Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[Resume]

No, but I get the impression it's a lost cause when the footers think they are seeing the creatures, whether they are lying or not about it, why engage?

Why not?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Nah.

There's hardly a point to being on JREF if you're not willing to engage those for whom your most meticulously crafted remarks will almost always go unheard, for whom your logic will go unfathomed, and who will dismiss your facts as quickly as they would a stripped chicken bone. There's no glory to be found here.

Skepticism is about standing up for something, not about winning anything.

Enthusiastically, respectfully nominated. This should become the Battle Hymn.

 

[Jodie]

Posted in the "Real Soon" thread, but probably belongs here: Josh Stevens' analysis of BFRO sightings distribution.

I'm tired of the table talk since there is no consensus on the number of hominid fossils across the world no matter what museum anyone called, you would get varied answers. In either case, whether it would fit on a table of any kind is irrelevant, it's a small percentage when compared to the estimated population of humans that span across the years.

It seems like a weak point for a skeptic to belabor as an argument for why there aren't any fossil remnants for bigfoot. If you found a likely candidate in the fossil record would you even recognize it as such without some kind of link to an established modern day species or DNA?

In reference to the link posted for the article, It says the sightings occur where the population is thinnest. Why is that? I've heard the opposite assertion from several posters here so are there any explanations other than the variables stated in the article for what might explain this?

 

[dafydd]

It seems like a weak point for a skeptic to belabor as an argument for why there aren't any fossil remnants for bigfoot. If you found a likely candidate in the fossil record would you even recognize it as such without some kind of link to an established modern day species or DNA?

That would depend upon whether you had any training as a palaeontologist.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It seems like a weak point for a skeptic to belabor as an argument for why there aren't any fossil remnants for bigfoot. If you found a likely candidate in the fossil record would you even recognize it as such without some kind of link to an established modern day species or DNA?

This is patently unreasonable.

Here in we come to the problem of being expected to disprove an undefined variable. Figbooters will constantly dismiss all our argument against Bigfoot by claiming that Bigfoot isn't understood well enough for us to prove that our arguments apply to him. It shouldn't take a lot to grasp the utter insanity of such an argumentive stance.

Bigfoot is more and more becoming an Invisible Dragon In the Garage, a creature that seems to exist only because the people that profess his existence seem unable or unwilling to define him well enough for any counter to argument to function against all while refusing to provide even the barest amount of reasonable evidence for his existence.

And this is all academic. Any effort put into disproving Bigfoot is at best a... courtesy. The burden of proof has not shifted here and the Figbooters have spectacularly failed in every attempt to provide any reasonable evidence for this creature's existence.

 

[desertgal]

I'm tired of the table talk since there is no consensus on the number of hominid fossils across the world no matter what museum anyone called, you would get varied answers. In either case, whether it would fit on a table of any kind is irrelevant, it's a small percentage when compared to the estimated population of humans that span across the years.

So don't read it, if you are tired of it. Chris introduced the topic, and others here have the right to debate it as much as they like, especially after Chris kept throwing it up. That's what you call "bulldozing" - debating a stubborn adherence to a fact that has been proven demonstrably false.

 

[William Parcher]

Posted in the "Real Soon" thread, but probably belongs here: Josh Stevens' analysis of BFRO sightings distribution.

The map and the database itself is misleading and shouldn't be the basis for scholarly discussion or debate. The underlying problem is that the data is not raw and is instead "cherry picked" by the people behind the scenes at BFRO.

We see the 3,313 reports that BFRO chose to publish but we know nothing about the tens of thousands that they rejected or have not yet gotten around to publishing. Because of this it can't be used to say anything about the human population who are reporting Bigfoot nor about the purported creature itself.

The BFRO can selectively pick reports for their inherent quality (whatever that may be) or for their geographic area or both. This allows the BFRO to create a distribution of their own choosing either intentionally or by result of picking according to specific criteria. For example, it may be determined that certain places (such as Times Square, New York City) could not ever have legitimate Bigfoot sightings because any Bigfoot there would quickly have been recorded by authorities. Thus, no matter how many reports are received from Times Square they will all be rejected outright and never are entered into the database or map. We are then deprived of the ability to get a true picture of how the actual society relates to Bigfoot and instead get a cherry-picked version which shows how a continent ought to look if it has Bigfoots and people seeing those Bigfoots according to internal policies at the BRFO. Somebody might even say that the 3,300 tally represents serious reports made by serious people who were interviewed by serious people. Oh really? The database is a sales and marketing tool used by the BFRO to promote their own profitable venture.

We can imagine other problems when the database doesn't use all the reports that are received but it seems to me that it can't be properly relied upon as a subject of good application and reflection.

 

[The Shrike]

I've posted in the comments area of Josh Stevens' website, explaining that the same pattern Stevens sees in the BFRO database he could find in a database of Leprechaun sightings. It'll be interesting to see if he allows my comments to go public.

Stevens looks like he's being all sciencey with the beautiful map of bigfoot sightings, but this guy wasn't even aware of the Lozier et al. 2009 paper using ecological niche monitoring of the same database. That's inexcusable for him to put this stuff out there for public consumption when he hasn't so much as conducted a literature review of what he's trying to do.

His logic is that we should expect bigfoot sightings to be more prevalent where more people live, but we see the opposite pattern: more bigfoot sightings where human pop density is lower. Therefore, bigfoot could be a real animal that avoids people. If it was just folklore, the sightings would correlate positively, not negatively, with human pop density. This is perhaps 3rd grade logic, and it ignores what the folklore actually is: bigfoot is a giant ape-man that lives in the most deepest, darkerest, wildernessest forests where only the bravest dare tread. Of course its reported sightings are correlated negatively with human population density, because (as WP illustrates) the sightings that don't jibe with the general bigfoot lexicon - such as any that might come Central Park - generally don't make the cut.

To bolster his irresponsible argument, Stevens mentions that Les Stroud and Jane Goodall are open to the reality of bigfoot. <facepalm>

 

[Dinwar]

I'm tired of the table talk since there is no consensus on the number of hominid fossils across the world no matter what museum anyone called, you would get varied answers. In either case, whether it would fit on a table of any kind is irrelevant, it's a small percentage when compared to the estimated population of humans that span across the years.

Have you examined the depositional environment? And do you understand how taphonomy works (at least in general)?

It seems like a weak point for a skeptic to belabor as an argument for why there aren't any fossil remnants for bigfoot.

~shrug~ Good thing I'm not a skeptic, then. All I'm saying is that we have an organism that people say lives in an area of fairly good preservation, an area which has preserved innumerable organisms of varying sizes in various modes. Yet we have no fossils. To me, this is problematic. If we had a body, it'd be different; no one knows the problems with the fossil record better than someone who's had to deal with them. Still, we have no body AND no fossils, despite the fact that we should expect one or the other before accepting this idea.

There are also not one but two concentrat lagerstatten in California from a time period and locations where bigfoot should have been found, were it around. I know we've found human remains in the Rancho La Brea Tar Pits; I forget if we have in the other or not. Either way, "He's too smart for that" simply doesn't fly; if bigfoot were around I feel perfectly comfortable saying he would have left remains in at least one of those lagerstatten. He didn't, so he wasn't.

If you found a likely candidate in the fossil record would you even recognize it as such without some kind of link to an established modern day species or DNA?

To answer that properly would result in a yellow card. What the blazes do you think paleontologists DO?! Do you think we simply were stamp collectors before DNA came about? How do you think we deal with organisms for which there is NO DNA possible, such as the Ediacaran Fauna or the Cambrian critters? When we find a diagnostic fossil we try to match it with known organisms in the area and clade. If we can't, we start looking for other explanations. Its systematic and thorough, frequently involving multiple experts with all sorts of different experience (honestly, most people have no concept how varied the professional experiences of your average paleontologist are). I'm not saying it's 100% certain we'd know; that said, given some other issues I'm >95% certain. It'd take a special kind of incompetent to not know they were dealing with something pretty serious.

The reason is, EVERY paleontologist working in the Desert Southwest at least (and most elsewhere) can recognize ape teeth. This is simple self-defense: digging up a Native American burial is a rather serious issue--and by "serious" I mean "lose your job, go to jail, pay fines for the rest of your life" serious. We find something that even LOOKS LIKE an ape tooth--if there are ANY questions--we call in experts on human anatomy, who would be able to tell us "It ain't human, but it ain't far off either". Then there's the fact that many of us are cross-trained with archaeology to some extent, so many of us ARE experts (not me, I hasten to add--I deal with non-human animals exclusively).

Before criticizing, please learn the issues. When I said we should expect fossils I was speaking as a professional in the field.

 

[smartcooky]

Jodie.

Allowing falsehoods and frauds to go unchallenged is tantamount to agreeing with them. Those who perpetrate them, take the failure of reasoning people to challenge their beliefs as confirmation of their "truth" as they see it.... apathy or disinterest is interpreted by them as tacit support for their view.

The proposed existence of cryptids such as bigfoot, the bunyip and the Loch Ness monster et al, must be challenged, because if they really do exist, then that fact itself will challenge the established view of the Earth's palaeontological history. Those who claim their existence must continue to be challenged relentlessly until they provide irrefutable documentary and physical evidence to support their claim, or back down and admit they are wrong. To paraphrase William Henry Harrison "the price of truth is eternal reasoning!"

Every primate discovery of the last 100 or so years (even the recently discovered bondo apes, a giant ground-dwelling chimpanzee) fits neatly into Darwin's evolutionary tree. Bigfoot however, fits nowhere in the tree, and if it truly did exist, there would have to be a total rewrite of the entire origin of the ape species, including humans. Not only are there no remains of bigfoot, there are no fossil remains either, to show its evolutionary progress over the last million or so years. There is ancestral fossil evidence for every current species of animal native to North America including those animals such as bears who inhabit the same areas, but there is none whatsoever for bigfoot. That such evidence exists but hasn't been found yet stretches credibility beyond belief.

 

[Jodie]

That would depend upon whether you had any training as a palaeontologist.

I'm sure, but what paleontologist is going to announce he found fossilized bigfoot bones?

 

[Jodie]

This is patently unreasonable.

Here in we come to the problem of being expected to disprove an undefined variable. Figbooters will constantly dismiss all our argument against Bigfoot by claiming that Bigfoot isn't understood well enough for us to prove that our arguments apply to him. It shouldn't take a lot to grasp the utter insanity of such an argumentive stance.

Bigfoot is more and more becoming an Invisible Dragon In the Garage, a creature that seems to exist only because the people that profess his existence seem unable or unwilling to define him well enough for any counter to argument to function against all while refusing to provide even the barest amount of reasonable evidence for his existence.

And this is all academic. Any effort put into disproving Bigfoot is at best a... courtesy. The burden of proof has not shifted here and the Figbooters have spectacularly failed in every attempt to provide any reasonable evidence for this creature's existence.

No, I'm saying jumping on the "table" comment was a logical fallacy for the reasons I stated regardless of what the crux of the argument was, it is a weak argument.

 

[Resume]

I'm sure, but what paleontologist is going to announce he found fossilized bigfoot bones?

The very first one that does so.

 

[Jodie]

So don't read it, if you are tired of it. Chris introduced the topic, and others here have the right to debate it as much as they like, especially after Chris kept throwing it up. That's what you call "bulldozing" - debating a stubborn adherence to a fact that has been proven demonstrably false.

And if the point is moot.

 

[Jodie]

We see the 3,313 reports that BFRO chose to publish but we know nothing about the tens of thousands that they rejected or have not yet gotten around to publishing. Because of this it can't be used to say anything about the human population who are reporting Bigfoot nor about the purported creature itself.

Yes, first thing that popped in my head. I knew they culled the ones they thought were illegitimate but no one knows what that criteria might be.

 

[Resume]

And if the point is moot.

The point is not moot for fence sitters and this is a good place to counter the many bigfoot bull **** arguments that at first blush might seem reasonable.

 

[desertgal]

And if the point is moot.

Was that a question? I don't believe you get to decide that for everyone here.

 

[Jodie]

His logic is that we should expect bigfoot sightings to be more prevalent where more people live, but we see the opposite pattern: more bigfoot sightings where human pop density is lower. Therefore, bigfoot could be a real animal that avoids people. If it was just folklore, the sightings would correlate positively, not negatively, with human pop density. This is perhaps 3rd grade logic, and it ignores what the folklore actually is: bigfoot is a giant ape-man that lives in the most deepest, darkerest, wildernessest forests where only the bravest dare tread. Of course its reported sightings are correlated negatively with human population density, because (as WP illustrates) the sightings that don't jibe with the general bigfoot lexicon - such as any that might come Central Park - generally don't make the cut.

To bolster his irresponsible argument, Stevens mentions that Les Stroud and Jane Goodall are open to the reality of bigfoot. <facepalm>

This, the culture in the area plays apart in it. I would have to say the PNW has more history of monsters than the east coast but I don't necessarily equate that with bigfoot. I think it was Parn that pointed out that the NA tended to demonize other enemy tribes and the stories were about them than any actual monsters.

 

[Jodie]

Have you examined the depositional environment? And do you understand how taphonomy works (at least in general)?

No, I haven't, I'm saying exactly what you said earlier about there not being a consensus of how many fossilized hominid bones we actually have.


~shrug~ Good thing I'm not a skeptic, then. All I'm saying is that we have an organism that people say lives in an area of fairly good preservation, an area which has preserved innumerable organisms of varying sizes in various modes. Yet we have no fossils. To me, this is problematic. If we had a body, it'd be different; no one knows the problems with the fossil record better than someone who's had to deal with them. Still, we have no body AND no fossils, despite the fact that we should expect one or the other before accepting this idea.

I don't disagree with this, but to use the "table" argument ad nauseum doesn't do the skeptical stance any justice.

There are also not one but two concentrat lagerstatten in California from a time period and locations where bigfoot should have been found, were it around. I know we've found human remains in the Rancho La Brea Tar Pits; I forget if we have in the other or not. Either way, "He's too smart for that" simply doesn't fly; if bigfoot were around I feel perfectly comfortable saying he would have left remains in at least one of those lagerstatten. He didn't, so he wasn't.

You don't need to convince me, I'm on the same page.

To answer that properly would result in a yellow card. What the blazes do you think paleontologists DO?! Do you think we simply were stamp collectors before DNA came about? How do you think we deal with organisms for which there is NO DNA possible, such as the Ediacaran Fauna or the Cambrian critters? When we find a diagnostic fossil we try to match it with known organisms in the area and clade. If we can't, we start looking for other explanations. Its systematic and thorough, frequently involving multiple experts with all sorts of different experience (honestly, most people have no concept how varied the professional experiences of your average paleontologist are). I'm not saying it's 100% certain we'd know; that said, given some other issues I'm >95% certain. It'd take a special kind of incompetent to not know they were dealing with something pretty serious.

I think they use a lot of subjective data to make best educated guesses without considering what the DNA might actually indicate. It's still guess work on relationships because of the difficulty in harvesting ancient DNA. I don't think that fact is fully appreciated.


The reason is, EVERY paleontologist working in the Desert Southwest at least (and most elsewhere) can recognize ape teeth. This is simple self-defense: digging up a Native American burial is a rather serious issue--and by "serious" I mean "lose your job, go to jail, pay fines for the rest of your life" serious. We find something that even LOOKS LIKE an ape tooth--if there are ANY questions--we call in experts on human anatomy, who would be able to tell us "It ain't human, but it ain't far off either". Then there's the fact that many of us are cross-trained with archaeology to some extent, so many of us ARE experts (not me, I hasten to add--I deal with non-human animals exclusively).

I'm not in disagreement that there is no fossil evidence in North America to indicate bigfoot or that those looking would be unable to distinguish the difference. I'm thinking of how evolution might change the form over a millenia to get to something like Gigantopithecus, how would we know the ancestor if we happened to dig it up in Africa?

There you go, my answers are in italics above, I have yet to master the quote function.

 

[William Parcher]

The report data also will not correlate with population density when you have people reporting Bigfoot in places away from where they personally reside. A person who lives in New York City can report a sighting they had in Oregon. The data and map show where the Bigfoot was seen but not necessarily where the claimant lives.

The best way to get a fabricated encounter entered into data is: Write a convincing report that locates your sighting in a region that is already regarded to have Bigfoot sightings by the BFRO. You want something that they will believe for both what happened and where it happened.

The spike in numbers of reports by year (middle of first decade after 2000 was active) could be an actual increase in reports or a period when they had many volunteers publishing reports and reduced the backlog waiting to be processed - so to speak.

Never forget that the underlying motive of the BFRO presentation of information is to try to convince nearly everyone that Bigfoot exists. They are going to present things in a way that they feel promotes that at all times. They are always in the aggressive self promotion and sales mode. Always in that mode.