Scientific method should be applied to scientific investigations. However the pursuit of Sasquatch is for most of those involved a form of recreation or as put on another thread more of a hobby than a serious investigation driven by science. That said the topic may be better suited if not forced into strict scientific methods. After all the surefire way to kill a legend is to expose too much of it to science.

Crow Logic wrote:

Theres no question you are right but heres the problem.

Many of These hobbyists claim the title of 'researcher" and openly proclaim their efforts as "Scientific", as legitimate "investigations" and such.

The minute they do that- they bring the guns of science to bear in themselves. Many of these groups list themselves as applying "science" even on their websites.

They also claim to build and use "scientific sounding' arguments to bolster their stance and then blame science when science bends them over and holds them to very high standards.

They cannot have it both ways

They are either amatuer hobbyists in pursuit of a mutual interest or they are acting under the auspices of science.

To expand on that a bit further....

Using myself for example. Let's suppose that I collected a hair sample. I don't have the ability to do anything more with the hair than collect it. I have to find someone capable of doing the testing for me. That means I have to find someone. That's going to take time. Because I want the testing to be done sans any possible bias I have to find someone who isn't a proponent of sasquatch. Now I really have to start looking for someone and that's going to take even longer. Then there's the hold up for the mail service, the time taken for testing, etc etc. It isn't unreasonable to say that from collection to testing results could easily take several months if not longer.

Now, the results come back. The results obviously don't say sasquatch, because we don't have a sasquatch to compare them to. Even though they might indicate a new primate, they don't say sasquatch. So I go back in the field, and maybe find some more hair. I've got a source for testing it now but it still takes some time to get that done. The tests come back the same. Now I'm building a case for something, but I still can't say exactly what.

So I go back again, and again, looking to build my case as best as I can.

Now, during all this (which at this point is a year if not better), I could be doing one of three things. I could say nothing at all about any of this (which a few do). I could say, "Yeah, we've got something on the burner but it's not quite done yet". Or, I could jump up and down trying to get on every media outlet I can talking about my awesome sasquatch hair finds (which I wouldn't).

The fact is there are people out there dilligently trying to bring all the pieces together, regardless of how slow the process might be. There are also people out there trying to build themselves up using smoke and mirrors. The first shouldn't be slighted due to the fault of the second.

longtabberPE wrote:





How about amateur hobbyists in pursuit of a mutual interest who utilize proper scientific methodology? Surely you would be speculating
to say that's impossible.

Okay, I admit I'm on the BFF pretty regularly, but Sweet Gawd of Sasquatch™, don't you people have ANYTHING ELSE to do? And Longtabber, geez guy, do you have an actual prescription for Relentlessness CQ™, cause you must be taking it in the continuous I.V. drip form. You're right, you're right, you're always right. Heck, I'm always right too, ask anyone.

(not intended to resemble any actual person)
Click to view attachment

They are not those of the builder.

This is what it feels like.

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."

Come again?

Well, I had some catching up to do on my BF net reading and I came across this thread. At first I thought --- now this sounds interesting but about half way past September I was wondering where this was going. Somewhere towards the beginning I remember reading "I would test this impression in the ground in real time" and the thought stuck with me through the rest of my reading - test in real time? to my limited understanding that would mean that this person would have to actually see the creature making the track as it was being made before they would believe that it was an actual track made by that creature - at which time I'm sure that they would quickly run over and ask that creature to please step on this scientifically certified weight scale so that they know exactly how much weight it took to make the track because of course in just a matter of minutes the moisture content of the soil that the track was just created in will change enough so that any pressure tests that can be done by the time the creature is kind enough to get out of the way will be inaccurate. also this creature's actual foot that just made the track would have to be measured exactly for precise verification, even though this person just saw the track being made in real time one can never be sure!

I'm also sure that this person would be asking him/herself, "Did I actually see what I think I just saw?" Since many reports or first time encounters state just such a reaction. This would be followed by "Darn, I should have had my helmet cam on 24/7 for the last 3 days since driving off of that blacktop road and I should have made sure that the batteries never ran down or that the recording media never ran out, and of course I would have to have my credentials on hand that show that I am a qualified camera operator at least. If I did capture an image of this creature I can't put myself in jeopardy of being accused of improper use of equipment."

Well, I could go on but I think I've made my point. In the real world of BF searching much of this scientific methodology is impractical at best if not impossible. Yes, there are those who are using the best equipment they can get and I am glad that they are - more power to them! I would have to agree with a statement made earlier that money, or the lack thereof is one of the biggest obstacles. Yes, whatever results or evidence they are able to bring back should be throughly examined, but many know that what evidence they might gather is going to have to be of top quality in many ways and will still be refuted even if they did eye witness the creature and the leaving of their evidence. Who would have thought that the zinc coating on the screws that were used in the hope of collecting blood evidence and DNA would effectively screw up (pun intended) a DNA test?

I don't think that good science or bad science in collecting evidence will be what finally proves the existence of Bigfoot, though it might be of help. I reluctantly agree with Grover Kranz that it will take a body for definite proof but I personally would not go so far as to try to shoot one for the proof. If a dead one were found trying to move or lift it would be about as easy as lifting a dead horse. So the next best thing to a whole body would be part of a body. What part should be brought back? When I posed this question at a BF convention to several people there was little doubt that the head would be the best part to bring back. Who among us wants to try that without being in a large group knowing that there most likely could be other BF looking on?

Mike

I keep telling you people, there is no Bigfoot! Of course that makes Meldrum instantly eligible for the 'Bet He Won't Get Fooled Again' award. Now, if there really is a Bigfoot, he's a lock on the 'Smartest Sumbitch West of Anywhere'...award.

Unless someone found the keys to God's filing cabinet.

Actually, I'm not a flesh and blood human being- I'm a self aware entity like my cousin. Prehaps you remember him. he was a TV star. His name was Max Headroom. He finally retired from TV but is a Sr VP for Coke.

In truth ( my work schedule is radically different than most here) I'm either totally off or working 7-12s ( even 14s) outside of CONUS so my time off is in blocks of time ( you will see me poof for days or weeks at a time)- I just never sign off and post on the fly

>>>Somewhere towards the beginning I remember reading "I would test this impression in the ground in real time" and the thought stuck with me through the rest of my reading - test in real time? to my limited understanding that would mean that this person would have to actually see the creature making the track as it was being made before they would believe that it was an actual track made by that creature -

No, that was me- I didnt mean in real time ( as if watching the track being made)- i meant in real time making a test print very close to the discovered print in the same soil under the same approximate conditions to get a more accurate measurement of the substrate that the print was in

>>> Who would have thought that the zinc coating on the screws that were used in the hope of collecting blood evidence and DNA would effectively screw up (pun intended) a DNA test?

Anyone who has ever been around it

>>>Who among us wants to try that without being in a large group knowing that there most likely could be other BF looking on?

Thats why we carry high caliber weapons

Actually, we have.......... the filing cabinets are the chromosomes. We can see the data DNA, and we're working on reading the language it's written in....... perhaps someday we'll be able to see much more than one would believe.

MOI...Sterling Hayden; nice....

Hmmm, that's interesting, didn't know there was such a thing as fossilized DNA.

Sure there is- we even have an island full of them to conduct field study

If i remember correctly, it was on a joint project with the Raliens

Would more money, or for that matter, all the money in the world help if the research is predicated on a mischaracterization of the subject being researched?
My long held contention, and I don't wish to make it contentious since I wouldn't encourage anyone else to adopt it, is that by studying the ancestral landscape and its complex of populations (hugely different from what we see today) we might gain insight into the behavior of the quarry.
For example: Years ago, I'd seen a few elk when I'd walked around in the Olypmic National Forest's Soleduck area. I'd seen 'em crashing through the undebrrush and then dissovling into the dense cover, almost soundlessly, almost magically, but I've never been successfull looking for elk intentionally in the dense old growth. They could be there, I've hiked their game trails through incredibly steep terraine, found very fresh scat, but never actually saw them unless by some coincidence I came upon them unexpectedly. I asked an elk hunter who typically hunted up the HammaHamma about this and he said that when we see elk in the forests they're browsing and travelling through or just hunkerin' down but they also get together at times for grazing the small patches of browse that results from the odd patch of clearing in the forests, as elk do out in the Yellowstone area with all its big speading meadows. The elk hunter said that he went hunting up higher where the meadows were, or down in the small flats where floods have cleared away areas so that grasses and small forbes will grow...it was pointless to try to follow 'em in the old growth. So no amount of money, practically speaking, would improve my ability pursue and see the elk in the forest in any dependable way because their being there is incidental to their primary strategy and so the times I see them are more episodic than regular....but moving up to the meadows, waiting quietly so that they'd be exposed and feeding, that made sense.
With BF I would propose that a similar (but not identical) scenario presents itself.
We identify BF as a forest creature because that's where we see 'em many times...usually in daylight (a VERY important aspect of our searching). We don't consider a feshly caught spawning salmon fresh water fish just because that's were we catch 'em. I don't think we should really consider BF a forest creature even though we see them using the forest for refuge.
We believe they are nocturnal (or crepuscular)...so if they come to our camp we sense them. We often camp in big areas where there are likely to be grasses that ungulates feed upon.
The forests themselves aren't very productive...the light doesn't penetrate to the forest floor very well so plant growth isn't very good. In actuallity old growth forests are typically a mosaic of growth in different stages as various impacts leave their effects: blow-down areas, fire, landslide, avalance, flood, bug-kill...these are vital for grazing and browsing animals.
So, why don't we see them when they're there? Who's watching the elk feeding in the evening? We don't because we're not nocturnal and we don't monitor what I think would be their likely feeding setting. We aren't nocturnal and thermal imaging doesn't work very well when we're talking about a realistic viewing distance for a predator who is, we suspect, has accutely honed senses, is mostly solitary, highy cryptic and pretty shy.
When, at long last, I find myself in a position to pursue this ardent interest of mine, I intend to locate good habitat with vast sightlines out west where the skies are not cloudy all day, install a really big reflecting telescope and a computer operated positioning mechanism programmed for what seem like good observable points (water sources, meadows, passes, game trails, open exposures, scree fields) and wait for good viewing conditions, have the computer guided positoning system place the scope onto the sites I've inventoried and start recording images. Stacking transparencies of identical frames at different times will reveal the presence of transient subjects if they are there when we record an image....and if you believe they are there...they have to be somewhere, though I doubt we can dependably sneek up on 'em to take their picture. Doing it at a distance greater than what we think they could percieve us (a couple of miles) would offer a splendid opportunity to search without alerting the subject quarry.
I don't say that this alone will verify the existence of the creature, and the goal of the research isn't to get pictures specifically, but rathr to plot the behavior of a community of prey animals and their predators which possibly include an unidentified bipedal primate of considerable proportions suitable for solitary predation on large mammals. Once the creatures strategies are known I think that devising a way to collect irrefutable evidence will be more likely to deliver positive results.
I am aware that today is Thanksgiving and all the above could be the result of an over dose of tryptophane transforming into tryptomines...doors of perception and all that rot.

Well, not fossilized DNA. But I believe they are working on sequencing Neanderthal DNA right now. I'm sure that there are other extinct species for which DNA has been extracted. Most likely nearly all is incomplete however. Think of it as a torn blueprint..........

Besides, I wasn't talking about all species extinct or not..... but if you consider DNA (or more accurately chromosomes) for what it is, it is merely a filing cabinet.

Regarding Dogs post

I have believed ( and still do) as well as stated before that one of the big keys to finding a BF is to learn its probable habitat and catch him there.

Most people seem to zero in on areas of sighting- ( theres nothing inherently wrong with that) but to me, if Bf is as nomadic as some observations lead us to believe, these sighting are when he is on a "road trip" rather than the point of origin or destination.

If BF lives- he must eat, sleep, drink, procreate and raise young.

I would focus on that aspect rather than go check out past sightings as those are where he was, maybe not where he is.

I would also focus on an area that has had recent changes ( housing, natural disaster or some other upsetting effect) as that might promote more movement.

Ok, I guess we need to narrow down what it is you are arguing.

Your original comment seemed to be that biology and paleontology were more of an artform than a science of measurements, that it relied a lot more on some sort of intuition, or inspiration as you put it, and interpretation.

I asked for an example, and you refernced Krantz's gigantopithecus reconsruction, and then stated this kind of reconstruction is done all the time. I can only think you are arguing here that by doing reconstructions paleontologists are filling in missing pieces with their own imaginations.

I stated that was not the case, and keep asking for specific examples from you. The reason is I could go on for weeks about the major reconstrucions that have been done, and how they were done, I would rather you pick one example and I could focus time on explaining that one, considering my time is limited.

Now it seems you are trying to get into the argument of creation vs. evolution. Which is it?

Yes, as far as the skeletons go, we do have the blueprints, the "Keys" are what is called dissection. This allows us to see how the shapes of certain apes joints work, such as a midtarsal break vs. an arch in a foot, or how the muscles attach to the bones and the scarring they leave on the bones depending on their placement and strength. We also have a very impressive and ever expanding fossil collection, with multiple individuals from many species, that continues to give us insigh into how their bodies worked. If you want specifics, I can give them to you, but you need to be more specific yourself and not just generalize everything.

As far as evolution goes, we do have DNA evidence showing a close relationship with humans and chimpanzees. We even know the mutational differences between our two species.

We DO have DNA from fossils, the Neanderhals.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html

However, if this is a Creation vs. Evolution argument, it has no place here.

roger that...disturbance is good.
Any feeling on its presumed nocturnal abilities?
With your selection of ScreenName I'm tempted to ask whether you have any suggestions on observation technology for long distances.
cheers

All we can really do is go on witness accounts but I'm not completely convinced he is as "nocturnal" as he is believed to be ( any more than any other animal is)

I have plenty of ideas regarding long range surveillance ( systems i use on the farm as well as custom systems designed for customers and things we use in the military)- the problems would greatly limit their use in the 'wild" tho while unattended.

Many of the drawbacks would be line of sight, autofocus, knowing where to set them ( you can design those that pan with motion sensors but they have a price tag attached to them)

But if someone had about 3 grand to invest- i could tell them how to build it ( even recommend vendors for the parts)

longtabberPE wrote:






So all we need to do is locate their restaurants, motels, bars, whorehouses and daycare centers and we are gold baby, gold!


Happy Thanksgiving!

now you are catching on- track him by his credit card and cell phone usage

Happy Thanksgiving to all

In his Ichnotaxonomy of Giant Hominoid Tracks in North America, Dr. Meldrum's description of the casts from the Patterson/Gimlin filmsite indicate footprints that "differ from Homo Sapiens footprints in their larger absolute size, greater relative breadth, elongated heel segment, lack of a longitudinal arch and evidence of midfoot flexibility," and continues later with, "relative breadth-to-length ratio exceeds that of human footprints". (my bolding).

In a manner of minutes of Googling for human footprints, I was able to find one that seems to match quite nicely with one of the Titmus casts (the first one) Dr. Meldrum shows in Figure 3 of his article. In fact, the ball of the human foot looks like it's wider than the scaled Patty print.



Granted, I'm only working with images found on the internet and not casts I can hold in my hand, am I misinterpreting what he means?

RayG

Original images found here:
http://www.yourfamilyshealth.com/healthy_feet/my_feet_hurt/
http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uplo...rth_america.pdf

Nocturnal is often used when the correct term would be crepuscular.
I think this notion of the "forest ape" is likewise harboring a bit of a misconception, which iin turn s suggesting that searching the way it is usually being done, is a sound strategy, and it links conceptually with the idea of the giganto being a forest animal, eating bamboo, analagous to the gorilla and its diet. It's hard to imagine this big bamboo digesting tank on legs making it to the coniferous forests of North America based on what the geoclimatic conditions over the last couple of million years. However, Giganto illustrates very nicely that primates can be a big as we think BF is but the line of predator apes, h. erectus or its affiliates and/or antecedents, adapted to harvesting animals of the pleistocene's hallmark grasslands, steppes, tundra and glacial forefronts which, just as you'd expect from the planet's largest coninuous habitat range, produced huge animals in huge numbers. Other predators of the open country take advantage of low light for hunting, using the middle of the day to rest, conserve energy and water, and allow the prey to establish where they'll be.
Big habitat can support big animals and big animals will have big predators. Dire wolves, American Lions, Giant Shortfaced Bears, king cheetahs, teratornis. What no primates?

Sasquatches don't file roaming plans, either.



And if technology was used to seek sasquatches and found several other species instead, we'd be hearing about why that proves sasquatches don't exist.

wolftrax, actually you were implying that reconstructing a building using extant blueprints is analogous to reconstructing a fossil skeleton. And then I pointed out that in the case of the reconstructed building, the plans are a known, while this is clearly not the case in a fossil skeleton. To which you replied that there are blueprints of a skeleton. To which I replied, they are clearly not the prints of the [metaphorical] builder. If that is confusing enough to you to resemble a debate about intelligent design versus evolution, then I am more than a little amused.

I'll throw this out there for you, and you can make of it what you will: the analogy fails because the building blueprints are a priori knowledge, while the blueprints of the fossil skeleton are a posteriori knowledge. A posteriori knowledge is inherently interpretive.

The digital images may have displaced aspect ratios. Our testing indicates that humans rarely go above .65 and purported Sasquatch below that of .75, no matter the overall length. The pictures you are showing found on the net may have been scaled differently in width and length to fit the text accompanying them.

So if I understand correctly, the human foot rarely exceeds a width that is greater than 65% of its length, while the width of a squatch foot is rarely smaller than 75% of its length?

Edit to add: What is the breadth-to-length ratio of the Patterson foot?

RayG

well, it cannot be worse than is being heard now

And here is where the money comes in. Wouldn't it be great if you were paid to do this now? and have all equipment provided to you as well as your daily necessities being transported to you?

Money won't guarantee proof but it would sure make a difference in tracking them down.



Well in this case it wasn't until the sample was being tested that the individual doing the testing had to figgure out why the DNA test was not providing results so apparently even he didn't know about this until this incident. Hind sight is 20/20 and it is not possible even for those who have been around it to know every possible element that will interfere with a DNA test.
I'm sure that the best sample would be uncontaminated but since it is a little difficult to ask BF to open wide while I apply a sterile swab after making sure that he has properly rinsed his mouth and hasn't eaten for at least 2 hours, we probably won't have the luxury of getting a clean sample. Please ask the next person you know who has been around it for a complete list of all possible contaminates that will interfere with a good DNA test and post it here so we won't have this problem again.




Who is "we"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Flight plans/Roaming plans ect. anyone here remember crookedfoot? He/She apparently had a large roaming area (migration?) if in fact the distorted tracks that looked like a match which were found in both WA and CA were from the same individual. Several others have done work on formulating a roaming or migration route.

Something like this. Owen Caddy has presented this before.

>>>Well in this case it wasn't until the sample was being tested that the individual doing the testing had to figgure out why the DNA test was not providing results so apparently even he didn't know about this until this incident. Hind sight is 20/20 and it is not possible even for those who have been around it to know every possible element that will interfere with a DNA test.

It shouldnt have been hindsight- the details of the specimen ( including its estimated, age, location and method collected etc) should have been in the paperwork accompanying the COC bag the sample was in. The lab technician should have had all this at the outset.

In this case ( not seeing the report) the degradation was more likely to have come from weathering combined with the zinc from the nail.

>>>Flight plans/Roaming plans ect. anyone here remember crookedfoot? He/She apparently had a large roaming area (migration?) if in fact the distorted tracks that looked like a match which were found in both WA and CA were from the same individual. Several others have done work on formulating a roaming or migration route.

The first question I would ask is based on what?

I tend to agree. The sorry excuses we hear for why sasquatches can't exist appear to be downright silly, but I'll bet I can still be surprised.

That shows heel to ball and heel to length ratios, but not width to length ratio.

RayG

Here's a better overhead comparison of Patty's foot(print).
Click to view attachment
The cast in your comparison pic was likely not an overhead shot. In which case an oblique view distorts the features. The Laverty photo comes to mind. But maybe it's not all distortion, which would imply a pretty dynamic foot. However, this is a foot in motion, and the compliant substrate could also play a role.

The reason I know the above photo is an overhead is because Roger is holding it almost parallel to the camera plane when the film was taken. Also, the right foot image is almost an exact reversed overlay of the left.

Now measure the change in foot width versus length from bottom to top and plot the differences for several points from heel to toe. If they are the exact same image, then you'll get a flat line at y=0. In this case you get a rise which suggests the discrepancies increase from top to bottom. But it's pretty easy to eyeball the differences for this one.

This exercise only considers the ratios of width vs length. The human foot should probably be scaled a few inches shorter than the Patty foot for a more accurate visual comparison. Here's a size 12 foot next to the Patty foot. Still think it's a match?
Click to view attachment

I was only considering the ratios of width vs length for each foot, I wasn't attempting to compare them at actual size. If both are scaled to the same length, they seem pretty close in width as well (except in the heel area).



No, both feet need to be scaled to the same length. Any way to take the first image, where both are the same length, and superimpose the human foot on top of the cast?

RayG

Here's the general outline.
Click to view attachment

Thanks, that looks far better than the crooked lines I was trying to draw.

RayG

Alright, name a specific example of a hominid skeleton or bones that have been put together and how it is interpretive.

That's easy: Tyrannosaurus Rex (sp?) (and similar sorts of dinosaurs) was formerly shown erect, with tail dragging. Now it is shown leaning forward, with tail lifted and counterbalancing the forward-leaning torso.

Another example, though this may not be quite what's being asked for: Scientists "fill in the blanks" (the bones and bone-segments that are missing) with molded clay (or something) when assembling a skeleton, based on what they figure ought to be in the gap. This is why dinosaur skeletons are two-toned--one of the colors represents their estimates.

He asked for a hominid example Roger.

I said hominid Roger, but yes this is an example of how not taking measurements of comparative bone structures, observation of how they hold their posture and the stresses placed on the joints, and repetition, but relying on interpretation based on "Inspiration" are not what the field of paleontology is based on. This posture was disagreed with as early as 1917:
http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/3...da/340.750.html



As stated earlier, those missing pieces on what is supported are not just based on "Inspiration", they are mirrored from existing pieces or copied from existing individuals within that species.

Since we're talking about some early stuff from the beginning of the last century, I'll use another example. Piltdown man.

Basically Piltdown man was a hoax that was a composite of a human skull and an orangutan jaw found in England. Both Orangutan bones and human bones were available at the time, and comparitive analysis should've been used to detect the hoax, and many people did have disagreements about Piltdown, yet it made it into the textbooks of the time.

Over time, more hominid fossils were found, and it became apparent that Piltdown was he odd man out. That's comparison and measurement being used.

40 years after it's discovery, new methods of dating were being used, and a fluorine-based test showed the upper skull was 50,000 years old, while the jaw was only a few decades old. A second test using nitrogen analysis confirmed that. That's measurement and repetition.

Comparison further showed the upper skull was human and the jaw was orangutan.

This was an embarassment to the field, and the reason why measurement, comparison, and repetition are important to Paleontology.

Now, another example. Lucy, or Australopithecus Afarensis.

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/afarcomp.htm

An example of how symmetry, measurements, and using other individuals from the same species has been used to fill in the missing pieces of a fossil. This is the basis and prime example of the field of paleontology and paleoanthropology.

Any that involve clay or plaster are interpretive, because missing information has been replaced by that which is surmised. If what is surmised is eminently reasonable, that means that our mind has done its job.

As for the continuation of this discussion, I'll refer you to the field of cognitive science. If you do not understand that the mind utilizes inspiration from the unconscious to make judgments, then I think you have a poor understanding of how the mind works.