Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

[DennyT]

Interesting piece on the upsurge of paranormal reports:
-----
Many experts believe that increased sightings of flying saucers, Bigfoot, Nessie and other unexplained phenomenon are simply a manifestation of deep-seated fear and unease. Although actual numbers are hard to come by, researchers generally agree that UFO sightings in particular peaked in the 1950s, during the heart of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union and have been waning ever since. However, with the current political unrest in Egypt and Libya, along with the continuing global economic struggles, that trend seems to be reversing.

Last May, the co-founders of the Northern Minnesota Bigfoot Society told KSAX Eyewitness News in Alexandria that "they have received more than 75 reports of sightings, captured images, and Bigfoot footprints in just three years." This is significant because, based on data compiled by the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO), the North Star State is hardly a haven for hairy, barbaric creatures, especially since Brett Favre retired from the Vikings.

What's more, according to a story that appeared in The Telegraph, UFO sightings over Britain more than tripled from January to August of 2009 compared to the same period the year before. The Telegraph reported that 394 UFO claims were submitted to the Ministry of Defense during that time, eclipsing the previous one-year high of 331 set in 1997, the first year that such claims were recorded.


Not Just Here
Similarly, a wave of UFO sightings swept over Iran in 2004. Interviewed by the UK edition of Wired magazine, Mark Pilkington, author of "Mirage Men: An Adventure into Paranoia, Espionage, Psychological Warfare, and UFOs," added to the previously advanced notion that political tension might have been a contributing factor in the rash of sightings.
http://financialedge.investopedia.c...nster-Affects-The-Economy.aspx?partner=sfgate

 

[Cotter]

What kind of ( unique ) science would be necessary for locating any tangible evidence of a 6', 500 lb primate ?

Why would BF sightings be restricted to those who are ' searching ' ?

To the contrary, those who go searching, never seem to find one ( with one notable exception ), while most reports seem to be accidental encounters ..

Unique science? I wouldn't say it's unique, but a stroll down a hiking trail on a bird-watching excursion certainly does not hold 1 iota of scientific search weight. Now, I would be interested in seeing some sort of grid searches, reports, etc summarizing ANY sort of search put on by qualified scientist.

BF sighting aren't restricted to those who are searching, but it was already pointed out that b/c the observers AREN'T qualified scientists, their reports aren't credible. Also, they are having daytime hallucinations, mis-identifying animals, or simply looking for attention - again, calling into question the credibility of the observer.

I think there are plenty of reports of folks that have been searching coming back with audio, and visual glimpses - I think what you want to say is how come they don't come back with any conclusive evidence - or even a clear photo for that matter.

 

[Cotter]

Indeed. There is an oft-repeated fallacy that the reason "science" hasn't found bigfoot is because science won't go look for it. This is bull pucky, horse hockey, poppycock, etc.

Hi Shrike - can you please direct me toward any sort of scientific search report? Or even perhaps some expeditions I can review?

Thousands of years of bigfoot occupation in North America translates into lots of dead bigfoots to potentially leave remains that could be discovered today. Yes, it's rare to find fossils and other prehistoric remains. But it does happen. It happens with animals that live in the same environments bigfoot is supposed to inhabit. (You know, the ones in which it's impossible for fossils to form.) It happens with animals that likely occurred at low population densities. We have a rich and varied fossil record of Quaternary land mammals in North America, but a big hominid is conspicuously absent from that record. It's doubly odd because bigfoot - unlike other Pleistocene megafauna - is still with us today. Compared to something like a short-faced bear, there have been thousands of years more for bigfoot to leave behind findable remains, yet the bear is well described but the bigfoot is not.

I'm not sure that 'thousands of years' is totally accurate. Perhaps they're recent transplants? I mean, basing the argument off the 'thousands of years' is making a pretty large assumption. I'm not sure we have any reports of BF that date more than a few hundred years? (maybe 5 or 6 hundred?) If they migrated, there may be a completely different area they have dwelled in. Its a big assumption. But your other statements I do indeed agree with. It's pretty rare to find something like this.

The real point, however, is that those Quaternary mammals weren't found because people went to look for them, they were found (those not found by accident, that is) because people were searching for evidence of whatever they could find in certain strata or at certain sites. There's only one plausible reason why bigfoot is absent from those sites and strata, and it's tonight word: folklore.

Well, that's what's going on now. Sometimes it takes decades of looking (scientifically) to find the evidence. I don't think there's some magic equation of time vs manpower vs ground coverage you can apply to dismiss the existence. If there is, I would certainly like a look at its proof.

 

[Cotter]

Cotter, please read Shrike's post, quoted below, and consider its implications very carefully. As an intelligent and educated person, it's time for you to lay aside your continued arguments from incredulity and ignorance, and to let go of your emotional, wonder-based attachment to the idea of bigfoot. Shrike's reasoning on the subject is iron-clad:

Sure if you take the assumptions at face value, but where does Shrike get his information? Seems he is an expert on the environment, reproductive behaviors, and species history of an animal that supposedly doesn't exist???

I dunno, it's compelling, but certainly not bulletproof.

 

[Cotter]

Then stop ignoring. Evidence for a self-sustaining population of large bipedal primates inhabiting the PNW is absent and it wouldn't be if such a creature existed.

Again, assuming that due diligence was made to find such evidence. I have yet to see ANYONE provide me ANY sort of evidence showing this. I truly would like to believe your statement, but it is not made with any scientfic backing (that I am aware of).

Hence the request for any sort of scientific report showing the absence of evidence covering any significant area of the PNW.

 

[Blackdog]

I'm not sure that 'thousands of years' is totally accurate. Perhaps they're recent transplants? I mean, basing the argument off the 'thousands of years' is making a pretty large assumption. I'm not sure we have any reports of BF that date more than a few hundred years? (maybe 5 or 6 hundred?) If they migrated, there may be a completely different area they have dwelled in. Its a big assumption. But your other statements I do indeed agree with. It's pretty rare to find something like this.

How did they get to North America recently?
Swim? Boat? Plane? Spaceship?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Again, assuming that due diligence was made to find such evidence. I have yet to see ANYONE provide me ANY sort of evidence showing this. I truly would like to believe your statement, but it is not made with any scientfic backing (that I am aware of).

Hence the request for any sort of scientific report showing the absence of evidence covering any significant area of the PNW.

Any idea how absurd that sounds ?


Contrary to instances of wishful thinking, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. ( ... note, I didn't say proof .. )

 

[Resume]

I truly would like to believe your statement

Re-read your posts because it seems to me you would truly like to believe in a cryptozoolgical creature for which there is no credible evidence.

 

[LTC8K6]

Unique science? I wouldn't say it's unique, but a stroll down a hiking trail on a bird-watching excursion certainly does not hold 1 iota of scientific search weight. Now, I would be interested in seeing some sort of grid searches, reports, etc summarizing ANY sort of search put on by qualified scientist.

BF sighting aren't restricted to those who are searching, but it was already pointed out that b/c the observers AREN'T qualified scientists, their reports aren't credible. Also, they are having daytime hallucinations, mis-identifying animals, or simply looking for attention - again, calling into question the credibility of the observer.

I think there are plenty of reports of folks that have been searching coming back with audio, and visual glimpses - I think what you want to say is how come they don't come back with any conclusive evidence - or even a clear photo for that matter.

None of these strollers has a camera of any sort? None of the forest rangers has a camera? None of the scientists in the woods on other business has a camera? None of the members of logging crews have a camera? None of the hunters has a camera? None of the campers has a camera? None of the flower, mushroom, berry pickers has a camera?

None of the thousands and thousands of people and scientists already in the deep woods for other reasons, ever catches a sasquatch on camera?

None of the people who do have cameras and are busily clicking away at everything under the sun, ever sees a sasquatch?

None of the hundreds of thousands of game cameras put out by hunters and scientists ever catches a sasquatch?

Really? A giant bipedal primate with a flourishing population avoids 99.999...% of those folks. And those cameras?

Really?

They not only avoid the people, but also avoid leaving any tangible sign of their presence in the woods.

No identifiable tracks, hair, bedding areas, hunting areas, feeding areas, prey, food, waste, etc. None.

No half eaten food, no carcasses, no teeth marks, no tool marks...nada.

No bodies, no bones, no injuries...nada.

No baby sasquatches killed by males, or hit by cars, or drowned and washed downriver...nada.

Really?

 

[Drewbot]

no tool marks

The guy from New Zealand who was raped, 'not once, not twice, but thrice' by a Bigfoot would beg to differ.

 

[davefoc]

Indeed. There is an oft-repeated fallacy that the reason "science" hasn't found bigfoot is because science won't go look for it. This is bull pucky, horse hockey, poppycock, etc.

...

Hi Shrike - can you please direct me toward any sort of scientific search report? Or even perhaps some expeditions I can review?.

I'm with Shrike on this. I had written a response to your original post along these lines and then decided not to post it.

It is true that on a per manhour basis a focused effort to find bigfoot might have a better chance of finding it than somebody just walking in the woods, or logging, or mining, or searching for rare birds, or setting up game cameras, or hunting, etc. but there are millions of people doing those kind of things and not one of them has ever brought back credible evidence of bigfoot. That is overwhelming evidence that bigfoot doesn't exist in the pacific northwest.

Your downed aircraft example inspired me to try to find a better analog for bigfoot and extrapolate the number of reports of credible evidence for that creature to the number of reports of credible evidence one might expect for a bigfoot population of a 100 or so living in the pacific northwest. Mountain lions seem like a possibility for that purpose. I've hiked in various California wilderness areas many times and I've never seen one, so finding them isn't a slam dunk. And yet sightings, road kills, captures, track identifications occur moderately often. I didn't look at the numbers for the Pacific Northwest but there are about 4000 mountain lions in California and a rough survey suggested that there are several reports of plausible evidence a month. Not all of those produce what might be called credible evidence in the context of bigfoot, but the reason is that nobody doubts mountain lions exist and a sighting doesn't always involve a photograph, or scat collection, or foot print identification, or the finding of prey, or skeletons. If the existence of mountain lions was in dispute it wouldn't be surprising to find that every somewhat credible collection of evidence would be followed up by a scientist working on a survey.

Assuming the Pacific northwest has similar numbers of mountain lions to California and roughly the same kind of sighting frequency, there are about 20 plausible reports of mountain lion evidence a year in the Pacific northwest. So a bigfoot population of 100 that is about as stealthy as a mountain lion population might be expected to produce about one plausible report of existence evidence every two years. Over the years that is still a lot of plausible evidence of bigfoot existence that would be found and nobody has. And if anything a mountain lion would be expected to be more difficult to find than any plausible bigfoot creature. It is smaller and less social than hypothetical bigfoot primates and it is an animal that survives by ambush hunting, a strategy that is going to make sightings unusual by humans.

Even though the problem involves proving a negative, I think the theory of the existence of a bigfoot creature in the Pacific Northwest has reached the point that it is disproved. If there was any chance for a bigfoot to exist without detection it would be in some of the very sparsely inhabited areas of Canada. But given the complete lack of evidence for such a creature and the fact that survival in that kind of climate is unknown for any kind of primates living or extinct it is reasonable to conclude that there just are not any bigfoot primates anywhere in North America.

 

[William Parcher]

Cotter, when you first started posting on JREF recently I got the impression that you just wanted to mention that you had a few friends who claim to have seen Bigfoot. But as time goes on and you do more posting you actually seem like you are a Bigfooter.

 

[Cotter]

Any idea how absurd that sounds ?


Contrary to instances of wishful thinking, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. ( ... note, I didn't say proof .. )

Hi Greg, yeah, totally absurd, I made it for effect - it was just the flip side of the comment made that scientific searches HAD been conducted and somehow had shown they DON'T exist. I was simply asking for the summary/ report/ what-have-you of said scientific searches showing no evidence.

Yeah, it was an absurd request made of an absurd statement (IMO).

And I do agree whole-heartedly that absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence....but like you pointed out, it is not proof. Thus, how can one, with 100% certainty (mathematically/scientfically) discount the existence. ESPECIALLY with evidence of sightings? (Not sure that every instance has been disproven, actually, I'm fairly certain there are instances that yet remain unexplained).

 

[Cotter]

Cotter, when you first started posting on JREF recently I got the impression that you just wanted to mention that you had a few friends who claim to have seen Bigfoot. But as time goes on and you do more posting you actually seem like you are a Bigfooter.

Hi William:

Eh, I neither believe nor disbelieve 100%. I came here trying to find answers and am most CERTAINLY taking the unpopular stance.

Not to offend, but other than some folks on the internet telling me 'facts' that, up to this point, I really haven't been able to substantiate, I can't say as I've been convinced either way.

..hmmm....after giving it some thought, I certainly don't discount the possibility, however small, that SOMETHING could be out there. I understand the arguments against it are quite compelling. But again, they haven't convinced me.

So, on I go asking questions, pointing out what I feel may be poor assumptions, and trying to find exceptions to the rules that I am being told. If anything it makes for good internet banter.

(are we having fun yet?)

If I were to come out and say YES! I BELIEVE IN BIGFOOT! (which I am NOT claiming with any amount of certainty) I think instantly the 'crack-pot lack of credibility' crowd's uproar would deafen any legitimate discussion I'm trying to make.

The non-believers ask for evidence and proof for existence, I ask for evidence and proof of non-existence. Which of course, is extremely difficult to provide, however, I think it can whittle down probabilities. There are theories on both sides......both yet unproven.

 

[Cotter]

Re-read your posts because it seems to me you would truly like to believe in a cryptozoolgical creature for which there is no credible evidence.

Well, the term 'credible' certainly leaves room for argument. And heck, it would explain why I've met people that swear on their mother's grave they've seen one!

I wouldn't be all that surprised either way Resume. It's far fetched, but so are some of the most interesting discoveries. I'm just trying to get down to the quantifiable aspects of the debate. The nuts and bolts if you will.

 

[HarryHenderson]

...So, on I go asking questions, pointing out what I feel may be poor assumptions, and trying to find exceptions to the rules that I am being told. If anything it makes for good internet banter...

I'm not sure yet if you realize everything you've been 'pointing out' has already been 'bantered' about the internet ad nauseum. A chunk of it right here at the JREF. And despite your ignorance of it, the 'reality' has pretty much already been decided. There is no Bigfoot. And that's no matter how many 'newbies' have attempted to discern the 'poor assumptions' and 'exceptions to the rule'. But by all means, continue on. It's that 'no body' thing that will really trip you up.

Then again, who needs a body when just 'the possibility' is enough? To wit...

...The non-believers ask for evidence and proof for existence, I ask for evidence and proof of non-existence. Which of course, is extremely difficult to provide, however, I think it can whittle down probabilities. There are theories on both sides......both yet unproven.

<overlooking - or is that exploiting - the naivete> Seems that for you believers, arguing 'certainty' is like that bit from the movie Dumb & Dumber:

Lloyd: What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance... *YEAH!*

 

[The Shrike]

Cotter,

The systematic observation and classification of natural history traces its origin to Aristotle (400s BC). The modern classification system in use today grew directly out of that initially proposed by Linneaus in the mid-1700s. For the last 200–300 years especially, natural historians have been surveying, exploring, excavating, studying, and classifying nature. I'm talking about mammalogists, ornithologists, botantists, herpetologists, ecologists, archaeologists, geologists, paleontologists - and those are just the scientists. All sorts of folks pursuing other endeavors (e.g., trapping, mining, cutting roads, digging wells) have made important discoveries. None of these folks, however, have been able to bring back a piece of bigfoot from the field, or even an unambiguous photograph. (You can find evidence for yourself by perusing the scientific journals of the professional societies related to the subject areas I've listed.)

I'm at a conference this week with over 800 primarily North American ornithologists. (This is probably well less than 25% of the active ornithologists in the U.S. and Canada.) The vast majority of these folks work in the field, sampling from grids, often in wild and remote locations. Ornithologists are just one of probably a dozen other types of scientists who are in the field, doing their work and fully capable of documenting a bigfoot if they obtained evidence of one. I know I've found evidence of a great many (100+?) non-target species while ostensibly collecting data about something else. It happens all the time - I'm just one guy.

My example, however, was specifcally addressing the lack of bigfoot remains, such as would be most likely encountered by geologists, paleontologists, dendrochronologists, hydrologists, etc. These people very often work in strata, with no particular target organism of study. They report whatever they find. I've never seen a paper entitled anything like "Giant primate bones from late Quaternary deposits in British Columbia."

Next time you see one of those announcement about a new species of _____ discovered in some remote New Guinea Highland, read the original paper and check out the Methods. Odds are, they weren't conducting targeted searches for a presumed giant tree kangaroo (or whatever), they were doing broad-based, generalized surveys of everything they could get their hands on in some heretofore unexplored valley, and they happened upon a giant tree kangaroo in the process.

 

[LTC8K6]

The guy from New Zealand who was raped, 'not once, not twice, but thrice' by a Bigfoot would beg to differ.

I'll cut him some slack, but Shirley that produced some bigfoot DNA???

 

[xblade]

..hmmm....after giving it some thought, I certainly don't discount the possibility, however small, that SOMETHING could be out there. I understand the arguments against it are quite compelling. But again, they haven't convinced me.

And that's why, in fact, you ARE a bigfooter, as Parcher suspected. But that cat was out of the bag 30 posts ago. May as well embrace it, because you aren't fooling anyone.

 

[xblade]

Cotter,

My example, however, was specifcally addressing the lack of bigfoot remains, such as would be most likely encountered by geologists, paleontologists, dendrochronologists, hydrologists, etc. These people very often work in strata, with no particular target organism of study. They report whatever they find. I've never seen a paper entitled anything like "Giant primate bones from late Quaternary deposits in British Columbia."

Silly Shrike, they wouldn't report that. People would think they were crazy. Plus the government would confiscate the evidence anyway, or something.