Cotter Posted May 16, 2014 Posted May 16, 2014 Hi All:I'm helping out a pal who is a History teacher who has a couple students doing a report on Bigfoot/Sasquatch. They want to do a point-counterpoint type of presentation showing facts, evidence, accounts, etc., from a "It exists vs. Not it Doesn't" standpoint. They are then going to prove the cultural significance of Sasquatch, and discuss why it is relevant in our culture. They'd use data here, showing economic, social, and/or political significance. Question and a request for some help - what are good NON FORUM websites they can go to research Bigfoot (both for and against) that has decent info? Thanks all!
Incorrigible1 Posted May 16, 2014 Posted May 16, 2014 I'd start with the late, great Bobbie Short's Bigfoot Encounters. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/
Gotta Know Posted May 16, 2014 Posted May 16, 2014 I appreciate the research style and blog reports by researcher Scott Carpenter. There's a great deal of good scientific info here, particularly about his own experiences with infrasound. The Bigfoot Field Journal
See-Te-Cah NC Posted May 16, 2014 Posted May 16, 2014 Perhaps they'll find this list helpful. It's quite exhaustive. http://www.bigfoothub.com/websites?&j_id0%3ABF_Site_Template_NR%3Aj_id28%3Aj_id29%3Afcf=00B80000007RwnS Courtesy of BigfootHub.com
Trogluddite Posted May 17, 2014 Posted May 17, 2014 I agree that Bobbi Short's website, which is thankfully still up, is a great resource, particularly since she has several articles analyzing likely and known hoaxes. Since it's a point/ counter-point format, I'd recommend the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry which has some Bigfoot resources. I personally like there "merged" drawing of a bear (on the right side) with a Bigfoot (on the left side) which attempts to show that all Bigfoot visual encounters are a result of miss-identification. Of course, it has the drawback of being illustrated by someone who apparently has not read any reports of visual encounters, since many of the detailed, close-proximity reports just don't describe a bear.
Guest Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 http://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/buhs_schmalzer_dialogue.html
Guest Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 Should be a good topic for debate, given all the play on here... I would suggest Meldrum's "Legend Meets Science"
Cotter Posted May 19, 2014 Author Posted May 19, 2014 ^Thanks all! Excellent stuff (and some places I haven't seen yet!). I've suggested a bunch of the books, but I'm not sure if High School kids these days even know what one is. :-)
Guest DWA Posted May 19, 2014 Posted May 19, 2014 The best online sources are the report databases, NAWAC's and BFRO's especially. Those two websites also tend to stick to the biology and have good information. (To those who will reply by starting to toss brickbats at "Finding Bigfoot": TV is a pollutant, sucking all inexorably toward the LCD. It bears no relationship to what's on the BFRO website.) In my opinion, anyone who has not made a solid study of the encounter reports - I mean, reading them; thinking about them; and discussing them - is simply uninformed when it comes to this subject. Those are the bulk - and the most compelling - of the evidence. I can think of no better way to encourage the critical thinking that is usually lacking among high-schoolers - and frequently among the scientific mainstream - than discussing what the encounter reports mean. Yes it's slogging. Science is.
Guest keninsc Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 Keep in mind that there is no real proof that Bigfoots exist. There is nothing in the fossil record, that has ever been found. There are no wandering herds of Bigfoot, no good pictures with the one exception of the PGF and that was taken in October of 1967 and for every thing that makes it look real there is a counter point to it. I honestly can't say one way or the other on the thing. Depends really on what mood I'm in when I see it again. The reports you find on many websites......and I'm ready to get hammered by many here for saying this, but they are anecdotal at best. "I saw this......" there is nothing to back it up usually, just a fuzzy, out of focus picture of what appears to be an inky blob, hence the name, "blobsquatch". Also tell your friend to be very leery of anyone who claims to be a "Cryptozoologist". Cryotozoology is not a real scientific discipline, anyone can call themselves one. There is no college degree required, no study of scientific methodology, very often it's used by some good old boy, who isn't into shaving who's trying to add some credibility to him and his ......whatever. I know you said this was for a report/debate/point-counterpoint thing on existence. If there were any real proof of existence then this forum wouldn't be here.
Guest DWA Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 "No proof" hasn't stopped science before. When the evidence says you should be looking...you should be looking.
MIB Posted May 20, 2014 Moderator Posted May 20, 2014 There is nothing in the fossil record, that has ever been found. . That may or may not be a true statement. There is nothing in the fossil record that Science currently recognize/acknowledge as bigfoot that has been found. That does not mean misidentified or misunderstood (out of context) BF fossils have not been found. They might even be on public display somewhere as something else. If they are Gigantopithecus or Homo, we probably have fossils of their ancestors, we just haven't connected the dots yet. MIB 1
See-Te-Cah NC Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 "No proof" hasn't stopped science before. When the evidence says you should be looking...you should be looking. SETI is an excellent example of your statement.
Guest DWA Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 ^^^Right. They are essentially searching based on a bet. That doesn't leave footprints that it would take a world-class expert to fake. That may or may not be a true statement. There is nothing in the fossil record that Science currently recognize/acknowledge as bigfoot that has been found. That does not mean misidentified or misunderstood (out of context) BF fossils have not been found. They might even be on public display somewhere as something else. If they are Gigantopithecus or Homo, we probably have fossils of their ancestors, we just haven't connected the dots yet. MIB Exactly. There is more than one animal in the fossil record that if you saw one tomorrow, you saw a bigfoot. We haven't found fossils in NA. But then no one is looking for primate fossils in NA; and there is more than a smidgen of evidence that fossils might have been found, but deep-sixed because they didn't fit pet paradigms. Oh, that never happens. Um-hum.
Recommended Posts