Talk:Evidence regarding Bigfoot/Archive 1

Note about article's creation
The initial discussions which led to the creation of this article, and contain many points to consider in it's further development, can be found at Talk:Bigfoot. If you are wondering how to contribute to this article, you might want to check there first and see what ideas have been proposed so far. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE: this is now in the archive here, the link mentioned above is defunct since the archive was created. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Clumsy intro
That was me, knocking something up in a hurry. Better than nothing, I suppose... anyway, it looks better now. Totnesmartin 22:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

POV
Quote from the article as of 17 March 2008: As expected, certain individuals have expressed contradictory opinions, but those individuals are, without exception, non-scientist amateurs who have never seen or examined cast in person. For example, non-scientist Ron Schaffner (an appliance maintenance technician in Ohio, and a former BFRO investigator) suggested that the Skookum impression was made by an elk, not because Schaffner had the opportunity to view or examine the cast in person, but rather because he was never sufficiently persuaded to change his initial, unsupported assumption -- an assumption based solely on his limited understanding of the circumstances, and not based the Skookum cast itself.

This needs to be reworked, it so POV it's silly. I tried to fix it but I couldn't without any sources. I don't want to just remove it though, because it states an interesting point. I'd like to see some sources here. Pipatron (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting: "Bigfoot researchers argue that the absence of fossilized evidence is not evidence of fossil absence." (Wiki article)

"There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." (D. Rumsfeld) —Preceding unsigned comment added by C d h (talk • contribs) 23:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there seem to be a few bias problems (going both ways) on this page. The box titled "Pseudoscientific concepts" is a bit dismissive and doesn't seem to have a purpose on the page. I like the part about the skookum cast, but I don't think you can say that all scientists who saw it agree it's real without a citation. Also, the section "Accumulating physical evidence" seems a bit biased. I think it should either be revamped, deleted, or given some citations.Punkrockrunner (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)punkrockrunner

Smell
The thing does smell like a corpse, rotten garbage, wet dog, shit, carrion, rotten eggs, worse, all combined. Why is that not here? Many Bigfoot reports report the offensive odor. 65.173.104.93 (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The supposed smell is not relevant to this page. I don't think even the strongest proponents of a bigfoot would consider a bad smell as evidence. This belongs on Bigfoot. See my response on Talk:Bigfoot. — Fiziker t 18:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fossil Evidence
I put the fossil evidence back in. This is article is about evidence regarding Bigfoot. This should include any evidence for and against its existence. The lack of fossil evidence is one of the lines of evidence that makes Bigfoot unlikely. — Fiziker t  c 00:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. While I understand your point, it seems to me that this article still shouldn't include the section on the absence of fossil evidence.  Absence of evidence for Bigfoot is abundant; so if this is included, it seems that every other observation of lacking evidence that has been made should be included.  These would include the lack of living specimens, the lack of dead specimens (not just fossilized remains but fresh remains, as are found of every actual animal living in North America), the lack of concrete knowledge of such a creature in Pacific Northwestern Native American tradition (i.e. methods of hunting it, utilizing its meat and hide, etc.), the absence of dung, the absence of photographs, the absence of any kind of reasonable evolutionary model that would place a large ape in the Americas, the dearth of historical accounts, etc., etc.  What I'm getting at is that it isn't really feasible to include all the non-evidence for a nonexistent thing.  Thoughts?  ClovisPt (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think many of the things you listed should be mentioned. I think the article should mention that there is no specimen (albeit briefly, once sentence should be enough). I also think that there should be information on how the location makes a great ape living in the Pacific Northwest unlikely. This article should be about exactly what it says: evidence regarding Bigfoot. It is ridiculous to talk at length about such poor evidence and then just add in a few things at the end giving the scientific prospective. Part of what we should be doing to improve this article is to include all information we can about evidence regarding the legend (of course looking at it objectively). — Fiziker t  c 21:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like the issue died, but I think some aspects regarding missing evidence should be noted. For example, the "lack" of fossil evidence is important, but it can also be explained away rather easily.  The "lack" of a body (or parts of one) is also important, but also easily dismissed.  It should also be noted that there is literally missing evidence.  Skull bones which generated much discussion, and were then misplaced, with only the records of their existence remaining.  Stories of bigfoots having been captured or killed, but the whereabouts of their bodies lost to time.  There is even evidence that the Smithsonian has an entire skeleton in its collection, lost . Magic pumpkin (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

False infomation
This might not surprise you but this page has false infomation one of the uncited comments regarding DNA evidence, while I was interested so I chucked it into google to see who the crack pot was that release a study claiming proof of Sasquatch DNA what I found was thats not what the report he release said at all he said there wasn't enough mitocondrial DNA to process which meaning someone either read a propoganda flier on bigfoot that had intentionally false infomation and transfered it here or someone is intentionally corrupting the page, I removed the line but someone is going to have to go over this thing with a toothpick sooner or later or it will drown under the weight of misinfomation. Go figure Bigfoot, people making false claims I never though there could be any connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.167.142 (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

All though I realize there are many who read this page for laughs or to feed their imagination. "Sasquatch" or "Bigfoot" is more widespread then the Pacific Northwest tribes. in fact most "Eastern Woodland" tribes have been telling these stories for generations at powwows after all the tourists leave. My own great grandfather told us how one female with a baby then later a toddler crossed the dirt road by the family cabin every other morning or early evening. As an American Indian and having been on reservations across the U.S. I can tell you that "The People of the Woods" have found a refuge on many American Indian reservations across the United States of America & Native reservations in Canada. Although I haven't seen them myself I have spoke with those living with these gentle beings. There are is an associate Chief of the Seminole who has them walking through his yard on a regular basis. Even though there are readers of this article who find this unbelievable this is something I find very plausible and a reality for many Native persons living away from the activity of the main reservation. Personally I think they have moved more to reservation lands from Florida to Oklahoma to Washington because Indians won't molest them.

Thomas Greywolf Atkins wepunkwteme@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.166.1.3 (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Original Research in DNA Testing Methods
There is some information in the hair, nails, and blood section of the main article which is correct, only in the context of a specific type of genetic species testing. Additionally, the references cited fail to support the statements made. Only in the specific instance of using genetic markers (allel-specific PCR) for species testing are the assertions correct, but in the instance of using a general PCR followed by the sequencing of the mitochondrial DNA the assertions are incorrect. Also, genetic markers exist for multiple levels of taxonomy (see Phylogenetics), and given sufficient genetic material an identification can be made down to the closest known level, which for an unknown species of primate would likely be the Genus. So the statement of "Therefore, a hoaxer could obtain hair from a species that is not native to North America, which would have a high chance of not being included in the set of samples tested against. It would receive the same result as a genuine Bigfoot sample: inconclusive" is only true in the event that the lab doing the testing performs it via genetic markers, and only tests species-specific markers without using any of the Order, Family, or Genus markers first, or using other means to limit the options. This is, of course, related to the quality of the lab, and the amount of money spent. While the statement does present a hypothetical situation which could produce a "mystery" result, it is speculative, and only conditionally correct. I have, given the contributor an opportunity to improve the statements to better convey their point. Magic pumpkin (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As an anecdote, the Searching for Bigfoot group has held in their possession a skinned bear paw (identified through X-ray image), which they have been touting as a bigfoot hand for several years. The company they hired first used a human marker for the PCR, and hit a positive, likely from contamination on the exterior. They then tried a clean sample, and recovered "no DNA", likely due to using a human marker on bear DNA. The "no DNA" result is obviously insane, as the sample is large and in good condition, which aggravated the SFB people. Given the large quantity of available material, why did the lab not go further down the tree? Simple: money. Magic pumpkin (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Another two statements in the section are also moderately to very incorrect; "The DNA tests used on somatic samples give very limited information as there is no known Bigfoot sample to compare it to", and "Even if genuine hair could be found, it would have to be tested against every species of mammal on the planet just to make sure it is not a hoax". Depending on the analysis performed, an authentic bigfoot sample containing recoverable DNA could yield anywhere from "no DNA" to a complete genomic sequence. I believe the point the contributor is attempting to make is that lacking a known genetic sequence, it cannot be conclusively determined whether the DNA is from a new animal, or some type of mutant. Testing against "every known animal" would be unnecessary, as a sufficient sample could easily be narrowed down to the Genus rather quickly. Comparison of the mitochondrial DNA to the established sequences for that Genus would also produce a well determined result. However, if enough genetic material is analyzed, sequenced, and compared, then a pattern might be established. Potentially, the existence of bigfoot could be genetically proven, but not if people keep sending sparse samples to "mom and pop" criminology labs that destroy the samples in the process of testing them against known species. Of course, sequencing is expensive, and cannot be wasted on what are no more than suspicious looking samples of hair or dung, without performing some less expensive test first as a filter. Magic pumpkin (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Body Cast
I don't think the Body Cast portion should be in the area explicitly defined as footprints, but I think it should still be on this page. Does anyone have suggestions on where it should go? 209.237.95.175 (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)