International Bigfoot Symposium 215
DaytonCIM writes "Yup, that's right the creature that took on Steve Austin (no, not the drunk and bloated pro wrastler, but the REAL Six Million Dollar Man) has legions who gather to debate and discuss his furriness. The International Bigfoot Symposium is going on right now.
SFGate also has a nice article on the grand meeting."
Andre the Giant? (Score:4, Funny)
Now you've made it way too confusing...
Re:Andre the Giant (has a ...)? (Score:2)
Welcome! (Score:5, Funny)
heh (Score:4, Funny)
Best book on the subject (Score:5, Informative)
On the Track of Unknown Animals [google.com] by Bernard Heuvelmans.
Better book (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the more interesting points of Sanderson's study was a large number of footprint-cast illustrations. One of th
Big foot is about as real as (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Big foot is about as real as (Score:5, Informative)
There are actually lots of female nerds; we're just not Sports Illustrated models (though some of us are cute). And, of course, most of us are taken...
Re:Big foot is about as real as (Score:2)
She says the difference between nerds and geeks are that geeks get laid.
Hmm..
Re:You must not be satisfying her (Score:2)
although between hanging with me and her school schedule she doesn't have time to be available really. lol
Re:Big foot is about as real as (Score:2)
Almost Forgot Another One (Score:2)
-Lucas
Re:sounds like Asia Carrerra (Score:2)
The girl I'm talking about was a stripper, but is no longer.
-Lucas
Re:Big foot is about as real as (Score:2)
lucas(at)lucas(dot)org
-Lucas
Somebody sure's having a good weekend (Score:5, Funny)
If only the /. editors had posted this before the weekend, I could've presented my research on big feet at the conference. :(
simpsons reference (Score:4, Funny)
It's the episode where the simpsons get stuck in the woods and towards the end, Homer is mistaken for Bigfoot. Here's the SNPP link. [snpp.com]
"This specimen is either a below-average human being or a brilliant beast.
"
- German Scientist discussing Homer
Re:simpsons reference (Score:2)
Re:simpsons reference (Score:2)
Bears are omnivores
</nitpick>
um.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:um.... (Score:2)
are YOU going to pay for it ? will YOU spend the time to convince funders to fund such a thing ?
welcome to the world of cryptozoology.
Re:Kryptozoology (Score:2)
I mean this:
http://cryptozoology.freeservers.com/success.ht
Re:um.... (Score:2)
Maybe they have been kept out of sight working in the labs that have perfected cold fusion.
Wouldn't it be a shame... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Wouldn't it be a shame... (Score:3, Funny)
>
Bigfoot is extinct? This strange furry couch I bought at the garage sale may be worth more than I thought!
Data Mining For Bigfoot (Score:3, Funny)
People over ten feet tall AND
who pay more than $20,000/year for Brazilian waxes AND
who request penis REDUCTION surgery
Obligatory Penny Arcade post (Score:3, Funny)
Bigfoot, 100% Efficient Solar PV, and Cold Fusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Just Six Million? (Score:2)
Funny how times change. Six million dollars today was 1/50th of the error margin in the Enron scandal. Imagine if such technology were available today -- Bill Gates could buy himself both bionic legs, and *both* bionic arms. He could attach it to a bionic torso, leaving only his head organic.
Then the Slashdot icon would be almost correct. Bill Gates, the Borg.
What a scary thought.
Talk about an unconquerable evil.
Re:Just Six Million? (Score:3, Funny)
Bill Gates could buy himself both bionic legs, and *both* bionic arms. He could attach it to a bionic torso, leaving only his head organic.
Killer Robots Storm Home of Bill Gates' Childhood Bully
SEATTLE, WA -- Walter Conrad, a 46-year old sporting-goods retail manager, was assaulted in his home by an army of killer Microsoft robots yesterday.
Conrad, who had tormented and teased Microsoft CEO Bill Gates when the two were in junior high school together, suffered minor injuries in the attack. He sustaine
I think this sums up the article... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's just about all there is to it.
Various kooks (Score:5, Interesting)
Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World [amazon.com] is an interesting investigation of the entire phenomenon.
It is a terribly complex mental exercise to absorb all of the information in modern life and make intelligent decisions. The fact is that there are far too many claims to investigate for anybody to examine all of them with the necessary care. So we have to rely on the consensus of experts to make decisions. And the organizations necessary for consensus have the same flaws as all human hierarchal bodies.
Here are some of the various brands of kooky ideas that I have come across:
The AIDS Myth [virusmyth.net] The medical analysis is surprisingly deep. A lot of qualified people have weighed in on this idea.
Carbohydrates not calories [ourcivilisation.com]. They claim that our genes are still adapting to the modern high-carbohydrate diet, and that is why so many of us are so fat. (Enter Atkins.)
Democracy is not good government [ourcivilisation.com]
Global Warming [ourcivilisation.com]. Discussed on Slashdot a number of times
Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare [sobran.com] Joe Sobran thinks that the Earl of Oxford wrote everything attributed to Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon.
Race and IQ [ssc.uwo.ca] Probably true, but kooky nonetheless.
Multiregional Evolution [umich.edu] You can find most of Wolpoff's papers that are cited here somewhere online. I recommend "Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution" and "Modern Human Ancestry at the Peripheries: A Test of the Replacement Theory." Wolpoff is kooky because there are very few anthropoligists left who will side with the Multiregional theory over the Out of Africa theory. (Wolpoff technically supports an Out of Africa theory, but that is how everyone refers to the debate.)
And here is one that I will actually advocate: Bohmian Mechanics [rutgers.edu] It is about as kooky as you can get for a physicist, but I am convinced that it beats QM on the merits.
Re:Various kooks (Score:2)
Re:Plato is a kook? (Score:2)
I won't comment on all your statements here as I would no doubt get flamed, but it is nothing new to suggest democracy is a flawed governmental system. Would you call Plato's Republic "kooky" because it makes the very same claim? Ahh yes, I should trust Carl Sagan, and completely ignore one of the greatest minds to have lived in the last 2500 years. Irrespective of your personal views on the merits
Re:Plato is a kook? (Score:2)
(I want to point out, however, that my kook list is not from Sagan. I do not know of anything that he has written on Democracy or Plato.)
Exception to 'carbo not fat' (Score:2)
We burn the fat we get with a food quickly. We store the carbohydrates as a fat, and burn it afterwords. If we have very low fat high carbo diet, we burn carbo albeit at a lower rate than fat. If we get a mix of fat and carbo (like ice cream), we most certainly burn the fat part and store the carbo part That's the bottom line. I know it quite well, from my own experience. I have a very low methabolism rate, yet this is reduction of carbos in
Re:Exception to 'carbo not fat' (Score:2)
Re:Various kooks (Score:3, Funny)
That first one, the HIV->AIDS deniers, is scary in a funny way. I've always figured the best way to get rid of the people who offer awards for "proof" that HIV exists [virusmyth.net] is to offer them $50 to sleep with someone who tests HIV positive.
It would be interesting to concoct a related reward for "proof" that Bigfoot exists; although I'm not so sure about the counter-offer, money for sleeping with a sasquatch.
bigfoot is probably... (Score:3, Funny)
Pedal extremity envy (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Pedal extremity envy (Score:2)
CLARIFICATION OF STORY (Score:2, Funny)
Non-existent critters? (Score:2, Interesting)
Our local newspaper published that there are no chipmunks in our county. I called a reporter out to see and photograph the chipmunks on our property in said county.
(Unfortunately, a couple of months after that, our 3 cats wiped out the entire population. We buried their little celebrity bodies with full honors. True story.)
My point is, it's virtually impossible to prove non-existence -- trivial to prove existence.
Re:Non-existent critters? (Score:2)
Sure, but it's a 7-foot tall primate is a lot easier to notice then a chipmunk, but so far no one has managed to call a reporter out to see and photograph the bigfeet.
Re:Easy to prove non-existence (Score:2)
whoa. That's deep, dude. Please enlighten us more with specific circumstances where it is possible to prove the non-existence of an animal in a territory as large as North America.
Re:Easy to prove non-existence (Score:2)
This is the same logic applied to God. No one can disprove the existence of God. There may be a God somewhere, someplace. In fact, there may be Santa Claus hanging out in the North Pole. Do you have video cameras setup everywher
Re:Easy to prove non-existence (Score:3, Interesting)
At the same time period, Homo Sapiens crossed the land bridge from Asia, as did thousands of other species. Many primate anthropologists agree that is very possible that the Gigantopithecus made it to North America, and some say that it's almost unlikely that
It must be real because "real scientists" say so. (Score:2)
Having a theory about why something could have happened is worthless.
There are no creatures that have been captured nor are there any skeletons of such. Despite all of the searching for such. Despite all of the technology used in the searching for such.
All of the theories about bigfoot lack one critical element. The explanation of why none have been captured or their skeletons found.
Until one is captured or a skeleton found, those the
Re:It must be real because "real scientists" say s (Score:4, Insightful)
there are MANY species of animals, who have been discovered, by cryptozoologists, just in the past 100 years, and their existence was suspected many years before the evidence was 'captured' or skeletal remains were found. Let me know if you'd like for me to cite examples.
as to your questions about "why none have been captured" is basically a question of funding. There's a reason why no one has done a full, high-resolution sonar scan of LochNess, too. it's because for an issue so wrought with hoaxes, no one in their right mind would fund such an expensive venture.
"nor are there any skeletons of such. Despite all of the searching for such."
yeah ? by who ? WHO has done all this searching ?
the people at this conference, whose budgets are made in their spare time because their universities won't fund the searches ? the fact is, NO major search for evidence has EVER taken place, because of opinions like yours.
"Having a theory about why something could have happened is worthless."
I'm sure that Historians, Anthropologists, and Paleontologists would love to hear your theories on that, as would the governments and universities who put money into all of those pursuits.
I like those examples. (Score:2)
So, you claim it is a matter of funding.
Yet the examples you've given where real creatures have been found have been accomplished with far less funding simply by using far better science.
As for your question of "WHO" has done the searching, please check the records pertaining to Tom Swift, millionaire, who financed several searches for un
Re:I like those examples. (Score:3, Informative)
New species are found quite often, and many of those species start with anecdotal evidence, not skeletal remains happened upon by accident.
some cryptozoological successes:
-Acionyx rex, a giant cheetah, in 1873
-Tratratratra, a giant lemur, in t
So there was funding, but you say not enough. (Score:2)
You are now comparing the budgets for setting up a base camp in the Antarctic to searching the forests in the Pacific Northwest? Of course there will be a difference. You can take a train to the forest, you have to charter a plane to the Antarctic.
You also skip over the species that Mr. Swift did manage to find, with his less t
Re:I like those examples. (Score:2)
Oh, do go on. Discoveries in the 1800's aren't very interesting, though, as communications and travel were nothing compared to today. After all, sequoias weren't discoved until the mid-1800's, and they are 200 feet tall and don't run around hiding. So stick to the late twentieth century.
Now lets look at
Re:So there was funding, but you say not enough. (Score:3)
Re:So there was funding, but you say not enough. (Score:2)
Re:It must be real because "real scientists" say s (Score:2)
Re:It must be real because "real scientists" say s (Score:2)
"faith"? (Score:2)
I suppose nuclear power is "faith" to you?
Or lunar landings?
But the belief that large animals can exist in regions of the lower 48 states without leaving any physical evidence is "science" to you?
Re:"faith"? (Score:3, Interesting)
let's be clear, shall we ?
1 - I never said I believed in bigfoot. That's your assumption. Neither about the loch ness monster.
2 - yes, ironically, it's exactly 'faith' is what sub-atomics is based on, at its lowermost level.
3 - 'science' in the 1600s brought us to think that Newton's Laws were the de-facto, universal models on which mechanistic principles rely on. We now believe MUCH differently, when it comes to, well, things like nuclear power. The fact of the matter
Re:"sub-atomics" is not based on faith. (Score:2)
I think you might be confused about what I'm saying.
I'm not "off talking about "God", I'm responding to YOUR comment on the scientific method, which is flawed. I.E. you started the 'scientific method' thread, here. Take a hint and read some Fritjof Capra, Wade Rowland, John Polkinghorne, or even Richard Feynman. It is faith that you rely on when yo
No, we detect interactions. (Score:2)
We have detected interactions that do not fit the previous theory. These interactions seem to involve particles smaller than electrons, protons and neutrons.
These measurements can be verified by different people, at different locations.
There is no "faith" in that.
"But we still believe them to exist."
Yes, in the way that people "believe" the sun to exist.
"It is faith that you rely on when you believe in reproducability."
What is ther
Re:No, we detect interactions. (Score:2)
I can see the sun. Can you see quarks ? With any amount of equipment ? No.
The comment about reproducability and faith has to do with the certainty with which something will continue to be proven through reproducability. Meaning, you believe in a certain outcome, because it has had that certain outcome in the past, and for no other reason.
I get it: you don't believe that bigfoot exists.
"You are confusing the cryptozoologists with the bigfoot f
But they are "amateur scientists". (Score:2)
Again with the "appeal to authority". But you're wrong. The majority of the people listed are not scientists. Shall I list them for you? The is one biologist, one zoologist and one professor of anthropology. The rest are nobodies. Fans. Believers.
Mr. Dmitri Bayanov, Author, Hominology Investigator si
Here's a surprise (Score:2)
Originally, Dr. Jane Goodall had committed to filling this slot, however, the museum was informed last week by Nona Gandelman, the VP/Director of Communications for the Jane Goodall Institute, that Dr. Goodall must meet with high-level officials from the Congo in September in an effort to preserve for
/. Icon (Score:4, Funny)
Monty Python-related news (Score:2)
Spamelot(!), The Broadway Musical [dailyllama.com]
Eric Idle's "The Greedy Bastard Tour" [pythonline.com]
Thrown rocks, therefore bigfoot? (Score:2)
Yeah, no human would throw rocks like that.
(When's there's something strange, in your forest glade, Who ya gonna call?)
My Favorite Bigfoot (Score:2, Insightful)
One reviewer here [simplest-shop.com] calls it the "Best Movie Ever Made" but I think that's a stretch...
What goes in must come out... (Score:2)
It would be better if one could find skeletal remains as well - It's unlikely
big foot (Score:3, Funny)
If We Really Want To Find Bigfoot (Score:2)
We should get the military involved. We could use some of the same technology they used to track down Osama bin... oh... nevermind.
BFRO.net (Score:2)
They maintain a very well organized and qualified sightings database, many of which have been followed up on by BFRO staff.
I found the site because I was looking for some explanation of my own experience.
They address many common misconceptions and questions surrounding bigfoot such as:
"What is a bigfoot, or sasquatch?
Where is the physical evidence?
Why aren't there more photos?
How many are there?
Are they
About 99% Of These Posts (Score:2)
One moron wants to "thoroughly comb" the woods. This idiot has never been in ANY woods, let alone the Pacific Northwest, the Chiapas province, or anywhere else where the territory is seriously rugged. Nor does he have any experience, as the late Ivan Sanderson had, in animal collecting. Sanderson once pointed out that animal collectors do not "comb" an area for their collections, and that no one has yet used animal collecting technigues to get close t
Original Hoaxers (Score:3, Interesting)
When I was a young boy growing up on the Oregon coast, I personally met and chatted with one of the two guys whose hoax could be credited with starting the whole Bigfoot scare. Their "Bigfoot tracks" were the first to make the papers, and were the subject of investigation by many "qualified" anthropologists, etc., who pronounced them genuine.
They later were implicated in the hoax and confessed. Apparently, it all happened just like you'd expect. They cut giant feet out of plywood, strapped them to their shoes, and went clomping around (in the snow? don't recall), then brought their friend to see the tracks they'd "found", as a gag. When the friend got the papers to come look at the tracks, they decided they might get in trouble if they confessed, so they hid the plywood feet and kept mum. They thought the anthropologists were hilarious.
Let me reiterate. They eventually confessed. Freely. In the newspaper. To this day, some folks still believe those tracks were real.
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:2)
Further, the evidence is pretty damn simple. You produce a native North American non-human primate, dead or alive, and the case is closed.
Your post is incredibly stupid for two reasons. First, it doesn't require a doctorate degree to prove the existence of anything. Either it does or it doesn't. Further, in identifying a new species, forensic inference is not sufficient. And interviews? wtf???
Cheers!
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:2)
Excellent insight, genius. There is no direct observation of subatomic particles existing, either. None. Only observations that support the theory that they exist.
The existence of hoaxes does not make all other claims invalid, especially when those claims are made with REAL evidence that an ape did exist in North America.
Gigantopithecus blacki.
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/00 7 2485949/s tudent_view0/chapter12/
There is very much credible evidence that the giant ap
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:2)
You mean from that one tooth? It's amazing how much some people who consider themselves scientists believe can be inferred from a single large tooth. Not everyone even agrees that Gigantopithecus was a biped. The evidence for it is shaky at best.
There is not one shred of evidence that any giant apes ever lived in North America.
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:3, Informative)
We would all love to find evidence that such a creature was still around, but despite quite a few dedicated expeditions in Nepal and the US, there hasn't been even the slightest bit of real evidence.
The most convin
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:2)
Experience and knowledge such as yours is much better than the 'there was a hoax about so therefore it doesn't exist' logic.
Thank you for posting.
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Loch Ness is an entirely different matter:
Some of the high res sonar footage made there in the 80-es is very suspicious. With the advance of data processing it is quite time to repeat the sonar surveys, but it has such bad publicity that no scientific outfit is willing to sponsor this.
Still, Loch Ness is similar to legends and sightings of something big and unkno
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:2, Interesting)
And given that this thing (if it is a plesiosaur) needs to breath - I would expect a lot more frightened fishermen when it sticks its head out of the water right next to their boat.
Bigfoot and Crop Circles (Score:2)
Re:I hate to say this but... (Score:2)
what truth ? you have truth that bigfoot doesn't exist ? is your 'truth' based on one guy making big feet and a fake video ? what a scientist, you are.
better call those folks and tell them they're wasting their time.
Re:Just like global warming (Score:2)
Re:Just like global warming (Score:2, Informative)
It's people like you who would say something like "I can fly, you know. All I have to do is flap my arms, and I can fly. Now, disprove it!"
Re:Just like global warming (Score:2)
Re:The burden of proof (Score:3, Informative)
The affirmative team (in this case, the person who claims he can fly by flapping his wings) is obligated to provide evidence for his claim. It is then up to the opposite team (in this case, the skeptic) to debunk the claims, one at a time.
A true skeptic never claims "they do not exist", but instead provides examples of why it's highly probable they don't exist. The skeptic
Re:The burden of proof (Score:2)
which is exactly why Cryptozoologists try to stay away from pursuits that have been peppered with hoaxes...because no one will fund them. There is a reason why Loch Ness hasn't undergone a high resolution sonar scan, and it's not because it can't be done.
Re:The burden of proof (Score:2)
Re:The burden of proof (Score:2)
Uhm, you might want to check this out:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3096839.stm [bbc.co.uk]
High-res sonar scans have been done at Loch Ness, they found zilch...
Re:Show me one Cryptozoology success (Score:2)
-Acionyx rex, a giant cheetah, in 1873
-Tratratratra, a giant lemur, in the 1800s
-Chacoan peccary
-Vu Quang ox, an ox with antelope antlers, 1993
-Colossal squid, Antarctica, 2003
and you find more to add to the list, on google.
Almost all of the new species found in the past 100 years have started with anecdotal evidence, not just found by mistake.
Because there has been hoaxes in the past does not mean that any anecdotal evidence is a fake. Like I've sa
Re:Show me one Cryptozoology success (Score:2)
As regards the "ape" issue though, "big foot," at least the North American variety, has to be a Hominid, if real. The descriptions are of a bipedal, upright animal and casts of footprints are consistent with both modern and fossil homind prints - if bigger.
Re:No evidence (Score:2)
Apes did once live in the Americas. That is an undisputed fact.
Here's some help:
"Ape" is a term that is commonly used to describe things like "gorillas", "chimpanzees", and "orangutans".
Re:No evidence of north-american ape (Score:2)
www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/93/7/3016.pdf ?
the evidence exists (and has for many years) of the same species of apes in Asia in the same time period, and along with many other species found both in Asia and North America.
The people at the conference aren't weekend scientists with tinfoil hats, they are people who know a lot more about the subject than you or I.
Cryptozoology has had many many successful discoveries in recent years about species that we have never kno
Re:No evidence (Score:2)
Jimmy Carter (Score:2)
Damn thing is back again! I knew that as soon as we booked Jimmy Carter [straightdope.com] as a keynote speaker, ol' Bunnicula be attracted to the event.
Re:Didn't they hear that Bigfoot was a fake? (Score:2)
Re:WHY? (Score:2)
people have also faked discoveries of cold fusion, too, but yet they keep trying. maybe someone (you, maybe) should tell them that once someone tried to fake something, then that makes it impossible.