Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[hiflier]

hello dmaker,

Variations on the theme do not affect the general theme. The number of toes are all attached to the same creature type. Large, hairy, tall, elusive and bipedal. Detailed inconsistencies are not enough to call the Bigfoot phenomenon at all watered down as a primate lifeform

[See-Te-Cah NC]

@See, Yes. And if after thousands of initial observations never produce results, then I think science can be forgiven for taking a pass.

 

Not so in this case. Maybe this type of observation without producing results is OK:

 

The SETI Institute is a not-for-profit organization whose mission is to “explore, understand and explain the origin, nature and prevalence of life in the universeâ€. SETI stands for the "search for extraterrestrial intelligence".

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI_Institute#Funding_supporters

 

Can science be forgiven for spending research dollars in this case when they've never produced any results after many years of continuous observation?

 

After no results based on negative observations, can science justify not taking a pass regarding this research?

[dmaker]

Hiflier, are you suggesting there is more than one species of giant, undiscovered primate running around North America?   Chimps and gorillas are not the same species, correct? One has large canines, one does not. Again, are you suggesting that the morphological differences reported in Bigfeets is due to there actually being more than one species running around undiscovered?  

That's a good point See. Perhaps someone, somewhere, considers the possibility of intelligent life in space to be more likely than Bigfoot.  Weird, huh?

[See-Te-Cah NC]

So tell me - How is science doing at observing macroevolution in the present? It seems to have no problem believing something that it can't observe in that aspect.

[dmaker]

"The SETI Institute is a not-for-profit organization whose mission is to “explore, understand and explain the origin, nature and prevalence of life in theuniverseâ€.

 

That sounds like a worthwhile pursuit. Chasing down boogeyman stories?  Not so much.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Not according to your guidelines it doesn't. If observations present no results, then science should take a pass.

 

Chasing down the boogyman seems just as worthwhile as looking for ET to me, if not more so. If you can waste scientific research dollars and efforts on SETI after yielding zero results after zero observations, you can do likewise for Bigfoot research that's yielded no results after many observations.

 

 

@See, Yes. And if after thousands of initial observations never produce results, then I think science can be forgiven for taking a pass.

[dmaker]

Perhaps so. Your point would be valid if science was ignoring Bigfoot. But correct me if I am wrong, but is there not a big study about to conclude that was conducted by a big name geneticist?  Yeah, I think I heard about that

 

And when he fails to prove BF, should science give up as in your SETI comparison?  What about after Ketchum? Should science give up after that? 

 

On a personal note: I would not be terribly upset if I heard that no more money was being directed toward the search for life in outer space. Not because I think it an unworthy pursuit, but more because there are probably more pressing terrestrial issues that need funding. If life is out there, we'll find it or it will find us sooner or later.

[norseman]

A theory is anecdotal to a degree. You examine evidence presented and form a consensus viewpoint based on the interpretation of that evidence.

Scientists fight more with them selves than you know who.......

A scientific theory is not anecdotal.....in fact it's the exact opposite.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anecdotal

Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis

 

A body part was just presented that supposedly calls into question part of the prior consensus viewpoint, or theory if you prefer. I suppose the difference being that one of the accounts presented after the fact is incorrect, quite possibly the one held for many years prior.

 

So because they are bickering over skull morphology and the number of species in our own genus during that time? Does that make you want to throw the whole idea of evolution out the window?

 

I think the emphasis is misplaced on my evolution example. Instead, I was trying to show how it's unreasonable to not at least consider a report that was reported 14 years after the fact compared to believing a consensus theory based on evidence interpreted millions of years after the fact.

 

Yes but in one fell swoop you have placed the human races knowledge of Quantum mechanics directly on par with Granny seeing a UFO out here back window at 11 o'clock at night. Do you see how condescending that is?

 

Science is not perfect I'll grant you that, but they are on a different level than Granny is.

 

Yes, but that theory is taught as fact up to and until it's discovered to be incorrect. At that point, it's "Ooopsie!" Using your example, science can never be wrong, even after it teaches incorrect theories for decades. It simply tosses them in the trash.

 

Wrong by what standard? Science is like trimming a Banzai tree.......not clear cutting a forest. In other words, Science has never found the world to be 7000 years old, although they may fight about how many billions of years it is old.

 

 

If someone claims to see something, isn't that an initial step to proving it's existence? Isn't that at least an initial observation?

 

Yes, but in Science if you continue to claim to observe something and then can never back up your observations with hard data? They tar and feather you and run you out of Academics altogether.

 

It's a harsh and brutal system but an effective one.

 

Again, I never said the account was true. It was presented as material for discussion.

 

And I never said it was untrue. I simply disagree with the premise of your analogy is all. Dmaker is quite right with his taking exception to you comparing a anecdotal story with scientific inquiry. It's not the same.

 

Back on topic, I'm not a huge fan of urban/suburban Bigfoot reports. It would seem to me that the more they are exposed to humans the easier they would be to track down and locate. But I wasn't there so ultimately I have to say I just do not know. But let's just say that is not the type of habitat I choose to look for a unknown species. Of course your story you presented seems to be a small town surrounded by good habitat......and I can entertain that something could be strolling through on a blue moon.

 

 

[hiflier]

Hello dmaker,

Actually yes. I'm leaning hard on the idea that there are different bipedal North American primate species. Gotta say though, only the DNA will not only prove the primate part but given enough money thrown at it after THAT discovery then the species aspect will be launched. In other words, my opinion doesn't mean diddly squat. As far as the topic goes, See-TE-Cah's report is somethin I need to research a bit more. When I find out what Colo. county it occured in I will see if what I'm thinking pays out.

Edited October 20, 2013 by hiflier

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Scientists fight more with them selves than you know who.......

A scientific theory is not anecdotal.....in fact it's the exact opposite.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anecdotal

Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis

 

 

So because they are bickering over skull morphology and the number of species in our own genus during that time? Does that make you want to throw the whole idea of evolution out the window?

 

No, nor did I. But it does make me want to point out that what they've believed and taught for decades was questionable at best.

 

Yes but in one fell swoop you have placed the human races knowledge of Quantum mechanics directly on par with Granny seeing a UFO out here back window at 11 o'clock at night. Do you see how condescending that is?

 

Science is not perfect I'll grant you that, but they are on a different level than Granny is.

 

I have no clue how someone's Granny got into this discussion, but she has no relevance here.

 

I fail to see how you can view my example as being condescending, unless you're attempting to belittle me... or my Granny.

 

Wrong by what standard? Science is like trimming a Banzai tree.......not clear cutting a forest. In other words, Science has never found the world to be 7000 years old, although they may fight about how many billions of years it is old.

 

Please show me where I've made a claim that the world's 7000 years old. That's not discussing things on a factual or honest level. Sorry, but that attempt to imply I believe such poppycock doesn't bolster your discussion tactics, nor does it become you otherwise.

 

Science and those who defend her - Inserting Granny and false assertions of science not finding the world to be 7,000 years old. That Banzai tree sure is crooked, isn't it?

 

Yes, but in Science if you continue to claim to observe something and then can never back up your observations with hard data? They tar and feather you and run you out of Academics altogether.

 

It's a harsh and brutal system but an effective one.

 

OK, what would I be tared and feathered for? Stating that it's unreasonable to dismiss an observation of Bigfoot because it was reported 14 years after the fact while finding it perfectly logical to accept a consensus claim millions of years after the supposed events occurred?

 

If you'll look back, I never made a claim as to the truthfulness of the report or of the evolutionary theory. It was never my intention to do so. However, others took the ball and ran with the comparison example for the time that was used. However, I did call it a consensus viewpoint based on the interpretations of evidence gathered.

 

And I never said it was untrue. I simply disagree with the premise of your analogy is all. Dmaker is quite right with his taking exception to you comparing a anecdotal story with scientific inquiry. It's not the same.

 

Disagree to your heart's content. The basis for inquiry has got to be based on something, right? Could observation, especially continued observation in the form of reported accounts, be the basis for scientific inquiry? I'd like to think so.

 

Back on topic, I'm not a huge fan of urban/suburban Bigfoot reports. It would seem to me that the more they are exposed to humans the easier they would be to track down and locate. But I wasn't there so ultimately I have to say I just do not know. But let's just say that is not the type of habitat I choose to look for a unknown species. Of course your story you presented seems to be a small town surrounded by good habitat......and I can entertain that something could be strolling through on a blue moon.

 

Norse, you state this as if I believe they visit McDonald's regularly on their way to check into the Holiday Inn Express.

 

Good grief - All I did was present a report for discussion. Some of you take the report and the discussion of it far too seriously.

Perhaps so. Your point would be valid if science was ignoring Bigfoot. But correct me if I am wrong, but is there not a big study about to conclude that was conducted by a big name geneticist?  Yeah, I think I heard about that

 

And when he fails to prove BF, should science give up as in your SETI comparison?  What about after Ketchum? Should science give up after that?

 

Yeah, I think I heard about the National Academy of Science funding ongoing Bigfoot research on any level.

 

Comparatively speaking, science is ignoring Bigfoot accounts and reports as compared to the zero observations of SETI.

 

Science has yet to reach the same level with Bigfoot research as it has with SETI, so it can't give up something it's never attained, like the efforts and expenditures afforded to SETI.

[dmaker]

The idea of more than one species of large, undiscovered primate running amok in North America is really not very tenable. Even Dr.Krantz disagreed quite strongly with this position. In fact, his opinion on eye witness evidence and the idea of more than one species of undiscovered primate is quite interesting:

 

"The true believers are also generally as uninformed as the skeptics. Reading a few books and articles presenting a favorable view hardly qualifies one as being knowledgeable on the subject. Sasquatch enthusiasts are notorious for the way they accept and repeat stories without any attempt at verification. I know one investigator who insists on two accounts of each sighting, but is satisfied if both of them heard about it from the same source! My own experience suggests that the probability of truth of each account is cut in half for every human it passes through. What a direct eyewitness tells me is only 50% probable; if I hear it from an intermediary its likelihood drops to 25%, third person accounts are wrong seven times out of eight, and so on. Many believers pay no attention to this problem of lowering probability of truth.

Some people have gathered stories about bipedal, hairy monsters from almost all parts of the world, evidently under the mistaken impression that this strengthens the argument for their existence. Actually it does just the opposite--the more widespread a land animal is claimed to be, the less likely it is to be real. A truly worldwide distribution occurs only for man, his parasites, and his domesticates. This does not prove a worldwide Sasquatch does not exist, but it makes one wonder. Some reputable scientists would study a possible primate in North America and parts of Eurasia, but when you throw in South America, Africa, and Australia just for good measure they will back off. The possibility of multiple species of such animals might avoid this problem, but it only serves to raise another. For science to have missed one large species of unknown primate is difficult enough to swallow. To claim there are still more of them only strains to the breaking point whatever credibility there may have been."

[norseman]

See,

 

Scientific inquiry and anecdotal accounts are not on the same level of playing field. Yes Scientists will play a hunch, such as looking for early human ancestors in Africa and not Siberia. But they have to provide evidence to back up their claims, which they have done so. In the form of fossilized evidence and radio carbon dating.

 

If no old fossils were found? Then they would have no basis for their theories.

 

And that is the crux of the whole issue.......we proponents have no tangible evidence to back up our claims.

 

As for the rest? I was not making it personal with you. I do not wish you to be tarred and feathered or any of that. But I would say that Science pretty much tarred and feathered Melba Ketchum, correct? I was trying to make examples of the differences between the two schools of thought, that's all.

 

We have mountains of anecdotal accounts, foot tracks, vocalizations, photos, etc, we desperately need something tangible if we are going to catch Science's eye.

[dmaker]

See, I think you are missing my main point. It's not that the report was given 14 yrs after the fact, it's that it's an anecdotal report to begin with. I merely pointed out the 14 yr discrepancy thinking that might help others in recognizing the futility of eye witness reports.  They simply have no bearing at all in a scientific discussion. Now if you want all Bigfoot discussions to disregard the scientific method, then great. Let's talk up as many reports as you can mine out of places like the BFRO. But please, let's not pretend that they have any real value as scientific evidence because they do not.

[hiflier]

Hello dmaker,

The quote has some fairly broad strokes in it. It's because no one knows. Believe me, as I'm looking through John Green's stuff I'm truly searching via multiple sort configurations to make sense of things like hair color compared to teeth. Nose shape compared to gender. Foot and face tones compared to eye shape and any and every combination that I can think of in multiple sort criteria. Even locale is tossed into the mix and then,again, run up against all the other variables.

This is a work in progress but at least I have the data available to me to perform the task whereas before the end of September 2013 I had NO database to work with other than reading one report at a time on someone else's. Few if any of us did. Now we ALL have it so.......get to work!

Edited October 20, 2013 by hiflier

[See-Te-Cah NC]

See, I think you are missing my main point. It's not that the report was given 14 yrs after the fact, it's that it's an anecdotal report to begin with. I merely pointed out the 14 yr discrepancy thinking that might help others in recognizing the futility of eye witness reports.  They simply have no bearing at all in a scientific discussion. Now if you want all Bigfoot discussions to disregard the scientific method, then great. Let's talk up as many reports as you can mine out of places like the BFRO. But please, let's not pretend that they have any real value as scientific evidence because they do not.

 

No, I believe you're missing my main point. Can't we discuss a report of a Bigfoot visiting an urban area in a topic called Urban Bigfoot, Seriously? without having to defend whether it's real or not to your satisfaction? Who knows? If discussion of the report were allowed the membership just might decide that the account is indeed unlikely.

 

I never claimed it to be scientific evidence - You only claim that I did so after I asked the question about the time passed for both the report and a well-accepted scientific doctrine.

 

 

See,

 

Scientific inquiry and anecdotal accounts are not on the same level of playing field. Yes Scientists will play a hunch, such as looking for early human ancestors in Africa and not Siberia. But they have to provide evidence to back up their claims, which they have done so. In the form of fossilized evidence and radio carbon dating.

 

If no old fossils were found? Then they would have no basis for their theories.

 

And that is the crux of the whole issue.......we proponents have no tangible evidence to back up our claims.

 

I have never suggested that we have tangible evidence, only that the account may be valid in spite of it being reported 14 years after it happened.

 

As for the rest? I was not making it personal with you. I do not wish you to be tarred and feathered or any of that. But I would say that Science pretty much tarred and feathered Melba Ketchum, correct? I was trying to make examples of the differences between the two schools of thought, that's all.

 

For the record, I'm not taking it personally. I enjoy a good discussion and/or debate. I just never intended for it to be a scientific validity debate, but nonetheless found myself in one.

 

As for Ketchum? If you present your evidence as proof before it can be verified, you get what you asked for.