Leaderboard

One can reasonably expect, a 600 pound omnivore, to show up on trailcams, leave evidence of it's foraging, poop, fossilize, die in a place where it would be found (even once). None of that happens. One should reasonably expect that an animal regularly seen in places far more accessible than the jungles of china, or the swamps of florida, would be leaving signs of it's presence. This guy went out looking for Turkey one afternoon, and ended up getting clear footage of one of the rarest predators in the world. This, is what we would expect from a land chock-full of Bigfoot sightings. Video like this, taken where people live close to rare, elusive creatures. Reasonable people expect evidence to be in places where the target animals exist. That is why, when a trailcam caught a wolverine, they knew they could put out hair catchers and collect poop from multiple locations within weeks of the photograph.

^^^^ No, just wrong. Not only do you apparently know nothing about bigfoot, you apparently don't know anything about wolverines or about biologists. The biologists knew where to look so far as a region and where to look so far as searching within the habitat. We do not have trained biologists specializing in bigfoot and funded by gov't grants the way we have trained biologists specializing in wolverines funded by gov't grants. What we have looking for bigfoot are, even in the case of those with a background in biology, amateurs making guesses about bigfoot habitat and behavior. There are wolverine experts. There are NO bigfoot experts. Not even yourself, no matter how much you like to get up and pontificate about how things SHOULD be. MIB

One does not reasonably expect ample evidence of bigfoot. That expectation is rooted in ignorance. Even where evidence is comparatively ample, unless a person accepts that bigfoot is a possibility, that evidence is such that it will be dismissed as an oddity of some more normal type. Denial is self-reinforcing, it's not until you accept the real possibility of something to find and examine what you do find in detail that you develop the sophistication to separate one thing from another instead of lumping it all into (the wrong) one. This truth is obvious to the honest skeptic and inconceivable to the scoftic. MIB

if evidence is lacking when we expect it to be abundant, then it very much allows us to dismiss a hypothesis, and absence of evidence is evidence of absence. * numerous game cam studies which should show existence of a 600 pound omnivore in semi rural- rural areas. * lack of fossil record, in an area where we have found fossil records of most of the megafauna of the last 100000 years This paper https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/60/7/516/234159/Linking-Top-down-Forces-to-the-Pleistocene shows the depth of the fossil record of the late Pleistocene * current lack of evidence of foraging of an unknown 600 pound animal (have you ever seen what a moose does to a shrubbery? (Insert Monty Python reference here)) * current lack of roadkill evidence. Rare, elusive animals such as Florida panther suffer 10% mortality on roads every year. Wisconsin has been using road killed deer to estimate deer herds since the 1950's * in places where Bigfoot researchers are claiming Bigfoot activity, we should expect collection of evidence, yet none is collected. No. If one expects there to be ample evidence of Bigfoot, then Kit is able to use lack of evidence as evidence of absence. This is not an argument from ignorance.

Do you think anyone doubts the photos presented in these studies. I get so tired of the whole photos and video won't matter lament. It's hogwash. Let's see some clear photos or video of a Bigfoot and see what happens. The game would change quickly. Sad that is not very likely to happen.

The where, a million dollar question. What Drew says is valid and needs to be addressed. Reports tell us it is virtually all over the N.American continent. Why can't we get legit tangible evidence? Something doesn't add up. Putting up the defenses and claiming it's an ignorant statement only stalls the process, sticking your head in the sand doesn't change the situation.

You state people have "pretty convincing trail cams photos," yet they've chosen not to publish them. One in the hand, my friend, is superior to those two in the bush.

Do we have proof that Bigfoot and Unicorn like creatures once roamed the Earth. Yes we do. The only question then becomes extinct or extant.....and if extant, then where?

I said publish not "share". There is a difference. So you claim to have unicorn videos or are you trolling?

You outta see my unicorn videos. I've chosen not to share them.

Beyond that, much of what Drew says does not happen, has happened. I know of a couple of people now who have pretty convincing trail cams photos (they have chosen not to publish them) , I have examined what I believe to be BF skat, and bodies have been available as the result of vehicle collisions, and people shooting BF going back hundreds of years. Fossils are such a rarity, that many animals accepted by science have no fossil record. None of that makes any difference to science related to BF but anyone but a devout skeptic should at least be aware of that and open to the possibility of existence.

It may be the result of ... I don't like the term sensationalism in this context but I lack a better word ... the thought pattern may be that, recognizing these things are happening, people may not need as much help processing their experience or may not think their experience is unique and interesting enough to be worth reporting. In other words, it may reflect sightings seeming more commonplace, less noteworthy, thus less report-worthy as well. The other thing, if you rely on BFRO reports, is that they never publish without investigating. It's possible they're having problems getting enough investigators to look into the reports in those areas. That has been suggested as the case for south-central Washington, for instance. It may be that the reports are coming in as fast as ever, they're just not published because nobody is doing the followup. MIB

I suspect that is true for them, too, we simply fail to adequately account for anatomical differences that affect what is easy and what is not. We also fail to consider differences in visibility because of height. One of my very good friends is 10. We've been buds since she was 4. Think about size .. as I am to her, bigfoot is to me. Just as there are places I stepped up easily without much thought which she struggled greatly with, there must be places bigfoot steps up easily that I would struggle with. Things that are obstacles to me that I might assume would squeeze a bigfoot into a camera trap might actually be things they'd step over without ever knowing there was a trap to avoid. At the same time, there may be things they'd have to stoop to go under, and so might go around because it's easier, that I'd just walk under ... same as I find true of things my friend walks under than I struggle with. In other words, so far as placement of cameras, we may be missing the boat in both directions. First, we may inadvertently assume they have to go around the same things we do but they do not, second, we may be walking around things that are not obstacles to us that are obstacles to them which we could otherwise use. And then there's visibility because of eye height ... which could work out the same way. Certainly I approach areas that might conceal something in such a way as to minimize my disadvantages and maximize my advantages. It's hard to mentally walk in their shoes but we must if we are to count on anything but luck. I don't know about you, but I ponder the possibility there's some bigfoot out there having the mirror image of the same thoughts about me, figuring out what I'm up to, figuring out how my limits might be different than theirs and how the differences might affect my behavior differently than theirs, and so on. MIB

WVFooter and I do have our WV Trailcam project. This is year four and no bigfoot. Yet, it happens there is a theorem which posits the impossibility of proving a negative... so there's that piece of scientific principle that keeps us going (plus its a lot of fun going out in the woods looking for evidence). I suggest to my fellow skeptics to check your first principles before foolishly thundering forward with a fallacy.