Straight Ahead Science That Indicates Bigfoot Does Not Exist.

[Guest Crowlogic]

There are as many reasons to reject the possibility of bigfoot existing.  I've pasted the text of an article which can be viewed here.  http://time.com/2949457/bigfoot-dna-bear-animal/   Curse you, reliable DNA studies! Must you spoil all the fun?

 

 

P

 

Sponsored Links by

In a stunning finding that set off shock waves of grieving through much of the world, University of Oxford researchers announced that the beloved bipedal cryptid known globally as Bigfoot is dead—or, more specifically, that he never existed.

Mr. Foot, who also went by the name Sasquatch, or Sásq’ets in the original Halkomelem, was 4,000 years old. Or maybe not.

The Oxford finding was the result of a three-year study that began in 2012 when researchers issued an open call for hair samples held in museums and private collections that were said to come from “an anomalous primate,†which is the kind of term scientists from a place like Oxford University often use when they’re publishing a peer-reviewed paper on, you know, Bigfoot, and don’t want to be snickered at by other Oxford University scientists in the faculty lounge. Thirty-six samples from the U.S., Russia, Indonesia, India, Bhutan and Nepal were ultimately submitted, a geographical range that suggested a) there was more than one “anomalous primate†out there, there is only one, but he is really, really well-traveled, c) there’s a teensy-weensy chance the hairs came from something else.

To find out, the investigators conducted DNA analyses on the samples and compared their findings to those of known species of animals. As it turned out they got some hits—a lot of them actually. The samples, the investigators found, came from animals as diverse as bears, wolves, raccoons, porcupine, deer, sheep, at least one human, and a cow. Again, that’s a cow.

The news was met with something less than universal acceptance that the long-rumored 10-ft. tall, 500-lb. creature with a two-ft. footprint, a coat of reddish brown hair, the sagittal crest of a gorilla and an unpleasant smell just might not exist. “The fact that none of these samples turned out to be [bigfoot] doesn’t mean the next one won’t,†said no less a person than Bryan Sykes, the Oxford researcher who led the study, according to the Associated Press.

The Guardian headlined its story on the announcement “DNA analysis indicates Bigfoot may be a big fake,†begging the question of what it might take to warrant a headline that Bigfoot is a big fake.

None of that will do much to relieve the grief in the parts of Bigfoot-loving community that do, reluctantly, accept the Oxford team’s findings. As yet, Bigfoot intimates Kraken, Wendigo, Yeti and The Loch Ness Monster have issued no statement and have not returned calls or e-mails requesting comments. That could, scientific literalists suggest, indicate that they don’t exist either. But really, they’ve probably just gone into seclusion.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

It's said that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. 

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

It's said that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. 

Exactly. I've talked about bigfoot and falsifiability in the past, and there are different ways one could go about this issue. They could say that bigfoot is not falsifiable and therefore does not belong in science to begin with, or one could say that the idea of the non-existence of bigfoot IS falsifiable, considering that a body would prove the species. So no matter what one believes regarding whether bigfoot should be scientifically entertained, the falsifiability of the non-existence argument is not open for debate. You cannot prove a negative in this instance, short of exhausting every possible resource to scour, simultaneously, every inch of every forest around the globe.

 

Never, ever, ever should a scientist state that something cannot exist, unless circumstances are such that much evidence has been collected and analyzed, and over a long period of time that evidence is always upheld. Even then it just depends on the circumstances. In the case of bigfoot I must continue to stress that finding nothing means absolutely nothing. This "scientific" experiment was not as scientific as it could have been in my opinion. If they are just going to collect random samples that are sent in, without a rigorous process of eliminating the bulk of them, then of course their results are going to be negative. We all know that the amount of potential bigfoot specimens out there is large, and of all of these the vast majority are samples that had no visual correlation with bigfoot. Given the number of non-sasquatch animals in the forest who also have hair, it stands to reason that most samples picked up in the forest will belong to a known animal. Hair does not always stay where it was shed either, considering wind can easily move it around. I envision a study where the ONLY samples accepted are those in which people claim to have some evidence that the hair originated from a sasquatch, as opposed to being picked up randomly off the ground. Some of these people will be lying of course, but the odds are better than just getting samples without paying attention to the backstory. It is not ideal for a scientific study I will easily admit, but I see no real alternative.

[chelefoot]

Typical attitude towards the subject. Make fun of it, make fun of those studying it, deny it without proof that is doesn't exist (i know, I know).

 

This article means nothing IMO. Well, I take that back. It means the author obviously hasn't done much homework on the subject.

[roguefooter]

Strange that there's no mention of the ancient bear/hybrid DNA. I guess dismissing it as just a "bear" is easier than eating crow for there really being an unknown creature behind some of those sightings.

[Oonjerah]

a. "You can't prove a negative"

 

b.  X is true, because there is no proof that X is false.

 

c. X is false, because no one has ever proven it.

 

I agree with a) but not with b. or c. 

 

For example, I can't prove that green unicorns exist or prove they don't. 
If they do exist, it will be proven when one is discovered.
But I can never prove they don't exist, because I can't look everywhere or everywhen.

 

If I say green unicorns exist because I have seen them, but later, I am proven to be
a habitual liar, green unicorns may still exist. ... My lies are just babble. They have

absolutely no influence on what exists and what doesn't.

 

Hmmm. Would that be d. You can't prove something false by trying to associate it with
a known falsehood?

Edited May 14, 2015 by Oonjerah

[norseman]

So he is back to the "never existed" camp? I'm finding it hard to keep up

[BobbyO]

Changes mind more than I change my socks Norse, don't forget..

[JDL]

Crow logic must be different from human logic.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Crow logic must be different from human logic.

I didn't write the article in case you didn't get that.  Jeffrey Kluger  Senior Science editor at Time wrote it.The thread is posted as the counterpoint to the bigfoot science thread and evidence to believe thread.

So he is back to the "never existed" camp? I'm finding it hard to keep up

I am still firmly in the bigfoot does not exist camp.

Typical attitude towards the subject. Make fun of it, make fun of those studying it, deny it without proof that is doesn't exist (i know, I know).

 

This article means nothing IMO. Well, I take that back. It means the author obviously hasn't done much homework on the subject.

Or maybe they have done the homework.  While I didn't write the article I'll bet the farm that in 5 years there will still be no proof bigfoot.  

Edited May 14, 2015 by Crowlogic

[chelefoot]

I would make that same bet Crow. I have my doubts that they exist, but I can't explain away some of these clear daytime sightings by reliable witnesses with nothing to gain and everything to lose by sharing their experience. And while I am a skeptic, I'm not a denialist. Those people saw something. Something that you can't explain. Well, you can attempt to explain it using the tired old techniques...but, that's speculation. You, or no one else,  can truly explain those cases. Those people saw something. I am not sure Bf exists, but I am sure that not ALL witnesses are wrong. Not every single one. To me that line of thought is absent of critical thinking and is ridiculous.

[Guest]

So because none of the hair samples were from a bigfoot (and from what I can gather none of the samples were actually claimed to have been physically pulled out of the backside of a bigfoot but were just 'guessed' to have 'maybe' been from a bigfoot) it means bigfoot doesn't exist?

 

Ok got it.

 

Sheesh!!!

[norseman]

I didn't write the article in case you didn't get that.  Jeffrey Kluger  Senior Science editor at Time wrote it.The thread is posted as the counterpoint to the bigfoot science thread and evidence to believe thread.

I am still firmly in the bigfoot does not exist camp.

Or maybe they have done the homework.  While I didn't write the article I'll bet the farm that in 5 years there will still be no proof bigfoot.

ever?

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

I would make that same bet Crow. I have my doubts that they exist, but I can't explain away some of these clear daytime sightings by reliable witnesses with nothing to gain and everything to lose by sharing their experience. And while I am a skeptic, I'm not a denialist. Those people saw something. Something that you can't explain. Well, you can attempt to explain it using the tired old techniques...but, that's speculation. You, or no one else,  can truly explain those cases. Those people saw something. I am not sure Bf exists, but I am sure that not ALL witnesses are wrong. Not every single one. To me that line of thought is absent of critical thinking and is ridiculous.

 

Exactly! I don't know if they exist or not. But I do believe the reliable eye witnesses saw something that they cannot easily categorize as human (ex. the kid down the street) or non-human (ex. bear). 

 

FYI for everyone, I wouldn't take the word of a "science editor" with more than a grain of salt. You need to read the study yourself and analyze the results/conclusions in light of the method used to obtain them.  That's what people who are really into the scientific method do.

[Guest DWA]

Crow, hair's on fire.  You really need to find another outlet for whatever this is.

 

I'm not gonna bother with the time to explore that major blocka Swiss here, because you aren't, you've made that clear, paying attention to what people say to you.

For those of you who are still engaged and are wondering:  "Science" is a process.  It is not stale canon presented as stone tablets that can never change.