Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I would offer a theory as to why we don't see fossil evidence for Bigfoot's ancestors (or the ancestors of a lot of known creatures), but Dakka frowns on religious-related talk and I'm confident I'd just get made fun of anyways.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
I would offer a theory as to why we don't see fossil evidence for Bigfoot's ancestors (or the ancestors of a lot of known creatures), but Dakka frowns on religious-related talk and I'm confident I'd just get made fun of anyways.

To quote Hooper in Jaws “I got that beat”

I didn’t realize there was ‘frowning’ on religious talk here. I’m shocked, I’m new around these parts but this place has been such a wonderful experience so far and the people by and large seem genuine and intelligent. It’s a sad thing indeed for me to learn of this.

Ah well, I’ll try to skirt around too ‘controversial’ a topic as their being purpose to existence then and be clear about what Bigfoot, if it exists, is and is not.

These conclusions are based on a decent amount of knowledge on the topic and personal experience talking to both witnesses of the phenomenon and one or two involved in on the ground data gathering.

1. Whatever ‘Bigfoot’ may or may not be, it is categorically NOT a primate. The experiences of witnesses to this phenomenon are describing something FAR stranger than that. There are many other compelling and logical reasons this is the case including but not limited to strange lights just before or after a sighting, interference with electrical equipment, inconsistent description of phenotype and seemingly supernatural traits and abilities.

For an example of this see the description offered by Joby Ogwyn in his retelling of an encounter with a supposed ‘Yeti’ (a creature often assumed to be a type of ‘Bigfoot’)

https://youtu.be/8NxAx20n5gk?si=EV7K73Xf4VA5Y4Wy

2. ‘Bigfoot’ presents opportunities for research into social psychology. It is crystal clear to anyone who has spent any time carefully thinking about this topic that there is a connection with this phenomenon and various public/private ‘research’ programs. In fact, the recent shenanigans surrounding the Skinwalker Ranch debacle which inspired UFO sensationalism in the New York Post was due to the leaked information surrounding funding for research into not JUST UFOs (or whatever they call them these days), but also werewolves and some kind of mutant beaver creatures. Yes, this actually happened.

https://youtu.be/6XD4gQS_-qY?si=oTmkr7S5G4Q_-5AL

In the above example we learn of the ‘shock’ and ‘embarrassment’ everyone felt that such money had been poured into this ‘research’, but if you don’t see the angle here, well, I have a bridge I can sell you.

It seems intelligence services have a history of employing tactics that exploit the ‘fear of the unknown’ and it is clear this plays a huge part in much of this puzzle.

3. Bigfoot is profitable. The most repeated truism, that some people lie and stage hoaxes, is also a factor that adds to muddy the waters here. Furthermore, the very best of these hoaxers happen to be entertainment studios; who provide ample resources for those who wish to sensationalize facts for a tasty paycheck. At some point these things take on a life of their own in popular culture that has nothing to do with the experiences and events of genuine eyewitnesses. Harry and the Hendersons remains a fun film though.

4. Bigfoot is not friendly. For the most part the overwhelming amount of testimony indicates a terrifying and traumatic event with all the expected psychological damage that accompanies such things.

So what is Bigfoot… no idea. Could be any number of things, or none of them. The point is, at least in my mind, that it is a phenomenon that persists into the modern world with even greater vigor as our technology increases; a fact that would seem at first glance counterintuitive.

Whatever this all might mean I feel strongly that, at its heart, this is a mixture of real world meddling and … something else.

That something else is deceptive in nature as best as I can see. And I’ll leave it at that.

Searching for Cryptids can help engage ley people with the scientific method, showing how we go about identifying, finding and categorising new animals.

Because whilst they rarely make headlines, new species are being described all the time. This ranges from separating one species into two, and the finding of previously entirely unrecorded species.

Whether Bigfoot is real or not? Cryptids, when as with all things not taken to extremes, are if nothing else a fun “What If?”. If some eccentric folk want to spend their riches looking for them, that’s their business and decision. And as covered before, the supposed homes of such beasties can attract jobs and income through tourism.

Theatricality and deception are powerful agents; you must become more than just a man in the mind of your opponent.

Especially if you seek to gain profit through tourism.

 XvArcanevX wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
I would offer a theory as to why we don't see fossil evidence for Bigfoot's ancestors (or the ancestors of a lot of known creatures), but Dakka frowns on religious-related talk and I'm confident I'd just get made fun of anyways.

To quote Hooper in Jaws “I got that beat”

I didn’t realize there was ‘frowning’ on religious talk here. I’m shocked, I’m new around these parts but this place has been such a wonderful experience so far and the people by and large seem genuine and intelligent. It’s a sad thing indeed for me to learn of this.

I'm not sure exactly what ZergSmasher is referencing here. I've not seen much, if any, negativity towards religious beliefs in general, assuming bringing them up in the first place is relevant to the thread. However, in a thread about the existence or not of a creature, we're dealing with matters of fact. Any theory anyone puts forward should be scrutinised using the same criteria, whether it's based on published scientific studies, religious faith, pseudo-scientific ideas, plain old bad science, or gut feelings. I don't think there's anything particularly special about disputing a theory based on faith versus one based on gut feeling or common sense". The burden of proof remains the same regardless of the source of the idea. Religious beliefs don' get a free pass from having to be justified and well-argued, just like any other claim.

As far as cryptids go, it's interesting to note how the media can affect what is reported and generally believed. The earliest sighting of a Loch Ness monster, for example, was by a local over a hundred years ago that claimed to see something more closely resembling a large crocodile than the now "traditional" idea of Nessie. Alien abductions didn't tend to describe small grey figures with large heads and black eyes until 1965, after which time they've become by far the most common description, likely thanks to media exposure. I suspect there's a feedback loop in place here. If we assume some portion of testimonies are bogus (some might say it's as high as 100%), you're more likely to base your made-up claim on something people are familiar with. Even if your claim isn't just a flat-out lie, you can be heavily influenced by what the common belief might be. This goes back tot he discussion about humans being good at pattern recognition, and those patterns sometimes being wrong.

Another element is the way the brain interprets information. We aren't computers that just record 100% pure data about the world around us; we interpret what we see.


The brain looks to decode what it sees to spot patterns and shapes it recognises/knows of. This makes sense from a survival point of view; if you think it looks like there's a lion skulking in the long grass and the shape "kind of looks like one" then its best to think it IS a lion and kick in all those flight/fight elements.

This is why you can get people who feel and see ghosts in a house, but you take in computers, cameras and so forth and you don't see nor record any of it. I'd wager a bunch of the paranormal experiences and feelings people get is simply the brain trying to decode the environment and trying to fit those elements to things it thinks are there. So someone who really believes in ghosts isn't "seeing things" their brain is openly trying to find the ghosts and put them together from the information around them.

Good responses.

Regarding the religious bent on these phenomenon; I just made the assumption Zerg was providing a friendly warning those kinds of points of view aren’t welcome here (possibly in anticipation of debates getting a little too heated or some such political reason)

I appreciated the heads up, but if he was being overly cautious, I’ll make a mental note. I can see it was coming from a place of kindness which is typical of the users here in my experience so far.

To digress though, it’s true we have to deal with the evidence, or lack thereof, nonetheless.

Both the previous comments have pointed out the tricky nature of human perception in these matters, and the variables involved, interestingly Jacques Vallee has written extensively on exactly that issue and posits something called a ‘control system’ hypothesis.

As far as I can tell he believes these phenomenon may represents the manipulation of consciousness by some ‘super intelligent’ force native to our environment. He’s loathe to be more specific, but in the past he has used the words ‘demonic’

Recently that has shifted to something more ‘scientific’ sounding and he uses words like ‘inter dimensional’.

I’ll say this, one thing you are both absolutely right about here is that whilst the words to describe it might change over time, the phenomenon itself certainly doesn’t.

On ghosts? I have a, well I suppose you can call it a head canon, on that.

The planet has a magnetic field. And our brains operate via electrical impulses.

What if a death can, in the right circumstances, leave some kind of imprint on the magnetic field. And when a living brain in a certain emotional state encounters that disruption, it causes the living brain to pick up on it in some way, and so “see” things that aren’t actually there.

I absolutely cannot prove this, and wouldn’t even know where to begin trying to. And there’s more supposition in there than the Bumgrapes Ward at the World’s Largest And Most Populated Mammy’s Smiles Hospital.

But it’s a fun thought for RPG type games. A way to explain something allegedly supernatural.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On ghosts? I have a, well I suppose you can call it a head canon, on that.

The planet has a magnetic field. And our brains operate via electrical impulses.

What if a death can, in the right circumstances, leave some kind of imprint on the magnetic field. And when a living brain in a certain emotional state encounters that disruption, it causes the living brain to pick up on it in some way, and so “see” things that aren’t actually there.

I absolutely cannot prove this, and wouldn’t even know where to begin trying to. And there’s more supposition in there than the Bumgrapes Ward at the World’s Largest And Most Populated Mammy’s Smiles Hospital.

But it’s a fun thought for RPG type games. A way to explain something allegedly supernatural.

Certainly sounds compelling enough and, on the face it, there are the necessary ‘science’ based referents… but like you say, it’s ultimately a fun theory.

I have always thought of ghosts as something similar to what you describe here to be fair.

I for sure am open to the idea that ‘something’ might be tampering with our perceptions; I mean human beings are pretty adept at doing that at it is… what a ‘superinteliigence’ might be capable of… well that does give one pause for thought.

The thing is the brain interpreting the world around it and looking for known patterns is something you can test. You can test for it, you can study it you can "prove" it.



So whilst the words around it and the understanding of it might change with time and more study; its something that can be a fact and theory in science.

Once you start to step outside of that structure into the paranormal and so forth then you hit issues where anyone can be correct because there's often little to no proof being given. Only interpretations and ideas; but no evidence. Or if there is evidence its often an interpretation of fact and most often only very select facts interpreted very specific ways. Rather than a more comprehensive review of all the facts and such.



It's a little like how Flat Earthers will grasp one bit of (sometimes incorrect) evidence that to them proves the world is flat; but which goes against all the other established facts and supporting evidence.

Ergo on one side you've a house built of supporting structures that each reinforce the next part and contribute to the whole; and on the other side of you've one brick and you claim its an entire house (and the brick might well be damaged/broken/missformed)

 XvArcanevX wrote:
Good responses.

Regarding the religious bent on these phenomenon; I just made the assumption Zerg was providing a friendly warning those kinds of points of view aren’t welcome here (possibly in anticipation of debates getting a little too heated or some such political reason)

I appreciated the heads up, but if he was being overly cautious, I’ll make a mental note. I can see it was coming from a place of kindness which is typical of the users here in my experience so far.

The OT forum has a big warning thread, currently right above this one (as its stickied):

ATTENTION: There ARE RULES in the Off-Topic forum, including no political or religious discussion!

 Overread wrote:
The thing is the brain interpreting the world around it and looking for known patterns is something you can test. You can test for it, you can study it you can "prove" it

I hear ya, but human consciousness is not ‘the brain’ in my view.

Ergo on one side you've a house built of supporting structures that each reinforce the next part and contribute to the whole; and on the other side of you've one brick and you claim its an entire house (and the brick might well be damaged/broken/missformed)

Also, I agree, that this is an excellent description of materialist reductionism. I’m not alone, so would every serious thinker of the enlightenment. The position always reduces to absurdity and solipsism.

We have to be serious here… the phenomenon we are talking about DOES leave evidence. The way we interpret that evidence must necessarily conform to the scientific method, but that does not mean the scientific method itself is currently able to explain it.

There are countless examples of compelling tracks being left behind etc.

 Overread wrote:
The thing is the brain interpreting the world around it and looking for known patterns is something you can test. You can test for it, you can study it you can "prove" it.



So whilst the words around it and the understanding of it might change with time and more study; its something that can be a fact and theory in science.

Once you start to step outside of that structure into the paranormal and so forth then you hit issues where anyone can be correct because there's often little to no proof being given. Only interpretations and ideas; but no evidence. Or if there is evidence its often an interpretation of fact and most often only very select facts interpreted very specific ways. Rather than a more comprehensive review of all the facts and such.



It's a little like how Flat Earthers will grasp one bit of (sometimes incorrect) evidence that to them proves the world is flat; but which goes against all the other established facts and supporting evidence.

Ergo on one side you've a house built of supporting structures that each reinforce the next part and contribute to the whole; and on the other side of you've one brick and you claim its an entire house (and the brick might well be damaged/broken/missformed)

Professor Dave on the YouTubes has some marvellous Flerf debunks, absolutely eviscerating their claims. Including pointing that none of their “models” explain more than a single observation at a time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don’t agree footprints/trails are evidence for Bigfoot.

At best, they’re simply evidence something or someone passed that way.

It’s like Crop Circles. Where the Hoaxers showed in excruciating detail how they faked them, only for nutters to decide the Hoaxers were in fact the hoax, because that better fit their world view.

The same thing happens with any change in scientific understanding. The conspiracy theorist will seize upon that, claiming “if we am wrong about X, I are write about Y”. And neatly ignore that it was science correcting science. New information, evidence, observation etc which is able to explain a given thing better than the previous one.

This is of course compounded by lazy, sensationalist journalism. Not to mention that as the sciences advance, what’s being studied becomes ever more complex and niche, to the point where there may be only a relative handful of persons with the existing knowledge and education able to offer a proper Peer Review. And so we mere plebs have zero chance of wrapping our heads around it.

A lot of Flerfers are commenting on science they time and again demonstrate they just don’t understand. And many seem unwilling or unable to think in three dimensions. Not to mention that like all “good” conspiracy theories, you need to keep adding more and more and more conspiracies to it to paper over the yawning cracks in your arguments.

For instance? And I’m not joking? Space am the fake. The are dome over erf. Fings wot fly east to west on the right hand side of the Flerf am does a Pac-Man and just appear on left hand. Because magics. Drivel about the Antarctic Treaty, which does not say what Flerf claims it says, so presumably it’s another Antarctic Treaty we don’t know because it goes to a different school. In Canada. The denial of gravity as a force, claiming its all just density and buoyancy, completely ignoring that doesn’t explain why objects drop, and don’t stack the other way up etc.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The thing is the brain interpreting the world around it and looking for known patterns is something you can test. You can test for it, you can study it you can "prove" it.



So whilst the words around it and the understanding of it might change with time and more study; its something that can be a fact and theory in science.

Once you start to step outside of that structure into the paranormal and so forth then you hit issues where anyone can be correct because there's often little to no proof being given. Only interpretations and ideas; but no evidence. Or if there is evidence its often an interpretation of fact and most often only very select facts interpreted very specific ways. Rather than a more comprehensive review of all the facts and such.



It's a little like how Flat Earthers will grasp one bit of (sometimes incorrect) evidence that to them proves the world is flat; but which goes against all the other established facts and supporting evidence.

Ergo on one side you've a house built of supporting structures that each reinforce the next part and contribute to the whole; and on the other side of you've one brick and you claim its an entire house (and the brick might well be damaged/broken/missformed)

Professor Dave on the YouTubes has some marvellous Flerf debunks, absolutely eviscerating their claims. Including pointing that none of their “models” explain more than a single observation at a time.

Honestly when one looks at Flat Earthers you see a few patterns
1) Those at the "top" end who are often earning money/influence/prestige from the whole affair who have a very clear driver toward promoting it however they can because it continues to provide them with income and so forth.

2) Those who have conspiracy beliefs and issues with authority and "the man/science/big firms" and so forth. Flat Earth is likely one of a myriad of beliefs they've got which is based on the foundation of no trust in positions of power or authority as they see it.

3) Those who simply want to be part of a community and have value and support from that community. This seems to be a greater part of the lower end of the believers. For them the Earth being Flat isn't the major part; its the whole social side that they are missing out on and haven't managed to find another community to welcome them in and accept them and support them.

4) A large number of groups 2 and 3 who have generally poor education. They might even have outright failed parts or large elements of education in the past (and have a chip on their shoulder about it too). OR their education only achieves a basic level of understanding with no foundation to really grow from.

Note this doesn't meant they are stupid - indeed some of the proofs they have are when they take super simplified school theories and extrapolate from them into larger facts and hit barriers/problems because a good portion of school level science is grossly simplified from higher levels. So if you never understand that or never step into some of the higher levels, you can indeed have understandings about the world that are wonky when you try to apply them at large.




I would suspect you can find some of these same patterns with Bigfoot belief groups as well.
Indeed even in regular hobby groups like wargaming you can see some of the very same patterns. Those who are present purely for the community side more than the game itself; those who don't paint or who have really bad game tactics who still regularly take part but don't grow or learn more. Those who learned bits of things here and there and have spotty understanding and so forth. Then at the top end you've got influencers and youtubers and so forth doing channels and earning money from showing painting tutorials; through to firms making models supporting it and so forth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

This is of course compounded by lazy, sensationalist journalism. Not to mention that as the sciences advance, what’s being studied becomes ever more complex and niche, to the point where there may be only a relative handful of persons with the existing knowledge and education able to offer a proper Peer Review. And so we mere plebs have zero chance of wrapping our heads around it.

It doesn't help that the "news" is often a decade or more behind the general level of current scientific understanding when it reports on things. Also you very often get a big splash of news when they announce something new; only for there to be very quiet or no follow-up when further studies either prove the original claim wrong or find other facts etc.... So you can certainly get a view of science that's way behind and out of touch with the reality of science. Add that up and some big discoveries later on suddenly appear to be pulled out of thin air or not believable because all the connecting dots from A to D were basically missing in the media reporting.

They are indeed evidence ‘something’ or ‘someone’ passed that way.

They also, in many cases, indicate that that ‘something’ or ‘someone’ was extraordinarily large and has very unusual physiological characteristics indeed.

There are more than enough qualified experts in those fields to seek out if anyone wishes to leave the realm of speculation behind due to their superior ‘logical’ reasoning. The fact that isn’t known though does lead me to some unflattering conclusions about the quality of that reasoning, but we’ll say no more.

I think the fact that someone can, with any degree of seriousness, suggest that there are no reasons to doubt our ‘institutions’ integrity on matters of truth; well I have no words to describe how much of a world of learning and excitement awaits you in the extensively documented annuls of history.

It isn’t even worth seriously commenting on.

 XvArcanevX wrote:
They are indeed evidence ‘something’ or ‘someone’ passed that way.

They also, in many cases, indicate that that ‘something’ or ‘someone’ was extraordinarily large and has very unusual physiological characteristics indeed.

More accurately, they indicate something large was placed into the ground to make an imprint. That something could be a misidentified bear footprint, or a hoaxer using any number of techniques to generate such an imprint, or bigfoot itself. Even if bigfoot exists, it still doesn't rule out the first two possibilities.

 XvArcanevX wrote:

There are more than enough qualified experts in those fields to seek out if anyone wishes to leave the realm of speculation behind due to their superior ‘logical’ reasoning. The fact that isn’t known though does lead me to some unflattering conclusions about the quality of that reasoning, but we’ll say no more.

I'd actually like you to say some more on this, because I'm not sure I fully understand what you're getting at. Are you saying we're seeking out the wrong experts, or that the experts are all wrong?

Also don't forget tracking is something that isn't really a major educational element in modern times. So a lot of people in that field are self taught with little to no peer reviewing or such going on.

It's thus very easy to have experts in that field who really don't know much at all. Who could be making all kinds of miss identifications and mistakes and reporting on them and muddying the waters.


That is not to say there are not skilled trackers in the world nor ways to be trained; just that its a field where there can be a lot of very easy miss information. Heck you can even have generations of trackers trained father to son who have still been making some blunders that get passed along; but because they've been able to land a buck every season that's been enough of a measure of success for them to keep going.

Slipspace wrote:

 XvArcanevX wrote:
They are indeed evidence ‘something’ or ‘someone’ passed that way.

They also, in many cases, indicate that that ‘something’ or ‘someone’ was extraordinarily large and has very unusual physiological characteristics indeed.

More accurately, they indicate something large was placed into the ground to make an imprint. That something could be a misidentified bear footprint, or a hoaxer using any number of techniques to generate such an imprint, or bigfoot itself. Even if bigfoot exists, it still doesn't rule out the first two possibilities.

I accept that probably explains many of these footprints, not all. That is my point really. The facts are the facts, we can’t cherry pick the fact that biases exist in both the positive and negative case, which again, was my point. Thanks for being upfront about that though, it’s does a good deal to foster goodwill in such a discussion.

 XvArcanevX wrote:

There are more than enough qualified experts in those fields to seek out if anyone wishes to leave the realm of speculation behind due to their superior ‘logical’ reasoning. The fact that isn’t known though does lead me to some unflattering conclusions about the quality of that reasoning, but we’ll say no more.

Slipspace wrote:I'd actually like you to say some more on this, because I'm not sure I fully understand what you're getting at. Are you saying we're seeking out the wrong experts, or that the experts are all wrong?

I’m saying that, like the above example, the matter is subject to debate amongst various qualified ‘experts’. Depending on what your preferred discipline in science might be you will find adequately qualified and experienced individuals who argue compelling reasons exist to suspect ‘something’ is going on that is either unusual or lacking scientific catergorisation (at least currently)

Now, it might be true to say ‘most’ don’t think ‘x’ or ‘y’ …

But the reasons vary, some are sincere, some are uninterested, some are ignorant and some are most certainly aware of how a number of their peers might react if they express a public interest. The point really is this… that some qualified ‘experts’ think it’s nonsense, and some do not… both have a variety of opinions.

In this same vein, it is disingenuous to level the accusation that all people claiming to have had inexplicable encounters with such things are either mad or liars, and it is equally unfair to tar those who remain open minded to the possibility of something unusual going on as being intellectually inept or gullible.

I can assure you neither of those views hold much water.

Am I saying that insulated communities forged around false beliefs do not exist, of course not, they exist everywhere. No, what I am saying, once again, is that not all examples of this phenomenon easily fit into such clearly demarcated subcultures.

The truth is one who dismisses this phenomenon out of hand is just as likely to ironically be a victim of a kind of social bias as any ‘Finding Bigfoot’ fan.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Also don't forget tracking is something that isn't really a major educational element in modern times. So a lot of people in that field are self taught with little to no peer reviewing or such going on.

It's thus very easy to have experts in that field who really don't know much at all. Who could be making all kinds of miss identifications and mistakes and reporting on them and muddying the waters.


That is not to say there are not skilled trackers in the world nor ways to be trained; just that its a field where there can be a lot of very easy miss information. Heck you can even have generations of trackers trained father to son who have still been making some blunders that get passed along; but because they've been able to land a buck every season that's been enough of a measure of success for them to keep going.

Again I agree heartily, but as becomes common with this topic, examples exist everywhere to the contrary… Steve Isdahl for example.

Back to interesting accounts… this one is another description bearing a ‘dog like’ quality.

https://youtu.be/4T2itb9IEtE?si=zTZ5dMccDGgjvbuF

Many years ago this same video was called ‘Idaho Bigfoot Encounter’… but has been reuploaded and renamed.

The manner in which a lot of these ‘Bigfoot’ encounters end up being far more ‘dog’ like really interests me. Many of them are certainly bears, but, once again, not all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just realized nobody has yet posited that some sightings might be down to excessive consumption of the spice melange!

Should be obvious!

 XvArcanevX wrote:


I’m saying that, like the above example, the matter is subject to debate amongst various qualified ‘experts’. Depending on what your preferred discipline in science might be you will find adequately qualified and experienced individuals who argue compelling reasons exist to suspect ‘something’ is going on that is either unusual or lacking scientific catergorisation (at least currently)

Now, it might be true to say ‘most’ don’t think ‘x’ or ‘y’ …

But the reasons vary, some are sincere, some are uninterested, some are ignorant and some are most certainly aware of how a number of their peers might react if they express a public interest. The point really is this… that some qualified ‘experts’ think it’s nonsense, and some do not… both have a variety of opinions.

Do they? While I'm sure you can find someone with qualifications who agrees with pretty much any theory under the sun, I think the vast weight of evidence in this case points towards most, if not all, cryptids either not existing at all, or simply being misidentified known species. The UK, for example, has had many sightings of "very large cats" that turned out to be regular sized panthers, or similar, escaped from private collections.

 XvArcanevX wrote:

In this same vein, it is disingenuous to level the accusation that all people claiming to have had inexplicable encounters with such things are either mad or liars, and it is equally unfair to tar those who remain open minded to the possibility of something unusual going on as being intellectually inept or gullible.

I don't think the majority of people who claim to have seen bigfoot, or Nessie, or any other cryptid or mythological creature are liars or mentally unstable. I suspect they are simply mistaken. There are likely subconscious biases in many people's perceptions that might cause them to think they saw bigfoot when they see something not readily identifiable in locations where bigfoot is thought to live.

 XvArcanevX wrote:

The truth is one who dismisses this phenomenon out of hand is just as likely to ironically be a victim of a kind of social bias as any ‘Finding Bigfoot’ fan.

That's true. However, I think that's being disingenuous about why people might dismiss this phenomenon. I don't think most people dismiss it "out of hand". I think they have likely weighed the evidence and possibilities and come to the conclusion it's more likely than not that bigfoot doesn't exist. I'd say that's the opposite of "out of hand". Characterising it as such is dangerously close to poisoning the well - implying those who don't believe in bigfoot are simply too closed minded to consider the possibility is a good way to shut down genuine debate.

 XvArcanevX wrote:

I just realized nobody has yet posited that some sightings might be down to excessive consumption of the spice melange!

Should be obvious!

Haha Though I think I did mention drink/drugs earlier

Along with other things like fatigue, poor visibility and so forth which can impact a persons perception of the world around them.

You've also got things like mental instability to consider. Through old age; substance abuse; cancers and other elements that can all cause a person's perception of reality and interpretation of it to get drastically altered. Some of these might not become apparent for years.

Finally there's TV*. I honestly lay a lot of the modern supernatural beliefs at the foot of TV for spreading and keeping them in people's minds. Go back to a certain era in TV and every show had sci-fi elements like psychics, cryptids, etc... all presented in otherwise sane, serious series as "well who knows it might be true" and "it really was true" contexts. This was done a lot; heck even more modern series will play with those themes from time to time. So basically even though we know many TV shows are not real; they still perpetuate untruths along similar lines of thinking; which reinforces it within people's minds.
It's the same as how you get tropes in TV like cutting the coloured wires in bombs which would make many lay people who are not bomb disposal experts, assume that all bombs are colour-coded.



This is where real world science steps in. If you had real Big Foot creatures you'd expect that more concentrated attention would result in the use of more trail and trap cameras that would increase in logging recordings and that those could be mapped to show areas of activity and inactivity. You'd expect to find droppings that could be studied to prove genetic information; you'd expect tracks and trails that could be followed for far enough etc....

This is where a lot of cryptid stuff starts to wither because the more you focus actual study and scientific method upon it; the less evidence you actually find, not more. Or rather the more you find that is disproven as being fake/mistaken.

Loch Ness Monster is a great example of where concentrated study and intense attention didn't reveal anything abnormal. To where most of the defence has to rely on "Well every time they did a sonar pass or such the creature had to be hiding". You end up with a body of evidence that boldly defends the position that the cryptid is VERY unlikely to actually exist at all. Even the studies by dedicated die hard fans end up without any real additional quantifiable, repeatable proof.




So yes there could be a Bigfoot. However right now all the evidence and proof and studies point to a fairly strong "no there isn't".



*Who remembers Harry and the Hendersons TV series and film!?

The existence of the legend also primes people to interpret oddities they might perceive as “well, I guess it was Bigfoot!”.

Personal example? Not far from me is the village of Pluckley. Reputedly the most haunted village in England. Naturally I’ve spent the odd Halloween night there.

Not much really happened on those occasions, apart from one visit to Screaming Woods, where hauntings are claimed to occur. There were three of us in the car. On the right hand side was me in the driver’s seat. I weigh around 16, 17 stone. I may have been lighter then (a good 14 years ago. Blimey time flies). In the passenger seat was Gemma, and behind her Laurence. Their combined weight probably around 22 stone or so at a genuinely conservative guess.

We’d parked on a grass verge to go exploring. Didn’t see much, but when we piled back into the car and drove off? The steering didn’t feel right. Like the weight was on my side, not theirs. It really felt like something was pressing down on the driver’s side.

At first I put it down to some mud on the tyres. But those tyres had been on the tarmac, not the verge. And despite being October, I don’t recall it being very wet.

Primed as we were, this freaked us out a bit. Soon as we decided “that’s plenty, home time now!” I swear the steering went back to normal.

Now as ever, I do not present this as “therefore it are am the spoop”. But it goes to show when you’re primed for a given experience? You may default to it. I’ve given this story before on similar threads, and I’ll remind folks that just because you or I can’t explain a given phenomena, doesn’t mean said phenomena is therefore inexplicable, or evidence for the supernatural.

And so I posit the same is true of those looking for Bigfoot. Without looking to insult anyone’s intelligence or their integrity, those actively seeking may be too credulous for their own good, introducing an interpretive bias for things going bump in the night.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though I should point out there’s the opposite fallacy of “this person faked a set of Bigfoot tracks, therefore all Bigfoot tracks are faked”.

There is a tipping point of course. If all known Bigfoot tracks are reasonably demonstrated to be faked, then suspicions should be applied to any such claim.

Otherwise we fall into the Flerf idiocy of “digital images can be manipulated, therefore all digital images of Earth from space must be fake”. A stance which regularly comes up, and leads to other baseless assertions (photos from space must be faked because space itself is faked, for instance)

 ZergSmasher wrote:
I would offer a theory as to why we don't see fossil evidence for Bigfoot's ancestors (or the ancestors of a lot of known creatures), but Dakka frowns on religious-related talk and I'm confident I'd just get made fun of anyways.

Let's just put this this way.

If it's based on faith instead of evidence it isn't a theory. Theories have evidence to support them and can be tested. Magical sky man or evil fire guy hiding stuff both can't be tested and is wild baseless speculation at best. Ain't nothing theory about that.

If you have an actual theory id be happy to hear it.

No need, Lance. No need.

But it does bear to highlight that a Scientific Theory is not the same as theory in common parlance.

MDG, how small is your car?

I don’t think I’ve ever felt passenger distribution make a noticeable difference during a drive.

(Yes, I am picturing you as the tall guy with the comical automobile from the Simpsons.)

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
MDG, how small is your car?

I don’t think I’ve ever felt passenger distribution make a noticeable difference during a drive.

(Yes, I am picturing you as the tall guy with the comical automobile from the Simpsons.)

To be fair UK cars ARE on average much smaller than American ones (going by country flags)

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
MDG, how small is your car?

I don’t think I’ve ever felt passenger distribution make a noticeable difference during a drive.

(Yes, I am picturing you as the tall guy with the comical automobile from the Simpsons.)

I was driving a four door Ford Fiesta at the time. So, fairly dinky. Certainly not a long wheelbase at all.

At 6’2”, your mental picture isn’t far from the truth

Slipspace wrote:
Do they? While I'm sure you can find someone with qualifications who agrees with pretty much any theory under the sun, I think the vast weight of evidence in this case points towards most, if not all, cryptids either not existing at all, or simply being misidentified known species. The UK, for example, has had many sightings of "very large cats" that turned out to be regular sized panthers, or similar, escaped from private collections.

An argument that truth is established based on one set of interpretations of data being more popular than another is not a logical argument and says little to nothing at all about much of anything really. It’s just an appeal to popular beliefs.

Slipspace wrote:
I don't think the majority of people who claim to have seen bigfoot, or Nessie, or any other cryptid or mythological creature are liars or mentally unstable. I suspect they are simply mistaken. There are likely subconscious biases in many people's perceptions that might cause them to think they saw bigfoot when they see something not readily identifiable in locations where bigfoot is thought to live.

Again all I am seeing here are truisms that I don’t consider any reasonable person would doubt yet, once again, the existence of these types of circumstances doesn’t say anything whatsoever about whether or not some people actually ARE seeing or experiencing an unknown phenomenon.

The ‘something not readily identifiable’ might be a large bear, a stray dog, a bobcat, a panther, a hog… or a genuinely unknown entity.

Slipspace wrote:
That's true. However, I think that's being disingenuous about why people might dismiss this phenomenon. I don't think most people dismiss it "out of hand". I think they have likely weighed the evidence and possibilities and come to the conclusion it's more likely than not that bigfoot doesn't exist. I'd say that's the opposite of "out of hand". Characterising it as such is dangerously close to poisoning the well - implying those who don't believe in bigfoot are simply too closed minded to consider the possibility is a good way to shut down genuine debate.

This is a fair comment, but the original point stands and I would add your own arguments as a counter; namely those that point out cultural and social preconceptions. There is a further qualification to that statement I would also add as a gesture of goodwill so you understand this is not simply a matter of conceit on my behalf:

All paradigmatic shifts occur through the discovery of anomaly. Discovery begins through the awareness of such anomaly. Awareness being the key word. I believe that anomaly is found in the phenomenon of Bigfoot; but make no comment about WHAT it may be.

To close…

Our tools may be wonderful indeed, but they themselves tell us nothing about to where we can, or should, turn them.

Talk of how the mind perceives randomness and tries to assign order to it has me thinking of an article I read a number of years ago.

The language you speak, and the culture you are in literally alter your vison, or at least your mental processing of what your eyes give your brain. For example, some Asian cultures literally have trouble seeing the color pink because they don't have a word for it, and in fact have trouble even with the concept of it. To them it is just a shade of red. When presented with a color pallet that had progressively darkening hues on each sample, these people were significantly hindered in deciding how many different variations of red there were. This isn't evident in people from the US or Western Europe. It gets odder when you consider that children born from these cultures, yet raised in the US (Adoption) CAN see differing hues as easily as any other American. The simple word association with the concept of "pink" can do this.

Keeping that in mind, can our very belief in Bigfoot, or even the knowledge of the concept being out there, force our minds into making connections it normally wouldn't? Almost like a mass-hallucination transubstantiation.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Talk of how the mind perceives randomness and tries to assign order to it has me thinking of an article I read a number of years ago.

The language you speak, and the culture you are in literally alter your vison, or at least your mental processing of what your eyes give your brain. For example, some Asian cultures literally have trouble seeing the color pink because they don't have a word for it, and in fact have trouble even with the concept of it. To them it is just a shade of red. When presented with a color pallet that had progressively darkening hues on each sample, these people were significantly hindered in deciding how many different variations of red there were. This isn't evident in people from the US or Western Europe. It gets odder when you consider that children born from these cultures, yet raised in the US (Adoption) CAN see differing hues as easily as any other American. The simple word association with the concept of "pink" can do this.

Keeping that in mind, can our very belief in Bigfoot, or even the knowledge of the concept being out there, force our minds into making connections it normally wouldn't? Almost like a mass-hallucination transubstantiation.

Thanks for the interesting point.

This is a very compelling argument and I believe something like this is for sure going on. I mentioned in earlier posts how the descriptions of ‘Bigfoot’ as ‘primate’ have become more prevalent following the enlightenment and the doctrine of evolution being popularized. Before that time we had primarily ‘woodwose’, ‘forest spirits’ and ‘werewolves’, so there is clearly a massive cultural influence here. That said, many modern Bigfoot descriptions end up seeming more akin to ‘wolf men’ or some other outrageous form so exactly how such a mechanism might work in these cases is…. very mysterious.

I should add. Some in this thread seem to want to argue they don’t believe there is anything of interest or value to this topic. That is a perfectly reasonable position. That said, I don’t see the need to use such a position as a spring board into pejorative terminology regarding broader worldviews. Sensible and respectful discussion I am all for. I was politely reminded early on religious discussion is not allowed here, so at the juncture where elaboration might require forays into such considerations, I have remained silent out of respect for this forum. It would be most kind if certain others do the same, or refrain from posting on the topic at all. Stating why you do not believe in something doesn’t require one resort to insults. Hope the person I am referring to understands and I mean that with genuine good will.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
I would offer a theory as to why we don't see fossil evidence for Bigfoot's ancestors (or the ancestors of a lot of known creatures), but Dakka frowns on religious-related talk and I'm confident I'd just get made fun of anyways.

Let's just put this this way.

If it's based on faith instead of evidence it isn't a theory. Theories have evidence to support them and can be tested. Magical sky man or evil fire guy hiding stuff both can't be tested and is wild baseless speculation at best. Ain't nothing theory about that.

If you have an actual theory id be happy to hear it.

Well I’m not sure if you intended it or not, but congratulations on fully endorsing ZergSmashers statement as both perceptive and well reasoned.

Evidence based on faith… such as the faith you have tomorrow will be reasonably close to today? Or the faith you have in the experience of you possessing a ‘self’?

Rocky ground here.

The scientific method is humanity’s champion only as long as humanity remains humble to where its current limitations lie. The failure to do this will all but guarantee it becomes humanity’s oppressor.

I prefer humility.

 XvArcanevX wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Do they? While I'm sure you can find someone with qualifications who agrees with pretty much any theory under the sun, I think the vast weight of evidence in this case points towards most, if not all, cryptids either not existing at all, or simply being misidentified known species. The UK, for example, has had many sightings of "very large cats" that turned out to be regular sized panthers, or similar, escaped from private collections.

An argument that truth is established based on one set of interpretations of data being more popular than another is not a logical argument and says little to nothing at all about much of anything really. It’s just an appeal to popular beliefs.

That's not what I meant (I also don't think it's what I said). It's nothing to do with how popular a belief is, it's about how well any evidence stands up to scrutiny. It may well be that certain beliefs, or in this case a lack of belief in certain cryptids, is due to the lack of compelling evidence for their existence. The moment someone puts forward something more than anecdotes and grainy pictures and provides some solid, unequivocal evidence, I'm sure most rational people would agree that bigfoot exists. The fact we continue not to have that evidence points to a different conclusion.

 XvArcanevX wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
I don't think the majority of people who claim to have seen bigfoot, or Nessie, or any other cryptid or mythological creature are liars or mentally unstable. I suspect they are simply mistaken. There are likely subconscious biases in many people's perceptions that might cause them to think they saw bigfoot when they see something not readily identifiable in locations where bigfoot is thought to live.

Again all I am seeing here are truisms that I don’t consider any reasonable person would doubt yet, once again, the existence of these types of circumstances doesn’t say anything whatsoever about whether or not some people actually ARE seeing or experiencing an unknown phenomenon.

The ‘something not readily identifiable’ might be a large bear, a stray dog, a bobcat, a panther, a hog… or a genuinely unknown entity.

It might well be. How do you propose we investigate these claims is the question I'm asking. We seem to agree that there are, in principle, a number of possible candidate explanations for witness testimony in the case of bigfoot: mistaken identity; some mental impairment affecting memory, judgement or senses; lying; genuine sighting. What method do you propose for determining which is true in any given situation? How do you make sure your method is correct? On the wider scale, how do you use these various methods to come to a conclusion?

 XvArcanevX wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
That's true. However, I think that's being disingenuous about why people might dismiss this phenomenon. I don't think most people dismiss it "out of hand". I think they have likely weighed the evidence and possibilities and come to the conclusion it's more likely than not that bigfoot doesn't exist. I'd say that's the opposite of "out of hand". Characterising it as such is dangerously close to poisoning the well - implying those who don't believe in bigfoot are simply too closed minded to consider the possibility is a good way to shut down genuine debate.

This is a fair comment, but the original point stands and I would add your own arguments as a counter; namely those that point out cultural and social preconceptions. There is a further qualification to that statement I would also add as a gesture of goodwill so you understand this is not simply a matter of conceit on my behalf:

All paradigmatic shifts occur through the discovery of anomaly. Discovery begins through the awareness of such anomaly. Awareness being the key word. I believe that anomaly is found in the phenomenon of Bigfoot; but make no comment about WHAT it may be.

To close…

Our tools may be wonderful indeed, but they themselves tell us nothing about to where we can, or should, turn them.

I'm not sure I agree entirely that all paradigm shifts occur through the discovery of an anomaly, but let's assume that's correct in the majority of cases. You're making a logical fallacy here, I think. Just because all paradigm shifts occur through the discovery of an anomaly, you don't get to declare anything you want to be the anomaly that leads to such a paradigm shift. You have to show the existence of the anomaly first. You're jumping the gun. This is why I asked above about how you reliably determine whether bigfoot exists. Even if you could prove bigfoot exists, I'm not sure how that would lead to some paradigm shift. If it does exist there's no reason to believe it's anything other than an undiscovered species. We encounter these all the time. They rarely lead to shifts in our thinking because they all fit into the current paradigm pretty well.

 XvArcanevX wrote:

The scientific method is humanity’s champion only as long as humanity remains humble to where its current limitations lie. The failure to do this will all but guarantee it becomes humanity’s oppressor.

I prefer humility.

What does this even mean? The scientific method does not claim to be "humanity's champion". It's a method for investigating the natural world that works. As far as we can tell it's the best method for investigating the natural world. In what way do you think that method will become our "oppressor"? How? What do you mean by preferring humility? In the context of this discussion I fail to see how the limitations of the scientific method are relevant. We're talking about bigfoot. If it exists, it's a thing that exists in the natural world. It is therefore a thing the scientific method can be used to investigate. What's your alternative method that provides at least as good a model for determining how the world works?