Skeptics

[indiefoot]

Just another example of raising the bar. Evidence is submitted to a lab, the findinge come back. The findings are discussed. Now you don't want to discuss findings unless somebody publishes a paper on them.

[Drew]

Just another example of raising the bar. Evidence is submitted to a lab, the findinge come back. The findings are discussed. Now you don't want to discuss findings unless somebody publishes a paper on them.

I would be happy to look at the result of the test. You usually get a hard copy of the test procedures and results.

Got some?

[indiefoot]

I don't think it matters if he's "qualified" or not so much as whether or not he brings up good questions.

I wasn't talking about the discussion here, I was talking about challenging her findings as per peer review.

Anyone can give their opinion here.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

No evidence will be accepted beyond any doubt or ridicule except a BF body. Scientists publishing papers on the subject means little or nothing unless the paper is about the BF body they dragged out of the woods and now are in the process of dissecting....No matter what evidence anyone may present, again, the only evidence that will be accepted will be a BF body. And then even with a BF body on file, there will still be those that will not accept the fact that there is indeed a North American ape. Sometimes I do feel for those type of hard core skeptics, their World will eventually be turned on its head. But it is my beleif that some noses are gonna have to be rubbed in a BF body....Chris B.

[Guest]

Ah, thank you for clarifying.

[Guest]

No evidence will be accepted beyond any doubt or ridicule except a BF body.

While a whole body would be best, even with a body we would need to do DNA analysis to determine exactly what the body was. Thus, any biological material from which DNA could be extracted for analysis (e.g., hairs, blood, scat, bone) has the potential to provide the data from which the paper "A new species of extant hominin from North America" could be published.

Bigfoot science becomes mainstream science when bigfoot scientists study it the way mainstream scientists do their work: The latter construct hypotheses, collect data, analyze data, and publish the results. The only logical conclusion to the dearth of published literature to advance the case for bigfoot is that the data do not support that case.

[Guest]

Which brings us back to the point of the thread. I am trying to encourage more critical thinking and getting to a point where the sasquatch subject is handled more in the vein of mainstream science.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

While a whole body would be best, even with a body we would need to do DNA analysis to determine exactly what the body was. Thus, any biological material from which DNA could be extracted for analysis (e.g., hairs, blood, scat, bone) has the potential to provide the data from which the paper "A new species of extant hominin from North America" could be published.

Bigfoot science becomes mainstream science when bigfoot scientists study it the way mainstream scientists do their work: The latter construct hypotheses, collect data, analyze data, and publish the results. The only logical conclusion to the dearth of published literature to advance the case for bigfoot is that the data do not support that case.

The data collected does not support the case likely because I don't know of any University or scientist with enough zeal to actively spend large amounts of field time trying to collect data or find evidence.......Oh you have a few like Dr. Meldrum who may actually spend some time in the field, but it's mostly to look at someone else's find or while in the process of shooting a documentary of some sort, actual field time is very limited. It normally takes months in the field of a known area of activity and many dozens of miles of wilderness trekking to turn up anything at all and that's if you're lucky. I don't see anyone finding evidence without looking for it. If the scholars are waiting for someone else to locate the evidence and let them come in to have a look, that plan may be flawed just a bit. Chris B.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Ah, thank you for clarifying.

Somebody had to say it. Chris B.

[Guest]

Oh you have a few like Dr. Meldrum who may actually spend some time in the field,

Meldrum, doing field time.........

[Guest BCCryptid]

I'm going to start out by saying what I've witnessed on this new site so far is a very polarized group of individuals. The old forum seemed to flow and work together a little easier. Right now we're about as efficent as congress. Two sides working against each other. I'm not saying the moderators are doing their jobs. I'm just saying its an attitude many members carry. As Lincoln said, "United we stand, divided we fall."

Having said that I'm just going to dive right in. We should all, every one of us, be skeptics. Those who do field research are doing a great job. Keep going out there and getting it done. It will be one of you who gets the real evidence. However you shouldn't come in from the field and make every blur or shadow into a sasquatch. If you have a furry blur on your trail cam thats all it is. Even if it's a real sasquatch you can't call it that because you don't have the evidence. Now, if your experiencing rock throwing, calls, or wood knocking thats great. But don't rule out other humans. Certainly don't let that color your perception of an area and turn everything into evidence. We need to be more analytical and harder on evidence than the other guy so that when he tries to debunk we can come and say, "No, we thought of that."

What so many of us fail to realize is we are asking people to accept something that is pretty incredible. If you've seen one then you think it absurd to think that people wouldn't believe you. It is an incredible claim though and we need to remember that. There were no new large mammals discovered from 1936 until 1992. None. Then when one was found it was in the jungles of Vietnam. It wasn't out in the woods behind the shed. Its a big pill to swallow. So try to understand their point of view the way you want them to understand your own. It does seem incredible that we wouldn't know about such an animal by now. Even to me. I've never seen one but I'm on the pro side of the argument here, ladies and gents.

So skeptics shouldn't be thrown around as an insult. We should all be skeptics. We shouldn't be skeptics versus believers. Maybe those who are open to the idea, those who are unsure, and those who are not open to the idea. No versus. Working against each other will get us no where. If anything we should have those who are not open to the idea help us look at the evidence. To bring in fresh eyes. There are those who want so badly for sasquatch to be real that they see evidence of such everywhere and they get very passionate in the arguments. Everyone can. We all need to take a step back, take a breath, and try to look at any "evidence" gathered very objectively.

Remember, if it ain't obvious, it ain't evidence.

I was waiting for your instructions to the skeptics and I do not see them.

May I add:

Come here as a skeptic, not a debunking troll.

Keep your tone civil, do not refer to those who accept the existence as 'footers', do not infer they are deranged. Keep your mind open to the possibility they are real, if you wish those of us here to keep our mind open to the possibility they are not.

If you come here to troll and pick a fight and show off to your fellow skeptic buddies, please do us a favour go crawl under a rock somewhere. You are not wanted and you should have been banned, so quit playing on borrowed time and do us the favour.

[Guest]

I was waiting for your instructions to the skeptics and I do not see them.

May I add:

Come here as a skeptic, not a debunking troll.

Keep your tone civil, do not refer to those who accept the existence as 'footers', do not infer they are deranged. Keep your mind open to the possibility they are real, if you wish those of us here to keep our mind open to the possibility they are not.

If you come here to troll and pick a fight and show off to your fellow skeptic buddies, please do us a favour go crawl under a rock somewhere. You are not wanted and you should have been banned, so quit playing on borrowed time and do us the favour.

And may I add:

You can also insert bigfoot believer in place of skeptic. We don't want bigfoot believers trolling on this forum either.

[Guest]

The data collected does not support the case likely because I don't know of any University or scientist with enough zeal to actively spend large amounts of field time trying to collect data or find evidence.

Depending on the type of research you do, you might collect your own data, analyze data collected by others, or some combination of the two. (I'm a "combination" guy myself: I'd say about 1/3 of the papers I publish these days use data from existing datasets like the North American Breeding Bird Survey.) There's nothing wrong with analyzing data collected by someone (or something - like a satellite) else.

Given the extreme unlikelihood of any one individual personally collecting potential bigfoot material, the far more efficient and likely scenario would be for an independent researcher to collect the material (e.g., suspected hairs) and contact a lab (university or otherwise) to collaborate on the analysis. So no, individual university scientists scouring the woods for years on end in order to collect a couple of weird looking hairs is not the way to go.

Note, however, that countless people are in the field all the time using methods of data collection that would allow them to also collect bigfoot evidence. For example, geologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, etc. are out there digging through layers of sediments that could potentially turn up a bigfoot tooth. I have mammalogist colleagues who do work with hair catchers to analyze the population structure of mustelids, bears, and other species using DNA from the hairs they collect. Such folks are in a perfect position to notice and follow-up on any strange hairs they collect. Even us bird people might spend months in the field searching every nook and cranny in the deepest, darkest forests to find bird nests. Based on the amount of this work I've done in what should be prime squatchy habitats, I've been in excellent position to find a piece, get a photo, or at least see something.

[southernyahoo]

Saskeptic,

Are there any documented black bears west of say Oklahoma City metro area in the prairie land from your colleagues? This might be comparative data for sas distribution.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Saskeptic, Good point. It's likely any finds will be from other data collection projects unrelated to BF. Universities are about as likely to allocate funds for a Bigfoot Research project as they would for a Loch Ness outing. I really don't blame them for this mentality. I'm glad there are people in the field that actually have an eye on the ground for BF stuff as well. Open minds and all that... Chris B.