Eugenie C. Scott Tackles Bigfoot

[xblade]

Take this for instance: Diogenes repeated statements that sasquatch isn't actually an indian word. I've pointed out to him that neither is Seattle an indian word. It's a bastardized term like so many others in the American language.

Wow, who knew Seattle was a mythical city, often spoken of, but never located?

The argument is there is a bigfoot creature, and the Indians call him sasquatch. That's not true, at least it wasn't until a white man created the name. No one is arguing that there is a city in Washington state, and the Indians call it Seattle.

 

[sanguine]

hair, tracks, animal markings, behaviors

Dredging back to the beginning of the thread (since I just read it now) and skipping the acrimony, I thought I should say something about this.

I'm a biologist. If someone can provide me with hairs from an animal, it is trivial to do a DNA analysis on associated follicle tissue (which should be there, since hairs tend to come out with some associated tissue) and either ID it as a known creature or ID it as an unknown and place it appropriately on the old evolutionary family tree.

And I do mean trivial. Like, less than $30 for the materials. Trivial.

Our ability to do this kind of thing has been used to great effect in determining the ancestry and family relationships of hard-to-track animals, including those that field observers almost never manage to actually see.

If people are really finding hair they think belongs to some previously untyped critter, they should have a bake sale or something and pony up the money to get the DNA looked at. It's really that straightforward.

 

[manofthesea]

Wow, who knew Seattle was a mythical city, often spoken of, but never located?

The argument is there is a bigfoot creature, and the Indians call him sasquatch. That's not true, at least it wasn't until a white man created the name. No one is arguing that there is a city in Washington state, and the Indians call it Seattle.

You'll need to provide a link to prove that indians were reported to call this creature sasquatch. I haven't seen it. A certain tribe has a name that was used for the basis of the word sasquatch though. A white man made the word more pronouncable for other white men. Like the word Seattle, which, like sasquatch is not only mythical but real.

 

[Wauthan]

Thanks Kitakaze and Manofthesea. Your responses to my post really cut into the heart of my question.

It's very easy to understand both sides of this debate. The topic has long since stopped being about the existence or non-existence of Bigfoot. It's now a matter of pride, as well as a sizable amount of sheer boredom. For the "Footers" it's a matter of keeping Bigfoot alive, so to speak. Because if the topic would no longer be debated then this might-be creature would simply be forgotten. As a myth Bigfoot is well past its prime, and is well outside the sphere of mythical things that are of mainstream interest.

Bigfoot, just like Nessie, have simply become replaced with new myths that are more attractive to the current generation. I assume this lack of interest is a source of some frustration for the proponents of Bigfoots existence. I could even imagine a scenario were Bigfoot was established as a completely real creature and then completely forgotten about after a couple of years. Heck! The worst thing that could happen to Bigfoot is that it turned out to be a real creature, since it could not in any way live up to the bizarre myths and stories surrounding it.

For the "Skeptics" Bigfoot is no different from any other kind of mythical creature. Any claim about it's existence is met with a tremendous amount of doubt, especially since Bigfoots existence is now a very old claim. Year after year, in spite of a massive increase in both the availability and quality of photographic technology, no believable footage has surfaced. Whatever new evidence that is gathered is, against all reason, of no scientific value. This is in my own opinion the biggest blow against the hypothesis of Bigfoot. That all the evidence is of such poor quality goes against reason. By now someone should have, even by complete accident, found something that could stand up to scrutiny. And for the skeptic "by now" means several million years, since not even fossil evidence of a possible ancestor to Bigfoot have been found.

And so the skeptic must remain skeptical. And so the debate about small things rages on while Bigfoot remains undiscovered.

 

[kitakaze]

I thought it best to port over this post from the Eugenie Scott lecture thread here a long with JcR's excellent depiction of the ambush by the Infiltrators (Bigfoot). It's in Part Une but it rocks:

But here's the crazy thing that goes right to your point. Sweaty has that mind-bending opportunity to really experience the magic of the Boss of the Woods himself. He could actually get off his butt and go find Bigfoot! Here's the deal. Sweaty is a member of the MABRC (Mid-America Bigfoot Researchers Center).They have this whole thing about thinking outside the box. They actually claim to encounter Bigfoot on numerous occasions. They will be swarmed by Bigfoots. Dude, you have to check this. Here is MABRC head darkwing/D.W. Lee using a trippy-ass kid's noise maker to lure in four, that's 4 Bigfoots:

Just had to fix something in that Video

 

[kitakaze]

Thanks Kitakaze and Manofthesea. Your responses to my post really cut into the heart of my question.

(snip)

More great words from you and you're welcome.

Would Bigfoot supporters be disappointed if Bigfoot couldn't level a forest, use infrasound, switch easily between quadrapedal and bipedal locomotion, etc? Maybe at this point they should consider themselves extremely lucky if someone ever found an escaped orangutan in Florida as they're not likely to get that or anything better.

If only Bigfoot would really chase some people and level some forest, then we'd have some to study by now.

 

[xblade]

You'll need to provide a link to prove that indians were reported to call this creature sasquatch. I haven't seen it. A certain tribe has a name that was used for the basis of the word sasquatch though. A white man made the word more pronouncable for other white men. Like the word Seattle, which, like sasquatch is not only mythical but real.

Do I need to provide a link to prove that white men call bigfoot bigfoot too? By the way, which is it...are bigfoot and Seattle mythical or real...they can't be both.

Oops, almost forgot:

"Before the European invasion, Native Americans knew of the creature and gave him the name Sasquatch, which means "hairy giant."

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa112999a.htm

 

[kitakaze]

Oh man, I messed up. I meant to put post #210 in the MABRC thread! Doh!

 

[kitakaze]

I'm responding to part of Vort's post that discussion belongs in here:

I do appreciate the general air of welcomeness, the links and the directions to related threads. I've watched the Eugenie Scott presentation and read the thread on Bob Heironimous, and as I noted in my first post, above, I've read every page of this thread and followed most offered links.

Scott's presentation, while entertaining, doesn't offer any new information beyond what I see available here. (I will note in my own defense that she uses the word "pendulous" with regard to the P-G figure's breasts.) In general I agree with her assessment, though her arguments fail to plumb her otherwise excellent questions with much depth.

I thought her lecture was excellent and any mistakes she made were minor. A key problem she notes is that Bigfoot is not going to exist in viable breeding numbers as reported by alleged witnesses across the continent without leaving behind remains that we can study and catalogue. What precedent do we have for a massive mammal with huge caloric needs existing unidentified among all manner of habitats across a heavily populated continent in modern times.

Her repeated, dismissive references to "West Texas" seem designed to obfuscate the more likely and more numerous East Texas sightings, which are based in wooded wetlands that could plausibly support a primate population.

Trust me, the woman is not trying to deceive you. The answer may be as simple as the image she was looking at being reversed (though you tink she's have caught that) or she simply meant east but said west once, didn't look at the image again, and continued to say west. I'm left handed and I constantly will say "right" when I mean "left" in English as well as Japanese. It's not as though there were no reports listed in West Texas also. So where is a healthy Bigfoot breeding population in East Texas going to get its 9000+ calories a day and conceal that healthy population from being identified by science? And what about elsewhere. We have Sweaty who's a strong believer of Bigfoot in New York. We have all those sightings in New Jersey. We have Sweaty's group, the MABRC, constantly running into Bigfoot in Oklahoma, and we can't leave out Iowa.

So Scott was quite right, either something else is happening or Bigfoot exists in these places and we have to abandon a lot we know about zoological science. What do you think is more likely?

Aside from things we would discuss in the PGF 3 thread, what other problems did you have with her lecture? She really did have some excellent points that proponents have either a very difficult time dealing with or they ignore all together.

Here's what I think some footers might take issue with:

1) She called Ray Wallace "Roy Wallace." Not a really big deal.

2) She was mentioning mostly 10-12ft sizes about Bigfoot. So what. Bigfoot is often reported to be that tall. It's not like things are drastically better if we throw those all out and just filter the 7-9ft range.

3) She made arguments about Bigfoot's diet with herbivores (specifically folivorous gorillas) in mind. It doesn't improve if we change to omnivore. Let's say Bigfoot is a meat heavy omnivore. People report Bigfoot preying on animals like deer, racoons, groundhogs, etc. People also report Bigfoot feeding on their livestock (cows, goats, sheep, chickens, etc). Such habitual predation by a breeding population is going to get them identified. And they are going to do it in a way that should be able to retrieve DNA at some point.

But let's toss Bigfoot a bone and say they get there meat from scavenging. No self-respecting Bigfoot should be passing up a good salmon run. Why doesn't Bigfoot hit salmon runs? Here's a thread about it at the BFF:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=25399

They don't deal to well with this. Right of the bat someone in Washington says they have lots of stories of that. Specifics are asked an oh crap, can't tell you. It's a native thing and can't spill the beans. Idiots. So, no, really? Where are the Bigfoots during the salmon runs? Everything else that eats meat is out there so we have a problem here. But wait! Then they come up with a report! You have to check this out:

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=7382

This is not just any report. This is Bigfoot catch fish like a great white shark on seals completely with breaching. It gets better. Not only was the Bigfoot fishing á la Golum. The Bigfoot is caught fishing... as in oh crap! I have a Bigfoot on the line! That is Grade "A" stuff right there. Soooo not so hot, yeah? What do they say next? Ooooh riiiiight, the Bigfoots don't want to tangle with bears so they stay away. Oh crap again. Here comes the Bigfoot-will-kick-bears-asses nerds to derail the thread.

Well this isn't working out to well so let's make Bigfoot like a black bear. Here's a black bear's diet and feeding habits (that thing we know from studying bears in the same places where Bigfoot is reported to exist) interspersed with some Bigfoot related commentary:

- Black bears are omnivores. They eat both plants and animals; however, their diet consists mostly of vegetation.

Wouldn't this bring us back to big gut Bigfoot? Bigfoot should be a type of ape, after all.

- In the spring, black bear diets consist mostly of herbaceous plants, from emerging grasses and sedges to horsetail and various flowering plants.

Yes, and it allows you to predict where the bears will be.

- In summer, bears typically add ants, bees, grubs, and a host of later emerging plants to their diets.

So bugs, right? How much? Bigfoot is going to be significantly bigger than a black bear so they would have to eat that much more. Any tooling black bears in resource fights?

- During late summer and fall, bears typically shift their diets toward tree fruits, berries, and nuts, but they still may consume a variety of plants.

Fruits and berries? Sounds like that would bring them in contact with humans. Lots of orchards in Bigfoot territories. Why no shot dead Bigfoots raiding orchards?

- Fall is a critical season for black bears and they commonly acquire most of their annual fat accumulation at this time. Bears may forage up to 20 hours a day during fall, increasing their body weight by 35 percent in preparation for winter.

Yes, bears go into torpor (though bears in coastal areas may not). Does Bigfoot go into torpor too? How does Bigfoot deal with winter?

- Typically, a small proportion of the black bear’s annual diet is made up of animal matter, including insects, mice, voles, ground squirrels, fawns and elk calves, eggs, carrion (animal carcasses), and fish, but their availability varies and is often unpredictable. An occasional bear may take livestock.

Does an occasional Bigfoot take livestock? That gets bears dead.

- Black bears have adequate senses of sight and hearing, but their keen sense of smell and innate curiosity make them skilled scavengers. They consume carrion when they can find it, and are notorious for taking advantage of human irresponsibility with food, garbage, and bird-feeder management.

Bigfoot in the garbage? Bigfoot at the bird-feeder?

- Bears will eat anything that smells appealing and will help them prepare for their long winter sleep.

And Bigfoot?

- Black bears move in response to the seasonal availability of food, roaming constantly throughout their home range.

If a breeding population of Bigfoot were to roam around would this make them more or less likely to be identified?

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/living/bears.htm

 

[Cuddles]

Keep it on topic and cut out the personal attacks and bickering.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles