How Many Normal (Relatively) Intelligent, Adult, Witnesses Without A Prior Agenda Does It Take To Have Any Provative Weight Towards The Unknown?

[Guest]

For the newbies because I haven't been around much in the past few weeks to make this point:

 

A great many scientists (real scientists) are very much interested in the bigfoot phenomenon.  I am one of them.  A couple of years ago, I was specifically invited to speak to a professional scientific meeting of wildlife professionals to address the issue.  That's just one example from my experience of actual professional wildlife biologists and wildlife scientists taking an interest in the bigfoot phenomenon.  We do not express the same interest in chupacabra, mothman, Jersey devils, mermaids, unicorns, dragons or other mythical creatures.  The interest in bigfoot, specifically bigfoot, is there.

 

No matter how interested we are, however, or how much we'd love for bigfoot to be real, our wanting it to be so does not make it so.  We cannot say that there is a unique, heretofore undescribed hominin in our midst without some verifiable tissue from one to confirm it.  That's just the reality of how new species are recognized, and it's been the accepted way to do that since at least the mid-18th Century.  Yes, this is a higher standard than that acceptable to condemn a man to death in a court of law.  This standard is especially important in the case of bigfoot in which we've got a long history of storytelling about it and a modern-day resurgence in hoaxing and outright lying to keep the mythology going (sometimes even tied to clear financial gain, a la the television phenomenon [not] Finding Bigfoot).

 

I don't care who you are, how reliable you are, how well you saw said creature, etc., when it comes to the data necessary to describe a species new to science, the plural of anecdote is not proof.  Just because I might not be able to explain your anecdote to your satisfaction (or even mine) does not mean that you saw a real, live bigfoot.  If you can provide me with a piece of a real, live (or dead) bigfoot, however, then it's a different story.

 

Biologists are interested in biology, and wildlife biologists are interested in wild animals.  We geek out on diversity, evolution, behavior, biogeography, physiology, anatomy, ecological relationships, etc.  A real, live bigfoot fires on every one of those cylinders.  There'd be nothing unexciting about it.  Yes, we're interested.  We just don't think it's real because the sum total physical evidence that could ever be tied to one is nil.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Which is the expected situation when no one claiming to have had an encounter is even considered to have said something interesting.

 

On the one hand, one hears “they would have been found by now.†On the other, one sees the very evidence that would be required to do that rejected, out of hand.

[dmaker]

Excellent post Saskeptic.

Edited June 3, 2013 by dmaker

[Cotter]

My Comments in Red

 

But there is reason to doubt them. Reasons? Take your pick:

 

• No fossil record for Bigfoot. That 'we' are aware of, or that has been ID'd as.
• Not one single piece of biological evidence has been confirmed to come from a Bigfoot. Doesn't this equate to 'proof'?
• No decent explanation for the above absence of physical evidence. In your opinion, I personally think there are indeed ood explanations.
• Numerous examples of people mistaking what they reportedly saw. Can you cite an example?  And since when can we extrapolate this to mean 'all'?
• A long, rich history of hoaxing. (Do all hoaxers have some sort of shared physical trait? Can we identify them on sight? No, of course not. So no one is above suspicion in that regard ultimately. So yes, the history of hoaxing is relevant here) This does not discredit every sighting.  And what about lores pre-dating the 'rich history' of hoaxing?

That's just a quick start...

 

Thx Dmaker, I look forward to your response.

@Sask:

 

How many times did this panel of biologists meet to discuss the subject?

What was discussed as far as 'evidence'?

 

How many jokes were made say, on a 30 minute average?

 

Where was this discussion held?
 

How many other discussions like this have taken place that you are aware of?

[dmaker]

Cotter:

 

• We have fossil record for other large mammals in Bigfoot's habitat and range. Bears have exceptionally good fossil record. It is damning for the claim for Bigfoot that we have no fossil record at all to point to. 
• Yes it does equate to no proof, but that was not my thought at the time. What I was more thinking was the high number of samples that turn out to be everything BUT Bigfoot. Now either Bigfoot is capable of changing his DNA post collection, or people in the field just cannot tell the difference between a raccoon, bear, dog, carpet or Bigfoot.  Which does not bode well for the accuracy of the anecdotal reports either.
• People mistakenly report animals all the time. And you are correct, it does not extrapolate to all, but I never said that it does. There was a recent example of someone reporting a crocodile in the Thames river. Turned out to be a movie prop. Examples like this abound. Do I really need to scour the Internet for you?  
• Native myth and other tales that pre-date Bigfoot hoaxing are just that: legends and tales. Anecdotal evidence does not get better with age. It's not wine or whiskey

Edited June 3, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

 

Cotter:

 

• We have fossil record for other large mammals in Bigfoot's habitat and range. Bears have exceptionally good fossil record. It is damning for the claim for Bigfoot that we have no fossil record at all to point to.   Nope.  Bears aren't primates...95% of those now extinct for which science has no record of any kind.  Their number, not mine.
• Yes it does equate to no proof, but that was not my thought at the time. What I was more thinking was the high number of samples that turn out to be everything BUT Bigfoot. Now either Bigfoot is capable of changing his DNA post collection, or people in the field just cannot tell the difference between a raccoon, bear, dog, carpet or Bigfoot.  Which does not bode well for the accuracy of the anecdotal reports as well. It in fact says nothing one way or another about the anecdotes.  Period.
• People mistakenly report animals all the time. And you are correct, it does not extrapolate to all, but I never said that it does. There was a recent example of someone reporting a crocodile in the Thames river. Turned out to be a movie prop. Examples like this abound. Do I really need to scour the Internet for you?  No, you just need to read the encounter literature.  Apples and Ganymede.  People aren't seeing movie props.
• Native myth and other tales that pre-date Bigfoot hoaxing are just that: legends and tales. Anecdotal evidence does not get better with age. It's not wine or whiskey Whites don't tend to believe that Raven and Coyote Made The World, nor that Thunderbird Brings The Storms.  But we agree with Natives that sasquatch is real.  In other words, doesn't happen with legends.  With animals...it does.

 

[dmaker]

Bears share the same habitat  ( reportedly) and eat the same food ( reportedly) as Bigfoot. Why no Bigfoot remains?  I am talking specifically about North America. 

 

It does speak to the anecdotal evidence if someone says I saw a Bigfoot and here is some of it's hair. And it turns out to be a raccoon, or a bear. Every time. It does not take much mental agility to deduce that person either lied or saw a bear or a raccoon now does it? It  has to be one or the other. Which one is it?

 

People aren't seeing Bigfoots either I would wager.

 

Should we really trot out all the weird and wonderful animals that native mythology is full of and claim they must be real too?  You think that would actually strengthen your argument? And sorry, but the fact that you agree with the Native stories on Bigfoot means absolutely nothing. It means less than the stories themselves. At least they are full of anthropological and cultural interest. Your interest is just you cherry picking something that you think helps your argument. 

Edited June 3, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

But at least I have an argument.

 

And I can suss stuff that's likely folklore from stuff that likely isn't.  Handy talent, as WSA says.  Quite handy.

[dmaker]

 "Handy talent, as WSA says."   Anecdotal, not proof of anything!       

"And I can suss stuff that's likely folklore from stuff that likely isn't"      

 

 That really needs to win the most ironic statement ever award.  

[Guest DWA]

Not unless you can prove it.

 

And here we are spinning more skeptical yarn.  Evidence is more fun.  Check it out and get back to us.

[Guest UPs]

I posted this in another thread quite a while ago and since it is relevant to the OP,s post, here it is again.

In Marquette County in Michigans Upper Penninsula, the photograph in the attached article was taken last June and verified accurate by a retired DNR forester ( location ).

Some very interesting tidbits from the article include:

- over 20 credible cougar sightings in the same vicinity over the past 22 years.

- peer reviewed study using DNA that there is a breeding population of cougar in this area.

- long list of physical evidence dating back to 1966.

- zoologist documented evidence and incidents from 1939-1942 when inventorying the fauna in the Huron Mountains (same area).

- MDNR formed cougar team records 15 confirmations of cougar since 2008.

So with all of this you would expect it is enough for the state of Michigan to admit that a breeding population of cougar exists, but not so fast. The MDNR still adheres to the theory that these are just animals passing through the UP. Unbelievable, really.

So one of the members here who is very familiar with Michigan posts an article by a couple of nobody's (my words) outlining the flaws of this PEER reviewed study. Seriously? So to the OP, I can only assume that truth takes a backseat to money and people will go to great lengths to try and defend their arguments, even with solid evidence to the contrary. I can only imagine what it is going to take to really add bf to the list of scientifically known species. To those that think DNA will be enough are probably going to be quite disappointed as it is going to take specimens, more than one.

http://www.thenewsherald.com/articles/2012/07/19/news/doc5008036f62fc9474301628.txt

The locals have known for many years that cougar are in this area and I think their is much disillusionment with the MDNR and for good reason. UPs

[Cotter]

Thx Dmaker - I'll comment tomorrow.  Good stuff, I'll be chewing on it for a bit.

[Guest DWA]

- over 20 credible cougar sightings in the same vicinity over the past 22 years.

- peer reviewed study using DNA that there is a breeding population of cougar in this area.

- long list of physical evidence dating back to 1966.

- zoologist documented evidence and incidents from 1939-1942 when inventorying the fauna in the Huron Mountains (same area).

- MDNR formed cougar team records 15 confirmations of cougar since 2008.

So with all of this you would expect it is enough for the state of Michigan to admit that a breeding population of cougar exists, but not so fast. The MDNR still adheres to the theory that these are just animals passing through the UP. Unbelievable, really.

http://www.thenewsherald.com/articles/2012/07/19/news/doc5008036f62fc9474301628.txt

The locals have known for many years that cougar are in this area and I think their is much disillusionment with the MDNR and for good reason. UPs

And this is for an animal confirmed to first, exist, and second, be moving eastward.

 

Do the math for sasquatch.

"If you can't use eyewitness testimony to prove anything, well, you didn't go to enough science classes. Simple as that."

Here is one for you..

That is not at all congruent with:

"Evidence does not equal proof but it's useful" ( in a discussion about anecdotal evidence)

OK, that you consider that a contradiction shows

 

...and hasn't this been shown 1,000 times here

 

...that you do not understand the difference between evidence and proof.

 

Both statements fit together like hand in glove.  Both are 100 percent true.

 

Come on.   Read about this.  Think about this.  And stop letting belief unencumbered by evidence be your guide.

 

SO old now.

[Guest]

- peer reviewed study using DNA that there is a breeding population of cougar in this area.

 . . .

So with all of this you would expect it is enough for the state of Michigan to admit that a breeding population of cougar exists, but not so fast. The MDNR still adheres to the theory that these are just animals passing through the UP. Unbelievable, really.

 

I read the article, and I didn't see any confirmation of a breeding population.  The "peer-reviewed study" doesn't reference breeding, and there is no other evidence provided in the article suggesting a breeding population. 

 

This - talking past each other - is a huge source of the mistrust of the public in their wildlife officials.  When a state's wildlife officials issue a statement that says "no breeding cougars" a great many people hear "no cougars".  Those are not at all the same thing, especially with a species in which young males are capable of 1000-mile + dispersal events and females disperse much shorter distance from their natal home range.

[dmaker]

"OK, that you consider that a contradiction shows

 

...and hasn't this been shown 1,000 times here

 

...that you do not understand the difference between evidence and proof." -DWA 

 

Actually,no it has not. But maybe if you keep saying it over and over and over and over again, people might believe you.