Leaderboard

But it's not the end of the world and bigfoot is still possible. Proponents and skeptics will both celebrate if a sample is brought in tomorrow. There's more investigation happening, scientists are interested and actively studying the subject. Samples are being submitted for testing. There are scientists here on BFF, some are even actively conducting research. (Check out H. V. Hart who should be getting 10x the amount of attention that Dr. Ketchum received!) There have been numerous threads where scientists here have even tried to help researchers, some have went better than others. Calling them skeptical dummies probably won't help but they are here if you want their opinion. A skeptical viewpoint isn't evil or the end of bigfoot. A question from a skeptic doesn't have to be taken as a personal attack. It's just a different way of looking at the problem and skeptical scientists will have to be involved for bigfoot to be accepted by the world at large. Instead of just wishing they will go away or calling them names look to the skeptical scientists who are actually working in the field for examples. If you truly admire the scientists working in the field emulate them - apply the same filters they use. Here's what you will find out - all reports are not equal. Dr. Sykes didn't test every hair ever collected after a sighting report. He didn't even test all the hairs sent in - he vetted the samples. That's science, it's skeptical, it's normal. There would be no reason to test a 28" bleached blond hair with blue highlights, cut ends and a pink ribbon tied to it for bigfoot DNA. He has limited time and resources so he whittles down his testing to those samples he feels are the best candidates. Dr. Disotell doesn't test every sample collected and Dr. Fahrenbach and Dr. Meldrum don't cast or even consider every footprint. They all have protocols they use to determine what they will study. No one had to ask them to skeptically vet their evidence, they did it voluntarily and ensured their protocols were followed. They don't hide their findings, they publish and argue with their peers. That's science, that's skepticism - it's normal and should be emulated rather than ranted about. Some of the best threads here contain heated debates between skeptics and proponents. Look at the PGF threads and see where the give and take produces new ideas and work that has revealed more than before. I think it inspired Bill Munns to complete all the work he's done on the PGF. It's obvious that most of the skeptics here are very interested and take the subject seriously. My point isn't to try to convince anyone that bigfoot is an impossibility. I don't believe that. My point is that skeptics are necessary and a good thing to have here on the forums. If you want the coin to start coming up heads something has to change. Believing that all reports are true and that all researchers are honest won't cut it. It's not working. The scientists doing the research, the ones we all admire and whose work we look forward to can be as skeptical as anyone here and they are only interested in physical evidence. They aren't trying to prove existence through similarities in sighting reports - they aren't even considering it. They are not debating each other based on who read the most reports. They aren't blaming science and skeptics here for not investigating bigfoot - they are busy conducting studies and writing papers about their investigations into bigfoot. Weird huh?

I don't care how he "knows". It's a ridiculous assumption! YOU ask him if you need to know. And why not ask him for proof while you're at it? After all, he's a scientist & they supposedly always have proof for everything they say. The name of the thread is "Waiting Out Sasquatch's Extinction" & I said they aren't going extinct. Seems pretty much on topic to me.....

They aren't going extinct!!!! Where did you get an idea like that? More likely, they're waiting patiently for us to become extinct.

Has anyone actually listened to the link? Coonbo makes it very clear that it is a second or third hand story and that he doesn't believe that it happened.

At least you got the "never understand" part right. I observe that a wise person, when confronted by not understanding, stops talking and starts listening because that is where wisdom comes from but a fool continues to talk, apparently in case someone does not believe their claim and needs more proof. I accept your claim. Lets move on. Question: you say "obviously outlandish". Is there a subjective, rather than objective, definition? MIB

Hey there Bill. One point I think doesn't get made often enough, and I think it does explain the frustration of some. There are skeptical people who clearly expect a public outcome in Sasquatch research. Increasingly though, due to all the factors we all know about, so much of the inquiry has been driven outside of the public domain, and is likely to stay there. I've seen it happen here many times. The skeptic's ability to get at this information will continue to decrease, and why wouldn't it, given the bellicose demands of some? That is what I meant by my comments about there are plenty of experiments being conducted, and (private) hypotheses being proven. The strident skeptic demands that this evidence be delivered up to them. It is not likely it will be though. You of course are free to discount everything that is not disclosed to you, of course. But, if any who are skeptical are really interested in knowing what is currently being discovered and discussed by these folks, they'd do well to engender some degree of a personal relationship with any one of the more private individuals they might know, either face to face, or in this forum. Showing up to demand they bring forth the body or (in so many words) shut the frick up, will never, ever get you want you say you want. Those who insist on that approach are telling me they truly are not interested in knowing, just shouting louder than the next guy. In doing that, you've got to hang up your possible fears of being played for a dupe, which is a real handicap in this area. My friendship, attention and ears don't cost me anything to offer, and I can draw my own conclusions from there. Nobody who has proven something to themselves, and who isn't at all interested in the greater goals of science, is going to give you the time of day otherwise. You can ignore this advice if you want, sure. If you do, you'll only assure that your productive involvement in it will continue to decline. That's just the simple reality of it.

I disagree about withholding evidence. I hold back evidence because I know it is not good enough to be definitive. Why put it out only to be told what you already know, that it is just not good enough. That just feeds the skeptics. I even have a bigfoot picture taken during an encounter but it does not show much. I hope for the opportunity to get a better one. You can be sure that if I get something good enough to quiet the skeptics I will publish it. But at least it proves that it is not impossible to photograph a BF as I have been told by believers of the paranormal BF. I have also been told that if I even carry a camera I will not have contact. Neither are correct, so believers can be wrong in their beliefs too.

Maybe so. I see no reason to believe their numbers are diminishing. I didn't say it isn't possible. I said it isn't happening, & if you'll note the disclaimer in red in my sig line, it says that anything I say is likely to be just IMO. But as to your comparison to passenger pigeons, as far as I know we aren't hunting them into extinction for food, nor is their habitat being destroyed, so the passenger pigeon comparison.....doesn't compare.

I think if existence was close then we'd start to see a dramatic drop off of sighting reports, that's just common sense for me. Where actual visual sightings reported publicly across the continent are concerned, this is via the SSR so this is not all public reported sightings but just an idea from what we've got logged so far. 2004 - 25 2005 - 20 2006 - 26 2007 - 13 2008 - 26 2009 - 36 2010 - 38 2011 - 47 2012 - 44 2013 - 23

My understanding is that populations of other large wild animals (bear, deer, moose, catamount, pig) have been increasing since the 1960s. This is in part due to increased conservation of land and - I believe - a decreased interest in our population in active hunting and being outdoors (at least away from well-marked hiking trails). I know that my own state - Vermont - has shifted since the 1920s from being something like 20% forested to being more like 70-80% forested. We are moving away being an outdoor-agricultural-driven state to being a road/home/office bound culture. We are simultaneously creating more habitat for a large reclusive animal and being less aware of "what is going on in the woods over there". if the only evidence of extinction is absence of proof of existence, I don't think the argument is strongly supported by the lack of wanted data. Tim

I do not think their superior night vision is anything more complicated than having extra large pupil and retinas allowing for more light in to their eye than humans. I read somewhere that an Owl can spot a mouse on a football field lit by a single candle. BF's eyes are probably twice the size of humans and Owls. Also, I have never heard of anyone saying they saw the whites of BFs eyes. All references to eyes seem to be large and dark when seen in the day.