'd be hard-pressed to describe such queries as "demands."

But some folks will trumpet the results of this or that research as that elusive proof of bigfoot. I read uncritical claims about the quality of various things just about every day here on the BFF. What's wrong with "Oh really? How do you know this?"

. . . quit attacking and dissecting the evidence . . .

Does that really sound like a productive path to the truth - about anything?

[Guest Lesmore]

Keep in mind Lesmore that many of the suppositions of fact here are speculated answers to skeptical questions for the purpose of evaluation as explanations to account for what is witnessed in this phenomenon. Many are plainly offered as speculation but are alternately labled as accepted fact by people pushing the pseudoscientific label of bigfoot enthusiasts.

I like that term, 'pseudo scientific'.

A lot of the Bigfoot discussion is 'pseudo scientific' isn't it ?

Kind of the same approach, when there is a discussion on other, never completely confirmed forms of life, such as aliens and the Loch Ness Monster. There is no evidence that these exist either, as with Bigfoot.

But over the years I do believe some have wrapped themselves in the cloak of pseudo scientific jargon and use it, to lend credibility to their opinion, that BF, etc., does exist.

BTW, I haven't completely written off the prospect of the existence of BF. I just don't know.

However, after intently following the mystery of BF, using a variety of methods for over 40 years and not getting any closer to whatever the truth may be and in addition, not seeing that anyone else has been more successful in this quest...well it tends to make a fellow...... cynical.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Lesmore