Popular Modern Mythology Seems Scarce

[Brazoo]

I agree that photo-graphic evidence is probably not helpful in proving that Bigfoot exists. Actually I think it was Wendelle Stevens, a UFO enthusiast, who said the same for UFO's.

I think that's absolutely true. I think it's the same for any other non-proven supernatural phenomena though, but to be fair photographic evidence has never been used to scientifically prove anything existed before without other forms of evidence - photography is just not reliable as evidence on it's own. So why should it be accepted as gold-standard in paranormal fields?

However if you eliminate all photo's and film you must rely on the foot-prints in Bigfoot's case. To be frank, many scientists scoff at that too.

So when you eliminate a category of evidence just because it isn't "good" evidence for some people and fall back to the next type of evidence people are already prepared to say, "That's not good enough either!" The thing to do is investigate and determine, if possible, what holds up under scrutiny. I think those photo's are quite good and they have held up. Compared with the gold standard, the Patterson/Gimlin film, we see that this is not one type of animal but something which has variations depending on what part of the country it lives in.

The late Dr. Grover Krantz in WA did something quite unique. He assembled his collection of Bigfoot Plaster Casts of footprints and presented it to the FBI to see if they could determine which were fakes and which were real. The prints they certified as real were designated so because according to the FBI there is no method for faking finger-prints. Many of the plaster casts have what are called dermal ridges. These are what finger-prints are. Even on your feet there are patterns which are individual and unique like finger prints. So they conducted a study that no qualified Primatologist would undertake. The FBI concluded that many of the casts of Bigfoot prints in Dr. Krantz's collection were not faked but made by a living man or animal. The scientific community should take notice but again, they prefer to ignore the analysis.

Well - again, I don't get why Patterson/Gimlin film would be accepted as a gold-standard when no other field of scientific inquiry accepts photographic evidence in this way - frankly this is the kind of thing that hurts all paranormal fields of research from the get go. It's special pleading, because Bigfoot researchers, ghost hunters, UFologists KNOW photos aren't accepted by scientists to prove unknown phenomena, but they keep insisting their photos should be used that way.

I don't remember Dr. Krantz getting confirmation back from the FBI about his prints, but to be fair I'm no expert on this stuff. Wikipedia reports that Dr. Krantz got positive results from Scotland Yard though.

I have been following a bit of stuff on Jimmy Chilcutt - who also studied dermal ridges - by way of Matt Crowley, who is skeptical of Bigfoot, but doesn't rule out the possibility. Crowley's shown through creating casts how artifacts like cracking in the casting process create lines that match the claimed dermal ridges. He's also very interested in Ray Wallace - a famous Bigfoot hoaxer. Again, Crowley not saying one way or the other, he's just pointing to another possibility. Showing Dermal ridges could be faked - despite the claims that they couldn't.

As for Dr. Krantz being ignored for his research - well, peer review IS a major part of the scientific process. It's tough business - but an argument NEEDS to stand up to peer review to be accepted as legitimate theory. That's just how science works.

The thing is, cryptozoology (and ALL other paranormal fields of research) bring to question other established and long tested theories - so to bring those theories into question there needs to be REALLY FANTASTIC physical evidence or AMAZING testable proof. The burden of proof is on them - not the established scientific community. So, frankly, that's where I'd lay the blame.

Why couldn't anyone track the Skunk Ape in the photo? There's nearly 40 years of widespread Bigfoot hunting now - how likely is it that in 40 years not one irrefutable piece of physical evidence has turned up? Why are Bigfoot researchers so susceptible to fraud? None of the answers to these questions make me think Bigfoot is IMPOSSIBLE - but they do make me think Bigfoot is highly unlikely.

[Brazoo]

Dude, that pre-supposes that the News-media was in on the cover-up and I can't buy it. If even one reporter had evidence of any of these things they would put it out there for all to see. News is one of the most competitive fields out there. Every reporter wants to break from the pack fast and become a big shot. That's why reporters do dumb things, ( Geraldo opening Al Capone's tomb), or get a report out before they check their facts, ( Dan Rather's 2004 report that GW Bush avoided a medical exam while serving in the reserve).

If they caught the animal it would've been a ratings boon for ABC and they would have exclusive access because they were the only ones covering it. All of those ratings translate to money for the network. I could more easily believe it was a false alarm or they didn't want to look foolish but the news covering it up? Nah. It would be too big for a live newscast to cover it up.

I couldn't agree more!

[Sandman9580]

I'd have to agree. I don't think any scientist worth his her or her salt would say for sure that Bigfoot absolutely doesn't exist... but I think most of them would say it's so unlikely that it's not worth further inquiry until there's actual evidence - preferably of the reliable and consistent variety. I don't have much interest or knowledge in Bigfoot, but as I understand it, its discovery would seriously disrupt what we do know (from very good evidence) about food sources in the Pacific Northwest, population metrics, and global species migration and dispersal. There's also nothing in the fossil record of it - though with fossils, absence of evidence is hardly evidence of absence. But when it comes to the "evidence" we do have, there seems to be a pretty big vacuum, a huge gaping void, a few paltry grains of sand (whose origins are cast in doubt) where a good-sized mountain should be.

So we'd not only have to find the thing, we'd have to explain how it could survive, and why - in a place with a relatively high flow of human activity - we don't have more, much more anectotal or photographic accounts of it. I'd love for Bigfoot to be real, I'd be delighted (and confused) if he was, but the huge lack of direct evidence, as well as the consistent indirect evidence to the contrary, kind of suggests to me that we shouldn't hold our breath. To put it kindly.

[johnmiic]

Well - again, I don't get why Patterson/Gimlin film would be accepted as a gold-standard when no other field of scientific inquiry accepts photographic evidence in this way...

That is my way of classifying it. I consider it a gold standard because tho people have "claimed" to debunk the P/G film they have not actually done so. There are a number of details evident in the film and the famous frame #352, which shut down the argument that it is a costume. In lieu of an actual live animal or a dead body I think the film is quite good as evidence. The BFRO explain this on their website. Phographic evidence, while not the best, is a modern tool science can use, and often does in many fields. However, in Bigfoot's case they have shut the door. I don't think that is particularly right. I don't think it is fair despite the possibility of hoaxers.

I don't remember Dr. Krantz getting confirmation back from the FBI about his prints, but to be fair I'm no expert on this stuff. Wikipedia reports that Dr. Krantz got positive results from Scotland Yard though.

I think in his book, Big Footprints or Bigfoot: The Evidence, he mentions the FBI. Also in Sasquatch:Legend Meets Science a FBI person does appear who says he is not just qualified in Human dermals but all known primate dermals.

I have been following a bit of stuff on Jimmy Chilcutt - who also studied dermal ridges - by way of Matt Crowley... Crowley's shown through creating casts how artifacts like cracking in the casting process create lines that match the claimed dermal ridges...Showing Dermal ridges could be faked - despite the claims that they couldn't.

According to the FBI there is no known way to fake fingerprints. They have not seen a convincing fake of dermal ridges either. While, "cracking in the casting process [may] create lines that match the claimed dermal ridges" , I have confidence that he FBI would be able to tell the difference between cracks, intentional fakes and real dermals. They found dermals in the casts supplied by Dr. Krantz that even the good Dr. himself had not detected upon examination.

As for Dr. Krantz being ignored for his research - well, peer review IS a major part of the scientific process. It's tough business - but an argument NEEDS to stand up to peer review to be accepted as legitimate theory. That's just how science works.

The thing is, cryptozoology (and ALL other paranormal fields of research) bring to question other established and long tested theories - so to bring those theories into question there needs to be REALLY FANTASTIC physical evidence or AMAZING testable proof. The burden of proof is on them - not the established scientific community. So, frankly, that's where I'd lay the blame.

There is a story in UFO research which illustrates, to me, the position of the "scientific community". When Project Bluebook was started they appointed Edward U. Condon in charge. He was interviewed by a reporter and said something to the effect that this whole U.F.O. business was nonsense-tho I'm not supposed to release that conclusion for a few more months. There is a bias in many fields that when something new comes along, if it seems too controversial, it's best to ignore it. Science is afflicted with that same malady. There is a double standard to investigating these paranormal subjects. The burden of proof does lie with the researcher but when a debunker comes along everyone accepts the unconvincing explanation. In UFO's it is "swamp gas". In Bigfoot is it "carved feet". That is not very scientific.

Why couldn't anyone track the Skunk Ape in the photo?

That photo was submitted anonymously. They were able to track the photo to the place where it was developed; but not to the location where the photo was taken. They have an idea of the general area but not the exact location. Some people are afraid to come forward.

There's nearly 40 years of widespread Bigfoot hunting now - how likely is it that in 40 years not one irrefutable piece of physical evidence has turned up? Why are Bigfoot researchers so susceptible to fraud? None of the answers to these questions make me think Bigfoot is IMPOSSIBLE - but they do make me think Bigfoot is highly unlikely.

I consider the casts of footprints to be very good evidence. Maybe not irrefutable but still very good. I'm not trying to shut your side of the argument down but we have to consider the possibility that these animals may be very clever. They regard us as predators and are able to mostly evade us. Has anyone ever considered the possibility that they hide on Indians reservations where we don't go looking for them? They bury their dead? The openly populate areas where most people don't go, ( the Olympic National Forest region in Washington has been suggested because the West Coast has so many sightings)? They are mostly nocturnal? They are Ape-like and travel through the trees unseen in the daytime? This is a terrific subject that really makes you wonder what this animal is.