Finding Bigfoot

Mr Freeze wrote: »

I watched the show too. Thought it was rubbish.

But most documentaries are like this now. Instead of a factual documentary you get his half fictional, half dramatized rubbish. (sorry for the wee rant) :pac:

I was hoping for a show going over actual evidence, and weighing up whether Bigfoot exists or not. These were probably all actors.

Anyways, would love to see an actual documentary on the subject.

The skookum body cast is that of an unknown hominoid primate

steddyeddy wrote: »

A great documentary on the subject is called Sasquatch legend meets science.

Deleted User wrote: »

What the video has going for it, is the fact it looks real. Hair and muscle movement clearly visible.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Very well said.

Evidently your own strategy is to credulously believe every outlandish claim that is made about anything remotely considered to be paranormal

Dave! wrote: »

It would depend on the evidence for the mountain gorilla whether someone would say that about it, wouldn't it? If the evidence were as uncompelling as the evidence for Bigfoot, and there was a huge cultural and mythological backdrop to the whole thing, then it would be pretty reasonable to take a skeptical stance on it wouldn't it? And then if new evidence comes to light, reassess and adjust your position accordingly. That's the great thing about science, isn't it? You're not entrenched in one position, your view may legitimately change many times as a subject is discussed or studied.

Evidently your own strategy is to credulously believe every outlandish claim that is made about anything remotely considered to be paranormal, probably because you've retained an interest since childhood, and then if you turn out to be correct you can thumb your nose at everyone.

Just because you happen to arrive at a correct conclusion doesn't mean that your method or thought process was a good one.
I play a bit of poker, and constantly have to explain myself to friends when I raise before the flop (holding just 2 cards). They're under the impression that, until there are cards on the table, you can't make an intelligent decision. Of course, that's not the case - if I'm holding two aces, and they're holding a 2 and a 7, then I'm likely to win 85%+ of the time. However if by a fluke they stick with their garbage hand and manage to win, you can bet there'll be all manner of nose thumbing and it'll be seen as a vindication of their "strategy".

steddyeddy wrote: »

As regards skepticism I think on both sides of the arguement its important to bring the science in.

By Brian Regal
The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency recently issued a statement indicating it knew of no evidence of the existence of “aquatic humanoids.”
This remarkable statement was prompted by calls from viewers of Animal Planet’s “Mermaids: the Body Found,” which claimed such creatures exist. A swarm of television programs, listed as “scientific” and “reality based,” perpetuate similar pseudoscientific ideas that are gobbled up by viewers, especially kids.
This incident illustrates a dangerous trend: Viewers’ acceptance of claims made by untrained laypeople as authoritative, and their simultaneous rejection of work done by experts in science, history and politics. This idea argues that egg-headed specialists — with a lifetime of focused academic work, peer-reviewed scholarship and study — are hiding the “truth” from us so that the only way to get answers is from down-home folks with little schooling but good sense. In other words, formal education is bad.
One program that encourages this fallacy is “Finding Bigfoot” (also a product of Animal Planet). It follows members of a group called the Bigfoot Field Research Organization as they search for the elusive creature. The investigators travel to various locations of supposed Bigfoot activity, with the genre staples of night vision cameras and hushed voices. While full of enthusiasm, the BFRO members don’t seem to have any technical training or follow scientific method in their search. They often say, “There are ’squatches here!” but viewers never see the big hairy beasts. And that’s about all. The show imparts no knowledge of environmental science, animal behavior studies, primate anatomy or even the history of monster hunting. Yet with spurious “evidence,” the group makes claims that the creatures are real and just around the corner, and expects us to accept it.
Sasquatch-like creatures may actually exist — they are some of the only mythical monsters to have an evolutionary and biological plausibility — but stumbling around the woods claiming every blip on an infrared scope or twig snap is a “‘squatch” isn’t helping the searchers’ case. There are a number of intelligent, capable, trained individuals who do scientific work searching for cryptozoological creatures, who ought to get more coverage. Unfortunately, good-natured and quirky amateurs, like the guys on “Finding Bigfoot,” are better for ratings, despite the fact they never find anything.
The format for “Finding Bigfoot” is not original. It‘s lifted largely from the earlier and equally problematic “Ghost Hunters.” We also must contend with “Ancient Aliens,” “Destination Truth” and “Long Island Medium.” Especially egregious is “Psychic Kids,” which perpetuates the myth that people can see spirits. And don’t get me started on “American Diggers.”
These programs glorify amateur investigators, who have little knowledge of the fields they “study” while often disparaging the work of professional scholars. Genuine experts — physicists, evolutionary biologists, historians, classicists and others — rarely make it to the screen because they might explain why there are no mermaids, ghosts or sasquatches, that there is no evidence aliens have visited the earth, and why our lives and our history should be valued as more than just junk sold for a couple of bucks to a pawn shop.
Programs such as “Finding Bigfoot” should be getting viewers, especially children, turned on to science and history as the way to understand the world; it should trumpet the value of education and expertise. What it actually does is turn us away from learning, books, science, history and the hard work of the intellect for a view of the world where serious study and intellectual pursuits are suspect or unnecessary.
How to combat this? Tell your kids that smart people are not the enemy; then buy them a microscope or a telescope. Get them a book on biology or zoology or even history from the library and read it with them; fight to make sure they get a good education. We’ll all be better off and, yes, if it is out there, someone might even actually find Bigfoot.

In May, the Oxford geneticist Bryan Sykes planted himself in the media spotlight, announcing a project to hunt for the yeti—the "abominable snowman." Not by trekking into the Himalayas, its rumored home, but by persuading people who claimed to have samples of the beast (hair, skin, blood and so on) to mail them to his laboratory for genetic analysis. If the DNA in the samples didn't match that from any known species, Bigfoot would be declared real. Genetics, Mr. Sykes argued, would settle the dispute over such "cryptic species" once and for all. "Using genetic analysis is entirely objective," he told LiveScience.com. "It can't be falsified."

On Saturday, April 28, I had lunch with Dr. Bryan Sykes and his lovely wife Ulla, in downtown Salt Lake City, Utah. Professor Sykes is the author of The Seven Daughters of Eve (2002), which traces the descent of Europeans back to seven women, who lived tens of thousands of years ago. His stop-off in Salt Lake City was part of a book tour for his latest popular title, DNA USA: A Genetic Biography of America. Sykes is a former Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford and a current Fellow of Wolfson College. He is founder of Oxford Ancestors, a genealogical DNA testing firm.
Sykes published the first report on retrieving DNA from ancient bone in Nature, in 1989. He since has been involved in a number of high-profile cases dealing with ancient DNA, including those of Ötzi the Iceman, a natural mummy over 5,000 years old, discovered in the Alps between Austria and Italy, and the Cheddar Man, Britain’s oldest complete human skeleton, nearly 10,000 years old.

We also discussed the relict hominoid question and the potential for addressing the genetics of the issue. I was pleased to learn of his interest and intentions, first from RHI editorial board member Dr. Anna Nekaris, Reader in Biological Anthropology and Primate Conservation at Oxford Brooks University, who will be collaborating with Sykes on the production of a related television documentary project to include the results of the study. Nekaris’ field research into nocturnal prosimians of southern Asia has brought her into contact with local accounts of, e.g., the Orang Pendek and Mande Barung, two distinct potential relict hominoids. The “Oxford –Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project” is a welcome development.

Dave! wrote: »

Won't be getting into another prolonged debate with you eddy, but...



That's a bit of a cop out in fairness... You regularly point to the high number of alleged sightings as indicating that there is something there, so given the ubiquity of digital cameras and phones, there should really be better photographic evidence than there is.