This Is Why We Can't Find A Body Here In Wa. State...

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 26 September 2010 - 12:51 PM, said:

But skeptics feel that such debate tactics bring an aura of ridiculous to the subject, thus making it easier to pooh-pooh.

I guess that's part of the game they are here to play. Concentrate on the ridiculous and ignore the persuasive. Then again even the persuasive is almost relegated down to the ridiculous in the eyes of some of them.

Indeed. And think of their possible reasons for this behavior:

1) In order to "prove" that sasquatches don't exist (even on their own religious-like website, JREF, they often admit that one cannot prove a negative, so this reason can't really be valid)

2) In order to "educate" those who are less intelligent than they are (as if they really "know" anything........they're into belief just like those who believe bigfoot exists)

4) Or they're trying desperately to convince themselves that sasquatches don't exist (this, I think, is the motivation of many of them. Now why do they wish to do so? For fear that sasquatches actually exist.)

I'll definitely have some casting material. I'm not sure about the camera thing. I'll have an Olympus digital camera (it's even waterproof, a big plus in SE Alaska), but I won't bother with expensive camera equipment. Of course, I'll also have my rifle. I don't know if I'd shoot such a creature if I saw it. Hopefully I'll find out.............

I have an Olympus too..

This is the model I use. I love it, except it has a specialty battery that requires a charger.......not the best option for a guy planning to live out of a cab-over camper off the grid for several months......

As for the rifle, hmmmmmmmm I lean towards bagging one just to end this ballyhoo but then I'm not going to be the one to have to pull the trigger. I think it would be hard enough to shoot a gorilla nevermind something even more manlike.

I'm with you. If attacked, I'll quite cheerfully shoot a bigfoot full of holes. But I have no responsibility to prove anything to anybody, there's no way I'm interested in going through what Paul DuChaillu or Bob Gimlin have endured, I don't know if I'm interested in assassinating a peaceful, bipedal ape just to satisfy the ignorant, and if those who wish to ignore the existing evidence are so adament about it (they don't even want the official wildlife management agencies conduct an initial review of the phenomenon), let them remain in accordance with their own desires.

[Guest]

I'd just like to second the Olympus Stylus (SW models) or as they are now known the Stylus Tough series. I have the 1030SW and it's much better for outdoor stuff than some other "pocket" cameras. My main issue was freeze up of my other cameras and the Olympus has never failed due to low temps. So, if bigfoot is somewhere in WA state and it's cold outside, I'd trust an Olympus Stylus Tough (or older SW model).

[Huntster]

My main issue was freeze up of my other cameras and the Olympus has never failed due to low temps. So, if bigfoot is somewhere in WA state and it's cold outside, I'd trust an Olympus Stylus Tough (or older SW model).

A note on cold weather and electronic gear:

Go with the lithium–iron disulfide batteries. They will perform several times longer in cold temps than the common zinc carbon and alkaline dry cell batteries in electronic gear. They're quite a bit more expensive, but the longer life makes up for the cost.

[Guest BCCryptid]

Because that's where trees grow best. "Bigfoot" is, in the eyes of most people, a creature of the deepest, darkest, primeval forests. If it's a real animal, that is the habitat we expect for them. If it is a cultural phenomenon, then most people will attach their stories to such places, if for no other reason than to enhance credibility. The big problem with trying to make the case for a real animal from the pattern of anecdotal accounts is that the pattern is indistinguishable from the pattern you could get from stories about a non-real animal.

Leprechauns. I'm sure if you plotted the distribution of leprechaun sightings in Ireland (you might need to go back a few generations to find a lot of people reporting them as real beings) you'd find some spatial pattern to the reports. Belief in such beings would probably be most prevalent in the wilder, less populated regions of the island, thus creating similar disproportionality with human population like we see with bigfoot reports from the PNW. If you then looked at the environmental features of those areas, it would be easy to find correlations between high densities of leprechaun sightings and things like elevation, slope, aspect, forest cover, waterfall density, etc.

The result would be an analysis that seems suggestive of real biological entities: the density of reports would have nothing to do the number of people traipsing though those areas. For example, we might expect a lot of reports from the Wicklow Mountains because they're wild and lots of folks from Dublin go there on day trips, but the vastly larger number of eyes to potentially see such creatures does not translate into a lot of reports. Conversely, you might head to the MacGillycuddy's Reeks in the Southwest and find a much higher number of reports even though the area gets relatively few visitors. Boom - there's your pattern. The "real" leprechauns are clearly in the Southwest; those reported outside of that region are either spurious or represent migrants. The number of reports from a geographic region will be related to the proportion of people who ascribe to the mythology in that region. Once you've got that pattern established, it's easy to find an ecological correlate.

Oh, and if there's a little range in the Reeks where people didn't report leprechauns, that could be as simple as the people who settled there not believing in the first place. I call it a cultural founder effect, to borrow a term from population genetics.

Of course, nothing in this explanation can establish that there aren't leprechauns in Ireland. It only illustrates that anecdotal accounts stemming from cultural participation in a mythology can develop a spatial pattern that cannot be distinguished from the pattern of accounts that could develop from encounters with real beings.

Your argument is indistinguishable from a real animal. People see real animals most commonly in the animal's habitat, and report as such.

Edited September 27, 2010 by BCCryptid

[Guest BCCryptid]

Reports of Bigfoot in Urban areas are probably thrown out anyway, so the reports of course are skewed towards areas where the investigators believe the habitat could support bigfoot.

Numerous reports from edges of urban areas. I just read one the other day on here by a member, from a stretch of the 401, with only small wooded areas nearby. Surrounded by greater Ontario suburbia and farmland.

In Australia, there was a set of reports by an entire neighborhood at the end of a dead end street.

When I get a report from an urban area, I fire up Google Earth, and look at any way the animal could have got there. Usually I find it - it's usually power lines or old railway tracks. I've tracked the direction it likely snuck into the urban area back to the most likely location of habitation nearby, and then found tracks.

[Guest BCCryptid]

Saskeptic, why do Sasquatch sightings correspond with high rainfall? Perhaps its an ecological niche, rather than a master plan made by people, not everyone who camps has sasquatch on their mind, most don't

I wasn't aware that they did, but as an ex soldier who was good at patrolling, the best time to sneak around without being heard or seen is during high rainfall. Covers the sound of your movements and I guess for animals, hides your scent.

[Huntster]

Leprechauns. I'm sure if you plotted the distribution of leprechaun sightings in Ireland (you might need to go back a few generations to find a lot of people reporting them as real beings) you'd find some spatial pattern to the reports. Belief in such beings would probably be most prevalent in the wilder, less populated regions of the island, thus creating similar disproportionality with human population like we see with bigfoot reports from the PNW. If you then looked at the environmental features of those areas, it would be easy to find correlations between high densities of leprechaun sightings and things like elevation, slope, aspect, forest cover, waterfall density, etc.

The result would be an analysis that seems suggestive of real biological entities: the density of reports would have nothing to do the number of people traipsing though those areas. For example, we might expect a lot of reports from the Wicklow Mountains because they're wild and lots of folks from Dublin go there on day trips, but the vastly larger number of eyes to potentially see such creatures does not translate into a lot of reports. Conversely, you might head to the MacGillycuddy's Reeks in the Southwest and find a much higher number of reports even though the area gets relatively few visitors. Boom - there's your pattern. The "real" leprechauns are clearly in the Southwest; those reported outside of that region are either spurious or represent migrants. The number of reports from a geographic region will be related to the proportion of people who ascribe to the mythology in that region. Once you've got that pattern established, it's easy to find an ecological correlate.

Can you give us the number and locations for leprechaun sightings, please? I'd like to review them.

All the sources I've reviewed call them a fairy tale originating in the Middle Ages and possibly linked to the Tuatha Dé Danann, "a race of people in Irish mythology. In the invasions tradition which begins with the Lebor Gabála Érenn, they are the fifth group to settle Ireland, conquering the island from the Fir Bolg."

In other words, they are the mythical decendents of a historical people as told by aboriginal people.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Huntster

[Guest alex]

There is nothing mysterious about Leprechauns, they are probably just Small human's, what's so hard to believe about that?

[Guest]

Your argument is indistinguishable from a real animal. People see real animals most commonly in the animal's habitat, and report as such.

Exactly!

[Guest]

Can you give us the number and locations for leprechaun sightings, please? I'd like to review them.

No, I have no such information, but I agree that this would be a fun exercise.

I figured you'd counter with something to the effect that no one really believes in leprechauns. We'd need an experienced cultural anthropologist if we wanted to explore the idea further, either with the Irish or any culture. At least you should understand now why I'm not moved by Glickman's analysis.

[Guest]

There is nothing mysterious about Leprechauns, they are probably just Small human's, what's so hard to believe about that?

I'm not stopping you from believing in leprechauns - knock yourself out. Do you see at least that the spatial distribution in a cultural tradition could result in environmental correlates of the subject of that tradition?

[Guest alex]

I'm not stopping you from believing in leprechauns - knock yourself out. Do you see at least that the spatial distribution in a cultural tradition could result in environmental correlates of the subject of that tradition?

Leprechaun's are real, they are midget's, nothing mysterious about it.

[Guest]

Sure - not many people go off the beaten track - but there are quite a few who do. You do. I used to. My brother still does. I have lots of friends whose bread is put on the table by going off the beaten track.

And how many of you are there vs how many millions of square miles of wilderness? Furthermore, your sample group has severe selection bias, consisting as it seems to of friends and colleages who of course will be much more like you than a random sampling of the general populace.

[Guest]

These data you've just provided support my contention that there is spatial variability in familiarity with and acceptance of bigfoot mythology. There are differences at both broad scales (e.g., Iowa vs Washington) and finer scales (e.g., counties within Washington). That spatial pattern in the degree to which people engage in the mythology would result in a spatial pattern of reports indistinguishable from encounters with a real animal. This is the primary flaw in Glickman's analysis.

Completely ignoring the point. More BF "myths" are reported in places where BF is more likely to be, just as sightings are. You would not expect a wide-scale acceptance of a Polar Bear myth among the Aztecs, nor conversely towards a Jaguar God myth among the Innuit.

The bigger flaw, however, concerns the data used in the analysis in the first place. What is the assurance that the database represents an unbiased and thorough sample of reports? For example, how do we know there are no reports from Kodiak? It could be an interesting fine-scale, cultural transmission that results in no bigfoot from Kodiak, but it also simply be that no one from Kodiak (for any number of reasons) has reported their bigfoot sightings. You say there are no reports from Hawaii, but what about the Aikanaka, Nawao, and Menehune? You might argue that those are not "bigfoot", but they are three different types of wild people reported by Hawaiians, and I bet absolutely believed to be real by at least a small percentage of the population.

They can be explained as other types of relic hominid/ape. The so-called "Hobbit" was found in the islands of the Pacific.

[Guest]

Well, one can apparently find topographical maps of any area in the USA, so that would tend to lend credence to the statement.

Your example does nothing to show that the area wasn't been fully charted/explored at some point in history. Do your maps have huge blank spots on them or something?

RayG

You are being so disingenuous it isn't even funny, Ray. Your implication being, of course that our topo maps were the result of hundreds of thousands of surveyors going out with their little tripods all over the wilderness and thus the wilderness is "explored" (same contention you've made elsewhere).

I suspect you know full well that modern topo maps are made with aerial imaging (and nowadays, satellite imaging.

http://www.ehow.com/about_4813337_topographical-map-making.html