Study Introduces New Scientific Debate Regarding Bigfoot's Existence
Editor’s Note: This is a guest post by Bigfoot Chicks, Melissa Adair. As serious researchers, the Bigfoot Chicks are commited to seeking the truth regarding the Bigfoot mystery. Assuming that Bigfoots exist, they want to help ensure their surival and hope for an opportunity to observe them in their natural habitat. You can visit their blog at bigfootchicks.blogspot.com.
Well, someone did it, and it’s awesome!! They did an amazing job of using a scientific approach to present Bigfoot research to the scientific community through an intense and thorough study of annual rainfall amounts, human population densities, waterways and black bear habitat as they relate to alleged Bigfoot sightings. In other words, based on the scientific data gathered in these areas, the probability of Bigfoot sighting reports being hoaxes or misidentifications are greatly reduced. Applying the findings of this study to our efforts as field researchers could potentially improve our chances of success.
This study, by Daryl Colyer and Alton Higgins, addresses common arguments by skeptics and presents empirical data in such a way as to suggest that a large, ape-like creature could actually exist in the forests of North America. “It should soon become evident to anyone who seriously and objectively delves into and studies the numerous credible sightings that many of the reports themselves are quite compelling. It is difficult to totally dismiss as fabrications all the reports that have accumulated from so many credible witnesses over so many decades.”
“...the essence of the research presented here does not focus on the validity of any individual report, but on the body of reports as a whole in order to ascertain any correlations and patterns that may exist. When one impartially studies the sum total of all the reports it becomes evident that there do indeed seem to be correlations and patterns that could be representative of a living species.”
The study goes on to show how areas with greater rainfall amounts produced more credible sighting reports. The outlying areas that received less rainfall had fewer sighting reports, but reports coming from those areas were often in close proximity to waterways.
Human population density also played a role in the number of sighting reports in a given area.
“...it seems that where human populations increase, reported wood ape sightings decrease. Where human populations decrease, reported ape sightings may increase.”
An in depth look at the habitat and its ability to support large, omnivorous mammals such as the black bear was also a part of the study. The focus was on food availability year round, protection and concealment. “ The study is relevant because there may be a correlation between purported wood ape and suitable black bear habitat. If an area is suitable for a large omnivore such as the black bear, it seems reasonable to posit that it is just as likely to be suitable for a small population of omnivorous wood apes.”
The point is made in the end that these sightings of alleged “Bigfoots” or “Wood Apes” as they refer to them continue to accumulate and show no signs of stopping. “If one chooses to take the reports seriously and the apparent associated ecological patterns, as has been done in this paper, debates regarding the existence of this species are replaced by new issues such as those pertaining to ecology, distribution, behavior, and population densities.”
Bravo, Mr. Colyer and Mr. Higgins!!
To read this study in full, check out the link below.
texasbigfoot.com/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/67-ecological-patterns
True skeptics would not doubt the possibility of bigfoot existing they would just require evidence to comply with certain rules. This article is odd because skepticism is the basis for scientific study of the type referred too herein, . The people who refuse to accept the possibility of bigfoot are not skeptics they are simply opinionated ignorami.
ReplyDeleteIm a skeptic, but IF evidence eventually shows them to be real I have no problem acknowledging and even studying them. But, there are so many Bigfoot skeptics because of the drag-alongs like Dyer, Biscardi, Patterson, Ketchum, Freeman, etc
DeleteSykes' study will be the real catalyst/coffin for this research.....
Timmy you fool why you keep sayin that? Even if Oxford finds no conclusive evidence many of us know that they exist ; )
DeleteI will believe no matter what Ketchum or Sykes find. Call me crazy I guess but I saw the real thing lets just say it left an impression
Exactly, one reason I think this Timmy isn't playing with a full deck but rather an initiated poster here to start debates which is okay, but real no. Anon above's right that witnesses already know the bigfoots exist as do undoubtedly both government and informed park rangers. I love this Chicks quote "Assuming that Bigfoots exist, they want to help ensure their surival and hope for an opportunity to observe them in their natural habitat." First ladies they do exist and the day science comes around too, cool. Secondly, they aren't animals but people so there'll be no intruding to observe them like in a zoo we don't keep people in zoos so why would you want to observe them? This whole field is getting more nuts by the day almost now we have Bigfoot chicks too, what's next dating bureau Bigfoot Dates? They want no part of us that much should be obvious.
DeleteI don't want to sound like a skeptic, but until there is some solid scientific evidence that they exist, it is erronous to call them humans. I get tired of all the theories of bigfoots origin and classification without proof of existance especially calling them human.
DeleteThat isn't really science though. That's starting with a conclusion and working backwards to try and back it up with any convoluted evidence one can scrounge together.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem with Bigfoot is the population requirements to maintain a healthy level of genetic diversity(or MVP), would probably be at least 50 in a local group and 500 in a general area. That seems fairly substantial to have so little physical evidence. Plus with the lower reproductive rate of the Great Apes taken into account.(and the possiblity of lone males and matriarchal family groups) I would think the populations might need to be a bit higher to avoid serious genetic problems like hemophilia and so on.
You mean to say they come up with a hypothesis and then try and gather evidence to find out whether the hypothesis is true or not? So unscientific...
DeleteThere are some species that don't appear to be as impacted by 'low' genetic diversity as others (e.g.,some large mammalian carnivores). I'm not saying this is the case with sasquatch if it exists, but just something to consider.
DeleteYou start with what you have to start with, then try to solve the "who done it" mystery. In the bigfoot case, eye witnesses going back hundreds of years. Now we have footprints requiring 600-800 lbs, unknown primate dermal ridges, mid tarsal foot machanics, astounding videos (PG, Freeman, with more to come.) When the Sykes and Ketchum DNA studies prove that "yep it's out there", we'll look at the "clues" we have now and say perhaps we shouldn't have been so skeptical. Now comes the hard part: we're not smart enough to catch one. Not skilled enough. We have other kinds of smarts and vast resources that may win out in the end, but one on one, we're no match.
DeleteThat's the issue, we're so curious and facinated by another creature that apparently has skills of consciousness that far exceed our own, may have religous and shamanistic implications, and certainly confer upon them a greater ability to survive in the wild, including the ability to avoid/survive encounters with the human predator, whose skills in their own right are quite developed, collectively. This audience is predomanantly populated by the skeptics, though it shouldn't be that way, or I might speculate and hypothesize further about the obviously advanced state of consciousness the sasquatches are gifted with. There are parallels to the yogic sidhas, indian medicine men, aboriginal dreamtimers, and buddhist sages. In the stages of meditation, present awareness, not living inside your head conceptually, is a prerequisite skill. Sasquatches seem to posess this to a degree far beyond most humans. It might take one to "catch" one, at least for now.
I don't see why we should catch one, they aren't even animals that much is for sure so whatever they are - people of some kind probably - we'd better leave them be. Why should we bother them when they don't bother us, most living things our curiosity finds we tend to mess up anyway. So just like we leave rare jungle tribes in peace and respect so we should here, it isn't the sasquatches fault our species came to this land long after they got here.
DeleteThat's a fair question @11:58. (why we should catch one). Probably because we're curious, and could learn a lot from them, and could thusly help preserve them and their habitat. It seems that somebody has been catching somebody, since the dna has been spreading around from hominid to hominid. There is probably no final moral authority on the matter. When somebody asks me "do I eat meat", I always reply "sure if I can catch 'em". I think bigfoot's been doing all the catching though. Why? They're curious too, and it doesn't seem to be a logistical problem for them, like it does humans trying to catch a bigfoot. I don't know that there is a bigfoot "cult" these days, but just an aroused curiosity among the populace, attracting TV viewers, bloggers, etc. This of course brings the whole "money" angle and motivations into the matter, but the primary driver is simple human curiosity. People continue to have sightings, discover prints, take videos on a regular basis. It's not going away, because they're a real species. It's fun stuff, and we as a species want to know and understand, as much as our abilities will allow us. It is in effect a dna battle. Which genes, when activated, are superior? It's a free-for-all and always has been. Plants defending themselves against animals, other plants, bacteria,molds, viruses, bugs, and animals and bugs doing the same. We get to witness and ponder, all the while being right in the middle of it. I'm betting on the bugs.
DeleteScrew those trolls the Bigfoot sluts!
ReplyDeleteScrew those trolls the bigfoot ho's. (Since I was censored Shawn)+
ReplyDeleteOur data is amazing and beautiful. It makes me want to go out and pick pretty flowers for mama Bigfoot, of our Bigfoot family friends.
ReplyDeletePlease do not impersonate Melba. Only ahe knows the true secrets and will never betray us. She even knows the secret braid and stick weave techniques now
DeleteThe main reason Bigfooters are ridiculed: a gal like Bigfoot Chick, making announcements that are so wrong, from the foundation of the study and reliance on a questionable sample of sighting reports to these ridiculous parameters and conclusions.
ReplyDeleteNo science here Bigfoot Chick.
Go educate yourself first, then talk to the public. You are a fool.
Agreed, no credibility! They suck!
DeleteThe problem is this still relies on belief in the thousands of eye witness stories. These cannot be used to support hypothesis. I thought this was some sort of meta analysis so there are some issues but the info on rainfall and population density is interesting. Relying on belief to prove things is not science but at least they are trying to raise the standards a bit. Best way to prove existence is to get doug Scott or some other expert wildlife cameraman to hunt it down like he did with the snow leopard.. If that led to good footage then science would have to get serious about this.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSorry Doug Allan is the wildlife cameraman i would send to get HD vid of Bigfoot. Doug Scott is a mountaineer. Doh.
DeleteHunt it down? Don't you get it that can't be done as history shows. Try and face something well over 8 or 9 feet and human to boot probably then you'll understand why there'll be no success or were none so far.
Delete13,000 sightings? If it exists and some of those sightings are real then bf is not as good at hiding as you seem to be implying. I mean hunt it with a camera.
Deletemake that 12,999. i was part of a inadvertant hoax. a friend put on a gorilla suit and scared the shit of people. who today probably don't know what rocked their world. hehe . i tell you it was so funny i can't help laugh when i think about it. roflmmfao.
DeleteBlasphemy, this comes from Daryl Colyer and Alton Higgins. How dare you question it's authenticity or them. :)
ReplyDeleteBF chicks are LAME, i know of 3 female "researchers" who have been approached about doing a TV show, and all 3 turned them down, i guess the BF chicks aren't on the list, no TV show for you now go home....
ReplyDeleteIf they were really asked then they would not have turned down the offer. They are dumb ho's. And you are a douche for believing their lies.
DeleteNo he's not a douche! He's a dumb f@#$!
DeleteGood old plagiarism and unoriginal thinking. Franzoni in his book “In the Spirit of the Seatco” and previous shared publication “Toward a Resolution of the Bigfoot Phenomenon” covered population density and more.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.henryfranzoni.com/nasirpt.pdf
Strange the citations from their above link Do Not mention either publication. HEY!! but Green gets a mention.
"Icelandic Roads Rerouted Due To Elves"
ReplyDeleteIf folks can use a little bit of their brains, they
will figure out that bigfoots are about as real as
Icelands Elves.
You are wrong. But you'll live a happy mundane life anyway. Sheeple - must think like majority, must be popular, because straying from the herd is s-s-scary.
DeleteHas big brain and uses it everyday. Witness. Not afraid of no ghosts. Or you.
I have been waiting for a study using the enormous data base we have of sightings to make some determinations, be they really scientific or not! The true skeptics may have valid comments, but ignore the immature and idiotic comments of many of the teenage boys who seem to like to make their rude and unenlightened comments on this website!
ReplyDeleteThe Glickman paper(Franzoni) was one of the most scientific papers ever produced in bigfootery.
DeleteLook at the bear's foot. That Cover's most" bigfoot" prints
ReplyDeleteI propose a hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteBigfoot does not exist.
experiment: prove it exist.
i don't think footprints, blurry vids, stick throwing and jeep riding bigfoots count.
conclusion: no proof yet therefore no furry bipedal humanoids walking in the wild.
Amazing issues here. I'm very satisfied to peer your article. Thanks so much and I am taking a look forward to touch you. Will you kindly drop me a mail?
ReplyDeleteMy web site - raspberry ketone diet reviews
My partner and I stumbled over here by a different page
ReplyDeleteand thought I should check things out. I like what I see so now i'm following you. Look forward to looking into your web page again.
my webpage Raspberry Ketone Plus Review
It's a pity you don't have a donate button! I'd definitely donate to this fantastic blog! I suppose for now i'll settle for book-marking and adding
ReplyDeleteyour RSS feed to my Google account. I look forward to brand new updates and will share this blog with my Facebook group.
Chat soon!
Also visit my web blog :: www.macrogolf.com
I visited several sites except the audio feature for audio songs existing at this website is truly
ReplyDeletefabulous.
My webpage - Raspberry Ketones
Informative article, just what I wanted to find.
ReplyDeletehttp://wiki2.nextdoordiscount.com/index.php?title=User:MarleneTN
Check out my page: Raspberry Ketones
Superb blog! Do you have any tips and hints for aspiring
ReplyDeletewriters? I'm hoping to start my own website soon but I'm a little lost on everything.
Would you suggest starting with a free platform like Wordpress or go for a paid
option? There are so many choices out there
that I'm completely confused .. Any suggestions? Thanks a lot!
my web-site - http://www.unluggage.com - -