Why We Can’t Rule Out Bigfoot

[Sanguine]

How the null hypothesis keeps the hairy hominid alive.

By Carl Zimmer Illustration by Jeffrey Alan Love August 7, 2014

I recently got an email from an anthropologist commenting on a new report in the Proceedings of the Royal Society. The topic of that report was Bigfoot—or rather, a genetic analysis of hairs that people over the years have claimed belong to a giant, hairy, unidentified primate.

The international collaboration of scientists, led by University of Oxford geneticist Bryan Sykes, found no evidence that the DNA from the hairs belonged to a mysterious primate. Instead, for the most part, it belonged to decidedly unmysterious mammals such as porcupines, raccoons, and cows.

My correspondent summed up his opinion succinctly: “Well, duh.”

This new paper will not go down in history as one of the great scientific studies of all time. It doesn’t change the way we think about the natural world, or about ourselves. But it does illustrate the counterintuitive way that modern science works. ...

http://nautil.us//issue/16/nothingness/why-we-cant-rule-out-bigfoot?mc_cid=5b79fbdab2&mc_eid=e7b647977b

Good piece on process.

[240B]

Does anyone remember a show called, "Finding Bigfoot". LOL! One of the stupidest shows I've ever seen on TV. It lasted an incredible number of seasons, and they never found a damn thing. They never found even a hint of a clue about Bigfoot. But still, they carried on. Every week, season after season, they would go 'squatching' as they called it looking for a myth. The best part was when the characters would fight with each other for seniority. "I've been 'squaching for 15 years! Yah, well I've been squatching for 25 years!" LOL They say this with pride. But if I had been looking for something for 25 years with absolutely no results, I would have to reevaluate my life. LOL But that's just me.

I used to watch a few minutes of it once in a while, just amazed at the stupidity of the show. But, whatever. Obviously some people liked it. I can't imagine why?

[rustynail]

I knew Michell was going to run.

[roamer_1]

Good piece on process.

Yes it is, if it were truthful... It simply tosses aside the evidence in a single paragraph...

I have twice cut sign of sasquatch - not questionable to me at all - Very nice prints in both cases, both being a track (multiple prints) and unmistakable wrt what laid that sign down.

And while I also had an encounter of another kind, which logic infers toward that same existence, it is that sign upon the ground that is insurmountable in and of itself.

There are literally thousands of plaster casts of those prints, showing a wide variety of sizes and ages, to include prints with obvious injury and deformation... Some so very fine as to show the skin ridges in the foot...

Unless someone can explain those thousands of prints, to include the ones I have seen with my very own eyes, it is the hubris of science that refuses what is right before its eyes.

They ARE there, and there really is no question about it.