Bigfoot Sciences - Is It A Case Of Incompetence Or Deception

[norseman]

I'd carve something more substantial than a smeja steak........a head, hand and foot outta do it.

[Sasfooty]

I'd say that if we can't tell a piece of bigfoot from an already descsribed hominin, then we could have a piece right now labeled human.. 

Sure could! Like those giant skeletons that were found in Wisconsin in 1912.

 

I can't post a link because it might break the rules, but they're easy to find.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Sasfooty

[Guest Grifter9931]

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. 

Two questions if the sequenced DNA comes back as unknown and it is believed to be BF, then would it not make sense that the profile would be all the same for the unknown samples or at least close?

 

Also its very easy to place blame on the skeptics for not believing in something when the proof of such a creature doesn't show up in the fossil record etc. But some of the tales that are being reported etc are easy to be believed? 

 

Science isn't perfect or anywhere close to it. But there are many other topics out there that people have no proof of but follow blindly with deadly consequences. 

 

As for eyewitness testimony. I was an by stander in an accident. I was filming a couple of standard shots for a friend of mine when the accident occurred. At the time I didn't think to offer the video to the police as evidence because it didn't cross my mind. A lawyer friend of mine was having lunch with me one day and we were casually talking about thing when he mentions a case with some folks being in an accident etc.

 

Turns out its the same accident I filmed. I was a witness in the case and if you heard the testimony that was before me you would swear we were talking about two different accidents. People got the color of the car incorrect. The direction the cars were traveling. What kind of vehicles were involved. Even the police report was incorrect. Eyewitness accounts can flat out wrong. This accident took place on a sunny day @ 1pm in the afternoon. At a busy intersection, the streets are no more than 2 lanes in each direction. The temperature was 72 degrees. I know because I said it when I started filming to get the environmental readings correct for my friend.

 

There were 12 witnesses in total who were bystanders. In every account each one got 3 or more things incorrect about the accident. Even the judge was surprised. The video spoke for itself and all I had to do was explain why I was shooting at that particular location that day. 

[Guest]

I'd say that if we can't tell a piece of bigfoot from an already descsribed hominin, then we could have a piece right now labeled human.. 

IF that's the case then yes we could. Do you have any specific examples of bones you suspect to be bigfoot that are currently labeled as Homo sapiens?  If so, then why not run some DNA analysis on those suspected bones and see if they've been correctly identified?

 

When I talk about a "piece of a bigfoot", I hope people understand that I'm implying that said piece is diagnostic.  In other words, that piece has to be distinctive enough that all other species are ruled out and it can serve as the description for something currently undescribed. Obviously, the bigger the piece the better the case, and a full body would be most desired.  Genetic analysis, of course, can allow us to describe something based on a sample that is physically small and perhaps morphologically uninformative.  This is why, despite my harsh criticisms of Melba Ketchum's work, I support the basic premise that a new species can be described solely from DNA evidence.