Strongest And Weakest Evidence For Bigfoot.

[Guest DWA]

You know, this old argument of what is or isn't evidence is only relevant to those trying to scientifically prove the existence, or to basically argue for one side or the other.  Some people have all the evidence they need, others will believe one way or the other regardless.  We all have our own standards of what is actually evidence and what isn't.

 

Well, that's correct, and may have a bearing in how one responds to self-styled skeptics on boards like this.

 

Even among scientists there is question about what constitutes evidence of a phenomenon.  Frequently - and this would be one case - that question reveals bias toward one side or the other.  If one doesn't think bigfoot's real, one discounts eyewitnesses out of hand, and goes on one's way, interviewing eyewitnesses to determine what the saola is and where it can be found.

 

Has anyone here met up with anyone holding a skeptical take on sasquatch who was fully read up on what one would consider "the evidence"?  If one will not be swayed by anything but proof, well, not much point having an argument, is there?

[dmaker]

" If one will not be swayed by anything but proof, well, not much point having an argument, is there?"

Honestly, DWA, why would anyone be swayed on this particular topic without proof? This topic is infested with con-men, charlatans, hoaxers, and a fair share of wackadoos. To be swayed or make up ones mind in favor of the existence of Bigfoot is, in my opinion, not being very prudent. And the evidence you refer to is not scientific evidence that can prove the existence of the creature at the center of the claim. In fact in the several hundred years of people living and exploring this continent not ONE single shred of verified Bigfoot evidence has ever been produced. Not one bone, one hair, one photo, one anything that has been confirmed to have come from a Bigfoot. Not a one. So why would a reasonable, prudent person decide, at this point, in favor of Bigfoot? It is a claim that is currently only supported by evidence that is not acceptable enough to prove the claim along with a lengthy, tarnished ( and on going) history of scams and hoaxes. Really, why in the world would a reasonable person say, yeah Bigfoot must be real? Barring having seen one of course. I mean simply those people ( like you and me) who have not seen one and can only base their opinion on the existing evidence?

Edited May 16, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Well, if one insists that one can only be a rabid denier or a rabid believer, nothing I can really say, is there?

 

(And I just said that, didn't I?)

 

There are those of us with the gift of perception and nuance, however, who can look with clear eyes at evidence and say:  this is pointing so firmly in direction Y that it's clamoring for attention.  That is simply the case here.

 

The charlatans and wackadoos get not Minute One of our time.  They're useless.  Why give them the attention they crave?  Let others do that.

And if I've said it once I've written a dictionary:

 

"Not proven yet" means "prove it."

[dmaker]

"Not proven yet" means "prove it."

Sure, I get that. How is that going so far? Not so well. At some point I believe there is a time to throw in the towel.

Anyway, just my opinion. It's been stated by me many times, as has your opinion been stated by you many times. I'm content to stop talking now. I am sure there are people reading this thread that are not interested in another DWA vs dmaker thread.

Edited May 16, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Great.  But nobody throws in the towel until we start seriously looking.

 

[zips cyberlip]

[MarkGlasgow]

Unfortunately, the more I study this subject the more doubtful I become.

 

Bill Munns work on the PGF is truly compelling however and the sheer numbers of possible 'Class A' sightings cannot be ignored.

 

There is so much BS that surrounds this subject that it is almost depressing. The politics, the hoaxing, the weirdness and some of the folks that 'bigfoot' attracts are pretty toxic.

 

For now I keep an open mind.

 

Guys like Bill Munns and Meldrum give me something to work with, whilst the enthusiasm of our own Bipto, Nathan & Stacey Jnr give me hope.

[Guest DWA]

I'd say keep your chin up.  There simply are not enough people involved for enough time for us to expect to have proof yet.

 

The field is 99% BS.  But that's what happens when scientists (excepting a valiant few) don't recognize their job.

[MarkGlasgow]

Thanks DWA.

 

I don't even think I'm looking for 'proof' or 'evidence' as such. I love the uncertainty and mystery of Sasquatch as much as anything else. A body or conclusive evidence would rip the whole thing apart and the scientists who scoffed before would push themselves to the front and suddenly BF would a problem that the government would have to deal with pretty quickly.

 

I like to read those amazing reports, just wondering if it really happened as described. My common sense tells me that I'm barking up the wrong tree as far as BF is concerned but improbable things happen on daily basis, right?

[Guest DWA]

One thing you have to watch is "common sense."  Sometimes it gives you the wrong signals.  (And the evidence is the only way to deal with that.)

 

Lots of things can conspire to make something look "improbable."  I like the concept of the "uncanny valley"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

 

...which seems to have relevance here.  Why, when settlers were knocking off species after species, and scientists were finding tiny stuff everywhere, from icecaps to ocean floor, were we not finding a huge bipedal ape?  How can this continue to happen?  It seems - says somebody who has read lots and lots about this - that we are just so uncomfortable acknowledging something that is so close to us that many think it's human that we simply don't believe it could be real.  And that's it.  We don't care who says what or who saw what or what scientists have written what books - there is one bipedal primate left and it is us and there is nothing close!  Dammit!

 

A careful read of the evidence - and common sense - tell me that is what is happening.

 

Those reports cover every single shade of nuance of wildlife encounter.  Common sense tells me that isn't happening with random lies hoaxes and mistakes.

 

But common sense can't operate here without that evidence.  So keep reading.  Gotta get to the bottom of this - whatever that is - somehow.

 

Says somebody for whom, yep, the mystery is part of the fun, a big part.

[Guest]

The best evidence, from the view of an outsider at least (ignoring the PGF since posters prior to myself have covered it fairly extensively), comes in two forms.

 

Firstly, footprints. Yes, there have been countless hoaxes, and countless fakes. However, some of them, as someone mentioned previously, appear to be totally impossible for a human to recreate - either the strides are too large and/or the terrain is almost impassable. Some of the casts, which include traits like skin ridges, are really rather impressive.

 

Secondly, and most importantly for me, is SOME eye witness testimony. Once again, yes, some are fakes and many are likely to be simple misidentification. However, I've seen people being interviewed regarding some sightings and I just don't think they're lying. Some seem genuinely amazed, shocked and stunned. Others, unsurprisingly, take the opposite reaction, whereby they are clearly terrified. Whilst humans can be very good liars, I'm convinced that some people are telling the truth about what they saw, and that their respective emotions, whatever they may be, are very, very real.

 

With regards the weakest evidence, it's a difficult choice to make, as they're so much of it. From blobsquatches to any noise, heat signature or movement definitely, absolutely, 100% being a squatch when, in reality, it's almost impossible that they all are. 

 

I can't hide the fact I dislike people who only seem to take an interest in the subject for the purposes of profit. There are countless fantastically committed researchers, both professionals and amateurs alike, who do so for a love of the mystery, a love of the unknown, and for their desire to expand the limits of human knowledge. I cannot praise these people enough and, thankfully, I believe these will be the individuals who prove the existence of the sasquatch, if that day is ever to come.

[Guest DWA]

From my read all sightings amount to one of three things: bad hallucinations, plain lies...or what the witness says he saw. Innocent misidentification can be handily ruled out. If it ever happened I sure never read one.

There are a lot of anomalous trackways, many more than skeptics are aware of. Krantz considered the ones in the Pacific northwest alone tantamount to proof.

[Guest David37]

I think science has a blind spot for these kind of things, and they just won't believe it till you bring one in for study. And in that case it would probably be wise to get national publicitiy on it fast and hope some agency doesn't take it for study for twenty years until it's stuck in the backroom of the Smithsonian. Another question that occurs to me is what will they do with it once they prove it exists, I can see some DNA research lab in the near future wanting to clone it with  humans for better soldiers or use the parts of the DNA for medical experiments on humans or some other weird idea. I already read of one scientist with recovered Neanderthal DNA that wants to recreate them as a living population on the planet since we supposedly (unfairly) exterminated them in the past. So maybe they will want to increase the BigFoot population and put them on reservations, who knows.

[Guest]

Strongest for: Math. Normal distribution of fake footprints. This is interesting either as a study in human behavior (the curve could just be a symptom of a normal distribution of hoaxers after all) or evidence of a living population. Honorable mention goes to things like hair, if, when, just about a month or so from now, we get a real paper. Or in a bit. Next year maybe? Right?

 

Also: Sebastien Chabal.

 

Strongest against: Still. No. Proof. I mean, seriously. What decade is it again?

 

Weakest for: Legends. American Indians? Tibetans? Come on. The Norse and the Greeks both had traditions of lightning gods, is that evidence? That human beings all over the world have quite similar legends is proof that human beings all over the world have quite similar brains, not that trickster gods really do goof with our wives, or that dragons were real creatures and not the result of proto-paleontology. Hell, from at least a substantial minority up to a disturbing majority, of most human populations have a belief system based on an all powerful super being. Evidence of... what? God? No. Neurology and the evolution of consciousness.

 

Also: Habituators? Oh. My. God. When I originally left this forum this term didn't even exist. That it does now is sad commentary indeed.

 

Weakest against: Hoaxes and liars. Those two ban warnings are for typing the word "liar", but on the very first page of the "habituator" sticky thread someone wrote with apparent impunity, "I don't believe anybody who claims a habituation scenario. Period." Either things have changed since I was run out of town after my attempts to rejoin the community, or saying "I don't believe what you are saying" is peculiarly not synonymous on the BFF with "I think you are lying" or falls within some cognitively dissonant and blunt semantic threshold. In any case, people lie (or, excuse me, "say things I don't believe, period", if you will), lie all the time, lie all over the world, lie for all sorts of reasons. However, their doing so can in no way effect the potential veracity or validity of other "evidence". The, "I think Patty's fake so bigfoot can't exist" people are as tiresome as the fabricators themselves.

 

Well, almost.

Edited May 21, 2013 by make-me-believe

[Guest DWA]

OK, you're wrong, man.  Dead wrong.

 

Sebastien Chabal is proof.

 

But other than that, now, I'd drink to it.

[Guest njjohn]

I think you need to break down evidence a little more. Strongest to weakest is kind of misleading. 

 

Stories, legends, myths, etc.. all fall under anecdotal evidence, meaning it really can't be backed up by physical evidence. That's fine if you're only trying to prove it to yourself and don't want to be sure, but it's better used in support of actual physical evidence. Hearing Bob Gimlin's testimony first hand was much stronger to me in conjunction with the PGF film as opposed to a Native American legend without anything to corresponding to it. 

 

Footprints, even a long track of unexplained and outside the normal human variety, wouldn't be as strong as something else physical with corresponding anecdotal evidence along with it. 

 

Every piece of evidence has it's place. It might not be a game breaker initially, but combine it with other factors and it can be huge. It's one of the reasons Bart's thermal stands out as opposed to the Stacy Brown footage on its own. But combine the Brown footage with the breakdown done by Cliff and it raises the level to equal. Neither prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, but they make much more compelling evidence when they aren't taken in a vacuum. 

 

I'm naturally a skeptic. Not because I don't believe, but I think backwards. I try to eliminate everything else first, as opposed to jumping to a conclusion and then slowly work my way back from it. Most say that's how they think, but it's not hard to find plenty of examples of the opposite. And I think if more people actually did research this way, you'd end up with more comprehensive research than blobsquatch type research that permeates every blog in the community. I'd rather rule something out and never release anything than release tons of findings only to have every single one debunked at a rate higher than FB/FB. 

 

We're honestly only a little more patience and a little more diligence away from being taken more seriously, but as long as people need to make a name for themselves instead of letting their research speak for them, we will always have these same arguments And not because good research isn't being done, but because the crazy and insane will just always garner more attention.