If Bigfoot Were Real.

[Incorrigible1]

A short column in Scientific American, by Darren Naish. He's unconvinced, and finds the evidence lacking.

 

"I do not think that the data we have at the moment – this includes tracks, hairs, vocalisations, photos, and the innumerable eyewitness accounts – provides support for the contention that Bigfoot is real, and have come to the conclusion that it is a sociocultural phenomenon: that people are seeing all manner of different things, combining it with ideas, memes and preconceptions they hold in their minds, and interpreting them as encounters with a monstrous, human-like biped."

 

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-bigfoot-were-real/

 

I don't wish to offend with an article from a doubtful author, but do feel this will stimulate some worthy discussion!

[norseman]

I get a we are sorry error.

[Guest Crowlogic]

If bigfoot were real this paragraph would never have needed to be written.

 

"I do not think that the data we have at the moment – this includes tracks, hairs, vocalisations, photos, and the innumerable eyewitness accounts – provides support for the contention that Bigfoot is real, and have come to the conclusion that it is a sociocultural phenomenon: that people are seeing all manner of different things, combining it with ideas, memes and preconceptions they hold in their minds, and interpreting them as encounters with a monstrous, human-like biped."

[Incorrigible1]

I get a we are sorry error.

As do I, now. Will monitor and replace, if need be. Suspect issue at the url.

[norseman]

There other story links work, just not that one.

[Rockape]

I agree with what he says except I'm not ready to rule out any possibility they do exist or have recently existed.

[Bodhi]

I just bought the book, thanks Incorrigible!!

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

I would 99% agree, the PG film is the only thing I find relatively convincing.

I am coming to the conclusion that if it is not real it could be achieved through using the pelt of an actual gorilla tailored to a padded underbody, not there yet though.

[Incorrigible1]

Link is live again.

 

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-bigfoot-were-real/

[norseman]

Thanks for the link.

The article I guess for me struck me as a article aimed at a casual onlooker of the subject. Each of his points as to why he does not believe the creature to be real have been debated to a much greater depth right here on the BFF.

I suppose the book is much more in depth hopefully.

Anyhow he is right in the fact that we have no proof this creature exists....its the million dollar question to be sure. But I know for a fact researchers find their own tracks. Bindernagel, Steenberg, etc.

[hiflier]

And then there are people here that say they have actually seen them. People like "bipedalist" and "BobbyO". And several others as well. "FarArcher" is another that comes to mind as well. Each of their accounts are very compelling.

[Guest WesT]

The author is a bit on the uninformed side and makes a false statement, or two, and probably doesn't even realize it. Aside the confirmation bias, it's a decent read.

[Guest Crowlogic]

The author is a bit on the uninformed side and makes a false statement, or two, and probably doesn't even realize it. Aside the confirmation bias, it's a decent read.

And exactly what is uninformed about the author's position?  There is nothing unreasonable about the author's position.  In short the author comes to the simple and  conclusion that the evidence is suitable lacking and suitable poor to dismiss bigfoot as real.  Below are the cornerstones of his position.  By all means counter argue the authors claims with evidence saying otherwise.

 

Bigfoot tracks would be more ‘biological’,  Bigfoot tracks would be easy to find by people who know what they’re doing.,    There would be Bigfoot DNA all over the place.,  Biologically consistent, homogeneous vocalizations  would be documented across North America.,  

[ShadowBorn]

So now we are going of a blog that is speculative at that, and stating that fact that bigfoot does not exist. WoW  ! We have some one stating an opinion on a blog and saying that witnesses are basically are nothing but liars. Yet, he has never done no field work to confirm what he is saying on his blog. Yes , that really helps with trying prove that this creature is not real.

 

If he is a real monster hunter then one would figure that he would be in the field where the truth is. He would be going into those dark places where no one likes to walk and prove they do not exist. I call this a bogus blog, another person opinion and that is it. Which it is total speculative with no barring and nothing that proves they do not exists.

 

I can say the same thing about my dog and how he never existed in the woods until he walked in those same woods. It is then when you find his tracks that one can say that he was there that he exist. But then what do I know, Right.

 

Edited June 29, 2016 by ShadowBorn

[Guest Crowlogic]

So now we are going of a blog that is speculative at that, and stating that fact that bigfoot does not exist. WoW  ! We have some one stating an opinion on a blog and saying that witnesses are basically are nothing but liars. Yet, he has never done no field work to confirm what he is saying on his blog. Yes , that really helps with trying prove that this creature is not real.

 

If he is a real monster hunter then one would figure that he would be in the field where the truth is. He would be going into those dark places where no one likes to walk and prove they do not exist. I call this a bogus blog, another person opinion and that is it. Which it is total speculative with no barring and nothing that proves they do not exists.

 

I can say the same thing about my dog and how he never existed in the woods until he walked in those same woods. It is then when you find his tracks that one can say that he was there that he exist. But then what do I know, Right.

 

nest.jpg

The blog from is from Scientific American, that's not exactly a rag publication.  Witnesses aren't all liars but they are far more likely to have been mistaken, stressed, mentally primed to have an out of ordinary occurrence morph into bigfoot, and yes Virginia  some witnesses are pulling your leg.  There is nothing speculative in that article.  It is pretty easy to do a search of say supposed bigfoot sounds and have them be totally different from each other.  Just look at the cast evidence.  Heck there's everything except the kitchen sink, 5 toes, 4 toes, 3 toes, 25 inches, 13 inches, MTB no MTB.  Then there's the reported size (not an issue in the article)  but worth mentioning.  We got em 6', 7'. 8', 9' 12' GASP 15' tall.  I don't know about you but I fully understand that with virtually all known wild animals that for instance if say you saw a bald eagle a fairly cohesive and standard image of one can be counted on to represent the sighting or species in general.  You know there is a common element in bigfootism that whenever a solid case is made against bigfoot the wagons get circled and the author of whatever doesn't know what they are talking about.  But you know every time I hear a bigfooter say bigfoot is this or that, does this or that, or did this or that all I have to do is remind myself of the rational realities of the evidence to know that it's the bigfooters who either don't know what they're talking about or simply refuse to grasp the realities that fly in the face of their muse.