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

[Guest DWA]

True, if you just compare broadly the number of species known to exist and the number we know from fossils. I prefer to take context into account when considering fossils, and what *should* have been found. Considering living, terrestrial mammals in North America, I don't know of a species over 25kg for which we lack a fossil record, and we actually have many fine fossils of mice and bats if you want to get into the < 30g categories.

Near as I can tell, if bigfoots are real, then this is the only species of large mammal in North America that has no fossil or other prehistory.

To me, "shoulds" all evaporate in the face of evidence that must be explained.

A world in which all of this amounts to a false positive is one heck of a whole lot stranger than a world in which one large NA mammal has 'no fossil or other prehistory.' That we know of. Yet. And given that 5% number, well, then, just how strange is it? 'Routine' might be the better word.

And this isn't "personal incredulity." It's just how a scientist should bet his money, a completely different thing. Personal incredulity is: I don't believe it; I have no alternative explanation, which doesn't matter, because it can't be real.

(The Comoro Islands have only one native fish presumed extinct for 65 million years. NA has only one native all-white ungulate. NZ has only one native living-fossil reptile. Shoot, Australia has two mammals that lay eggs.)

After sasquatch is confirmed, the word will be: well, it was a primate. This is just the situation we should have expected given the sketchy fossil record for primates. And then, of course, count on it, UCLA will be motivated to finally find the Minaret skull. And other stuff will start showing up, in museum drawers and prospectors' doorstops. And paleoanthropology will be energized to begin doing searches it hasn't before. And voila.

In the end it all will be, as J. Robert Alley (Raincoast Sasquatch, a must-read for how a scientist should think about this topic) says, rather comical.

Edited February 4, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

So back to Sasquatch.......if this creature habitats urban areas? Your statistical data applies. But if it inhabits wilderness areas with the occasional two lane highway crossing? Much less so.

Sure, but do you see how you're cherry-picking reports to build your own premise about what bigfoots must be? You're making an a priori (and perhaps subconscious) decision that the more urban the location of the bigfoot encounter (or the more diurnal, or the more ______, etc.) the less likely it is to be true. If "bigfoot" is a species that occurs at extremely low density in isolated valleys of British Columbia with a total population of < 50, then sure, it's a lot more likely to be real. I might go as high as a 0.05% probability. But that's not at all the picture painted by the reports - you know those thousands of encounters I'm so often being told here MUST be true because there are so many of them?

In the end it all will be, . . . rather comical.

Oh there's plenty of comedy in bigfootery, right now.

[Guest DWA]

Sure, but do you see how you're cherry-picking reports to build your own premise about what bigfoots must be? You're making an a priori (and perhaps subconscious) decision that the more urban the location of the bigfoot encounter (or the more diurnal, or the more ______, etc.) the less likely it is to be true. If "bigfoot" is a species that occurs at extremely low density in isolated valleys of British Columbia with a total population of < 50, then sure, it's a lot more likely to be real. I might go as high as a 0.05% probability. But that's not at all the picture painted by the reports - you know those thousands of encounters I'm so often being told here MUST be true because there are so many of them?

Now I need to know where that 0.05% probability comes from. All science numbers must be backed by evidence.

Now. That said. This is actually something that frustrates me - this idea that reports must be considered more or less "believeable" based on spurious divining rods (like, you know, personal incredulity, no less a sin for proponents than for skeptics). All "suburban" sightings I've read are quite believable to me, for reasons I've gone over here. So are diurnal ones; so are reports of this "elusive" animal leaving the scene - or chasing the witness - like it's dealt with humans many times before (which one would expect; they're not as subject to incredulity as we are), etc.

One must consider the evidence and have an exceedingly good reason for rejecting ANYTHING. If you report to me a sasquatch from Hawaii, with purple skin, webbed feet and big green polka dots, which blew trees up with lightning bolts from its teeth....well, let's just say I'll have good reason to set that one aside when I'm deciding where the NatGeo-sponsored expedition will go. (Otherwise: your database of purple-green-polka-dot reports, please.) But I've seen serious researchers omit Iowa and NJ from serious consideration - places that, to me, might be every bit as good habitat as the PNW, if not better. (John Bindernagel agrees. Argue with him, not me.)

Now. "Inhabits urban areas" is a decided mischaracterization of what the reports describe.

Oh there's plenty of comedy in bigfootery, right now.

Understanding how to evaluate evidence allows one to see the sideshows for what they are, and laugh when appropriate.

But the real comedy hasn't even started. Yet.

[Drew]

Actually, the real comedy starts right now.

[Guest DWA]

^^^^^Unless you have tested your crystal ball and found its judgments infallible, I'm withholding judgment on this one until I see what happens.

Edited February 4, 2013 by DWA

[Drew]

I'm just referring to the subtitle. "THE MOST PENETRATING SEARCH FOR SASQUATCH"

Forget about the failures down the road, I am strictly referring to the comedy of the subtitle.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Well, OK, there is that high-school-giggle aspect that we could have done without, yes.

[Drew]

If only Dr. Henner Fahrenbach was speaking at the seminar...

[norseman]

I'm just referring to the subtitle. "THE MOST PENETRATING SEARCH FOR SASQUATCH"

Forget about the failures down the road, I am strictly referring to the comedy of the subtitle.

Is that a roll of quarters in your blimp? Or are you just glad to see me.........

Sure, but do you see how you're cherry-picking reports to build your own premise about what bigfoots must be? You're making an a priori (and perhaps subconscious) decision that the more urban the location of the bigfoot encounter (or the more diurnal, or the more ______, etc.) the less likely it is to be true. If "bigfoot" is a species that occurs at extremely low density in isolated valleys of British Columbia with a total population of < 50, then sure, it's a lot more likely to be real. I might go as high as a 0.05% probability. But that's not at all the picture painted by the reports - you know those thousands of encounters I'm so often being told here MUST be true because there are so many of them?

Bud, I'm completely cherry picking reports! You understand my mission in this subject.......... I have to take those reports of the highest probability of being real. I'm also **** canning reports of it shape shifting, time warping, smoking cigs at a back yard BBQ............so on and so forth.

But I also cannot throw the baby out with the bath water........I think there is a kernel of truth here, because I personally have an experience that is not easily explained away. So I have to sift the wheat from the chaff here, my time is limited.

And if you skeptics are right? Cool. My head will not explode, but I can say I gave it an honest handshake.

[Guest]

Don't forget....Dyer is going to waste all the skeptics soon...lol

[norseman]

Don't forget....Dyer is going to waste all the skeptics soon...lol

Who? Is this Squatch in the freezer guy?

I like skeptics...........they keep it real, and if the stars ever align for me I have full intentions of including them in this discovery.

[Guest]

Bud, I'm completely cherry picking reports! . . .

But I also cannot throw the baby out with the bath water.

Diggin' the honesty, norseman. I think a lot of folks think like you do and if they were as honest and outspoken as you are the hucksters and loonies in bigfootery would eventually fade into the background.

[WSA]

I'm a cherry picker too, and there are lots of cherries to be picked from the large number of reports. You have to be a discerning reader, no matter what you are reading. This narrative database contains problematic accounts that don't jibe with others, I know. I'm looking for consistency, correlation and the indicators of credibility. Some just don't measure up. I don't even go so far as to say they are untrue, only that I don't see them as worth my time to consider... more noise than signal. I wouldn't expect even the most ardent BF enthusiast to tell you otherwise.

Discernment is crucial, as I said, but tossing out ALL the reports is erring too far to the other side of the matter. I have no problem with anyone selecting reports they find most credible and compelling, and pointing out others that don't pass muster. There is no true objectivity when reading these things, after all. Be wary of anyone who tells you otherwise.

[Drew]

The problem with Cherry picking Bigfoot reports, is the problem that the guy who says 'He saw Bigfoot jump off of a UFO like a 1st AirCav soldier jumping off of a Huey', has as much verifiable evidence of his belief, as someone who thinks Bigfoot eats berries, and 'hides in a secret cave when hunting season rolls around'. Both can be 'Knowers', and both have the same amount of verifiable evidence as the other. What is the criteria for throwing sightings out? Is it when they can detect hidden infrared lights?, or when they can emit infrasound?, or maybe it is when they "Bzzt" into another dimension? Which is it?

[Guest DWA]

That's where thinking about stuff, and knowing stuff about people, the outdoors and animals, comes in.

I did it. WSA did it. Meldrum Krantz and Bindernagel did it.