Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

[BigTreeWalker]

I read the reports out of personal interest. Don't put much weight on them one way or the other. But saying all reports are bad is the same as saying all reports are good. There's information to be had no matter which they are. Some about human nature. Some about bigfoot. But it's the reason I don't base the existence of sasquatch on reports.

[Incorrigible1]

On that we agree, Big Tree.

[Guest DWA]

I read the reports out of personal interest. Don't put much weight on them one way or the other. But saying all reports are bad is the same as saying all reports are good. There's information to be had no matter which they are. Some about human nature. Some about bigfoot. But it's the reason I don't base the existence of sasquatch on reports.

I base my opinion almost exclusively on reports (especially the reports describing *forensic evidence* that has gotten an intrigued to enthusiastic response out of directly credentialed scientific experts whose opinions are safely unchallenged).

 

People don't seem to understand that reports can be parsed every bit as rigorously as any other form of evidence.  One CAN form reasonable conclusions based only on reports, particularly reports by scientific experts reacting to *forensic evidence.*  Science proceeds like this all the time; in fact there is no other way science *can* proceed.  Proof of the kind the skeptics ask for is only supplied to quiet the ignorant; the proof was only gotten because of the researchers' conviction based on careful parsing of the inconclusive but copious and consistent evidence. 

 

"Oh that could all be fake" is a response ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY FORBIDDEN by anyone acquainted with scientific method!  It is the duty, that would be the DUTY, of the scientist to examine anecdotes and determine their weight en masse.  Those of us have done this for the sasquatch reportage have come to the conclusion, absolutely unchallenged by anyone knowing what he is talking about, that any scenario by which this is all false positive is so absolutely loony that it - not the animal's existence - is the extraordinary BS, sorry, 'claim' requiring the extraordinary evidence.

 

Sorry, I can only tell you how science works, people.  BTWalker:  the reason the forensic evidence you have found gets any weight at all ...*is the reports.*  They, for all intents and purposes, provide the subject to which you are matching what you've found.  That is an absolutely legitimate, and indeed required, scientific technique.

Edited April 18, 2016 by DWA

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

The Geneticist Bryan Sykes has looked at many of the most promising hair samples and not one was hominid.

Most were bear.

[Guest DWA]

The DNA approach that many take to this is actually invalidated by a simple oft-stated and pretty obvious fact:

 

NO TYPE SPECIMEN EXISTS.

 

Therefore one can't use a DNA sample as 'evidence' for an unknown hominid.  Could simply be a polluted sample.  (And in this field?  Oh, never happen, right?)

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

The DNA approach that many take to this is actually invalidated by a simple oft-stated and pretty obvious fact:

 

NO TYPE SPECIMEN EXISTS.

 

Therefore one can't use a DNA sample as 'evidence' for an unknown hominid.  Could simply be a polluted sample.  (And in this field?  Oh, never happen, right?)

Only DNA is required, not a type specimen, as is often argued.

All you need is one Bigfoot hair as per Geneticist Bryan Sykes.

Very informative video here (below).

[Guest DWA]

Nope.  DNA is not cutting it, as a number of scientists have already said.

 

Hair won't do it.  What did the hair come from?  Show me that.  (Brian should honestly know better; I hope he doesn't really think hair solves this.)

 

Again.  The scientific mainstream will not so much as consider for further investigation a huge and consistent body of encounter reports that square perfectly with a huge and consistent body of *forensic evidence.*  They've said it:  hair isn't gonna cut it.  (The footprints are better evidence; to presume 'they could all be fake' is not to approach coming close to doing one's homework.)

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Nope.  DNA is not cutting it, as a number of scientists have already said.

 

Hair won't do it.  What did the hair come from?  Show me that.  (Brian should honestly know better; I hope he doesn't really think hair solves this.)

 

Again.  The scientific mainstream will not so much as consider for further investigation a huge and consistent body of encounter reports that square perfectly with a huge and consistent body of *forensic evidence.*  They've said it:  hair isn't gonna cut it.  (The footprints are better evidence; to presume 'they could all be fake' is not to approach coming close to doing one's homework.)

Listen to the podcast, then give an opinion refuting the argument.

Or not.

[Guest DWA]

forty-seven years watching no progress (and lots of DNA from hair) is enough.

 

If the scientific mainstream would go hallelujah! after one hair test, cool!  the other evidence says the animal is real, so it would be about time.

 

Does it look like that will happen?

 

Refutation enough for me.

 

Sykes can't seriously tell me that one hair test with no provenance will prove it, given the mainstream's inability so far to connect simple dots on a much more convincing body of evidence.

[BigTreeWalker]

DWA, sorry if I bothered you about my comments about sightings. But the evidence needs to be taken as a whole. The physical evidence supports the anecdotal evidence. The anecdotal evidence provides a reason for the physical. I'm currently reading Dr Bindernagel's book, The Discovery of Sasquatch, in which he does that very thing and ties it all together.

The reports are what caught my interest so I would get out of my chair and go out in the field to see if I could find any of that physical evidence. No where in my statement did I say anything derogatory about the eyewitness evidence. In this day and age anyone can make a legitimate sounding report. But, to say none were true is to call all liars or some other terms if you try to candy coat it. I will not do that. As I said you have to take the good with the bad. I don't think you can tell the difference unless you have a crystal ball.

If you are so adamant about the sighting reports, why aren't you working on the SSR. There's a lot of good easily accessible, searchable information there?

[SWWASAS]

As I said before use something your fairly sure is bigfoot. There seems to be enough assurance out there of samples for DNA testing. Think out of the box. Use them as locators not chasers.

It's interesting. First BF is killing dogs. Then it's running from dogs. I'm simply suggesting using them just as you would use any other tool at our disposal.

You know that eyewitness problem also plays against bigfoot reports. Some witnesses are simply better or worse than others.

Big Tex seems to be having good interaction of his dogs/wolf and the BF.      The dogs apparently keep their distance and have not gotten hurt.    I think it is all about training or the individual dogs behavior.    Dogs have to be able to follow and find them with their incredible sense of smell.     Rather than spend hundreds of thousands on drones, why not do special training for dogs and track them down on the ground?      You could probably train a dog to simply freeze and point like a bird dog does when they are close and pick up presence of a BF.  Just that would be invaluable because I think we are often close to a BF and have no idea they are nearby.  .  .  

[BigTreeWalker]

Plussed that SWWSP. That was the exact point I was trying to make.

[Guest DWA]

DWA, sorry if I bothered you about my comments about sightings. But the evidence needs to be taken as a whole. The physical evidence supports the anecdotal evidence. The anecdotal evidence provides a reason for the physical. I'm currently reading Dr Bindernagel's book, The Discovery of Sasquatch, in which he does that very thing and ties it all together.

The reports are what caught my interest so I would get out of my chair and go out in the field to see if I could find any of that physical evidence. No where in my statement did I say anything derogatory about the eyewitness evidence. In this day and age anyone can make a legitimate sounding report. But, to say none were true is to call all liars or some other terms if you try to candy coat it. I will not do that. As I said you have to take the good with the bad. I don't think you can tell the difference unless you have a crystal ball.

If you are so adamant about the sighting reports, why aren't you working on the SSR. There's a lot of good easily accessible, searchable information there?

Hey, I try not to be adamant about anything other than doing one's homework if one is gonna state conclusions.  My beef is with the people who say the reports can't be used for any purpose whatever, which makes it plain that they haven't started on their homework yet.

 

No crystal ball needed, right?  Look what it did to you; it got you out into the field, right?  That's what compelling evidence does to the scientifically inclined.  And look what you found.   And you were able to tie that to a specific thing because of...the reports.

 

No one has cited to me a scenario that remotely makes sense, given the volume and consistency of the evidence and its clear impact on everyone showing proper attention to it, for a comprehensive false positive.  As WSA likes to put it:  we ain't that good.  We ain't.  If this is history's sole exception to that rule:  I'm from Missouri.

[Guest DWA]

No more work is needed from me, far's I'm concerned.  My curiosity is satisfied, and I scan road and wood with care.  It's out there, all I need to know.  Seeing one is like seeing a wild cougar or wolverine for me:  if it happens, it does.

[BigTreeWalker]

I am convinced as well, however, the world is not. So I will continue as best as I can. Yes, seeing one is on my bucket list as well as cougar and wolverine. Wish it was as simple as the experiences I've had finding bears.