Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[dmaker]

^^ Sorry if I'm boring you right now Norse. Shouldn't you be out in the bush hunting monsters anyway, not watching TV?  

[Guest]

dmaker,

What's your favorite Bigfoot book? I've read quite a few, but haven't read Bindernagel. A bit expensive.

[dmaker]

It was a bit expensive, I agree. I searched hard to find an electronic version, but none seem to be offered anywhere for purchase. So I had to mail order it for somewhere just over 50 bucks if I recall correctly. 

 

I would have to say, though, that The Discovery of the Sasquatch (2010) is probably my favorite. I don't have that many, though, mind you. Finding them for ebook purchase is tough, and I prefer to do as much reading as I can on my tablet. Takes up far less space on my over crowded book shelf. The only BF books that I could find on Google Play were Meldrums, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science and Coleman's History of Great Apes in North America ( or something like that). There are other ones but they are just collections of campfire stories, so I stay away from them. 

 

I do like the Bindernagel book because it discusses the scientific method up front ( which I think is a good primer for anyone interested in the phenomenon ), and I think it presents the case for the evidence in a decent format for lay persons like myself. I don't have a background in biology or anthropology or any discipline that is directly relevant to this topic. My professional background is systems engineering. My first undergrad degree was History, and then I went back to school for the engineering part. So I think it is helpful to acquaint myself with literature from the proponent camp. Although I do not agree with Dr.Bindernagel, I do recommend the book to anyone interested in Bigfoot. 

 

I would love to see more books available for the Android platform, but right now there are just not all that many.

[dmaker]

"To me all of the skeptical notions are just angels-on-pin talk.  I want to know what is causing this stuff to happen.  Suppositions won't work there.  I want proof." -DWA

 

Respectfully, I don't think that you do. What you want is for it to be proven that what is causing all of this stuff to happen is Bigfoot. Any other explanations you dismiss out of hand. You dismiss evidence of the frailty of human recall, you dismiss any notion that some of this could be caused by social or psychological reasons. Many of which have been posited here in this thread. You won't even consider them as likely candidates. Your mind is made up, sir. You don't want to see what is causing this, you are convinced what is causing this and you are just awaiting proof of your conviction. To consider any other reasons is outside of what you have displayed is within your ability to do. And before you bother, I know what you are going to say. Go prove the reports wrong. Prove they didn't see a Bigfoot. But we all know that is not a practical charge. No one, no matter their intentions, can disprove an anecdotal report. That is precisely why they are not accepted as scientific evidence in the first place. Yet you constantly throw that charge out there like it somehow negates the potential for competing ideas or theories. Yet the very basis for your charge is simply not practical. And the very reason it is not practical is the same reason that anecdotal reports cannot be taken as scientific evidence of anything, much less Bigfoot. Yet you will happily sit back and say until you do the impossible, then people saw what they say the saw. And then you consider that some sort of victory. But it hinges on an untenable premise--that anyone can prove, or disprove, an anecdotal report. 

 

So while you will pretend that you are simply waiting to see what is at the root of all this evidence, your mind is squarely made up. You are simply waiting for someone to prove that it is Bigfoot. Anything else simply does not compute in your worldview. And since proof of Bigfoot will never come, you get to sit there in your position and never have to waver. Since the opposing theories are based on the argument that the creature does not exist, you get to sit back and charge the impossible task of proving a negative.  But what could happen, and woefully has not to date, is someone, somewhere, providing a Monkey.

Edited June 30, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest Cervelo]

^^^^

[Squatchy McSquatch]

"To me all of the skeptical notions are just angels-on-pin talk.  I want to know what is causing this stuff to happen.  Suppositions won't work there.  I want proof." -DWA

 

There is no proof.

 

Only supposition.

 

You've declared yourself to be a skeptic.

 

You should've gone over this with WSA already.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Squatchy McSquatch

[Guest DWA]

Before one calls oneself a skeptic one should know what the word means.  You're credulous.  That's not skeptical.

 

Anyone who believes Bob Hieronymous, James Randi and Greg Long I'm not sure I'm calling skeptical.

[Guest Stan Norton]

"To me all of the skeptical notions are just angels-on-pin talk.  I want to know what is causing this stuff to happen.  Suppositions won't work there.  I want proof." -DWA

 

Respectfully, I don't think that you do. What you want is for it to be proven that what is causing all of this stuff to happen is Bigfoot. Any other explanations you dismiss out of hand. You dismiss evidence of the frailty of human recall, you dismiss any notion that some of this could be caused by social or psychological reasons. Many of which have been posited here in this thread. You won't even consider them as likely candidates. Your mind is made up, sir. You don't want to see what is causing this, you are convinced what is causing this and you are just awaiting proof of your conviction. To consider any other reasons is outside of what you have displayed is within your ability to do. And before you bother, I know what you are going to say. Go prove the reports wrong. Prove they didn't see a Bigfoot. But we all know that is not a practical charge. No one, no matter their intentions, can disprove an anecdotal report. That is precisely why they are not accepted as scientific evidence in the first place. Yet you constantly throw that charge out there like it somehow negates the potential for competing ideas or theories. Yet the very basis for your charge is simply not practical. And the very reason it is not practical is the same reason that anecdotal reports cannot be taken as scientific evidence of anything, much less Bigfoot. Yet you will happily sit back and say until you do the impossible, then people saw what they say the saw. And then you consider that some sort of victory. But it hinges on an untenable premise--that anyone can prove, or disprove, an anecdotal report. 

 

So while you will pretend that you are simply waiting to see what is at the root of all this evidence, your mind is squarely made up. You are simply waiting for someone to prove that it is Bigfoot. Anything else simply does not compute in your worldview. And since proof of Bigfoot will never come, you get to sit there in your position and never have to waver. Since the opposing theories are based on the argument that the creature does not exist, you get to sit back and charge the impossible task of proving a negative.  But what could happen, and woefully has not to date, is someone, somewhere, providing a Monkey.

Fair enough. Anecdotal reports cannot be proven - as you say, they are open to question and ridicule. Many, like yourself, chose to believe that not one of them is genuine and that all those folks are crazy/drunk/stoned/mistaken etc. Others disagree. We will never get to the truth in this discussion. It just descends into childish waffle.

 

So, why not stick to things that can be tested empirically? Footprints. They are real, in the sense that something made them, and they can be examined by others and hypotheses tested. They are in fact the only decent evidence available if we wish to tackle this issue with an objective scientific approach. And, with footprints, proponents are indeed entitled to say to you 'OK, prove this was not sasquatch'. After all, the hypothesis is that these were left by an unknown primate (ape, not monkey by the way - apes and monkeys diverged many many millions of years ago) and evidence is presented to explain why: evidence which can be tested and tested again by those with the skills to make robust judgments.  It is somewhat trite to say, 'no, show monkey' and provide no evidence to counter the hypothesis. It won't wash in this instance.

[Guest JoelS]

Based on his previous posts, I've come to the conclusion that the only way dmaker (along with many many others) will believe a SSQ made a footprint is if he sees it with his own eyes, or someone brings in a corpse for public study.  Is there any other evidence that is acceptable?  Maybe a swatch of hair with DNA that comes back as some unidentified ape, but even then I figure it won't be conclusive without extensive video documentation.

[Guest DWA]

Based on his previous posts, I've come to the conclusion that the only way dmaker (along with many many others) will believe a SSQ made a footprint is if he sees it with his own eyes, or someone brings in a corpse for public study.  Is there any other evidence that is acceptable?  Maybe a swatch of hair with DNA that comes back as some unidentified ape, but even then I figure it won't be conclusive without extensive video documentation.

 

Well, right.  This was my essential issue with everyone waiting for Ketchum and Sykes.  Um, er, what did that sample come from?  Can I see the big guy?

 

Oh.

 

The DNA identifies the type specimen, and is the benchmark henceforth for confirming hair and other evidence as conclusive to the presence of the species.  It doesn't work the other way around.  When "unidentified" is as close as you can come, scientists have to take an interest in that "unidentified."  That read has come in before.  So far, insufficient interest.

 

People think a specimen will be easy.  Look how easy it is to kill...well, everything else we know about.  Well, first, it ain't so easy, ask any hunter; and second, for everything else we hunt, we have, usually, thousands of years of shared information on its presence and habits.  What do we have for sasquatch?  Right.  Nobody tends to share when first, no one seems to be killing one and second, no one wants to hear about something that isn't real.

 

(Justin Smeja and Rick Dyer?  Spare me.)

 

A few say they have shot one.  (Not talking about ^^^ those guys.)  The circumstances and story are plausible; not everybody goes EUREKA and cuts off a hand to bring in.  I'm not judging the accounts because I can't.

 

But something is gonna have to come in with that DNA.  Something that we can look at and say:   OK.  That's new.

"To me all of the skeptical notions are just angels-on-pin talk.  I want to know what is causing this stuff to happen.  Suppositions won't work there.  I want proof." -DWA

 

Respectfully, I don't think that you do. What you want is for it to be proven that what is causing all of this stuff to happen is Bigfoot. Any other explanations you dismiss out of hand. \

 

So while you will pretend that you are simply waiting to see what is at the root of all this evidence, your mind is squarely made up. You are simply waiting for someone to prove that it is Bigfoot. Anything else simply does not compute in your worldview. And since proof of Bigfoot will never come, you get to sit there in your position and never have to waver. Since the opposing theories are based on the argument that the creature does not exist, you get to sit back and charge the impossible task of proving a negative.  But what could happen, and woefully has not to date, is someone, somewhere, providing a Monkey.

 

I dismiss, out of hand without review here's the door here's your hat get out of here, ANY explanation for which the proponent of that explanation provides not one drop of evidence that leads me to believe that it accounts for the phenomenon.

 

Simple enough?  Direct enough?  (Oh.  Your hat.)

 

The most plausible explanation I have seen or heard is that something that seems to be a plausible reason for the evidence is causing the evidence. 

 

A continent-wide Fake The Ape conspiracy is - contrary to what bigfoot skeptics think - the most plausible explanation for their position.  At a stroke, it accounts for everything - the volume of evidence and its consistency.

 

So.  Buying that?

 

Oh.

 

Don't have a very strong position.  Do you.

See, this is what happens when people keep saying we don't have to prove anything, YOU have to do the proving.

 

You provide no evidence for your case.  Ergo, no case.

 

Meanwhile the proponents are burying me in evidence.  Which you can't explain.

Edited June 30, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

As to footprints: I do not find enthusiasts very discerning. Certainly the Bluff Creek tracks seem too different from Paul Freeman's Blue Mountains tracks which are too different from the Ruby Creek tracing, which is too different from some southland, four toed tracks, etc. Yet, enthusiasts are mostly reluctant to ditch this track to maintain the credibility of that track, and so forth.

My fellow skeptics are not blameless. We need to fake tracks that are reasonable facsimiles of "real" tracks. Some may say that this has already happened with the recent track controversy involving a member of FINDING BIGFOOT. I don't know if that counts, or not.

[Guest guillaume]

Based on his previous posts, I've come to the conclusion that the only way dmaker (along with many many others) will believe a SSQ made a footprint is if he sees it with his own eyes, or someone brings in a corpse for public study.  Is there any other evidence that is acceptable?  Maybe a swatch of hair with DNA that comes back as some unidentified ape, but even then I figure it won't be conclusive without extensive video documentation.

 

From what we know about stompers, plus just looking at the joke prints that have been thrust before us year after year for decades, you are correct that no informed, neutral observer would accept mere footprints as evidence of a secret, magical primate species at large in North America.  It's after all the classic joke: look at the big feet.  Har har.

 

I don't think that mystery DNA is going to ever cut it, either, especially after Ketchum's fiasco.

 

Following the many years of pranking and hoaxing and sheer money-grubbing baloney, it's really come down to show us the monkey or go home.

[Guest DWA]

As to footprints: I do not find enthusiasts very discerning. Certainly the Bluff Creek tracks seem too different from Paul Freeman's Blue Mountains tracks which are too different from the Ruby Creek tracing, which is too different from some southland, four toed tracks, etc. Yet, enthusiasts are mostly reluctant to ditch this track to maintain the credibility of that track, and so forth.

My fellow skeptics are not blameless. We need to fake tracks that are reasonable facsimiles of "real" tracks. Some may say that this has already happened with the recent track controversy involving a member of FINDING BIGFOOT. I don't know if that counts, or not.

Well, there is really only so discerning one needs to be when there are so many of these; so many of them are in places where the Return on Hoaxing (ROH) asymptotically approaches zero; so many of them run to a type; and experts in fields directly relevant have identified that type and discerned features in tracks that appear indicative of an animated source.

 

I'd want to know what's doing this; and it would be hard for me to simply accept hoaxing as the out-of-hand answer.  Too much of what I've seen looks a little too good when one compares it to fakes so far ID'd as such.  Some would require anatomy experts to do.  Can't rule it out, but seems too odd to just accept.

[Guest]

Here's a fairly typical post from you DWA.  I've tried to illustrate (in blue) where you go off the rails with things you assume to be factual that have not been demonstrated so.  In this case, you're addressing jerrywayne's post about footprints. Anyway, this is why it's so difficult to address your statements point by point.  In any one sentence you make multiple statements that simply are not true, or at least might not be true and we can't tell one way or another given what we know right now.  You, however, accept them as factual and build everything from there.  It's no wonder you're frustrated with the state of science in bigfootery when you've leapfrogged so far ahead with things you consider to be scientifically established.  They aren't.

 

 

Well, there is really only so discerning one needs to be when there are so many of these;

 

So many of these what?  Impressions alleged to be from a bigfoot.  I agree that we have many examples of prints claimed to have been made by a bigfoot but we also have a long history of footprint hoaxing.  We also have the possibility of misidentified prints of humans, black bears, or perhaps other sources of impressions among that so many.  Recall that Fahrenbach's database included many prints well within the norm for Homo sapiens, so misidentification is perhaps just as important to consider as hoaxing for a lot of alleged bigfoot prints. 

 

 

 . . . so many of them are in places where the Return on Hoaxing (ROH) asymptotically approaches zero;

 

You've got two assumptions wrapped up here.  First, you are assuming that the people who have reported "so many" of these alleged bigfoot prints found them in some extremely remote roadless area.  How do we know that the "witness" has accurately represented the location?  How do we know that the witness had full knowledge of all other human activity in the area where the print was found?  You don't; you can't.  First, you're choosing to believe the witness' reporting of the location and you're trusting the witness to know that no other people frequent that location. The location can't be that far out of the way if the witness got there.

 

Next, you comment on the "ROH" as if the psychology of hoaxing has been well studied, you understand in full the motivations of all hoaxers, and that the perpetrators of pranks never deviate from the script.  If you were going to hoax some bigfoot prints, where would you do it?  I certainly wouldn't do it at some busy state park.  I'd go off trail somewhere really out of the way. 

 

 

so many of them run to a type;

 

Really?  Are the Freeman prints the same "type" as the Wallace prints?  How 'bout the "types" that deviate from 5 toes?  I'm actually stunned at the variation we see in footprints allegedly from a bipedal primate that is and for generations has been alleged to be some kind of hairy, giant human.  Other than "bigger than a human print"  what kind of type are you surprised to see them run to?  Last year, I made a pair of stompers from some scrap wood.  I traced my own size-11 feet to get a good sense of the right shape, and then scaled out to add both length and width.  I'd have to check on the exact dimensions, but they ended up 5-toed, "impossibly wide for a human", and right in with the main group of prints in Fahrenbach's size distribution.  So with little to no craftsmanship involved, even I could make a pair of stompers that ran to that type.

 

and experts in fields directly relevant have identified that type and discerned features in tracks that appear indicative of an animated source.

 

Seems to me that Meldrum is the sole expert who could do this who has claimed the prints to be real evidence of real bigfoots, yet he hasn't legitimately published his analysis of them.  Why not?  Editorial conspiracy or he knows the evidence isn't really strong enough to make that case?  (BTW, Meldrum uses the Bluff Creek prints as his holotype for Anthropoidipes ameriborealis, and the reason he does so is because he thinks the monkey suit is the strongest sauce he's got for a bigfoot print anywhere being the real deal.  Ouch . . . )

 

 

I'd want to know what's doing this; and it would be hard for me to simply accept hoaxing as the out-of-hand answer. 

 

It's not out of hand - we have lots of examples of people hoaxing prints.

 

Too much of what I've seen looks a little too good when one compares it to fakes so far ID'd as such.

 

See? You acknowledge that "fakes" have been made, so why dismiss hoaxing?

 

 

Some would require anatomy experts to do. 

 

Meldrum thinks that both Bluff Creek and Freeman prints are legit.  Which of those prints required a detailed study of anatomy to construct? 

 

[Guest DWA]

Nope, no off the rails here.  See, this is an example of what I'M talking about.  (You'll have to pardon occasional Firefights with Formatting.  The airstrike I called in hasn't arrived yet.)

 

 

Here's a fairly typical post from you DWA.  I've tried to illustrate (in blue) where you go off the rails with things you assume to be factual that have not been demonstrated so.  In this case, you're addressing jerrywayne's post about footprints. Anyway, this is why it's so difficult to address your statements point by point.  In any one sentence you make multiple statements that simply are not true, or at least might not be true and we can't tell one way or another given what we know right now.  You, however, accept them as factual and build everything from there.  It's no wonder you're frustrated with the state of science in bigfootery when you've leapfrogged so far ahead with things you consider to be scientifically established.  They aren't.

 

NOTHING IS SCIENTIFICALLY ESTABLISHED IN THIS FIELD AND NOTHING I HAVE SAID MAKES ANYWHERE CLOSE TO ANY SUCH ASSERTION.

 

(It gets tiring to repeat oneself.)

 

 

Well, there is really only so discerning one needs to be when there are so many of these;

 

So many of these what?  Impressions alleged to be from a bigfoot.  I agree that we have many examples of prints claimed to have been made by a bigfoot but we also have a long history of footprint hoaxing.  We also have the possibility of misidentified prints of humans, black bears, or perhaps other sources of impressions among that so many.  Recall that Fahrenbach's database included many prints well within the norm for Homo sapiens, so misidentification is perhaps just as important to consider as hoaxing for a lot of alleged bigfoot prints. 

 

 

OK.  Count all of them; and tell me what, exactly, scientific disposition has been made of each one.  I can wait.  Until then, I consider the matter unresolved.

 

 

 . . . so many of them are in places where the Return on Hoaxing (ROH) asymptotically approaches zero;

 

 

You've got two assumptions wrapped up here.  First, you are assuming that the people who have reported "so many" of these alleged bigfoot prints found them in some extremely remote roadless area.  How do we know that the "witness" has accurately represented the location?  How do we know that the witness had full knowledge of all other human activity in the area where the print was found?  You don't; you can't.  First, you're choosing to believe the witness' reporting of the location and you're trusting the witness to know that no other people frequent that location. The location can't be that far out of the way if the witness got there.

 

Next, you comment on the "ROH" as if the psychology of hoaxing has been well studied, you understand in full the motivations of all hoaxers, and that the perpetrators of pranks never deviate from the script.  If you were going to hoax some bigfoot prints, where would you do it?  I certainly wouldn't do it at some busy state park.  I'd go off trail somewhere really out of the way. 

 

 

You are making the same kind of assumptions I am; only a different kind, requiring faith to simply accept.  (I call it LOTOH - The Legend Of The Omnipotent Hoaxer.)  If you are just assuming the country is packed with really competent people who consider this the best use of their time...well, prove it and we're done here.  Until then, I consider the matter unresolved.

 

One hunter whose presence a hoaxer could not have anticipated showed up.  OH, OK.  Or LOTOH, one or the other.  Not a faith I practice.

 

 

so many of them run to a type;

 

Really?  Are the Freeman prints the same "type" as the Wallace prints?  How 'bout the "types" that deviate from 5 toes?  I'm actually stunned at the variation we see in footprints allegedly from a bipedal primate that is and for generations has been alleged to be some kind of hairy, giant human.  Other than "bigger than a human print"  what kind of type are you surprised to see them run to?  Last year, I made a pair of stompers from some scrap wood.  I traced my own size-11 feet to get a good sense of the right shape, and then scaled out to add both length and width.  I'd have to check on the exact dimensions, but they ended up 5-toed, "impossibly wide for a human", and right in with the main group of prints in Fahrenbach's size distribution.  So with little to no craftsmanship involved, even I could make a pair of stompers that ran to that type.

 

Why do they insist on arguing with me and not with Meldrum and Bindernagel?  why why why?  Maybe they just want to accept the above, on faith.  Me?  I consider the matter unresolved.

 

and experts in fields directly relevant have identified that type and discerned features in tracks that appear indicative of an animated source.

 

Seems to me that Meldrum is the sole expert who could do this who has claimed the prints to be real evidence of real bigfoots, yet he hasn't legitimately published his analysis of them.  Why not?  Editorial conspiracy or he knows the evidence isn't really strong enough to make that case?  (BTW, Meldrum uses the Bluff Creek prints as his holotype for Anthropoidipes ameriborealis, and the reason he does so is because he thinks the monkey suit is the strongest sauce he's got for a bigfoot print anywhere being the real deal.  Ouch . . . )

 

 

I go with a mainstream whose every pronouncement convinces me of their unfitness for peer review.  Me?  I consider the matter unresolved.

 

 

I'd want to know what's doing this; and it would be hard for me to simply accept hoaxing as the out-of-hand answer. 

 

It's not out of hand - we have lots of examples of people hoaxing prints.

 

So we just presume that all of them - including the many, many that no one has come up with a way a human could have done them - are just hoaxes.  LOTOH.  Sorry, not a faith I practice.  I consider the matter unresolved.

 

Too much of what I've seen looks a little too good when one compares it to fakes so far ID'd as such.

 

See? You acknowledge that "fakes" have been made, so why dismiss hoaxing?

 

 

 

 I see.  One hoax = all hoaxes.  Oh, OK.   LOTOH.  Sorry, not a faith I practice.  I consider the matter unresolved.  Wonder what Meldrum would say if I just went, sorry, Jeff, I'm going with Saskeptic on this.

 

 

Some would require anatomy experts to do. 

 

Meldrum thinks that both Bluff Creek and Freeman prints are legit.  Which of those prints required a detailed study of anatomy to construct? 

 

Why do they insist on arguing with me and not with Meldrum and Bindernagel?  why why why?  Maybe they just want to accept the above, on faith.  Me?  I consider the matter unresolved.

 

 

By the way, just wanted to add that I consider the matter unresolved.

 

Thanks.

 

Is this fun?