Have you ever come across something in the woods that makes you stop and think, "Wow..How in the world?" As your mind tries to solve the puzzle. I have and this is the reason for this blog. I am fascinated by some of the structures I have come across while seeking out answers to the age old question, "Do Sasquatch exist?"

In the past few years I have heard and seen some strange things while venturing deep into the woods which only adds to my curiosity and fuels my need to learn more.

Just for the record...I am not saying that every weird or unexplained structure out there is evidence that bigfoot exist. But if they do exist and they are creating some of these structures, it provides an interesting look into their behavior. In this blog I will be sharing photos of structures that I have come across and have found interesting. I invite you to share photos of your own and comments.

Posted photographs



I welcome comments from followers or readers regarding any post or photograph. The whole reason for this blog is to get outside views and theories. To send photos use the email address provided in the "About me" section.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

My Rant against Radford!


      This morning while searching for recent bigfoot news I happened upon an article which provided a link to Discovery.com news with the following article by Sarah Goforth.   “ 10 reasons why bigfoot’s a bust

        What bothers me is that Benjamin Radford is a known skeptic but his skepticism seems to be based on personal belief rather than science and what science does not have seems to be proof to him that bigfoot does not exist.  He also seems to ignore more compelling evidence and only focuses on weak or fake evidence.  I’ve watched him on television as well and he reminds me of that person who stands there arguing his point but when something is brought up that he can’t refute he closes his eyes and covers his ears.  
         In science, lack of evidence does not mean that it is proof of its non-existence nor does it prove its existence.  Until a body is found, skeptics and believers will be going round and round arguing their points and after reading Radford’s 10 reasons why bigfoot’s a bust…. I had to chime in and join the merry go round!

If you care to check it out yourself here is the link. http://news.discovery.com/animals/bigfoot-bust-reasons-photos-111012.html          

Below is the article with my thoughts.  (Following Bradford’s quotes are my thoughts.  (These are only my thoughts and opinions.  I am not a scientist or for that matter an experienced researcher.)

Discovery news contacted Benjamin Radford who lists his top 10 reasons why bigfoot is bogus.  After reading what he had to say I felt compelled to respond to some of his reasons which in my book hold no water.   

Here is Benjamin’s first reason:
Quote:

"There's no fossil record of anything fitting the description" of Bigfoot, said Radford. "There's simply nothing there."------------------------------
     Okay Benjamin that is a valid point but it does not prove bigfoot’s non existence.   I’d like to respond to this by asking, How many paleontologists set up dig sites deep within the purposed habitat of bigfoots?  In what is now China and Southeast Asia  Professor Gustav von Koenigswald had purchased some fossilized teeth being sold by a druggist stating they were dragons teeth which held a medicinal purpose. Had the teeth and jaw bones of Gigantopithecus not been found one can only assume that the stories associated with Gigantopithecus would have fallen in beside stories and tales of bigfoot and passed on as just that..stories because prior to discovering the fossils they did not exist.

Radford’s Next Reason:
Quote:
“Putting aside paleontology, Radford points out that today, if Bigfoot exists, it must disappear when it dies. "There's no hard evidence in the form of bones. There are no hair samples, there are no live or dead specimens," he said.

       Now I haven’t heard believers of bigfoot discuss acidic soil as to the reason why bones are not found.  I have heard that bigfoots bury their dead.  Now I am not certain of this because truth be told no one knows for fact that they do this.  I do know that there is an estimated 600,000 black bears in North America  which is about 100x the estimated bigfoot population in North America.  Now with that in mind how many people run across bear remains while out hiking deep in the forest.  There is an estimated 23-40 million deer in North America… and just like bear remains, it’s difficult to find the remains of deer while in the forest.  I’m not saying it doesn’t happen but you have to take in consideration of population numbers and also the fact that both the deer and the bear are hunted by humans.  Let’s not forget that deer are also prey to other wild animals.  The chances of finding deer remains in the woods should be 100x greater if not more.  As long as I am on the subject.. How many wolf or coyote remains are found?   And I’m not including road kills. 

Radford’s third reason:
Quote:
" it takes a decent population size to maintain a species. "If Bigfoot is a zoological reality," said Radford, "there has to be a breeding population."
For that population to be big enough to account for even a fraction of the sightings, there would need to be tens of thousands of the creatures in North America alone.
          Okay.. I thought about it and I think a person needs to step out of the box a little on this one.   Let’s say for a moment that what bigfoot researchers are saying is correct, that bigfoots are capable of critical thinking.  If this is true this would explain why they don’t get hit by cars.  Crossing the road would not be like that of other animals who run or walk across without the ability to connect the road to the presence of cars and that crossing it could be dangerous.
Now if they do have critical thinking abilities then I’m sure they are smart enough to avoid humans.  Now if you view them in a zoological stand point I believe that the questions asked are indeed worth pondering and have validity.  Once you view them in a more humanistic standpoint it kind of changes how those questions are answered.  A “good” researcher is going to ask these very questions and I’m sure that a lot of the information out there on bigfoots has been compiled with careful thought and consideration which is the best that can be done at this time.  For those that believe, theory is all they have but foundation of the majority of discoveries are based on theory.  You have to start somewhere right?
          Okay back to the question “Where are they?”  Well for hundreds of years people have been reporting sightings all over the world, the Natives and indigenous people have drawings and tell of stories.  There are thousands of reported sightings going back hundreds of years and probably hundreds and thousands of sightings that go unreported.  So in response to that question… Besides Hawaii, “Where aren’t they?” 
Keep in mind that stories and sightings of the mountain gorilla were considered a mythical tale by people until their “scientific” discovery in 1902. 

Radford’s reason four:
Quote:
“The majority of "evidence" for Bigfoot, says Radford, consists of eyewitness accounts. Yet as psychologists and schooled juries know, such accounts are famously inaccurate.
What's more, says Radford, "the problem is, that's not evidence, it's an anecdote...
        Yes, I agree that eyewitness accounts are inaccurate especially when fear is added to the equation.  As humans we tend to exaggerate when faced with fear because our senses are heightened and our response is fight or flight and not to gather exact details.  If out in the woods you come across a bear our memory of it is fear based so of course it’s going to be huge with large snarling teeth… but we do know it’s a bear and we don’t have to be expert hunters to know this.  We are also able to process “normal” bear behavior like standing up on two legs and being able to stiffly walk about but when it runs it will drop down to all fours.   A good majority of the sightings reported don’t add up to your typical wild life. And you’re right… it shouldn’t be dismissed.
Though I agree it’s not evidence it does give us reason to consider the possibilities.  The absence of evidence is not evidence of their non existence.

 Radford’s fifth reason:
Quote:

Aside from eyewitness reports, blurry images like this are what most Bigfoot believers rely on.”
But it's no proof, said Radford: "These photos show something that is probably alive, it's probably dark, it's not a cat, it's not a camel. It could be a Bigfoot, or it could be a deer or it could be a guy in a suit."
         To view the picture that Radford talks about you can follow the link provided at the top of this page.  I am choosing not to display it as it’s a very poor picture and I feel unfairly used to prove a point.   I find it insulting that anyone believes that we rely on pictures like this.  Radford has created so many tiny boxes for himself that he can’t seem to take in the bigger picture.   I’m sure he doesn’t realize that it takes much much more than this to drive those of us who believe in the possibility of its existence.  I mean come on, seriously??  I can’t imagine one single person spending so much time, energy and money to discover the truth from a photograph like this.   What I will agree with is that it’s a two dimensional image… pixels as Radford puts it. 

Radford’s sixth reason:
Quote:
“For Radford and other skeptics, the only acceptable standard of proof is the scientific one. Why, when there are countless researchers probing the far corners of every continent, is there no rigorous, documented, peer-reviewed evidence for Bigfoot? Only one answer makes sense, says Radford: Bigfoot isn't real.

      Scientific evidence!   This is the problem.  In order to have scientific evidence there needs to be a body according to scientists.  Without a body we cannot compare DNA or hair and tissue samples.  There is nothing at this time to compare what has been collected.  To say for certain that DNA found is that of a bigfoot you MUST have bigfoot DNA to reference it to.  I myself am not for killing one just to prove that they exist.
       To say there is no rigorous documented peer reviewed evidence and that the reason for such is because bigfoot does not exist to me seems a bit closed minded refusing to see what is actually out there as far as research.   There are some academic scientists researching the possible existence but not without a cost to their scientific reputations.  Those that do research openly do so at great cost.     The problem with most scientists is that everything has to be black or white or should be able to be proven by the scientific method.  The problem with using the scientific method on something that is living and has thought processes is that you cannot control the variables.   If not for scientists who were able to see beyond the realm of what was/is known (thinking outside the box so to speak) would we have space travel or even flight for that matter?  How about electricity, phones, computers?  Do I even need to mention Einstein and what he brought to science?   Every invention and a majority of discoveries begin with just a theory and no proof.
       The majority of evidence collected is yes, quite frankly anecdotal.   Which reminds me of what Thom Powell stated in his book “The Locals”, Quote; “There is so much secondary or anecdotal bigfoot evidence that if a bigfoot were being tried for a capital crime, he would get the electric chair.”

Radford’s seventh reason:
Quote:
“Speaking of science, Bigfoot believers sometimes complain that funding for Sasquatch Studies is hard to find. But scientists are notoriously good note-takers
Consider this league of biologists scouting for the elusive ivory-billed woodbecker in Arkansas'
"They were well-equipped, well-funded and made a sustained search," noted Radford. "What I found interesting was, what didn't they find? They didn't find Bigfoot."-------------
         Bigfoot research funding comes mostly if not entirely from private sources so yes, funding for sasquatch studies is hard to come by. 
         What “I” find interesting is that Radford finds it interesting that a well equipped, well funded hardcore investigation didn’t find bigfoot.   What kind of statement is that and what does it prove?           Does it mean that if that investigating team didn’t see any bears that it somehow proves bears don’t exist?   If you use that as an argument then one could use Native Americans as an argument to prove that they exist.  They have lived on the land for hundreds and thousands of years…. I’m pretty sure that would make them more of an expert as far as research goes.  They were more familiar with the land and knew what animals existed.  The difference is that their evidence was passed on as stories and through rock paintings only to become more of a mythical being/creature as time passed.  Which I believe was due to how they described them.  Their descriptions of bigfoot were other worldly…. Or paranormal if you will making it easier for others to view it as just story telling. 

Radford’s eighth reason:
Quote:
Dozens of new species, previously unknown to science, are discovered each year. But for the most part, they are tiny. Could Bigfoot really hide in such a peopled world?
"The last large animal to be found was probably the giant panda, and that was 100 years ago," said Radford.
       Again, what does this prove?  Absolutely nothing and to use this as proof that they don’t exist seems a bit childish and unscientific. 

 Radford’s ninth reason: Hoaxes
           Again the photo being discussed can be viewed through the link at the top of page.   Yes, Mr. Radford!  Something is wrong and I am so glad you brought up hoaxing.   I think of hoaxing as a virus which poisons the ability of intelligent people who take their research serious to be viewed as serious researchers.  I truly believe that it’s skeptics like you who spread that viral poison making you no better than the hoaxer.  You add fuel to the fire.  Now I believe that everyone should have some skepticism especially when it comes to research because it keeps the research honest.  One cannot assume that every hair sample, scat sample, or noise in the forest is bigfoot related.  One cannot simply believe every photo, video or personal account is genuine or true.  If you approach your research this way you’re going to be in for a rude awakening.   I truly believe that in this field you have to look at any evidence you gather and rationally explain it.  In the case of the blobsquatch photo… it’s too dark, too pixilated to prove or disprove. It has too many variables and should be tossed out.   Your so called hair sample… tossed out because it was proven to be a fiber.  Now had it been a hair sample that could not be matched with another species or comparable DNA.. that’s a keeper.  Why? Because it’s unknown.  It’s “potential” bigfoot evidence.  Notice I did not say it WAS bigfoot evidence.  Big difference.
           The damage one hoax does to the field cannot be measured.  For example:  Someone says they found tracks and has made a plaster cast to a large number of people. Now a majority of those people will recall the story of Ray Wallace, roll their eyes and say someone put on fake feet.  To those people every print found and casted will be hoaxes.  Do I even need to mention all the hub bub about the Patterson Gimlin film?   People are afraid to report sightings or experiences out of fear becoming a laughing stock.  When news hits the television you can’t help but notice the tongue and cheek attitude the news anchors take.  When everyday people with normal typical jobs will not discuss bigfoot for fear of ridicule, how do you expect anyone in the scientific community to come forward with their theories or beliefs?  They have a lot more at stake.  I give huge props to Jeff Meldrum and Grover Krantz  for their research contributions.  In my mind they are "REAL" scientists because they have an ability to see the possibilities, that the world we live in is neither black nor white.  There is a lot of grey area……… it is in this grey area that discoveries are made.
         What about your ruddy hair sample example?  What about it?  It’s one sample!  Did you talk to other scientists about other samples that have been collected?  Actual hair samples… not synthetic fibers?  I am wondering if you just choose to discuss evidence that can be explained away as proof that is not bigfoot related.  Why not discuss the things that can’t be explained or disproven?  What about those samples that have been analyzed for DNA but have no match?  Of course you can’t discuss these because it would mean that it’s something other than DNA profiles that we know exist and that would mean the possibility that there is another undiscovered species.  
So what do we have left for evidence?  Hoaxes or inconclusiveness and like I stated above, without a body there is no conclusive evidence.   Isn’t science the study and discovery of things?  Prior to discovery of anything there is either no evidence or inconclusive evidence.  Does that mean there is something wrong with science or the scientists?  Or does it mean there is nothing at all to discover?

And finally Radford’s tenth reason:

Foot prints meaningless scientifically.....Authentic or not???  No standard to measure them by?

            Okay, let me get this straight.  So you’re saying that an authentic bigfoot print or cast is meaningless scientifically because there is no standard to measure them by?  True there is no standard to measure them by but that does not make them scientifically meaningless.   I am sure Meldrum would have something to say about that and his opinion would greatly differ.   In matter of fact… I’m quite sure he has and he does have a differing opinion.   I also want to say that through the hundreds of plaster casts made AND studied, a “standard” has been made.   I really think that every skeptic should have to educate his or herself on the subject before using that subject to prove a point.   Again science was not founded on the already discovered.   Before discovery there is no “standard” to measure whatever they are trying to discover by.  When the first atom was discovered did it not exist because there was no standard to measure it by?   Imagine having heard the theory of an atom back in the late 1700’s?  I can just hear what the skeptics thought... In your words… “At best, a shot in the dark.”  






Sunday, October 2, 2011

Bigfoot photos from Russia?

Courtesy of Cryptomundo.    Comments are welcome.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/russian-bigfoot-photographed/