Is Bigfoot in the Process of Becoming Real?

Picture: Patterson-Gimlin photo (C)

Bigfoot research reminds me of string theory. Like string theory, Bigfoot research is all based on inferences drawn from a pretty small data set, and as we observe these inferences, the creature seems to takes on a life of its own.

In many ways, string theory resembles a very esoteric form of philosophy rather than objective empirical science, but it may help make sense of the world. There is an aspect of it that is very creative. In a particular line of thinking, studying string theory is like creating reality. According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, without a mind to observe it, “reality” remains in the realm of possibility as quantum superposition, collapsing into the real by the act of measuring.

Like the wise sage Mitch Hedberg once said “I think Bigfoot is blurry. That’s the problem“, but Bigfoot seems to become more real all the time as our minds have a chance to get our heads around him. There is lots of measuring going on with Bigfoot: For example, the size of the figure in the Patterson-Gimlin Footage has been calculated using computer simulations based on the dimensions of the figure compared to the surrounding rocks and trees. The debates continue. But certain characteristics seem to be collapsing

Like the cosmos, Bigfoot, in the collective imagination is being fleshed out. Let me tell you about them from various things picked up on the internet:

There is a picture emerging from Sasquatch research organizations that is at least very internally consistent. For example, great height and weight is consistent with deep footprints. In such a massive bipedal creature, biomechanical constraints come into play. Weight is distributed very differently than in human beings. Certain predictions can be made from these inferences, that apologist for the Patterson Gimlin film seek to point out as being consistent with the footage.

The Earth itself was at one time formless and void, according to a well known Hebrew creation myth. Since ancient times its been coming into sharper focus everyday. Perhaps some day soon Bigfoot will be every bit as real as such things as Quarks and Higgs boson.

133 Comments on "Is Bigfoot in the Process of Becoming Real?"

  1. Not to mention the recent reports that they have actually analyzed Bigfoot’s DNA and compared it to that of human and apes…

  2. Anarchy Pony | Dec 9, 2012 at 9:42 pm |

    Reminds me of a certain sci fi novel, wherein human perception effects causality, prompting alien species to enclose the Solar system behind a sort of screen. I can’t remember the name.

  3. mannyfurious | Dec 9, 2012 at 9:46 pm |

    Sounds like one of the primary sub-theories of “The Holographic Universe.” It’s a good book. Not too sure how I feel about this aspect of the theory. It’s interesting to think about, that as a speicies we’re literally creating our own reality.

  4. I think one step toward making Sasquatch more real would be to set aside nature preserves for them.

  5. Lets think about minimum population to sustain a species. How many hundreds of individuals do you think that means? Sure, one of them could be hidden in the woods, but whole villages of them? Same for your Loch Ness monster. You can believe in such things if you want, but it is not science, it is religion.

    • If you find possum tracks on a newly laid down side walk what does it imply?

      • VaudeVillain | Dec 9, 2012 at 11:53 pm |

        It implies that a possum walked in the concrete before it dried. Someone probably could, if they were so inclined, fake such tracks… but it strains the imagination to conceive of reasons to do so.

        Possum are common mammals the existence of which is completely uncontroversial. There are countless examples of confirmed specimens both live and dead, wild and captive, and we have a fairly comprehensive knowledge and understanding of their populations and habitats.

        I cannot rule out the possibility that there exists some meaningful comparison between possum and bigfoot, but I for one have no idea what you are trying to say here. Explanation, rather than implication, is quite necessary.

        • Well let me just ask you-Are you able to identify possum tracks from gray squirrel tracks or raccoon tracks for example?

          • VaudeVillain | Dec 10, 2012 at 12:26 am |

            I’m not much of a tracker, but I am fairly familiar with the size of all three… so maybe, it would probably depend on the context (am I comparing three tracks side by side, or looking at one alone?), the quality (concrete imprints are a lot easier to read than, say, dirt scuffs or water prints), what external references I can access (internet access would make it pretty easy…) and the time allotted.

            That said, last I checked, there remains no particular doubt or controversy regarding the existence of raccoon, possum or squirrel.

            What’s your point?

          • David Howe | Dec 10, 2012 at 7:07 am |

            yes, I’d like to know the point of Ted’s question as well.

          • Here is an interesting thought experiment.

            Are there Grizzly Bears in the San Juans? Based on sightings and footprints and hair samples?

            What level of evidence would you require?

          • VaudeVillain | Dec 10, 2012 at 3:50 pm |

            It sounds like there might be, and if there are any left anywhere, it is there. One was found, killed and identified there, and reliable witnesses have found verifiable evidence to suggest it is possible.

            Also, we already know that grizzlies exist, or at the very least used to. The link you provided describes the search for a known, identifiable species suspected to live in a very finite and well-defined geographic region.

            Since you seem to like guessing games, perhaps you can surmise why I believe the two cases to be markedly dissimilar.

          • I hear crickets chirping.

          • Calypso_1 | Dec 10, 2012 at 10:29 am |

            are you able to do differential equations on a topological manifold?

          • No but I bet my dick is bigger than yours and my Father can beat up your Father.

            That wasn’t my point, however that I am cool because I can identify possum tracks. My point is that most people wouldn’t be able to and would think nothing of it. They would think it was “some sort of animal” and leave it at that. Most peoples curiosity would not be piqued at all. Some people would consult a field guide. But most people would remain ignorant and incurious. They just have this default setting that nothing strange ever happens. Its a belief that is not based on investigation on their part, Its a kind of blind trust.

            The point is that if you see enormous humanoid tracks way out in the woods. Its evidence of something and its very alarming to most people. Its happened hundreds of times. The fact that it is alarming is what upsets people. People don’t like the unknown.

            Most people quickly search for a ready explanation so that they can go back to sleepy auto-pilot and back into the world of the known.

          • VaudeVillain | Dec 10, 2012 at 5:18 pm |

            At last! Something resembling an argument!

            If I read you correctly, you believe that because many people are unable to accurately identify the tracks of large mammals, and large vaguely humanoid tracks would be frightening to stumble across, people will either fail to notice the preponderance of bigfoot tracks or willfully misidentify them. Is that correct?

            If so, I would counter by pointing to the numbers of supposed bigfoot tracks which are later identified to belong to other creatures or shown to be hoaxes, the large number of ardent bigfoot “hunters” (I use quotes because, strictly speaking, many have no interest in actually hunting for bigfoot, only in finding one), and the tremendous incentives available to any individual who can definitively prove the existence of such a creature. With so many eyes looking, and so many straining themselves to find this thing, your hypothesis that people just glave it over because it is too psychologically distressing doesn’t seem terribly likely.

          • There are good tracks and sightings from credible people that you choose to discount. I am only curious as to how aware you are that you are doing it.

          • VaudeVillain | Dec 10, 2012 at 7:21 pm |

            Really? Then why aren’t they having their findings authenticated? Is there some grand conspiracy to hide the existence of bigfoot? Is it because Big Pharma is worried about such a discovery leading to breakthrough genetic cures for baldness? Or maybe Big Oil is worried that Big AGW will convince Big Brother that Big Foot is living proof we need to give in to the demands of Big Solar?

            When credible people have genuine evidence for things like major zoological discoveries that would have dramatic ramifications for evolutionary science and would gain them an enormous amount of publicity to put towards whatever their little hearts desire, they shout it from the rooftops and shove it in the faces of everyone who ever doubted them. So where’s the proof?

          • David Howe | Dec 10, 2012 at 7:32 pm |

            why can’t these credible people take clear photographs or movies that don’t look like some hippie in a Yeti costume?

          • David Howe | Dec 10, 2012 at 7:31 pm |

            all i need is a clear photograph, some bones, some DNA, etc.

          • Calypso_1 | Dec 10, 2012 at 10:00 pm |

            Heistman why would a question regarding your knowledge of mathematics involved in string theory make you want to display your penis?

            “Bigfoot research reminds me of string theory.” <– you

          • That’s how you came across to me. I apologize if you weren’t just trying to show off.
            I guess I was being an asshole.I should assume good will. Seems naive for this venue, though. From now on, I won’t have any expectations for having friendly discussions here on topics that interest me. The discussion is just too mean spirited here. Its all about one upsmanship, nasty arguments. Lots of dogmatic skeptics, high fiving each other.

            I don’t intend to rehash the same old debate that these Skeptics specialize in. But they dominate the discussion.

            Its funny that Goodwin got mad at me for getting irritated with Billy the Jean and then her partner in crime, comes on and calls Goodwin a dumb ass. Totally proving my point 100% that he is talking over peoples heads.

          • Calypso_1 | Dec 10, 2012 at 10:45 pm |

            If you would like to read the best lay book on string theory out there I would suggest – The Shape of Inner Space by Shing-Tung Yau. It’s written by the guy who cracked the deep math behind the theories.

            …by the way – I bet I could out track you on them varmints any day (or night).
            ; )

          • I’m still reading Hofstadter. I also have been reading lots of literature, lately. Nabokov, Bukowski, A.B. Yehoshua.

            Do you spend a lot of time in the woods?

            Do you think math is real?

          • Calypso_1 | Dec 11, 2012 at 12:02 am |

            I grew up in the woods, I have lived in the woods, hiked thousands of miles, have extensive SERE training and yes, spend a lot of time in the woods.

            Math | Real

            That perhaps is a loaded question and belies our disparate
            levels of appreciation and knowledge.

            Math has room for the real, the irrational, the imaginary,

            the transcendental, the hyperreal, the surreal, the empty,
            infinities of set size, chaos & crypsis, space, subspace, hyperspace,

            the space between Achilles & the Tortoise and all the here’s between there,
            elsewhere when and wherefore, so be it or not.

          • You must be one bad motherfucker smart too.

          • Calypso_1 | Dec 11, 2012 at 2:07 pm |

            I have a Beast in my head. If I don’t teach it things constantly it gets bored. Bored fast. Then Mr Beast will come out and play. Somebody will get hurt and they will have to put me down.
            Sometimes I fear my intellectual capabilities are not up to meeting the demands
            of Mr. Beasties appetite. Math is a good trip toy for Mr Beast. It rubs his belly and sometimes he shivers & sees pretty things.

          • sounds Like having a pet wolverine. I can relate.
            You probably have blunted dopamine reception in your pre-frontal cortex, leading you to constantly seek novelty and stimulation and wander around in the woods. Or maybe that’s just me. But it sounds familiar.

            David Choe is another good example of this cognitive style. I mean its not good to pigeon hole people and I don’t really like biological determinism. But I think certain people are wired to explore things and others not as much.

          • anyway, I suck at math. If it weren’t for the “Dancing Wu lei masters” and similar books I wouldn’t know shit about physics.

          • Good News! Meth calms the beastie!


            This is why i love Psychiatry! Seriously though, I know people who calm the beastie with Meth. Math is better than Meth.

          • Calypso_1 | Dec 16, 2012 at 5:27 pm |

            Indeed, I have always felt strong attractions to the mustelids.

          • A wolverine came to me in a dream once. I feel like We are kindred spirits. They are nothing like the comic book character in real life though. They mostly like to screw around.

          • marvin nubwaxer | Dec 31, 2012 at 1:29 pm |

            ” . . . biological determinism.” another zinger. pow.

          • VaudeVillain | Dec 11, 2012 at 1:07 am |

            Ted, I hate to break it to you, but in nearly every article where you comment, you are the first to resort to belligerence and personal insults. it appears that your default response to anyone who dares challenge your beliefs, regardless their reasons or tone, is to be a condescending prick.

            Perhaps you see in other posters a tendency toward meanness and insults because, like most people, you assume everyone else to hold your predilections.

          • So what are my beliefs? Since you are so familiar with me.

          • VaudeVillain | Dec 11, 2012 at 9:29 am |

            You seem to tend heavily toward credulity.

            You apparently believe in bigfoot.

            You apparently believe in Burzynski’s cancer-curing urine extract.

            You apparently believe in psi-phenomena.

            If I recall correctly, you believe in various sorts of magic (possibly with a spiffier spelling).

            If I recall correctly, you generally believe in a great many conspiracy theories.

            But the important thing, the thing I WAS ACTUALLY FUCKING TALKING ABOUT, is that you’re a douche about it. I’d find it funny that you decided to exhibit that particular trait in response, but you’re just becoming tedious.

          • I don’;t actually believe in anything. I have experienced psi phenomenon.For example I can tell when people comment back to me on forums, and weather its a negative or a positive comment. I sense when they are thinking about me and formulating a response. Should I discount my own experience, because its doesn’t like up with reductionist materialism? Shouldn’t I seek a philosophical point of view that makes the most sense of my experience?

            Anyway Rupert Sheldrake has written some interesting things on telepathy that seems to make sense of my experience. I don’t believe that my experinces are authoritative to anyone else, but they are for me. It also has nothing to do with faith or belief.

            I have also experienced some weird things in the woods, of a large animal (or hidden person possibly) throwing large boulders against trees. I later learned LATER that is get it? That there had been many bigfoot sightings in that area.

          • marvin nubwaxer | Dec 31, 2012 at 1:26 pm |

            ” . . . reductionist materialism”. you can’t trade shoes with a barefoot monkey.

          • "Big" Richard Johnson | Dec 15, 2012 at 2:08 am |


          • Calypso_1 | Dec 15, 2012 at 2:13 am |

            you rang?

          • David Howe | Dec 10, 2012 at 7:31 pm |

            You’re the one who identified the tracks as possum tracks. Kindly refrain from playing these stupid games. It’s tedious.

    • sasquatch and yeti are multidimensional/transdimensional. they pop in and out of the forests of our world/reality/dimension which is why you can’t catch one.

    • I can search for links if you want. But you aren’t the only person these thoughts have occured to by any means. Meaning calculations of the minimum population necessary But anyway Grizzly bears live in the San Juan mountains of Colorodo, long after they were believed to be extinct for 30 years. We know they are there from scat, hair samples and footprints!

    • smooth_operator | Dec 11, 2012 at 12:49 am |

      You’ve never seen a village of Loch Ness monsters? You must be living under a rock.

  6. But observation giving birth to reality leads us down the path of sollipsism, right? If my conscious observation creates that which I am observing, then I am the only thing that is real. But this means that my observation of everything you have written here, for example, is actually my consciousness bringing it into being. The implications are clear: I am a singularity, none of you actually exist, the universe is my own creation (which implies that I AM the Creator).

    There’s no way for me to verify if this is true. The closest I have been able to come is to examine the role of novelty (things that I have not thought of–and there’s plenty, obviously) in my life. It comes from somewhere outside of my own mind–hence its newness. However, if your consciousness is real (and mine is, I assure you :P) then why do our observations of reality not clash with each other when we have different world views? Which is just another way of asking ‘how is objective knowledge of the universe even possible?’

    • The problem with solipsism is that it doesn’t go far enough. If everything you see is not real, then even you are not real. It’s all a kind of dream, you included. Even if you could control the world, that would be part of the dream. Don’t confuse “high definition” with “real”.
      Everything you perceive, including the act of perceiving, is not real, because for everything you see happening, there’s someone/something that is perceiving it happening. And you could never see that (because if you saw it, it would just be another thing happening, and so on).

      • I am real. Not my physical body, perhaps, but my observer Self. I don’t think that observation is something that is just another thing happening. It seems like it is the a priori existence of observation that allows things to happen. At least that’s what Quantum Mechanics allows–that’s what Ted used to make the case of Bigfoot coming into existence. To me, a priori existence is not a ‘happening’. It transcends time and space–which imply a ‘happening’.

        I don’t think my point was confusing ‘high definition’ with ‘real’. I often question the material reality that surrounds me, despite its high-definition quality. I’ve learned to seldom accept causality as linear. And my intuition tells me that nothing is actually separate. But my intellectual self is meager in comparison to my tacit knowing Self. I know much more than I can tell.

        • You may be real, the act of observing, not so much. If you’re real prior to consciousness, and you can see your observing in consciousness, then the observing is not something that “you” are doing, isn’t it? It maybe the first step to creation, but it’s still inside the creation.
          Everything you can know and conceive of is not you. That’s why zen masters talk about the unknowable. You just are. Every other thing you think “You” do, you don’t.

          • Your viewpoints reminds me of Parmenides and his early doubts as to whether or not anything is real. However, there’s too many ontological issues with what you’re pushing here and I think that you may be confused. (Do not take this as a personal jab, please.) First of all, we need to clarify what you mean by “real prior to consciousness.” Are people ‘real’ in some actual sense or some potential sense prior to physical carnation? Also, what would you have to say about the mind-body link? (Dualism.) What exactly do you mean by “you?” Do you think that we have immortal souls? If one does not observe, there would be no change at all. This is why if one were to claim that ‘god’ is omniscient, this god would also be completely inert aside from being in a perpetual state of recognizing itself as existing. To act or even observe implies change in one way or another. What you’ve done is basically posit an objective claim on reality when there’s a lot of competing philosophical theories that (in my opinion) do a much better job of explaining some of the mysteries of existence. I simply can’t agree with the claim that “everything you can know and conceive of is not you.” This runs counter to my tacit knowledge of self. At this point in time I have to admit that I find consciousness bizarre and mystifying, but I have yet to experience anything aside from a couple experiences a long time ago that would lead me to believe that there’s anything more to humans (or known life in general) than the sum of our constituent parts.

    • I was thinking that there would need to be some type of consensus. Then a “consensus reality” Maybe its related to the “noosphere” Bigfoot leaving the realm of mythology and entering the noosphere at some point.

      I also think measuring has a lot to do with it. The Copenhagen interpretation involves measuring. Not simply wishful thinking. I think people retreat from this idea that there can be anomalous, large, humanoid footprints, with no ready explanation for them. They must “all be fake” the capital “S” skeptics are most comfortable with that explanation. For emotional reasons, I believe. Its like their mind is composed of a series of binary switches. If a switch hovers to long in the middle they get very uncomfortable, and switch it one way or the other.

      But I mean in the original experiment the choice wasn’t to make up whatever you wish, it was to measure electrons as either being waves or particles.

      So There are better examples of Footprints. Some are very clear, very large, impress very deeply in the soil, have dermal ridges, toes that move and feet that appear to flex. So then what happens is inferences can be made as to what type of creature would leave such tracks. Measurements are made. Length of stride, height, weight, gait, etc. Then a more solid picture is created. It involves investigation and not simply fantasizing.

    • I think the point the article is trying to make is that collective observation is what’s (possibly) allowing Bigfoot to slowly manifest, not individual observation. After all, our sensory perception is the only means we have to experience reality, and if enough people’s sense begin to experience Bigfoot, who’s to say he isn’t real?

      • Yeah, that’s kind of what I was getting at. I think Bigfoot existed at some point as a shadowy entity, like an incorporeal intelligence, or something, fading in and out like a Ghost, but is perhaps more and more getting pinned down into a biological body, by all these people measuring out what Sasquatch must be like, given all the sightings and footprints, calls, etc. conparitive anatomy to humans and apes, caloric requirements, etc.

  7. Gregory Wyrdmaven | Dec 9, 2012 at 11:17 pm |

    It’s important to remember that people who are sure bigfoot is a myth are also sure they they know how black holes work…can tell you all about the geological history of Mars…can tell you the diet of dinosaurs, etc. There is a whole lot we don’t know and can’t be sure of. And it’s often at the point of we being absolutely sure of something that our ignorance shines the brightest.

    • Yeah, I think it won’t be simply be wishful thinking one way of the other that will cause bigfoot to be eventually real or unreal. But rather the act of measuring and making inferences.

      For example the last link I posted is basically composed of inferences made from measuring footprints.

    • VaudeVillain | Dec 10, 2012 at 12:16 am |

      Wow. Did a scientist kick your dog? Were your parents butchered by proponents of an evidence-based worldview? Has your education really been so shoddy?

      Nobody *knows* how black holes work, and anyone with half a clue regarding any of the currently accepted theories (many of which are mutually exclusive) would almost certainly have to know that it is a subject of fierce debate, research and theorization within the scientific community.

      As to what dinosaurs ate… well, it would defend on one’s definition of “dinosaur”, to which species you were referring, and how much detail you wished to have provided. In any event, you are right, they would very likely not *know* such a thing, but you could say the same for humans in 1886: sure, we have their records and accounts from the time, and sure we may know what humans eat right now, but none of us were there to witness it, so we can’t possibly *know*.

      The primary difference between those things and bigfoot, is that we have independently verified, testable and repeatable data from multiple, reliable sources to indicate they currently exist or existed in the past. Bigfoot, we have non-verifiable testimony, scads of physical evidence proven to be fraudulent, a great deal of suspect physical evidence which cannot be definitively discounted but is far from conclusive, and somehow nobody with any sort of credentials or previous reputation for integrity can find diddly.

      You’re right, we can’t be absolutely sure that bigfoot doesn’t exist… but we can make an educated guess and say that it most likely doesn’t. Kind of like invisible pink unicorns living on the moon.

      • “scads of physical evidence proven to be fraudulent, a great deal of suspect physical evidence which cannot be definitively discounted but is far from conclusive, and somehow nobody with any sort of credentials or previous reputation for integrity can find diddly.”

        I also am skeptical however you should check this out if you have not already:
        “Bigfoot Footprints Cannot Be Hoaxed”

        • VaudeVillain | Dec 10, 2012 at 10:03 am |

          The main thing that stuck out to me is that all of the people in the video started from the position that the tracks and video are genuine, then argued that somebody couldn’t intentionally fake the anomalies they found.

          For example, they said quite a bit about the bulge on the Patterson Creature’s left leg, concluding that it indicated an injury to the quadriceps or IT and then asserting that such an injury couldn’t be faked. The possibility of the bulge being an unintended artifact of forgery is never raised, and instead the bulge now becomes proof that the tape is real.

          It’s the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, painting a bullseye around the bullet.

          Essentially, they do not, as depicted in the video, seem to be applying the scientific method very well, and that casts doubt on their findings.

      • Someone certainly likes authority. I guess us non-experts will never get the high-minded scientific method.

        • bobbiethejean | Dec 10, 2012 at 9:14 am |

          Someone certainly doesn’t ascribe to logic, reason, and evidence-based understanding.

          • You mean cherry-picked evidence, selective reasoning and elitist logic, right?

          • bobbiethejean | Dec 10, 2012 at 10:17 am |

            No. You are inherently wrong here. You don’t get to use the aspects of science that conform to whatever beliefs you have and discard the scientific method upon which all good, real, true science is based. It’s massively hypocritical, among other things. You can’t wiggle out of this. There is no way you can defend using science to bolster your beliefs then in the very same breath decrying science for being “authoritarian” which incidentally, it is not.

          • There are probably many scorned, pariah scientists that would disagree with you there. Everyone in science gets to use the aspects of science that conform to their beliefs. All knowledge comes from our personal beleifs. The fact that we have a way of knowing something we refer to as ‘science’ represents an _institutionalized_ way of knowing the world. Science is a custom; not an objective knowledge system. Some of the discoveries of science seem to correlate quite strongly with the way reality seems to work. Very good. But to derive from those successes the existence of a set path (methodology) to an objective knowledge (epistemology) of the world that is determined through a hierarchy of practioners is akin to the knowledge system that comes under fire from neo-rationalists and neo-atheists–the Church. But this objectivism actually does more damage as a belief system than recognizing the subjective origin point of all knowledge.

            I’ve given a lot more thought to epistemology than, perhaps, you may assume of me. I do not criticize science simply because I don’t like some of its conclusions (or practices, as in the case of the MIC); but, I feel that the image of science does not square against the reality of knowing. I could write a hell of a lot more on this, but it’s probably better if I just direct you to some critical perspectives on science, rather than pontificate, myself.

            I’ve recommended him before on disinfo, but I implore you to at least read Michael Polanyi’s wikipedia article. Then maybe approach his books, if you desire.

            Also, Mary Midgley has written critically of the path objectivist science has taken, specifically through arguments resting on DNA. ‘Evolution as Religion’ is one. (Don’t take the title to be as rejectionist as it sounds, Midgley is a profound philosopher).

            Also, the CBC (here in Canada) aired a fantastic radio series called How to Think About Science–which interviews various rogue scientists and their thoughts.—24-listen/

            Also, I’ve written a paper on the political aspects of neo-atheism (and neo-rationalism).

          • bobbiethejean | Dec 10, 2012 at 11:41 am |

            Everyone in science gets to use the aspects of science that conform to their beliefs I simply cannot agree with that. People should not twist science to bolster their beliefs then decry science for being “authoritarian.” People should not get to use scientific understanding achieved through the scientific method then turn around and decry the scientific method for being limiting. No serious scientist on this planet would get behind the idea that bigfoot is a “quantum being” popping in and out of existence, not until there was actual evidence for that.

            You phrase yourself eloquently and intelligently, you haven’t been insulting at all. I really have no desire to pick a fight. I’ve said my piece, you’ve said yours. It’s clear we’re not going to agree here. Might as well just agree to disagree.

          • He’s talking over your head. Do you even realize that?

          • bobbiethejean | Dec 10, 2012 at 12:53 pm |

            No he is not. I understood every single word he said. Maybe you should ask before making assumptions about what people are capable of understanding.

          • You have demonstrated to me that you don’t understand epistemology.

          • If you assume I have “faith that bigfoot exists” or some stupid thing. I am also talking over your head.

          • Sometimes I wonder if you are as big of a fucktard in real life as you are on here, ted. Don’t rub salt in wounds.

          • What wound am I rubbing salt in?

          • Oh, I get it. You were getting thought to her, sharing your wisdom and I fucked it all up. OK. Sorry. I think you act like a Fucktard on here at times also. So now that you are perfect there must be hope for me some day too, no?

          • No you’re just really belligerent and thickheaded….

          • It could be just a waste of time altogether to comment or post anything here. That’s a definite possibility.

          • David Howe | Dec 10, 2012 at 7:28 pm |

            I second that.

          • bobbiethejean | Dec 10, 2012 at 1:33 pm |

            I know exactly what epistemology and I am very well informed on the topic, thank you very much.

          • David Howe | Dec 10, 2012 at 7:29 pm |

            I think we have a case in which the OP and the troll are one and the same.

          • bobbiethejean | Dec 10, 2012 at 8:16 pm |

            I’ve been trying really hard to be nice so it doesn’t escalate but sometimes he makes doing so really difficult. XC

          • I think you have an overly idealistic view of science. Which all in all is not necessarily a bad thing, but you have to understand that not everyone, especially those within the fold of science, have as strong an ideal as you do. Much of the ideal realm of science is squashed by the realms of money and human ego.

            In this I still would not attack that ideal, myself.

          • bobbiethejean | Dec 10, 2012 at 8:24 pm |

            I think you have an overly idealistic view of science Maybe I do, maybe I don’t. I understand that science gets a lot wrong, that it is fallible, that it is human, and that being a tool of humans, it is limited by humans. I also understand that we may never truly know anything in the true sense of what it means to know something.

            However, I believe that science is really the only way to truly understand how our universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, and ourselves (among many other things) work. Science has brought us so much understanding and revealed so much. I see great beauty and potential in science. It is almost a religion to me, almost, and I am not ashamed to say that. I feel great reverence and awe for science but I also acknowledge that it is imperfect and flawed and limited.

          • bobbiethejean | Dec 10, 2012 at 1:38 pm |

            Although, you do make some good points about the “reality of knowing.” That is a terribly interesting topic…. also a very complex one. Sometimes I wonder if we can really “know” anything. Personally, when I use the word “know,” I mean it in the sense that I know X, Y, and Z to be true right now and I will continue believing X, Y, and Z to be true until something comes along and proves me wrong. Right now it is known that things in the macro-world do not behave the same way as things in the quantum world. This is why cars don’t randomly blink in and out of existence like electrons do. But who knows? Maybe someday we will find that they really do in some strange, unexpected way.

          • The relationship is pretty tenuous, between quantum physics and epi-phenomenon.

          • From Polanyi’s article: “He argues that defending scientific inquiry on utilitarian or sceptical grounds undermines the practice of science.”

            I think you found me a new hero.

          • Read him thoroughly; he’ll blow your mind.

          • Science is a strategy of obtaining knowledge, and is not defined by that knowledge that has been gained through it. As soon as something becomes a dogma and unquestionable it is no longer science.

        • VaudeVillain | Dec 10, 2012 at 9:40 am |

          Yes, how blind of me to value the findings of reputable, credible members of the scientific community over the findings of people with no reputation or credibility. I’m clearly a fascist.

        • Yes, the willfully ignorant will never be able to understand the scientific method. However, a bright 6th-grader can pick it up easily. What does that say about you?

          • Yeah, Goodwin is definitely a Dumb ass. I’m sure you can breeze through all his published papers with perfect comprehension.

          • VaudeVillain | Dec 11, 2012 at 1:22 am |

            Not that I ever called him a dumbass, BUT:

            1. There are plenty of complete morons who have things published all the time, indeed we live in a time where literally anyone can get literally anything published by someone regardless of quality (or lack thereof) so long they possess the requisite motivation and resources.

            2. IF Goodwin is, in fact, a dumbass, one would expect his papers to show evidence of this. Provided a poor enough premise, clumsy enough arguments, sufficiently tortured use of language, and great enough substitution of utter nonsense for facts, it is relatively plausible that the work could not be successfully navigated by basically anyone.

            Failure to understand his works, then, if the hypothesis that he is a dumbass is true, is not a sign of stupidity for the reader, nor of intelligence for the author.

          • Yeah, you are probably right. He must be a real fucktard in real life. Ha ha!

          • VaudeVillain | Dec 11, 2012 at 9:43 am |

            Sock puppet fail?

          • You are really good at judging other people’s intellects. I think you have Goodwin pegged!

          • VaudeVillain | Dec 11, 2012 at 9:42 am |

            You know what? I’ve tried to avoid my natural tendency toward being a smarmy fuckwad, if only because I was hoping you might notice how childish you’re being… but fuck it, this is getting old.

            You need to learn how to fucking read. I don’t mean basic literacy “See Spot Run” shit, you clearly have that under control, I mean reading comprehension. You know, that magical ability to read what somebody else has written, ACTUALLY COMPREHEND WHAT THEY ARE SAYING, and formulate a cogent, rational, not-completely-fucking-retarded response to it.

            Most shit-tier public schools try to fit that into the curriculum around 10th grade, but I’m thinking you’re one of those too-cool-for-school types who saw formal education as some sort of fascist mindfuck brainwashing tool and bailed out of that shit as fast as possible straight into a McJob… or maybe you went whole hog into dumpster-diving freeganism. It doesn’t fucking matter, the point is that however smart you think you are, you fucking aren’t. It’s like talking to an 8 year-old or a Republican, you just stick to the same lameass point, and whenever somebody comes along to challenge it, you put your fingers in your ears and scream “NUH UH YOU’RE WRONG!!!!” antil their eyes bleed.

            Specifically, I have never commented on Adam Goodwin’s intelligence, positively or negatively. If I thought he was an idiot (which I actually don’t… more of a sophist), I’d tell it straight to him, not to his self-appointed guardian troll. I was pointing out that your bullshit kneejerk defense of what he says was fucking moronic. Not that Adam Goodwin is fucking moronic, that you, Ted Heistman, are fucking moronic.

            Seriously, what the fucking fuck is wrong with your brain?

          • Just disengage, man, if he’s so below your level.

            And me a sophist? Maybe it’s not for me to deny, but, nah, I don’t think so. I’m just less satisfied with the current state of knowledge about the world (both natural and social) than you, I think. Whereas you give much credence to _established_ scientific authority, I can’t do that. It’s not in line with how I perceive reality. To me, the final nail in the coffin of the scientific ‘progress’ of knowledge came with the peak oil argument. Our governments, scientific institutions and authorities have plunged us over a thermodynamic cliff for the sake of perpetual profits to banks. That the basic law of conservation of energy is ignored wholescale in society (through the practice of usury) is enough to show me that even the most esteemed scientists aren’t making the links necessary between society, technology and knowledge of the two. And fucktard dogmatic materialists of the neo-atheist bend make this ever worse by stressing that ‘what you see is what you get, and that’s it’. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that a scientific materialist epistemology (logical positivism) has accompanied an ascendant age of social materialism (interest-bearing debt-based economic slavery aka ‘capitalism’). The two ideological systems go together like bread and butter.

          • I think you are Christian Anarchist. That’s how you strike me from reading your paper “Biological Fatalism: The Politics of (De)Naturalising Conflict and (De)Problematising Cooperation”

            The Sophists were much more Fascist. I think these Neo Atheists are the current version of Sophists. Their sounding more and more like Social Darwinists too. This point of view is not new. Its voiced in Plato’s Republic by Thrasymachus. Might Makes Right.

            As far as mutualism over competition-You can use nature to justify all kinds of things. Rape, infanticide, co-operation, cannibalism, homosexuality, monogomy. So That’s why I think you are on the right track with the free will thing.

          • I’m not for labels, but I did sort of adopt the label of ‘anarcho-mystic-agrarian’ recently. It was tongue in cheek when I did it, but it kind of stuck. I’m certainly not a Christian, althought there were some great Christian philiosophers, like Tolstoy and Kierkegard. I have nothing against being Christian, so long as the ‘rules’ of the bible don’t get in your way with how you experience your version of god.

            As for nature being used to justfy anything, I don’t think that’s necessarily true. While it can used in used in such way, the justifications don’t hold much water when they get into generalizing from obscure references to the certain behaviour of species–Goodall’s discovery of organized ‘warfare’ among chimps, for example. This behaviour is just one type of contemporary group dynamics and it certainly does not represent a generalizable trait of primates. Bonobos are the prime counterexample, which, unfortunately, seem to be increasingly taking on a hackneyed-flavor among the Skeptic community. That’s unfortunate because the rationalist Skeptic dogmatic materialist fuckwads are seduced by their authoritative scientific gurus into thinking that nature is not amenable to being romaticized, or anthropomorphized or some other ‘mental gymanastics’. That’s not what’s happening though. What’s so important about counterexamples is the leverage they are offering to demonstrating the _possibilities_ of nature, rather than its limits. If nature offers increased possibilities of behaviour, then our vision of ourselves has been limited all along. That’s where the assumptions of anarchism come in–we don’t require rulers to subdue our inherent evil (our limitations) through governance, or orient our self-interested goals towards the ‘greater good’, but, rather, the possibilities of nature allow for the possibilities of human existence.

          • So if the natural human tendency is toward mutalism, both intra and inter-group, then why are there so many diverse languages in the remaining areas where indigenous hunter Gather people are to be found such as in New Guinea and the Amazon?

            Are language barriers an evolutionary strategy to aid to mutualism? I don’t see how it could be. It seems to be more a manifestation of intra tribal violence.

            I think group selection explains a lot. I think hunter gatherers were closer and more affectionate with each other and very hostile to outsiders, compared to modern members of mass societies. I think with the advent of Grain Agriculture and Caste societies, peasants became pacified and also atomised, while more violent tribes dominated and exploited them.

            I think Veblen had it right. The Barbarians took over.

          • I’ve never commented here on Disinformation, and truth be told I have found this thread of comments far more entertaining than the original article. I just wanted to say that I agree with you entirely and that I feel as though established scientific authority, although useful in myriad ways, is a human authority (thus fallible) at the end of the day. Myopic, reductionist thinkers (a vestige of the Industrial Revolution IMO) will soon learn that science REALLY needs to adopt a more holistic view to truly flourish and be of continued benefit to our species and the world in general.

          • What makes you think there is a single scientific method? The method we were taught in 6th grade was logical induction, no? If something keeps happening the same way over and over again, we should record it and orient our expectations on it happening again. Is that how it goes? But what about if you’re Einstein trying to figure out how gravity works….or even Newton… and you gotta invent the very method you use to derive the patterns of its behaviour? Oh, and the technology doesn’t exist yet to actually test whether you’ll observe constant conjunctions in the laboratory to the extent that you can formulate a law. Both of those great thinkers managed to escape the boundaries of the method of inquiry they inherited to create a new one. But that’s not my novel argument against method… that’s Paul Feyerabend’s. Look his work up, have a read and get back to me with your thoughts about the scientific method.

          • VaudeVillain | Dec 11, 2012 at 1:12 am |

            Neither Einstein nor Newton ever came up with any definitive theory on how gravity works, both came up with theories to describe how it behaves. These are VERY different things, different enough that your example is meaningless.

          • No, not ‘what gravity is’; but ‘how it works’. Einstein’s general theory of relativity showed that gravity works through a warping of space-time. That’s how gravity works. There was no mention of _what_ gravity is. That requires an entirely different method of invesgation. Works=behaves. Stop nitpicking semantics, it makes you sound desperate.

      • yeah, but magnets! how do they work? nobody knows. miracles, bro.

    • It’s fairly simple. You can’t imagine something and then stamp your feet until someone else proves you wrong. All that’s really being asked for here is some evidence. A clear photograph. Some bones. Whatever. It’s a reasonable standard of evidence that really doesn’t hold up to all the accusactions of agendas and narrow minds. I’m fully open to the existence of Bigfoot. I just need some evidence. Ordinary, reasonable evidence. It’s a given that there’s a great deal we don’t know about. That DOES NOT mean that you can simply speculate and imagine explanations for everything. There’s an agreed upon standard and your refusal of that standard raises concerns.

  8. The truth is big foots are undercover ninjas. That is why one will never be found, the ape suit is to throw the scent off the ninjas secret missions in a certain area.

  9. liquidself | Dec 10, 2012 at 3:26 am |

    “Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius”

  10. bobbiethejean | Dec 10, 2012 at 9:29 am |

    What is this, Schrodinger’s bigfoot?

    Step one: Use aspects of science you like (in this case, quantum physics).

    Step two: Discard aspects of science you don’t like (the scientific method upon which ALL real, good, true science is based).

    Step three: Make absurd assumptions about the nature of matter which do not conduce with what we know about the world (large bodies do not behave like quantum particles).

    Step four: Call people who disagree or demand evidence close-minded and accuse them of blindly following “high-minded” authority without realizing that they too are using aspects of science derived from “the high-minded authority.”

    Genius. All of you, genius, bravo. *golf-clap*

    • I am Adam Goodwin? Wow, you have great attention to detail. Oh, wait I get it. “Us vs. them” We both must be on the “other side.”

      Anyway this just a thought experiment to promote a friendly discussion. But all you capital ‘S’ skeptic kill joys go right to appeal to ridicule. I think of you as a block because act as a block.

      • bobbiethejean | Dec 10, 2012 at 1:01 pm |

        Schrodinger’s Cat was a thought experiment- a very informative, useful one for explaining how quantum particles do not play by the same rules as things in the macro world. This is not a thought experiment, it’s woo-woo masquerading as a thought experiment. Again, as always, you posit something that there is absolutely no reason to believe and that you have no evidence for. And of course, anyone demands real evidence…. we’re all just a bunch of “killjoy, close-minded, capital S skeptics.”

        • Footprints are evidence. Some are better than others. Inferences can be made from the best ones. You have no interest in this topic obviously. Yet you comment. Why?

          • bobbiethejean | Dec 10, 2012 at 1:31 pm |

            There is too huge a precedent of bigfoot footprints being faked. How about an actual bigfoot? Is that asking too much?

          • So your logic is
            Some Bigfoot tracks have been proven to be faked
            Therefore All Bigfoot tracks are Fakes.

          • bobbiethejean | Dec 10, 2012 at 3:43 pm |

            Did I say that? No, I did not. What I said is that there is a huge PRECEDENT for bigfoot tracks being faked. There is also a huge precedent for bigfoot images being faked. There are also a fairly impressive precedence for bigfoot-mistaken identities which often turn out to be bears or actual human beings.

            I did not say that all bigfoot tracks are faked even though that is actually quite possible. It’s also possible that some tracks are real and bigfoot does exist. However, without anything substantial to back the tracks up, all you have is speculation and maybes.

            Let’s compare this to evolution. Why do we know evolution to be true? What evidence do we have? If all we had was a few hundred fossils, that would not be NEARLY enough. After all, that could mean a lot of different things and fossils have been faked before. However, we don’t have a few hundred fossils. We literally have MILLIONS. The fossil record is so overstuffed, scientists have recently had to reorganize the damned thing. On top of that, we have scores of genetic evidence and empirical evidence- all the pieces fit perfectly together. We can say evolution is real because we have MOUNTAINS of evidence and proof.

            With bigfoot, what do we have? We have a noticeable absence of any actual bigfoots, some blurry photos, and some questionable footprints.

          • David Howe | Dec 22, 2012 at 12:24 pm |

            works for me. But also, there is no such thing as Bigfoot therefore all “tracks” are fakes.

          • Now that’s an excellent demonstration of the scientific method! …in reverse.

          • Matt Staggs | Dec 10, 2012 at 5:50 pm |

            Well, that is a *lot* of foot.

          • bobbiethejean | Dec 10, 2012 at 5:57 pm |

            You are so bad. 😛 You deserve to be spanked, you naughty punner, you.

  11. BIGFOOT IS an interdimensional being. This makes a lot more sense after researching demons, aliens, angels, Sirius, magick. It’s not that big of a deal or a stretch to imagine. Science is awfully helpful, but let’s just say it lacks a tad bit of soul, kind of like organized religion. Let me emphasis, it’s not that big of a deal.

    • heck, there’s even stories of mysterious transdimensional kangeroos that end up on highways and sideroads in the midwest. That one though, has always thrown me for a loop.

  12. Don’t worry folks I won’t write anymore articles here.

  13. Liam_McGonagle | Dec 11, 2012 at 9:40 am |

    Bigfoot 2016

  14. JohnEngelman | Dec 17, 2012 at 4:21 pm |

    I have difficulty believing that such a large animal could exist without being captured, and without leaving skeletal remains.

  15. marvin nubwaxer | Dec 31, 2012 at 1:16 pm |

    without a population there can be no individual bigfoot.

Comments are closed.