Thread: New analysis of "Cripple foot" tracks

According to the "Monsterquest" episode that aired last night, a new analysis of the alleged Bigfoot tracks known as "Cripple foot" that were found in 1969, has virtually eliminated the possibility that they were fake. This is at least the third analysis to reach the same conclusion

Originally Posted by WVBIG

According to the "Monsterquest" episode that aired last night, a new analysis of the alleged Bigfoot tracks known as "Cripple foot" that were found in 1969, has virtually eliminated the possibility that they were fake. This is at least the third analysis to reach the same conclusion

Not again. Television is your guide to reality?

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by WVBIG

According to the "Monsterquest" episode that aired last night, a new analysis of the alleged Bigfoot tracks known as "Cripple foot" that were found in 1969, has virtually eliminated the possibility that they were fake. This is at least the third analysis to reach the same conclusion

Not again. Television is your guide to reality?

Where in the world do you live that they don't have "Cable In The Classroom" or at least other types of educational programming on tv? Tv snobbs really piss me off. Why is it watching something on tv that you actually have to think about, at least enough to follow, is considered "vegetating" but sitting in a totally quiet room with nothing to think about, is called "meditating"? btw, nice way to dodge the info in my post

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by WVBIG

According to the "Monsterquest" episode that aired last night, a new analysis of the alleged Bigfoot tracks known as "Cripple foot" that were found in 1969, has virtually eliminated the possibility that they were fake. This is at least the third analysis to reach the same conclusion

Not again. Television is your guide to reality?

Where in the world do you live that they don't have "Cable In The Classroom" or at least other types of educational programming on tv? Tv snobbs really piss me off. Why is it watching something on tv that you actually have to think about, at least enough to follow, is considered "vegetating" but sitting in a totally quiet room with nothing to think about, is called "meditating"? btw, nice way to dodge the info in my post

Dude, he meant that the TV is not a reliable source of information, especially when it comes to scientific matters, not even Monster Quest. If you still don't understand why, then you will never understand.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by WVBIG

According to the "Monsterquest" episode that aired last night, a new analysis of the alleged Bigfoot tracks known as "Cripple foot" that were found in 1969, has virtually eliminated the possibility that they were fake. This is at least the third analysis to reach the same conclusion

Not again. Television is your guide to reality?

Where in the world do you live that they don't have "Cable In The Classroom" or at least other types of educational programming on tv? Tv snobbs really piss me off. Why is it watching something on tv that you actually have to think about, at least enough to follow, is considered "vegetating" but sitting in a totally quiet room with nothing to think about, is called "meditating"? btw, nice way to dodge the info in my post

Dude, he meant that the TV is not a reliable source of information, especially when it comes to scientific matters, not even Monster Quest. If you still don't understand why, then you will never understand.

I know what he meant. I just happen to disagree. These shows don't have actors playing scientists. They have ACTUAL scientists. Scientists with jobs who must remain honest & be knowledgable to keep their jobs

They have ACTUAL scientists.

Great. The thing is that even scientists make mistakes, get taken by the moment and fall prey to wishfull thinking. That is why the peer review system is so important and some of the reason why the lack of their ability to submit their work through the proper channels (a television program is NOT the proper channel) is so telling.

"Next on MonsterQuest, the worlds tallest monster meets the worlds shortest monster."

Not that this doesn't sound silly, but it is essentially the crux of the program, finding overgrown known animals, which is all they ever find. The program has yet to deliver anything other than that and the sensationalism of mythical creatures.

If a scientist is brought in to do a study of something, like footprints, they simply complete the study and reveal the results.

Nowhere in any of it all is there a shred of evidence for bigfoot, or any other mythical monster.

Ratings and advertising shares, entertainment for pretending. That's what's it all about.

The show will probably get canceled soon when the ratings drop, just like any other tv show. You'd have better luck convincing people Mork really was an alien.

Originally Posted by (Q)

"Next on MonsterQuest, the worlds tallest monster meets the worlds shortest monster."

Not that this doesn't sound silly, but it is essentially the crux of the program, finding overgrown known animals, which is all they ever find. The program has yet to deliver anything other than that and the sensationalism of mythical creatures.

If a scientist is brought in to do a study of something, like footprints, they simply complete the study and reveal the results.

Nowhere in any of it all is there a shred of evidence for bigfoot, or any other mythical monster.

Ratings and advertising shares, entertainment for pretending. That's what's it all about.

The show will probably get canceled soon when the ratings drop, just like any other tv show. You'd have better luck convincing people Mork really was an alien.

Wrong again "Q" They also PROVED the presence of sharks in the St. Lawrence River. I don't know if you saw the recent Mokele Mbembe episode from the Congo, but I had to laugh when the "expert" said the track photographed wasn't a Sauropod track because the toes in known Sauropod tracks were close together instead of far apart like the toes of the travk in the pic. Then they showed pics of known Sauropod tracks where the toes weren't close together at all

Originally Posted by KALSTER

They have ACTUAL scientists.

Great. The thing is that even scientists make mistakes, get taken by the moment and fall prey to wishfull thinking. That is why the peer review system is so important and some of the reason why the lack of their ability to submit their work through the proper channels (a television program is NOT the proper channel) is so telling.

That's only because many in the mainstream scientific community don't realize what century this is. They are stuck back in the 18-19 centuries when everything had to be written down. I just read a newspaper article this morning about how American's opinion of science has dropped 20% in the past 10 years & the scientific community is working on getting more young people involved in science. I feel this is why there is more scientific news being made known via tv & the internet

Originally Posted by WVBIG

That's only because many in the mainstream scientific community don't realize what century this is. They are stuck back in the 18-19 centuries when everything had to be written down.

Not everything is suited to the TV format or even the video format. The depth of information contained and required in the average research publication would not be compatible with a 30 minute to 1 hour TV slot. And the TV format wouldn't really add much of use to primary publication. That's not living in the past, that's just reality. No more so than you'd be able to condense a textbook into a TV show. Video can be a nice supporting material, but you can't rely on it alone.

The visual format has its strengths, and the scientific community has actually been embracing that for many years, but it cannot practically replace traditional publication for many very important reasons. There are a couple of peer-reviewed video journals around these days but by necessity of that format, the publications are concerned with new techniques in step by step format- so basically they're how-to's for lab techniques and the like.

Any scientific journal worth mentioning now publishes on the internet and a great many are now exclusive to the internet. That doesn't mean they can or should transition to video, and it certainly doesn't mean they're stuck in the 19th century. Scientists have also embraced the internet, particularly blogging. But they still recognise the value of peer review.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I just read a newspaper article this morning about how American's opinion of science has dropped 20% in the past 10 years & the scientific community is working on getting more young people involved in science. I feel this is why there is more scientific news being made known via tv & the internet

Yes but unfortunately mainstream science reporting both in print and on the TV is notoriously unreliable. The mainstream has always had a sensationalist bent, which tends to colour the facts rather significantly, but in recent years the problem has become much more significant. Whilst the news is quite happy to report the complex ins and outs of economics and the statistics behind sports personalities, they now spend basically no time fact checking or trying to understand scientific topics. The upshot of that has been that only the most controversial science tends to be reported. Often the reporters or documentary makers have over extrapolated the findings, then simplified them to the point of meaninglessness. And then the next week they do it again and contradict themselves. Part of the problem seems to be the collapse of the traditional advertising revenue model due to the influence of the internet. Budgets are tighter, fewer people are generating more content for less money. Fact checking is now a luxury, as is detailed scientific analysis, critical commentary or indeed anything remotely useful to science reporting.

So every week there's a new pill to extend your life, a new household item that causes cancer (or cures it) and a new scare to do with those evil doctors and their big pharma cronies. It's all basically fantasy dressed as science. As a result, the average man on the street has started to see science as consistently controversial and self-contradictory. In fact, this is what the media is.

I would suggest you get hold of a primary paper or two on some topic you've seen reported in the mainstream. If you can critically read the papers, you'll quickly come to understand how the two formats differ, and how much has been lost or corrupted via mainstream reporting.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by WVBIG

That's only because many in the mainstream scientific community don't realize what century this is. They are stuck back in the 18-19 centuries when everything had to be written down.

Not everything is suited to the TV format or even the video format. The depth of information contained and required in the average research publication would not be compatible with a 30 minute to 1 hour TV slot. And the TV format wouldn't really add much of use to primary publication. That's not living in the past, that's just reality. No more so than you'd be able to condense a textbook into a TV show. Video can be a nice supporting material, but you can't rely on it alone.

The visual format has its strengths, and the scientific community has actually been embracing that for many years, but it cannot practically replace traditional publication for many very important reasons. There are a couple of peer-reviewed video journals around these days but by necessity of that format, the publications are concerned with new techniques in step by step format- so basically they're how-to's for lab techniques and the like.

Any scientific journal worth mentioning now publishes on the internet and a great many are now exclusive to the internet. That doesn't mean they can or should transition to video, and it certainly doesn't mean they're stuck in the 19th century. Scientists have also embraced the internet, particularly blogging. But they still recognise the value of peer review.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I just read a newspaper article this morning about how American's opinion of science has dropped 20% in the past 10 years & the scientific community is working on getting more young people involved in science. I feel this is why there is more scientific news being made known via tv & the internet

Yes but unfortunately mainstream science reporting both in print and on the TV is notoriously unreliable. The mainstream has always had a sensationalist bent, which tends to colour the facts rather significantly, but in recent years the problem has become much more significant. Whilst the news is quite happy to report the complex ins and outs of economics and the statistics behind sports personalities, they now spend basically no time fact checking or trying to understand scientific topics. The upshot of that has been that only the most controversial science tends to be reported. Often the reporters or documentary makers have over extrapolated the findings, then simplified them to the point of meaninglessness. And then the next week they do it again and contradict themselves. Part of the problem seems to be the collapse of the traditional advertising revenue model due to the influence of the internet. Budgets are tighter, fewer people are generating more content for less money. Fact checking is now a luxury, as is detailed scientific analysis, critical commentary or indeed anything remotely useful to science reporting.

So every week there's a new pill to extend your life, a new household item that causes cancer (or cures it) and a new scare to do with those evil doctors and their big pharma cronies. It's all basically fantasy dressed as science. As a result, the average man on the street has started to see science as consistently controversial and self-contradictory. In fact, this is what the media is.

I would suggest you get hold of a primary paper or two on some topic you've seen reported in the mainstream. If you can critically read the papers, you'll quickly come to understand how the two formats differ, and how much has been lost or corrupted via mainstream reporting.

Where would I find such papers?

Best place to start would be Google Scholar. This version of Google will only give you peer-reviewed papers as results. You can also try ScienceDirect (a bit less user friendly). Follow the links you get and try to get hold of the full text in each case. This will usually be in pdf format. Some of the papers you find will be free, but a lot won't (unless you're browsing from a university). But either way you'll get the abstract, which is a summary that gives you a good idea of what the paper concludes.

It's worth noting that we scientists will always try to read the full paper with scepticism, as what the authors are claiming in the abstract is not always well-supported by their findings. This is the layer of review beyond peer-review. We never take anyone on their word alone and the burden is on the authors to convince us!

For a good source covering how the media tends to distort science, have a look at Bad Science. The most recent blog entry there is a rather troubling example of how a research student's work was picked up by PR types and turned into a nasty piece of biased speculation that essentially contradicted the actual evidence. Instead it served to reinforce the prejudice of the journalist and his readers. This happens a lot.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

They have ACTUAL scientists.

Great. The thing is that even scientists make mistakes, get taken by the moment and fall prey to wishfull thinking. That is why the peer review system is so important and some of the reason why the lack of their ability to submit their work through the proper channels (a television program is NOT the proper channel) is so telling.

I think the trouble with a thing like Bigfoot is that, in order to get anywhere in peer review with something that far out in left field, your findings need to have almost 100.000000000% certainty. 95% certainty would probably be sufficient if it were a matter that was already accepted by the community.

There's no way to be sure whether a person is bypassing peer review simply because the burden of evidence that will be demanded of them is too unreasonably high, or if it's because they're misusing the scientific process and don't want to get called on it.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by KALSTER

They have ACTUAL scientists.

Great. The thing is that even scientists make mistakes, get taken by the moment and fall prey to wishfull thinking. That is why the peer review system is so important and some of the reason why the lack of their ability to submit their work through the proper channels (a television program is NOT the proper channel) is so telling.

I think the trouble with a thing like Bigfoot is that, in order to get anywhere in peer review with something that far out in left field, your findings need to have almost 100.000000000% certainty. 95% certainty would probably be sufficient if it were a matter that was already accepted by the community.

There's no way to be sure whether a person is bypassing peer review simply because the burden of evidence that will be demanded of them is too unreasonably high, or if it's because they're misusing the scientific process and don't want to get called on it.

I think you are probably right about the 100.0000000000% certainty requirement & that is a problem when most scientists only take peer reviewed papers seriously. In other words, the 100.0000000000% requirement means it will have to be proven before most scientists take it seriously enough to investigate. So instead of having a situation where evidence is studied & used to reach a conclusion, you have a situation where the proof is used to verify the evidence. That, in my opinion, is backwards

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Best place to start would be Google Scholar. This version of Google will only give you peer-reviewed papers as results. You can also try ScienceDirect (a bit less user friendly). Follow the links you get and try to get hold of the full text in each case. This will usually be in pdf format. Some of the papers you find will be free, but a lot won't (unless you're browsing from a university). But either way you'll get the abstract, which is a summary that gives you a good idea of what the paper concludes.

It's worth noting that we scientists will always try to read the full paper with scepticism, as what the authors are claiming in the abstract is not always well-supported by their findings. This is the layer of review beyond peer-review. We never take anyone on their word alone and the burden is on the authors to convince us!

For a good source covering how the media tends to distort science, have a look at Bad Science. The most recent blog entry there is a rather troubling example of how a research student's work was picked up by PR types and turned into a nasty piece of biased speculation that essentially contradicted the actual evidence. Instead it served to reinforce the prejudice of the journalist and his readers. This happens a lot.

Using Google Scholar as you suggested, I found an article about how an NBC executive informed a scientist that what they are selling is eyeballs. In other words, selling something that people want to watch. The problem with this example is that NBC doesn't show the types of programs I rely on to get information on subjects such as Bigfoot. They used to air "Unsolved Mysteries" but it relied mostly on eye witness interviews & interviews with ordinary people. The programs I watch are on networks like the history channel. national geographic channel, discovery, etc... I understand that no tv show will include every detail of an investigation because that would bore the viewers to tears. But just because not every detail is mentioned, it doesn't mean the investigation was poorly done. I think it just means the information is presented in a manner that will grab & hold the interest of the viewer. People would rather watch tv than read nowadays

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Best place to start would be Google Scholar. This version of Google will only give you peer-reviewed papers as results. You can also try ScienceDirect (a bit less user friendly). Follow the links you get and try to get hold of the full text in each case. This will usually be in pdf format. Some of the papers you find will be free, but a lot won't (unless you're browsing from a university). But either way you'll get the abstract, which is a summary that gives you a good idea of what the paper concludes.

It's worth noting that we scientists will always try to read the full paper with scepticism, as what the authors are claiming in the abstract is not always well-supported by their findings. This is the layer of review beyond peer-review. We never take anyone on their word alone and the burden is on the authors to convince us!

For a good source covering how the media tends to distort science, have a look at Bad Science. The most recent blog entry there is a rather troubling example of how a research student's work was picked up by PR types and turned into a nasty piece of biased speculation that essentially contradicted the actual evidence. Instead it served to reinforce the prejudice of the journalist and his readers. This happens a lot.

Using Google Scholar as you suggested, I found an article about how an NBC executive informed a scientist that what they are selling is eyeballs. In other words, selling something that people want to watch. The problem with this example is that NBC doesn't show the types of programs I rely on to get information on subjects such as Bigfoot. They used to air "Unsolved Mysteries" but it relied mostly on eye witness interviews & interviews with ordinary people. The programs I watch are on networks like the history channel. national geographic channel, discovery, etc... I understand that no tv show will include every detail of an investigation because that would bore the viewers to tears. But just because not every detail is mentioned, it doesn't mean the investigation was poorly done. I think it just means the information is presented in a manner that will grab & hold the interest of the viewer. People would rather watch tv than read nowadays

Ok, I'm not sure how you found a quote from an NBC executive or indeed any sort of discussion about the presentation of science on TV via Google scholar! I directed you to that site in order for you to read the actual research papers, ie the raw data, coming from scientists. So that you'd see for yourself the difference between science as it is communicated directly from the source versus how you see it on TV. Make sure you get a primary research paper rather than a review (those are usually labelled as "review") and you'll get a good taste of how new science is presented to the scientific community. Go find something that interests you and post it up for us. We could discuss it if you wish. Come to think of it, I might just start a "free paper of the week" sticky. Might encourage you guys to start critically reading science.

Now, the thing you mentioned about CNN; the business of whether science is getting accurately reported in the mainstream is not dealt with by anything in the primary literature. That's where blogs and websites like Bad Science come in. They generally hold that it isn't well presented, though you can doubtlessly find newspaper columns and blogs which disagree on that matter also. Bad Science is a good place to start though.

Ok so, on to the Discovery Channel, History Channel etc. They are only marginally less sensationalistic and prone to error than some of the more broad audience documentary makers. They're great in one way: a starting point. They get you interested in a certain field, get you excited about it. That's how I got to love science, but that's just the beginning. Once you go deeper, you'll start to see the limitations of the TV format.

I agree of course, most people would rather just watch the TV show. That's totally fine so long as they don't assume it to be 100% infallible or that it is coming direct from scientists. But for those who want to go further, who really want to know more and wish to be critical about it, the scientific literature is where things get really interesting!

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Best place to start would be Google Scholar. This version of Google will only give you peer-reviewed papers as results. You can also try ScienceDirect (a bit less user friendly). Follow the links you get and try to get hold of the full text in each case. This will usually be in pdf format. Some of the papers you find will be free, but a lot won't (unless you're browsing from a university). But either way you'll get the abstract, which is a summary that gives you a good idea of what the paper concludes.

It's worth noting that we scientists will always try to read the full paper with scepticism, as what the authors are claiming in the abstract is not always well-supported by their findings. This is the layer of review beyond peer-review. We never take anyone on their word alone and the burden is on the authors to convince us!

For a good source covering how the media tends to distort science, have a look at Bad Science. The most recent blog entry there is a rather troubling example of how a research student's work was picked up by PR types and turned into a nasty piece of biased speculation that essentially contradicted the actual evidence. Instead it served to reinforce the prejudice of the journalist and his readers. This happens a lot.

Using Google Scholar as you suggested, I found an article about how an NBC executive informed a scientist that what they are selling is eyeballs. In other words, selling something that people want to watch. The problem with this example is that NBC doesn't show the types of programs I rely on to get information on subjects such as Bigfoot. They used to air "Unsolved Mysteries" but it relied mostly on eye witness interviews & interviews with ordinary people. The programs I watch are on networks like the history channel. national geographic channel, discovery, etc... I understand that no tv show will include every detail of an investigation because that would bore the viewers to tears. But just because not every detail is mentioned, it doesn't mean the investigation was poorly done. I think it just means the information is presented in a manner that will grab & hold the interest of the viewer. People would rather watch tv than read nowadays

Ok, I'm not sure how you found a quote from an NBC executive or indeed any sort of discussion about the presentation of science on TV via Google scholar! I directed you to that site in order for you to read the actual research papers, ie the raw data, coming from scientists. So that you'd see for yourself the difference between science as it is communicated directly from the source versus how you see it on TV. Make sure you get a primary research paper rather than a review (those are usually labelled as "review") and you'll get a good taste of how new science is presented to the scientific community. Go find something that interests you and post it up for us. We could discuss it if you wish. Come to think of it, I might just start a "free paper of the week" sticky. Might encourage you guys to start critically reading science.

Now, the thing you mentioned about CNN; the business of whether science is getting accurately reported in the mainstream is not dealt with by anything in the primary literature. That's where blogs and websites like Bad Science come in. They generally hold that it isn't well presented, though you can doubtlessly find newspaper columns and blogs which disagree on that matter also. Bad Science is a good place to start though.

Ok so, on to the Discovery Channel, History Channel etc. They are only marginally less sensationalistic and prone to error than some of the more broad audience documentary makers. They're great in one way: a starting point. They get you interested in a certain field, get you excited about it. That's how I got to love science, but that's just the beginning. Once you go deeper, you'll start to see the limitations of the TV format.

I agree of course, most people would rather just watch the TV show. That's totally fine so long as they don't assume it to be 100% infallible or that it is coming direct from scientists. But for those who want to go further, who really want to know more and wish to be critical about it, the scientific literature is where things get really interesting!

Maybe I found what I did on Google Scholar because I did a search for "Peer reviewed papers" & of course "review" is included in that search criteria. I'll try again. However, I don't see how you can accuse these channels of being innacurate since these are educational channels & some have "Cable In The Classroom" programs made specifically for the purpose of teachers using them as instructional aids

Well I'd imagine that the cable in the classroom material will be fairly strictly vetted. I assume there's some department of education involvement in any such scheme. But the rest will be primarily geared towards getting good ratings and that will tend to lend a certain bias.

I found an interesting paper we can discuss if you like. The title is:
The Sasquatch: An Unwelcome & Premature Zoological Discovery?
Written by Dr. John Bindernagel. It appeared in the "Journal of Scientific Exploration" in 2004 & can be found at http://66.102.1.104/scholar?q=cache:...+Bigfoot&hl=en

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I found an interesting paper we can discuss if you like. The title is:
The Sasquatch: An Unwelcome & Premature Zoological Discovery
Written by Dr. John Bindernagel. It appeared in the "Journal of Scientific Exploration" in 2004 & can be found at http://66.102.1.104/scholar?q=cache:...+Bigfoot&hl=en

Never had to read past the abstract to know the article is worthless:

"At the same time, wildlife biologists and other zoologists
continue to ignore this evidence and to reject papers on the subject submitted
for presentation at professional conferences. This attitude of dismissal results
from the ridicule and discredit heaped on the subject in the popular media
coupled with the perceived unlikelihood of a large non-human primate oc-
curring in North America

Nevertheless, the hypothesis that the sasquatch is an upright North American great ape remains the best explanation of the available evidence"

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I found an interesting paper we can discuss if you like. The title is:
The Sasquatch: An Unwelcome & Premature Zoological Discovery
Written by Dr. John Bindernagel. It appeared in the "Journal of Scientific Exploration" in 2004 & can be found at http://66.102.1.104/scholar?q=cache:...+Bigfoot&hl=en

Never had to read past the abstract to know the article is worthless:

"At the same time, wildlife biologists and other zoologists
continue to ignore this evidence and to reject papers on the subject submitted
for presentation at professional conferences. This attitude of dismissal results
from the ridicule and discredit heaped on the subject in the popular media
coupled with the perceived unlikelihood of a large non-human primate oc-
curring in North America

Nevertheless, the hypothesis that the sasquatch is an upright North American great ape remains the best explanation of the available evidence"

This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that has been going on all along. Dismissal based purely on preconceived, academically arrogant, & unresearched opinions. That is as far from scientific as one can get

Originally Posted by WVBIG

This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that has been going on all along. Dismissal based purely on preconceived, academically arrogant, & unresearched opinions. That is as far from scientific as one can get

The dismissal was based on the abstract. The author is a 'believer' hence his paper worthless.

Any paper that starts out complaining about scientists and then follows up with "the best explanation of the available evidence" is obviously biased.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by WVBIG

This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that has been going on all along. Dismissal based purely on preconceived, academically arrogant, & unresearched opinions. That is as far from scientific as one can get

The dismissal was based on the abstract. The author is a 'believer' hence his paper worthless.

Any paper that starts out complaining about scientists and then follows up with "the best explanation of the available evidence" is obviously biased.

Worthless because he believes what the evidence points to? um yeah. So worthless it was PUBLISHED in a science magazine You don't seem to understand that skepticism has to end at some point. Should scientists remain skeptical that the world isn't flat? Or that water is made up of oxygen & hydrogen? By your line of reasoning, once a scientist comes to a conclusion based on his/her research, any further research they do on that subject is tainted by bias. Should scientists not believe the findings of their own research?

Originally Posted by WVBIG

So worthless it was PUBLISHED in a science magazine

You mean, this science magazine?

"The Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE), founded in 1987, is a quarterly publication of the Society for Scientific Exploration. According to its mission statement, the journal provides a forum for research on topics "outside the established disciplines of mainstream science." ~~ Wiki

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by WVBIG

So worthless it was PUBLISHED in a science magazine

You mean, this science magazine?

"The Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE), founded in 1987, is a quarterly publication of the Society for Scientific Exploration. According to its mission statement, the journal provides a forum for research on topics "outside the established disciplines of mainstream science." ~~ Wiki

I found it using Google Scholar as was suggested

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I found it using Google Scholar as was suggested

Kendrick Frazier, Editor of Skeptical Inquirer and CSICOP fellow has criticized JSE and argues that:

"The JSE, while presented as neutral and objective, appears to hold a hidden agenda. They seem to be interested in promoting fringe topics as real mysteries and they tend to ignore most evidence to the contrary. They publish 'scholarly' articles promoting the reality of dowsing, neo-astrology, ESP, and psychokinesis. Most of the prominent and active members are strong believers in the reality of such phenomena."

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I found it using Google Scholar as was suggested

Kendrick Frazier, Editor of Skeptical Inquirer and CSICOP fellow has criticized JSE and argues that:

"The JSE, while presented as neutral and objective, appears to hold a hidden agenda. They seem to be interested in promoting fringe topics as real mysteries and they tend to ignore most evidence to the contrary. They publish 'scholarly' articles promoting the reality of dowsing, neo-astrology, ESP, and psychokinesis. Most of the prominent and active members are strong believers in the reality of such phenomena."

Of course they are believers. Just as I am a believer in Bigfoot. But it's belief based on the evidence. I don't follow other mysteries as closerly as I follow Bigfoot, so I can't comment on the evidence to the contrary as it relates to them. But a lot of the evidence I've heard that is contradictory to the existence of Bigfoot, is itself, highly questionable. The book written by Greg Long is a good example. Mr. Long's two main sources of info, Bob Heronimous & Kal Korff, have no credibility whatsoever. Heronimous claims to be "the guy in the suit" in the Patterson/Gimlin film. Yet he has told several different versions of the events of October 20th, 1967 & can't even find the film site. Korff claims to be involved in the Israeli military & is in fact, just a security guard in I believe Romania. He also once claimed to be a witness in the O.J. Simpson trial, but quickly backed off of that claim when confronted with proof of his deceit. The book also talks about how Roger Patterson made the costume from a horse hyde. Except in the last chapter, when all of a sudden, costume maker Phillip Morris was supposedly the creator of the costume. Another example of poor quality evidence contradicting the existence of Bigfoot is when on "Is It Real? Bigfoot" some guys claimed to have created trackways with exceptionally long stride lengths by putting fake wooden feet on their boots & then being towed along behind pickups like water skiers are towed behind boats. This is ridiculous because the tire tracks of the pickups would definitely be visible if the footprints were. The best argument against Bigfoot is the lack of remains. As I've stated before, I believe this can be explained by a combination of things like 1)Animals scattering remains 2)Wet & acidic soil in the areas where most Bigfoot sightings occur 3)Laws requiring all discoveries of posible human remains be reported to the proper authorites & 4)Discarding of such remains once they are determined not to be human. I did hear one very good argument against Bigfoot being a primative form of human. That argument was this. If Bigfoot is a primative human, why in the hundreds or thousands of years it has supposedly been in North America, has it not evolved to the point of using tools or at least fire?

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I found it using Google Scholar as was suggested

Kendrick Frazier, Editor of Skeptical Inquirer and CSICOP fellow has criticized JSE and argues that:

"The JSE, while presented as neutral and objective, appears to hold a hidden agenda. They seem to be interested in promoting fringe topics as real mysteries and they tend to ignore most evidence to the contrary. They publish 'scholarly' articles promoting the reality of dowsing, neo-astrology, ESP, and psychokinesis. Most of the prominent and active members are strong believers in the reality of such phenomena."

Of course they are believers. Just as I am a believer in Bigfoot. But it's belief based on the evidence. I don't follow other mysteries as closely as I follow Bigfoot, so I can't comment on the evidence to the contrary as it relates to them. But a lot of the evidence I've heard that is contradictory to the existence of Bigfoot, is itself, highly questionable. The book written by Greg Long is a good example. Mr. Long's two main sources of info, Bob Heronimous & Kal Korff, have no credibility whatsoever. Heronimous claims to be "the guy in the suit" in the Patterson/Gimlin film. Yet he has told several different versions of the events of October 20th, 1967 & can't even find the film site. Korff claims to be involved in the Israeli military & is in fact, just a security guard in I believe Romania. He also once claimed to be a witness in the O.J. Simpson trial, but quickly backed off of that claim when confronted with proof of his deceit. The book also talks about how Roger Patterson made the costume from a horse hyde. Except in the last chapter, when all of a sudden, costume maker Phillip Morris was supposedly the creator of the costume. Another example of poor quality evidence contradicting the existence of Bigfoot is when on "Is It Real? Bigfoot" some guys claimed to have created trackways with exceptionally long stride lengths by putting fake wooden feet on their boots & then being towed along behind pickups like water skiers are towed behind boats. This is ridiculous because the tire tracks of the pickups would definitely be visible if the footprints were. The best argument against Bigfoot is the lack of remains. As I've stated before, I believe this can be explained by a combination of things like 1)Animals scattering remains 2)Wet & acidic soil in the areas where most Bigfoot sightings occur 3)Laws requiring all discoveries of posible human remains be reported to the proper authorites & 4)Discarding of such remains once they are determined not to be human. I did hear one very good argument against Bigfoot being a primative form of human. That argument was this. If Bigfoot is a primative human, why in the hundreds or thousands of years it has supposedly been in North America, has it not evolved to the point of using tools or at least fire?

the Journal of Scientific Exploration isn't actually a scientific journal. Its a rag self-published by a collection of pseudoscientists who are attempting to add credibility to their incredible claims.

Instead of discussing the television show, perhaps you could share with us what it is that you found to be the show's most significant evidence.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by WVBIG

This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that has been going on all along. Dismissal based purely on preconceived, academically arrogant, & unresearched opinions. That is as far from scientific as one can get

The dismissal was based on the abstract. The author is a 'believer' hence his paper worthless.

Any paper that starts out complaining about scientists and then follows up with "the best explanation of the available evidence" is obviously biased.

Worthless because he believes what the evidence points to? um yeah. So worthless it was PUBLISHED in a science magazine You don't seem to understand that skepticism has to end at some point. Should scientists remain skeptical that the world isn't flat? Or that water is made up of oxygen & hydrogen? By your line of reasoning, once a scientist comes to a conclusion based on his/her research, any further research they do on that subject is tainted by bias. Should scientists not believe the findings of their own research?

It's worthless because he's trying to make the "embattled" argument. "They" oppose it, so it must be true. It's unlikely, if you continue reading after that, the author is going to change and start making good arguments.

I guess another way to describe it is the argument from ignorance. "They never gave this idea a fair shake, therefore we can't know for sure that it's false, therefore the evidence against it is all null and void. By the way: here's some evidence in favor of it being true."

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I did hear one very good argument against Bigfoot being a primative form of human. That argument was this. If Bigfoot is a primative human, why in the hundreds or thousands of years it has supposedly been in North America, has it not evolved to the point of using tools or at least fire?

I think something a lot of people misunderstand about evolution is that genetic evolution moves several orders of magnitude slower than cultural evolution. Evolving from Primate intelligence to the full use of language would take many times longer than it would for a creature already genetically capable of language and abstract thought to invent its way from the stone age to modern industry.

As far as cultural evolution, the North American Indians were still in the stone age by the time most of Europe had reached the Renaissance. Cultural evolution moves really fast, so it's easy to get left in the dust.

So what I mean is: If Bigfoot exists and doesn't know how to use fire, then the problem is probably not that Bigfoot hasn't thought of it yet, but that Bigfoot's brain isn't intelligent enough to ever think of it.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by WVBIG

This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that has been going on all along. Dismissal based purely on preconceived, academically arrogant, & unresearched opinions. That is as far from scientific as one can get

The dismissal was based on the abstract. The author is a 'believer' hence his paper worthless.

Any paper that starts out complaining about scientists and then follows up with "the best explanation of the available evidence" is obviously biased.

Worthless because he believes what the evidence points to? um yeah. So worthless it was PUBLISHED in a science magazine You don't seem to understand that skepticism has to end at some point. Should scientists remain skeptical that the world isn't flat? Or that water is made up of oxygen & hydrogen? By your line of reasoning, once a scientist comes to a conclusion based on his/her research, any further research they do on that subject is tainted by bias. Should scientists not believe the findings of their own research?

It's worthless because he's trying to make the "embattled" argument. "They" oppose it, so it must be true. It's unlikely, if you continue reading after that, the author is going to change and start making good arguments.

I guess another way to describe it is the argument from ignorance. "They never gave this idea a fair shake, therefore we can't know for sure that it's false, therefore the evidence against it is all null and void. By the way: here's some evidence in favor of it being true."

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I did hear one very good argument against Bigfoot being a primative form of human. That argument was this. If Bigfoot is a primative human, why in the hundreds or thousands of years it has supposedly been in North America, has it not evolved to the point of using tools or at least fire?

I think something a lot of people misunderstand about evolution is that genetic evolution moves several orders of magnitude slower than cultural evolution. Evolving from Primate intelligence to the full use of language would take many times longer than it would for a creature already genetically capable of language and abstract thought to invent its way from the stone age to modern industry.

As far as cultural evolution, the North American Indians were still in the stone age by the time most of Europe had reached the Renaissance. Cultural evolution moves really fast, so it's easy to get left in the dust.

So what I mean is: If Bigfoot exists and doesn't know how to use fire, then the problem is probably not that Bigfoot hasn't thought of it yet, but that Bigfoot's brain isn't intelligent enough to ever think of it.

Which then raises the argument "If Bigfoot exists, but isn't intelligent to have thought of fire, how has it eluded capture or being killed by a hunter all these years?"

I guess, in the alternative, you could imagine that Bigfoot exists, and is not only intelligent enough to use fire, but also intelligent enough to realize human society will see the fires, and therefore avoids using them.

Another thing that kind of works against the theory is just how many Bigfoots would have to exist in order to avoid some serious in-breeding issues. And all of them are going unobserved?

WV, let me first applaud you for taking the first step to seeing how real science is communicated. There are a couple of problems with this particular source you've linked and I hope that I by explaining them I can help you find better ones!

Firstly, the article in question is actually one of the "review" style pieces I mentioned before. You can guage this from the scope of the topic, it's a very very broad question indeed. A primary research paper can be spotted by the much narrower topic scope. For example, my very first research paper was about some specific protein X and how it affects memory formation. Very narrow study.That might well get quoted in a review paper with a broader topic, such as memory formation in general or something even wider such as the molecular biology of the brain. Second, there's only one author. Not a huge problem but it merely suggests a review paper once again, as most research papers will have at least two authors and usually many more. Third, you'll notice that this paper does not focus on a single body of work carried out by the author, it's an overview of the work of numerous people and includes many very broad and uncritical statements.

Finally, as others have pointed out, the quality of scepticism displayed in the paper and indeed in that journal in particular, is rather poor. This is a peer-reviewed journal, at least in some sense, but the editorial stance seems to be one of positive assumption, ie belief in various phenomena, rather than skepticism. Skepticism is the default editorial position of any decent journal and it seems not to be displayed by the editors, reviewers (that we know of) or authors of this journal.

Many journals have what is called an "impact factor" which is a measure of how often the journal is quoted by other research papers. It's a sort of proxy measurement of the quality and standing of the journal. I do not know what the impact factor of the Journal of Scientific Exploration is, but I would imagine it is very low. I would recommend that you read something from Nature or Science in order to get a feel for the quality of the work and the rigour displayed by the reviewers and editors at the top end of the impact factor scale. I can't link to either of those journals for free, but I can link to PLos ONE which is a fairly decent online journal. Keeping to the primates theme, here's one of the first papers on the much over-hyped Darwinius masillae:

Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology

Compare it to the article you linked to us and you'll get an idea both of how research papers differ from reviews and how rigorous and detailed papers must be to get into the good journals.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

WV, let me first applaud you for taking the first step to seeing how real science is communicated. There are a couple of problems with this particular source you've linked and I hope that I by explaining them I can help you find better ones!

Firstly, the article in question is actually one of the "review" style pieces I mentioned before. You can guage this from the scope of the topic, it's a very very broad question indeed. A primary research paper can be spotted by the much narrower topic scope. For example, my very first research paper was about some specific protein X and how it affects memory formation. Very narrow study.That might well get quoted in a review paper with a broader topic, such as memory formation in general or something even wider such as the molecular biology of the brain. Second, there's only one author. Not a huge problem but it merely suggests a review paper once again, as most research papers will have at least two authors and usually many more. Third, you'll notice that this paper does not focus on a single body of work carried out by the author, it's an overview of the work of numerous people and includes many very broad and uncritical statements.

Finally, as others have pointed out, the quality of scepticism displayed in the paper and indeed in that journal in particular, is rather poor. This is a peer-reviewed journal, at least in some sense, but the editorial stance seems to be one of positive assumption, ie belief in various phenomena, rather than skepticism. Skepticism is the default editorial position of any decent journal and it seems not to be displayed by the editors, reviewers (that we know of) or authors of this journal.

Many journals have what is called an "impact factor" which is a measure of how often the journal is quoted by other research papers. It's a sort of proxy measurement of the quality and standing of the journal. I do not know what the impact factor of the Journal of Scientific Exploration is, but I would imagine it is very low. I would recommend that you read something from Nature or Science in order to get a feel for the quality of the work and the rigour displayed by the reviewers and editors at the top end of the impact factor scale. I can't link to either of those journals for free, but I can link to PLos ONE which is a fairly decent online journal. Keeping to the primates theme, here's one of the first papers on the much over-hyped Darwinius masillae:

Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology

Compare it to the article you linked to us and you'll get an idea both of how research papers differ from reviews and how rigorous and detailed papers must be to get into the good journals.

Thanks for the link. It seemed like it was written by Steven King because they could've written all that was really necessary in a paper 10% of the size. Why not just say it was x-rayed/ c-scanned with top quality equipment? Why describe the plates more than once? etc... This story was covered on a documentary recently & it proves my point that just because something is covered on tv, it doesn't mean there isn't solid science to back it up. I feel all the necessary info was covered in the documentary. Sorry I didn't check it out sooner. I don't seem to get all my notifications of new posts. I just decided to check today because I hadn't received a notification recently

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Thanks for the link. It seemed like it was written by Steven King because they could've written all that was really necessary in a paper 10% of the size.

I think you may be being unduly dismissive of what is "necessary" and your attitude towards their need for detailed explanation rather betrays your understanding of the reality of science. It's not for those with a short attention span.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Why not just say it was x-rayed with top quality equipment?

For many reasons. First, because if I want to independently test their findings I need to know exactly what they did. Otherwise how can I know if any differences between my findings and theirs are due to something really meaningful or are just because I developed the film using a different method? They're being exact and that is absolutely essential. Many's the scientist who has fallen into disrepute because he found something extraordinary that nobody could replicate.

Second, one man's "top quality equipment" is another man's "overpriced and flawed equipment". Remove the ambiguity by naming the equipment, explaining the method fully and then the reader can decide for himself. Opinions are for the discussion section, not for the methods or results sections.

Basically, this is information that is not of interest to you. That does not mean it is unnecessary.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Why describe the plates more than once? etc...

In the methods section they describe how the plates were made, which allows others to replicate the work or to use a similar method for new work.

In the results section they describe what they found, plainly and with no interpretation or reference to the broader implications. This ensures that the reader can digest the information free of the authors' potential bias or any other spin.

In the discussion section they bring all of that information together with the current state of the field of study and interpret it all in context. The authors can make a broader point, an argument, from a synthesis of all the data and how it relates to other known data.

This is methodical, thorough and is the basic format that all good science is presented in.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

This story was covered on a documentary recently & it proves my point that just because something is covered on tv, it doesn't mean there isn't solid science to back it up.

Nobody would argue against that and I don't think anybody is. What I'm saying is that this is not always the case. Showing an example where it is the case does not disprove my point. I can show many examples of TV coverage of science that has been so wrong as to be actually dangerous.

And as it happens, much of the TV coverage of this fossil was rather exaggerated. From the behaviour of the media, one would think this was the only fossil link between humans and other primates ever found, or that it was a critical piece in the fossil record. It was neither really. It was just a very nice fossil that told us a little piece of a story we already know most of. The TV guys didn't get this. Or spun the story so it would sell better.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I feel all the necessary info was covered in the documentary.

Necessary for your needs, sure. It informs you just a little bit and that's the end of it. There's a lot more detail, both in method and results that matters a lot to scientists. And you're claiming that the print format is not required. This is clearly not the case, even if you personally don't have a use for it.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Thanks for the link. It seemed like it was written by Steven King because they could've written all that was really necessary in a paper 10% of the size.

I think you may be being unduly dismissive of what is "necessary" and your attitude towards their need for detailed explanation rather betrays your understanding of the reality of science. It's not for those with a short attention span.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Why not just say it was x-rayed with top quality equipment?

Because if I want to independently test their findings I need to know exactly what they did. Otherwise how can I know if any differences between my findings and theirs are due to something really meaningful or are just because I developed the film using a different method? They're being exact and that is absolutely essential.

Many's the scientist who has fallen into disrepute because he found something extraordinary that nobody could replicate.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Why describe the plates more than once? etc...

In the methods section they describe how the plates were made, which allows others to replicate the work or to use a similar method for new work.

In the results section they describe what they found, plainly and with no interpretation or reference to the broader implications. This ensures that the reader can digest the information free of the authors' potential bias or any other spin.

In the discussion section they bring all of that information together with the current state of the field of study and interpret it all in context. The authors can make a broader point, an argument, from a synthesis of all the data and how it relates to other known data.

This is methodical, thorough and is the basic format that all good science is presented in.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

This story was covered on a documentary recently & it proves my point that just because something is covered on tv, it doesn't mean there isn't solid science to back it up.

Nobody would argue against that and I don't think anybody is. What I'm saying is that this is not always the case. Showing an example where it is the case does not disprove my point. I can show many examples of TV coverage of science that has been so wrong as to be actually dangerous.

And as it happens, much of the TV coverage of this fossil was rather exaggerated. From the behaviour of the media, one would think this was the only fossil link between humans and other primates ever found, or that it was a critical piece in the fossil record. It was neither really. It was just a very nice fossil that told us a little piece of a story we already know most of. The TV guys didn't get this. Or spun the story so it would sell better.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I feel all the necessary info was covered in the documentary.

Necessary for your needs, sure. It informs you just a little bit and that's the end of it. There's a lot more detail, both in method and results that matters a lot to scientists. And you're claiming that the print format is not required. This is clearly not the case, even if you personally don't have a use for it.

So it doesn't really predate all other primate fossils?

Originally Posted by WVBIG

So it doesn't really predate all other primate fossils?

No. And I've never heard anyone claim that it did to be honest. If your documentary claimed it was such then it very seriously misunderstood the work these guys did. It does fit in very early in primate evolution, but it does not predate all other primates.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by WVBIG

So it doesn't really predate all other primate fossils?

No. And I've never heard anyone claim that it did to be honest. If your documentary claimed it was such then it very seriously misunderstood the work these guys did.

That's what the claim was according to the Discovery Channel documentary. Am I correct in understanding that a properly written paper on Bigfoot research would have to:
1. State a hypothesis
2. List & describe in detail the locations of each field research area
3. List the date of each field research trip
4. List the non-anecdotal evidence found during the research, whether it supports the hypothesis or refutes it
5. Discuss in painstaking detail the complete collection process & analysis of each piece of non-anecdotal evidence
6. State a conclusion based on the evidence
Or would it be premature to even write such a paper prior to proof of the existence of Bigfoot?