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

[Guest]

Are you familiar with gorillas and chimpanzees, at all?

Yes.

Linnaeus included chimpanzee in his Systema Naturae in 1758, using the now antiquated binomial Simia satyrus. I haven't been able to quickly find the source of the specimen used in his description, but Wiki claims that European recognition of chimpanzees dates to at least 1506:

"The first recorded contact of Europeans with chimps took place in present-day Angola during the 17th century. The diary of Portuguese explorer Duarte Pacheco Pereira (1506), preserved in the Portuguese National Archive (Torre do Tombo), is probably the first European document to acknowledge chimpanzees built their own rudimentary tools."

Among gorillas, the more interesting story is that of the discovery of the Mountain Gorilla by Captain Robert von Beringe in 1902. He was a German military officer leading a small contingent through the Virungas on a trip to visit with local chiefs. This appears to be one of the very first expeditions by Europeans in the Virungas, and it may well have been the first. The point of the mission was not to survey for wildlife and it certainly was not to conduct an expedition to find some mythical creature, long pooh-poohed by the academics back in Die Heimat. Nonetheless, von Beringe's group encountered some gorillas - did not recognize them - and shot two of them. They were able to retrieve one of them, ultimately send it back to Berlin, and that was the specimen that Matschi used to describe Mountain Gorilla.

See how that works?

Step 1. Go someplace that has not been explored.

Step 2. Encounter something that Western Scientists haven't described yet (sometimes without even trying to discover something!).

Step 3. Collect that thing.

Step 4. Send it to scientist to figure out what it is.

Step 5. Scientist publishes a paper with a description of the thing.

With bigfoot, #3 has - so far - not happened, and we certainly have nothing like #1 left in North America on par with the mystery of the Virungas to Europeans in 1902. Of course, it wouldn't matter if we did, because bigfoot is by no means restricted to such wild areas.

Were our research of those animals restricted to the blue-moon, dueling-philosophies, scattergun amateur approach that is going on with sasquatch, we still would not have confirmed either animal.

Hilarious that you claim this but understand so little about the actual discoveries of these creatures! Pereira and von Beringe were soldiers and adventurers, not scientists, and they both stumbled on their discoveries by happy accident. Their "blue-moon . . . scattergun amateur approach" is exactly what led to the confirmation of both animals.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Saskeptic

[Guest DWA]

Yes.

Linnaeus included chimpanzee in his Systema Naturae in 1758, using the now antiquated binomial Simia satyrus. I haven't been able to quickly find the source of the specimen used in his description, but Wiki claims that European recognition of chimpanzees dates to at least 1506:

"The first recorded contact of Europeans with chimps took place in present-day Angola during the 17th century. The diary of Portuguese explorer Duarte Pacheco Pereira (1506), preserved in the Portuguese National Archive (Torre do Tombo), is probably the first European document to acknowledge chimpanzees built their own rudimentary tools."

Among gorillas, the more interesting story is that of the discovery of the Mountain Gorilla by Captain Robert von Beringe in 1902. He was a German military officer leading a small contingent through the Virungas on a trip to visit with local chiefs. This appears to be one of the very first expeditions by Europeans in the Virungas, and it may well have been the first. The point of the mission was not to survey for wildlife and it certainly was not to conduct an expedition to find some mythical creature, long pooh-poohed by the academics back in Die Heimat. Nonetheless, von Beringe's group encountered some gorillas - did not recognize them - and shot two of them. They were able to retrieve one of them, ultimately send it back to Berlin, and that was the specimen that Matschi used to describe Mountain Gorilla.

See how that works?

Step 1. Go someplace that has not been explored.

Step 2. Encounter something that Western Scientists haven't described yet (sometimes without even trying to discover something!).

Step 3. Collect that thing.

Step 4. Send it to scientist to figure out what it is.

Step 5. Scientist publishes a paper with a description of the thing.

With bigfoot, #3 has - so far - not happened, and we certainly have nothing like #1 left in North America on par with the mystery of the Virungas to Europeans in 1902. Of course, it wouldn't matter if we did, because bigfoot is by no means restricted to such wild areas.

Hilarious that you claim this but understand so little about the actual discoveries of these creatures! Pereira and von Beringe were soldiers and adventurers, not scientists, and they both stumbled on their discoveries by happy accident. Their "blue-moon . . . scattergun amateur approach" is exactly what led to the confirmation of both animals.

Actually, the reason I asked is because I understand much about the discovery of those creatures.

The people that got the bodies were going to shoot whatever they saw that they thought needed shooting, for whatever reason. Very few if any bigfoot researchers have taken that tack. And the phrase "happy accident" means nothing to you? Those do happen (coelacanth). Science doesn't count on them.

Patterson had a "happy accident" but he was not going to shoot. Roe had a "happy accident" but he was not going to shoot. The encounter literature has "happy accidents" all through it....but the man with the gun, for a very good reason, did not want to shoot.

[Guest]

Again, can we not agree that there is evidence, just not the kind of evidence that one would ideally hope for.

No, we cannot agree to that unless we qualify that there is an abundance of evidence that is alleged to be from bigfoots. If bigfoot is not real then not one shred of that is actually bigfoot evidence.

If they refused his paper would that not reinforce the argument that 'science' refuses to take this matter seriously?

No, it would only mean that he submitted a paper that was rejected. There are any number of reasons for a paper to be rejected, and rejection is the fate of most papers.

To provide evidence of an actual editorial bias against bigfoot evidence, we would need to examine the original submissions, reviews, and all correspondence from the editors to make an informed assessment. This kind of evidence has never been produced by bigfooters, including folks like Bindernagel and Meldrum who continue to trumpet an apparently baseless claim of editorial bias. If these guys have been actually trying to publish their bigfoot papers in real journals, then they are in possession of official statements from reviewers and editorial staff that could potentially support their claims of editorial bias. I've never seen such information shared, so I can only assume that it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, then that means these guys have not been trying to publish their work in mainstream journals. Bigfooters should be asking them why.

It is perfectly valid to base scientific papers and ecological reports based upon field signs rather than actual observations - I do this all the time in my work: most sites I visit result in no sightings of protected species and so I base my assessments on field signs. It just so happens that the species I study are already documented!

Do you see how the bolded part is the crux of the discussion here? Feel free to attempt to publish a paper on the habitat or habits of a creature that has not been documented. I don't suspect your manuscript would get very far.

[Guest]

Patterson had a "happy accident" but he was not going to shoot. Roe had a "happy accident" but he was not going to shoot. The encounter literature has "happy accidents" all through it....but the man with the gun, for a very good reason, did not want to shoot.

Yes because then they'd be kiiling some poor soul in a monkey suit.

[Guest DWA]

Yes because then they'd be kiiling some poor soul in a monkey suit.

No. But the poor-soul part does apply. (Always cool to see folks highlight that they are unfamiliar with the evidence.)

saskeptic: but then there's this interesting point about science forgetting, mis-laying, and then "discovering" stuff:

"The diary of Portuguese explorer Duarte Pacheco Pereira (1506), preserved in the Portuguese National Archive (Torre do Tombo), is probably the first European document to acknowledge chimpanzees built their own rudimentary tools."

Something that Jane Goodall "discovered"...right?

And the New York Times was telling scientists to get off their duffs and confirm "wildman" reports....in 1871...

http://www.amazon.co...ernagel,aps,143

(You really should read Bindernagel's books. The quote can be searched from the link in The Discovery of the Sasquatch. You won't have to worry about too much bigfoot; it's more about science than it is about bigfoot, really.)

"No, we cannot agree to that unless we qualify that there is an abundance of evidence that is alleged to be from bigfoots. If bigfoot is not real then not one shred of that is actually bigfoot evidence."

The evidence compels scientific attention. That it is not bone, body or dental material is irrelevant. It says, starkly: look for it and you will find it. Thousands of people have.

"To provide evidence of an actual editorial bias against bigfoot evidence, we would need to examine the original submissions, reviews, and all correspondence from the editors to make an informed assessment. This kind of evidence has never been produced by bigfooters, including folks like Bindernagel and Meldrum who continue to trumpet an apparently baseless claim of editorial bias. If these guys have been actually trying to publish their bigfoot papers in real journals, then they are in possession of official statements from reviewers and editorial staff that could potentially support their claims of editorial bias. I've never seen such information shared, so I can only assume that it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, then that means these guys have not been trying to publish their work in mainstream journals. Bigfooters should be asking them why."

Meldrum and Bindernagel have made an airtight case, one other scientists have agreed with (Myra Shackley for only one). The evidence has frequency and coherence. Many are seeing this, and their descriptions are consistent. That compels scientific attention. If, that is, science is paying attention. But the mainstream is hostile to the concept; and the best thing to do then is ignore.

The fact is, there are biologists, both professional and ametuar (by which I mean students pursuing biology careers not hoppyists), combing the North American forests and haven been able to document a 700lb bipedal primate.

I before you come back with "well, they filter out something they don't believe exists" check this out.

http://www.scienceda...20120184235.htm

Apples and Ganymede. That was not only a monkey - something scientists continue to discover, hand over fist - but a previously recognized species.

Try selling a monkey in North America. That's the issue. Science is wrong. But that doesn't make the sell easier.

Edited December 6, 2012 by DWA

[Guest JenJen of Oldstones]

Why is every person blessed with a habituation ongoing event not a researcher willing to divulge to the world their conclusive evidence?

Go back to the habituation thread--Apehuman and Madison described their extensive efforts to get the non-Bigfoot research community involved, only to meet with brick walls at every turn.

From Apehuman, post #550:

Email me at apehuman@yahoo.com and I will share a link of my poor resolution BF video. I did all you mention and more. I went and met with the University (more than once), the Forest Servie, I emailed countless people (including F&G) I thought might come out and document this (I never expected to gain the knowledge I have, I thought I was simply handing it off to others more qualified to manage). I built a website "report" detailing evidence over that summer culminating in the Whistle Serenade. I sought help from colleagues

I not only got "no where," it cost me fairly heavily in ways I won't detail. BooHoo.

So, I turned to the BFers, modified the website to remove site location, etc and shared that and got some responses (and many I expected to show interest did not) but no tangible help, and in some cases outright attempts at blocking me from sharing more broadly. I won't detail that b/c those contacts begin a brier patch of idiocy, competition etc that fuels many BFers and trashes many efforts....they chew on each other like dogs in a kennel...oops! Not all, but many and I seemed to run into those types first (they are the most vocal on the web, etc).

After that ridiculousness I walked away from sharing. Until now, and now because 1) I am tired of keeping it in and these idle chats are relief believe it or not, and 2) this DNA may come out after all via Oxford and then I feel obligated to weigh in with my experience. 3) the situation at this site is anything but pristine and the pressures real, I would like to some how save this ranch from development ($5mil works - I want a Wally!) and perhaps sharing privately the sum of my efforts will generate interest in that effort..(dreaming I know, but it is a small dream compared to proving a relict hominid lives among us and hanging on to the title as discoverer..lol). I am not so interested in flooding the internet with stories as Poignant accuses, and don't think I have, but you may think so and I can't change that for you..

So, in the many hours of boredom revisiting data and ideas, editing video and sound, to share with you, effectively, I end up here...chatting away with others in a similar situation and no one to tell, who can do anything...!

Forgive me please for not carrying this quietly in my heart! Or, not being a paid anthropologist out there with funding to report back to a public institution and the internet with proof.

My experiences span the spectrum of discovery, disbelief amazement, fear, excitement love, and so on...it's like one package (maybe) of what many will face as they make this same paradigm shift...? Or not! But, it was (and will continue to be as no one really walks away I think) the most amazing experience of my life.

From Madison5716, post #553:

All's they do is laugh or refuse to return your telephone calls. I called the University of Oregon Writing, Literature and Film department seeking to rent audio equipment, they never returned my call. I called the Oregon State University Cinema Studies department - same reason, same result. I called the production offices of "Finding Bigfoot" and spoke to a production assistant who didn't pass on any message as requested. I called oregonwild.com and left word for someone who never returned my call and the receptionist laughed at me. I emailed thirteen "bigfoot researchers" and ONE of them eventually returned my email. No one wants to hear this stuff. They think it's a joke, because they don't think the creature exists.

They'll never find it because they won't look.

[Guest]

Apples and Ganymede. That was not only a monkey - something scientists continue to discover, hand over fist - but a previously recognized species.

Try selling a monkey in North America. That's the issue. Science is wrong. But that doesn't make the sell easier.

No they re-discovered a subspecies of a monkey that they thought was extinct and in an area where the species was not believed to live.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120120183044.htm

[Guest DWA]

The mainstream conducts no aspect of its science more thoroughly than it does ignoring what it does not want to deal with. The history of science is louder on no point than this, hence my third signature line:

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. - Max Planck

No they re-discovered a subspecies of a monkey that they thought was extinct and in an area where the species was not believed to live.

http://www.scienceda...20120183044.htm

Neither point changes a letter I wrote.

Why is every person blessed with a habituation ongoing event not a researcher willing to divulge to the world their conclusive evidence?

Actually, with some of the responses they get...well, this is the reason why, when I see one, and get great photos, no one is likely going to find out.

Who cares about the idiots? I know. And I get it. This is one point on which I empathize with habituators.

Provided that's what they're doing. I still reserve the right not to pay my good money for a habituation story that has no proof attached to it.

[Guest]

The mainstream conducts no aspect of its science more thoroughly than it does ignoring what it does not want to deal with. The history of science is louder on no point than this, hence my third signature line:

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. - Max Planck

The scientific community isn't always divided between "supporters" and "opponents" but also has people who are neutral or undecided that can be convinced one way or the other.

[Guest DWA]

The scientific community isn't always divided between "supporters" and "opponents" but also has people who are neutral or undecided that can be convinced one way or the other.

It may depend on the topic, but the entrenchment of the opponents has much to do with whether the neutral people go one way or the other. If my quick way up the career ladder is agree with the opponents, I likely will [pretend to].

[Cotter]

I liken BF discovery to that of gold discovery.

When a prospector is out looking for gold, they usually are quite vocal about it. Everyone knows that "Prospector Joe" is out on the mountain chipping away at rock, or panning in the creeks.

When "Prospector Joe" suddenly goes quiet, and stops discussing his prospecting ventures....well....usually means he's hit it.

I can only attempt to grasp the understanding of what one goes through when the reality of a group of BF living near you, and interacting with and trusting you sinks in and realization hits.

At that point, a sense of responsibility for the protection of the troop MUST be instantly instilled.

[Guest]

As stated before there is a vast difference between evidence and proof. So what does the courts or lawmakers consider proof? Would that be DNA to convict or exonerate a defendant? A body? Yeah, but do you want to kill a Sas.? Definitive photos - ? Would be nice for sure or even better the best corrabrative evidence is/would be long play vids of Sas. behavior and interaction of course goes without saying. Need to evaluate a live specimen(s)

in their natural inviornment.

[Guest Stan Norton]

No, we cannot agree to that unless we qualify that there is an abundance of evidence that is alleged to be from bigfoots. If bigfoot is not real then not one shred of that is actually bigfoot evidence.

Well, I think we do actually agree to a large degree. Yes, the evidence put forward is of course alleged to come from this animal - as we know, it cannot exist (on paper) without 'official' confirmation. My point was that the existing evidence may not currently meet the very specific criteria demanded by 'Science', but this is not sufficient justification in itself to dismiss all the presented evidence as lie/hoax/mistake/delusion/hallucination. The history of science is littered with the shattered remains of all-conquering theories and facts.

As I alluded to earlier, my job entails undertaking ecological assessments. In order to do this I visit many 'new' sites each week and use my knowledge and experience of British flora and fauna to provide a detailed assessment of potential ecological constraints to development/management. More often than not, I make my assessments based upon potential - potential for the site to support species x or y. The evidence? Generally my professional judgement - 'the site looks like this, is situated here and therefore species x is likely to be present'. That is often all the evidence I have - my opinion, based on my knowledge of said species and its requirements. Of course, I have field signs - prints, poo, hairs, nests, eggs etc etc. Naturally, the species which I am alluding to are well-known (mostly) and there is no doubt as to their existence. Nevertheless, it does often cross my mind what would happen if someone really questioned my opinion (and believe me, with bats this really does happen!) - what evidence would I be able to bring to bear to prove, unequivocally, that species x actually occurs? I may conduct a detailed series of surveys, using traps, cameras, repeat visits etc - this may take many, many months and yield very little and leave me in no better shape than when I started (and leave my client out of pocket to a considerable degree). As an example, the standard survey effort for the Hazel dormouse (small, furry, cute, nocturnal, arboreal) is monthly visits between April and November - 8 months of survey effort just to confirm the presence/absence of a common and widespread rodent. Then you have to rely on 15 year old stats to assess population size - for such a heavily-protected species there is an amazing lack of data.

This little example just shows that the actual business of field ecology, even here in parochial England with its complete absence of wilderness, is very grey and fuzzy. Field ecology relies to a huge extent on indirect and often equivocal evidence - it's down to professional judgement and experience, and even the so-called experts are not sure abut many things. That's why I would rather listen to folks such as Bindernagel rather than assume that he is a fraud or deluded.

[Guest DWA]

"That's why I would rather listen to folks such as Bindernagel rather than assume that he is a fraud or deluded."

This is the part I flat cannot get, and never, ever will.

Meldrum, Krantz and Bindernagel are being treated shabbily by the mainstream, and by the skeptics here, allegations to the contrary notwithstanding. They are experts, and their assertions are right in their wheelhouses. When they say the evidence leads them to conclude x, I find that powerful. If you allege otherwise, I need to see you have done your homework. No one who contradicts them shows any evidence of this that I can see, much less someone directly involved in the field.

I am way beyond the silly skeptical dodge about "extraordinary claims." An extraordinary claim is that the laws of gravity do not work in your house. A claim that an animal supported by copious, consistent evidence left these tracks in what looks like excellent habitat; the area is remote, utter serendipity the only reason the tracks were found at all; and the conditions for a hoax on their face appearing extremely unlikely? THAT is not at all an extraordinary claim.

That this was a hoax? Extraordinary, and requiring proof.

Edited December 6, 2012 by DWA

[Cotter]

Those Germans that shot the mountain gorillas, how many Virunganese (Virunganians? - whatever) did they collect and send back with the gorillas?

I would say if we had an army of folks stomping through the PNW shooting everything that was not immediately identified, we may get one of these creatures.

Unfortunately, we are not in the early 1900's where we can blindly go blasting in foreign or domestic wildernesses, we have no army with guns, rather the army we have actually HAS no guns, save one small splinter group in Texas........