2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

[Explorer]

Norseman,

 

I believe that the link below refers to the event that Yuchi is referring to from back in 2002.

 

The article is titled The Louisiana “Hunt†(from January 2002) and was discussed in BFF back in 2012.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/29566-the-hunt-for-the-southern-bigfoot/

 

It reads like fiction, but apparently Branco and others posted that it happened.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Explorer

[bipedalist]

Crowlogic...btw, did you know also that there is no definition of "gullible" in the Webster's dictionary? True, although amazing it is to realize that.

 

.........

 

Well is this close enough:  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gullible   ?

Edited March 17, 2015 by bipedalist

[norseman]

Norseman,

 

I believe that the link below refers to the event that Yuchi is referring to from back in 2002.

 

The article is titled The Louisiana “Hunt†(from January 2002) and was discussed in BFF back in 2012.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/29566-the-hunt-for-the-southern-bigfoot/

 

It reads like fiction, but apparently Branco and others posted that it happened.

Thanks, a lot of back story I'am blissfully unaware of. The GCBRO has their own TV show now. I'm just a nobody that rides his horse and packs a rifle when work and family don't get in the way of being in the mountains. But hopefully with many more like me at some point we can strike pay dirt.

I'm guessing Yuchi is Martin, who is the author of the AAR? Did I not read that he discharged his shotgun at a dark shape assumed to be a Bigfoot?

[norseman]

Norseman, No ill will is meant whatsoever as I believe you are good of heart.  I apologize for making you squirm a bit as the path you're own is the one I have already trod in years past and I wish someone had given me reason to pause and think early on.

I wish I had a nickel for every time you have attacked me personally only to then later apologize and proclaim that " I have a good heart ".

I would be a wealthy man.

Your right about one thing, from the bottom of my heart I believe collecting a type specimen is the right thing to do for the species. If I shot one tomorrow ? I would give it free of charge to a accredited university for study and would promote legislation for its protection and raise money for its conservancy.

Selling one for fame and fortune or to profit from burying the species like the longer lasting light bulb is sickening to say the least......and I'm sorry from the bottom of my heart that because of your past experiences that you cannot embrace science and be at peace with this truth.

[Guest DWA]

DWA :  It is a fallacy to say that people who reject bigfoot haven't assessed the evidence.  The evidence does get assessed.

 

No it is not; and no it does not.  YOUR POSTS ARE AS GOOD EVIDENCE AS EXISTS FOR THIS.  Other than, you know, all other bigfoot skeptics.

 

Directly qualified scientists - showing their work - vouch for the evidence.  Show me where their work is being addressed.  I know.  Fail.

 

 Is there anything good enough for a critical thinking scientist to  mount an expedition?  

 

How many times does the clear answer - YES!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!? - need to be thoroughly explained, in detail, to you?  We have a far, far better start on the ecology of this animal than we do for animals we have known about for millennia.  Would somebody just follow the trail of big loaves of sourdough bread, please?  Ohwait; someone is, and NAWAC sees them hears them and smells them more often than I do rabbits.  Never mind.

Edited March 17, 2015 by DWA

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Seems like the scientific world is trying to discredit Sykes for not properly following through on the Bear

samples he said were possibly connected to the ancient Polar Bear, but that was later refuted as simply

Brown Bear. This article below is from yesterday and I find it interesting that it comes soon before the 

release of this new book I have mentioned. Begs the question whether he is losing some credibility with

other scientists due to this project.

 

Yeti Debate Swirls: Study Reveals Origin of Mysterious Hairs

by Laura Geggel, Staff Writer   |   March 16, 2015 12:30pm ET

 

 

 

 

Eliécer Gutiérrez, a researcher who helped debunk a recentstudy on the yeti, with bear skulls at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. 
Credit: Molly McDonough

View full size image

The yeti, a legendary shaggy, bipedal beast from the Himalayas, made headlines last year when a geneticist said he had solved the mystery of its origins. But now, scientists have found the hair samples used in that study didn't come from a mysterious animal, but rather from the Himalayan brown bear.

"There is essentially no reason to believe that they [the hairs] belong to a species other than the brown bear," said one the new study's researchers, Eliécer Gutiérrez, a postdoctoral fellow of evolutionary biology at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C.

Gutiérrez and a colleague re-examined a finding reported in 2014 in which geneticist Bryan Sykes and his colleagues looked at two hair samples from the Himalayan region: One sample came from an aggressive animal walking on its hind legs that was shot by a hunter about 40 years ago in northern India; the other had been found in Bhutan in a high-altitude bamboo forest, according to that study, published in the journal the Proceedings of The Royal Society B.

 

 

 

After a genetic analysis, Sykes' team said they had linked the "yeti" hair samples to the jawbone of an ancient polar bear (Ursus maritimus) that lived in Norway. It's likely the hairs came from "a previously unrecognized bear species," living in the Himalayas, the researchers wrote in the study. In fact, the species may have been a hybrid descendent of U. maritimus and the brown bear (Ursus arctos) of the Himalayas, the researchers said. [Rumor or Reality: The 10 Creatures of Cryptozoology]

Perhaps this unknown bear inspired the legend of the yeti, the researchers said in the study.

But Gutiérrez said he became skeptical of the study when he noticed the researchers only used a fragment of a gene to identify the species. He and a colleague looked up the genetic sequence of the two hair samples in GenBank, a database of publicly available DNA sequences.

"We made this discovery that basically that fragment of DNA is not informative to tell apart two species of bears: the brown bear and [modern-day Alaskan] polar bear," Gutiérrez told Live Science. The polar bear does not live in the Himalayas, so the hair samples likely belong to the Himalayan brown bear, he said.

The new study is the second to discredit the 2014 research. In a 2014 letter published in the same journal, two researchers also showed Sykes' team had not sufficiently analyzed their "yeti" data.

"Once they had determined that two of their samples were a match to a polar bear, they should have run further analyses on the extracted DNA to look at other regions of the mitochondrial genome [DNA passed down by the mother] in order to double-check this controversial result," said one of the letter's authors, Ceiridwen Edwards, a researcher in ancient DNA studies at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom.

"Instead, after (incorrectly) establishing a direct link to a 40,000-year-old polar bear sequence, they then used this misinformation in the publicity for the paper," Edwards told Live Science in an email.

A researcher responds

Still, the new study doesn't discount his 2014 finding, said Sykes, aprofessor of human genetics at the University of Oxford. [Image Gallery: 'Yeti Footprint' Photos Up for Auction]

"What mattered most to us was that these two hairs were definitely not from unknown primates," Sykes told Live Science in an email. "The explanation by Gutiérrez and [Ronald] Pine might be right, or it might not be."

A Himalayan brown bear cub.
Credit: Artyom Ernst | Shutterstock.com

View full size image

The only way to get to the bottom of the case is to find "fresh material" from an animal to see if it matches the genetic fragment they studied for the 2014 paper, Sykes said.

"The real heroes of the piece are the people who actually went to the Himalayas, spoke to the local people, found these hairs and then contributed them to the study," Sykes said. "This is the Himalayas, not Central Park."

He added that his book on the yeti project, "The Nature of the Beast" will be published by Coronet on April 9, and will contain additional details about his efforts to learn more about the animal behind the legend.  

In spite of the new study, the public will likely continue to believe in the yeti, said Daniel Loxton, an editor of Junior Skeptic, a website published by the Skeptics Society, an educational nonprofit.

"People are fascinated by monsters, and they're fascinated by mysteries in general," Loxton said.

The yeti is especially puzzling because there are multiple cultures and languages in the Himalayas, making it difficult "to disentangle Western folklore from local legend from genuine anthropological or zoological fact on the ground," Loxton said.

It's common for people to mistake a bear for a yeti, particularly a Himalayan brown bear, as this bear can walk on its hind legs, he said. But, just like the Loch Ness monster, people will probably continue to believe in the yeti legend.

"Loch Ness is not as big as the Himalayas," Loxton said. "It is a finite body of water. It has been extensively scanned by sonar. It's been observed for decades. There's just really no possibility that there's a plesiosaur in Loch Ness, or even anything of comparable size."

"But people aren't giving up on the Loch Ness monster," he said. "I don't think they ever will. So I think the yeti will probably exist as long as there are people to think about mountains."

The study was published online today (March 16) in the journal ZooKeys.

Follow Laura Geggel on Twitter @LauraGeggel. Follow Live Science@livescience, Facebook & Google+. Original article on Live Science.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

DWA :  It is a fallacy to say that people who reject bigfoot haven't assessed the evidence.  The evidence does get assessed.

 

No it is not; and no it does not.  YOUR POSTS ARE AS GOOD EVIDENCE AS EXISTS FOR THIS.  Other than, you know, all other bigfoot skeptics.

 

Directly qualified scientists - showing their work - vouch for the evidence.  Show me where their work is being addressed.  I know.  Fail.

 

 Is there anything good enough for a critical thinking scientist to  mount an expedition?  

 

How many times does the clear answer - YES!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!? - need to be thoroughly explained, in detail, to you?  We have a far, far better start on the ecology of this animal than we do for animals we have known about for millennia.  Would somebody just follow the trail of big loaves of sourdough bread, please?  Ohwait; someone is, and NAWAC sees them hears them and smells them more often than I do rabbits.  Never mind.

 

How much wishful thinking does it take to let go of the notion that the entire bigfoot history has yielded nothing of solid scientific value?  It is however an interesting study in human behavior if one was inclined.  

 

Essentially you're saying that anyone who looks at the credence has no alternative but to conclude that bigfoot exists.  Forget for a moment that the vast collection of evidence is questionable, poor and downright fake.  I do not believe the reports they deliver nothing. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Anyone can say anything.  Some people say things for the fun of it, some for profit, some for acceptance some for dispensation.

 

A telling point of Finding Bigfoot is when Mat Moneymaker welcomes a person whose had a sighting into the club.  People like being part of something so why should bigfoot reporting be any different from gaining acceptance into any other club?

Edited March 17, 2015 by Crowlogic

[WSA]

Well is this close enough:  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gullible   ?

Dang. I suppose now you're going to tell me there is a definition of "irony" too?

 

BZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTT (adjusts drag)     

[Guest DWA]

How much wishful thinking does it take to let go of the notion that the entire bigfoot history has yielded nothing of solid scientific value?

 

All that's required is understanding what "solid scientific value" is, and "proof" has nothing to do with it, 99.999999999999999999999999% of the evidence in scientific history was *not proof*, and anyone who doesn't understand that there is a mountain of that kind of evidence in this case, that says that the animal is real and walking the planet now, is not paying attention, an interesting study in human behavior if ever I saw one.  Skeptics are repeatedly told how to get up to speed...and don't, ever.

 

Essentially you're saying that anyone who looks at the credence has no alternative but to conclude that bigfoot exists.  Forget for a moment that the vast collection of evidence is questionable, poor and downright fake.  

 

Your evidence for that cloud of wishfulness, any time you are ready.

 

 

I do not believe the reports they deliver nothing. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Anyone can say anything.  Some people say things for the fun of it, some for profit, some for acceptance some for dispensation.

 

Nope, but reading them would have long ago dispersed that from your head.  Anyone who thinks the reports "deliver nothing" has not learned Thing One about how scientists go about stuff.  Fun of being laughed at?  PROFIT???????  dISPENWHA?

 

A telling point of Finding Bigfoot is when Mat Moneymaker welcomes a person whose had a sighting into the club.  People like being part of something so why should bigfoot reporting be any different from gaining acceptance into any other club?

 

A telling point of your "argument" is that you keep citing FB to us as if we take it seriously.  Why?  Just read what we tell you to read and assess it for us in a way that indicates you read it.  The scientists who disagree with you, and show their work, over you, every single time.

Edited March 17, 2015 by DWA

[Lake County Bigfooot]

I guess I missed the point of these forums, but arguing to argue is simply not all that interesting to me, though

I am sure guilty of doing that at times like we all are in here. Anyone got anything interesting to discuss, I am 

finding all this back and forth pretty mundane. If I were a skeptic and wanting to argue against the existence of

Sasquatch, I am sure that this forum would become old as well. Either way we need to move on and get into some

real discussion about something, although if Yuchi1 would fill us in about his involvement with the GCBRO I would

be interested in hearing that, seems like that is known information to some here, but no to the rest of us.

[Guest DWA]

Well, LCB, the thread is about "the state of sasquatch science," and right now that can be summed up as

 

1.  Evidence that would sway any scientist that is paying attention;

2.  ...that has swayed *every* scientist whose comments indicate that he is, without exception; 

 

3. ...and no action by the mainstream to execute what is science's fundamental mission:  solving things like this for the society.

 

The main reason for this is that the skeptics (whose thinking is echoed by the mainstream) don't know what's going on; resist every effort to enlighten them; and persist in showing scientists relying on, well, income that this is no place to risk that income.

 

Yes some of us do love to joust.  But the state of the field contradicts scientists' understanding of science's mission.  Period.

Edited March 17, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

How much wishful thinking does it take to let go of the notion that the entire bigfoot history has yielded nothing of solid scientific value?

 

All that's required is understanding what "solid scientific value" is, and "proof" has nothing to do with it, 99.999999999999999999999999% of the evidence in scientific history was *not proof*, and anyone who doesn't understand that there is a mountain of that kind of evidence in this case, that says that the animal is real and walking the planet now, is not paying attention, an interesting study in human behavior if ever I saw one.  Skeptics are repeatedly told how to get up to speed...and don't, ever.

 

Essentially you're saying that anyone who looks at the credence has no alternative but to conclude that bigfoot exists.  Forget for a moment that the vast collection of evidence is questionable, poor and downright fake.  

 

Your evidence for that cloud of wishfulness, any time you are ready.

 

 

I do not believe the reports they deliver nothing. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Anyone can say anything.  Some people say things for the fun of it, some for profit, some for acceptance some for dispensation.

 

Nope, but reading them would have long ago dispersed that from your head.  Anyone who thinks the reports "deliver nothing" has not learned Thing One about how scientists go about stuff.  Fun of being laughed at?  PROFIT???????  dISPENWHA?

 

A telling point of Finding Bigfoot is when Mat Moneymaker welcomes a person whose had a sighting into the club.  People like being part of something so why should bigfoot reporting be any different from gaining acceptance into any other club?

 

A telling point of your "argument" is that you keep citing FB to us as if we take it seriously.  Why?  Just read what we tell you to read and assess it for us in a way that indicates you read it.  The scientists who disagree with you, and show their work, over you, every single time.

 

Finding Bigfoot is no less serious than any other bigfoot enterprise.  You can be Jeff Meldrum with his racks of casts or Grover Krantz before him or you can be Tod Standing or those Georgia yokles.  But neither approach ever delivers the goods.  Did Melba  Ketchum deliver the goods.  Did her laboratory succeed in anything real?  Where are these serious studious researchers?  Once again I have to ask the question of whether or not there is a secret handshake needed to see the real deal?  I no longer think there is a real deal to see.  It comes down to whether an individual wants to be entertained by things like Finding Bigfoot or whether they want to be entertained by the pious seeker struggling to work the field.  It does not matter which side of the research fence the audience is centering on the end result is always the same.  The end result is always the same because it can't happen any other way.  This isn't the fault of TV , internet, science or society in general.  The field comes up empty because there isn't anything to come up with.   

[Guest DWA]

Wrong.  All of it.  But you'd have to be in better touch to see that.  And LCB:  this is what I mean.   The state of the science is that people not paying attention are *driving* the conversation.  Unhealthy for science, as a whole.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Wrong.  All of it.  But you'd have to be in better touch to see that.  And LCB:  this is what I mean.   The state of the science is that people not paying attention are *driving* the conversation.  Unhealthy for science, as a whole.

Please back up why it's wrong.  Bring on the solid no two ways about it proof.  I don't think there is solid no two ways about it proof.  The evidence is the same stuff that gets on Animal Planet or Finding Bigfoot, Nat Geo etc.  The curious thing is the deeper one digs into the bigfoot issue the less substantial the issue becomes..  

 

I've lost the ability to listen to the bigfoot mutual admiration society.  Let's just suppose there are 5 solid researchers with tissue samples and videos of compelling quality.  Then a few habitators added to the mix.  Since everyone is supposedly working for the same result this melding of resources could indeed catch the attention of real science.  But it never happens and it isn't because folks don't get along.  It happens because then folks have to show their hand and it's my guess that the hands they'[d be showing are nowhere near the quality of their claims.

 

Science does not go near the subject because real scientists know they are entering a quagmire of sorts.  In all honesty what scientist in his right mind is going to turn their back on a great puzzle?  It isn't that scientists are lazy or narrow minded.  It's because the credibility gap of the bigfoot community precedes it. 

[Faenor]

Wrong.  All of it.

I love it. But where's the all caps in bold with colors?