Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

[kitakaze]

And to think 'footers wonder why people make fun of them.

 

[kitakaze]

Original 1958 newspaper article in which Ray Wallace threatens to sue after being fingered by the local sherriff for hoaxing (click to enlarge)...

 

[kitakaze]

I see my uploads are too small to be read. I tried using my photobucket, but still too small. I'll monkey around and see if I can get them uploaded so they are readable.

 

[davefoc]

Link to article about original article with some larger images of the original pages that contained the article:
http://www.times-standard.com/ci_10853838

Perhaps Kitakaze has some images that are larger than these, even these images are not quite readable on a casual basis.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

and in which the wife of the newspaper editor explains both the newspaper and Wallace were in on the hoax together:

”They were in on this hoax,” June Beal said of her husband and Wallace. “It was just a fun thing and the fun got out of hand.”

The footprints leading con-man deadbeat thief and liar Roger Patterson to Bluff Creek were a hoax. But we shouldn't let that get in the way of delusions.

One of the interesting things about the article is how Shorty Wallace is claiming no person could make fake tracks after work in order to bolster the hoax's credibility.

Asserting the mundane impossible to proclaim the impossible mundane.

 

[GT/CS]

and in which the wife of the newspaper editor explains both the newspaper and Wallace were in on the hoax together:




The footprints leading con-man deadbeat thief and liar Roger Patterson to Bluff Creek were a hoax. But we shouldn't let that get in the way of delusions.

One of the interesting things about the article is how Shorty Wallace is claiming no person could make fake tracks after work in order to bolster the hoax's credibility.

Asserting the mundane impossible to proclaim the impossible mundane.

Does, "No-one could have made a suit like that back then because I couldn't have made one", fall into that same category?

 

[The Shrike]

One of the interesting things about the article is how Shorty Wallace is claiming no person could make fake tracks after work in order to bolster the hoax's credibility.

Indeed. Back when I was a bit younger I thought nothing of going running or playing pickup bball games after a long day's work of hiking and surveying in the mountains. I remember a few times after a grueling day of trudging around doing point counts for birds my partner and I would spend the last hour or two of daylight . . . going birding.

 

[kitakaze]

Here's another attempt at posting the Ray Wallace 1958 newspaper article...

 

[kitakaze]

Whoa. Those are gargantuan. First too small, then too big. Here's part. 2. It's just big enough to read. If this is too big, mods, please remove it...

 

[davefoc]

...

Asserting the mundane impossible to proclaim the impossible mundane.

I missed this comment the first time through. I like it. Are you the original author? I thought GT/CS was on to something with his example. It's probably a pretty common technique with lots of examples.

 

[Cotter]

But Cotter, if bigfoot is a real animal, the chances of our finding its remains, either fossil or mortal, do not vanish to zero. Whatever the "fractions of a percent" are that some evidence of a tiny population of animals will be discovered, it is not 0.0000. Yet that is precisely the quantity of evidence we have for this supposed animal.

While responding to other forum members you've inexplicably ignored my earlier points about the wildernesses of North America being combed over by biologists (botanists, zoologists, ornithologists), archeologists, paleontologists, wildlife enthusiasts, park rangers, hunters, hikers, campers, fishers, lumber men, hydrologists, geologists, satellite photography and trail cameras, and bigfoot researchers in all seasons. And yet none of them has ever discovered so much as trace of the animal. There are no expert observation reports, no hair, no scat, no DNA, no blood, no tissue, no unambiguous photography, no fossils, no bones. Why do you suppose this is?

Hi Vortigern99:

I apologize for not addressing your comments earlier - I believe I overlooked them. I'm trying to play a bit of devil's advocate here, but obviously I still have to be convinced yet to fully align myself either way.

I will agree that the % of discovering bones is not 0.00000, but it's very small. On the flip side of the coin, saying that b/c nothing has been discovered, there is a 100% the animal DOESN'T exist. So, what we have here is the task of finding out where, between 0 & 100% do the probabilities fall (part of the reason why I joined up here and popped into this thread!). I think one could also argue that we (as a James Randi community) are not privy to ALL of the evidence that is out there, only the evidence that has been made available through the net (is anyone on this board working in a lab that analyzes hair, fecal, or other type BF materials?). So there is a chance that there IS viable evidence out there, just not made available to us.

As far as the PNW wildernerss being 'combed over' - well I see the point you are trying to make and must respectfully disagree that the PNW has been 'combed over'. Point in case - missing aircraft (a popular comeback to the point you've made). Here's a link to a list of famous missing aircraft - of course some are over the ocean (an unlikely spot to find BF), but focus on the ones globally that occurred over land. (ETA link) http://www.check-six.com/lib/Famous_Missing/Famous_Missing_Aircraft.htm If ground coverage was as thorough to be considered 'combed over' then these land based missing aircraft should have been found. I mean, they're much larger than a BF and much more stationary. I will challenge you to explain why, if we are convinced BF doesn't exist b/c no remains have been found in combed over areas of the PNW, the same folks passed over reporting the wreckages?

Another possible point is that people COULD have come across bones and carcasses, but mis-identified them. The average person does not take the time to familiarize themselves in BF anatomy or physiology - why? B/c the average person doesn't believe they even exist - one may as well study the structure of unicorn horns, right? There is a potential that certain fossil records could fall into this category as well.

Furthermore, there have been what some would consider 'expert observation reports' by rangers, military personnel, police officers, but these are instantly discredited b/c of attention grabbing, misidentification, or hallucination. Again, a catch 22.

Anyway, there's my response. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

 

[Cotter]

Sigh, semantics. Ok, if you're going to take it literally, then never is the wrong word. Or maybe not:

"Here’s what Stocking and three other well-respected believers — Dan Jackson, who spent 20 years tracking Bigfoot, Longwood primate researcher Pat Rance, and www.bigfootencounters.com owner and editor Bobbie Short — say to critics.

Why hasn’t anyone produced a dead Bigfoot?

Jackson: “Go to any state with a bear population, and go the fish-and-game department and ask how many dead-bear carcasses they find each year, and you’ll get the same answer from everyone one of them: ‘none.’"
http://www.bigfootreferenceguide.com/archive/index.php/t-415.html

His answer is false.

How about the great Meldrum himself, a scientist who should know better:

"Meldrum said the fact that Bigfoot bones haven’t been found doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Johnson himself pointed out that in his 20 years living in Alaska he never saw a bear skeleton or bones. Acidic soils and moisture can decompose remains quickly.

“Matt was on the right track,” Meldrum said. “You don’t just find remains. We wouldn’t know about gigantapithicus if porcupines hadn’t dragged them into limestone caves. "

http://www.thedailycourier.com/bigfoot/

Meanwhile, the only wolverine in Michigan has died, and somehow, they found the body. By accident.
http://www.mlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2010/03/thumb_wolverine_dead_michigan.html

Still no bigfoot body though.....

Hi xblade, yeah it was a bit of semantics, but I'm trying to quell all of the 'absolute' comments that are made. I have seen a lot of bold - matter-of-fact comments made with obvious exceptions. I do get your point, but wanted to keep in the spirit if accurate statements.

Not to play the semantics game TOO much more, but the wolverine in michigan - was the 'known' wolverine. It had been kept tabs on for over 5 years. Or at least the assumption was made it was the same one. None-the-less I completely agree that this was quite the rare find.

Some footers also suggest as an explanation to finding remains is that the BF clans (I believe they are called) have some sort of body disposal ritual - similar to that observed in elephants. I don't know if I buy into that, but don't necessarily find it DIFFICULT to fathom. Hard telling - that would be an explanation.

 

[Drewbot]

Some footers also suggest as an explanation to finding remains is that the BF clans (I believe they are called) have some sort of body disposal ritual - similar to that observed in elephants. I don't know if I buy into that, but don't necessarily find it DIFFICULT to fathom. Hard telling - that would be an explanation.

Actually, I have it from a good source that The Bigfoots use an embalming fluid derived from the sodium benzoate in the cans of beans they steal, they then inject the fluid with a hollowed out thorn, which is attached to the bladder of a Roosevelt's Elk, slowly squeezing the fluid into the body. Thus Bigfoots should be found in pristine condition.

 

[William Parcher]

I think one could also argue that we (as a James Randi community) are not privy to ALL of the evidence that is out there, only the evidence that has been made available through the net (is anyone on this board working in a lab that analyzes hair, fecal, or other type BF materials?). So there is a chance that there IS viable evidence out there, just not made available to us.

Tyrannosaurus rex is not extinct. The people who have conclusive evidence that it still survives are simply not making it available.


No matter what you do and no matter what kind of scientific backing you can muster... you will not be able to show that the above two statements are false.

When you play Devil's Advocate for Bigfoot you play it for all possible hypothetical animals.

 

[The Shrike]

As far as the PNW wildernerss being 'combed over' - . . . Point in case - missing aircraft . . . I mean, they're much larger than a BF and much more stationary. . . . if we are convinced BF doesn't exist b/c no remains have been found in combed over areas of the PNW, the same folks passed over reporting the wreckages?

Lots going in the "lost aircraft" analogy:

*plane wreckage is stationary; bigfoots are not. They must move around to find food, mates, etc. This makes bigfoots effectively orders of magnitude LARGER than a Cessna. The plane might occupy 50 square meters on the ground, whereas the bigfoot might wander over 50 square kilometers, all the while crossing roads, trails, streams, and other places where they might come in contact with humans. It's only after the bigfoot dies that it becomes stationary and occupies a comparatively smaller space than a small plane.

*bigfoots occur as populations of individual organisms. Most bigfooters think there are a few thousand (let's say 4000) of them in North America while you're reading this. Now imagine the length of time (# of generations) bigfoots have been here. Assuming they emigrated from Eurasia across the Bering Land Bridge about 20,000 years ago, and assuming a 20 year generation time . . . I get 1000 generations of bigfoots in North America. Playing it conservative with that really low population number as typical throughout the species' history here, I get 1000 X 4000 = 4,000,000 potential bigfoot carcasses able to reveal at least a single tooth that could serve as the type specimen for such a creature. That's a lot more than the number of lost planes, especially when you consider that a single bone from any one of them could probably do it.

*plane crashes in rugged areas often occur due to the particular dangers of flight through the most rugged of those areas. So planes might end up on a talus slope at 11,000 feet or in other similarly - and truly - inaccessible spots. For all bigfooters like to spout about bigfoot as wilderness demigod, their own anecdotal reports do not support it. Bigfoots are reported crossing roads and trails, approaching campsites and homes and generally occurring in a lot of places where people also are. Remember, bigfoot is NOT restricted to the wilderness areas of the Pacific Northwest, it is reported to occur as well in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc. A recent paper on a biogeography theme demonstrated that the niche of bigfoot is indistinguishable from that of black bear.

 

[William Parcher]

Humans would only need to find one crashed airplane to scientifically confirm the species, Airplanicus crashi. We already did that many times over. We've never ever done that with Bigfoot.

 

[davefoc]

...

I will agree that the % of discovering bones is not 0.00000, but it's very small. On the flip side of the coin, saying that b/c nothing has been discovered, there is a 100% the animal DOESN'T exist. So, what we have here is the task of finding out where, between 0 & 100% do the probabilities fall (part of the reason why I joined up here and popped into this thread!). I think one could also argue that we (as a James Randi community) are not privy to ALL of the evidence that is out there, only the evidence that has been made available through the net (is anyone on this board working in a lab that analyzes hair, fecal, or other type BF materials?). So there is a chance that there IS viable evidence out there, just not made available to us.

...

Your comments resonated a bit with me here. One of the areas that I muse about periodically is the nature of certainty. I play an internal game where I try to determine which of two wildly unlikely possibilities is the most likely. I doubt that there is any practical purpose to it, but it entertains me on occasion. Part of this thinking has led me to develop the concept of practical certainty. It seems to be true that we humans can not be absolutely certain about anything, but ignoring ideas about the possibility that the universe we perceive is completely unreal we can achieve practical certainty about some ideas. For instance did WWII happen? Well yes, there is no possibility that it didn't happen assuming that my perception of the world is roughly reality based.

The non-existence of bigfoot, for me, has not reached the level of practical certainty as I use the term. For one thing my worldview wouldn't need some great reworking if it turned out that bigfoot existed. But I think it is so close to practical certainty that bigfoot doesn't exist that there is hardly a useful distinction between practical certainty and some lower level of confidence for me. FWIW, I believe to a practical certainty that the WTC was not brought down by a controlled demolition on 9-11 so it is, for me, more likely that bigfoot exists than the CD conspiracy theories about 9-11 are true.

 

[Cotter]

Tyrannosaurus rex is not extinct. The people who have conclusive evidence that it still survives are simply not making it available.


No matter what you do and no matter what kind of scientific backing you can muster... you will not be able to show that the above two statements are false.

When you play Devil's Advocate for Bigfoot you play it for all possible hypothetical animals.

Agreed William. Conversely, you cannot prove they are true. Hence, such great discussions on the internet develop.

 

[Cotter]

Lots going in the "lost aircraft" analogy:

*plane wreckage is stationary; bigfoots are not. They must move around to find food, mates, etc. This makes bigfoots effectively orders of magnitude LARGER than a Cessna. The plane might occupy 50 square meters on the ground, whereas the bigfoot might wander over 50 square kilometers, all the while crossing roads, trails, streams, and other places where they might come in contact with humans. It's only after the bigfoot dies that it becomes stationary and occupies a comparatively smaller space than a small plane.

However, a BF can occupy a space already 'searched' by people. I'll use a whitetail deer as an example. On hard ground, a deer will leave very indiscernable, if not invisible tracks. They will double back around on hunters and hikers, occupying the place they already were. Said hunters and hikers can go for miles displacing, but not seeing a single deer.

*bigfoots occur as populations of individual organisms. Most bigfooters think there are a few thousand (let's say 4000) of them in North America while you're reading this. Now imagine the length of time (# of generations) bigfoots have been here. Assuming they emigrated from Eurasia across the Bering Land Bridge about 20,000 years ago, and assuming a 20 year generation time . . . I get 1000 generations of bigfoots in North America. Playing it conservative with that really low population number as typical throughout the species' history here, I get 1000 X 4000 = 4,000,000 potential bigfoot carcasses able to reveal at least a single tooth that could serve as the type specimen for such a creature. That's a lot more than the number of lost planes, especially when you consider that a single bone from any one of them could probably do it.

There is 1 assumption made here that I will comment on.

You have not accounted for degradation of carcasses, or misidentified remains (how many decayed carcasses have you stopped and investigated in the woods?) I think you may be suggesting that the carcass will be intact enough to identify as a primate - something that within a week will most likely be unrecognizable taking into account the efficiencies of ecosystems these animals allegedly occupy. Again, just a brief comment on an earlier post about the possibility of post-mortem rituals.

I would be interested in applying the same equation you gave against a common wildlife animal - a bear for instance. Though I've no idea where the heck anyone would get any reliable data. I see the equation you gave would show that the probabilities increase over human population growth and time, but it doesn't shore up a 100% certainty by any means.

*plane crashes in rugged areas often occur due to the particular dangers of flight through the most rugged of those areas. So planes might end up on a talus slope at 11,000 feet or in other similarly - and truly - inaccessible spots. For all bigfooters like to spout about bigfoot as wilderness demigod, their own anecdotal reports do not support it. Bigfoots are reported crossing roads and trails, approaching campsites and homes and generally occurring in a lot of places where people also are. Remember, bigfoot is NOT restricted to the wilderness areas of the Pacific Northwest, it is reported to occur as well in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc. A recent paper on a biogeography theme demonstrated that the niche of bigfoot is indistinguishable from that of black bear.

Again, good points, but my initial comment was made to reel in the 'combed over' comment, I think I made the point that just b/c something is out there, doesn't mean it will be found.

Have a good evening shrike. I look forward to hearing back.

 

[Cotter]

Your comments resonated a bit with me here. One of the areas that I muse about periodically is the nature of certainty. I play an internal game where I try to determine which of two wildly unlikely possibilities is the most likely. I doubt that there is any practical purpose to it, but it entertains me on occasion. Part of this thinking has led me to develop the concept of practical certainty. It seems to be true that we humans can not be absolutely certain about anything, but ignoring ideas about the possibility that the universe we perceive is completely unreal we can achieve practical certainty about some ideas. For instance did WWII happen? Well yes, there is no possibility that it didn't happen assuming that my perception of the world is roughly reality based.

The non-existence of bigfoot, for me, has not reached the level of practical certainty as I use the term. For one thing my worldview wouldn't need some great reworking if it turned out that bigfoot existed. But I think it is so close to practical certainty that bigfoot doesn't exist that there is hardly a useful distinction between practical certainty and some lower level of confidence for me. FWIW, I believe to a practical certainty that the WTC was not brought down by a controlled demolition on 9-11 so it is, for me, more likely that bigfoot exists than the CD conspiracy theories about 9-11 are true.

Hi Davefoc:

I think you struck upon one of the main reasons this thread is as long as it is.

(I'm going to re-read your post tomorrow - my statistics based upbringing has got my mind cooking now!)