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

[Cotter]

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

Found, or proven?

I think that there are thousands of folks that would agree they 'found' it. Heck, there are some on this very board.

A good example an astute poster on the BFF brought up (paraphrased): the gorilla was first 'found' by German Colonists long before it was 'scientifically proven'. ;-)

Perhaps we're still in the beginning stages? Between 'found' and 'proven'?

Edited December 3, 2012 by Cotter

[Guest DWA]

Found, or proven?

I think that there are thousands of folks that would agree they 'found' it. Heck, there are some on this very board.

A good example an astute poster on the BFF brought up (paraphrased): the gorilla was first 'found' by German Colonists long before it was 'scientifically proven'. ;-)

Perhaps we're still in the beginning stages? Between 'found' and 'proven'?

If you haven't read it, you have no idea how interested you would be in Bindernagel's The Discovery of the Sasquatch.

He claims - very convincingly - that this is a discovery the mainstream just hasn't recognized yet, and that this doesn't make it any less discovered. He also notes that discovery isn't a single Eureka! event, but a drawn-out process in which, indeed, we are involved now.

[Guest]

Here how I see it with regards to field biologists and bigfoot.

If a field biologist surveying a forest goes to his/her bosses and says "I saw a bigfoot in the moving in the distance/in the bushes" then the bosses would either suspect that its a guy in a suit or aleast want to rule that out.

However, if a field biologist came to his/her bosses and says "I saw a bigfoot and it was [insert animal behavior here; like eating, nursing, defeacting, vocalizing] then the higher-up would take it more seriously.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

Here how I see it with regards to field biologists and bigfoot.

If a field biologist surveying a forest goes to his/her bosses and says "I saw a bigfoot in the moving in the distance/in the bushes" then the bosses would either suspect that its a guy in a suit or aleast want to rule that out.

However, if a field biologist came to his/her bosses and says "I saw a bigfoot and it was [insert animal behavior here; like eating, nursing, defeacting, vocalizing] then the higher-up would take it more seriously.

Well, it would be cool if we could test that.

One of the strongest points of the sasquatch encounter literature, in my view, is that people have had just about every conceivable shade of encounter one can have with a wild animal. Don't know if nursing has been seen; can't remember off the top of my head. But the others and much, much more have.

[Guest thermalman]

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

Based on who's opinion? Yours?

[Guest]

One of the great limitations to these discussions is that folks can be seemingly (or selectively) ignorant about how new species are described and recognized. It requires a physical specimen to be described in the literature to serve as the "type" or "voucher" to which all other organisms can be compared. Once curated and published, experts may disagree on the validity of the taxon (e.g., where one scientist claims two different species another might claim them to be the same species), but they won't dispute the actual existence of the specimen: it's right there in its drawer where it can be measured, examined, etc.

Bindernagel must understand this, so when he says that bigfoot has already been confirmed or whatever he sacrifices his credibility. (If we were being less gracious, it would appear that he's muddying the waters of biosystematics to feed into his decades-long obsession of chasing bogeymen and trying to sell more books.) If there's no bigfoot specimen then there's no confirmation of bigfoot. The description and recognition of every other species has required a physical specimen; Bindernagel's call to bend that rule for bigfoot is unscientific. It's also unnecessary with so many people claiming to encounter bigfoots and even claiming to have bits of the beasts in their possession.

Lawyers too, are largely ignorant of biosystematic standard: Yes it is the case, and has been since at least Linnaeus' time, that a physical specimen must be examined and described before a new species is recognized. YES, this is a more stringent standard than that required to convict a man of a capital crime. No, that's not a problem with science, that strikes me as a rather vexing problem with our legal system.

I just did a quick Wiki search and counted 59 death row inmates in the U.S. since 2000 who later had been exonerated as wrongly convicted. Several of them were exonerated posthumously. Sure would've been nice to have definitive physical evidence presented at the trials of these poor men instead of whatever eyewitness anecdotes, expert testimony, circumstantial evidence, and appeals to emotion were likely used to convict them in the first place, no?

Seems one's "lawyer friend" is a little loosey-goosey when it comes to following the evidence to see who the jerks are.

[Guest]

Well, it would be cool if we could test that.

One of the strongest points of the sasquatch encounter literature, in my view, is that people have had just about every conceivable shade of encounter one can have with a wild animal. Don't know if nursing has been seen; can't remember off the top of my head. But the others and much, much more have.

Too bad they are reported long after the fact. If someone saw a bigfoot defeacting, surely they would collect the result.

And with vocalizing, I not mean recordings and I don't mean hearding bumps in the night. I mean seeing a bigfoot and hearing vocalization coming out of its mouth.

Found, or proven?

I think that there are thousands of folks that would agree they 'found' it. Heck, there are some on this very board.

A good example an astute poster on the BFF brought up (paraphrased): the gorilla was first 'found' by German Colonists long before it was 'scientifically proven'. ;-)

Perhaps we're still in the beginning stages? Between 'found' and 'proven'?

They were proven because the colonists sent back specimens and they were scientifically classified.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Cotter]

I see Jerry,

Do you know how long it took from 'finding' to 'collecting'?

Thx

[Guest Stan Norton]

Bindernagel must understand this, so when he says that bigfoot has already been confirmed or whatever he sacrifices his credibility. (If we were being less gracious, it would appear that he's muddying the waters of biosystematics to feed into his decades-long obsession of chasing bogeymen and trying to sell more books.) If there's no bigfoot specimen then there's no confirmation of bigfoot. The description and recognition of every other species has required a physical specimen; Bindernagel's call to bend that rule for bigfoot is unscientific. It's also unnecessary with so many people claiming to encounter bigfoots and even claiming to have bits of the beasts in their possession.

A little harsh I feel, but I understand where you are coming from. I think Bindernagel (who from what I have seen seems like a perfectly decent and reasonable chap) decided to go with the 'it's already been discovered' approach as a way of bypassing the point-blank refusal of 'mainstream' science to even look in serious detail at the evidence. He explains this at length, and rather eloquently, in various video interviews and at the John Green tribute symposium (all on Youtube). Basically, his position is: "OK, you refuse to look at this in any meaningful way, so I'm saying that there are a number of us who have looked and we consider that this species is a reality. So we'll take a new tack and set out our case as to why we think it has already been discovered". Seems to me like a novel and interesting way of presenting the case. I don't see this as being unscientific in any sense. In fact in both the book and the symposium lecture he gave he speaks more about the scientific process than the animal: I think he understands all to well how science operates and is providing a wry comment on what is 'acceptable' science and what is not.

In his own words Bindernagel has admitted that he dropped the sasquatch research for many years, precisely due to the damage it was doing to his professional integrity, and only took it up again later when he realised no-one else had taken up the mantle.

As a (slight) aside, my wife is a palaeolithic archaeologist and if you want an example of a sphere of science which thrives on debatable theories then human evolution may just be it - there're a lot of weird and wacky discussions going on in that discipline.

Anyway, carry on the discussion...

[Guest DWA]

A little harsh I feel, but I understand where you are coming from. I think Bindernagel (who from what I have seen seems like a perfectly decent and reasonable chap) decided to go with the 'it's already been discovered' approach as a way of bypassing the point-blank refusal of 'mainstream' science to even look in serious detail at the evidence. He explains this at length, and rather eloquently, in various video interviews and at the John Green tribute symposium (all on Youtube). Basically, his position is: "OK, you refuse to look at this in any meaningful way, so I'm saying that there are a number of us who have looked and we consider that this species is a reality. So we'll take a new tack and set out our case as to why we think it has already been discovered". Seems to me like a novel and interesting way of presenting the case. I don't see this as being unscientific in any sense. In fact in both the book and the symposium lecture he gave he speaks more about the scientific process than the animal: I think he understands all to well how science operates and is providing a wry comment on what is 'acceptable' science and what is not.

In his own words Bindernagel has admitted that he dropped the sasquatch research for many years, precisely due to the damage it was doing to his professional integrity, and only took it up again later when he realised no-one else had taken up the mantle.

As a (slight) aside, my wife is a palaeolithic archaeologist and if you want an example of a sphere of science which thrives on debatable theories then human evolution may just be it - there're a lot of weird and wacky discussions going on in that discipline.

Anyway, carry on the discussion...

Right.

I think the response to Bindernagel's assertion takes care of the bigfoot-friendliness issue pretty well. I'd have done it too, were I him. Linnaeus has been dead a long time now. We've been riding horses since well before Linnnaeus. Is that an argument that we should get rid of cars?

What Bindernagel did was convincing, compelling, a bit counterintuitive, but smack-dab on. For the curiosity the mainstream has exhibited, it should expect everything it gets.

Science moves the goalposts whenever it sees the need to do so to suit its purposes. Times change. Even though I concede that science wants a body to resolve this, well, to borrow: that's not a problem with Bindernagel's science, that strikes me as a rather vexing problem with the scientific mainstream.

I wouldn't want people like Bindernagel is contending with checking my basement to see what that squeak is, much less confirming a species that has given us more evidence than anything else that remains unproven. A new generation needs to take a crack at this. Right, Dr. Planck?

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Edited December 3, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

Thanks Stan - insightful.

Bindernagel is wrong, however: scientists have taken up that mantle. I've even got a longer list than I've shared so far in this thread. Lots of people have engaged this evidence to try to see if there's anything there. (Heck, I'm a scientist and I'm doing that.) So far, they haven't found anything of note, or at least certainly not anything that can serve as a type specimen for a new species.

It's, frankly, sad and frustrating to hear that he's continuing with this canard of "science won't pay attention to bigfoot", but what can he do otherwise? He needs a scapegoat to explain why there isn't a specimen on a slab somewhere, and he's unwilling or unable to re-evaluate his belief to consider the possibility that he's been wrong all along. I'm willing to do that - show me a bigfoot tomorrow and I'll be shouting from the rooftops about my joy at having been wrong all this time!

So sure Bindernagel's approach is novel - he's trying to re-write the standards of taxonomy to fall in line with his worldview. If a physical specimen is the scientific standard, however, then his efforts to skirt around that standard are the definition of unscientific.

Not much more I can add to the discourse that I haven't already and I've still got many papers to grade so I'll soon move back to lurking mode. . .

[Guest DWA]

I'd consider the breadth and depth of the evidence something "of note," personally.

There is almost no single piece of evidence that is proof. The vast majority of evidence is inconclusive. But much of that is useful. The sasquatch encounter literature and trackways meet that test in spades. Proof is usually made up of one or more pieces of evidence. But you won't get there if you don't follow what you have. Bigfooters are. One of them may have time to snoop around on a Saturday afternoon in the next month or so. Good luck.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Thanks Stan - insightful.

Bindernagel is wrong, however: scientists have taken up that mantle. I've even got a longer list than I've shared so far in this thread. Lots of people have engaged this evidence to try to see if there's anything there. (Heck, I'm a scientist and I'm doing that.) So far, they haven't found anything of note, or at least certainly not anything that can serve as a type specimen for a new species.

It's, frankly, sad and frustrating to hear that he's continuing with this canard of "science won't pay attention to bigfoot", but what can he do otherwise? He needs a scapegoat to explain why there isn't a specimen on a slab somewhere, and he's unwilling or unable to re-evaluate his belief to consider the possibility that he's been wrong all along. I'm willing to do that - show me a bigfoot tomorrow and I'll be shouting from the rooftops about my joy at having been wrong all this time!

So sure Bindernagel's approach is novel - he's trying to re-write the standards of taxonomy to fall in line with his worldview. If a physical specimen is the scientific standard, however, then his efforts to skirt around that standard are the definition of unscientific.

Not much more I can add to the discourse that I haven't already and I've still got many papers to grade so I'll soon move back to lurking mode. . .

Well, I hope I'll be able to hear you shouting from over here in England!

I think you may be taking Bindernagel's efforts a little too literally - I believe he (and others) are well aware that their arguments mean little to mainstream science without a type specimen, but I really don't see that he is arrogant enough to bypass the established process of nomenclature - it's perfectly valid for him to take the approach he has, just as it is for anyone else, in the face of stonewalling (despite what you say about others having taken a good, hard look at the evidence). I see no peer-reviewed papers on sasquatch of any kind.

I see Bindernagel's approach as simply another tactic, rather cute and a way of chipping away at the wall - slowly, slowly, catchee monkey...

Anyway, good luck with the grading and happy lurking...

[Guest]

I see no peer-reviewed papers on sasquatch of any kind.

There are a handful, even in some excellent journals, but they are primarily summaries of analysis of putative bigfoot evidence that turned out not to be from bigfoots. This, of course, illustrates that journals are fine with publishing bigfoot papers. Imagine the rush to publish a real paper on a real piece of a real bigfoot - the journals would be tripping over themselves to be the first to publish such a paper!

In my previous posts, I illustrated something that a lot of folks don't really understand about the type of evidence needed to establish the existence of a new species. Another difficulty is that the publication process is a mystery to folks who aren't engaged in it every day. An old chestnut of bigfootery's "science hates bigfoot" camp is this notion that journals won't publish papers on bigfoot. Pish-posh! 1) Journals have published papers on bigfoot and 2) journals would go gaa-gaa over the prospect of publishing the first bigfoot description. It's what the journals exist to do: provide the definitive source of informatioon for scientific discovery.

For years I've been telling folks here that if they read the accounts or have an experience they can't explain then I don't have a problem with them believing in bigfoot. But one thing they need to do is stop parroting easily-discredited ideas about "science"'s engagement with bigfoot. There are plenty of scientists who are interested in bigfoot and plenty of journals who would publish on it. The reason we haven't had a definitive bigfoot paper published has nothing to do with scientists or journals - it's simply that no one has produced a bigfoot specimen.

(This is more fun than grading papers . . . )

Edited December 4, 2012 by Saskeptic

[Guest]

(This is more fun than grading papers . . . )

or doing the dishes