Thread: Cryptozoology

It is a field of study that has always fascinated me. I won't deny that I am genuinely intrigued by the notion that there may still exist out there some form of large reptilian amphibious or mammal like creatures. At the same time I don't see how any animal of large scale such as the Sasquatch or the Loch ness could avoid detection after so many years of being hunted by humans or by any one of our modern day satellites. But I see crytpozoology as a social science as much as I do anything else. It is interesting how various cultures accross the world each have their own mythic or rumored beast.

I was wondering if any of you think that this could pass as a valid area of science? Does anyone here think that it is possible or even likely that at least one of the hundreds of rumored animals may acually exist?

We are discovering new species of animals. plants, insects etc all the time, even re-discovering (occaisionally) prevoiusly thought extinct species. My view (probably the same as yours) is that the larger the 'mythical creature' the less likely it exists.

Not that deep down mate!

I did say 'less likely' rather than crap or no way, simply because that's the way it is, who knows what all that toxic/nuclear/explosive waste at the bottom of the ocean might have created...

Originally Posted by Megabrain

We are discovering new species of animals. plants, insects etc all the time, even re-discovering (occaisionally) prevoiusly thought extinct species. My view (probably the same as yours) is that the larger the 'mythical creature' the less likely it exists.

True. But...come'on Megabrain. I know that secretly deep down inside of you theres still that little boy who is undoubtedly fascinated by monsters like the giant sea kraken or something. I suppose that UFO's can be seen as our modern day replacement for classial indigenous myths. If someone asked me to venture along with them for the search of some lost creature Im sure I would be skeptical but at the same time....I mean....how could I pass up such a unique opportunity? Do you think that searching for the big stuff could still be classified as a science? Or is it just wishful thinking? I guess if you were already a credible science doing so could threaten your reputation.

Originally Posted by Anna_Marie

Originally Posted by Megabrain

We are discovering new species of animals. plants, insects etc all the time, even re-discovering (occaisionally) prevoiusly thought extinct species. My view (probably the same as yours) is that the larger the 'mythical creature' the less likely it exists.

True. But...come'on Megabrain. I know that secretly deep down inside of you theres still that little boy who is undoubtedly fascinated by monsters like the giant sea kraken or something. I suppose that UFO's can be seen as our modern day replacement for classial indigenous myths. If someone asked me to venture along with them for the search of some lost creature Im sure I would be skeptical but at the same time....I mean....how could I pass up such a unique opportunity? Do you think that searching for the big stuff could still be classified as a science? Or is it just wishful thinking? I guess if you were already a credible science doing so could threaten your reputation.

?! Hey! how did you do that?! theif!

Originally Posted by Kolt

?! Hey! how did you do that?! theif!

Why did you email it to me first goofball? Ever hear of the Click & Copy option? :wink:

Originally Posted by Megabrain

I thought you wrote that Kolt???

I did but she doesn't play fair. I emailed her with a joke on the topic. At least I thought I did.

Thanks Anna. Thanks for making me look like an ass. Just remember, Vengance is a dish best served cold

Kolt,

Anna cannot delete your posts or edit them, it is possible that you did or somehow the system screwed up.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Kolt,

Anna cannot delete your posts or edit them, it is possible that you did or somehow the system screwed up.

No thats not what I meant. I posted it and then emailed it to her But I thought I was emailing her something else. I ended up posting the joke, at least thats what it showed on my screen. So then I deleted it. Yet then she got it. But how!??

I had two different screens up. I think I clicked the wrong box in the wrong box. Still though, she's a ninja.

Originally Posted by Kolt

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Kolt,

Anna cannot delete your posts or edit them, it is possible that you did or somehow the system screwed up.

No thats not what I meant. I posted it and then emailed it to her But I thought I was emailing her something else. I ended up posting the joke, at least thats what it showed on my screen. So then I deleted it. Yet then she got it. But how!??

I had two different screens up. I think I clicked the wrong box in the wrong box. Still though, she's a ninja.

Actually I like to think of myself as a Pirate! Aarrgh!

Originally Posted by Kolt

Originally Posted by Megabrain

I thought you wrote that Kolt???

I did but she doesn't play fair. I emailed her with a joke on the topic. At least I thought I did.

Thanks Anna. Thanks for making me look like an ass. Just remember, Vengance is a dish best served cold

Same thing here then, you grabbed it for the short time I put it up, now get back to the dabate! :wink:

I've been told that satellites can't see every thing. Is that true? How reliable are they. Or how reliable are the people who gather the information from satellites?

Satellites can resolve objects down to around the size of a football, and take a picture the size of a football field at that resolution, that is about the order of things. However King kong has to be in the right place at the right time to be seen. I think it is more likely somebody fould find it's crap or corpse.

Originally Posted by Anna_Marie

It is a field of study that has always fascinated me. I won't deny that I am genuinelylarge reptilian amphibious or mammal like creatures. At the same time I don't see how any animal of large scale such as the intrigued by the notion that there may still exist out there some form of Sasquatch or the Loch ness could avoid detection after so many years of being hunted by humans or by any one of our modern day satellites. But I see crytpozoology as a social science as much as I do anything else. It is interesting how various cultures accross the world each have their own mythic or rumored beast.

I was wondering if any of you think that this could pass as a valid area of science? Does anyone here think that it is possible or even likely that at least one of the hundreds of rumored animals may acually exist?

No.

As megabrain mentions, new species, thousands of them, are yet to be discovered. These new species , however, are not in any cultural tradition. Most just unassuming additions to current taxonomy. If some deep sea large creaure was discovered, there wouldn't be any reason to think it was part of some legend. It would be a bottom swimming shark or invertebrate probably in the cephalopod class.

One can be intrigued by Leprechauns, Sasquatches, God, Santa, Loch Ness monsters, the Easter bunny and so on...doesn't make them any more likely to exist.

Actually, I myself once tried to set up a bigfoot hunt. The party never got underway, however, as I too soon fell to the ground vomitting up my liquor...

I live in some of those Minnesota woods--well okay, they are woods until you hit the highway 1/8 of a mile on the other side --and there are strange noises often. I would like to find that man... though, I don't know how it is he could exist for so long. There would have to be a family of them, for sure. I read on this very conservative site--as in confederate flag conservative--that Native Americans could've possibly evolved from a separate branch of Neanderthals that got across to the New World so long ago . Now, I support a multiregional view of evolution all the way, but this is just ridiculous. Nevertheless, it would mean that there could be possible locations of Neanderthals who were not completely bred into humans (this is speaking from a mutliregionalist point), and might still be out there as somewhat Neanderthal-like creatures.

Now, I've known for a fact that they caught one here.



Over 'n' out,
Rv. Jon

Originally Posted by Jon

Actually, I myself once tried to set up a bigfoot hunt. The party never got underway, however, as I too soon fell to the ground vomitting up my liquor...

I live in some of those Minnesota woods--well okay, they are woods until you hit the highway 1/8 of a mile on the other side --and there are strange noises often. I would like to find that man... though, I don't know how it is he could exist for so long. There would have to be a family of them, for sure. I read on this very conservative site--as in confederate flag conservative--that Native Americans could've possibly evolved from a separate branch of Neanderthals that got across to the New World so long ago . Now, I support a multiregional view of evolution all the way, but this is just ridiculous. Nevertheless, it would mean that there could be possible locations of Neanderthals who were not completely bred into humans (this is speaking from a mutliregionalist point), and might still be out there as somewhat Neanderthal-like creatures.

Now, I've known for a fact that they caught one here.



Over 'n' out,
Rv. Jon

I thought the link was going to be the American White House :wink:

Originally Posted by Jellyologist

Originally Posted by Anna_Marie

It is a field of study that has always fascinated me. I won't deny that I am genuinelylarge reptilian amphibious or mammal like creatures. At the same time I don't see how any animal of large scale such as the intrigued by the notion that there may still exist out there some form of Sasquatch or the Loch ness could avoid detection after so many years of being hunted by humans or by any one of our modern day satellites. But I see crytpozoology as a social science as much as I do anything else. It is interesting how various cultures accross the world each have their own mythic or rumored beast.

I was wondering if any of you think that this could pass as a valid area of science? Does anyone here think that it is possible or even likely that at least one of the hundreds of rumored animals may acually exist?

No.

As megabrain mentions, new species, thousands of them, are yet to be discovered. These new species , however, are not in any cultural tradition. Most just unassuming additions to current taxonomy. If some deep sea large creaure was discovered, there wouldn't be any reason to think it was part of some legend. It would be a bottom swimming shark or invertebrate probably in the cephalopod class.

One can be intrigued by Leprechauns, Sasquatches, God, Santa, Loch Ness monsters, the Easter bunny and so on...doesn't make them any more likely to exist.

Being a Bigfoot researcher, I just had to chime in with this little tidbit of info. There have been two cryptids that are now known to exist. Although one was from before the term "cryptid" existed. And guess what? They are BOTH primates:
1) Gorilla
2) Bili Ape

okay where to begin...

First, there was another cryptozoology thread started that got ignored, so you decided to raise the dead with this thread. I am not amused.

Bigfoot researcher? Don't you need...like...a specimen or any for of tangible ANYTHING in order to research something? I liken it more to treasurehunting than research in your case.

There are a shit ton of cryptids that have been confirmed- okapi, crested gecko and the six gill shark to name 3 that aren't giant apes. You're pretty biased about your great apes I guess, but lets just take a look at another nice little tidbit to chime in: There have been no great apes, to my knowledge, other than Homo sapiens, to be recorded in the americas. Do you know why this is? Look up bearing straight and find out about its timeline and you might just be on to something.

Also, have you ever noticed that there isn't much in the way for great apes outside of tropical areas?

Originally Posted by mormoopid

okay where to begin...

First, there was another cryptozoology thread started that got ignored, so you decided to raise the dead with this thread. I am not amused.

Bigfoot researcher? Don't you need...like...a specimen or any for of tangible ANYTHING in order to research something? I liken it more to treasurehunting than research in your case.

There are a shit ton of cryptids that have been confirmed- okapi, crested gecko and the six gill shark to name 3 that aren't giant apes. You're pretty biased about your great apes I guess, but lets just take a look at another nice little tidbit to chime in: There have been no great apes, to my knowledge, other than Homo sapiens, to be recorded in the americas. Do you know why this is? Look up bearing straight and find out about its timeline and you might just be on to something.

Also, have you ever noticed that there isn't much in the way for great apes outside of tropical areas?

I went with Gorilla & Bili Ape because I wasn't aware the others were rumored to exist before discovery. I thought they best fit the "Newly discovered" category. Yes, we have all noticed great apes are in areas with high amounts of precipitation. That is another thing that points to the existence of Bigfoot. The sightings seem to mostly be in areas with high levels of precipitation & of course at least some reports are undoubtedly hoaxes & misidentifications of bears. By the way, a Bigfoot researcher researches the available evidence by first trying to debunk it. At this point my organization has debunked 20% of the reports it has received. Right now I'm about 99% sure Bigfoot exists, but I won't be 100% sure until I see one for myself at close enough range to rule out a person in a costume
http://steventitchenell.tripod.com/wvbig

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Being a Bigfoot researcher...Right now I'm about 99% sure Bigfoot exists

"Human males have a single penile bone; whereas Bigfoot has a triple-jointed bone that can make a "U" turn, and deposit its sperm outside the female. This handy and efficient form of birth control explains the rarity of Bigfoot today." ~~ Bigfoot Researcher

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Being a Bigfoot researcher...Right now I'm about 99% sure Bigfoot exists

"Human males have a single penile bone; whereas Bigfoot has a triple-jointed bone that can make a "U" turn, and deposit its sperm outside the female. This handy and efficient form of birth control explains the rarity of Bigfoot today." ~~ Bigfoot Researcher

Too bad your mom didn't marry a Bigfoot then

That is a piss yourself funny post Q!

I'm 99% sure that dolphins live in invisible cities and the capital is next to washington DC and in the middle of new york and they could kill us but select not to because they are really our guardians and besdies they are at war with parrot fish who allied with triggerfish secretly in a backstabbing event that kinda pissed off the jellyfish.

But I won't be 100% sure until I see it for myself an can rule out people in costumes. Get it?

also, what evidence are you debunking? Stories from people who believe as hard as you do? Right....

Originally Posted by mormoopid

I'm 99% sure that dolphins live in invisible cities and the capital is next to washington DC and in the middle of new york and they could kill us but select not to because they are really our guardians and besdies they are at war with parrot fish who allied with triggerfish secretly in a backstabbing event that kinda pissed off the jellyfish.

But I won't be 100% sure until I see it for myself an can rule out people in costumes. Get it?

also, what evidence are you debunking? Stories from people who believe as hard as you do? Right....

We have debunked 3 of 15 reports that we have received. The first report went something like this:
"I saw Bigfoot out by the chicken coup. Bigfoot came in my house & sat down at my dining room table. My house stunk for 3 days" The second report was from a guy who claimed a sighting & to have a hair sample from the Bigfoot he saw. When one of our members tried to arrange a trip to go talk to the man & collect the hair sample to have it tested, he broke off contact with us. The 3rd report was from a man who claimed he was riding in an 18 wheeler a couple or three years ago when it struck a Bigfoot. When one of our members attempted to call him for a follow up interview, he got the man's answering machine. He left a message for the man to please call back for a follow up interview. But the man never called back. Obviously if the hair sample from the second report was from a known animal, tests would have revealed that. In the case of the 3rd report. Obviously even if you could repair damage to your vehicle yourself, you would need to buy supplies & that could've easily been traced

So because you debunked 3/15, I should assume that the other 12 are right or that you are performing good science right?

Stories from randoms doesn't mean evidence. You know what does? A body.

Originally Posted by mormoopid

So because you debunked 3/15, I should assume that the other 12 are right or that you are performing good science right?

Stories from randoms doesn't mean evidence. You know what does? A body.

You people seem to think, no matter how often we say differently, that if we fail to find proof of a logical explanation for a piece of circumstantial evidence such as a footprint or a hair sample, that we close the book on it & label it as definitely from a Bigfoot. We are ALWAYS open to new feedback on a piece of evidence. The other 12 reports we've received may be debunked tomorrow for all we know. It's just at this point, there is nothing about them that stands out as inconsistent or false. There is just as much of a burden of proof on a logical explanation as there is on an illogical one & if we don't have a clear video of someone faking tracks or placing a hair sample on a tree branch, we can't say 100% definitively that's what happened any more than we can say the track or hair is from a Bigfoot. Especially, when for example, there are two or more track casts from a trackway that show differences in toe width & differences in the gaps between the toes on the corresponding toes of both casts that indicate a flexible foot & a depth indicating a heavy weight distributed as it would be in the track of a large, live foot on a heavy animal & not just a large rubber foot on a man's boot
P.S.
No. A body means PROOF Not evidence

It's just at this point, there is nothing about them that stands out as inconsistent or false

maybe if you were properly trained in science it would be different?

There is just as much of a burden of proof on a logical explanation as there is on an illogical one & if we don't have a clear video of someone faking tracks or placing a hair sample on a tree branch, we can't say 100% definitively that's what happened any more than we can say the track or hair is from a Bigfoot

speaking of burden of proof, it is now on you because you make claims like these.

Especially, when for example, there are two or more track casts from a trackway that show differences in toe width & differences in the gaps between the toes on the corresponding toes of both casts that indicate a flexible foot & a depth indicating a heavy weight distributed as it would be in the track of a large, live foot on a heavy animal & not just a large rubber foot on a man's boot

Do you know Q's friend eanassir? He tends to see what he wants to as well. Show me some publication on these and I will change my mind. An Academic publication, only.

No. A body means PROOF Not evidence

yes evidence and proof are totally different in all circumstances
oh wait

"Show me some publication on these and I will change my mind. An Academic publication, only"

"Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" by Dr. Jeff Meldrum.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

"Show me some publication on these and I will change my mind. An Academic publication, only"

"Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" by Dr. Jeff Meldrum.

Problem is if I understand what mormoopid was asking correctly this book doent meet the criteria.

mormoopid correct me if I am wrong by "Academic publication" you are looking for peer reviewed publications in scientific journals right.

Anyone can publish a book on anything without having it peer reviewed and thus there is not indication at all that anything in it is scientifically valid.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

book doent meet the criteria...
peer reviewed publications
Anyone can publish a book on anything without having it peer reviewed and thus there is not indication at all that anything in it is scientifically valid.

Paleoichneum this is exactly why I really think you are fucking awesome and said you should be a mod in pseudo. You and I should be best friends.



Also, I asked to SHOW me. PDF links are cool.

With all due respect, the problem with the definition of "peer reviewed" is that if the subject is something related to cryptozoology or paranormal, most scientists dismiss it without reviewing it. So in this way, you (the skeptics) get to determine what is & isn't scientifically valid research.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

With all due respect, the problem with the definition of "peer reviewed" is that if the subject is something related to cryptozoology or paranormal, most scientists dismiss it without reviewing it. So in this way, you (the skeptics) get to determine what is & isn't scientifically valid research.

Here's the thing, if its scientifically sound research then there would be no problem with publishing it. Just take a look at some of the things that receive the ignobel awards each year. If research into weather a cat flea jumps farther then a dog flea can get published , a well written scientifically sound paper about big foot will not have a problem.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

With all due respect, the problem with the definition of "peer reviewed" is that if the subject is something related to cryptozoology or paranormal, most scientists dismiss it without reviewing it. So in this way, you (the skeptics) get to determine what is & isn't scientifically valid research.

The peer-review process is alive and well with those pseudosciences, as it's base requirement is reviewing that from the perspective of experts within those fields. You can't expect a physicist, for example, to review a paper on bigfoot droppings or scales from Nessie.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by WVBIG

With all due respect, the problem with the definition of "peer reviewed" is that if the subject is something related to cryptozoology or paranormal, most scientists dismiss it without reviewing it. So in this way, you (the skeptics) get to determine what is & isn't scientifically valid research.

The peer-review process is alive and well with those pseudosciences, as it's base requirement is reviewing that from the perspective of experts within those fields. You can't expect a physicist, for example, to review a paper on bigfoot droppings or scales from Nessie.

True, but it is eminently resonable to have biologists review on suspicious fecal matter, geneticists to review about the typing of unidentified hair samples and Herpetologists ti review on unidentified reptilian scales.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by WVBIG

With all due respect, the problem with the definition of "peer reviewed" is that if the subject is something related to cryptozoology or paranormal, most scientists dismiss it without reviewing it. So in this way, you (the skeptics) get to determine what is & isn't scientifically valid research.

Here's the thing, if its scientifically sound research then there would be no problem with publishing it. Just take a look at some of the things that receive the ignobel awards each year. If research into weather a cat flea jumps farther then a dog flea can get published , a well written scientifically sound paper about big foot will not have a problem.

If Dr. Meldrum didn't use legitimate research techniques, I seriously doubt he would still have his job as an associate professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University. How's this for a scientific publication?
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bigfoot-anatomy

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by WVBIG

With all due respect, the problem with the definition of "peer reviewed" is that if the subject is something related to cryptozoology or paranormal, most scientists dismiss it without reviewing it. So in this way, you (the skeptics) get to determine what is & isn't scientifically valid research.

Here's the thing, if its scientifically sound research then there would be no problem with publishing it. Just take a look at some of the things that receive the ignobel awards each year. If research into weather a cat flea jumps farther then a dog flea can get published , a well written scientifically sound paper about big foot will not have a problem.

If Dr. Meldrum didn't use legitimate research techniques, I seriously doubt he would still have his job as an associate professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University. How's this for a scientific publication?
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bigfoot-anatomy

True he probably wouldnt still be in his position if he didnt while teaching Gross Anatomy or Organic Evolution, or if it was shown papers submitted for p-r publication didnt follow sound research techniques.

The attached link, however, still doesn't qualify though, as its not an article written by Dr. Meldrum, but by Marguerite Holloway (Director, Science and Environmental Journalism at Columbia) in the form of a Biography about Dr. Meldrum. Thus the article was probably not reviewed except to make sure the facts about Dr Meldrum were correct.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by WVBIG

With all due respect, the problem with the definition of "peer reviewed" is that if the subject is something related to cryptozoology or paranormal, most scientists dismiss it without reviewing it. So in this way, you (the skeptics) get to determine what is & isn't scientifically valid research.

Here's the thing, if its scientifically sound research then there would be no problem with publishing it. Just take a look at some of the things that receive the ignobel awards each year. If research into weather a cat flea jumps farther then a dog flea can get published , a well written scientifically sound paper about big foot will not have a problem.

If Dr. Meldrum didn't use legitimate research techniques, I seriously doubt he would still have his job as an associate professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University. How's this for a scientific publication?
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bigfoot-anatomy

True he probably wouldnt still be in his position if he didnt while teaching Gross Anatomy or Organic Evolution, or if it was shown papers submitted for p-r publication didnt follow sound research techniques.

The attached link, however, still doesn't qualify though, as its not an article written by Dr. Meldrum, but by Marguerite Holloway (Director, Science and Environmental Journalism at Columbia) in the form of a Biography about Dr. Meldrum. Thus the article was probably not reviewed except to make sure the facts about Dr Meldrum were correct.

Ok. http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by WVBIG

With all due respect, the problem with the definition of "peer reviewed" is that if the subject is something related to cryptozoology or paranormal, most scientists dismiss it without reviewing it. So in this way, you (the skeptics) get to determine what is & isn't scientifically valid research.

Here's the thing, if its scientifically sound research then there would be no problem with publishing it. Just take a look at some of the things that receive the ignobel awards each year. If research into weather a cat flea jumps farther then a dog flea can get published , a well written scientifically sound paper about big foot will not have a problem.

If Dr. Meldrum didn't use legitimate research techniques, I seriously doubt he would still have his job as an associate professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University. How's this for a scientific publication?
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bigfoot-anatomy

True he probably wouldnt still be in his position if he didnt while teaching Gross Anatomy or Organic Evolution, or if it was shown papers submitted for p-r publication didnt follow sound research techniques.

The attached link, however, still doesn't qualify though, as its not an article written by Dr. Meldrum, but by Marguerite Holloway (Director, Science and Environmental Journalism at Columbia) in the form of a Biography about Dr. Meldrum. Thus the article was probably not reviewed except to make sure the facts about Dr Meldrum were correct.

Ok. http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

Getting closer but I cant tell if this was actually submitted to a journal or if it was only on has homepage, for which thing are not peer reviewed. I am thinking that it wasn't. For one thing there is no references section at all, which would be an immediate disqualification if it was submitted.

With a little help from google scholar this is what we are looking for:

"Midfoot Flexibility, Fossil Footprints, and Sasquatch Steps: New Perspectives on the Evolution of Bipedalism"
D. JEFFREY MELDRUM, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 65–79, 2004

However this seems to be the only p-r paper put out by Dr Meldrum.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by WVBIG

With all due respect, the problem with the definition of "peer reviewed" is that if the subject is something related to cryptozoology or paranormal, most scientists dismiss it without reviewing it. So in this way, you (the skeptics) get to determine what is & isn't scientifically valid research.

Here's the thing, if its scientifically sound research then there would be no problem with publishing it. Just take a look at some of the things that receive the ignobel awards each year. If research into weather a cat flea jumps farther then a dog flea can get published , a well written scientifically sound paper about big foot will not have a problem.

If Dr. Meldrum didn't use legitimate research techniques, I seriously doubt he would still have his job as an associate professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University. How's this for a scientific publication?
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bigfoot-anatomy

True he probably wouldnt still be in his position if he didnt while teaching Gross Anatomy or Organic Evolution, or if it was shown papers submitted for p-r publication didnt follow sound research techniques.

The attached link, however, still doesn't qualify though, as its not an article written by Dr. Meldrum, but by Marguerite Holloway (Director, Science and Environmental Journalism at Columbia) in the form of a Biography about Dr. Meldrum. Thus the article was probably not reviewed except to make sure the facts about Dr Meldrum were correct.

Ok. http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

Getting closer but I cant tell if this was actually submitted to a journal or if it was only on has homepage, for which thing are not peer reviewed. I am thinking that it wasn't. For one thing there is no references section at all, which would be an immediate disqualification if it was submitted.

With a little help from google scholar this is what we are looking for:

"Midfoot Flexibility, Fossil Footprints, and Sasquatch Steps: New Perspectives on the Evolution of Bipedalism"
D. JEFFREY MELDRUM, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 65–79, 2004

However this seems to be the only p-r paper put out by Dr Meldrum.

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!! This is such undeniable proof that you people (skeptics) refuse to accept any evidence for something you've already made up your mind, doesn't exist. Even when something meets the crireria YOU set, you find a reason to dismiss it.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Here's the thing, if its scientifically sound research then there would be no problem with publishing it. Just take a look at some of the things that receive the ignobel awards each year. If research into weather a cat flea jumps farther then a dog flea can get published , a well written scientifically sound paper about big foot will not have a problem.

If Dr. Meldrum didn't use legitimate research techniques, I seriously doubt he would still have his job as an associate professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University. How's this for a scientific publication?
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bigfoot-anatomy

True he probably wouldnt still be in his position if he didnt while teaching Gross Anatomy or Organic Evolution, or if it was shown papers submitted for p-r publication didnt follow sound research techniques.

The attached link, however, still doesn't qualify though, as its not an article written by Dr. Meldrum, but by Marguerite Holloway (Director, Science and Environmental Journalism at Columbia) in the form of a Biography about Dr. Meldrum. Thus the article was probably not reviewed except to make sure the facts about Dr Meldrum were correct.

Ok. http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

Getting closer but I cant tell if this was actually submitted to a journal or if it was only on has homepage, for which thing are not peer reviewed. I am thinking that it wasn't. For one thing there is no references section at all, which would be an immediate disqualification if it was submitted.

With a little help from google scholar this is what we are looking for:

"Midfoot Flexibility, Fossil Footprints, and Sasquatch Steps: New Perspectives on the Evolution of Bipedalism"
D. JEFFREY MELDRUM, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 65–79, 2004

However this seems to be the only p-r paper put out by Dr Meldrum.

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!! This is such undeniable proof that you people (skeptics) refuse to accept any evidence for something you've already made up your mind, doesn't exist. Even when something meets the crireria YOU set, you find a reason to dismiss it.

Explain please as I would think this is what YOU are looking for?

It is. But you seem to be dismissive of it since it's the only p-r paper. I would think that would be enough to make you & other skeptics more open to the possibility that Bigfoot exists.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

It is. But you seem to be dismissive of it since it's the only p-r paper. I would think that would be enough to make you & other skeptics more open to the possibility that Bigfoot exists.

I pointed this out because this is a Scientific supporter of Big foot and I was hoping he may have put out more papers that all.

BTW broad sweeping judgments about people only harms your position. I am skeptical but this is due to the amount of evidence against the possibility. One p/r paper will not change that amount of evidence. You however have me as a closed mined hypocrite who is just here to criticize anything and everything because I like too.

This is not true at all.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

True, but it is eminently resonable to have biologists review on suspicious fecal matter, geneticists to review about the typing of unidentified hair samples and Herpetologists ti review on unidentified reptilian scales.

True also, which I believe has occurred as well, hence Steven's complaint is probably moot.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

How's this for a scientific publication?
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bigfoot-anatomy

That is a pop-sci magazine, not a peer-review journal. Big difference.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Ok. http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

That is the Idaho State University website, and if you dig further into it, you'll find that for $40 a month, you too can post bigfoot material.

Perhaps you should learn about scientific method, dear 'bigfootologist', and then apply it to your own 'research'?


You should maybe review your own 'resources' with some actual scrutiny and maybe look at what is there rather than what you want to be there.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by WVBIG

It is. But you seem to be dismissive of it since it's the only p-r paper. I would think that would be enough to make you & other skeptics more open to the possibility that Bigfoot exists.

I pointed this out because this is a Scientific supporter of Big foot and I was hoping he may have put out more papers that all.

BTW broad sweeping judgments about people only harms your position. I am skeptical but this is due to the amount of evidence against the possibility. One p/r paper will not change that amount of evidence. You however have me as a closed mined hypocrite who is just here to criticize anything and everything because I like too.

This is not true at all.

Then I apologize

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

True, but it is eminently resonable to have biologists review on suspicious fecal matter, geneticists to review about the typing of unidentified hair samples and Herpetologists ti review on unidentified reptilian scales.

True also, which I believe has occurred as well, hence Steven's complaint is probably moot.

Well, alleged Bigfoot hair & fecal samples have been examined by Biologists & Geneticists. But there are only photos & videos of "Nessie" to study & they have been studied by experts in photo & video analysis. As far as I know, the only one where a rogue wave, or a boat haven't been ruled out, is the "Surgeons" photo, which was revealed to be a hoax. I know none of the photos or videos I've seen convince me people are seeing anything but possibly an overgrown Sturgeon or Eel because the photos I've seen, look like waves. Bigfoot is really the only cryptid I'm reasonably convinced exists. Mainly because of the work people like Dr. Meldrum & Jimmy Chilcutt have put into studying the casts of footprints & the work that other scientists have put into studying other pieces of the puzzle. As I've said repeatedly during the discussion on the "Bigfoot?" thread, the film all by itself isn't convincing. It's the film in conjunction with other evidence. Evidence such as the 14.5" tracks with a stride length ranging from 47" (calmly walking) to 65"(Walking faster when being followed by Patterson & Gimlin) that the subject left that were gauged to have been made by something weighing approximately 700lbs & the two pronged analysis of the film in 2006 that determined a human couldn't replicate the walk & revealed no evidence of a costume under microscopic frame-by-frame analysis

Here is another paper I found on the footprints:
http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/size1.html

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Bigfoot is really the only cryptid I'm reasonably convinced exists. Mainly because of the work people like Dr. Meldrum & Jimmy Chilcutt have put into studying the casts of footprints & the work that other scientists have put into studying other pieces of the puzzle. As I've said repeatedly during the discussion on the "Bigfoot?" thread, the film all by itself isn't convincing.

There isn't anything at all that's convincing. No one has found one, Not a live one, not a dead one. No smelly pelts, no missing teeth, not even a scrap of fur. The suspected sasquatch hair found a few years back turned out to be bison hair, when tested. We're not talking about a new species of burrowing rodent, here. These are supposed to be one of the largest animals, next to the size of a bear, if not bigger. You'd think they'd stand out.

There are millions of people that spend a lot of time hunting, fishing, hiking and bird-watching in wilderness areas. Despite the large number of people out in the wilderness, despite the long history of settlement and exploration, and despite the total lack of a bigfoot corpse, you still believe.

There are tracks galore, rogue yodellers with haunting "vocalizations", furry and fuzzy pictures which most likely are guys in gorilla suits having some fun, which is a well-known phenomena, and a lot more likely than an undiscovered humanoid. We encroach further an further into the wilderness every year. So, if bigfoot did exist, they'd probably fill an ecological niche similar to that held by a bear, which means we'd actually see them all over the place. They'd be down in the rural garbage dumps and picking through trash in local neighborhoods. They would be regularly trapped by Conservation officers and relocated after wandering through town. They're be a few cute baby ones in wild animal shelters after their mothers had been run over by eighteen-wheelers. Some idiots would probably raise them as pets, or shoot them to make into aphrodisiacs.

It's actually far better that they don't exist as they'd be in serious trouble in reality. It is painfully clear to anyone with an ounce of common sense that these things simply don't exist. There never was and never will be nine-foot-tall hairy hominids roaming the wilderness.

Get used to it.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Bigfoot is really the only cryptid I'm reasonably convinced exists. Mainly because of the work people like Dr. Meldrum & Jimmy Chilcutt have put into studying the casts of footprints & the work that other scientists have put into studying other pieces of the puzzle. As I've said repeatedly during the discussion on the "Bigfoot?" thread, the film all by itself isn't convincing.

There isn't anything at all that's convincing. No one has found one, Not a live one, not a dead one. No smelly pelts, no missing teeth, not even a scrap of fur. The suspected sasquatch hair found a few years back turned out to be bison hair, when tested. We're not talking about a new species of burrowing rodent, here. These are supposed to be one of the largest animals, next to the size of a bear, if not bigger. You'd think they'd stand out.

There are millions of people that spend a lot of time hunting, fishing, hiking and bird-watching in wilderness areas. Despite the large number of people out in the wilderness, despite the long history of settlement and exploration, and despite the total lack of a bigfoot corpse, you still believe.

There are tracks galore, rogue yodellers with haunting "vocalizations", furry and fuzzy pictures which most likely are guys in gorilla suits having some fun, which is a well-known phenomena, and a lot more likely than an undiscovered humanoid. We encroach further an further into the wilderness every year. So, if bigfoot did exist, they'd probably fill an ecological niche similar to that held by a bear, which means we'd actually see them all over the place. They'd be down in the rural garbage dumps and picking through trash in local neighborhoods. They would be regularly trapped by Conservation officers and relocated after wandering through town. They're be a few cute baby ones in wild animal shelters after their mothers had been run over by eighteen-wheelers. Some idiots would probably raise them as pets, or shoot them to make into aphrodisiacs.

It's actually far better that they don't exist as they'd be in serious trouble in reality. It is painfully clear to anyone with an ounce of common sense that these things simply don't exist. There never was and never will be nine-foot-tall hairy hominids roaming the wilderness.

Get used to it.

1)There have been more instances of hair discoveries than the Bison hairs from Alaska that you referred to.
2)The further we encroach into the wilderness, the more sightings occur & the more tracks & other evidence is found. You would agree that is a pattern clearly indicative of something wouldn't you?
3)Since you people are so fond of Occam's razor, what do you really think is more likely? That with all the video analyzing tools & techniques that exist today, in over 40 years, we've been unable to expose the Patterson/Gimlin film for the hoax that it is? Or that it's not a hoax at all?

an example of a peer reviewed journal:

http://www.nature.com/
http://www.sciencemag.org/

an example of a non peer reviewed journal:
Everything VWBIG has posted thus far.


The whole reasoning for a peer review journal is that it must gain some consensus as being correct, by people who are experts within that field. If any old idiot could post whatever they wanted, you really would end up with something similar to disney magazine. Now, find me one example of a bigfoot claim in a peer reviewd journal; this is a science forum and I expect you to, with all your undeniable proof, at the very least be able to provide us with something that has survived the rigors of scientific method.

Otherwise, plain and simple, you won't have any credibility here.

Originally Posted by mormoopid

an example of a peer reviewed journal:

http://www.nature.com/
http://www.sciencemag.org/

an example of a non peer reviewed journal:
Everything VWBIG has posted thus far.


The whole reasoning for a peer review journal is that it must gain some consensus as being correct, by people who are experts within that field. If any old idiot could post whatever they wanted, you really would end up with something similar to disney magazine. Now, find me one example of a bigfoot claim in a peer reviewd journal; this is a science forum and I expect you to, with all your undeniable proof, at the very least be able to provide us with something that has survived the rigors of scientific method.

Otherwise, plain and simple, you won't have any credibility here.

Q. Would it kill all scientists to read & evaluate the articles/papers I've posted so far?
A. NO!!!
They just choose not to because they've already made up their minds decades ago & are afraid of being made look foolish now

There is a section on Bigfoot here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprin...5832/1671b.pdf

I find it rather convenient that I don't have a membership so I can't view the full text. Do you by chance have a copy you can get me? Note how now that it's from a credible source I'm interested to read it. Strange, hey?

They just choose not to because they've already made up their minds decades ago & are afraid of being made look foolish now

Yes, we are not only afraid of looking folish but we made up our minds decades ago that bigfoot probably doesn't exist.

Statements like that are what we call "Grasping at straws". You are getting defensive and making sweeping claims about scientists. Funny how you are putting down the same community with that statement that you claim to be a part of...or is it that you are somehow better than science as a whole because you think a few stories about bigfoot means it's true? When you live in a glass house man maybe you shouldn't through big apes around.

Q. Would it kill all scientists to read & evaluate the articles/papers I've posted so far?
A. NO!!!

Here is my evalution: Failure.

Originally Posted by mormoopid

I find it rather convenient that I don't have a membership so I can't view the full text. Do you by chance have a copy you can get me? Note how now that it's from a credible source I'm interested to read it. Strange, hey?

They just choose not to because they've already made up their minds decades ago & are afraid of being made look foolish now

Yes, we are not only afraid of looking folish but we made up our minds decades ago that bigfoot probably doesn't exist.

Statements like that are what we call "Grasping at straws". You are getting defensive and making sweeping claims about scientists. Funny how you are putting down the same community with that statement that you claim to be a part of...or is it that you are somehow better than science as a whole because you think a few stories about bigfoot means it's true? When you live in a glass house man maybe you shouldn't through big apes around.

Q. Would it kill all scientists to read & evaluate the articles/papers I've posted so far?
A. NO!!!

Here is my evalution: Failure.

LOL!!! I see you chose to ignore the post I made after that one.
I never said I was a scientist. I only claim to be a Bigfoot researcher who uses scientific methods to attempt to solve this mystery & I agree that we have nothing rock solid at this point. But I disagree that we have nothing at all

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I only claim to be a Bigfoot researcher who uses scientific methods to attempt to solve this mystery & I agree that we have nothing rock solid at this point.

It's not really a mystery. No one is going around saying 'You know what, we have no idea if Bigfoot exists or not! It's a complete mystery!' There are only people who think it exists/pretend to think it exists and people who think it doesn't.

The only reason people go on about Bigfoot is that they are jealous of modern science and stubbornly want it to exist so they can prove modern science wrong.

It's all part of the obsession with being 'individual'.

Frankly, I would prefer it if you just wore a funny hat or something.

Originally Posted by Hazz

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I only claim to be a Bigfoot researcher who uses scientific methods to attempt to solve this mystery & I agree that we have nothing rock solid at this point.

It's not really a mystery. No one is going around saying 'You know what, we have no idea if Bigfoot exists or not! It's a complete mystery!' There are only people who think it exists/pretend to think it exists and people who think it doesn't.

The only reason people go on about Bigfoot is that they are jealous of modern science and stubbornly want it to exist so they can prove modern science wrong.

It's all part of the obsession with being 'individual'.

Frankly, I would prefer it if you just wore a funny hat or something.

Nobody is going around & saying "You know what, we have no idea if Bigfoot exists or not! It's a complete mystery!"? Where have you been for the last 50 years? lol

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Q. Would it kill all scientists to read & evaluate the articles/papers I've posted so far?
A. NO!!!
They just choose not to because they've already made up their minds decades ago & are afraid of being made look foolish now

Conspiracy theorem and woo-woosim.

Originally Posted by mormoopid

I find it rather convenient that I don't have a membership so I can't view the full text. Do you by chance have a copy you can get me? Note how now that it's from a credible source I'm interested to read it. Strange, hey?

They just choose not to because they've already made up their minds decades ago & are afraid of being made look foolish now

Yes, we are not only afraid of looking folish but we made up our minds decades ago that bigfoot probably doesn't exist.

Statements like that are what we call "Grasping at straws". You are getting defensive and making sweeping claims about scientists. Funny how you are putting down the same community with that statement that you claim to be a part of...or is it that you are somehow better than science as a whole because you think a few stories about bigfoot means it's true? When you live in a glass house man maybe you shouldn't through big apes around.

Q. Would it kill all scientists to read & evaluate the articles/papers I've posted so far?
A. NO!!!

Here is my evalution: Failure.

Oh ok. I didn't see you had acknowledged it. Here it is:

Finding Bigfoot
The presence of conserved noncoding regions
in genomes is a footprint that points to the
likely existence of conserved modes of gene
regulation. In plants, there appear to be fewer
conserved noncoding sequences than in animals;
because they are shorter, they are harder
to find. Freeling et al. examined the genome of
Arabidopsis, which underwent a duplication of
its genome (the
event) in its recent history, in
order to identify noncoding sequences that border
genes and that have been retained. Large
regions, relatively rich in conserved noncoding
sequences (such as the G-box CACGTG), were
designated Bigfoot and were often associated
with transcription factor binding motifs.
Smaller regions of noncoding sequences were
also identified (and dubbed Smallfoot) and
were often linked to components of signal
transduction pathways. Few of these noncoding
sequences were identified outside of paralogous
genes, suggesting that the regulatory
regions of other genes are less conserved or
may evolve at a rapid rate. — LMZ

btw, it says right at the top of the page you can get a free membership to read the full article

WVBIG, you just made an ass of yourself. The Arabidopsis genes that they are looking at, is a plant!

"Large
regions, relatively rich in conserved noncoding
sequences (such as the G-box CACGTG), were
designated Bigfoot and were often associated
with transcription factor binding motifs.
Smaller regions of noncoding sequences were
also identified (and dubbed Smallfoot) and
were often linked to components of signal
transduction pathways."

The "bigfoot" and "littlefoot" they use in the extract are simply terms used to qualify sequences of non-coding genes as large and small.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

WVBIG, you just made an ass of yourself. The Arabidopsis genes that they are looking at, is a plant!

"Large
regions, relatively rich in conserved noncoding
sequences (such as the G-box CACGTG), were
designated Bigfoot and were often associated
with transcription factor binding motifs.
Smaller regions of noncoding sequences were
also identified (and dubbed Smallfoot) and
were often linked to components of signal
transduction pathways."

The "bigfoot" and "littlefoot" they use in the extract are simply terms used to qualify sequences of non-coding genes as large and small.

Why the hell aren't search terms more inline with what you're looking for? I did a search for "Bigfoot" & it gave me that crap!! It's like when you look for free programs. They give you results for free trials instead

Go to www.download.com. There you can see if the software is free, or trial, shareware, freeware, etc., whatever.

Why the hell aren't search terms more inline with what you're looking for? I did a search for "Bigfoot" & it gave me that crap!!

Well, you did find a page with the word "bigfoot" in it, no? That is all it does.

Anyway, that goes to show that you did not even read the thing you posted or just could not make heads or tails of it.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Go to www.download.com. There you can see if the software is free, or trial, shareware, freeware, etc., whatever.

Why the hell aren't search terms more inline with what you're looking for? I did a search for "Bigfoot" & it gave me that crap!!

Well, you did find a page with the word "bigfoot" in it, no? That is all it does.

Anyway, that goes to show that you did not even read the thing you posted or just could not make heads or tails of it.

I read it. But I don't know terms for different types of DNA. Who the F ever heard of referring to plant DNA as Bigfoot & Littlefoot anyway? That's just stupid since there is a cryptid called the Orang Pendak that some call Littlefoot

They are looking at different sizes of non-coding genes in the plant's genetic footprint, you see. :wink: I don't think they worry too much about confusing the odd bigfoot investigator, as they shouldn't. It has nothing to do with bigfoot.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

They are looking at different sizes of non-coding genes in the plant's genetic footprint, you see. :wink: I don't think they worry too much about confusing the odd bigfoot investigator, as they shouldn't. It has nothing to do with bigfoot.

Ah ok. I get it now. There was a result for "Bigfoot" on www.nature.com too. But I didn't read it since you have to pay to read the articles there. I thought that was kinda funny that a scientific journal site charges people to read articles when some scientists, such as Dr. Ben Radford, like to accuse us of "perpetuating the myth" of Bigfoot to make money. In fact, 'The Skeptical Inquirer" which he is involved with, is a paysite & even has an online store. I'd like to know where all this money is we're suposedly in this for. I've been actively involved for nearly 3 years & haven't seen one thin dime yet. lol It actually costs most of us money.

What, if anything, could we do as a control in Cryptozoology besides researching in areas with no history of reports for comparison to research in areas with a history of reports?

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Why the hell aren't search terms more inline with what you're looking for? I did a search for "Bigfoot" & it gave me that crap!! It's like when you look for free programs. They give you results for free trials instead

Then, perhaps you need to reflect on your beliefs and realize that you're so obsessed with them, they are blinding you to reality. Do your homework for a change.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Why the hell aren't search terms more inline with what you're looking for? I did a search for "Bigfoot" & it gave me that crap!! It's like when you look for free programs. They give you results for free trials instead

Then, perhaps you need to reflect on your beliefs and realize that you're so obsessed with them, they are blinding you to reality. Do your homework for a change.

What in the world does that have to do with my statement that you quoted or the question I asked?

Originally Posted by WVBIG

But I didn't read it since you have to pay to read the articles there. I thought that was kinda funny that a scientific journal site charges people to read articles when some scientists, such as Dr. Ben Radford, like to accuse us of "perpetuating the myth" of Bigfoot to make money. .

Could you reflect on these questions?
Can scientific journals be run at zero cost?
Do they operate as charities?
How are they to be financed if not by an appropriate charge for the journals?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by WVBIG

But I didn't read it since you have to pay to read the articles there. I thought that was kinda funny that a scientific journal site charges people to read articles when some scientists, such as Dr. Ben Radford, like to accuse us of "perpetuating the myth" of Bigfoot to make money. .

Could you reflect on these questions?
Can scientific journals be run at zero cost?
Do they operate as charities?
How are they to be financed if not by an appropriate charge for the journals?

I don't have a problem with them charging. I completely understand why they do it. I just think it's hypocritical of some scientists, such as Dr. Radford, to accuse us of perpetuating a myth to make money. In fact, I took down my online store because in my opinion, it hurt the integrity of our Bigfoot research more than it benefited the research itself

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I just think it's hypocritical of some scientists, such as Dr. Radford, to accuse us of perpetuating a myth to make money.

I don't know Radford. I fully accept your integrity in this matter. Would you agree that some individuals might be making money from this? There are certainly a large group who make money from UFO research, why not from BigFoot?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I just think it's hypocritical of some scientists, such as Dr. Radford, to accuse us of perpetuating a myth to make money.

I don't know Radford. I fully accept your integrity in this matter. Would you agree that some individuals might be making money from this? There are certainly a large group who make money from UFO research, why not from BigFoot?

I definitely agree with you on that. In fact there is a huge Bigfoot research organization that holds "scientific expeditions" that anyone with a few hundred dollars may attend. For the 3 figure entrance fee, they furnish NOTHING but let people take home anything they find without having it analyzed first. I e-mailed them to ask what the fees go for since they furnish nothing & they replied by saying the money goes toward the leader's traveling expenses. I don't know about you, but I fail to see how one man needs a three figure sum from each of the attendees (sometimes there are dozens) for each trip he makes. Plus they have an online store

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I definitely agree with you on that. In fact there is a huge Bigfoot research organization that holds "scientific expeditions" that anyone with a few hundred dollars may attend.

Then surely this chap Radford is merely drawing attention to something of which you are also aware. If he is stating that all Big Foot investigators are perpetuating the Big Foot myth to make money, I would have a problem with that. If he merely states that some, or many, or even most, investigators are in it for the money, that seems a reasonable position to take - and not too far from your own.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I definitely agree with you on that. In fact there is a huge Bigfoot research organization that holds "scientific expeditions" that anyone with a few hundred dollars may attend.

Then surely this chap Radford is merely drawing attention to something of which you are also aware. If he is stating that all Big Foot investigators are perpetuating the Big Foot myth to make money, I would have a problem with that. If he merely states that some, or many, or even most, investigators are in it for the money, that seems a reasonable position to take - and not too far from your own.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I definitely agree with you on that. In fact there is a huge Bigfoot research organization that holds "scientific expeditions" that anyone with a few hundred dollars may attend.

Then surely this chap Radford is merely drawing attention to something of which you are also aware. If he is stating that all Big Foot investigators are perpetuating the Big Foot myth to make money, I would have a problem with that. If he merely states that some, or many, or even most, investigators are in it for the money, that seems a reasonable position to take - and not too far from your own.

As I recall, he didn't say "some" perpetuate the myth of Bigfoot to make money.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

What, if anything, could we do as a control in Cryptozoology besides researching in areas with no history of reports for comparison to research in areas with a history of reports?

Sorry I'm late on this one, I hurt my back doing field work and have been out of it (in some cases, literally- muscle relaxants are savage) for a few days.

I don't think the thing you suggested could even be a control on cryptozoology. Doing research in places with no reports is like going to antarctica to look for reptiles just because there aren't any there. You really would need to focus your research on places where there are reports- logic would dictate a higher prevalence of reports would yeild a higher chance of seeing the cryptid in question.

A really good place to start is actually musuem field collections. Haplodactylus was absolutely a cryptid that people really did doubt- native stories and 200 year old sketchy traveller stories of a giant gecko that dwarves all other species. Sure enough, a researcher working in my home town went to europe to look through collections and found that these reports were actually true! Note one imperative thing here though- he didn't believe he would find anything, just acknowledged that it could be there and that if he were to find it it would be really really cool; for the record, it is still really cool.

Cryptozoology is something that really has a shit reputation in science. This is because it has been hijacked by crazies that are more like hobbiests with an internet search engine rather than a scientist with any sort of method. I'm not saying they are all idiots, there are some pretty awesome cryptid finds out there- look at Haplodactylus, Rhacodactylus ciliatus, Okapi johnstoni and Latimera. That being said, It is an ABSOLUTE imperative that anyone undertaking cryptozoological studies makes them just that- a study. This doesn't mean reading some library books and listening to some farmers talk about some dead chickens. This means using scientific method and a rigorous field search for evidences, approaching it with the thought that it could be out there, rather than believing it is. Remember, science is based on disproving hypothesis' rather than vindicating your own personal wants.

So the only real controls you actually need here are common sense and an actual scientific method. Also, ditch your beliefs; that's what this is really, you are believing bigfoot is real because you believe the stories you've been told to be true.

Originally Posted by mormoopid

Originally Posted by WVBIG

What, if anything, could we do as a control in Cryptozoology besides researching in areas with no history of reports for comparison to research in areas with a history of reports?

Sorry I'm late on this one, I hurt my back doing field work and have been out of it (in some cases, literally- muscle relaxants are savage) for a few days.

I don't think the thing you suggested could even be a control on cryptozoology. Doing research in places with no reports is like going to antarctica to look for reptiles just because there aren't any there. You really would need to focus your research on places where there are reports- logic would dictate a higher prevalence of reports would yeild a higher chance of seeing the cryptid in question.

A really good place to start is actually musuem field collections. Haplodactylus was absolutely a cryptid that people really did doubt- native stories and 200 year old sketchy traveller stories of a giant gecko that dwarves all other species. Sure enough, a researcher working in my home town went to europe to look through collections and found that these reports were actually true! Note one imperative thing here though- he didn't believe he would find anything, just acknowledged that it could be there and that if he were to find it it would be really really cool; for the record, it is still really cool.

Cryptozoology is something that really has a shit reputation in science. This is because it has been hijacked by crazies that are more like hobbiests with an internet search engine rather than a scientist with any sort of method. I'm not saying they are all idiots, there are some pretty awesome cryptid finds out there- look at Haplodactylus, Rhacodactylus ciliatus, Okapi johnstoni and Latimera. That being said, It is an ABSOLUTE imperative that anyone undertaking cryptozoological studies makes them just that- a study. This doesn't mean reading some library books and listening to some farmers talk about some dead chickens. This means using scientific method and a rigorous field search for evidences, approaching it with the thought that it could be out there, rather than believing it is. Remember, science is based on disproving hypothesis' rather than vindicating your own personal wants.

So the only real controls you actually need here are common sense and an actual scientific method. Also, ditch your beliefs; that's what this is really, you are believing bigfoot is real because you believe the stories you've been told to be true.

1) I totally agree with you that Cryptozoology should be undertaken by scientists. But aside from Dr. Meldrum & a handful of others, that isn't happening. So it's up to the rest of us to determine IF Bigfoot exists & if it does, to determine it before they become extinct.
2) I don't base my belief on reports. I base it on things like dermal ridges in footprint & handprint casts, hair & fecal samples that have defied explanation, vocalization recordings that have defied explanation, & the failure, after more than 40 years of intense scrutinization, to conclusively debunk the Patterson/Gimlin film & the evidence left at the location where the film was shot. We merely use reports as starting points to select areas for field research. I myself heard vocalizations twice in 2006 less than 20 miles from the location of a reported sighting & I've never been able to link the vocalizations to a known animal indigenous to my area. But I'm still trying

Originally Posted by WVBIG

As I recall, he didn't say "some" perpetuate the myth of Bigfoot to make money.

Sometimes, It's not about making money, but instead making mayhem and making so-called "experts" look the asses.

"In 1988, prankster Tony Signorini admitted he and a friend had made the tracks with a pair of cast iron feet attached to high-top black sneakers. J. Richard Greenwell, discussing the case in The ISC Newsletter (Winter 1988), summed the case up this way: "The lesson to be learned within cryptozoology is, of course, fundamental. Despite careful, detailed analyses by zoologists and engineers, which provided detailed and sophisticated mechanical and anatomical conclusions supporting the hypothesis of a real animal, we now see that, not only was the entire episode a hoax, but that it was perpetrated by relatively amateur, good-natured pranksters, not knowledgeable experts attempting, through their expertise, to fool zoological authorities."

The experts, however are only partly to blame for their repeated and premature proclamations of the authenticity of Bigfoot evidence. After all, other areas of science are not fraught with such deception and hoaxing; in physics and biology, light waves and protozoa aren't trying to trick their observers.

Even when there is no intentional hoaxing, "experts" have been fooled."

http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-03/bigfoot.html

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by WVBIG

As I recall, he didn't say "some" perpetuate the myth of Bigfoot to make money.

Sometimes, It's not about making money, but instead making mayhem and making so-called "experts" look the asses.

"In 1988, prankster Tony Signorini admitted he and a friend had made the tracks with a pair of cast iron feet attached to high-top black sneakers. J. Richard Greenwell, discussing the case in The ISC Newsletter (Winter 1988), summed the case up this way: "The lesson to be learned within cryptozoology is, of course, fundamental. Despite careful, detailed analyses by zoologists and engineers, which provided detailed and sophisticated mechanical and anatomical conclusions supporting the hypothesis of a real animal, we now see that, not only was the entire episode a hoax, but that it was perpetrated by relatively amateur, good-natured pranksters, not knowledgeable experts attempting, through their expertise, to fool zoological authorities."

The experts, however are only partly to blame for their repeated and premature proclamations of the authenticity of Bigfoot evidence. After all, other areas of science are not fraught with such deception and hoaxing; in physics and biology, light waves and protozoa aren't trying to trick their observers.

Even when there is no intentional hoaxing, "experts" have been fooled."

http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-03/bigfoot.html

1) Using a nearly 7 year old article full of outdated info to support your skeptical point of view now? Isn't that one of the things we're accused of doing?
2) I'm curious to know if there was any effort put forth into confirming the confessions of these alleged hoaxers or if they were simply accepted as fact based on Occem's Razor. Surely you would agree that if someone is making a claim of creating a hoax that successfully fooled trained professionals in applicable fields of science, he/she must be held to the same burden of proof as we are wouldn't you?
3) In the article, Dr. Radford correctly states we can't say that a track is definitely a Bigfoot track because we have no verified Bigfoot tracks for comparison. But, we can rule out a misidentified bear when a person who has a sighting goes to the spot & finds no bear tracks & instead finds these large human-like tracks.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

1) Using a nearly 7 year old article full of outdated info to support your skeptical point of view now? Isn't that one of the things we're accused of doing?

No problem, we can easily focus on the current bigfoot hoaxes that made the experts look like asses, if you wish. To date, no bigfoot "researcher" has looked like anything else.

Name one recent hoax that fooled the experts?

to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.

This is dictionary.com's first definition of belief. Lets see how you fit in:

You have confidence that Bigfoot is real and you don't have absolute proof it is there. Infact, you don't have any tangible evidence that I've seen that bigfoot exists. Sounds like you do believe in it to me.

Here's an example of tangible evidence without an actual body: You find some hair, it doesn't turn out to be bison. Instead, it turns out to be something that fits in with primates but isn't identifiable as a modern primate genetically.

Originally Posted by mormoopid

to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.

This is dictionary.com's first definition of belief. Lets see how you fit in:

You have confidence that Bigfoot is real and you don't have absolute proof it is there. Infact, you don't have any tangible evidence that I've seen that bigfoot exists. Sounds like you do believe in it to me.

Here's an example of tangible evidence without an actual body: You find some hair, it doesn't turn out to be bison. Instead, it turns out to be something that fits in with primates but isn't identifiable as a modern primate genetically.

1) Dr. Henner Fahrenbach is confident that the 20 or so hair samples he has, are of an unknown primate. Although only inconclusive fragmented DNA has been found
2) Before, you stated that one should approach Cryptozoology with the attitude that the cryptid in question may exist. Do you really think it's possible to be interested in a subject for over 35 years, as I have been with the Bigfoot phenomenon, without forming an opinion on one side or the other? There was a period in my life (the early 80's) where I became a skeptic because where I lived, we had no cable tv & no sattelite dish until 1983, there were no new news reports about Bigfoot, & no new documentaries. So I assumed the reports had stopped & surely if these creatures existed, people wouldn't just stop seeing them. But then I found out that the sightings, & track discoveries never stopped.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Name one recent hoax that fooled the experts?

The recent Georgia hoax had some of the experts fooled. Of course, an expert in the field of pseudosciences IS only an expert at being an ass.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

1) Dr. Henner Fahrenbach is confident that the 20 or so hair samples he has, are of an unknown primate. Although only inconclusive fragmented DNA has been found

Confident about inconclusiveness? Really? Inconclusive fragmented DNA does not a new species make, I'm afraid.

2) Before, you stated that one should approach Cryptozoology with the attitude that the cryptid in question may exist. Do you really think it's possible to be interested in a subject for over 35 years, as I have been with the Bigfoot phenomenon, without forming an opinion on one side or the other? There was a period in my life (the early 80's) where I became a skeptic because where I lived, we had no cable tv & no sattelite dish until 1983, there were no new news reports about Bigfoot, & no new documentaries. So I assumed the reports had stopped & surely if these creatures existed, people wouldn't just stop seeing them. But then I found out that the sightings, & track discoveries never stopped.

Something you may not be aware of is that people seeking attention or 5 minutes of fame exist now same as they did in the past. Crazies still exist as well. So, reports not stopping isn't a symptom of existence. It's a symptom of stupid people continuing to do stupid things.

You can have an opinion about it, absolutely you can; however once that opinion is based on things like inconclusive fragmented DNA, stories from randoms and divets in the earth that kind of look like footprints but can't be demonstrated to be footprints for certain, you really are crossing the line into belief. The best researcher on this topic would almost certainly be someone setting out to confirm that this animal hasn't ever existed. Only then will the evidence be truely scrutinized in a believeable way. See, cryptozoology is basically a fuster cluck of people desperately trying to prove that bigfoot and friends exist. So, in order for anyone to take it seriously, you have to go outside of the normal rigors of science and go above and beyond with overscrutinization. Do you think this sounds like anything close to anything you've ever done?

Originally Posted by mormoopid

Originally Posted by WVBIG

1) Dr. Henner Fahrenbach is confident that the 20 or so hair samples he has, are of an unknown primate. Although only inconclusive fragmented DNA has been found

Confident about inconclusiveness? Really? Inconclusive fragmented DNA does not a new species make, I'm afraid.

2) Before, you stated that one should approach Cryptozoology with the attitude that the cryptid in question may exist. Do you really think it's possible to be interested in a subject for over 35 years, as I have been with the Bigfoot phenomenon, without forming an opinion on one side or the other? There was a period in my life (the early 80's) where I became a skeptic because where I lived, we had no cable tv & no sattelite dish until 1983, there were no new news reports about Bigfoot, & no new documentaries. So I assumed the reports had stopped & surely if these creatures existed, people wouldn't just stop seeing them. But then I found out that the sightings, & track discoveries never stopped.

Something you may not be aware of is that people seeking attention or 5 minutes of fame exist now same as they did in the past. Crazies still exist as well. So, reports not stopping isn't a symptom of existence. It's a symptom of stupid people continuing to do stupid things.

You can have an opinion about it, absolutely you can; however once that opinion is based on things like inconclusive fragmented DNA, stories from randoms and divets in the earth that kind of look like footprints but can't be demonstrated to be footprints for certain, you really are crossing the line into belief. The best researcher on this topic would almost certainly be someone setting out to confirm that this animal hasn't ever existed. Only then will the evidence be truely scrutinized in a believeable way. See, cryptozoology is basically a fuster cluck of people desperately trying to prove that bigfoot and friends exist. So, in order for anyone to take it seriously, you have to go outside of the normal rigors of science and go above and beyond with overscrutinization. Do you think this sounds like anything close to anything you've ever done?

1) His confidence in the hair samples is based on other microscopic characteristics of them that indicate unknown primate
2) I'm not exactly saying that continued reports indicate existence. I'm saying a sudden stop in sighting reports would indicate that they never existed
3) Yes. Whenever we encounter something, the first thing we set out to do is debunk it. That's why hair & scat samples are tested, footprints are analyzed for evidence of a static, non-living foot, evidence is sought to determine if tree twists were caused by wind storms or disease, etc... I think what we all fail to do is speak of things like footprints in terms such as "currently believed to be evidence" Terms like "evidence" or even "Possible evidence" incorrectly indicate we close the book on it forever at that point

1) demonstrate this to me otherwise I'm pretty sure you're just taking what someone said for granted there and you don't truely understand and therefore have no scientific rationale for concurring with it.

2) A sudden stop in reports might also mean that the population has declined sharply and therefore there is less opportunity for encounters...

3)There is also alot of holding hands over ears and saying "LALALALA I can't hear you so you're not right" and that casts a HUGE shadow on you and what you are trying to do.

Originally Posted by mormoopid

1) demonstrate this to me otherwise I'm pretty sure you're just taking what someone said for granted there and you don't truely understand and therefore have no scientific rationale for concurring with it.

2) A sudden stop in reports might also mean that the population has declined sharply and therefore there is less opportunity for encounters...

3)There is also alot of holding hands over ears and saying "LALALALA I can't hear you so you're not right" and that casts a HUGE shadow on you and what you are trying to do.

1) Dr. Henner Fahrenbach says the hairs in question have no medulla, match no other animals he has compared them to, & have been found in the proximity of Bigfoot sighting reports. He has also ruled out the possibility that they are synthetic.
http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/dnatests.htm
note: He has literally spent years analyzing these hairs & comparing them to hairs from known animals. Also, the last time I was in contact with Dr. Fahrenbach, his collection of suspected Bigfoot hairs had grown to about 20
2) True. But a sudden sharp decline would almost certainly have to be the result of some sort of natural disaster or environmental contamination which should result in many dead bodies being found. Like when a body of water suddenly becomes contaminated, dead fish are found by people who go in to clean up the contamination.
3) There is no evidence that this is going on. It's just something skeptics choose to believe so they themselves, can justify ignoring the evidence we have

Out of curiosity how do you explain the complete lack of subfossil/recent bodies, if there was a viable population of large ground dwelling primates in western North America why have no actual remains been found? The amount of humans going into the wilderness in the Puget sound region each weekend is enormous, you would think something would have been found.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Out of curiosity how do you explain the complete lack of subfossil/recent bodies, if there was a viable population of large ground dwelling primates in western North America why have no actual remains been found? The amount of humans going into the wilderness in the Puget sound region each weekend is enormous, you would think something would have been found.

Well, A well known Bigfoot researcher named Robert W. Morgan was told a story by an old native American gentleman that could explain this. He said his grandfather told him that when he was a child, he ran onto a group of Bigfoots burying one of their dead. According to the story, what they did was roll back a large boulder & scoop out an area big enough & deep enough for the body, place the body in the hole, & roll the boulder back over the whole. Since Bigfoot sightings & evidence finds typically occur in wet areas, the soft tissue would quickly decay away & then ground burrowing rodents would feed on the bones. We are hoping to find a large boulder with evidence around it indicating it has been moved recently. An experiment in Florida showed that in a wet area, a freshly killed deer deteriorates to just a few bones in only 1 week. How much would you expect to find if something was buried to start with?

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Out of curiosity how do you explain the complete lack of subfossil/recent bodies, if there was a viable population of large ground dwelling primates in western North America why have no actual remains been found? The amount of humans going into the wilderness in the Puget sound region each weekend is enormous, you would think something would have been found.

Well, A well known Bigfoot researcher named Robert W. Morgan was told a story by an old native American gentleman that could explain this. He said his grandfather told him that when he was a child, he ran onto a group of Bigfoots burying one of their dead. According to the story, what they did was roll back a large boulder & scoop out an area big enough & deep enough for the body, place the body in the hole, & roll the boulder back over the whole. Since Bigfoot sightings & evidence finds typically occur in wet areas, the soft tissue would quickly decay away & then ground burrowing rodents would feed on the bones. We are hoping to find a large boulder with evidence around it indicating it has been moved recently. An experiment in Florida showed that in a wet area, a freshly killed deer deteriorates to just a few bones in only 1 week. How much would you expect to find if something was buried to start with?

Couple of things here:
1 Word of mouth is considered one of the LEAST reliable methods of scientific investigation unless backed with evidence. Out of curiosity where is this native gentleman from?
2 If there is a viable breading population then those number alone would counter this story, there simply are not enough appropriately sized boulders in existence.
3 Sighting and evidence occur in wet areas because these areas will retain things like footprints and everything needs to drink at sometime. The rest of the time would out of necessity be spent roaming for food.
4 CLIMATE the climate of Florida, the only state is completely subtropical or tropical, is hot and humid ALL THE TIME which means that the insects and bacteria which cause decomposition are very happy. The same experiment if conducted in Washington,Maine, and Alaska will produce three markedly different results. Also you do not mention at what time of yea this was performed. if the experiment is conducted in winter it will be drastically different then if it was done in summer. This one experiment is not conclusive reasoning as to why there would be no bodies.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Out of curiosity how do you explain the complete lack of subfossil/recent bodies, if there was a viable population of large ground dwelling primates in western North America why have no actual remains been found? The amount of humans going into the wilderness in the Puget sound region each weekend is enormous, you would think something would have been found.

Well, A well known Bigfoot researcher named Robert W. Morgan was told a story by an old native American gentleman that could explain this. He said his grandfather told him that when he was a child, he ran onto a group of Bigfoots burying one of their dead. According to the story, what they did was roll back a large boulder & scoop out an area big enough & deep enough for the body, place the body in the hole, & roll the boulder back over the whole. Since Bigfoot sightings & evidence finds typically occur in wet areas, the soft tissue would quickly decay away & then ground burrowing rodents would feed on the bones. We are hoping to find a large boulder with evidence around it indicating it has been moved recently. An experiment in Florida showed that in a wet area, a freshly killed deer deteriorates to just a few bones in only 1 week. How much would you expect to find if something was buried to start with?

Couple of things here:
1 Word of mouth is considered one of the LEAST reliable methods of scientific investigation unless backed with evidence. Out of curiosity where is this native gentleman from?
2 If there is a viable breading population then those number alone would counter this story, there simply are not enough appropriately sized boulders in existence.
3 Sighting and evidence occur in wet areas because these areas will retain things like footprints and everything needs to drink at sometime. The rest of the time would out of necessity be spent roaming for food.
4 CLIMATE the climate of Florida, the only state is completely subtropical or tropical, is hot and humid ALL THE TIME which means that the insects and bacteria which cause decomposition are very happy. The same experiment if conducted in Washington,Maine, and Alaska will produce three markedly different results. Also you do not mention at what time of yea this was performed. if the experiment is conducted in winter it will be drastically different then if it was done in summer. This one experiment is not conclusive reasoning as to why there would be no bodies.

1) I believe he was from Washington
2) You would be surprised how many appropriately large boulders there are strewn throughout WV alone
3) They are believed to be nomadic or at least semi-nomadic. Following food supplies more than water in my opinion
4) Florida isn't hot ALL THE TIME or the Challenger disaster never would have happened & citrus crops would never get frozen. I believe the experiment was performed in summer, but I'm not positive

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Out of curiosity how do you explain the complete lack of subfossil/recent bodies, if there was a viable population of large ground dwelling primates in western North America why have no actual remains been found? The amount of humans going into the wilderness in the Puget sound region each weekend is enormous, you would think something would have been found.

Well, A well known Bigfoot researcher named Robert W. Morgan was told a story by an old native American gentleman that could explain this. He said his grandfather told him that when he was a child, he ran onto a group of Bigfoots burying one of their dead. According to the story, what they did was roll back a large boulder & scoop out an area big enough & deep enough for the body, place the body in the hole, & roll the boulder back over the whole. Since Bigfoot sightings & evidence finds typically occur in wet areas, the soft tissue would quickly decay away & then ground burrowing rodents would feed on the bones. We are hoping to find a large boulder with evidence around it indicating it has been moved recently. An experiment in Florida showed that in a wet area, a freshly killed deer deteriorates to just a few bones in only 1 week. How much would you expect to find if something was buried to start with?

Couple of things here:
1 Word of mouth is considered one of the LEAST reliable methods of scientific investigation unless backed with evidence. Out of curiosity where is this native gentleman from?
2 If there is a viable breading population then those number alone would counter this story, there simply are not enough appropriately sized boulders in existence.
3 Sighting and evidence occur in wet areas because these areas will retain things like footprints and everything needs to drink at sometime. The rest of the time would out of necessity be spent roaming for food.
4 CLIMATE the climate of Florida, the only state is completely subtropical or tropical, is hot and humid ALL THE TIME which means that the insects and bacteria which cause decomposition are very happy. The same experiment if conducted in Washington,Maine, and Alaska will produce three markedly different results. Also you do not mention at what time of yea this was performed. if the experiment is conducted in winter it will be drastically different then if it was done in summer. This one experiment is not conclusive reasoning as to why there would be no bodies.

1) I believe he was from Washington
2) You would be surprised how many appropriately large boulders there are strewn throughout WV alone
3) They are believed to be nomadic or at least semi-nomadic. Following food supplies more than water in my opinion
4) Florida isn't hot ALL THE TIME or the Challenger disaster never would have happened & citrus crops would never get frozen. I believe the experiment was performed in summer, but I'm not positive

Statistically the amount of boulders compared to a breeding population of ~5000, which is still very low for a population. With a population turnover (eg the original 5000 are dead and the 5000 descendants are living) happening say every 100 years that means that given 1 boulder per body in just the 300 years since Europeans first came to the PNW you would need 15,000 boulders at least 8 ft long and light enough to move. have you visited the PNW, if you had you would have noticed that most boulders are buried deep beneath vegetation and on the east side of the cascades there isn't much vegetation at all.

Yes, I was general in my description for Florida, there have been notable cold spells but these are not the norm, that being subtropical to tropical. If the experiment was preformed in summer this means that insects and bacteria would be at peak activity and thus change the results.
If you want to use this experiment then you will have to find one which is conducted in a series of environments which may be inhabited by Bigfoot, not just one environment which is at the extreme from most sighting, and for the continental US.

This also begs the question of WHY, why would Bigfoot do this at all, AFAK, beyond humans there is not recorded evidence, aside from morning the individual, of ANY primate genus preforming funerary rights, especially methodically burying there dead.

Thus, other then one story, we have no data, physical, circumstantial, or anecdotal (other primates) of Bigfoot preforming any sort of funerary rights. Why do they do this if it isnt a behavior that is found in any other primate?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Out of curiosity how do you explain the complete lack of subfossil/recent bodies, if there was a viable population of large ground dwelling primates in western North America why have no actual remains been found? The amount of humans going into the wilderness in the Puget sound region each weekend is enormous, you would think something would have been found.

Well, A well known Bigfoot researcher named Robert W. Morgan was told a story by an old native American gentleman that could explain this. He said his grandfather told him that when he was a child, he ran onto a group of Bigfoots burying one of their dead. According to the story, what they did was roll back a large boulder & scoop out an area big enough & deep enough for the body, place the body in the hole, & roll the boulder back over the whole. Since Bigfoot sightings & evidence finds typically occur in wet areas, the soft tissue would quickly decay away & then ground burrowing rodents would feed on the bones. We are hoping to find a large boulder with evidence around it indicating it has been moved recently. An experiment in Florida showed that in a wet area, a freshly killed deer deteriorates to just a few bones in only 1 week. How much would you expect to find if something was buried to start with?

Couple of things here:
1 Word of mouth is considered one of the LEAST reliable methods of scientific investigation unless backed with evidence. Out of curiosity where is this native gentleman from?
2 If there is a viable breading population then those number alone would counter this story, there simply are not enough appropriately sized boulders in existence.
3 Sighting and evidence occur in wet areas because these areas will retain things like footprints and everything needs to drink at sometime. The rest of the time would out of necessity be spent roaming for food.
4 CLIMATE the climate of Florida, the only state is completely subtropical or tropical, is hot and humid ALL THE TIME which means that the insects and bacteria which cause decomposition are very happy. The same experiment if conducted in Washington,Maine, and Alaska will produce three markedly different results. Also you do not mention at what time of yea this was performed. if the experiment is conducted in winter it will be drastically different then if it was done in summer. This one experiment is not conclusive reasoning as to why there would be no bodies.

1) I believe he was from Washington
2) You would be surprised how many appropriately large boulders there are strewn throughout WV alone
3) They are believed to be nomadic or at least semi-nomadic. Following food supplies more than water in my opinion
4) Florida isn't hot ALL THE TIME or the Challenger disaster never would have happened & citrus crops would never get frozen. I believe the experiment was performed in summer, but I'm not positive

Statistically the amount of boulders compared to a breeding population of ~5000, which is still very low for a population. With a population turnover (eg the original 5000 are dead and the 5000 descendants are living) happening say every 100 years that means that given 1 boulder per body in just the 300 years since Europeans first came to the PNW you would need 15,000 boulders at least 8 ft long and light enough to move. have you visited the PNW, if you had you would have noticed that most boulders are buried deep beneath vegetation and on the east side of the cascades there isn't much vegetation at all.

Yes, I was general in my description for Florida, there have been notable cold spells but these are not the norm, that being subtropical to tropical. If the experiment was preformed in summer this means that insects and bacteria would be at peak activity and thus change the results.
If you want to use this experiment then you will have to find one which is conducted in a series of environments which may be inhabited by Bigfoot, not just one environment which is at the extreme from most sighting, and for the continental US.

This also begs the question of WHY, why would Bigfoot do this at all, AFAK, beyond humans there is not recorded evidence, aside from morning the individual, of ANY primate genus preforming funerary rights, especially methodically burying there dead.

Thus, other then one story, we have no data, physical, circumstantial, or anecdotal (other primates) of Bigfoot preforming any sort of funerary rights. Why do they do this if it isnt a behavior that is found in any other primate?

1)The reason this particular experiment was only done in Florida is because the point was to attempt to determine why no remains of the southern variety of hairy bipedal hominid, known as the skunk ape, have never been found.
2) Until fairly recently, there were no fossil remains of chimps either. Even though chimps are a known animal, so obviously we knew there were fossil remains somewhere. Also, until recently, chimps were thought to be vegetarians. So just because there is currently no evidence of known non-human primates burying their dead, it doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't happen. I personally believe that they conceal their dead in the most convenient way available & do so purely to hide evidence of their presence in an area. This could mean burial like the native american gentleman said or covering with brush, putting them in old mine shafts & secluded caves, etc...

Originally Posted by WVBIG

1)The reason this particular experiment was only done in Florida is because the point was to attempt to determine why no remains of the southern variety of hairy bipedal hominid, known as the skunk ape, have never been found.
2) Until fairly recently, there were no fossil remains of chimps either. Even though chimps are a known animal, so obviously we knew there were fossil remains somewhere. Also, until recently, chimps were thought to be vegetarians. So just because there is currently no evidence of known non-human primates burying their dead, it doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't happen. I personally believe that they conceal their dead in the most convenient way available & do so purely to hide evidence of their presence in an area. This could mean burial like the native american gentleman said or covering with brush, putting them in old mine shafts & secluded caves, etc...

Thus it may be applicable to Florida, though it is till a badly conducted experiment, it is not viable for anywhere else, thus the assertion that all the skeletons would be gone in a ~ 1week is not a valid argument.

Note I said SUBfossil remains not fossil, and while it is recent we do HAVE the evidence of Chimps be omnivorous. This still doesn't address the lack of funerary rights.

and boiling this down further

Why are they going to such sophisticated lengths to hide bodies?

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I personally believe that they conceal their dead in the most convenient way available & do so purely to hide evidence of their presence in an area. This could mean burial like the native american gentleman said or covering with brush, putting them in old mine shafts & secluded caves, etc...

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by WVBIG

1)The reason this particular experiment was only done in Florida is because the point was to attempt to determine why no remains of the southern variety of hairy bipedal hominid, known as the skunk ape, have never been found.
2) Until fairly recently, there were no fossil remains of chimps either. Even though chimps are a known animal, so obviously we knew there were fossil remains somewhere. Also, until recently, chimps were thought to be vegetarians. So just because there is currently no evidence of known non-human primates burying their dead, it doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't happen. I personally believe that they conceal their dead in the most convenient way available & do so purely to hide evidence of their presence in an area. This could mean burial like the native american gentleman said or covering with brush, putting them in old mine shafts & secluded caves, etc...

Thus it may be applicable to Florida, though it is till a badly conducted experiment, it is not viable for anywhere else, thus the assertion that all the skeletons would be gone in a ~ 1week is not a valid argument.

Note I said SUBfossil remains not fossil, and while it is recent we do HAVE the evidence of Chimps be omnivorous. This still doesn't address the lack of funerary rights.

and boiling this down further

Why are they going to such sophisticated lengths to hide bodies?

1) I didn't mean to suggest all skeletons would would be gone in a week. What I'm saying is if it's possible that an animal can die on top of the ground & be reduced to a few bones in a week, it's likely that the remains of one that was buried, would never be found.
2) Something I missed commenting on in your previous post was your assertion that there aren't 5,000 adequately large boulders for Bigfoots to be buried under. If you really think that in the continental united states, all of Canada, & Alaska, there aren't 5,000 such boulders, you really need to get out of the lab & actually out into the wilderness. I think one of the main reasons a lot of scientists are so skeptical of the existence of Bigfoot is they spend too much time in labs & not enough time actually out in the wilderness. The ones who aren't so skeptical, are the ones like Dr. Meldrum, & Dr. Bendernagel, who do get out into the wilderness

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I think one of the main reasons a lot of scientists are so skeptical of the existence of Bigfoot is they spend too much time in labs & not enough time actually out in the wilderness. The ones who aren't so skeptical, are the ones like Dr. Meldrum, & Dr. Bendernagel, who do get out into the wilderness

Strawman.

Scientists are skeptical when there's no evidence. And, those who jump to conclusions are usually in it for the money.

http://www.amazon.ca/Sasquatch-Legen.../dp/0765312166

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I think one of the main reasons a lot of scientists are so skeptical of the existence of Bigfoot is they spend too much time in labs & not enough time actually out in the wilderness. The ones who aren't so skeptical, are the ones like Dr. Meldrum, & Dr. Bendernagel, who do get out into the wilderness

Strawman.

Scientists are skeptical when there's no evidence. And, those who jump to conclusions are usually in it for the money.

http://www.amazon.ca/Sasquatch-Legen.../dp/0765312166

Try reading an article on this scientific web magazine for free
http://www.nature.com