Let's Do Some Math...

[Guest]

I do wonder how one could tell the difference in whether a creature was bipedal or not while crossing hip deep water in the night? I've seen deer bound straight into water and splash their way to the other side or gingerly tiptoe across with hardly a sound. I've seen bull moose push a wave of water as they charge across a shallow pond and I've seen them hardly make a sound as they browse the salad bar. How could anyone tell at night with no visual who or what was crossing? 

 

I didn't say hip deep I said thigh as in above knee and the sound is rather obvious like left and right doosh doosh doosh doosh  at a human like pace slogging across water that is under 40 degrees in 30 degree weather and several feet deep and this was after seeing dark upright figures moving between trees on the ridge line in the woods on the mountain slope that ends at the creek and several sets of eyes shine observed and after pushing into the woods where it crossed to finding a larger than human impression in the gravel and that followed up later by the peek a boo fun with tree peeking...does that help?

Agreed Bill. Apparently rock solid estimates of population density and distribution yet not one shred of verifiable evidence put forward. It's all left to an enigmatic 'ah well, you don't understand, you don't know'. Not one iota of scientific credibility in any of it. And this is coming from a serious proponent like me, not a hard-core scofftic. I simply fail to comprehend how, if sasquatch are so common, so widespread and apparently encountered with such frequency and ease by some, why it would be so tricky to gather some actual statistically valid empirical data, rather than yet more of the same wishy washy gloop that pervades this field like the plague.

Those demanding better evidence could go out and try to provide some themselves right ? BTW if your looking for better evidence presented to make the case , try attending our 3rd annual Oklahoma Bigfoot Symposium. That's where "Better" evidence will be presented.

Edited April 10, 2014 by GEARMAN

[Guest]

There's no theory involved, rogue.

 

It is a well known fact that the Smithsonian gathered up bones that were never put on display.

 

Shell out the $20.00 to See-Te-Cah and enter the Tar Pit.

The Smithsonian has millions of objects including bones that are not on display but are available for research. Tey could easily use bigfoot remains to better their own future, why would they hide it?

I guess you missed the discussion of the Powell Doctrine adopted by the Smithsonian after the Civil War.  Read Powell's first annual report after he was installed as the first Director of the newly formed Bureau of Ethnology.  With it he initiates a policy of minimalizing research into mound excavations in specific and Native American culture in general, because he did not like the conclusions researchers were developing that there was significant pre-Columbian intercourse between Europe and the indigenous tribes.

 

This thread will get you started.  The Powell Doctrine is discussed on Page 9.  http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/42772-possibility-of-large-bones-being-found-in-north-america/

Post 168

AaronD

AaronD

 

"Posted 31 December 2013 - 09:06 PM

I just think that, for an entity which exists for the purpose of bringing knowledge of history to the public---to hide anything is proposterous!"

 

Precisely

[Guest]

What you shoul be wondering is why indigenous people that lived in and new their forest reported the same thing, as well as early explorers. You a diverse group saying the same thing and the law of large numbers very much points to the statistical validity. I do enjoy the discussion though guys

To the best of my knowledge (limited admittedly) few Native American tradition describes bigfoot like modern reports. Modern reports describe "ape-like" creatures and no Native American traditions use that term or anything that translates directly to it. Most traditions seem to include some form of language or tool use which are also usually absent from modern reports. Most modern reports that make such claims (that I'm aware of) are already connected to some native tradition that tells of languages. I'm blanking on the name of the woman but she claimed to have habituated some bigfoots and learned some of their language which was very similar to material found in a book on the local native tribe. I do not put more stock in tradition of local tribes or populations than I do in modern ones with more scientific knowledge. The average person of today knows far more than the average person of 100 years ago. Modern Native Americans watch TV and movies just like the rest of us and they are also influenced by what they see and hear there. 

I didn't say hip deep I said thigh as in above knee and the sound is rather obvious like left and right doosh doosh doosh doosh  at a human like pace slogging across water that is under 40 degrees in 30 degree weather and several feet deep and this was after seeing dark upright figures moving between trees on the ridge line in the woods on the mountain slope that ends at the creek and several sets of eyes shine observed and after pushing into the woods where it crossed to finding a larger than human impression in the gravel and that followed up later by the peek a boo fun with tree peeking...does that help?

Those demanding better evidence could go out and try to provide some themselves right ? BTW if your looking for better evidence presented to make the case , try attending our 3rd annual Oklahoma Bigfoot Symposium. That's where "Better" evidence will be presented.

Why is it up to the skeptic to find his/her own evidence for your claims?

 

As for the details of the being crossing the water as you claim, you simply have nothing to demonstrate what made those noises. Human like pace can mean a wide range and many animals will move at different paces depending on their circumstances. Cold water that is fairly deep and perhaps moving briskly will slow down a white-tail deer while barely affecting a moose perhaps. If moving slowly through trepidation in slippery circumstances there might be a distinct set of advancement sounds. It would not necessarily sound quadrupedal in such a condition as the deer would not be moving at its usual pace.

Edited April 10, 2014 by antfoot

[Guest]

You assume that researchers are not also skeptical and your wrong, we are skeptical with are own possible findings or experiences. It always falls back to ya had to be there at the end of the day and as far as proof no researcher or enthusiast owes any proof to a non believer or skeptic as the individual is always going to either accept , not accept it or remain agnostic to it all.  I try to consider doubting the whole thing often yet I have had to many personal experiences and deep knowledge of the subject that always prevents be from discounting it all. I see no way to explain EVERYTHING away, No way.

[Guest LarryP]

The Smithsonian has millions of objects including bones that are not on display but are available for research. Tey could easily use bigfoot remains to better their own future, why would they hide it?

 

 

Why don't you write them a letter and ask them that question. 

 

Best of luck getting an answer!

Edited April 10, 2014 by LarryP

[Guest]

Just because you can't explain it all away doesn't mean it can't be done. Just because it can be explained away doesn't mean it is either. I am simply saying that so far you do not actual evidence for such a claim. Even if you are correct.

Why don't you write them a letter and ask them that question. 

 

Best of luck getting an answer!

They would probably tell me they have no such mysterious bones but they would probably tell me they did have millions of bones and other objects in the vaults behind the scenes. This is actually standard operation for museums. Nothing mysterious about it. Now there could be bigfoot or giant bones hidden away in there. Perhaps someone knows about them, perhaps not. There is no evidence one way or the other. All this conspiracy speculation is empty of content and meaning. Claims that science stifles knowledge is false. Some scientists have "fudged" data for personal gain but there is no organized tradition of stifling new knowledge. That would require evidence from those who say this is happening. None has ever been produced that holds water.

[Guest]

Statistical sighting data that overlays habitat and water corridor patterns don't count, blurry pics don't count, witness testimony of people holding degrees in biology doesn't count, large track casts with trackways outside of human capability or size with unique unknown primate dermal ridges, non human skeletal morphology whether tracks or photos or videos showing skull shapes and proportions, non human unidentified primate hairs, never debunked PGF film , none of its evidence I guess.. funny how its all anedoctal and unacceptable, what is acceptable ?   Nothing but you in person seeing or touching one in front of you to my point that INDIVIDUALS will never believe regardless of what is said or presented until something is experience directly to that individual.

[ohiobill]

Gearman, I agree you had to be there and I would add that seeing it would be even more helpful. I believe you had an experience but it's extrapolation that you are talking about, not an uncanny ability to divine locomotion traits from unseen water crossings at night. You saw and heard things earlier you thought were bigfoot so you assume the noises you couldn't verify were made by bigfoot. It's understandable but can't be proven. Pace and cadence would be the determining factors and would only work in ruling out a biped in the case of a gallop which we can't do, not exclude any 4 legged critter from walking across slowly. 

 

I can understand you being irritated but understand I'm not asking you to correctly identify 100 sound recordings of North American animals making water crossings. Honestly no one could do it and that's the point. Being out there is great but so is understanding our human limitations and not jumping to conclusions. For all the believers and knowers out there that think it's silly - understand I have woods where I live too. Understand that skeptics are allowed to own land and go outside without restrictions. I live in the squatchiest state ever according to Matt Moneymaker (that should be a joke but isn't) and I hear noises at night too - I just don't worry too much about them because they have always turned out to be no threat unless I am dealing with bulls or the occasional cow. I've never had a reason to prove that any unseen sound I heard at night belonged to a bigfoot or horse or two headed goat but I understand my case would be a lot more believable if I had it on video. 

[Guest]

Statistical sighting data that overlays habitat and water corridor patterns don't count, blurry pics don't count, witness testimony of people holding degrees in biology doesn't count, large track casts with trackways outside of human capability or size with unique unknown primate dermal ridges, non human skeletal morphology whether tracks or photos or videos showing skull shapes and proportions, non human unidentified primate hairs, never debunked PGF film , none of its evidence I guess.. funny how its all anedoctal and unacceptable, what is acceptable ?   Nothing but you in person seeing or touching one in front of you to my point that INDIVIDUALS will never believe regardless of what is said or presented until something is experience directly to that individual.

Many forum members have never had an experience and yet believe already. I have never had an experience (real or imagined) and would love to (within reason) but as much as would like to believe I require evidence. Bulk of anecdotal evidence or blurry photos and hypothetical morphology reports and habitat distribution charts are not evidence yet. If Bigfoot is ever shown to be real then this evidence will be evidence of things about bigfoot but not of bigfoot itself. I WANT to believe and many other skeptics do also. We WILL NOT believe if the evidence isn't up to snuff. Our outlook on the world requires it.

[Guest LarryP]

 

They would probably tell me they have no such mysterious bones

 

Instead of postulating about probabilities, why don't you ask them and find out?

[Guest]

Why should I? I have no problem with them having the bones or not. If they want to keep them to themselves they will tell me they don't have them and if they don't have them they will tell me they don't have them. Asking is a fool's quest. If YOU were to ask them about the disposition of whatever artifacts you think they have ho would you interpret the response they give? You clearly do not trust them and so would not believe anything they have to say. So even if they told you only the truth, you would not believe them.

[Guest]

Not irritated Bill just blunt, what I won't accept is someone that really has no idea that has never been here tell me what happened to me that's all. No hard feelings. 

PS: No moose in Oklahoma , Yes this is heart breaking but Elk you bet and I have heard them myself.  

 

Quadraped animal movement sounds are different than Bipedal movement sounds to an experienced bioacoustics person.

 

Ant, understanding your evidence bar is high and nothing wrong with that but in fairness of me sharing my side in depth how about a little more detail like what exact evidence would be adequate for and who do you put all your trust in presenting that you wouldn't second guess?

Edited April 11, 2014 by GEARMAN

[Guest Alex MW]

Man way off topic.  This thread is not about their existence or whether the Smithsonian hides historical artifacts (they do).   It's about the estimated population under the assumption that they exist and the math involve to calculate it.   

Edited April 11, 2014 by Alex MW

[Guest LarryP]

Why should I? I have no problem with them having the bones or not. If they want to keep them to themselves they will tell me they don't have them and if they don't have them they will tell me they don't have them. Asking is a fool's quest. If YOU were to ask them about the disposition of whatever artifacts you think they have ho would you interpret the response they give? You clearly do not trust them and so would not believe anything they have to say. So even if they told you only the truth, you would not believe them.

 

So, you "trust" them?

 

That's why you should.

 

Obviously you're afraid about how they would react to that question.

 

Why is that the case?.

[roguefooter]

I guess you missed the discussion of the Powell Doctrine adopted by the Smithsonian after the Civil War.  Read Powell's first annual report after he was installed as the first Director of the newly formed Bureau of Ethnology.  With it he initiates a policy of minimalizing research into mound excavations in specific and Native American culture in general, because he did not like the conclusions researchers were developing that there was significant pre-Columbian intercourse between Europe and the indigenous tribes.

 

This thread will get you started.  The Powell Doctrine is discussed on Page 9.  http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/42772-possibility-of-large-bones-being-found-in-north-america/

 

Let's put this back into perspective here. None of that points to any conspiracy to hide Bigfoot bones, it also doesn't point to any super giant bones ever being found or even existing.

 

What we have going on here is called 'apophenia'. People trying to create a meaningful pattern out of completely unrelated information, molding it into a beneficial explanation to support the legend of Bigfoot. That seems to be a common theme with this field.

Edited April 11, 2014 by roguefooter