Leaderboard

1) No, they absolutely do not have enough data to determine the existence of, and make a declaration about, the creature we call Bigfoot or Sasquatch. What data are you talking about anyway? Aside from anecdotal accounts (like my own), some occasional track lines that show up (some of which are immediately questionable), and too many fantastic claims of possessed bodies, or regular habituation, what oodles and piles of data are these scientists supposed to be sifting through, and analyzing ?? 2) What "incredibly large amount of data" are you referring to? Databases compiling sightings? Websites like BFRO compiling anecdotal accounts? A few sets of plaster cast feet ? I have no idea what data you're referring to, that you'd like all these prominent scientists to examine and analyze. You want scientific recognition? Classification? Mainstream acceptance of the idea of existence ? No amount of stories, or suspect hairs, or plaster casts, or photos of footprints in the mud/snow will ever get us there. Skeletal, or intact remains on a cold steel exam table, is the only thing that will get it done, whether its a result of natural expiring of the animal, or helped along by a hunter, or logging truck, or however else Bigfoot's die.

Fear??? The only fear evidenced on this forum comes from proponents who remain unwilling to treat the subject fairly. At this point, 50 years after the PGF, what can anyone possibly fear? When proponents follow the guidelines laid out for evidence collection they fail but they fail far worse when they try to rely solely on stories. Every story remains unproven, every piece of "evidence" has been discredited at best (with a good many becoming known for the hoaxes they were) and every sad shill that has come through beating their drum has failed to produce anything concrete. That's not the fault of science or any particular person, dmaker included. When your rigorous study (listen to a story and decide to believe it) provides equal weight to the existence of bigfoot, fairies, mothman, werewolves or a child's imaginary friend who's really afraid?

I'm thinking you meant 'falsifiable'. I mentioned evidence and as usual, it is equated with proof. Proof will not happen until science in general decides to delve into the subject. With that viewpoint Bili Apes, or bonobos, or gorillas did not exist until the scientific community 'proved' their existence. For that matter does anything exist before being proven by science? It's simply arrogance to think we know everything and there's nothing left for us to learn.

Hoping you two don't dislocate an elbow. Careful out there. On second glance, it's wise you've taken to patting each other's backs. Safer that way. Carry on.

Read the memo first: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/04/23/E9-9307/march-9-2009-presidential-memo-on-scientific-integrity-request-for-public-comment https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-heads-executive-departments-and-agencies-3-9-09

OK, I said I wasn't going to spoon feed some info, but I am going to start a new thread.Presidential Memorandum of March 9, 2009. I'm going to explain what that memo's real purpose was, and how it aimed to actually take control of scientific research in EVERY field. I will post the memo, and, as I have time, i'll string it all together. You are absolutely right FarArcher.

Moving goalposts. I provided what you asked for the first time around.

I made an error on the book comment. I was thinking of Branco. He has a spooky bigfoot book for sale. I edited that out of my comment. Re: the rest? Blah, blah, blah, blabbity, blah, blah. Heard it all a thousand times here from bigfoot fantasists like you. You get all uppity when someone challenges your little bigfoot fairy tales. You have to make it personal and attack me because you have absolutely zero concrete evidence to provide. All you have is your stories and your blustering. Bluster away. You could not be more ineffective if you tried.

Does us a favor; find a DNA laboratory that will do the analysis of hair samples from a Bigfoot and confirm in writing they will do it, keep it confidential and share the results with the person submitting the sample before those results are sent out for peer review. Also find out how many strands of hair they would need. Since you are obviously unable or unwilling to do actual field work, it would be great if you could do that for the rest of us. Now don't get discouraged in trying to find such a lab; they are much more difficult to find than Bigfoot hair itself.

Get a hair! Did you get a hair? Get a hair! No hair? Why didn't you get a hair? Couldn't find a hair? There had to be hair! (Later the same day . . .) Hair examination won't work! Uncut hair doesn't prove anything! Geez.

Fear of what? An animal I don't believe exists? Boy, like I haven't heard that one before. You know, FarArcher, I take this subject more seriously, and do it more justice with my objective scepticism, than you do with your fantasy tales and fear mongering. You like to vilify me for every comment I make, but ironically it is you that does more harm here than I ever would.

Not to derail this thread, but does anyone have any actual comments about the nests? I did find an interview with some video. http://www.bigfootresearchnews.com/2017/04/discovering-bigfoot-nest.html

Looking forward to your audio, JKH! (If you post it, that is.) And that's a bummer about your recorder. Hope it comes back to life. Happy travels!

The funny thing with evidence, is that it does not change. What I mean if someone finds a footprint, the footprint it's self does not change. It is what it is. What can change is how we interpret that evidence. Now personal bias and experience play a huge part in how an individual interprets evidence. When I look at the evidence (and just as importantly the lack of some types of evidence that I find crucial) I have reached the conclusion that sasquatch do not exist. I can however understand how someone could reach a different conclusion based upon the same evidence. And of course I think that until we have the crucial piece of evidence (body) it should not be a recognized soecies

Come on man, don't you know that Bigfoots follow the "leave no trace" + "carry out what you carried in" policies set forth by Federal and numerous State Environmental Conservation Departments ? If we could only encourage humans to be so fastidious when cleaning up their camp sites, our state parks and forest areas would be much more pristine.

My comment was that folks know tire tracks from catapillar tracks. You suggest that folks can mistake a certain track from another type of track. The folks that make mistakes - only have a limited set of choices - and they may make a mistake without realizing some other track source may lie outside their limited set of options. I could tell you if the guys were carrying packs or traveling light. And I didn't rely on just one or two indications/tracks. You may would be mistaken on tracks - others can read tracks like you can read a book.

What is the point of DWA repeating himself over and over and over again every day? You don't seem to have a problem with that.

I'm pretty good at tracking - men. Used to make a living tracking down men. I've tracked them down for several miles, even crossing international boundaries, just to find them. You apparently don't understand the elements that come with that skill. In fact, you clearly show a complete ignorance by your garden comment. First, no one would look at an impression in a garden or other location and make any determination - unless it were well define. Rather, tracking is about reading sign, and tracking is something that takes an entire body of work - not just one impression. Give me a few minutes and a map - and I can tell you where my prey is headed - and on occasion, I could take another route, force march it, and be there waiting on them to show up.

Well, I feel kind of bad for some who just discover an interest in these things, and come here like I did, and received nothing but negative attacks and comments. I know for a fact that a lot of the more interesting, more experienced, and more knowledgeable critter folks have just abandoned this site after running out of patience - leaving many fewer to learn from, or to hear from. I've stayed out of here for some time - but got tired of all the idiotic, repetitive negative comments I got in email updates. So I jumped back in for a while. I likewise caught flak by bringing up some material in older threads - oddly - by the same know-it-alls still here. They know everything, they have their own mind set on what is the right way - which is the only way - and just grind on and on and on repeating the same feces. So, for new folks, it's probably much easier to just walk around the pile of scat some call scientific skepticism - never really getting a chance to learn from narratives past and present.

Branco was there, examined the sign firsthand. You weren't there, you didn't see diddly squat, meaning your assumption of pure speculation - is pure conjecture. Did you see the footprints? Did you see what was disturbed and what wasn't? Do you have a list of animals that have the physical attributes to replicate that which was disturbed, and subsequently distributed? Tell us of your hunts - your time in the field - your experience tracking - your personal experiences, and if there aren't any, what were you doing wrong? Blind? Deaf? Clueless? Do you know what to look for? Do you know what you're looking at when you see disturbances? Do you know the habits and tendencies of different animals in your area, feeding times, ingress and egress, favorite areas? No, you clearly don't. But by all means - continue. You bring so much to all of us.

Yes Sir, I Know the bed was made by a Bigfoot. Anyone with and ounce of common sense, normal eyesight, an inquiring mind, but without an pompous, ego driven belief that he/she knows everything, would have concluded the same thing. Your disagreement with the facts are as immaterial and pointless as a buffalo gnat 's attempt to copulate with a turkey buzzard. Let me clue you in; there was in fact supporting physical evidence that a Bigfoot had not only carefully made the pile of duff shown in the photo, but had also lain on the original duff under it at some time in the past. The foot print sizes and shape, and the indentations left in the ground by the animal's weight is physical evidence that no human or other animals made those tracks. The sizes of the parcels of duff that were lifted from the ground by something with two forearms and hands that were slid along the ground's surface were generally two feet long and nearly that wide in some cases. It was obvious that the length of the forearms plus the hands that lifted the duff parcels were not those of typical humans. The fact that the ground and rotted duff left exposed when the top layers of the duff had been lifted were later carefully covered by duff gathered in hands-full from nearby high-ground, absolutely shows the entire actions were performed by a highly intelligent animal. It may have been impossible for you to make these determinations, but no surprise there.

Cool opinion, with a weight and value of a dung beetle's trophy.

Forget the scientists; just get in the woods and prove their existences to yourself and friends that are also woods rats and seriously interested enough to spend the time and money to see and interact with a few. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do that, although I know two who have. Who cares what others think or believe? If they don't have the guts and interest to do that; what is their opinion actually worth? Just over a week ago, a good friend - who is also a "knower" - took four semi-interested male college students to one of the active group's areas I have been working for years. They got cute with one of the resident males that typically come into that remote camp area when people are there at night. The boys were noisy and laughing when they heard a growling, stick breaking approach. One boy thought the sounds were made by others in the group, and walked around their truck and growled loudly. Immediately the male growled deeply and a lot louder and more aggressively and bluff charged him through the brush to within about ten feet of the truck. They all piled in it and left in a hurry. What the boy did - without knowing it - was to challenge and insult the male. I and a another "knower" spent some time up there night before last before last to make amends, although the wind and the nearby river's high water flow prevented us from hearing anything except their distant "gathering call" about dark, and that was only possible through an amplified sound system. Several night visitors/camper who have been at that site have left in a hurry, sometimes leaving the bulk of their gear behind.

Technically, a scientist is anyone who applies the scientific method when investigating a hypothesis. There were scientists long before there were scientific organizations, degrees, and scientific awards. Is an amateur astronomer who discovers an asteroid barreling toward Earth any less an astronomer than someone with a PhD in the science? The amateur is probably using a better telescope than Galileo had. On the other hand, is Bill Nye, the "Science Guy", really a climate scientist? After all, he only has a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering. The real question is: "What does society currently accept as reasonable qualifications for a "Scientist"? And the answer may vary from field to field, subject to subject, and political viewpoint to political viewpoint. Unfortunately; advanced degrees, experience, and resources are accompanied by a healthy portion of hubris.

Not a professor. From the article: "A new class at Centralia College taught by a part-time volunteer instructor " "It will be taught on April 8, April 22, May 6 and May 20 from 10 a.m. to noon" (an 8hr workshop) "The stone carvings still need to be examined in an academic environment" "he has not yet finished a scientific paper that adequately describes his newest findings" "To this day our research stands intact. Not one scientist has been able to refute our conclusions in any category. The integrated and mutually supporting nature of the evidence and analysis is clear, repeatable and microscopically impossible to fake or hoax." Pretty much sums up the state of bigfoot science. Welcome to the forum, btw