The Patterson Footage .....

[BearGrounds]

you've got your head up your ass about how exclusionary the scientific community is (pro-tip: it's charlatans and conmen who get get ostracized; people with unorthodox get published in peer-reviewed journals as long as they fulfill the basic requirements.)

Lol if you say so.

And are you seriously saying there is very little incentive for scientists to make one of the biggest discoveries of all time? Certainly it's not like scientists to be motivated by the thrill of discovery or humans to be motivated by fame or fortune: it makes much more sense for them to self-publish and avoid scientific scrutiny at all costs, exactly like the frauds cashing in on the lucrative bigfoot community.

Due to the nature of the topic there's very little incentive to attempt to publish a paper at this time, that's what I'm saying. There are in fact deterrents.

What is known about the tracks (studied by the scientists actually doing the research) isn't proof of the creature's existence, it's merely soft evidence in support of it.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Lol if you say so.



Due to the nature of the topic there's very little incentive to attempt to publish a paper at this time, that's what I'm saying. There are in fact deterrents.

That's not true. Fringe theories are being accepted all the time and there are even scientists out there studying whether or not philes fucking child-like dolls reduce their urges to fuck real children: science is willing to go to a lot of uncomfortable places to answer questions.

There is literally no reason for science not to acknowledge scientific evidence of bigfoot. scientists fall all over themselves trying to excite the public about any scientific discovery because the renewed interest and cash inflow benefits all science as a whole. Science would love for bigfoot to be real and just about every scientist would love to be known as the person who made the most shocking discovery in history. Scientists spend decades living in poverty and slaving away in third-world war zones, at risk from murder/torture/rape/disease/etc. in order to make the slightest scientific advancement. If there was any substance to bigfoot, you don't think these people wouldn jump on the opportunity to work in the much more hospitable conditions of the American woodlands?

What is known about the tracks (studied by the scientists actually doing the research) isn't proof of the creature's existence, it's merely soft evidence in support of it.

Psst: you're using words you don't understand. There is no scientific evidence of bigfoot. What there is is a lot of questionable claims from suspicious "scientists" that don't stand up to real scrutiny.

 

[BearGrounds]

That's not true. Fringe theories are being accepted all the time and there are even scientists out there studying whether or not philes fucking child-like dolls reduce their urges to fuck real children: science is willing to go to a lot of uncomfortable places to answer questions.

There is literally no reason for science not to acknowledge scientific evidence of bigfoot. scientists fall all over themselves trying to excite the public about any scientific discovery because the renewed interest and cash inflow benefits all science as a whole. Science would love for bigfoot to be real and just about every scientist would love to be known as the person who made the most shocking discovery in history. Scientists spend decades living in poverty and slaving away in third-world war zones, at risk from murder/torture/rape/disease/etc. in order to make the slightest scientific advancement. If there was any substance to bigfoot, you don't think these people wouldn jump on the opportunity to work in the much more hospitable conditions of the American woodlands?

Sure, they're superheros. But if they began to seriously look into Bigfoot, they'd cease to be scientists at that point and become "scientists", amiright?

That's probably why the vast majority don't go out looking for the creature, so as to give themselves a chance to be the one to discover it.

Psst: you're using words you don't understand. There is no scientific evidence of bigfoot. What there is is a lot of questionable claims from suspicious "scientists" that don't stand up to real scrutiny.

Psst: you don't know what you're talking about. There exists what's known in the scientific community as "soft evidence" in support of the creature's existence.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Sure, they're superheros. But if they began to seriously look into Bigfoot, they'd cease to be scientists at that point and become "scientists", amiright?

No, you're completely wrong. There is nothing stopping bigfoot researchers from providing evidence to the scientific community. These people who are already working outside the scientific community would only stand to gain by providing actual evidence... and they would stand to lose a hell of a lot if they were exposed as frauds.

That's probably why the vast majority don't go out looking for the creature, so as to give themselves a chance to be the one to discover it.

No, the reason they don't go looking for the creature is because every time scientific scrutiny is applied to the topic, the results are discouraging, point to the conclusion that bigfoot does not exist and indicate that bigfoot experts, at best, lose touch with the scientific community because their results don't measure up to the scientific standard and, at worst, are complete charlatans trying to make a buck.

Considering how many scientific discoveries have paid off because someone took a wild risk and went against expectations, that should tell you how poorly actual scientific studies of bigfoot have fared in order for scientists to be unwilling to take chances in a culture that desperately wants their theory to be true and will reward them handsomely just for pursuing it and failing.

Psst: you don't know what you're talking about. There exists what's known in the scientific community as "soft evidence" in support of the creature's existence.

Interesting. I would love to read the peer-reviewed scientific articles acknowledging soft evidence. Can you point me at those so I can apologize to you?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

dat ass...

dem tittays... I never realized this was supposed to be a female bigfoot

 

[GordoBarraBJJ]

dat ass...

 

[raty tat tat]

Notice the toe curl - there is no way this is a man in a suit !

It's a Man in a suit.

 

[kenetics]

yes, it has not been duplicated today. This wasn't CGI, it was a physical being - to this day Hollywood is unable to duplicate it.

Hollywood can make way better suits than that dude lol.

 

[kenetics]

I'm pretry sure the guy in the suit or recording said it was a hoax while in his death bed.

 

[TheGumby]

What is this showing?

 

[BearGrounds]

....in a culture that desperately wants their theory to be true and will reward them handsomely just for pursuing it and failing.

With regards to the Bigfoot phenomena, actual reality doesn't support this statement. None of the scientists I've mentioned have been rewarded for their pursuit of the Sasquatch. Quite the opposite, actually. For example, Krantz lost grants and even had tenure delayed for sticking his neck out.

Interesting. I would love to read the peer-reviewed scientific articles acknowledging soft evidence. Can you point me at those so I can apologize to you?

Is there a problem with you reading things on your own, outside of a chosen publication, and then drawing your own conclusions on the evidence provided? Or do you need specific journals and the majority of the scientific community on board before you can do such a thing? Just curious.

It seems to me that you have a bit of a problem relying on your own discernment of information, and take your cues in full from the peer review process - which you seem to view as infallible (Pro tip, it isn't - https://newrepublic.com/article/135921/science-suffering-peer-reviews-big-problems).

If that's not the case, and you're capable of considering information not presently blessed by your chosen priests and preachers, here's a paper written by Dr. Meldrum.

You'll obviously take issue with the publication, as it's been established to set up a forum for fringe topics. But try not to let that deter you in your attempts to give the paper itself, and the information provided therein, an objective assessment.

Midfoot Flexibility, Fossil Footprints, and Sasquatch Steps: New Perspectives on the Evolution of Bipedalism

http://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/18/jse_18_1_meldrum.pdf

 

[Deleted member 429137]

With regards to the Bigfoot phenomena, actual reality doesn't support this statement. None of the scientists I've mentioned have been rewarded for their pursuit of the Sasquatch. Quite the opposite, actually. For example, Krantz lost grants and even had tenure delayed for sticking his neck out.

You say that as if that's unreasonable.

Is there a problem with you reading things on your own, outside of a chosen publication, and then drawing your own conclusions on the evidence provided? Or do you need specific journals and the majority of the scientific community on board before you can do such a thing? Just curious.

I want to see if you actually know anything about these people, their work and their standing as scientists or if you're just parroting things you've heard them say about themselves. When you say there are lots of accredited scientists taking bigfoot seriously, I'm curious if you can actually name some and if they actually turn out to be performing legitimate scientific analysis.

What it comes down to is you keep making claims that these are real scientists doing real work and I want to see if you can actually provide examples of real scientists doing real scientific work. It's not on me to provide evidence of your claims.

It seems to me that you have a bit of a problem relying on your own discernment of information, and take your cues in full from the peer review process - which you seem to view as infallible (Pro tip, it isn't - https://newrepublic.com/article/135921/science-suffering-peer-reviews-big-problems).

There is one way in which it's pretty damn infallible: can you name any legitimate scientific discovery whose author refused to submit it to the scientific process for scrutiny and examination? You make it sound like it's perfectly reasonable and above board that these people are publishing on non-scientific websites/journals and if the scientific community wants to learn from them, science will have to track the work down themselves. (Pro-tip: it's not.)

If that's not the case, and you're capable of considering information not presently blessed by your chosen priests and preachers, here's a paper written by Dr. Meldrum.

You'll obviously take issue with the publication, as it's been established to set up a forum for fringe topics. But try not to let that deter you in your attempts to give the paper itself, and the information provided therein, an objective assessment.

Midfoot Flexibility, Fossil Footprints, and Sasquatch Steps: New Perspectives on the Evolution of Bipedalism

http://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/18/jse_18_1_meldrum.pdf

You make it sound as if that's unreasonable.

 

[BearGrounds]

Hollywood can make way better suits than that dude lol.

I'm pretty sure the guy in the suit or recording said it was a hoax while in his death bed.

Not in 1967 they couldn't.

From the wiki:

John Chambers. Academy Award–winning monster-maker John Chambers is most famous for his innovative flexible masks in Planet of the Apes (1968). In a 1997 interview in a nursing home with Bigfooter Bobbie Short in her nurse's uniform, he denied rumors that he had created a costume for the Patterson subject, saying "I'm good, but not that good."


And no, Patterson never admitted to a hoax. He went to his grave maintaining it was real. That he made a deathbed confession is a mix up with the Loch Ness guy.

What is this showing?

It's just a stabilized version of the video. The original is rather shaky at times.

 

[Frode Falch]

nope, you need to explain how two idiot cowboys in the 1960's managed to create a suit that Hollywood today cannot do.

the muscle movements in the gif, in particular are extraordinary.

You see what you want to see. And the Truth is boring. So you dont want that to be truth.

 

[BearGrounds]

You say that as if that's unreasonable.

So you admit that what you claimed would be the result of one's pursuit of the topic was inaccurate. Good.

I want to see if you actually know anything about these people, their work and their standing as scientists or if you're just parroting things you've heard them say about themselves. When you say there are lots of accredited scientists taking bigfoot seriously, I'm curious if you can actually name some and if they actually turn out to be performing legitimate scientific analysis.

What it comes down to is you keep making claims that these are real scientists doing real work and I want to see if you can actually provide examples of real scientists doing real scientific work. It's not on me to provide evidence of your claims.

I never said there were "lots". I named a few credentialed scientists for you who have worked in the field and have established an inferred foot morphology for the supposed creature, based on the credible track evidence found.

Whether they're doing "real work" or not you can decide for yourself by examining their work directly, if you're capable of such a thing.

There is one way in which it's pretty damn infallible: can you name any legitimate scientific discovery whose author refused to submit it to the scientific process for scrutiny and examination? You make it sound like it's perfectly reasonable and above board that these people are publishing on non-scientific websites/journals and if the scientific community wants to learn from them, science will have to track the work down themselves. (Pro-tip: it's not.)

Given the topic, it is reasonable. That's what you do not realize. We're talking about a highly stigmatized phenomena known to be riddled with hoaxery.

You make it sound as if that's unreasonable.

It's unreasonable and incredibly poor research policy to dismiss it based on that alone, without even reading the paper for yourself.

 

[TheGumby]

I liked this thread. Going to do more research. I also have heard a theory that Bigfoot is actually of alien origin hence the reason we don't see them. They aren't of this world or are perhaps the hyper intelligent alien species which created us and are why we are similar and ape like.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

So you admit that what you claimed would be the result of one's pursuit of the topic was inaccurate. Good.

I don't know what you're saying here, but I'm going to disagree with you because you've been full of shit about anything else.

I never said there were "lots". I named a few credentialed scientists for you who have worked in the field and have established an inferred foot morphology for the supposed creature, based on the credible track evidence found.

Does that seem like science to you?

Whether they're doing "real work" or not you can decide for yourself by examining their work directly, if you're capable of such a thing.



Given the topic, it is reasonable. That's what you do not realize. We're talking about a highly stigmatized phenomena known to be riddled with hoaxery.

I'm glad you acknowledge this. Don't make it sound like science is too scared to pursue the truth of bigfoot: every time they've turned their attention to the subject they've come up with no proof and the wingnuts, charlatans and hucksters involved in the bigfoot community have only further convinced them that bigfoot is bullshit.

But I don't see you typing angrily against the bigfoot community for being so shitty that it can't even generate legitimate scientific research.

It's unreasonable and incredibly poor research policy to dismiss it based on that alone, without even reading the paper for yourself.

No, it's not. That is literally the purpose of submitting your work to scientific scrutiny. There is no legitimate reason for one not to submit valid work for analysis and no one who refuses to have their work scrutinized should be given the benefit of the doubt. ESPECIALLY in a field so badly proliferating con-artists and fraudsters.

 

[Metal_Daze]

Bigface is real and I have footage to prove it.

Can you see the musculature in the neck and the head movement? Edmond would be proud!

 

[BearGrounds]

No, it's not. That is literally the purpose of submitting your work to scientific scrutiny. There is no legitimate reason for one not to submit valid work for analysis and no one who refuses to have their work scrutinized should be given the benefit of the doubt. ESPECIALLY in a field so badly proliferating con-artists and fraudsters.

It is if you want to consider yourself an objective investigator of the phenomena.

If the publication itself is what determines for you what you will and will not consider, you're unashamedly biased and you rely on specific gatekeepers (journals) to permit you to entertain and scrutinize the evidence of a given phenomena. I don't have that problem. I can go outside of what the top journals admit to evaluate information.

I linked a paper written by a credentialed PhD. You can read it and decide for yourself if it contains any valid arguments/information, or you can use the publication as a reason to avoid even doing so at all. Your choice.

 

[HomeCheese]

I don't believe in big foot or similar legends. I mean they find remains from animals that lived millions of years ago yet we can't find any real evidence of big foot, not even a poop. Heck, they still find dinosaur poop.

It's a fun story but nothing more.