Straight Ahead Science That Indicates Bigfoot Does Not Exist.

[Guest Crowlogic]

This doesn't make sense.

Has any serious bigfoot video or movie ever ended with proof of the actual creature?  Has any serious video or movie ever supplied anything that couldn't have been faked or over blown?  Understand that once the mechanism of belief has been dismantled all offerings short of a body on the slab are just rearrangements of furniture in the same room.  Its not difficult to come across bigfoot videos that show tracks.  In virtually every case the viewer has to take it on faith that the the creator of the view is being honest.  But honesty in the bigfoot world has been shown to be a rare commodity.  Are you aware that all of the major bigfoot events of the past 20 years have been fakes?  Also one of the two major events of the 60's has been proven fake.  The one and only survivor is the PGF.  However one 60 second film in a half century's worth of hoaxes and hearsay are not very good statistics to pin a belief in honesty on.  Why should the viewer believe video a is more honest then video b?  It is of course entirely possible to have  video evidence so compelling that it can't be reasonably dismissed but there isn't any in the bigfoot world.  In a way you can say one type of video is just yanking the chain of the viewer (the obviously bad ones) and the other type (the serious videos) are there to keep the ball rolling without actually delivering the goods.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

The truth about photos and videos is that regardless of how good they are, they will never prove that Sasquatch are real. With computer technology being as good as it is today, even close up footage of one will probably leave many people with doubts, so it's going to take a body to prove that it exists. For many though, it's things like the PGF that gives the possibility of Sasquatch being real any credibility. I don't believe for a second that the PGF has hurt the credibility of Bigfoot. It's the hoaxers who try to copy it that make the subject a joke.

[David NC]

Crow I have to agree the field is a mess.  Honesty and truth I see more often than not on this forum. Not as great a proportion with dealing with this subject in the whole of life, a lot of people find it cute and funny to lie and hoax.

[Guest]

I don't believe for a second that the PGF has hurt the credibility of Bigfoot. It's the hoaxers who try to copy it that make the subject a joke.

Conversely it's the awful nature of these copy cat hoaxes (plus every bigfoot movie ever made) that actually points to the PGF being genuine. When we actually see humans in suits we then realise that the PGF just isn't one of them.

[Guest insanity42]

Not necessarily, if I can find the articles I'll link them to you.

 

http://thoughtsonscienceandpseudoscience.blogspot.com/2012/11/does-bigfoot-exist-statistical-evidence.html

A challenge with this analysis, as a commenter on the blog also suggested, is the area in which the accidents take place.

The statistics would be lower if the same number of vehicles and people were spread over a larger area.

According to census data, a majority of the population lives in a relatively small area of the country (about 75% of the population in 5% of the area).

The source he uses for his pedestrian-vehicle collision does have data for both urban and rural, I don't know if the figures used were a combination of all or not. The number of accidents in rural areas, at a glance, appeared to be about one-third of that in urban areas.

It also appeared that the number of accidents is on a consistent decline over the last several years.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

Perhaps, just perhaps by putting counterpoints on the table a genuine truth can be arrived at.  Each and every flaky bigfoot video I see is an affirmation of the stand I have arrived at.  But the flaky videos are a known quantity by now but it pays to keep abreast of it just in case a true gem of reality hasn't slipped by that might negate my opinion.  So much for the flaky videos there are serious videos too of course.  But the serious videos do the most damage to the credibility of bigfoot being real as they leave the viewer hanging with more questions than answers.  It's a sad commentary knowing how something ends without needing to see it through to conclusion.  

 

But what is it all saying? What am I saying by making threads like this?  I'm saying the field is a mess, I'm saying that the entire thing should either be scrapped or approached without the willingness to believe paradigm after paradigm that either rings false or goes false in short order.  I'm saying hey bigfoot believers clean up your act listen to yourselves.  Listen to yourselves and you understand why real scientists and real scientific organizations will have no part of it.    

 

Okay you've said it here and you've said it in other threads. Everyone knows your opinion. Embrace your inner moppet and move on.

[Guest DWA]

I always try to ignore the things Crow focuses on, and focus on the things Crow ignores.  "Logic" tells most of us to work that way; ignore the foolery, focus on the substance.  Good luck, Crow.

[Guest Crowlogic]

I always try to ignore the things Crow focuses on, and focus on the things Crow ignores.  "Logic" tells most of us to work that way; ignore the foolery, focus on the substance.  Good luck, Crow.

Define substance.

[Guest DWA]

Many times.  Many times.  I define it the way science defines it; that most "scientists" don't understand it as it applies to this highlights the deficiencies in scientific training, which produces narrowly-focused techies, not true scientists.

Edited May 27, 2015 by DWA

[Guest]

Hum, chasing paradigms until proven false? Sounds suspiciously like science to me. 

 

But in proving paradigms false, like the one the skeptics are stuck on still, "it could only be a big dumb sucker that comes to a dog whistle and can be caught in a butterfly net" or whatever the acme of skeptic thought is now, we gain greater insight in how to bring the matter to a close. 

 

Fortunately, most of us are too smart to fall for the cloak of reasoned scepticism over the small hard mind of a unreasoned (Or paid, who knows these days) denialist.

[Guest Ned Merrill]

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.

 

You know, where we as a race come in, there is and has been so much we have assumed we have mastered. Virtually everyday we hear of certain new finds that over time have caused me to question our stance. Nutrition is a good one. It seems that every so often you'll hear something stated about a particular vitamin and it is accepted as concrete. Sometime later, usually years later, they'll upend that claim or even take a new direction on the vitamin in question, claiming the newest find is the correct one. Down the road it'll happen again. And this cycle seems to happen almost all the time on an vast array of things. One day Pluto is a planet and we are taught it in school. Later its not. Then still later again there is waffling. And the moon. How is it we know so much about it, and how the reality of the universe came to be, yet we cannot answer with any real certainty what exists at the botom of a lake....or what is in the depths of our oceans? Dinosaurs? We educate our children that they looked a certain way, based on partial finds in some cases. Better still, we educate them on what they looked like, with no real clue on whether they had hair and certain other characteristics that may have been lost to time and the elements.

 

My point?

 

We look to "science" as some type of exacting tool that demands specific criteria. The problem is somewhere in there a great degree of faith seems to be needed many times. That to me is curious in and of itself. It goes back to they who created the concept of science......people. And pointing back at my opening remarks...people seem to make broad or big claims as if fact has been uncovered and all has been determined...when in fact MUCH of it is speculation and probability. And people love to point at the all demanding concept of science, as if everything has to fit into its stringent laneway of measureability....assuming that it will suss out even the most elusive truths. Its dismissive in a sense, for perhaps very good reason...but I also think that such a quality can and has worked against matters in some or even many cases.

 

Certainly somebody reading this will or has already scoffed. This I would bet on, knowing human nature as I have experienced it for half a century. And the scoffers always bleed arrogance. Its almost endemic to those who stay between certain laneway lines.

 

But what about what we cannot properly measure? What about the fantastic; the stories and accounts from around the globe from various peoples and cultures of something science fails to properly grasp? I have learned over that half century that one does have to have some faith when the road of science seems to come to a complete stop (for any number of reasons).....that and the willingness to have an open mindset.

 

The search for the curiously elusive Sasquatch is to me a puzzle of the highest order. Many have claimed to have encountered it. Indigenous peoples have it as a part of their folklore and history. Still others, many of which who have great academic qualifications, suspend disbelief despite the slant/stance 'science' takes. And some of the tales, which are neither possible to prove or dispute, have an almost supernatural quality to them.

 

I've read what 'science' has tried to sell me about Sasquatch, but as of right now I am not buying. Its like the human eye and the camera. It would be folly for me to base reality on what only my eye catches and processes when often a snapshot will catch (or reveal) something fleeting or hidden.

 

I make no claims on knowing. I try my best to have an open mind, understanding through the years that as a people...we claim far too much and act as though we are knowledgeable when in reality, we are not.

[Guest Divergent1]

There is plenty that we don't know and can only intuit through science in areas such as physics, how the brain truly works, etc......but a biological creature should be easy to find. That's assuming that physics and brain chemistry/physiology doesn't have a part to play in why that search isn't working out so far.

[Guest DWA]

Psychology has the major part to play in it, i.e., denial of the evidence and refusal to examine it, no reason for which any skeptic has proffered.

 

Crow:  you're flat hurtin' yourself, man.  How.Many.TIMES!  do we have to talk about DNA examination and what it shows and doesn't show?  If somebody sends me dog hair and says it came from you, does the DNA analysis prove you aren't real?  (NO.  YOU HAVE TO THINK BEFORE RESPONDING.)

[Guest Crowlogic]

Psychology has the major part to play in it, i.e., denial of the evidence and refusal to examine it, no reason for which any skeptic has proffered.

 

Crow:  you're flat hurtin' yourself, man.  How.Many.TIMES!  do we have to talk about DNA examination and what it shows and doesn't show?  If somebody sends me dog hair and says it came from you, does the DNA analysis prove you aren't real?  (NO.  YOU HAVE TO THINK BEFORE RESPONDING.)

The subject of DNA and bigfoot is hardly a rock solid collection of proofs.  You are telling me I am not thinking but I am thinking.  What I am not doing is making excuses for the bi8gfoot hamster wheel going round and round never getting anywhere.  Sykes did his book and ok some sort of bear is out there.  Bears are not even close to what primates and reputedly bigfoot are said to be.  Ketchum had her time in the spotlight and it returned essentially nothing.  If either one of the two big DNA studies actually had real bigfoot tissue they would be coming up with answers like where is it between chimps and humans.  They would have numbers to confirm where it all fits.  If either of the two or any other DNA analysis concluded with the yes an unknown primate/humanoid has been confirmed big sciemce would have jumped on it.  Not only that but the ones doing the studies would have than had a ticket into real science and the real scientific community.  This didn't happen, it never happens.  When has it happened?  Sorry but yes I think but I don't make excuses anymore

Edited May 31, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest DWA]

You're not thinking.  But I am, and here is showing it:

 

By your logic BIGFOOT'S REAL.  There is not shred one of evidence, and never has been, that all of this is a crock.  Therefore it isn't.  BY YOUR LOGIC.

 

OK, I'll give you another chance.  Now think this time, OK?