Bigfoot research and credible researchers!?

[Meule]

Just putting Bigfoot and credible in the same sentence makes me laugh

[The Bat]

I completely NEW Species of Monkey was just discovered in South America.

[MIB41]

Alaska is Full of Bottomless Outdoor and made "Honey Buckets" . He has now become somewhat Domesticated. ..., I mean, Come On Man, Squating up next to a Tree , might get a bit tiresome. It's nice to sit down, and Enjoy the Sports page every once in a while.

BTW nice update on your avatar.

[MIB41]

In order to survive...a species needs a fairly large population base and territory...especially for such a large creature such as Bigfoot.

One Bigfoot per state is just not realistic.

We have found bones (fossils) of dinosaurs from millions of years ago...yet we can't find one lone tailbone of a Bigfoot?

No way on Earth would this creature match the power of a 1000 pound Grizzly bear...in order for Bigfoot to survive...he would need to be in groups...one lone bipedal Bigfoot is dead meat against a four-legged, six-inch clawed Grizzlies, and pack of wolves...unless he has weapons, lol.

No...I don't believe such a creature exists...especially in highly populated First World USA...where the name of the game is technology...I mean...we can find a bloody ant from 20 miles up in the air, let alone a smelly hairy tall dude, lol.

Amen brotha.

[Brazoo]

Johnmiic - I just want to say, that I also really like talking about this subject and I think this is a great conversation! I think dismissing claims based on belief alone is not as helpful or interesting as trying to really weigh the information. I think figuring out why we believe anything we believe gives us a better understanding all our knowledge.

The samples are not exciting the scientific community because they are inconclusive. You find a DNA sample and it does not match a known animal on record. You can't say what it really is-because nothing you know of has that DNA. You can only say what it isn't-because it doesn't match any DNA catalogued so far. As far as science is concerned that doesn't mean Unknown DNA = Bigfoot. In order to identify a Bigfoot hair we need a captured Bigfoot to verify what such a DNA sample would actually look like. Scientists have mainly held that the only evidence they will consider is a dead body-nothing less I think. There are arguments to be made against killing one of these animals to prove it's real.

That's what I was getting at - because the evidence is inconclusive, at best, the scientific community doesn't devote more interest into the claims. It's not just a personal prejudice scientists have against the claims, not for science at large anyway.

From what I understand - considering what's known biologically, historically and geologically a lot of information would have to be re-written to support the theory of a great north american ape. That large body of knowledge from different disciplines of science is weighted against a few, maybe compelling to some, but inconclusive pieces of evidence - so the process demands that a larger more substantial piece is still required.

I don't think any other species so far has been identified and accepted based the kind of evidence we currently have for big foot alone. Big foot researchers are just being held to the same standard of taxonomy that we currently have - so again, if it's a question of being fair, I think that based on the evidence that's been yielded so far, the scepticism is fair, because the gold standard for identifying a new species is a living, dead or fossilized body.

Your statement is very confusing. I assumed, based on the shows I was watching, that the samples collected were being compared to other primates, to rule out humans, known primates such as apes, chimps, orangutans, etc., possibly bears and generally animals you encounter in a forest environment in North America. I thought that was understood. Why would they compare the DNA to animals that lived around the whole world? Why compare it to animals that we know don't live in the USA? Would they compare the unknown DNA to elephants to rule them out? Because no elphants live in the US & Canada. Would they check against Camels or Koala's? Because they don't live in the Pacific Northwest or Canada as far as I know. Shouldn't any DNA sample have simple, obvious, characteristics that would automatically rule it out as being from non-primate/non-human? Can DNA from a human be easily confused with known DNA from a bear or a squirrel or a mountain lion?

I was trying to address the claim that you made that the hair sample DNA was compared to ALL known species - and from what information I've learned that's not really possible technically or financially. From my understanding what they did was compare the samples against animals found locally - but unfortunately that doesn't completely exclude the possibility that, for example, hairs from a non-local animal were planted or somehow collected unknowingly.

I think you're addressing Pinker's claims about analyzing hair samples which he did with older technology. And when the hairs were examined in peer review the best result those scientists could get was inconclusive - though they did suggest the samples were most similar to bear hairs. If you have links to other sources I'd be interested in checking them out.

Just for clarity - I've heard many times that hair doesn't actually contain DNA - DNA can only be extracted from the hair follicle. My only point here is that a lot of hair samples can't be tested for DNA and other examination methods are used.

I am saying, if a person claims to know how the hoax was accomplished-they also share a burden of proof and must show us how it was done or withdraw from making such claims. TV Producer Robert Kiviat claims Bigfoot was a man in a suit. He went shopping around until he found Bob Heironimus willing to claim he wore the suit and propped him up as the culprit, (Kiviat's previous TV credits include: Producer, Alien Autopsy: (Fact or Fiction?) (1995). Gee, I wonder how that turned out? I know. The irony of that is not lost on me). Philip Morris of Morris Costumes claims he sold Patterson a costume. Bob Heironimus claims to have worn a costume for Patterson's film. Their accounts and descriptions of the costume do not match. John Landis and John Chambers allowed rumors to spread for years that it was costume John Chambers made. Where is the costume? Why can they not produce the costume? If the costume was thrown out-highly unlikely due to its value-why can they not produce a facsimilie? The BBC attempted to create a Bigfoot costume to show it could be done for a documentary they made a few years back and they failed to replicate the authentic look of the animal in the Patterson film. Costumes can be made if there is intent to show it can be done. Only the BBC has tried to show it can be done and they failed. The Patterson/Gimlin film has withstood the fakery test very well. So far no one has been able to replicate what is on that film.

Morally I agree with you. Accusing Patterson or Gimlin of fraud requires a burden of proof on the accusers.

Scientifically we have to accept the fact that the film alone could be fraudulent or that Patterson and Gimlin could have been somehow duped by someone else, or other variations of those possibilities. To completely exclude hoax as a possibility the burden of proof is weighed against the consensus of science - and that points to the unlikely authenticity of the film.

Consensus of opinion is what the concept of 'burden of proof' is based on in the first place. Legally and morally we accept that all people are innocent until proven guilty because we assume that when a crime is committed everyone didn't commit the crime - it was one or a few people, not everyone. So we presume innocence for everyone, including the most likely suspects until they are proven guilty.

If someone is going against a consensus - the burden of proof is on them - and at this time authenticity of the Patterson/Gimlin's evidence is still against the consensus.

Sorry, I don't know the specific cases and references you're siting. I do know that many documented cases of hoaxes, including a stunt pulled by Penn & Teller, were able to fool a lot of people in the community.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter, because science doesn't identify new species based on film evidence. Even if it's very compelling, it's still not (as you say) the gold standard in science.

The real answer probably is there was no costume used in that film. Occams Razor: the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred. Was an undiscovered animal caught on film or did people conspire to make a technologically advanced costume that even Hollywood special effects masters can't duplicate, to perpatrate a hoax but only revealed their involvement in the hoax 30-40 years later? The most likely answer is an unknown animal was caught on film. What we still need is more proof.

Occam's Razor is very useful - I totally agree - but I think the entry in Wikipedia summarizes it very well:

"When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question. "

This is what I think we really have to ask ourselves using Occam's Razor: does the possibility of a minimum of two people making and filming a suit require fewer assumptions and postulated entities than the consensus of several fields of science being wrong about predicting and confirming big foot's existence?

There IS a double standard here. The Double-standard exists in how the claims of people are received. A burden of proof also exists on the hoaxers. People who make claims they faked it are usually accepted as truthful. Why that is I don't know. People who claim they have evidence proving Bigfoot is real usually are considered liars or worse:crazy. People claiming they were in on the hoax gain noteriety and make money off these claims which have no truthful basis. They are tainting the evidence for their own selfish gain. People have devoted time, secured resources and equiptment and spent money out of their own pockets to look for this animal and when one of these ignorant yahoos comes along claiming they made the suit, they wore the suit, they made fake feet, they crap on all the good work dedicated people have done trying to prove Bigfoot exits. Showing me a costume used to perpetrate a hoax does not automatically mean Bigfoot = real but why to these hoaxers get a free pass? If they're so smart and they fooled all of us all these years show us how you did it. Let experts evaluate what you are claiming the same way they must evaluate what researchers are claiming. If you can show me you faked it we will eliminate certain examples of evidence that have been collected. Investigation will more likely eliminate the hoaxers and improve the collection of good evidence. If hoaxers cannot produce a suit which matches the one in Patterson's film that improves the possibility of the film being of a real animal.

Certainly a fake cannot be ruled out. I admit that. I am not dealing in extremes here. We are talking theoretically but I advocate that it is real. We have very compelling evidence that can be tested and evaluated. We can seperate hoax from good evidence. What we know is only the tip of the iceberg. No one is claiming there is only 1 Bigfoot per state or even for the US alone. There must be a population but we do not know how many there are because they are clever animals and we have not even caught one yet. Not catching one does not mean they all don't exist.

I agree and sympathize with you that the hoaxers have poisoned the reputations of legit and sensible researchers to the public at large. It's unfair to paint all big foot believers with the same brush - and I certainly don't mean to come across that way because I don't think that believe is fair or more importantly useful.

But the truth is that this field of research is fraught with hoaxers - and with ALL fields of science we need to discount fraud or even just bad science for new claims. Last year a legitimate Korean medical research lab made claims about advances in stem cell research. They claimed they created embryonic stem-cells from adult ones, which would be a HUGE achievement. But here's the pattern:

1) they announced the claims in the media before they submitted their work for peer review
2) no transparency - they hid their methods claiming to reveal these details at a later date
3) tried to get more research funding without gaining any consensus of opinion outside their lab

There are some huge warning signs there - and it arose scepticism from the beginning even though a lot of scientists believe what they were claiming might even be possible. When they were investigated the claims were found to be fraudulent and legal action was taken against the researchers involved.

This is the exact pattern that many big foot hoaxers or researchers duped by hoaxers have used. Science has established certain rules and steps for announcing claims and doing research. The big foot copse in a fridge hoax is a great example of the same pattern. (I know you also believe that was a confirmed hoax, that's why I'm using that as an example.)

This is the basic order new claims are suppose to adhere to:

1) testing that can be repeated using controls and coming up with methods of falsification for their theory
2) submitting studies for peer review
3) publishing studies to open theories to a consensus of opinion or criticism

The legitimate big foot research that follows those three steps has not passed the muster. So I don't see a double standard - it's the same process ALL new claims need to go though. I don't think it's fair to say there's a special case here - at best the knowledge, evidence or testing methods we have so far may not be adequate yet, that might be fair to say, but I disagree that it's not a level playing field.

This is the benchmark for a Bigfoot Population which remains as yet-undiscovered. Animals can live, sustain a population and remain hidden from man out in the wild. Theoretically it can happen:

More than 100,000 rare gorillas found in Congo - CNN

Gorilla May Double World Numbers

I agree that theoretically I can't say big foot is impossible - all I can say is it's very unlikely - but there's a big difference between estimating known populations of spices and being to estimate the likelihood of a hidden great north america ape. I think you'd probably agree with that - and I hate to be obvious - but I do see you're point.

Sorry if some of this is rambling. I'm really looking forward to seeing your responses to some of this, and any links or new info you can give me would be appreciated! If you'd like I'll find you some links I've referenced before too.

I wanted to quickly comment on something LadyZod said -
When biologists estimate that we've only identified 2 million species out of a possible 20 million (or whatever - these numbers widely very depending on different factors from what I understand) size of the animals and location of the animals is a HUGE factor. We're expecting to find vast numbers of new insects (there are like half a million different kinds of known beetles alone, for example), we're expecting to find tons of new animals in the oceans or other remote places. We're not expecting to find millions of new mammals, and it's less probable that we're going to find new large mammals, and even less likely to find large mammals in North America. Not impossible, just not predicted by the theory you're siting, to the best of my knowledge.

[stevenlore]

This has been a great topic. I am enjoying the debate that seems to be rather diplomatic. Keep it up!

[jwyblejr]

What does everyone think about the evidence that Josh Gates has come up with over the past couple of years?

[lepage]

Now Josh Gates is the man! DT is one of my favorite shows to date.

[torgospizza]

We have found bones (fossils) of dinosaurs from millions of years ago...yet we can't find one lone tailbone of a Bigfoot?

This is exactly how I feel. I've run across dead animals before, and a lot of people have found similar corpses in the wild. After centuries of people living here in North America, no one has found a Sasquatch skeleton, and they should have by now.

No way on Earth would this creature match the power of a 1000 pound Grizzly bear...

It could if s/he were bionic.

At the risk of being ridiculed, I think it's only fair I come clean. I had a Bigfoot sighting +/- 25 years ago, and you can read about it here. I stand by that report, but will also add I do not believe in Bigfoot. I don't know what it was I and my friend saw, but I just find too many issues in the idea it was any primate other than a human in a suit. It might have been a bear standing up, but this is unlikely, given the area. It did look like the common image of Bigfoot, though. Whatever the case, it is true--as I said in the report--I saw it before my friend said anything. It might have been a hoax--someone just having fun--but the truth is, I just don't know and never will.

[johnmiic]

Brazoo, there is no harm/no foul here with you or anyone in this thread. This is something I love talking about. At the end of the day people believe what they want. If people give it a second thought, maybe where they live look around the woods a little bit more carefully and see something they never noticed before, that would be cool. If people don't want to hear it-that's their perogative. I have said what I can in favor of it. We're not here for a barfight. We're just throwing out theories and shootin' the breeze. I enjoy reading everyones 2¢.

I have read a lot of books on the subject, read many articles on the web and seen a lot of the TV documentaries. I can only repeat from memory what I learned and add a bit of my opinion in it too. I can't completely nail down which shows I saw them get a testable DNA sample and a hair sample they could examine in detail. I am far behind in watching Destination Truth so I have to catch up. I did see the Penn & Teller hoax and heard about their admission some time after it happened.

I would be pretty sure it was in a Monster Quest Episode or Sasquatch: Legend Meets science but I would have to re-watch them to be sure. In the case of Monster Quest they have done so many Bigfoot stories with different names it will be hard to track. I'm pretty sure the hair follicle they examined was spec. as primate but "no known primate". They said the hair strand was missing 1 feature human primate hair usually has but were sure it was primate. I would have to track the show down and watch it again to get the details.

I also have to say it is exhausting getting this involved in a thread!

[toyman]

Brazoo, there is no harm/no foul here with you or anyone in this thread. This is something I love talking about. At the end of the day people believe what they want. If people give it a second thought, maybe where they live look around the woods a little bit more carefully and see something they never noticed before, that would be cool. If people don't want to hear it-that's their perogative. I have said what I can in favor of it. We're not here for a barfight. We're just throwing out theories and shootin' the breeze. I enjoy reading everyones 2¢.

I have read a lot of books on the subject, read many articles on the web and seen a lot of the TV documentaries. I can only repeat from memory what I learned and add a bit of my opinion in it too. I can't completely nail down which shows I saw them get a testable DNA sample and a hair sample they could examine in detail. I am far behind in watching Destination Truth so I have to catch up. I did see the Penn & Teller hoax and heard about their admission some time after it happened.

I would be pretty sure it was in a Monster Quest Episode or Sasquatch: Legend Meets science but I would have to re-watch them to be sure. In the case of Monster Quest they have done so many Bigfoot stories with different names it will be hard to track. I'm pretty sure the hair follicle they examined was spec. as primate but "no known primate". They said the hair strand was missing 1 feature human primate hair usually has but were sure it was primate. I would have to track the show down and watch it again to get the details.

I also have to say it is exhausting getting this involved in a thread!

I think the show was Monster Quest and if remember correct it was from a cabin in canada that was broken into and the creature had stepped on a board with nails turned up and left blood and hair behind.

[Joe90]

I'm not prepared to say I believe in Bigfoot, but I can't rule its existence out for two reasons.

The area that Bigfoot is supposed to inhabit is huge. In Canada alone you have Alberta with 255,541 square miles and British Columbia with 364,764 square miles. That's over 620,000 square miles. The combined population of these 2 Provinces is just over 8 million people who mostly live in urban centers. That's a lot of space for an animal to hide in if it doesn't want to be seen. Cougars are masters at not being seen. In my 53 years of hanging out in wilderness areas that have solid populations of apex predators I've seen lots of coyotes and bears, a few wolves (generally their rear ends as they high-tailed it out of sight) but ZERO cougars. Lots of cougar tracks, but they don't count. I'd imagine a wary animal at least as intelligent as a cougar could easily remain hidden in over half a million square miles of wilderness. They hide hundreds of thousands of illegal marijuana plants in British Columbia, it's no stretch that a few hairy, stinky, tall apes could remain hidden too.

Most public libraries have microfiche files -- or updated digital files -- of The London Times. These files all originate from the same archive. Spend about an hour looking through the earliest files of The London Times and you will come across a report from the late 1700's about a British naval ship that docked in Newfoundland to drop supplies. The local Indians had captured a hairy "Wild Man" and brought it to the British. It never made the return trip to England. I can't remember if it died or was set free, it's been 35 years since I read that 18th Century news clip, but whatever it was, it certainly wasn't a hoax.

[Meule]

What does everyone think about the evidence that Josh Gates has come up with over the past couple of years?

What evidence? Every episode ends the same: with more questions than answers and no evidence whatsoever. It was fun for a while, but it gets old quick

[lepage]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M93UAvy74Jg

[MIB41]

Here's another way of looking at it. The ocean is the least explored territory left on earth. Yet we have been able to discover the prehistoric jaws of the Megalodon (ancestor of the Great White). No one has footage of it still existing. No claims, that I am aware of, suggests it still exists, although it may. Yet we do have conclusive evidence it DID exist. Big Foot is claimed to be "roaming" the countryside working on a unprecedented streak of always bumping into people who can never prove what they saw. And yet no one has ever found as much as a fossil of this animal. How can that be? How could they sustain life and mate without some interaction with the environment around them showing they were there? It's just not possible. The counter argument is right up there with how kids reason Santa Claus. So what it comes down to is just like what a child does to reason Santa. Believe if you want, but it requires faith and a special imagination for the supernatural, without any proof to reinforce it. Santa leave "gifts" as his proof. Big Foot leaves "foot prints". Merry Christmas!