Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[Guest]

So it's hubris to suspend belief in something that has not been proven to exist, but not hubris for a person to claim infallibility regarding the alleged observation of the thing for which there's no proof?

As I've written many times here (and oft lamented why the point never seems to sink in), if we want "bigfoot" to be recognized as a non-mythical creature, then we will need a physical specimen of one (just one) from which a description can be published and a binomial registered. Rank-and-file biologists like me would love the opportunity to do that - it would be a tremendously significant breakthrough in anthropology, biosystematics, wildlife ecology, etc. Publishing a paper like that is what every one of us hopes to achieve at some point in our careers.

I cannot, however, write out that specimen tag and publish a paper describing a new species based on anecdotes. We can't go to a museum to seek the type specimen for bigfoot, open the drawer and find a note that says "Mulder saw one."

So your anecdotal observations are fine, but there's nothing I can actually do with them other than to note them, duly.

[Cotter]

I need to add, have the folks that think drugs and/or alcohol can make you see a bigfoot actually ever DONE any drugs or alcohol?

I mean, c'mon. really? Folks that hallucinate b/c of drugs don't go around claiming what they've seen while peaking is real. Same with alcohol.

Now at the time of the hallucination, it is pretty real and you may scream a purple elephant is chasing you, but 4 hours later it's back to reality.

Seriously, go get some peyote, LSD, or mushrooms...try it....then report back as to what you think was real.

I don't see that as a viable reason to claim to have had an encounter.

[Drew]

Cotter.

It is not recreational drugs that I refer to when I say drugs can cause this. I typically say "Prescription drugs"

There are anti-depressants out there that will provide people with hallucinations that will make observers cringe.

I have a relative who was prescribed anti-depressant after her husband died. She called us about how these people are crawling in her window at night, and she said she wasn't scared because her husband was watching over them in the background, smoking a cigarette. She could describe exact features of these people, they were circus performers, each with an unusual feature, and she swore they were real and she wasn't sleeping. I explained to her that she was asleep when this was happening, and she did not believe me. I looked the drug up on the internet, and found that vivid hallucinations were a side-effect, I explained this to her, and she went off the meds. Hallucinations stopped. Curiously, later that week, I found an old painting that her husband had done for his magazine, for which he was an art director, it contained all of the creatures/performers that she had hallucinated. It had been painted 30 years ago, and was in her storage closet upstairs.

How many people who have seen Bigfoot are on anti-depressants? The visions can be vivid, and the person seeing them will not believe they are products of the mind.

Also, some of these hallucinations can manifest when the person is recently stopped taking the drugs.

I recommend this http://www.adr.org.uk/factsheets/hallucinations.pdf

[Cotter]

Drew - thx again for taking the time to set me straight.

I hear 'drugs' and I envision hippies pounding sugar cubes n'such. I've not much experience with the anti-depressants, so I will take some time to read the link you provided.

And you ask a GREAT question that would be very interesting to know - how many observers are indeed on some sort of anti-depressant (or other prescription medication).

Here I'm thinking that some folks think you see BF if you smoke a joint on yer back porch.

[kbhunter]

I think all of the drug talk is a bit incredulous. Non of my family and friends that have had encounters and sigtings are not on any at all.

KB

[Guest BFSleuth]

Moderator statement

This thread is temporarily closed for review by staff.

Thread is now reopened. Be very careful about discussion of drugs or drug related issues in this thread. If someone is on prescription drugs or using recreational drugs that is a personal issue that should not be discussed in the open forum. Questioning other forum members regarding drug use is strongly discouraged.

[Guest]

So it's hubris to suspend belief in something that has not been proven to exist, but not hubris for a person to claim infallibility regarding the alleged observation of the thing for which there's no proof?

I'll say the same thing I said to Ray: If you have any evidence that I am mentally incompetent, stupid, or lying, then post it.

And yes, it IS hubris for Science to take upon itself the mantle of supreme arbiter of fact vs non-fact, and to declare that anything it does not "recognize" falls squarely into the later category. This is particularly foul when you consider that a) they don't even follow their own procedures often as not in the doing of it, and b ) they have been proven wrong time after time after time after time after time.

Yet Science has managed to manipulate the public into continuing to accept their tainted, fallible conclusions as if they were fundamental truths.

As I've written many times here (and oft lamented why the point never seems to sink in), if we want "bigfoot" to be recognized as a non-mythical creature, then we will need a physical specimen of one (just one) from which a description can be published and a binomial registered. Rank-and-file biologists like me would love the opportunity to do that - it would be a tremendously significant breakthrough in anthropology, biosystematics, wildlife ecology, etc. Publishing a paper like that is what every one of us hopes to achieve at some point in our careers.

Then do so. You have more than enough eyewitness reports to assemble a "composite" image of said creature. You have the cast tracks, forensically typed hairs, etc for your physical supporting evidence.

The only reason you DON'T do it is because you have locked yourself into a single model of how the science of new species identification "should be done", what Dr Bildernagle (sp?) refers to as the "museum mentality".

I cannot, however, write out that specimen tag and publish a paper describing a new species based on anecdotes. We can't go to a museum to seek the type specimen for bigfoot, open the drawer and find a note that says "Mulder saw one."

See above.

So your anecdotal observations are fine, but there's nothing I can actually do with them other than to note them, duly.

Not just "my observations", but those of 100s if not 1000s of others, plus the cast tracks, etc. And yes, you CAN do something with them: you can take them seriously, and use them to build your proof instead of waiting around in your proverbial lab waiting for your museum specimen, an attitude that is decidedly out of date in the wildlife community in any event. Again, per Bildernagel (sp?) that is archaic thinking. Furthermore, many have noted the moral issue of the right to take a creature's life merely to satisfy intellectual curiosity.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Mulder

[Drew]

One of the problems with this line of thinking Mulder, is that there are "100s if not 1000s of " Bigfoot sightings, I'm sure one day there will be Millions of sightings. But the one thing that remains constant, is the number of type specimens. How long are Bigfoot sightings going to continue to climb, and by climb I mean they are coming it at a rapidly increasing rate since the early 1970's, wihtout ever finding one? You can't say they are rare and elusive, and have 10,000 sightings in fairly non-remote, and readily accessible areas.

[Guest]

Any other institutions you'd like to modify to suit your whims Mulder, or is it just science?

If there are people who are content to ignore the logical fallacy in accepting anecdotal information as proof of phenomena, then go for it. So long as you're not my doctor or my pilot or my president or my kid's teacher or my spouse then it probably won't affect me.

I have been crystal clear - for YEARS - that my interest in the bigfoot phenomenon is to determine if there is evidence to warrant the description of a new species according to the standards of, for example, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. If every other animal ever recognized since at least Linnaeus has had to meet their standard, then I see no reason to abandon that standard to accommodate "bigfoot."

[salubrious]

It is not recreational drugs that I refer to when I say drugs can cause this. I typically say "Prescription drugs"

There are anti-depressants out there that will provide people with hallucinations that will make observers cringe.

I understand that this is the case. However, what if the person who had the sighting does not do drugs of any sort at all, does not smoke, drink (that's a drug too), was not stressed or tired, IOW was in a very normal state of mind? I can tell you that my mind played a trick on me- I was certain I was looking a pile of dirt (a big one) in the road where a truck must have lost its load. So I slowed down. Then I realized that what my brain had just made up was not true. The pile of dirt was **moving*- breathing, and it had limbs. And no snout- it was something I had never seen before. And it was just as obvious what it was not as well as what it was, which was a BF.

I am plenty happy to read papers from scientists when pointed to them, but I've also seen such papers falsified in an effort to get the patent office first. One thing we can count on is that humans, no matter which side of the fence they are on, are fallible and will exercise human weaknesses regardless of training. On this account I give scientists about as much credibility as the next guy until they win me over. I do the same for skeptics; unfortunately most of them don't strike me as being very scientific.

And what I mean by this is a scientist will at least try to prove or disprove a theory in question. So - is there Bigfoot? Well how about let's take the existing data points as BFS puts it, and using them, see if we can find one?? But I don't see that happening! Instead, I am told from the comfort of a nice armchair that they don't exist. Sorry- that does not wash. You think they don't exist, fine, no worries with that as long as you can get out there, find the 'structures' (so develop a theory why they are there that is not BF and prove it), find an alternative explanation for the wood knock you just heard (which means going to where it came from at the very least), finding and then explaining what a barefoot human with a 17" foot is doing in the middle of nowhere, etc.

Get my point? I don't see skeptics doing that. I have encountered these things (by applying the data points, and it was not that hard to find this stuff) and tried really hard to come up with alternative explanations. Out of 20 'structures' most have ordinary explanations. But when you find one that has oak branches 20 feet long and 6" in diameter, when no oak is anywhere nearby, you have to at least admit that the normal explanations aren't working. When you find a barefoot 17" print, well what the heck is it doing in the exact part of a fairly remote bit of forest, and who even *has* a 17" foot?? Sorry, but you skeptics have some questions like that to answer and without some field work your answers are pretty bogus. Get out and do the field work.

[Guest]

The pile of dirt was **moving*- breathing, and it had limbs. And no snout- it was something I had never seen before. And it was just as obvious what it was not as well as what it was, which was a BF.

Was this BF hunched over or crawling on all four limbs? I'm having difficulty visualizing similarities between a mound of dirt and an 8ft tall BF.

[Drew]

It was actually nine feet wide, by 6 foot tall, sitting down in the road, and there were two of them.

Link to a sketch on BFF http://bigfootforums...post__p__564738

Edited August 28, 2012 by Drew

[Guest]

Assuming the sketch is even slightly accurate and to scale. (you'll need to click the image to see segment c)

Edited August 28, 2012 by Marlboro

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

BFS found a sighting from Alaska where a Bigfoot was siiting in that same position on a road. I think it gives a lot of credibility to salubrious' sighting.

[Guest]

People report stuff such as ghosts, zombies, unicorns, vampires, dinosaurs etc all the time. It doesn't mean they actually saw the thing. This applies to bigfoot as well.

Edited August 28, 2012 by zoala