Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

[Guest DWA]

And I'm not going to try to account for that; why have you seen all these bear (ditto) and no bigfoot? doesn't have an answer.  Just the way it happens.  I respect and admire the people going for the proof.  My purpose here is getting everyone to think harder about what constitutes evidence and proper scientific procedure; I see the mainstream not thinking about those things nearly enough.  It can be easy to forget that most scientists don't have nearly enough experience in working with anything other than what's known.

[SWWASAS]

Not sure I want to see a wolverine.     They live high at the edge of snow fields.    Climbing up there is a challenge for us mature folks.    Anyway seeing anything requires lots of luck, and lots of time in the field.    As I was huffing and puffing up hill on my mountain bike the other day,   I was thinking that just hanging around camp waiting for BF to get curious sounds really good too.  

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

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.

The point all the best samples test negative for new hominid genetic sequences.

A new unknown sequence from any sample would open up the flood gates.

Then you have what science covets, proof of an actual something unknown to science.

The difference between he and a Ketchum is that he is obviously an rational scientist with a background in genetics who has developed a technique specific to your subject of interest.

[georgerm]

Sykes's podcast was very convincing and informing. It appears that we have a group of amateur field researchers that sent to Sykes scat, fur, blood, and saliva of other forest animals other than BF. He seemed to say, none of his samples could have been bigfoot.   hmmmmmm  really bad luck. Not one hair from a bigfoot blind, barbed wire fence, or bedding material. Why not?

 

 

He said Ketchum's methods were not up to standards. She needs to send him some samples. Probably another reason BF science is stalled ........................  experts won't share the glory.

 

And I'm not going to try to account for that; why have you seen all these bear (ditto) and no bigfoot? doesn't have an answer.  Just the way it happens.  I respect and admire the people going for the proof.  My purpose here is getting everyone to think harder about what constitutes evidence and proper scientific procedure; I see the mainstream not thinking about those things nearly enough.  It can be easy to forget that most scientists don't have nearly enough experience in working with anything other than what's known.

 

Well stated all along.

 

Sometimes we lose track of a step by step method that most scientist agree is the way to determine truth from fact or mistakes. The brakes on your car were developed using this method. Would you want to change the method and leave out steps? ...............................  screech ............. crash.

 

..Observation is usually the first step of the Scientific Method.    example   bigfoot flashes by your view for the first time .........wow  A

 

..Then comes the curiosity and questions.     what was that?  where does it live?  can we shoot one?  what's in its DNA?    A 

 

..Then a guess or hypothesis :                     it has ape DNA,  does it lives in caves, does it talk,  A

 

..Then we have evidence gathering that includes dens, witnesses, recordings, DNA.  here's where experts, time, and money are needed.  C

 

..Then test, examine, and have experts look at the evidence.     sykes, finger print experts, foot experts ...................  so on.  C

 

..Write a peer review paper now.   only 1 paper so far ............... really weak ...............                   

 

..Others do the same over and over     proof finally accepted body or no body

 

 

Total up the scores. See the grades at the end of each step. They all need to be A's before the science community will accept BF as a fact. It's a worthy goal and a fair process. The process is necessary. A body will not end the process. We will have many other questions to ask and prove about BF.

Edited April 18, 2016 by georgerm

[WSA]

I have to say, my thinking on the utility of DNA testing has come around 180 degrees on the compass since I've seen the complete lack of scientific curiosity in response to the efforts of Ketchum and Sykes.  Say what you will about Ketchum's methods and her, ummm, unique point of view....she still stands ready to share her research methods and samples with any who are inclined to take a shot at duplicating her results, am I right? Any takers? Haven't heard of any, no.

 

DWA's point is well taken, it seems: Any unique DNA sequenced, in the absence of a type specimen, will be written-off as a contamination issue, nothing more. If the proponent of that evidence insists, their professional reputation is going to be the next item up for discussion.  The barrier of incredulity is too high and strong for any other outcome.

 

There may have been "a" "moment", back then, but it passed all to quickly. This is not to say I didn't draw some valuable and tentative conclusions about the possible nature of the critter from those studies,  and I know some others did as well.

 

No, the only thing that is likely to make a dint in the wall of official denial-dom  is the possibility that lots and lots of others do similar studies, and come up with similar conclusions that match Ketchum's. (Why anyone would seriously consider doing that, given how that went for her, is a good question) Only then is her work likely to overcome the taint put on it by the events, and I even have my doubts about that. Failing that, only  a corpse or live specimen to swab will serve.  Nobody is going to change minds with a one-off DNA sequence.  That much has been proven. 

[SWWASAS]

I would not be at all surprised if Meldrum had the proverbial BF on a lab table and could not get any of his colleagues to come look at it.   They would all laugh and claim he has really gone over the edge, first his footprints and now he claims to have a body.    The reception would be even less credible if a lay person was in possession of a body.    You might even have trouble getting Meldrum to look.   DNA is a dead end without a body.  

[WSA]

And you are probably right Randy. What does that say about the burden of proof that keeps getting piled higher and higher?  Sure, many of these wounds are self-inflicted, but c'mon. At times I consider the question of the closing of the human mind to be an open one, and then there are other times, like now.

 

One thing I never understood is how anyone who ostensibly should be pulling for the advancement of human knowledge and an increased understanding of the globe's natural history ('kay...that should be ALL of us, right?) doesn't feel the lack of scientific progress signals a personal failing on the part of ALL of us.  Instead, there is perverse glee when evidence falls short. Triumphalism is never an attractive quality in a person, and it is especially inappropriate to this topic. But, I suppose, some come to the races to see how fast the cars can go, and to see who wins,  and some come to just see the wrecks.  These are different kinds of people.   

[Guest Crowlogic]

^^First of all if you are Jeff Meldrum and you have a body you don't invite the others to the lab to see bigfoot.  You extend a request for them to come to the lab to see something unusual.  That way you haven't poisoned the deal with bigfoot.  If you have a body it's game over done deal.  Even good DNA that didn't come from a yahoo with a yahoo story like that guy Justin could advance the cause.  However breath does not need to be held until that happens.

[Guest DWA]

I have to say, my thinking on the utility of DNA testing has come around 180 degrees on the compass since I've seen the complete lack of scientific curiosity in response to the efforts of Ketchum and Sykes.  Say what you will about Ketchum's methods and her, ummm, unique point of view....she still stands ready to share her research methods and samples with any who are inclined to take a shot at duplicating her results, am I right? Any takers? Haven't heard of any, no.

 

DWA's point is well taken, it seems: Any unique DNA sequenced, in the absence of a type specimen, will be written-off as a contamination issue, nothing more. If the proponent of that evidence insists, their professional reputation is going to be the next item up for discussion.  The barrier of incredulity is too high and strong for any other outcome. ...

 

 ...Nobody is going to change minds with a one-off DNA sequence.  That much has been proven. 

You show me a guy that will take one anomalous DNA sequence; go, OK, there's smoke where's the fire? and off into the woods and Eureka!  ...and I'll show you Galileo.  

 

I'd love someone (better in terms of moving the needle, a lot of someones) to do that, say "primate, unknown" shouldn't be happening here, unless...and start banging the drum for long-overdue attention.  But my basic point here is, and has always been:  we already have enormously more and more compelling than that...and look where we are.  If I can get people to understand ONE THING here, it is that fact.  The only single thing that could possibly be found that is more compelling than what we already have is the type specimen revealed to the public at large (and that is a BODY, an animal, not a DNA sample).  I hold, with Bindernagel, that the animal is essentially confirmed; we just have to do some detailing work to convince the ignorant.

 

A DNA sample has been beyond proven to not be the thing.  Eyebrow; contaminated sample or huckster, lemme guess; don't have what that sample came from, do ya?  ...and back to tree shrews.

Edited April 19, 2016 by DWA

[WSA]

Got to chuckle at that one Crow..as if an invitation to see "something" coming from the most public of BF researchers would likely be anything except a significant BF discovery, or that even  a body would be ruled inconsequential because somebody was told that this is what it was before they viewed it. That these are even suggested as being necessary steps is quite the sad commentary on the state of the science. Well, lots of blame to go around for it I suppose.

[SWWASAS]

My greatest fear that in a way Crow's existence claims become a self-fulfilling prophecy and a skeleton is found after the last BF dies and goes extinct.      Science would come forward too late to really know anything much about the creatures.   They do not leave much in the way of tools or cultural artifacts which is how we learned about man's distant ancestors.   I would even expect that academia would say why didn't you tell us they were out there just like they did when the coelacanth was discovered on a fisherman's dock.   

 

I don't care who has the body.    Some State or Federal agency is going to think they should be in possession of it.    So Meldrum having a show and tell might well be interrupted and not last very long.   .   

[FarArcher]

My greatest fear that in a way Crow's existence claims become a self-fulfilling prophecy and a skeleton is found after the last BF dies and goes extinct.      Science would come forward too late to really know anything much about the creatures.   They do not leave much in the way of tools or cultural artifacts which is how we learned about man's distant ancestors.   I would even expect that academia would say why didn't you tell us they were out there just like they did when the coelacanth was discovered on a fisherman's dock.   

 

I don't care who has the body.    Some State or Federal agency is going to think they should be in possession of it.    So Meldrum having a show and tell might well be interrupted and not last very long.   .   

 

And that's why, if I ever got my hands on one, the world would not know a thing about it for another year or even two - the time it takes to prevent such an occurrence.

 

They're not going extinct anytime soon.  Too many of them, too tuned into their environment, and too widespread.

[JDL]

I still don't understand why some people think bigfoot are going extinct.

[BigTreeWalker]

Well I can take a head count of suspected individuals in the three county area where we do most of our research. We concluded there were four individuals from the bone evidence east of Mt St Helens. From tracks, audio, and possible video in two areas west of Mt St Helens there are possibly 4 more individuals. Then if I add SWWSP experiences in Clark County, we may have 3 or four more individuals. So add that up we get a dozen individuals in that three county area. Some of this evidence was collected simultaneously so even if a few moved around the majority were in separate locations. How many other places in these areas we haven't been into might they also be? Since they've outlawed hound hunting in both Washington and Oregon the bear and cougar populations have increased. These animals can be used as indicator species which live in the same habitats as bigfoot. Old growth forest and second growth doesn't seem to make any difference to them either. Near extinction is simply another excuse as to why we can't prove their existence.

Edited April 20, 2016 by BigTreeWalker

[Guest DWA]

Keeping in mind that no one for all intents and purposes is hunting them, and we know that for sure because of the copious reportage available from hunters who've seen one, and you have a population of an animal that is not only stealthy and adaptable and smart, with very catholic tastes, but under no particular pressure.