So Why Are The Skeptics Obsessed With Bf?

[Guest HucksterFoot]

The whole "man up" thing was silly. I don't think that all of the reports from Ohio are valid Bigfoot sitings but, almost assuredly, some are. I don't see the point in describing which reports seem more likely to be valid than others to the detractors (who make up their own minds quite easily that Bigfoot definitely do not exist).

Bingo! They obviously are but, the analogy to other large animals that have only been recently discovered by Western science still seems valid. I don't see any way to man-out of that one.

I guess the sighting report that "seems more likely" whatever feels right and doesn't sound far-fetched; moves Bigfoot up on the validity scale? :]

An uncatalogued species; tempting it's elusive fate status messing with backyard dogs, lifting cars, throwing barrels and the occasional dumpster dive; might seem unrealistic to some: this does not sound indicative of a rare and stealthy creature bound only to remote (never thought to look there) places. :]

A valid sighting; in my mind anyways (if you want to use the term valid) means 100 percent/sorry, pretty darn sure confirmation.

To add: Can I believe a person is being sincere when they describe a sighting (Bigfoot?)? Yes, I can be convinced a person believes they have seen a Bigfoot.

Also to add: I'm not one to argue that there isn't enough food (dependent on the region) for a Bigfoot type creature (Big hairy hominin/great ape/whatever) My question is: How does a large social animal (social attribute is my assumption) manage all that, over all these years and still remain the ambiguous king of the woods.

[Guest HairyGreek]

My question is: How does a large social animal (social attribute is my assumption) manage all that, over all these years and still remain the ambiguous king of the woods.

What are your thoughts on a cave dwelling existence? What do you think the possibilities of that are? Anyone with more acuman than me is free to chime in here...from either side of the fence (or even sitting on it).

[Guest HucksterFoot]

What are your thoughts on a cave dwelling existence?

Do I like the idea of stuffing Matt Moneymaker down one to find out and see - Yes.

What do you think the possibilities of that are?

Can Swallows and Bigfoots get along? coexist. :]

Bigfoot hiding out in caves and when hunger sets in, ventures out for tubers, snails and the odd camper abduction: works for me. This possibility really the case? unknown.

Edit:

Edited October 6, 2011 by HucksterFoot

[Guest HairyGreek]

The only reason I ask is it tends to tie up some loose ends (where are the bodies? where are the babies?) and explain why there seems to be more active night time sightings. I am not familiar enough with North American geology to speak on if there are enough caves with enough space to offer a vaible home to a mammal of that size.

[BeachFoot]

In areas where caves might exist, I believe it's entirely possible that Sasquatch dwells within, or at least uses them for shelter when necessary. Someone asked in another thread how they stay warm in the winter? I believe that, in the higher elevations, caves would play a big part in their survival.

As for the other debate going on in this thread, I think the underlying current is the frustration among a lot of folks here with "science" refusing (at least on the surface) to not even acknowledge the possibility of Sasquatch's existence. By "acknowledge", I mean to make a concerted effort towards "discovery" rather than adopt a "bring me a body and we'll start looking" mentality.

I GET what Saskeptic is saying. In the case of the gorillas, etc. someone came to "science" with, at least, a body part. Saskeptic doesn't deny that the locals knew about the creature in questions existence prior to science "discovering" it. Once science had the proof that something was there, then they focused on finding out exactly what it was. Sure, a lot of analogies can be drawn as to the fact that there was an animal that existed long before it was "discovered". I'm certain there still are. Although it pains me, I will concede the fact, though, that the "recent" discoveries have taken place in areas that are (in lieu of "remote") less used and/or explored.

He presents a very valid argument. Take the PNW, for instance. If I were to initiate a full-scale Sasquatch verification plan, that would be the area I would focus on. I don't think anyone here would disagree with me if I stated that would be the area that would be most likely to produce irrefutable proof IF a concerted effort were made. However, that area has been being used for various purposes by, probably, hundreds of thousands of people over the last 200 years and not ONE example of irrefutable proof of Sasquatch (or the possibility) has ever been presented. That's tough to argue with.

I don't know...I've always thought that insatiable curiosity was a pre-requisite for becoming a scientist. It seems to me that, in the case of Sasquatch at least, fear of ridicule has pre-empted that trait. As much as I can understand their point of view, I have to wonder how they can ignore what evidence that there is (no, I did not say "proof"). We have sightings, we have tracks, we have story upon story of people having actual interactions with "something". All evidence points to an undiscovered (by science) bipedal creature. No, it's not likely that it's going to be standing out in the middle of a field and get shot by a hunter so that they can bring in some horns. Neither is it likely to be seen sitting on a mountainside munching on leaves. We're talking about a creature that is, from all indications, if not AS intelligent as us, very close to it. If the DNA rumour mill is right, it's even human. Maybe in the case of Sasquatch it's not as simple as finding an ox or a gorilla. There HAVE been efforts for years by laymen to get the proof that science wants. Obviously, the resources of laymen are not enough. Maybe if science spent a small fraction of the resources on Sasquatch as they did on the Higgs boson or holes in the sky, we'd solve this mystery.

Edited October 6, 2011 by BeachFoot

[Guest HairyGreek]

Well said Beachfoot! Thanks for the well thought out and written post.

[Guest]

Caves make some intuitive sense, but then when you really examine them they don't pan out too well. First, caves are problematic in that they are really quite rare in a lot of places where bigfoots are reported. Geologists, hydrologists, and amateur cavers have karst systems and actual caves pretty well mapped here in the U.S., especially anything big enough to allow something human sized to get in there. (Note: this doesn't mean that every cave has been explored - far from it - just that we know where the cave systems are.) So there probably aren't many caves big enough to matter that haven't had some kind of inventory conducted there.

Next, caves are among the most productive places for paleontological and archaeological survey. Rather than being an explanation for how bigfoots have evaded detection, if bigfoots habitually used caves, it'd be even more likely that we would've found their remains. (For more, check here.)

From BeachFoot: "I've always thought that insatiable curiosity was a pre-requisite for becoming a scientist. It seems to me that, in the case of Sasquatch at least, fear of ridicule has pre-empted that trait. As much as I can understand their point of view, I have to wonder how they can ignore what evidence that there is (no, I did not say "proof"). We have sightings, we have tracks, we have story upon story of people having actual interactions with "something". All evidence points to an undiscovered (by science) bipedal creature."

I hear you, and understand your point of view. Here's a different one though: You're assuming that the evidence points to an undiscovered creature, so the perceived lack of scientific involvement in the search for bigfoot must mean that there's something else going on, e.g., fear of ridicule or a loss of curiosity. Most scientists are, however, woefully ignorant of the evidence you're thinking of. Those that are familiar with the evidence (folks like me I suppose) generally fall into two categories: They find the evidence compelling and are actively engaging in bigfoot research (e.g., Jeff Meldrum) or they find the evidence more consistent with a mythical bigfoot than a physical one (e.g., me). So that group of people like me who could potentially delve into bigfoot research because we're familiar with the evidence tend not to pursue such research because we interpret that evidence as pointing away from said undiscovered bipedal creature.

[Guest parnassus]

Beachfoot wrote

" ... "science" refusing (at least on the surface) to not even acknowledge the possibility of Sasquatch's existence. By "acknowledge", I mean to make a concerted effort towards "discovery" rather than adopt a "bring me a body and we'll start looking" mentality."

Here is where we have one of the major misunderstandings; you equate the two. Where has "science" refused to acknowledge the possibility?

I think that, given the absence of body parts (dead, alive or fossilized) of an enormous terrestrial bipedal primate for 400 years in North America ((and some other reasons) most scientists would say that there is a possibility of the existence of this animal, but that possibility is so remote as to preclude devoting resources to a dedicated search for it or even thinking about it. Scientists see truth and fact and related terms in terms of probabilties. You may hear a scientist say Bigfoot doesn't exist; but he/she knows one can't prove a negative, and that statement means "extremely low probability."

Some members here think the possibility is much higher; fine. Devote your resources to it.

Edited October 6, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest Cervelo]

Right or wrong it's your call but this is how it's always worked

1) "unknown" creature is reported by locals or body or part of unknown animal is discovered

2) someone goes out and documents or harvests a specimen

3) unknown creature is "discovered"

It's really easy and simple and happens quite often!

Just not with Bigfoot

I think that's pretty much the skeptics point of view and in some way it is that simple IMO

[Guest HucksterFoot]

I guess a hunter looking for deer, a birdwatcher looking for woodpeckers, a biologist installing Beaver culvert excluders and the list goes on: might stumble upon a Bigfoot in this predicament. (without really looking for it) :]

http://www.treknature.com/gallery/North_America/Canada/photo89103.htm

Can evidence be obtained without specifically trying to find a given species? (Bigfoot being the target species).

I think it so. inevitable and only a matter of time (if this Bigfoot is a real animal that manifests itself in the same reality as we dwell in)

Why is Bigfoot avoiding us? Have we hunted and killed them in the past?

How many Bigfoot parts are hanging on the walls of scuttlebutt lodge?

(whatever reason I could muster up would be pure special pleading and speculation)

Are we not looking too appealing to them?

(all subjective to each and every Bigfoot that gather and share human encounter stories)

Anyways,

Science is just looking for something testable that can be backed up with solid supporting evidence.

[BeachFoot]

Saskeptic and Parnassus, I hear what you're saying as well. I guess I should state here so that it's clear, that I am not a "believer". I have never seen a Sasquatch, nor do I know (or even spoken to) anyone who has. I simply have an interest. I am....curious.

Call me foolish. I've got broad shoulders..I can handle it. I see it this way:

The question of Sasquatch's existence has existed for decades. I don't think any of us engaged in this conversation are unaware of all the evidence that's been gathered in that time. Do I believe in the validity of every report? Certainly not. The laws of probability can't be ignored, though, and if even ONE of them is true it bears investigation. Science, as a whole, has largely ignored the issue. Cervelo laid out exactly what has happened over the years as it pertains to discovery. The process has been repeated time and time again. Animals have been seen, harvested and "discovered".

What I see different here is the operative word...."animal". We assume that Sasquatch is just another animal so it's "discovery" should fall in line with the way every other animal has been discovered, right? Well, what if Sasquatch isn't an animal? If you take all of the reports into account (as well as the rumours coming out of the DNA study) we're not looking for just any "animal". Were looking for a creature that is highly intelligent, possessing a lot of human traits and, most importantly, does NOT want to be found. Again, this isn't a creature that's going to be standing in the middle of a field grazing. It's not going to be sitting on a mountainside in a rain forest munching on leaves and building nests in treetops that are easily visible from the ground. It's not even going to be swimming around aimlessly and get caught in some fisherman's net (Coelacanth). This is a highly intelligent, stealthy and reclusive (for it's own good) creature. Who knows, maybe Sasquatch WAS around during the time that we settled this country and it saw what the white hairless humans did to the Indians. If they were they'd have every reason to not want us to know they were here and I can't blame them.

As for the lack of skeletons and fossils? I don't have an answer for that. I do, however, have information about a giant ape that roamed most of Asia up until a few hundred thousand years ago (according to science) and all we have of that is a couple of teeth and mandibles? There may be a number of reasons why we don't have these things. Maybe (if they are human) they have a culture that doesn't allow their bodies to be left laying around to be found. Maybe they haven't been around long enough (in their current evolutionary state) to LEAVE fossils?

I don't know the answers. I do, however, see SOMETHING. Maybe it IS just a myth. Maybe Sasquatch is real. Regardless, the efforts of laymen over the past 50 years have produced nothing concrete. I can see this sitting where I am. I've seen enough to make ME curious and I'm the type that's more than happy to simply accept that the sky is blue rather than to find out why. Then again, I don't live in the sky. I live here on the earth and am an animal myself. I have an interest and a curiosity about other animals that I share my space with. Personally, I have seen enough that if I had the resources I would devote everything I could to solving this mystery one way or the other. We read about scientific pursuits all the time that, for the most part, we think are a waste of time and money. What about the Higgs boson? Billions have been spent looking for a particle that, not only do a lot of scientists think doesn't even exist, but the folks that are running the experiment are already doubting themselves. Even if the Higgs boson is found, the impact it may have on our world isn't going to affect our lives directly in any way in my lifetime. However, if there is a relative of mine wandering around the country that we are probably pushing towards extinction by not even attempting to recognize it's existence, I think science is doing all of us a huge disservice.

The laymen have tried. I believe any open minded individual would be able to see that there is a chance that something is out there. I would think that, if nothing else, the same curiosity that compelled Columbus to sail his ship off the edge of the Earth would compel SOME other scientists to take the time and effort to help them.

[Guest HucksterFoot]

Caves make some intuitive sense, but then when you really examine them they don't pan out too well. First, caves are problematic in that they are really quite rare in a lot of places where bigfoots are reported. Geologists, hydrologists, and amateur cavers have karst systems and actual caves pretty well mapped here in the U.S., especially anything big enough to allow something human sized to get in there. (Note: this doesn't mean that every cave has been explored - far from it - just that we know where the cave systems are.) So there probably aren't many caves big enough to matter that haven't had some kind of inventory conducted there.

Next, caves are among the most productive places for paleontological and archaeological survey. Rather than being an explanation for how bigfoots have evaded detection, if bigfoots habitually used caves, it'd be even more likely that we would've found their remains. (For more, check here.)

Then the "you don't know with absolute certainty" pops up: i.e., undetected caves, not looking in every cave possible and you certainly didn't experience spelunking around in the Sylvanic caves. :]

[Guest Cervelo]

You forget it's not their money being spent it's someone else's and all research is about the money...... It's always about money!

[Guest HairyGreek]

Then the "you don't know with absolute certainty" pops up: i.e., undetected caves, not looking in every cave possible and you certainly didn't experience spelunking around in the Sylvanic caves. :]

Not from me...I am the one without any certainty on the topic. Anything geological outside the most rudimentary laymen's knowledge is out of my grasp without some more research. Thanks to Saskeptic for the cool link.

[Guest]

I would think that, if nothing else, the same curiosity that compelled Columbus to sail his ship off the edge of the Earth would compel SOME other scientists to take the time and effort to help them.

It has: Grover Krantz, Jeff Meldrum, John Bindernagel, Melba Ketchum, Tod Disotell, Henner Fahrenbach, Xiankang Wu, Michel Milinkovitch, J. D. Lozier, Dave Coltman, etc. This is just a sample of scientists who on some level have participated in some kind of bigfoot research.