In the name of science, I will join you on your next expedition to find Big Foot.

lol...

also wtf @ the quiz. i have to give the TIME of my birth :S fucked if i know

So, I have a question:

Have you spent 3 years researching big foot?

Sorry about the time thing, I couldn't get rid of it. But thanks for taking it

and survey answered. Also coming from a HCI background that website had a terrible design

I haven't spent the whole three years researching Bigfoot, but yes I have been researching Bigfoot for three years. I have read pretty much everything out there, watched all the tv shows, and even gone into the field

Which field?

I find this pretty interesting; I've never heard of a HS research project that spans multiple years. What are other people working on?

I was in the Adirondack Mountains. It is a really cool, intense class most people are trying to cure cancer and one of my friends built a robot that finds light

So, are you focusing on Big Foot, or people's perception on Big Foot, or both?

Originally it was just Bigfoot, but I have moved on to whether people's preconceptions are preventing proper analysis of the evidence

I know the time of MY birth. neener neener neener...

Hang on, let me check with my yeti to see if it's OK...

haha

"preconceptions are preventing proper analysis of the evidence"

....


uh.

Given that the last thing I heard was that the people who made the bigfoot film in the 1960s admitted it was a hoax, are you certain that *your* preconceptions are not "preventing proper analysis of the evidence"?

Observer bias is a two way street.

Also, your survey questions are heavily biased.

Example: #6. The question you ask is " Do you think these portrayals treat Bigfoot whimsiacally, that is, as a mythical creature? "

First off, this assumes a positive answer to question #5. Secondly, if you're looking for a non-biased answer, the question should be written something like "Assuming you have been exposed to pop culture references, do the references refer to Bigfoot as an existing phenomenon or as a myth?"


Past that, I think I'm going to keep my opinion to myself. I think it's pretty obvious what side of the question you're on, and I think it's equally obvious that I'm deeply skeptical of most (if not all) things that fall into the paranormal/Cryptozoological category

If you'd like suggestions on making your survey more professional:

Question 1 should be multiple choice, ie:
<9
10-19
20-29
etc
Something like that. People may feel uncomfortable giving their birth date and I doubt you need that specific

Question 2 seems good, but you made want to add PhD/MD as those are common

Question 3-5 seem good.

Question 6 should read "How do you portray Big Foot?" The way you worded it seems leading.

Question 7 seems good.

Question 8 needs an N/A option, for people who entered No to Q7, so people don't get confused.

Questions 9 and 10 should having multiple choices with varying degrees like early questions.

Question 11-13 seem good.

Thank you for the input, I really appreciate it and am going to start on revisions right away.

On the issue of bias, my initial interest in this topic was because whether or not there is an animal out there, something very interesting is going on. But in trying to discuss Bigfoot with people I have had to argue for its existence against people who weren't aware of evidence which I found quite compelling, so I almost convinced myself. I wouldn't call myself a 'believer' or anything though.

Also I am enjoying the responses some people gave to the last question

At first I thought this was a joke....

And then I started researching just to sate my growing curiosity. And it turns out that the evidence for Bigfoot has been around all along! The Scientific community of course has a vested interest in keeping this on the down low, and the information has thus been suppressed. Don't let that keep you from the truth though!

Educate yourself!

I believe my answer consisted mostly of one very long and very irrelevant run-on sentence. You're welcome.

I couldn't edit the live survey very much so I created a new one using the feedback I got, so if anyone else comes along please use this link to take the survey:

http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22AZZCYKEV4

What evidence do you find quite compelling?

The question was posed so here are some links:
http://www.bigfootproject.org/articles/eval_sas_photos.html
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html
http://www.bfro.net/ref/theories/whf/fahrenbacharticle.htm

Before I visit these links, do you *want* a response to this stuff? Despite my words I generally don't go out of my way to attempt to burst what I perceive may be bubbles...

If you could prove to me that all this is ridiculous and there is no way Bigfoot exists I would be thrilled, I could put that into my project

*thats* not possible, whether an entity called 'bigfoot' exists or does not exist - I can examine the sources you've listed, but all that proves is those sources have flaws - assuming they do, of course.

I can't 'prove' that x doesn't exist, I can only state that source y does not give evidence that supports the existence of x

What strat is trying to say is you can't prove a negative. I can't prove that there are no molemen waiting to come up fromunderground and take over the world, but all the evidence indicates that it is highly unlikely.

I am aware that you can't prove a negative, I was suggesting that discrediting all the of evidence would leave a rational person with no reason to think Bigfoot exists, which would be fine with me

Draugnar, clearly your preconceptions are preventing proper analysis of the evidence. If you were to consider the existence of molemen in an objective manner, I think you'd find that there is a lot of compelling evidence. See sources:

www.themolemenarecoming.com
Contains a comprehensive list of drunk hicks that have reported sightings of molemen.
www.molemenchronicles.com
Fuzzy video footage and grainy photos of people in mole costumes.
www.lolcryptozoology.com
Lol cryptozoology! Also contains an authoritative looking and academic seeming paper, complete with graphs, figures, and error bars!

I think I am being mocked, I don't necessarily mind that but I want to be made fun of for the right reasons. My project is specifically looking at whether people believe Bigfoot is a hoax/misidentification/myth because of irrefutable fact or because of the way the issue has been presented by the media. I am trying not to add to the problem but rather to evaluate all the material and make an objective conclusion

I think the point that you're missing, frito, is that there is no 'irrefutable evidence' that Bigfoot doesn't exist. Even if every single piece of evidence for Bigfoot was discredited tomorrow that would not prove it doesn't exist, it just proves those specific pieces of evidence are not credible.

This may sound like I'm splitting hairs, but I consider this to be a very important point. The problem with the way you're presenting your views/questions is that its basically impossible to meet the burden of proof you require.

The other point to keep in mind, assuming the three sources you posted aren't credible, is the old adage that Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence. Occam's razor plays no favorites - if there is a grainy picture that may be a previously undiscovered hominid or a guy in an ape suit, chances are its a guy in an ape suit.

The burden of proof is on the pro-Bigfoot side - while "conventional wisdom" can provide all the excuses an inflexible mind needs to insist the world is flat, that doesn't mean everyone who denies conventional wisdom is *right*.

You make very good points stratagos, but I still feel like the issue could be resolved beyond a shadow of a doubt (either by finding conclusive evidence or disproving the existing evidence- which I realize doesn't 'prove' anything but it would convince me) if the research was conducted by qualified people with sufficient funding as opposed to high school students, amateurs, and fringe theorists. That is why I am trying to raise awareness.

With respect, the research has *been* done - scientists have done their due diligence and moved on to other things. Expecting someone to sit around shooting down new 'evidence' is unrealistic

Ah, so I see where we disagree (with the 'been done' part, the latter half of your statement is admittedly unrealistic). I thank you for the help you have given me, but I am afraid a further discussion of the subject will prove fruitless

Ah frito, such issues can never be resolved beyond a shadow of a doubt. For all I know, molemen might exist, I can never say with 100% certainty that they do not. For practical purposes, I hope that nobody invests time and money into determining whether or not molemen exist, because honestly, within the context of modern biology, it seems extremely unlikely that such a creature would exist, I mean, what would be it's evolutionary heritage

The difference to me, between Bigfoot and molemen, is simply that molemen have not caught on as well in the pop culture perspective. I don't know how the legend of Bigfoot started out, whether it was complete hoax, or simple misidentification of bears, or what have you. In the context of modern biology and evolutionary history, I find it difficult to believe that a creature such as Bigfoot exists, given that great apes have no history in North America. I've also heard something like, a creature of Bigfoot's proportions would have to maintain a much larger breeding population than is suggested by the frequency of sightings. To me, the sad fact is that a lot of serious and even talented people have invested their time, effort, and money into evaluating the existence of Bigfoot when I don't think it has much of a leg up on the existence of molemen.

It is sad that serious, talented people devoted their lives to investigating Bigfoot while being unsupported and ridiculed by the greater scientific community. The armchair skeptics from the very beginning have underestimated the size of the wilderness, underestimated the ability of a hominid species to avoid human detection, and overestimated academia's understanding of the world

You have some strong opinions, frito. Do you have evidence to back up your claims?

You complain that 'serious researchers' are dismissed by the scientific community. Can you give an example? Specifically, how do you define 'serious researcher'? What is your evidence their work has been dismissed? To the best of my knowledge - and I freely admit I hardly keep up to date on this - no credible evidence has been turned up to date. The theoretical size of the wilderness is irrelevant in that case, as the hypothetical 'molemen' have the entire crust of the earth!

You accuse others of bias, but you seem unwilling to accept research that comes to conclusions that would call your thesis into question. But you want money for more research. Which means you want money for research that will give you answers you want to hear.

That's marketing, not science. Science does the research and accepts the answers it finds - it doesn't suppress unpleasant results because the people doing the research have biases.

Whether you want to accept it or not, the scientific community in general has concluded there is no credible evidence for bigfoot. If you want that to change, you need to step up with evidence that will prove your thesis - but the continued acceptance of anything that might possibly support your view without even bothering to analyze the evidence - as many of your peers do - leaves the ball completely in your court.

You claim you want scientists to pay attention to your field? Weed out the obvious false claims and they'll probably be more willing to take a look when you come up with some serious evidence

Regarding your links:

#1 - The first site starts off by warning of how to be aware of faked photos. It then states the Patterson film must be real because it would require a seven foot man in a suit to walk the walk. This assumes any such suit fit like a glove. For criticism of the Patterson film, you can go to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson_film

#2 - This site claims that footprints found are bigfoot prints. It uses as evidence the Patterson film - see above. Given your demonstrated unwillingness to accept facts you dislike I'm not going to do an analysis of all the prints, but many so-called 'Bigfoot' prints have been proven to be frauds. Example:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/lofiversion/index.php/t28007.html

#3 - This is an analysis of possible bigfoot statistics. It is based on the premise that the raw data accurately describes an existing creature. This is *not* a given, and hence the entire analysis rests on a potentially false premise. It's an elegant piece of math, but it presupposes 'facts' that have not been demonstrated.

"The armchair skeptics from the very beginning have underestimated the size of the wilderness, underestimated the ability of a hominid species to avoid human detection, and overestimated academia's understanding of the world"

No credible zoologist would ever say that we have a comprehensive catalogue of the world's species. New species of organisms are being discovered every day. However, that is not to say that our understanding of the world cannot inform us toward the likelihood of existence of certain organisms. While megafauna are certainly still being discovered in the oceans, it is far rarer to do so inland. The theoretical likelihood of Bigfoot's existence considering evolutionary history is akin to the likelihood of the existence of a species of koala living in northern Europe, considering that the evolutionary family that includes koalas evolved after marsupials were displaced from the Eurasian continent by placental mammals.

I'm no expert, but I struggle to see where Bigfoot fits into the North American picture as a hominid. Amateur speculation might lead me to suggest migration over a temporary land bridge in the Bering Strait, but I don't know what the timing would be, before Homo sapiens came over? At the same time? I can tell you that Homo sapiens was quite successful in hunting North American megafauna to extinction.

It seems now I am in a corner I desperately didn't want to be in. I always come off as the stubborn believer somehow. I am not convinced Bigfoot exists. Let's say there is no extant animal species anything like Bigfoot. Why do people claim to see it? How do tracks get there? Whatever the answers it is a fascinating phenomenon whether it is zoological or sociological. That is why I continue and enjoy my research.

And for anyone just noticing this discussion please take the current form of my survey:
http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22AZZCYKEV4

You come across as a believer - at least to me - because you appear to reject the concept that reputable scientists *have* looked into this and have concluded that reasonable evidence does not currently exist.

If you are trying to determine why people do not believe, that's a big part of your answer - people have been given no reason *to* believe. The majority of the 'evidence' to date consists of blurry photos and footprints, a significant chunk of which have been proven to be frauds or misidentification. The logical conclusion, in the absence of something that can be, y'know, *examined*, is that there isn't enough evidence to conclude that something is out there. As stated earlier, the burden of proof is on the believers, not the skeptics - if the believers want to be taken seriously they need to step up.

As for Why People Believe Weird Things, I suggest you read the book by the same name by the late Michael Shermer. Pick up Flim Flam by James Randi while you're at it - he's offering a million bucks to anyone who can demonstrate that paranormal activity is real, and no one has been able to reproduce their 'talents' in controlled settings to date. Fully granting we're talking about two different things, but the evidence level required is just about the same.

And while I think there is a Penn & Teller's Bullshit! Episode on bigfoot, they don't even pretend they're not biased, so from a *scientific* standpoint their show, while highly entertaining, lacka vigor

Shermer's got some great talks on TED:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/michael_shermer_on_believing_strange_things.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/michael_shermer_the_pattern_behind_self_deception.html

I would second looking into James Randi.

Bullsh!t, although entertaining, is not something you'd want to include in any sort of scholarly work.



On a similar note, can you talk more about this class. What sort of feedback do you get throughout the stages? How are you graded? What do you need to produce?