Bigfoot?

[wvbig]

I plotted the sighting/evidence reports for my state I believed to be most credible & least likely to be misidentifications of bears, from the 3 biggest report databases. Then if I could plot a path of several similar reports along a timeline, I assumed all of those were from the same creature. This gave me a state estimate of 45-50 creatures. Then I multiplied that by 50 & doubled that figure to take into account Canada. Some criticized me for not adding some because some new ones are surely born each year. But in my opinion, if you're going to assume some are born each year, you also have to assume that some die each year. And without specific data to determine either a birth or a mortality rate, I decided that they offset one another & made no additions for new births or subtractions for deaths. I personally think the population is on the lower end of the 4,000-6,000 estimate but I'm not as familiar with the number of Canadian reports as I am with the U.S. reports.

In 2006 I decided to try to keep track of the bear sightings in my state for the next 5 years because that was when bear sightings began to sharply increase & I wanted to see if there was a similar increase in Bigfoot sightings. My reason for doing this was to try to determine the likelyhood that Bigfoot sightings in my state are the result of misidentifications of bears. So far, there has also been a sharp increase in the number of Bigfoot sightings in West Virginia. But the fascinating thing is that only about 7% of the new Bigfoot sighting reports could have been a bear. I decided on a 5 year study because it takes most people an average of 5 years to muster the courage to report a sighting.

[insane_alien]

wow, that estimation is as dodgy as hell.

 

thats like if i look at my street. macdonald is the most common name being about 15% of the people on my street have macdonald as a last name. that doesn't mean i can then extrapolate that 15% of the world have the last name macdonald.

 

can you post the data you used to derive this?

[wvbig]

Actually I used the two biggest databases & my own:

http://www.bfro.net

http://www.gcbro.com

http://steventitchenell.tripod.com/wvbig

[Bignose]

This gave me a state estimate of 45-50 creatures. Then I multiplied that by 50 & doubled that figure to take into account Canada.

 

 

Are you even serious?!?!? This is so laughably poor that this has to be a joke, right?

 

So, if the two Dakotas had remained one state, you'd only multiply the answer by 49, right? Or if someday Puerto Rico becomes a state, then you'd have to multiply by 51, then, right?

 

I didn't know Bigfoot could determine the completely arbitrary lines drawn by mankind. I'm sure all 45 or 50 that live in Rhode Island really, really wish that they had all the room the 45 or 50 that live in Montana do. And how did the ones in Hawaii get out there? Fly, swim? However they got out there, it's impressive.

 

And I'm sure Bigfoot does equally well in the desert southwest as he does in the Minnesota north. Give me a break.

 

This really is a poor analysis.

 

A decent analysis would have to involve climate and what percentage of the climate was covered while counting and then extrapolating that the all the other land area with similar climates.

 

You analysis is like saying that since there are Lentipes concolor found in the freshwater streams of Hawaii, Lentipes concolor must be found in all bodies of water, therefore they cover the entire earth. However, Lentipes concolor is native only to Hawaii, so such an extrapolation would be grossly inaccurate.

 

The above two paragraphs also completely ignore all of the other issues about using your "count" as a population estimate. Unless these people are trained spotters -- that is, people who know how to count the population of animals in the wild correctly (by making sure not to count the same animal twice, not to miss too many animals, ensuring that there is sufficient food supply for the estimated numbers, etc. etc) -- the numbers are going to have huge margins of error.

 

Finally, if there are that many -- why hasn't a dead one been found? Surely Bigfoots die once in a while. Why no bones? Why no corpses? Why no definitive trace at all?

Edited September 8, 2008 by Bignose

[wvbig]

What in the world does climate have to do with anything? Bringing climate into the equation is like saying if there are sightings in a certain climate in one area & there are no sightings in a different area that has the same climate, then the ones in the second area just aren't being spotted. My way is simply counting those that are being spotted & then attributing multiple sightings to one creature if there is a clear indication that for example, a 7' creature, reddish-brown in color is spotted at point A on a certain date. Then a 7' creature, reddish-brown in color is spotted 10 miles away a month later, then another sighting of a 7', reddish-brown creature is spotted 10 miles from the second sighting or back at the first sighting, that is an indication of one creature. Not three. I'm sure there is a large margin of error in my estimate though since there is no way of knowing for sure which reports, if any, are true & which are not. Of the twelve reports we've received, not counting the two times I've heard strange vocalizations, three were ruled false. But that doesn't prove the other nine are true. The three that we chose not to publish had very obvious problems. The first one went something like this "I saw Bigfoot out by the chicken coop. He came in my house & sat down at my dining room table. My house stunk for three days" The second report was of a man who claimed to have had a sighting & he said he had a hair sample. When one of my members attempted to make an appointment with the witness for a follow up interview & to collect the hair sample to have it analyzed, the witness disappeared. The third report was from a man claiming that he was riding in an 18 wheeler when it struck a Bigfoot. When one of my members called him to do a follow up interview, he got no answer & the message he left on the man's answering machine vielded no return phone call.

I'm glad you brought up climate though. The majority of sightings overall, occur in areas with at least 20" of precipitation annually & in Texas, the majority of reports come from areas with at least 30" of precipitation annually.

You asked why no definitive traces of Bigfoot have never been found. My mentor, Robert W. Morgan, was told by an old Native American that when he was little his grandfather told him a story about happening on to a group of Bigfoots burying one of their dead. What they did was, rolled back a large boulder, scoop out an area big enough for the body, place the body in the trench, & roll the boulder back over it. This seems reasonable because the body would remain hidden long enough for the soft tissue to decompose in the damp ground & then the rodents that burrough ynder ground & under large rocks could et at the bones. I'm sure you are well aware of the fact that rodents make short work of bones for the calcium & other minerals. There was an experiment chronicled on "Monsterquest" where a freshly killed doe was placed in front of a continuously running video camera to see how quickly it would disappear. Within either one or two weeks, the deer was reduced to a few bones.

Edited September 8, 2008 by wvbig
Didn't see the question at the end

[iNow]

Evidence?

[Klaynos]

The error of margin is in fact larger than the estimate, as the sighting are not "trusted". Therefore we have to go for a null result, or at the very least a useless result.

 

Even if the bodies were buried there would be the odd one that is discovered whether because of earth erosion or whatever...

 

There's so little evidence here and no solid evidence that I just can't believe it.

[wvbig]

I agree that the estimates aren't really worth anything. The main value in them is to have as correct as possible an answer to the question "How many Bigfoots do you suppose there are in North America?" It's actually a very common question. I'm sure sooner or later, probably sooner, some remains will be discovered. There is also the possibility that the remains of "giants" that have been reportedly found over the past couple hundred years, are Bigfoot remains.

[iNow]

I agree that the estimates aren't really worth anything. The main value in them is to have as correct as possible an answer to the question "How many Bigfoots do you suppose there are in North America?"

 

To be fair, kid, the only real answer is "zero," until conclusive evidence proves something different.

 

You've admitted yourself that none of the data you have is conclusive, that much of it is bunk, several pieces are rough and extremely open to interpretation, and really until something more happens you're engaging in wish thinking.

 

 

It really wouldn't be much different if you came here saying you believed in unicorns. I don't mean this as an insult, but instead as a reminder that you should find better evidence before coming to the conclusion you have. Enjoy.

[Bignose]

What in the world does climate have to do with anything?

 

Yeah, you're right. Climate is worthless. Bigfoot probably lives just as easily in the Pacific Northwest as he does in the California desert as he does in the wetlands of Florida. They are all the same. In fact, he probably lives at the bottom of the ocean, on top of Mt. Everest, and on Mars, too. Climate doesn't matter a lick.

 

[/sarcasm]

 

Animals live in a preferred place that best suits them. Climate means everything. Even the most adaptable species on the planet, humans, still are ruled by climate. Go far enough toward the poles and the population becomes awfully sparse. Go far enough toward the heart of a desert, and the population becomes awfully sparse. Bigfoot would be the same -- they are going to live were the climate is the best for them. The best combination of available food, shelter, comfortable temperature. They aren't going to just live wherever. They will follow the food and other resources needed for life. Even people did this -- like the American Indians. They would follow the buffalo herds. They didn't just stay in one place, they went to the place that gave them the best combination of food and shelter and water and comfortable temperatures and basically what they thought was best.

 

Seriously, how can you claim to study any kind of animal and NOT think that climate is important. Climate is darn near everything.

 

If climate isn't important, why aren't all animals everywhere? Seriously, guy, this is ridiculous.

 

Within either one or two weeks, the deer was reduced to a few bones.

 

OK, where are the Bigfoot bones, then? Should be plenty of them around. Maybe under some boulders, right?

 

--------

 

I think I am done with this thread. This is like arguing religion or politics. wvbig is obviously set in his beliefs, and won't acknowledge the obvious shortcomings of his so-called evidence. He'd rather believe in long-shots and unlikelihoods. He doesn't seem to want to discuss anything that doesn't support his point of view. Which is fine, he's entitled to it, but doesn't really have much point on a science forum. And, it has become clear he doesn't have much knowledge about science, either, because the claims are becoming more and more ridiculous.

 

So, good luck in your quest, wv. I'd suggest that you do some reading about how real scientist go about discovering new species and learning about known species, but I don't think that you'd bother. You seem pretty set, so like I said, good luck.

[ydoaPs]

Dermal ridges in a film? lol. Actually one of the first casts Jimmy Chilcutt found dermal ridges in was one of the 1967 Bluff Creek casts.

 

Someone asked if dermal ridges could be faked. I suppose someone could create lines on the bottom of a fake foot. But Mr Chilcutt has found a consistent unique ridge pattern. A pattern running vertically along the foot & the right thickness for something the approximate size of a Bigfoot. He also has noted a known characteristic in dermal ridges that is indicative of scarring that is not common knowledge to the average person. In his examinations of casts, he has found two casts with a completely identical dermal ridge pattern, right down to the scarring indications. One was cast in California in 1967 & the other in either Oregon or Washington in 1987. Two completely identical casts with the unique vertical dermal ridge pattern made over 200 miles & 20 years apart.

 

Did you even watch the video? The feet are FLAT. They have no arch and no toes. They look nothing like an ape foot(human or otherwise). In fact, they look like the padded feet of a costume. That combined with the extremely NON-apelike heel seems to point towards the patterson video being fake. Not to mention the way it walks.

[wvbig]

Did you even watch the video? The feet are FLAT. They have no arch and no toes. They look nothing like an ape foot(human or otherwise). In fact, they look like the padded feet of a costume. That combined with the extremely NON-apelike heel seems to point towards the patterson video being fake. Not to mention the way it walks.

No toes?? Are you blind?? Casts were made of the tracks it left & I assure you the casts have toes. I've seen them on many documentaries.

[Klaynos]

No toes?? Are you blind?? Casts were made of the tracks it left & I assure you the casts have toes. I've seen them on many documentaries.

 

The casts maybe... but the feet no.

 

And documentaries do NOT satisfy the rigour required for science.

[wvbig]

Yeah, you're right. Climate is worthless. Bigfoot probably lives just as easily in the Pacific Northwest as he does in the California desert as he does in the wetlands of Florida. They are all the same. In fact, he probably lives at the bottom of the ocean, on top of Mt. Everest, and on Mars, too. Climate doesn't matter a lick.

 

[/sarcasm]

 

Animals live in a preferred place that best suits them. Climate means everything. Even the most adaptable species on the planet, humans, still are ruled by climate. Go far enough toward the poles and the population becomes awfully sparse. Go far enough toward the heart of a desert, and the population becomes awfully sparse. Bigfoot would be the same -- they are going to live were the climate is the best for them. The best combination of available food, shelter, comfortable temperature. They aren't going to just live wherever. They will follow the food and other resources needed for life. Even people did this -- like the American Indians. They would follow the buffalo herds. They didn't just stay in one place, they went to the place that gave them the best combination of food and shelter and water and comfortable temperatures and basically what they thought was best.

 

Seriously, how can you claim to study any kind of animal and NOT think that climate is important. Climate is darn near everything.

 

If climate isn't important, why aren't all animals everywhere? Seriously, guy, this is ridiculous.

 

 

 

OK, where are the Bigfoot bones, then? Should be plenty of them around. Maybe under some boulders, right?

 

--------

 

I think I am done with this thread. This is like arguing religion or politics. wvbig is obviously set in his beliefs, and won't acknowledge the obvious shortcomings of his so-called evidence. He'd rather believe in long-shots and unlikelihoods. He doesn't seem to want to discuss anything that doesn't support his point of view. Which is fine, he's entitled to it, but doesn't really have much point on a science forum. And, it has become clear he doesn't have much knowledge about science, either, because the claims are becoming more and more ridiculous.

 

So, good luck in your quest, wv. I'd suggest that you do some reading about how real scientist go about discovering new species and learning about known species, but I don't think that you'd bother. You seem pretty set, so like I said, good luck.

After only one or two weeks, above ground and in the open, most of the bones disappeared. How hard do you think it should be to find ones that were buried with perhaps hundreds of years of exposure to rodents. There are tens of thousands of whitetail deer all over West Virginia, but it's rare to find a shed antler.

Just because I believe at this point, that Bigfoot exists, doesn't mean I'm not open to the possibility that I'm wrong. It simply means that for now, in my opinion, there is more evidence for the existence of Bigfoot than against it. If experts in anatomy, primate locomotion, human & non-human primate fingerprint analysis, & biology are convinced, who am I to disagree? Especially considering all the reports. Particularly those by European settlers that pre-date the discovery of the Gorilla.

 

The casts maybe... but the feet no.

 

And documentaries do NOT satisfy the rigour required for science.

And just what may I ask makes you think the feet have no toes? You can plainly see them in the M.K. Davis enhancement of the film which is easy enough to find in a simple google search. You can also plainly see movement in the feet & hands. But I'm guessing none of the skeptics will bother to look for that or anything else that might be in conflict with their beliefs. And what is wrong with documentaries if they have actual scientists sharing their expertise?

[Klaynos]

I believe it's the arch and heel that on the video do not match the casts, there has been alot of people looking at this who came up with that conclusion.

 

Documentaries are not peer reviewed and the "scientists" could be pretty much anyone who the documentary maker wants to call a scientist. I saw one about a year ago that was about a dragon... the whole thing was fabricated, people believed it despite the fact they said it was all faked.

 

And as it might be rare to find an antler, people do, all the time. The probability of one person finding one on one day might be low but the probability of all the people out there finding one over a large period of time is very high.

 

Oh and the first evidence of wester humans (ancient greeks) encountering the gorilla is from 450BC.

[wvbig]

I believe it's the arch and heel that on the video do not match the casts, there has been alot of people looking at this who came up with that conclusion.

 

Documentaries are not peer reviewed and the "scientists" could be pretty much anyone who the documentary maker wants to call a scientist. I saw one about a year ago that was about a dragon... the whole thing was fabricated, people believed it despite the fact they said it was all faked.

 

And as it might be rare to find an antler, people do, all the time. The probability of one person finding one on one day might be low but the probability of all the people out there finding one over a large period of time is very high.

 

Oh and the first evidence of wester humans (ancient greeks) encountering the gorilla is from 450BC.

You don't watch any Bigfoot documentaries do you? They use REAL scientists such as Dr. Jeff Meldrum, Dr. John Bindernagel, Dr. Henner H. Fahrenbach, Dr. Lyn Rogers, Dr. John Myerjenski(sp?) the late Dr. Grover Krantz, & the late Dr. Daris Swindler.

[insane_alien]

So? they would not be the first scientists to believe in crazy things with minimal to non-existant proof.

 

arguement from authority is a logical fallacy.

[wvbig]

I believe it's the arch and heel that on the video do not match the casts, there has been alot of people looking at this who came up with that conclusion.

 

Documentaries are not peer reviewed and the "scientists" could be pretty much anyone who the documentary maker wants to call a scientist. I saw one about a year ago that was about a dragon... the whole thing was fabricated, people believed it despite the fact they said it was all faked.

 

And as it might be rare to find an antler, people do, all the time. The probability of one person finding one on one day might be low but the probability of all the people out there finding one over a large period of time is very high.

 

Oh and the first evidence of wester humans (ancient greeks) encountering the gorilla is from 450BC.

And just what is the evidence?

[Klaynos]

And just what is the evidence?

 

http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Hanno.html

[mooeypoo]

Another point to share here - the term "Scientists" is too broad to be any sort of proof or substantiation.

 

A person with a PhD in Applied Mathematics, researching some weird component of variable stars, is, technically, a scientist.

That doesn't mean he has any authority on biological entities in the woods.

 

A person with a Medical Degree (Doctor, MD), working in research (or not, arguably) is, technically, a scientist.

That doesn't mean he has any authority on stating the validity of video footage.

 

See my point? The fact someone is doing science doesn't mean he knows everything, is an authority to everything, or is an authority on this specific debate.

 

Other than that, claiming someone's right just because he's a "scientists" is appeal to authority, and is logically fallacious.

 

Scientist or not, claims should be accompanied by independent facts and repeatable, unbiased observations, which in this case are absolutely nonexistent.

 

~moo

[wvbig]

Well in the first place, it's nothing more than an elaborate eye witness report. No more & no less substantial than a Bigfoot sighting report. And second, the description of "men" & "women" covered with hair sounds a lot more like Bigfoot than Gorillas. If the expedition party referred to them as men & women, it seems likely to me that they were at least primarily bipedal. Plus I believe female great apes only have pendulous breasts during pregnancy & nursing. Chances are the expedition members were judging the sex of the "women" based on the presence of breasts.

 

Another point to share here - the term "Scientists" is too broad to be any sort of proof or substantiation.

 

A person with a PhD in Applied Mathematics, researching some weird component of variable stars, is, technically, a scientist.

That doesn't mean he has any authority on biological entities in the woods.

 

A person with a Medical Degree (Doctor, MD), working in research (or not, arguably) is, technically, a scientist.

That doesn't mean he has any authority on stating the validity of video footage.

 

See my point? The fact someone is doing science doesn't mean he knows everything, is an authority to everything, or is an authority on this specific debate.

 

Other than that, claiming someone's right just because he's a "scientists" is appeal to authority, and is logically fallacious.

 

Scientist or not, claims should be accompanied by independent facts and repeatable, unbiased observations, which in this case are absolutely nonexistent.

 

~moo

 

Yes I see your point. But the scientists who I mentioned are Anthropologists & Biologists. In addition, experts in video analysis have been analyzing the Patterson/Gimlin film for years. Some researchers have even turned to special effects experts to analyze & in some cases, attempt to recreate, the film. With pathetic results I might add. Bigfoot documentaries just aren't as full of inaccurate info & scientists in unrelated fields as skeptics seem to want to believe.

Edited September 9, 2008 by wvbig
Accidentally omitted a word

[mooeypoo]

Well in the first place, it's nothing more than an elaborate eye witness report. No more & no less substantial than a Bigfoot sighting report. And second, the description of "men" & "women" covered with hair sounds a lot more like Bigfoot than Gorillas. If the expedition party referred to them as men & women, it seems likely to me that they were at least primarily bipedal. Plus I believe female great apes only have pendulous breasts during pregnancy & nursing. Chances are the expedition members were judging the sex of the "women" based on the presence of breasts.

I think you should read the resource again; their judgements are not too much up for interpretation. What you "THINK" they used is irrelevant.

 

Other than that, you're moving the goal post now; you're practically saying that the type of evidence for one subject is insufficient, but the same type of evidence is sufficient for another. That's another logical fallacy.

 

But eye wittness reports, as well as anecdotal evidence, are non proofs, so there we have it, eh?

 

 

Yes I see your point. But the scientists who I mentioned are Anthropologists & Biologists.

Who?

 

And again, even if they are, the validity of what they are saying should be judged on the basis of the *FACTUAL DATA* and not on the basis of their schooling or titles. The latter is appeal for authority, and it's utterly irrelevant in a scientific debate.

 

In fact, as some creationist biologists prove quite well, claims that are based on non-science are likely to DISCREDIT a 'scientist' than to attain validity just because the person claiming them is a scientist. Look at people like Michael Behe. Scientist or no, he has no clue about current science, about attaining facts vs. opinion, or about the scientific method in general. His claims about "irriducible complexity", for example (proven wrong numerous times, including in court), serve well to take AWAY from his credibility, not the other way around.

 

In addition, experts in video analysis have been analyzing the Patterson/Gimlin film for years. Some researchers have even turned to special effects experts to analyze & in some cases, attempt to recreate, the film. With pathetic results I might add. Bigfoot documentaries just aren't as full of inaccurate info & scientists in unrelated fields as skeptics seem to want to believe.

 

You claim these things but where are the proofs? Where are the resources to articles scientifically validating these films? Where are the scientific research in the matter - following the scientific method? I posted an article for you in the beginning, I think you better visit it again; the scientific method is not just there to put things in order, it's there to make sure we follow FACTUAL data and not biased opinions and interpretations.

[wvbig]

I think you should read the resource again; their judgements are not too much up for interpretation. What you "THINK" they used is irrelevant.

 

Other than that, you're moving the goal post now; you're practically saying that the type of evidence for one subject is insufficient, but the same type of evidence is sufficient for another. That's another logical fallacy.

 

But eye wittness reports, as well as anecdotal evidence, are non proofs, so there we have it, eh?

 

 

 

Who?

 

And again, even if they are, the validity of what they are saying should be judged on the basis of the *FACTUAL DATA* and not on the basis of their schooling or titles. The latter is appeal for authority, and it's utterly irrelevant in a scientific debate.

 

In fact, as some creationist biologists prove quite well, claims that are based on non-science are likely to DISCREDIT a 'scientist' than to attain validity just because the person claiming them is a scientist. Look at people like Michael Behe. Scientist or no, he has no clue about current science, about attaining facts vs. opinion, or about the scientific method in general. His claims about "irriducible complexity", for example (proven wrong numerous times, including in court), serve well to take AWAY from his credibility, not the other way around.

 

 

 

You claim these things but where are the proofs? Where are the resources to articles scientifically validating these films? Where are the scientific research in the matter - following the scientific method? I posted an article for you in the beginning, I think you better visit it again; the scientific method is not just there to put things in order, it's there to make sure we follow FACTUAL data and not biased opinions and interpretations.

No. You are the ones doing that. You're saying this eye witness report about Hanno's voyage is evidence that Greeks encountered Gorillas in 450 B.C. but eye witness reports are not evidence for Bigfoot.

The scientists I was referring to are:

Dr. Jeff Meldrum

Dr. John Bindernagel

Dr. Henner H. Fahrenbach

Dr John Mierjenski(sp?) Participated with Dr. Meldrum in the North American Great Ape Project

The late Dr. Grover Krantz

The late Dr. Daris Swindler

The info is documented in various documentaries & books on the subject of Bigfoot. But I suppose being in documentaries & in books on the subject of an as yet unproven creature somehow invalidates the evidence in the eyes of the skeptical scientific community.The link I believe I listed in the beginning, http://www.bigfootencounters.com, has lots of scientific data. In addition, There is Dr. Meldrum's book "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" and a website called "Bigfoot: Fact or Fantasy? goes into great detail about how the height of the subject in the Patterson/Gimlin film, was calculated & how height relates to track length.

[iNow]

No. You are the ones doing that. You're saying this eye witness report about Hanno's voyage is evidence that Greeks encountered Gorillas in 450 B.C. but eye witness reports are not evidence for Bigfoot.

Let us be absolutely clear here. An eye witness report that someone saw a horse is FAR different than an eyewitness report that someone saw a unicorn.

 

We have truck loads of evidence that there are things called "gorillas" that actually exist, interact with the environment, and reproduce.

 

We have zero evidence that there is this thing called bigfoot, at least nothing which goes beyond wish thinking and soft interpretation.

 

 

Therefore, claiming to see a gorilla is acceptable and claiming to see bigfoot is not.

 

 

Also, my girlfried has a book that says there is this kid named Harry Potter who can do magic and fly on brooms. Just because it's in a book (hmm... come to think of it, there's also a movie!) doesn't make it a fact based in reality.

 

 

This is trivial stuff. I'm not understanding why you continue trying to force a square peg through a round hole.

[mooeypoo]

<sigh>