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

[Guest]

Now we're resorting to ad hominem attacks?

[Guest]

My question has always been, "Why isn't science more proactive in the documentation of a BF". It's as if they're waiting for a body to be dropped on a table. My understanding of science wasn't this. However it seems as though this is what science has devolved too.

Now some amateurs have taken up the task and "appear" to be on the verge. I suppose that mainstream science will then jump in the arena and grab the bull by the horns?

The frustrating aspect is (even on this site) scientist scoffing at the subject of BF AS IF they have actually done the subject justice! They claim there's a lack of evidence........well duh......have you attempted to collect and compile evidence? In the past that WAS sciences job.

[Guest Loonsquatch]

You all are hilarious. I agree with Marlboro 100%. At some point, you just have to admit that the excuses are no longer adequate to explain why there is no proof. The sooner you accept that, the more time you will have in your lives to volunteer at a food bank, go on a vacation, spend time with your kids or grandkids, whatever.

I have to admit though; it's darn entertaining reading the posts on this forum. The never attending competition to one up each other in the IQ category is phenomenal. Too bad all those smarts aren't used for something productive.

[Guest DWA]

You all are hilarious. I agree with Marlboro 100%. At some point, you just have to admit that the excuses are no longer adequate to explain why there is no proof. The sooner you accept that, the more time you will have in your lives to volunteer at a food bank, go on a vacation, spend time with your kids or grandkids, whatever.

I have to admit though; it's darn entertaining reading the posts on this forum. The never attending competition to one up each other in the IQ category is phenomenal. Too bad all those smarts aren't used for something productive.

Um, while we are on productive, what the hell are you doing here again? Why aren't you out there doing those things you're telling us to do?

Excuses? Hah! Sasquatch is real, bro. The evidence says so. But some of us live in a bigger world than others.

There's a real cool quote on here somewhere about the obsession of people who go looking for websites to glom onto and chide people about their obsession. I'll let you know when I find it.

Edited December 2, 2012 by DWA

[Guest RayG]

The continued reference to the elbe track way as way to discredit all track ways, to me, continues to smack of attempts to salvage the original purpose of the hoax in the first place, something to consider.

I think you misunderstood my use of the Elbe trackway. I brought it up, not to discredit all trackways, but to encourage people to not just accept something on someone's say so. You might be able to ignore any troubling thoughts about previous trackways, I can't. It doesn't mean I've discredited them, just that I'm now more willing to question the circumstances behind those other trackways. Questioning doesn't automatically equate to discrediting. From my limited understanding, the Elbe trackway sounded like it was one of the best ever discovered. And if it was one of the best, what does that say about how we've approached past trackways?

RayG

[Incorrigible1]

Now some amateurs have taken up the task and "appear" to be on the verge.

Not sure why you feel that way, maybe you know something I don't. Happens all the time, trust me. As I soldier on, pushing my clumsy way around the forum, I hafta tell you, I've heard that explanation numerous times, and have learned my "Who" lesson, I try my best to not be fooled again.

[Guest DWA]

Not sure why you feel that way, maybe you know something I don't. Happens all the time, trust me. As I soldier on, pushing my clumsy way around the forum, I hafta tell you, I've heard that explanation numerous times, and have learned my "Who" lesson, I try my best to not be fooled again.

Well, dunno just yet. I know TBRC folks personally, and if they aren't pretty close to something I'd be surprised. And yep, getting that something past the scientists is another matter entirely.

[Guest]

These are some (just some) of the scientists who've actively engaged in bigfoot research or at least made public statements about being open to the possibility of bigfoot existence. (For most, I've just gleaned some basic Wiki info on who they are and what they've done.)

Jeff Meldrum

Meldrum received his B.S. in zoology specializing in vertebrate locomotion at Brigham Young University (BYU) in 1982, his M.S. at BYU in 1984 and a Ph.D. in anatomical sciences, with an emphasis in biological anthropology, from State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1989. He held the position of postdoctoral visiting assistant professor at Duke University Medical Center from 1989 to 1991. Meldrum worked at Northwestern University's Department of Cell, Molecular and Structural Biology for a short while in 1993 before joining the faculty of Idaho State University where he currently teaches.

Henner Fahrenbach

Wolf-Henrich (Henner) Fahrenbach, Ph.D., was born in Berlin, Germany, in 1932. He earned a Ph.D. in zoology at the University of Washington in 1961, followed by a postdoctoral fellowship in the Department of Anatomy at the Harvard Medical School in Boston, MA, from 1961 to 1963. He served as the head of the Laboratory of Electron Microscopy at the Oregon Regional Primate Center in Beaverton, OR, from 1967 to 1997, and as a Clinical Affiliate Professor in the Department of Integrative Biosciences at the Oregon Health & Sciences University’s School of Dentistry in Portland, OR, from 1987 to 2007. Professional memberships include(d) the American Association of Anatomists, American Society for Cell Biology, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Sigma Xi, and others. He served on the Editorial Boards of the International Journal of Insect Morphology and Embryology (1978-1982) and Zeitschrift für vergleichende Physiologie (1977-1982)."

George Schaller

Schaller received his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Alaska in 1955, and went on to the University of Wisconsin–Madison to obtain his Ph.D. in 1962.[9][10] From 1962 to 1963, he was a fellow at the Behavioral Sciences department of Stanford University. From 1963 to 1966, Schaller served as research associate for the Johns Hopkins University Pathobiology department, and from 1966 to 1972, served as the Rockefeller University's and New York Zoological Society's research associate in research and animal behavior. [11] He later served as Director of the New York Zoological Society's International Conservation Program from 1979 to 1988.[3]

Daris Swindler

. . . He went on to study anthropology at West Virginia University and the University of Pennsylvania.^[1] A long-time professor at the University of Washington, Dr Swindler also taught human anatomy at Cornell University Medical College (now known as Weill Medical College of Cornell University), at the University of South Carolina and Michigan State University. . . Swindler was generally acknowledged as a leading primate expert, having specialized in the study of fossilized teeth; his book An Atlas of Primate Gross Anatomy is a standard work in the field.^[2] . . . Dr Swindler adored his students and is remembered by many as a the most important instructor and aid in attaining their doctorates. Publishing over 9 books, he traveled the world from an archaeological dig in the Valley of the Kings to Easter Island. Just prior to Swindler's death in December 2007 the University of Washington established a graduate fellowship in his name.

Jane Goodall

Dame Jane Morris Goodall, DBE (born Valerie Jane Morris-Goodall on 3 April 1934)^[1] is a British primatologist, ethologist, anthropologist, and UN Messenger of Peace.^[2] Considered to be the world's foremost expert on chimpanzees, Goodall is best known for her 45-year study of social and family interactions of wild chimpanzees in Gombe Stream National Park, Tanzania.^[3] She is the founder of the Jane Goodall Institute and has worked extensively on conservation and animal welfare issues.

John Bindernagel

From his author page at Amazon (‘cause Wikipedia entry was lame):

John Bindernagel, PhD, is a Canadian biologist with over forty years of experience in wildlife research and conservation in North America and internationally. He was educated at the University of Guelph (Ontario, Canada) and at the University of Wisconsin (USA). After beginning his career in Canada in 1963, he worked internationally with the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations from 1965 until 1991. During this time he worked and taught in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Central America. There he was involved in wildlife surveys, the preparation and implementation of wildlife management measures, and conservation education.

From Bindernagel’s website:

John Bindernagel, B.S.A., MS, Ph.D.

I am a professional wildlife biologist who is seriously studying the sasquatch or bigfoot in North America. My interest in this animal began in 1963 when, as a third-year-student in wildlife management at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, I was laughed at for raising the report of an animal described as an "ape-man" for possible discussion. My field work began in 1975 when our family moved to British Columbia, partly in order for me to begin field work on this species. In 1988, my wife and I found several sasquatch tracks in good condition in the mountains not far from our home on Vancouver Island.

Grover Krantz

Grover Sanders Krantz (November 5, 1931 – February 14, 2002) was a professor of physical anthropology at Washington State University, perhaps most famous to the general public as one of the few scientists not only to research Bigfoot, but also to express his belief in the cryptid's existence. Throughout his professional career, Krantz authored more than 60 academic articles and 10 books on human evolution,^[1][2] and conducted field research in Europe, China, and Java.^[3][4]

John Napier

John Russell Napier, MRCS, LRCP, D.Sc. (1917 – 29 August 1987) was a British primatologist, paleoathropologist, and physician, who is notable for his work with Homo habilis and OH 7,^[3] as well as on human and primate hands/feet. During his life he was widely considered a leading authority on primate taxonomy,^[1][4] but is perhaps most famous to the general public for his research on Bigfoot.

Bryan Sykes

Bryan Sykes (born 9 September 1947) is a former Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford and a current Fellow of Wolfson College.

Sykes published the first report on retrieving DNA from ancient bone (Nature, 1989). Sykes has been involved in a number of high-profile cases dealing with ancient DNA, including those of Ötzi the Iceman and Cheddar Man, and others concerning people claiming to be members of the Romanovs, the Russian royal family. His work also suggested a Florida accountant by the name of Tom Robinson was a direct descendant of Genghis Khan, a claim that was subsequently disputed.^{[1] [2] [3]}

Sykes is best known outside the community of geneticists for his bestselling books on the investigation of human history and prehistory through studies of mitochondrial DNA. He is also the founder of Oxford Ancestors, a genealogical DNA testing firm.

Henry Gee

Dr Henry Gee (b. 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of Nature, the scientific journal.^[1]

Gee earnt his B.Sc. at the University of Leeds and completed his Ph. D. at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, where, in his spare time, he played keyboard for a jazz band fronted by Sonita Alleyne, who went on to establish the TV and radio production company Somethin’ Else.^[2] Gee joined Nature as a reporter in 1987 and is now Senior Editor, Biological Sciences. He has published a number of books, including Before the Backbone: Views on the Origin of the Vertebrates (1996), In Search of Deep Time (1999),^[3][4] A Field Guide to Dinosaurs (illustrated by Luis Rey) (2003) and Jacob's Ladder (2004).

Folks, these are not fly-by-night academic wannabes. For example, every one of them has their own page in Wikipedia! These are some of the most respected and revered professionals in their fields, every one of them very open to the possibility that bigfoots are real animals and very willing to engage in examinations of bigfoot evidence. It is simply not true that mainstream science will not address the topic of bigfoot. It has, and it does.

That said, the engagement of mainstream science with bigfootery has never ended up the way bigfooters want it to. Several have claimed to have been sharply criticized for their bigfoot work, notably Meldrum, Krantz, and Bindernagel. I don't doubt their claims: I've been highly critical of statements from all three of them. But what has been the result of all that criticism? Krantz was tenured at the University of Washington, and was ultimately promoted to full professor. Jeff Meldrum got tenure at Idaho State University and was promoted to full professor.

"Full Professor" is the standard highest rank for an academic. Many of us retire as tenured Associate Professors (my current rank) and never make it to Full Professor rank. The only way to progress above Full Professor is to recieve an honorary position (such as an endowed chair) or move into administration as a department chair, associate dean, dean, provost, or president of a university.

So where is this career poison? Meldrum and Krantz did/have done quite well for themselves with "bigfoot" as a conspicuous component of their research programs. It's actually pretty impressive, considering how neither of them - or indeed anyone on this list - ever published a legitimately peer-reviewed article demonstrating the authenticity of a purported piece of bigfoot evidence. (Meldrum's "ichnotaxon" paper is the closest we get to that.)

Now Bindernagel is tougher to pin down because I can't see that he ever worked as an academic after earning his PhD. Thus, there's no obvious "this guy made tenure or he didn't" that we can point to in his case. He certainly has had an illustrious career, however. It doesn't look to me that bigfoot has held him back at all, despite the fact that by his own admission he's been actively conducting research in this area since 1975, and in the intervening 37 years he's discovered and described exactly zero bigfoots.

So please folks, let's examine the evidence of "career poison" and follow where it leads: Bigfoot CAN'T BE career poison if the people who work on it have enjoyed robust careers. Criticism? Sure - if there aren't critics of your work then you're not doing anything interesting. But career poison? No way, and that's remarkable given how little actual science (i.e., peer-reviewed journal articles - our default career currency) has been produced by these people who claim to be working on it.

[Guest DWA]

Ask those people directly about what it's done for their careers. Goodall seems to regret what she's said about it; Schaller keeps a proper distance but at least professes interest and possibility (the proper scientific attitude, which most don't share); and ...well, talk to Krantz, Meldrum and Bindernagel, and yes a seance with the first might be a fun thing to try.

I should add (and I have said many times) that the interest of these people (whose credentials you quite appropriately shine up) should have the rest of the mainstream paying much more attention than they do. How many of those biotic surveys people are doing are going out there with explicit intent, among other things of course, to record and catalog sasquatch sightings or potential evidence? A biotic survey isn't worth much if there's an animal out there - a clear umbrella species, if it's real - that isn't proven, so it's ignored, despite the evidence, with calls for further research supported by the above people, that it's real.

Edited December 2, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

^Doubling down on the rhetoric despite the objective evidence to counter your claims?

Seriously? You think Jane Goodall's career has suffered? From anything?

Like Schaller, I'm interested in bigfoot and open to the possibility that I could be completely wrong. I think you'd find that that's the opinion of most scientists and active skeptics. RayG comes to mind. That's how he describes his feelings about the bigfoot phenomenon.

Can't talk to Krantz, but if I was to discuss this with Meldrum, I'd ask him how bigfoot kept him from being promoted to full professor. The problem is that he HAS been promoted to full professor. He can't claim that bigfoot has been career suicide when the objective evidence clearly demonstrates that he's already reached the pinnacle of an academic career. See how that works?

I already mentioned that Bindernagel's career is more difficult to gauge, but specifically what has he not been able to do in his career because of his work in bigfoot? Was he fired from his job because of bigfoot? Has his PhD been revoked or something? The evidence suggests that he enjoyed a great career with CIDA and the FAO for 26 years. I suspect that he retired then - early at 50 - and probably because he had a great pension. After that, it seems he went full-time into bigfootery. Seems like an awesome career to me.

So was he fired in 1991 or did he retire? If we can determine that he was fired - and because he was working on bigfoot - I'll gladly concede that this one man, John Bindernagel, suffered in his career because he chose to work on bigfoot.

Edited December 2, 2012 by RayG
Replaced censored word

[Guest McGman]

If science doesn't want to devote the time to gathering the specimen the specimen won't be gathered. Simple as that.

I hope no one thought Bindernagel was going to unveil a bigfoot at that meeting. I sure wouldn't have expected it. And I don't think he's gotten any other invites. And he's done plenty of shopping around. I don't think he'll prove it by himself.

I'd recommend his two books.

Sounds like you're blaming scientists for not producing a specimen. Why?

Just on this forum alone there are claims of bigfoot frequently going on and around peoples' property.

Why aren't you holding them to the same standards?

[Guest DWA]

^Doubling down on the rhetoric despite the objective evidence to counter your claims?

Seriously? You think Jane Goodall's career has suffered? From anything?

Like Schaller, I'm interested in bigfoot and open to the possibility that I could be completely wrong. I think you'd find that that's the opinion of most scientists and active skeptics. RayG comes to mind. That's how he describes his feelings about the bigfoot phenomenon.

Can't talk to Krantz, but if I was to discuss this with Meldrum, I'd ask him how bigfoot kept him from being promoted to full professor. The problem is that he HAS been promoted to full professor. He can't claim that bigfoot has been career suicide when the objective evidence clearly demonstrates that he's already reached the pinnacle of an academic career. See how that works?

I already mentioned that Bindernagel's career is more difficult to gauge, but specifically what has he not been able to do in his career because of his work in bigfoot? Was he fired from his job because of bigfoot? Has his PhD been revoked or something? The evidence suggests that he enjoyed a great career with CIDA and the FAO for 26 years. I suspect that he retired then - early at 50 - and probably because he had a great pension. After that, it seems he went full-time into bigfootery. Seems like an awesome career to me.

So was he fired in 1991 or did he retire? If we can determine that he was fired - and because he was working on bigfoot - I'll gladly concede that this one man, John Bindernagel, suffered in his career because he chose to work on bigfoot.

And this is, what, evidence that science is bigfoot-friendly? You're not even answering the litmus-test question I posed you! (Typical of my experience: the key questions always go unanswered.)

Sounds like you're blaming scientists for not producing a specimen. Why?

Just on this forum alone there are claims of bigfoot frequently going on and around peoples' property.

Why aren't you holding them to the same standards?

That's their job. If you think the amateurs are gonna do it, well, good luck there. Sorry, science's job is pursuing inconclusive evidence to conclusions. When the room is full of smoke, you don't generally go: what fire?

Holding laymen to the same scientific standards as scientists? Are you kidding? The sasquatch evidence proves you can't even hold scientists up to the highest scientific standards. I see a sasquatch; since I was a scoffer right up to that moment, I don't have proof....and so instead of following up you ridicule me? With science like that, who needs scientists?

And now for the world's hardest-core technical biology:

http://en.wikipedia....dlife_Sanctuary

Yep. Yeti reserve.

"We have set aside Sakteng to preserve all of its ecological relationships, including the putative ecological relationships involving an animal not yet recognized by Western science. We know that scientific cataloguing is a device that only benefits our species, and only in narrow ways. When it is unduly delayed, the biotic fabric of an area can be doomed - even if only indirectly - to degradation beyond repair from our ignorance of what is there. Preserving biotic diversity - all forms, as much as possible, wherever possible - is the most important goal of the biological sciences. Therefore, Sakteng is equally critical whether the yeti is real or not. If he is real, we have protected him. If he is not, then we have protected everything else."

THAT is real science. As is the recognition that the native population frequently knows things Western science does not.

(Of course I wrote that. Might pitch it to the Bhutanese government. On second thought: pro bono.)

Science is not supposed to sit on its hands until proof falls on it and crushes it. I've been told science is not doing that. Yes it is. Read these posts. Saskeptic - thanks, man! - made my point for me, cubed it and squared the result. All these leading lights are saying either it-is-real or it-is-significantly-possible...and we are waiting for unpaid not-even-part-timers to produce the proof? And insulting them as they go, to ensure that their numbers remain as small as possible, with the fewest possible number of them scientists?

We kidding there?

"It's not proven" - what all the skeptics' words can be boiled down to - means, in scientific terms:

When there are this many words, time to push for the proof.

Saskeptic: go man! You have my ultimate litmus test in your hands. Waiting on that response.

Edited December 2, 2012 by DWA

[Guest McGman]

It costs money though for scientists to search for them.

I've got to think if there was enough evidence available to justify the search/money required somebody would pay for it.

[Guest DWA]

It costs money though for scientists to search for them.

I've got to think if there was enough evidence available to justify the search/money required somebody would pay for it.

There is enough evidence - and Bindernagel is one scientist who agrees - to consider the sasquatch, right now, a confirmed species awaiting the formality of taxonomic classification.

Most people don't know that, because most people aren't acquainted with the evidence. And as to 'somebody' paying, well, that somebody has to consider it worth their while. Just as with many eyewitnesses, who consider their sighting their proof and don't care who else knows, people with the money may not have the need or inclination to spend it.

I'm more interested in the knee-jerk scoffing and ridicule coming to an end. That is nowhere close. The mainstream could do a lot about that, every time one of them is queried on the topic.

[ohiobill]

If your interests included understanding how science works you'd probably be a lot happier because you would understand how impossible it is to prove existence of a creature through unverifiable eyewitness sightings. Hopefully the DNA studies will provide evidence that can confirm the species.