Bigfoot Sciences - Is It A Case Of Incompetence Or Deception

[Guest]

How is it that everything surrounding the existence of Bigfoot is a never ending cloak of vague details, conjecture, doubt and deception? Topping this list is an endless stream of UNKNOWN biological material that is never subjected to the full extent of scientific scrutiny but accepted wholeheartedly as evidence by the hardcore believers. Quite fitting that the term “UNKNOWN†is utilized so often in this quest while terms such as concrete, conclusive and irrefutable are conveniently absent from the squatching vocabulary. So how should we treat all of this unsubstantiated Bigfoot material that the most outspoken squatch fanatics continuously insist as being proof to validate the existence of BF.  Ultimately, it’s no better than all the distorted blobsquatch photos and eyewitness reports combined.  In fact, if this was a criminal judicial proceeding, as many footers have deemed this to be analogous to, the prosecutor would be foolhardy to take on such a weak case.

 

Let’s consider where information of this dubious BF material is documented. I’m sure most would recognize that this data can only be found on pseudo/crypto websites that are not regulated to say the least. Aside from that, the only other medium for this information is on sites such as Wiki, where anyone is permitted to post anything they please. So is this merely a coincidence? Is it a conspiracy of main stream science to refuse acknowledgement of this evidence and exiling it to the realm of the paranormal? Not quite, but the proponents would like everyone to believe this is the case.

BF researchers have established time and time again that only a superficial analysis of this material is required. In fact, using the word "analysis" is perhaps too strong. To achieve the status of “Unknown Animalâ€, only a lackadaisical comparison is performed gauging it to a limited number of specimens on hand. In essence, a loose and highly subjective test is carried out to guarantee the results came back as UNDETERMINED SPECIES. An all too common practice among squatchers and crypto programs such as MonsterQuest to perpetuate the existence of BF. So it’s quite appropriate that these misleading results are found only on such obscure websites and never collaborated to any extent.

So one must begin to question why a more thorough analysis was not carried out. Surely BF fanatics realize that hair and fecal samples are capable of yielding DNA. DNA that can validate the existence of an unknown primate. Is it possible that the reluctance of allowing DNA experts to examine this evidence stems from lessons learned from previous experiences. Unpleasant lessons where alleged BF biological material has always been debunked each and every time it was submitted for DNA extraction. The Manitoba bison hair and the blood from Snelgrove are just the latest of such disappointing results. It’s no wonder that only comparative studies have been conducted because digging any further such as obtaining DNA serves only to have this evidence quickly dismissed. Quite a sad state of affairs when you think about it. As I alluded to so many times before, you cannot call something evidence when you refuse to allow mainstream science access to confirm the squatchers findings.  Just like that hair that was found in Squatch Attack part one that allegedly came from BF based on a loosely conducted morphology study.

How ironic is that?  We have the most outspoken BF advocates constantly whining about how mainstream science never gets involved in this endeavour. At the same time, those who are in possession of this alleged evidence are fearful of what the outcome would be and deny access to anyone within the scientific community.  Well, at least members of a Scientific or Academic institution who DON'T possess an unhealthy obsession with the Sasquatch phenomenon.  Of course, I'm speaking of folks such as Sykes, Nelson, Bindernagel and my favourite of the bunch, Henner Fahrenbach with his hypothesis on Sasquatch orgy etiquette and Meldrum who will personally authenticate your BF cast and sell it back to you for $50 a copy at the next convention.  And let's not forget the newest addition to the Sasquatch elite, Melba Ketchum and her DNA study that evolved into a badly written soap opera.  A DNA study many here at BFF insisted would validate the existence of 800lbs of upright walking primate flesh, serve at the forefront of a class action against the mainstream and then relegate sceptics to dining on crow for good measure.  But despite having highly questionable ethics, credibility and some would even argue, sanity, they are still revered as rock stars by the squatching kin. To paraphrase an esteemed sceptic from the Unexplained Mysteries forum, "if I plucked one of those really curly hairs on a public men's room floor or even a carpet fibre from the trunk of my car and submitted for analysis to any of the previously mentioned scientists, I imagine at least one of the results would come back as a yet to be classified species."

 

I suspect that this is how all BF evidence will be presented in the future. Creating the illusion that science is involved by conducting a token comparison study to a minimal number of biological samples of known animals. When that is completed, the all too familiar declaration of a yet to be discovered species is made. And to ensure the samples are never proven false, access is restricted to only the aforementioned scientists.  After all, any further examination of this evidence would negate it as coming from BF.  So it’s locked away somewhere from the prying eyes of the scientific community thus allowing them to maintain a healthy population of squatch followers.

The only question that remains, is it incompetence or deception that compels those who make such premature and erroneous conclusions.

 

 

[norseman]

Who exactly among proponents........... thinks that the evidence at hand proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Sasquatch exists? And then there for should be recognized by science and classified as a species?

[Sasfooty]

Incompetence.

[Doc Holliday]

a combo of both .... too much chaff to separate from the wheat at times , imo.

[Guest]

I think that just getting bigfooters to admit that "science" has engaged the bigfoot phenomenon would be a huge step in the right direction.

[Cotter]

How is it that everything surrounding the existence of Bigfoot is a never ending cloak of vague details, conjecture, doubt and deception?

 

It's not, though there are indeed cases of of this happening. 

 

Topping this list is an endless stream of UNKNOWN biological material that is never subjected to the full extent of scientific scrutiny but accepted wholeheartedly as evidence by the hardcore believers.

 

Perhaps a small % of those that are proponents would fall into this category.  Though, I'm trying to think of exactly what unknown biological material you are referring?  Hairs?  Scat?

 

Quite fitting that the term “UNKNOWN†is utilized so often in this quest while terms such as concrete, conclusive and irrefutable are conveniently absent from the squatching vocabulary.

 

This is simply not true either.  Perhaps again, a small % of folks do this.

 

So how should we treat all of this unsubstantiated Bigfoot material that the most outspoken squatch fanatics continuously insist as being proof to validate the existence of BF.

 

Treat it as such, unsubstantiated.  Then attempt to figure out what the heck it is.  Ignore those that say it is proof, they don't get it.

 

Ultimately, it’s no better than all the distorted blobsquatch photos and eyewitness reports combined.  In fact, if this was a criminal judicial proceeding, as many footers have deemed this to be analogous to, the prosecutor would be foolhardy to take on such a weak case.

 

Well, perhaps lawyers are the problem here, as history as shown they are willing to take on pretty foolhardy cases.  But, this stuff you are talking about IS better than blobsquatches and eyewitness reports.  It's substance, matter, something you can hold in your hand and test today, tomorrow, etc.  We can catalog it, and look for patterns or ultimately, the source of the material.

 

Let’s consider where information of this dubious BF material is documented. I’m sure most would recognize that this data can only be found on pseudo/crypto websites that are not regulated to say the least. Aside from that, the only other medium for this information is on sites such as Wiki, where anyone is permitted to post anything they please. So is this merely a coincidence? Is it a conspiracy of main stream science to refuse acknowledgement of this evidence and exiling it to the realm of the paranormal? Not quite, but the proponents would like everyone to believe this is the case.

 

One can find this material in the field, and taken with context, can hold much more weight than some account, picture, or description found on the internet.  Secondly, are you privy to the information that research organizations have that is NOT shared on the web?  Just a guess, but I'm thinking you are not involved with the groups on the forefront of the investigation of this phenom.

BF researchers have established time and time again that only a superficial analysis of this material is required. In fact, using the word "analysis" is perhaps too strong. To achieve the status of “Unknown Animalâ€, only a lackadaisical comparison is performed gauging it to a limited number of specimens on hand. In essence, a loose and highly subjective test is carried out to guarantee the results came back as UNDETERMINED SPECIES. An all too common practice among squatchers and crypto programs such as MonsterQuest to perpetuate the existence of BF. So it’s quite appropriate that these misleading results are found only on such obscure websites and never collaborated to any extent.

 

Can you provide an example of this?  Please list researchers' name and superficial analysis method.  Don't forget any of them!

So one must begin to question why a more thorough analysis was not carried out. Surely BF fanatics realize that hair and fecal samples are capable of yielding DNA. DNA that can validate the existence of an unknown primate. Is it possible that the reluctance of allowing DNA experts to examine this evidence stems from lessons learned from previous experiences. Unpleasant lessons where alleged BF biological material has always been debunked each and every time it was submitted for DNA extraction. The Manitoba bison hair and the blood from Snelgrove are just the latest of such disappointing results. It’s no wonder that only comparative studies have been conducted because digging any further such as obtaining DNA serves only to have this evidence quickly dismissed. Quite a sad state of affairs when you think about it. As I alluded to so many times before, you cannot call something evidence when you refuse to allow mainstream science access to confirm the squatchers findings.  Just like that hair that was found in Squatch Attack part one that allegedly came from BF based on a loosely conducted morphology study.

 

3 examples, thank you.  I know of a few others.  I think some plausible explanations (along with what you suggest above), would be monetary contraints along with the refusal/reluctance of DNA labs and scientists associating themselves with such an endeavor.

How ironic is that?  We have the most outspoken BF advocates constantly whining about how mainstream science never gets involved in this endeavour. At the same time, those who are in possession of this alleged evidence are fearful of what the outcome would be and deny access to anyone within the scientific community.  Well, at least members of a Scientific or Academic institution who DON'T possess an unhealthy obsession with the Sasquatch phenomenon.  

 

Can you provide an example of mainstream science that HAS been involved?  Additionally, I think ANY member of the scientific or academic institution that had in interest in the phenom would fall into the 'unhealthy obsession' category per your standard.

 

Of course, I'm speaking of folks such as Sykes, Nelson, Bindernagel and my favourite of the bunch, Henner Fahrenbach with his hypothesis on Sasquatch orgy etiquette and Meldrum who will personally authenticate your BF cast and sell it back to you for $50 a copy at the next convention.

 

^I'm failing to see a point here.  You realize that some of these folks are PhD's, correct?  Any idea what that takes?  But I suppose anyone on the interenet can call them a loon. 

 

 And let's not forget the newest addition to the Sasquatch elite, Melba Ketchum and her DNA study that evolved into a badly written soap opera.  

 

Melba Ketchum = Sasquatch elite?  What website are you getting this info from?  Today, there are but a handful of the fanatics still flying that flag.

 

A DNA study many here at BFF insisted would validate the existence of 800lbs of upright walking primate flesh, serve at the forefront of a class action against the mainstream and then relegate sceptics to dining on crow for good measure.

 

Initially, but one isn't allowed to change their opinion?

 

But despite having highly questionable ethics, credibility and some would even argue, sanity, they are still revered as rock stars by the squatching kin.

 

Incorrect.  Yet another small %.

 

 

To paraphrase an esteemed sceptic from the Unexplained Mysteries forum, "if I plucked one of those really curly hairs on a public men's room floor or even a carpet fibre from the trunk of my car and submitted for analysis to any of the previously mentioned scientists, I imagine at least one of the results would come back as a yet to be classified species."

 

Your point?  That you can find someone to tell you what you want to hear?  Well, studies show that 78% of all statistics are fabricated 32% of the time to give the desired outcome.

 

I suspect that this is how all BF evidence will be presented in the future. Creating the illusion that science is involved by conducting a token comparison study to a minimal number of biological samples of known animals. When that is completed, the all too familiar declaration of a yet to be discovered species is made. And to ensure the samples are never proven false, access is restricted to only the aforementioned scientists.  After all, any further examination of this evidence would negate it as coming from BF.  So it’s locked away somewhere from the prying eyes of the scientific community thus allowing them to maintain a healthy population of squatch followers.

 

Go see James Randi - Collect your million.

The only question that remains, is it incompetence or deception that compels those who make such premature and erroneous conclusions.

 

In closing, I'd like to say that this has got to be the longest trolling post in BFF history.

 

*rolls eyes*

[southernyahoo]

I think that just getting bigfooters to admit that "science" has engaged the bigfoot phenomenon would be a huge step in the right direction.

 

 

And yet, neither proponents or skeptics accept the result of it most of the time, depending on the conclusion ofcoarse.

 

I've noted that Sykes is now accused of having an unhealthy obsession with the saquatch phenomenon, Really? For applying science to the objective biological material that Marlboro says never gets tested?  Maybe it's the skeptics that need to acknowledge that "real science" , the kind they want, IS being applied.

 

Oh, wait, that might defeat their argument.....nevermind.

[Guest]

^??  Has Sykes published something on bigfoot that the skeptics are pooh-poohing?

[Guest Darrell]

^Better yet, what happens if he publishes something negative to the existence of bigfoot? Do the proponents rake him over the coals for his "poor" science or biased viewpoint? Today he is the darling of the proponet, tomorrow who knows?

[Doc Holliday]

Sykes may be the darling for some, but I suspect (outside of the usual suspects that will always fall for the latest fad) , that he is simply one to keep an eye on.

 

if & only if  he produces something tangible should he become the darling

 

...... as good as it would be to see something worthwhile come from his involvement  I'm not holding my breath for this one either. 

[Guest DWA]

I think that just getting bigfooters  mainstream scientists and their apologists to admit that "science" has not engaged the bigfoot phenomenon in any significant way would be a huge step in the right direction.

 

I like fixing stuff.

 

Oh, here.

 

This guy got a "highly reputable lab" to test the Ketchum samples.  And I am by no means an apologist for Ketchum.

 

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2013/07/i-had-the-bigfoot-dna-tested-in-a-highly-reputable-lab-heres-what-i-found/

 

Read why we don't even have Mr. Highly Reputable's name.

 

Yep.  "Engage and we will behead you" is, you know, engagement, of a sort.  In something.

[Guest DWA]

Oh fergodsake OP tossing the occasional fact into one's rants helps one's case loads.  Too late for that, huh.

 

Why is it that every bigfoot-skeptic magnum opus is a tired rehash of the worst sins of the woo-woo proponents, and a blanket tarring of the serious scientists, who pack more punch on this topic then all the mainstream combined?

 

Read.  It helps.

Edited July 3, 2013 by DWA

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

How has science adequately engaged the subject when the majority of scientists in related fields scoff at the idea of sasquatch to begin with? They are shooting themselves in the foot before they have even done anything. And exactly what evidence could be collected that would actually garner attention from the mainstream scientific community, when as I said, there are very few true scientists in academia especially who would be willing to pursue such evidence. The way that information gets out there to all scientists is through scientific publications...Now, what could possibly be collected and analyzed to provide evidence adequate enough to actually publish? There are very few things, considering that if something cannot be identified, it is of little use. 

 

How is it possible to SCIENTIFICALLY make the connection between an UNKNOWN sample and a sasquatch? Eyewitness encounters, even at the time of collection, will NOT help such a scientific case. And we wonder why nothing has really happened with the mainstream scientific community. It is a catch 22 so to speak. A body is the ONLY way to settle the issue completely. And then there are other problems as well, which skeptics do not seem to address to my satisfaction. The fact that for an animal like bigfoot to exist, OBVIOUSLY they are much more intelligent, or are instinctively geared towards solitude, or both, and thus they avoid humans...otherwise they would have been studied by now, just like chimps or gorillas. 

 

If anyone has seen video of these other types of primates, they should know how they behave when humans approach to film them...They don't really care. Now, a scientist who begins some type of study of sasquatch with this mindset, thinking they can do what they have done in the past, is going to FAIL. And then they will say that bigfoot probably does not, or does not exist, simply because they went about trying to document the species in a way that is not going to work with such an animal.

 

And another problem is the fact that the vast majority of all evidence is collected by amateurs. This evidence would NOT be used in an actual mainstream scientific study, simply because those performing the experiment do not have a chain of custody. And what credible scientist would allow the "nutters" in the bigfoot community to send in samples? It has recently been done for the first time. The FIRST time in all these years that science has supposedly been involved in attempting to document sasquatch.

 

And yes, this field is going to draw in hoaxers and liars, but to think that of the thousands of reports, that all are hoaxes or misidentifications is ridiculous. I have read through so many sighting reports, and many of them are exactly like my sighting...They are relatively quick, but there is no doubt about what was seen. It is difficult to explain to someone is closed to the idea to begin with. You just have to see it for yourself to realize that you would KNOW what you are seeing. Many factors probably go into this unconscious realization, and it is a more primal knowledge. Of course the size, height, mass, movement, etc all play a part. There is not even a possibility that I was hoaxed, and I didn't hoax the sighting, but I cannot get someone who is closed to the idea of sasquatch to understand these points.

 

And if the case of sasquatch were taken up in court, I am convinced that sasquatch would come out on top. Why? Because unlike science, a court of law allows for eyewitness testimony. The testimony alone is enough to conclude that sasquatch is real, from a scientific point of view. What science would that be? Psychology mostly.

 

The lack of a certain type of evidence in this field of research is due entirely to the nature of the animal. It is difficult to get decent footage of an animal that immediately goes the other way when it notices a human in the vicinity. By the time a person is ready to shoot, the animal is gone. And IF they get a camera out, the animal is likely to be far enough away that any images are not going to be adequate. I have said before that the majority of cameras that witnesses have on hand are consumer grade, and are meant for shooting at relatively close range. If one attempts to use that same type of camera to shoot 50 yards, of course the image will result in a "blobsquatch." Sasquatch has absolutely zero incentive to stick around when a human is in the area. Even other animals do the same thing, and they probably are not as intelligent as a sasquatch. So to think that sasquatch would be this way is logical. 

 

If I could have my way I would have all detractors leave the sasquatch community. I have thought many times of leaving the community myself for one main reason...Like so many others who have either had a sighting, or who believe sasquatch is real for one reason or another, I joined the community to LEARN through the experiences of others. I just do not see why there are so many skeptics who must focus on existence all the time. If you don't believe sasquatch exist, what are you doing here? It seems counter-intuitive to me that someone who does not believe in sasquatch actually spends their time within the community, whether online or in person. I know there are members here who are on the fence, and I am not talking about them. I am talking about the people who know who they are, the ones who are completely closed to the idea of sasquatch to begin with. They are definitely here.

 

And one more thing I would like to mention to detractors is this: one of the reasons that we cannot get online and read or view more data regarding sasquatch, good data, is because of you. I know for a fact that there are people out there not only with physical evidence, but with visual evidence and excellent sightings, who refuse to come forward and share what they know or what they have collected. And I don't really blame them to tell you the truth.

 

And I am also sick of reading the reports that periodically come along about how a sasquatch dna test comes back as something else. Why is THAT newsworthy, but when a sample cannot be matched to a known animal, nobody really cares? And it has happened in the past. Heck, many of the samples in the Ketchum study alone would fit this category. But, here is the rub..."scientists," and "skeptics/detractors," will ALWAYS claim that a result of "unknown" is the result of an error by the person doing the testing. Like I said, it is a catch 22 for the people who know sasquatch is real, or those who want to prove it to the world. 

[southernyahoo]

^??  Has Sykes published something on bigfoot that the skeptics are pooh-poohing?

 

Not that I know of, but this is about bigfoot sciences, and a false dichotomy that either its incompetence or decption. So should Sykes be mentioned?

 

Maybe we just don't know what scientific proof is suppose to be. 

[Guest]

^A piece of a bigfoot would be a really nice start.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Saskeptic