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

[Guest]

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

Is this "litmus test" you're now banging on about your premise that mainstream scientists won't address bigfoot evidence? If so, that premise fails on the weight of the evidence I provided. Other than that you're all over the map with the logical fallacies and if you would like to me address something else I'm going to need you to express a clear question.

[Drew]

I have a feeling, that the resident BIGFOOT EXPERTS, would not be too happy if 'mainstream science' picked up the Bigfoot baton and ran with it.

[Guest]

Personally, I don't blame anyone outside this community who doesn't take what we do seriously. Why? How many out there in the field know how to properly collect biological evidence? How many know what kind of evidence we need to prove this to the scientific community? More so than not I see researchers say, "I don't care what anyone thinks." Well, that's cool - but then we can't blame those outside our community for feeling that way also - to include the scientific community. The scientific community would be all about Bigfoot - if we could provide them with something worthy of consideration. Science is about what it can prove - not what it can assume.

We are the researchers and investigators - it's our job to bring in the credible information for the scientists to evaluate. I don't blame them if I don't do my homework. It's on me.

[Guest DWA]

I have a feeling, that the resident BIGFOOT EXPERTS, would not be too happy if 'mainstream science' picked up the Bigfoot baton and ran with it.

I might not be too concerned about that. Actually, check that, I wouldn't be concerned at all.

To my mind, Jeff Meldrum and the TBRC have it right. They are rooting for confirmation, whoever does it and however (playing by reasonable rules like don't shoot ten guys in suits first) it's done. They have expressed concerns about the preliminary aspects of Ketchum's research (and they should be concerned, particulary since they have a lot of research time - by this field's meager standards - under their belts, and they aren't leaning in the direction Ketchum says the results do). But they have said they stand ready and willing to adjust sights if the findings so dictate.

Then we have Matt Moneymaker. [shrug]

It might help if Matt gets that, whatever confirmation says, it's validation.

Is this "litmus test" you're now banging on about your premise that mainstream scientists won't address bigfoot evidence? If so, that premise fails on the weight of the evidence I provided. Other than that you're all over the map with the logical fallacies and if you would like to me address something else I'm going to need you to express a clear question.

I've expressed two clear questions. But I'm getting the expected [lack of] response.

• Are biotic surveys expressly taking into account the possibility of the sasquatch's existence, and directly instructing every researcher involved as to the documentation and collection of suspected sasquatch evidence? A biotic survey minus a potential umbrella species with a deep and wide evidence base is, well, you might be able to find unique parasites if you picked through it.
  
• Why does the scientific mainstream think it's perfectly acceptable to let unpaid amateurs, spending virtually no time, hunt for the proof while it picks its teeth? And then complain about what any thinking person should expect to be the result?
  
• Why would any thinking person with a normal level of human curiosity pick one's teeth and repeatedly enunciate "it's not proven" when what everyone should be doing is pulling together to solve this?
  

(Oh wait. Three.)

Personally, I don't blame anyone outside this community who doesn't take what we do seriously. Why? How many out there in the field know how to properly collect biological evidence? How many know what kind of evidence we need to prove this to the scientific community? More so than not I see researchers say, "I don't care what anyone thinks." Well, that's cool - but then we can't blame those outside our community for feeling that way also - to include the scientific community. The scientific community would be all about Bigfoot - if we could provide them with something worthy of consideration. Science is about what it can prove - not what it can assume.

We are the researchers and investigators - it's our job to bring in the credible information for the scientists to evaluate. I don't blame them if I don't do my homework. It's on me.

You aren't bringing a body in front of the scientists. You have already brought in front of the scientists more evidence than we have for anything science hasn't proven ...and more than for many things science has.

Right. Science is about what IT can prove. It has more than enough evidence in front of it, right now, to bring its resources to bear.

I am really unclear why people are apologizing for and defending the mainstream stance on this question. Anyone who saw that CNN clip on the Ketchum release knows that the mainstream media don't treat anything that science respects like that.

Edited December 3, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

DWA said:

You aren't bringing a body in front of the scientists. You have already brought in front of the scientists more evidence than we have for anything science hasn't proven ...and more than for many things science has.

There is a difference here you are not noting. Evidence of something happening - is different than Evidence of an actual unknown. Two very different things. Dr. Meldrum chooses to focus on castings - that makes sense he is an anatomist - but not all scientists care about the foot morphology of something that may or may not exist. Castings, tree breaks, vocals, etc - all evidence that something happenened on the property in question - but NOT evidence the animal actually exists. Why? No offense - but it could be the homeowner with lots of time on their hands. We have all dealt with hoaxes and pranks.

Biological evidence is what science wants and needs. That is physical evidence of the alleged animal - that can be tested.

Right. Science is about what IT can prove. It has more than enough evidence in front of it, right now, to bring its resources to bear.

Again, see above.

I am really unclear why people are apologizing for and defending the mainstream stance on this question. Anyone who saw that CNN clip on the Ketchum release knows that the mainstream media don't treat anything that science respects like that.

I'm not apologizing for anyone - but at the same time - I don't blame people who are telling us what they want and need.. We can either do what is being asked, or ignore it, for whatever reason. But, I won't blame these people for telling us what they want and need... We need to do our job better. But, that is just my opinion.

[Guest DWA]

DWA said:

There is a difference here you are not noting. Evidence of something happening - is different than Evidence of an actual unknown. Two very different things. Dr. Meldrum chooses to focus on castings - that makes sense he is an anatomist - but not all scientists care about the foot morphology of something that may or may not exist. Castings, tree breaks, vocals, etc - all evidence that something happenened on the property in question - but NOT evidence the animal actually exists. Why? No offense - but it could be the homeowner with lots of time on their hands. We have all dealt with hoaxes and pranks.

I've said it many times here. Hoaxes and pranks are not even in this discussion; the evidence of that is minuscule compared to the evidence that is considered "live" in the discussion. Meldrum - for only one, as saskeptic has pointed out - has directly relevant credentials. If I have reasonable curiosity, I am interested, and the scientists that aren't, at all....not sure what to say about them, but why are they scientists if the findings of directly relevant specialists don't interest them?

Biological evidence is what science wants and needs. That is physical evidence of the alleged animal - that can be tested.

That is the responsibility that has been delegated, by the society, to them. If we are depending on the proponents to provide the proof, then we are done. Proof is what the responsible body says it is; and the responsible body adjusts the requirement based on circumstances (e.g., the photo holotype for the kipunji). The proponents say it's real, so as far as they are concerned, it's proven. Does that mean we are done? No. Science is responsible for proof in our society, and the evidence clearly says there is something to prove here. I'm not seeing the time the proponents spend in the field yielding proof acceptable to science except if someone beats odds as big as Powerball.

I'm not apologizing for anyone - but at the same time - I don't blame people who are telling us what they want and need.. We can either do what is being asked, or ignore it, for whatever reason. But, I won't blame these people for telling us what they want and need... We need to do our job better. But, that is just my opinion.

Science has the advantage of resources, time and the ability to adjust those based on the respect in which society generally holds it. Science can leverage those first, by stopping the kneejerk scoffing every time they get asked about bigfoot and second, by reviewing the evidence and taking it as seriously as normally curious people would...and do (many at the risk of their careers).

I regularly hear the question: OK, when do we stop looking for bigfoot? My response: let me know when we start and I'll get back to you.

Until the mainstream is engaged, the search has not begun in earnest.

[Guest]

DWA’s question 1:

• Are biotic surveys expressly taking into account the possibility of the sasquatch's existence, and directly instructing every researcher involved as to the documentation and collection of suspected sasquatch evidence? A biotic survey minus a potential umbrella species with a deep and wide evidence base is, well, you might be able to find unique parasites if you picked through it.
  

First, whose "biotic surveys" are you asking about? Do you mean regular inventory and monitoring efforts by state and federal natural resources agencies like the NRCS or USFS? Do you mean surveys by wildlife consultants or NGOs like The Nature Conservancy or Ducks Unlimited? Do you mean some kind of professor and grad student field research project? Do you mean special efforts by the National Geographic Society or the Smithsonian Institution to conduct inventory for new species in the last unsurveyed regions of our planet?

Some surveys are very specifically designed to detect one or a few species. These might be ill-suited to uncover evidence of any non-target species. Some surveys are designed to find and catalog everything. These latter surveys would be very well suited to uncover bigfoot evidence, should any be available to find. Note, however, that the only kind of evidence biologists can really use for the description of a new species is some piece of physical remains from the subject. If a biologist is walking through the forest and finds a bigfoot leg, then bigfoot will be discovered. If a biologist walks through the forest and finds some twisted branches, then it likely won't.

Are archaeologists or paleontologists trying to find bigfoot? Specifically no, but they're trying to find anything and then figuring out what it is.

DWA’s question 2:

• Why does the scientific mainstream think it's perfectly acceptable to let unpaid amateurs, spending virtually no time, hunt for the proof while it picks its teeth? And then complain about what any thinking person should expect to be the result
  

Again, mainstream science has looked for bigfoot. For example, what the heck has Bindernagel been up to for the past 37 years in which he claims to have devoted his energies to the search for bigfoot? Krantz was out there trying to track the beasts. Meldrum does so now. Your strawman fallacy does these people a disservice by writing off their efforts. Do you consider these three to be bungling incompetents, or do you acknowledge that none of them have ever actually found a bigfoot specimen?

How 'bout yeti expeditions? Here's an excerpt from an earlier post of mine on the subject:

. . . there were several yeti expeditions in the 1950s and 1960s, attracting such prominent individuals as Sir Edmund Hillary, Marlin Perkins, and Jimmy Stewart. (For our younger readers, imagine John Glenn, Jeff Corwin, and George Clooney getting publicly involved in bigfoot expeditions today.) Are there not expeditions going on right now to find wildmen in Russia and China, and Orang Pendek in Sumatra? While similarly small parties went 2 for 2 in the discovery of mountain gorillas and saolas, these bigfoot, yeti, and wildman efforts have so far come up short. It's not that people haven't looked, it's that people haven't found.

In the early 1960s, you can't get more mainstream than Sir Edmund Hillary, Marlin Perkins, and Jimmy Stewart. Bindernagel claims to have become enchanted with bigfoot by 1963, right on the heels of Hillary's yeti expedition in 1960/61.

Of course, your argument is also flawed by its presumption that amateurs are incapable of discovering new species. There is a rich history of amateur naturalists making important biological discoveries. Closer to home, has not Melba Ketchum recieved dozens of putative bigfoot hair and tissue samples for her analysis? As far as I know, those have all come from amateurs in the field. Seems to me that amateurs are quite capable of collecting bigfoot evidence. Why do you discredit their contributions?

DWA’s question 3:

• Why would any thinking person with a normal level of human curiosity pick one's teeth and repeatedly enunciate "it's not proven" when what everyone should be doing is pulling together to solve this?
  

Because to us the lack of body indicates that there's nothing to "solve"?

More to the point though, your teeth-picking examples are not congruent with the evidence. Ketchum and Sykes are right now engaged in efforts to see if there's anything to all this bigfoot stuff. Meldrum has certainly done his level best to engage the footprint evidence. Again, do you think these people are grossly incompetent? Why don't you consider what they're doing to "count" as science engaging in putative bigfoot evidence?

[Guest]

• Are biotic surveys expressly taking into account the possibility of the sasquatch's existence, and directly instructing every researcher involved as to the documentation and collection of suspected sasquatch evidence? A biotic survey minus a potential umbrella species with a deep and wide evidence base is, well, you might be able to find unique parasites if you picked through it.
  
• Why does the scientific mainstream think it's perfectly acceptable to let unpaid amateurs, spending virtually no time, hunt for the proof while it picks its teeth? And then complain about what any thinking person should expect to be the result?
  
• Why would any thinking person with a normal level of human curiosity pick one's teeth and repeatedly enunciate "it's not proven" when what everyone should be doing is pulling together to solve this?
  

1. The mountain gorilla was first "discovered" by German colonists who were surveying the borders of their territory. They weren't even looking for it.

2. Loaded question. Scientists are wanting for other scientists to bring proof.

3. Loaded question again.

[Cotter]

Hi Jerry:

Your #1 is exactly what is purportedly happening with the NA RFP. I think there have been a lot of folks saying that 'discovery' starts with non-scientists reporting the 'unusual animal' they encounter.

Perhaps we're at the start or middle of the discovery, not the end.

[Guest DWA]

_{[And I apologize, at the top, for some Unaccountable Font Crap that submits to no fix I can devise.]}

_{As to biotic surveys:}

_{"all of the above" would be nice. But more specifically I am talking about (at least) biotic inventories - such as The All Taxa Biotic Inventory of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Obviously, it isn't "all taxa" if you are deliberately screening one out for which there is a lot of evidence, whether proven or not. Once again: variations on "it's not proven" don't cut it. It is science's job to prove things for us. Begging off because something isn't proven is saying: me, do my job?}

_{As to unpaid amateurs:}

_{You missed the part where I talked about the insults the very few unpaid people are getting (never mind that awful Ketchum piece on CNN), bought and paid for by a scientific mainstream that consistently says unsupportable things when asked to be "the expert" on whether sasquatch is real. "A five (two; one; one half of one) percent chance?" Where do you get those numbers? (Hint: stool samples come from the same place.) In science, you can't give a number unless you tell the audience, in English, where it came from. "We have no fossils?" Why are you looking at rocks (to see what's not in them - that we've found, yet) , when living people claim they're seeing real animals, are describing them consistently, and don't seem crazy? "Where's the body?" Um, that's what I'm asking you, Mr./Ms. Expert. Because the evidence says YOU should have one by now.}

_{There is nothing "loaded" about wondering why scientists don't have - when it comes to evidence that mounts by the week - the simple curiosity that alone leads to new discoveries.}

_{I have never even asked scientists to drop finding The Next Mouse Lemur to do something interesting for a change. I just want them to stop saying stuff they can't support about things they haven't looked at. And start making noise - as the New York Times did about one hundred forty years ago - about an unsolved mystery and it being high time to solve it. Because after one hundred forty years, we know this: shelving it (the Times's other option) is never gonna happen. And the evidence has grown exponentially since then.}

_{Working together to solve it:}

_{This is what really concerns me about scientists today. Like kids, they seem to think everything should be given to them on a platter - including the proof the society charges them with getting.}

_{I don't care how they do it, within reasonable limits. Science needs (believe me) help on this one. Just get it, then. But do your own lifting, starting with reversing all the sneering and admitting that no body means there's something out there to solve. Because the full suite of evidence other than a body is arguing: you should have one. Why don't you?}

_{Science forgets its charge at the weirdest times. Were I a scientist, I'd want my life to be more fun than that.}

Again, mainstream science has looked for bigfoot. For example, what the heck has Bindernagel been up to for the past 37 years in which he claims to have devoted his energies to the search for bigfoot? Krantz was out there trying to track the beasts. Meldrum does so now. Your strawman fallacy does these people a disservice by writing off their efforts. Do you consider these three to be bungling incompetents, or do you acknowledge that none of them have ever actually found a bigfoot specimen?

Incompetents? They did their job, in spades. It's the mainstream's turn now, with its money and time, to do the work of proof. All they have to do is what Newton did, stand on the shoulders of giants.

. . . there were several yeti expeditions in the 1950s and 1960s, attracting such prominent individuals as Sir Edmund Hillary, Marlin Perkins, and Jimmy Stewart. (For our younger readers, imagine John Glenn, Jeff Corwin, and George Clooney getting publicly involved in bigfoot expeditions today.) Are there not expeditions going on right now to find wildmen in Russia and China, and Orang Pendek in Sumatra? While similarly small parties went 2 for 2 in the discovery of mountain gorillas and saolas, these bigfoot, yeti, and wildman efforts have so far come up short. It's not that people haven't looked, it's that people haven't found.

Those parties went 2 for 2 because they followed up on the encounter testimony that when it's bigfoot, the mainstream says isn't evidence.

In the early 1960s, you can't get more mainstream than Sir Edmund Hillary, Marlin Perkins, and Jimmy Stewart. Bindernagel claims to have become enchanted with bigfoot by 1963, right on the heels of Hillary's yeti expedition in 1960/61.

Have you read about that Hillary 'expedition'? Worthless. It went in presuming what it would(n't) find.

Of course, your argument is also flawed by its presumption that amateurs are incapable of discovering new species. There is a rich history of amateur naturalists making important biological discoveries. Closer to home, has not Melba Ketchum recieved dozens of putative bigfoot hair and tissue samples for her analysis? As far as I know, those have all come from amateurs in the field. Seems to me that amateurs are quite capable of collecting bigfoot evidence. Why do you discredit their contributions?

Um, I'm not discrediting them. YOU are. You are saying that they deserve no help from the scientific community to supplement the time they have to work on this, which is insufficient, as history has amply proven (three bigfoot expeditons in history, to date. No, a weekend won't confirm a fox let alone an ape). I'm saying that the proponents have done their job (laying the evidence before those charged with proof). The mainstream hasn't. Science's folded arms say: we are dealing with total incompetents here, backing a total loser proposition. You aren't, I know, going to deny that.

And that lawyer buddy of mine checks in again.

To which I would only reply (with apologies to Mr. Bumble): Defendants are

justly convicted each and every day on evidence more scarce, more circumstantial

and less examined than the body of evidence supporting the existence of

Sasquatch. If the burden of proof for depriving liberty and life from a citizen

is less than what science currently requires to justify ONLY the studied

respect for the mere question...well then sir, if that is what science supposes,

then science is an ass.

Edited December 3, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

_{I don't care how they do it, within reasonable limits. Science needs (believe me) help on this one. Just get it, then. But do your own lifting, starting with reversing all the sneering and admitting that no body means there's something out there to solve. Because the full suite of evidence other than a body is arguing: you should have one. Why don't you?}

Maybe because bigfoot sightings are a social construct and the other "evidence" is inconclusive? Once again, you're using loaded statements. The burden is on the believers to explain why a body hasn't been found.

_{"all of the above" would be nice. But more specifically I am talking about (at least) biotic inventories - such as The All Taxa Biotic Inventory of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Obviously, it isn't "all taxa" if you are deliberately screening one out for which there is a lot of evidence, whether proven or not. Once again: variations on "it's not proven" don't cut it. It is science's job to prove things for us. Begging off because something isn't proven is saying: me, do my job?}

If bigfoot exists then it should have been found by now, simple as that.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

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.

Well, I can see your interests don't go that way, because you don't seem to have understood a single thing I have said about how sightings are used.

Maybe because bigfoot sightings are a social construct and the other "evidence" is inconclusive? Once again, you're using loaded statements. The burden is on the believers to explain why a body hasn't been found.

No it's not. The burden is on science to prove the existence of sasquatch.

[Guest]

No it's not. The burden is on science to prove the existence of sasquatch.

And it hasn't.

[Guest DWA]

Which is kinda why we are here.

Maybe because bigfoot sightings are a social construct and the other "evidence" is inconclusive? Once again, you're using loaded statements. The burden is on the believers to explain why a body hasn't been found.

If bigfoot exists then it should have been found by now, simple as that.

Well that hod shoulda been carried but the hod carrier took the day off, that too.

[Guest]

DWA wrote:

To which I would only reply (with apologies to Mr. Bumble): Defendants are

justly convicted each and every day on evidence more scarce, more circumstantial

and less examined than the body of evidence supporting the existence of

Sasquatch. If the burden of proof for depriving liberty and life from a citizen

is less than what science currently requires to justify ONLY the studied

respect for the mere question...well then sir, if that is what science supposes,

then science is an ass.

I don't disagree with your "lawyer friend" - but what your friend is not discussing is the simple fact that - we know humans exist and we know they do horrible things.

The rest - I will defer to Saskeptic - I think he is doing a fine job.