A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Guest DWA]

As I think about it, the same problem exists with most the purported evidence. Habitation range; reports would have us believe that this animal has a larger range than any known species. Size; I've heard 14 feet claims on some youtube shows - but how can we throw out such a claim even if it seems impossibly large. Behavior; is it interdimensional? Does it hunt in packs using one animal to draw hunters into ambushes as is seemingly claimed each week on SasChron? Is it the gentle forest being as claimed by Cliff Barackman was mentioning in the lastest episode of "Finding Bigfoot"? Does it like pancakes? Does it eschew humans or is it living in close proximity - sightings in backyards and along roads but also in the deep wilderness - does any other wild animal display this behavior? I've seen someone here post that sasquatch could be as intelligent or more intelligent than humans - does that seem even remotely possible?

 

This is a problem. For whatever reason, the claims are so disparate that nailing down anything is seemingly impossible. It's anyone's guess and that is a problem when attempting to investigate.

Now see, this is the "lump everything in there and evaluate it equally, no matter how woowoo" defense.

 

Those of us who leaven this with our lifelong experience of animals and the outdoors know how to do the sorting out.  Those who don't:  nae sae much.

[Guest Crowlogic]

But see, why would we trust that assessment?  Bindernagel over Crow.  for one thing, Bindernagel gives a pretty basic explanation of the variances (hint:  primate foot anatomy), which count on it Crow hasn't read.  For another, you know, technical expertise, for another, showing his work, for another, Crow shows by that post that he doesn't know much about footprints, etc.

OK here is one of the  good Dr' Bindernagle's casts he holds to be real.  If I'm not mistaken it came from the same lecture he gave that contained his juvenile foot morphing.  Seems that cast has a few too many non typical details.  Heck even the Wallace double ball foot was more believable than whatever that cast shown represents.  Gee we skeptics don't do our homework.......sighs...................

 

[Guest DWA]

No.  You don't.  You are demonstrating that here, although, not having read up, you of course don't know that.  See, this is not exactly inspiring confidence.

[Guest Crowlogic]

WRONG. A child is NOT born with an arch to the foot. For verification, consult a newborn or actually any child that hasn't learned to walk yet.

Indeed but the newborn human foot has it's shape and form as you can see.  Scale that pink pudgy little foot up to adult size and it will give a very credible accounting of itself as a human foot.

 

[salubrious]

As far as I can see, these abilities are created just for that- so things will make sense. If you believe it exists then you will have to create illogical reasons for it's existence, because logical reasoning points to non-existence.

 

Or you could just be a monk on a Tibetian mountain top posting on the forum.

 

Correct. FWIW, when I had my encounter, I didn't think one way or the other about BF- they simply weren't on the radar at the time. I agree that logically, they should not exist, assuming our logic is that we are the supreme intelligence on the planet. But that may not be true - ask Samuel Clemens  

 

My problem is I saw not one but two, real close up in good lighting. Prior to that I had no opinion. Now I know, which is different from opinion. So knowing that they exist, my explanation, while very possibly not being correct, is at least logical... for what that is worth which isn't a lot. 

[MikeZimmer]

 

 

  One of the most common misconceptions about science is that nothing moves forward without proof...when in fact science does that ALL THE TIME.

 

 

In fact, according to philosopher Karl Popper, as I understand him, there is no "proof" in science, only confirming or disconfirming evidence, theory, hypothesis, ....

 

According to Michael Zimmer ;-), proof, even mathematical proof, is more about psychology and belief than it is about logic and evidence, although those both may be elements in proving something to some person.

 

In either case, we should banish the word "proof" from our vocabulary in discussions of science.

 

For the record, I think that the available evidence - and there is a ton of it, of varying quality - make the Sasquatch as cryptic primate the better fit, by far.

[Guest Crowlogic]

In fact, according to philosopher Karl Popper, as I understand him, there is no "proof" in science, only confirming or disconfirming evidence, theory, hypothesis, ....

 

According to Michael Zimmer ;-), proof, even mathematical proof, is more about psychology and belief than it is about logic and evidence, although those both may be elements in proving something to some person.

 

In either case, we should banish the word "proof" from our vocabulary in discussions of science.

 

For the record, I think that the available evidence - and there is a ton of it, of varying quality - make the Sasquatch as cryptic primate the better fit, by far.

Banish proof?  That's a slippery slope Mike and not one that I'd want to ski down with any confidence.

[Bodhi]

In fact, according to philosopher Karl Popper, as I understand him, there is no "proof" in science, only confirming or disconfirming evidence, theory, hypothesis, ....

 

According to Michael Zimmer ;-), proof, even mathematical proof, is more about psychology and belief than it is about logic and evidence, although those both may be elements in proving something to some person.

 

In either case, we should banish the word "proof" from our vocabulary in discussions of science.

 

For the record, I think that the available evidence - and there is a ton of it, of varying quality - make the Sasquatch as cryptic primate the better fit, by far.

science makes predictions and then tests to see if those predictions are borne out, and then adjusts from there. Using any bigfoot "evidence" you choose can you make any prediction? The NAWAC hasn't been able to do so after many years of effort. What predictions and experiment can you suggest using casts,prints or trackways? Science rarely if ever has a definitive answer, rather it's a continuous refinement built upon theory, prediction, experiment, analysis. Use all the word play you want, but the gorilla was proven to exist. You can pretend that "proof" is an illusion all you want, but you know in your heart that you are full of it. This sort of nonsense is why this field is seen as a laughable endeavor by the VAST majority of people.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Bodhi

[WSA]

So, I note we've moved away from taking the position that there is no evidence of BF, to claims that real BF tracks can't be discerned from a fake, so we should discount all of them? Progress, of a kind, I suppose. 

 

So can we just acknowledge that real animals are leaving real tracks, and move on?

[Guest DWA]

In fact, according to philosopher Karl Popper, as I understand him, there is no "proof" in science, only confirming or disconfirming evidence, theory, hypothesis, ....

 

According to Michael Zimmer ;-), proof, even mathematical proof, is more about psychology and belief than it is about logic and evidence, although those both may be elements in proving something to some person.

 

In either case, we should banish the word "proof" from our vocabulary in discussions of science.

 

For the record, I think that the available evidence - and there is a ton of it, of varying quality - make the Sasquatch as cryptic primate the better fit, by far.

As Richard Dawkins puts it:  Proof is a notion that scientists have been intimidated into mistrusting. 

 

A scientist once said to me:  scientific fact is a set of conditional truths, backed by evidence.  By that defiinition:  proof is proof of what we think for the time being.  Anyone with no tolerance for that sort of ambiguity isn't a scientist but a narrow techie.

So, I note we've moved away from taking the position that there is no evidence of BF, to claims that real BF tracks can't be discerned from a fake, so we should discount all of them? Progress, of a kind, I suppose. 

 

So can we just acknowledge that real animals are leaving real tracks, and move on?

To assert that all the tracks found have been left by hoaxers is to say that some of the strangest animals in recorded history walk the earth.  They are certainly in no respect like just about any human we know.

[MikeZimmer]

.. That is why I think casts are a dead end research path for BF. If Meldrum, who is the footprint guy in his field, cannot persuade his colleagues with his footprint casts, of the existence of BF, that form of evidence is just not definitive enough. It is entirely possible he has casts that are not authentic, but if even one is, that is all footprint evidence can provide, other than variations in size and shape.

 

There are people on this forum who have experience with both tracks and with trackways, some in places where a hoax is extraordinarily unlikely.

 

Almost certainly there are footprint casts which are fraudulent. There are also trackways and tracks in the most outrageous places; places where a hoax as an explanation strains belief. There is also at least one statistical analysis of track distribution in the published record. All of this is evidence, and clearly both the existence of trackways and indivdual tracks in obscure places is not something that can be easily explained. Although a single track might be misinterpreted, trackways, with some showing clear toe impressions, can not easily be attributed to a well recognized animal.

[Bodhi]

So, I note we've moved away from taking the position that there is no evidence of BF, to claims that real BF tracks can't be discerned from a fake, so we should discount all of them? Progress, of a kind, I suppose. 

 

So can we just acknowledge that real animals are leaving real tracks, and move on?

Again, so missed the point. Krantz's issue was how to use casts to further the search for the animal. HIS contention was that fakes made using casts to do so impossible. I've written this mutliple times, how you've missed this is baffling. If you know more than Krantz, I'l love to have some address the actual point.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Bodhi

[SWWASAS]

Ok, so Krantz was wrong? So tell me, how can a database be established without the risk of including fakes and thus nullifying the validity of the information?

 

Again, it's not me it's Krantz and it's not all it's "some" but until those "some" are removed they poison the potential of casts/prints as evidence. How those "some" were found out and removed was what Krantz grappled with and was unable to resolve. Do you have an answer which eluded Krantz?

You seemed not to read and understand what I said. I do not disagree with Krantz at all. But how do you get from the fact that Krantz says some casts are forgeries and authenticity cannot be determined from casts, to the declaration that all casts are forgeries? Unless someone sees a BF making prints, shoots that BF, declares and accepts the existence of BF from that specimen and makes casts of it's footprints, we cannot really declare with absolute certainty that any existing cast is genuine BF. So how do you come to the conclusion that all casts are forgeries unless it is based only on disbelief? The only thing we can say with some certaintly is that some casts do not show signs that they were fabricated or were found in such an isolated location that it is likely it could be genuine. Any other conclusion is intellectually dishonest and based only on your beliefs.

Edited June 24, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[WSA]

I apologize if I have, but I could have sworn that you, up thread, were for the proposition BF doesn't exist, so  it couldn't leave tracks. Which is why my comment we seem to have progressed to this more recent view? NO?  

[Bodhi]

You seemed not to read and understand what I said. I do not disagree with Krantz at all. But how do you get from the fact that Krantz says some casts are forgeries and authenticity cannot be determined from casts, to the declaration that all casts are forgeries? Unless someone sees a BF making prints, shoots that BF, declares and accepts the existence of BF from that specimen and makes casts of it's footprints, we cannot really declare with absolute certainty that any existing cast is genuine BF. So how do you come to the conclusion that all casts are forgeries unless it is based only on disbelief? The only thing we can say with some certaintly is that some casts do not show signs that they were fabricated or were found in such an isolated location that it is likely it could be genuine. Any other conclusion is intellectually dishonest and based only on your beliefs.

How is this not clear? Krantz's position was that because there was no way to know for certain which casts were fakes that casts could not be used to predict anything about the animal. Krantz wanted to be able to examine casts for patterns, biological traits and the like. Unkown fakes, Krantz believed, would make such use impossible. How is this not clear?

I apologize if I have, but I could have sworn that you, up thread, were for the proposition BF doesn't exist, so  it couldn't leave tracks. Which is why my comment we seem to have progressed to this more recent view? NO?  

Again, you mistate my position. Sasquatch is possible but unlikely due to the many, many points I've noted. PM me if you still don't understand.