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

[Incorrigible1]

Could that be Wickie, the wandering shepherd?

[Guest]

Could that be Wickie, the wandering shepherd?

In the flesh, or odor

[Guest]

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

That about sums it up. People seem to think North America has large areas where surviving POPULATIONS of this species could exist, and yet remain unknown to science. BF is simply not a real animal, it can't be. It sucks to have to dismiss all the sightings that people claim, yet if you have to dismiss all sightings in the crazy places where people claim to experience BF, places where there is zero possibility they could exist - as an long established but uncatalogued species, then it really isn't too hard to dismiss the rest. If people can claim sightings in Texas or Oklahoma, or anywhere in the eastern US or Canada for that matter (there is no way BF is tramping around in New York or Pennsylvania...or surviving the winters in northern Ontario), then it's easy to conclude the sightings in the more 'acceptable' places, like the PNW, are equally false...insert reason here. It would be great if such a creature existed, I used to be very active in believing that it did, but it doesn't, because like you clearly stated..."If bigfoot exists then it should have been found by now, simple as that"!

Edited December 4, 2012 by summitwalker

[Guest Stan Norton]

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 . . . )

I, and most other folks who have an intense interest in this subject, would not disagree in the slightest that the biggest issue is the lack of a type specimen. To use this as a deal-breaker to state that any further discussion is meaningless or that this is conclusive evidence that there is no such animal is a little disingenuous. 'Science' makes all sorts of predictions about the total number of species of the planet - there is here a tacit recognition that our estimates (based upon survey effort) may be way-off the mark and if we were to take the 'type specimen or nothing' stance all the time then there would be no point in anyone estimating the number of extant species: 'we have specimens of these species so that is the total number of species alive today'. Silly example, but it would be like saying that sheep didn't exist before they were scientifically described. It is perfectly fine to discuss the validity of the Sasquatch based upon the purported evidence, which is so multi-faceted that I have not found one convincing argument to explain away all such 'evidence'. I'm with John Green on this - something is making those tracks and so far no-one has been able to demonstrate conclusively waht that something is, either way.

[Guest DWA]

That about sums it up. People seem to think North America has large areas where surviving POPULATIONS of this species could exist, and yet remain unknown to science. BF is simply not a real animal, it can't be. It sucks to have to dismiss all the sightings that people claim, yet if you have to dismiss all sightings in the crazy places where people claim to experience BF, places where there is zero possibility they could exist - as an long established but uncatalogued species, then it really isn't too hard to dismiss the rest. If people can claim sightings in Texas or Oklahoma, or anywhere in the eastern US or Canada for that matter (there is no way BF is tramping around in New York or Pennsylvania...or surviving the winters in northern Ontario), then it's easy to conclude the sightings in the more 'acceptable' places, like the PNW, are equally false...insert reason here. It would be great if such a creature existed, I used to be very active in believing that it did, but it doesn't, because like you clearly stated..."If bigfoot exists then it should have been found by now, simple as that"!

So, the reason you're all over these boards saying all this is that you were once in love with Patty, but she dumped you. Well, you're not alone. The Believer turned scoffer is legion. Which brings us to my recommendation: don't "believe."

Some of us pay attention to the evidence. The evidence says that the animal exists in many of your "zero probability" places (better habitat than the PNW, for one thing); lots of people are encountering them; and their behavioral and physical attributes seem to place them among the great apes.

You can't dismiss evidence because you don't like what it says. If you are telling me that all those reports and all those tracks and all this conversation and analysis, getting more and more intense every year as the evidence builds, add up to a false positive and can't even begin to show me how you got to that, I'm just laughing.

The sasquatch is real; the evidence says so; and I go about my life not really caring (except for arguments - I love to do that) what everybody else thinks, because the evidence speaks louder than anything else. Every day I spend in wild country, every time I'm on a road through forest, anywhere, I'm thinking: today might be the day I meet the sasquatch.

It's not only the rational approach. It's the fun one. To ignore all this evidence of the coolest critter in North America because it hasn't been proven yet makes me think of the Wright Brothers, Flyer all ready to go; they open the garage door and....naaaaaaah, this'll never work.

When science forgets how to have fun it forgets how to be science.

I, and most other folks who have an intense interest in this subject, would not disagree in the slightest that the biggest issue is the lack of a type specimen. To use this as a deal-breaker to state that any further discussion is meaningless or that this is conclusive evidence that there is no such animal is a little disingenuous. 'Science' makes all sorts of predictions about the total number of species of the planet - there is here a tacit recognition that our estimates (based upon survey effort) may be way-off the mark and if we were to take the 'type specimen or nothing' stance all the time then there would be no point in anyone estimating the number of extant species: 'we have specimens of these species so that is the total number of species alive today'. Silly example, but it would be like saying that sheep didn't exist before they were scientifically described. It is perfectly fine to discuss the validity of the Sasquatch based upon the purported evidence, which is so multi-faceted that I have not found one convincing argument to explain away all such 'evidence'. I'm with John Green on this - something is making those tracks and so far no-one has been able to demonstrate conclusively waht that something is, either way.

John Napier said pretty much the same as Green; and Napier is yet one more very relevantly degreed fella who actually used that degree.

When something hasn't been demonstrated conclusively, and science is working right, science drives to conclude. Why in the world would anyone want to do all this rear-guard moping? If you can't get out and prove it, why not encourage those who want to and are trying to? And no, the mainstream discourages that by the bulk of their pronouncements on the topic. CNN wouldn't snicker at something the mainstream took seriously.

It is all well and good to talk about spasmodic efforts by science to try to take this seriously (and to gloss over what happens to those who do). But the mainstream's approach is...well, it's what it is because of why we call it "the mainstream." Anyone who thinks that discussion of the Ketchum paper so far exhibits open-mindedness, well, has a very different definition of that term from me. To wit: it doesn't fly with me to blame the animal's non-existence on the people searching for it.

Edited December 4, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

To use this as a deal-breaker to state that any further discussion is meaningless or that this is conclusive evidence that there is no such animal is a little disingenuous.

. . . And to direct that comment to a guy who checks in every day to discuss bigfoot with people is a bit off the mark, wouldn't you agree?

. . . if we were to take the 'type specimen or nothing' stance all the time then there would be no point in anyone estimating the number of extant species: 'we have specimens of these species so that is the total number of species alive today'.

I agree, that is silly. Who says such things, though? You're somehow equating the fact that we have no verifiable bigfoot evidence to a broad brush opinion among scientists that no one should be trying to obtain such evidence. This is demonstrably false, as evidenced by real scientists who have tried to collect such evidence themselves e.g., Bindernagel, Krantz, and even me (I frequently incorporate searches for bigfoot evidence within my other objectives in the field). The notion of science telling people not to look is further discredited by the large number of folks who've happily agreed to analyze evidence gathered by others. This is an even longer list including Ketchum, Sykes, Meldrum, Disotell, Milinkovitch, Lozier, etc. Finally you've got the person who holds all the cards - Henry Gee, the Science Editor for Nature - who has made multiple statements about his willingness to consider papers that provide evidence for bigfoot or similar creatures.

The corollary is not "sheep didn't exist before they were described", it's more like this:

Ancient Scientist: "So you claim there's something out there you call a 'sheep'?"

Ancient Matt Moneymaker: "Yes, it's cloven-hoofed, woolly, and lives in the mountains."

AS: "Interesting. Have you got one?"

A.M.M.: "Yes. Here is one."

AS: "Right. Thank you. Mind if we call it Ovis?"

A.M.M. "Not at all."

AS: "Ta. Cheers, then."

[Drew]

Or:

Ancient Scientist: "So you claim there's something out there you call a 'sheep'?"

Ancient Matt Moneymaker: "Yes, it's cloven-hoofed, woolly, and lives in the mountains."

AS: "Interesting. Have you got one?

A.M.M.: "Err, no, but I have this fur, and this Nile Mud and Straw, sun-baked cast of it's footprint

A.S: "OK, go fetch one, and come back to me

A.M.M.: "But, the foot print, and the fur?, WTF?"

A.S. "Go fetch one"

[Cotter]

Ever try to catch a monkey? Unarmed, in the dark, in the woods?

;-)

[kbhunter]

In the flesh, or odor

Oh my....I can't believe it...the wickster!!

[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.

Saskeptic, that is some excellent insight into the process and I really appreciate you taking the time to organize it for us. However, I do have a question... is it impossible for you to believe that something could be out there based on all the circumstantial evidence even if it cannot as-yet be scientifically classified? I mean, I understand that as a scientist you cannot declare anything and probably shouldn't discuss what your personal suspicions may be, but as a human being can't you look at everything we have and think that maybe there is actually an animal to blame for all the footprints, hair, blood, and sightings?

In other words, could you understand how some people could believe the animal could exist without it having been proven according to the procedure you've outlined above? Thanks.

[Guest crabshack]

If it is real, it's sure is not an animal.

How would you go about hunting yourself, if you needed no shelter, could catch and eat just about anything, be able to see in the dark better than we can see in the day light, can travel vast distance in a days time (probably far more than a good horse) and can hide better than the best humans that train in escape and evasion.

Were would you go to avoid humans, but keep an eye on us.

[Guest]

... is it impossible for you to believe that something could be out there based on all the circumstantial evidence even if it cannot as-yet be scientifically classified?

Sure Jon, that's one reason I'm here!

In other words, could you understand how some people could believe the animal could exist without it having been proven according to the procedure you've outlined above? Thanks.

Yep, and I wrote something just like this last night in post 1139.

[Guest DWA]

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 . . . )

I wouldn't want to be grading papers with this as the option. So consider this pro bono.

Have there been any papers synopsizing the evidence; pronouncing it compelling; and urging research on the topic? In other words, a true scientific approach in which evidence is actually considered from an unbiased perspective?

Or have their just been papers discounting evidence; discounting the animal based on "no evidence;" or showing that, for one example, you can do any silly thing you want with "bad" data? Like, consider bigfoot real?

http://www.science20.com/evilutionary_biologist/ecological_niche_modeling_and_finding_sasquatchs_range_distribution

"Interestingly, Bigfoot's supposed range overlaps considerably with another large American mammal, Ursus americanus, the Black Bear. Naturally, it is quite possible that the Black Bear and Sasquatch could share similar habitat requirements, but perhaps a more parsimonious hypothesis is that Black Bears are being misidentified as Sasquatch."

Even more interestingly: Black Bear and Sasquatch do indeed share similar habitat requirements, as a review of the encounter literature shows; and no, people are not confusing black bears with Sasquatch, as both Bindernagel's research and mine show.

(Now. Seeing a Sasquatch and thinking it's a bear or moose? Bet a lot of people have done that; and one who made that mistake killed one.)

[Guest]

Have there been any papers synopsizing the evidence; pronouncing it compelling; and urging research on the topic? In other words, a true scientific approach in which evidence is actually considered from an unbiased perspective?

So its not scientific unless they agree with you?

Edited December 4, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest]

Just started reading this thread, don't know why, but just as a responce to the statement that is the title of this thread just let me remind the members that there IS a difference that pretains to evidence and proof. I can understand the frustration that there is little unsubstansiated proof, however there is IMO a lot of evidence. You might want to consider changing the name of this thread to there still is no proof, just saying.