Leaderboard

The reports require multiple species. Social construct doesn't require multiple species when accounting for regional folklore I imagine the reports are more consistent from 2005 or so on. The reports indicate hoax. Read them and you will understand.

^ Summary: Federal Government issues procedures for research for which they are paying taxpayers $$ President uses memo to push his climate change agenda and requires departmental oversight to ensure compliance Agencies attempted to follow the rules and communicated guidelines Ketchum and Sykes unsuccessfully tested for bigfoot DNA Of course you need someones permission to use them as a science experiment I don't see any evidence that Sykes went to the NFWS and even if he did I wouldn't find that strange because he was in the neighborhood and interested in wildlife. The memo was about toeing the line regarding climate change. If the department didn't tow the line there were whistle blower provisions. Pure and simple. This was news at the time it was released.

I have thought about what dmaker has said about proponents not wanting the mystery solved because inevitably the only logical conclusion is they simply don't exist. I am on the opposite end of that. I have never believed in the creature ,but have a fondness for mysterious creatures and unsolved mysteries of many types. I want the question to remain open and not solved as to what I am sure what the answer is. I would even like to be wrong . if I am not I want the mystery to remain. Norse is correct that there is no proof of the existence of the creatures with the current amount of evidence . It is ok that people accept anecdotal evidence and that others like myself do not . It keeps it interesting . 5000 posts of stating the obvious is perfectly acceptable . So is 10000 posts of stating the not so obvious .

Correct but irrelevant. What we call a "Microsoft answer", technically correct but misses the point. Individual anecdotes are not data. I do not believe anyone is presenting them as such. This seems to be an attempt to set up a straw man .. or else ignorance of what's actually being discussed. So .. clarifying for those who have managed not to "get it" yet: the individual anecdotes are not data. Correct. Data is quantifiable. When the anecdotes are measured, then the body of measurements compared statistically, the result IS data. In fact, it's pretty near a working definition of what data actually means to a statistician or data analyst. The data doesn't exactly prove bigfoot, but to a qualified data analyst, it absolutely is non-random, consistent, yet with exactly the right amount of variation to eliminate hoaxing from the mind of anyone competent to look at the data as a scientist .. that is, unless the hoaxes were deliberately coordinated. I believe DWA has already told you that numerous times over the years. If your personal animosity towards him were not outweighing your judgement, you'd probably see that on your own. One last thing: there is no such thing as "physical data." There is "physical evidence", but data is never physical, it is always virtual, because it is quantified measurements or descriptions of physical things, NOT EVER the physical things themselves. MIB

OK...furnish the list of members of the academic or governmental scientific community that has publicly stated, ..."I want a body"... I can think of very few that have crossed that bridge besides Meldrum, Fahrenbach and Krantz. It appears the overwhelming majority just simply are not concerned with Sasquatchery. Perhaps, the OP should be edited to say M, F & K want a body but no one else gives a rip? Also, keep in mind the three (3) referenced individuals have yet to experience a FTF event. Is ignorance a ticket for this train and repetitive threads such as this one simply designed to reinforce a mindset clung to by those with the absolute least actual experience in the subject matter? How much redundancy doth an echo chamber make?

It's actually pretty steady for the summer. The traffic here decreases in the spring and summer when people go out bigfooting or whatever. It picks back up in the fall and winter is the busiest. It is way down from two years ago when we had the Justin Smeja / Bigfoot Steak / Ketchum drama going on for about a year, but that was an unusual bubble. There is less posting because there is nothing to talk about, but our traffic stats show people visit daily to see what's up. Just 'cause they don't want to argue about the same things over and over doesn't mean they have left.

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

I can't bring myself to sneer at a veteran of the armed forces. Thank goodness you're here to pick up the slack.

The worse thing that can happen to a forum is an echo chamber . I'm fine debating anyone that doesn't believe or has strong doubts about the creatures existence .

^ So it is a government cover up starting at the President ending with the ranger at the national park. Tens of thousands of people covering up Bigfoot so good people can't even get one shred of verifiable evidence. I have been thinking that the government is incompetent.

The intellectual dishonesty of this response ^^^ leaves me depressed for the state of the world if this is what passes for analytical rigor these days, as well as all others which smugly dismiss evidence because it doesn't come in the right package, with a certified mail receipt. You are handed the scientific premise you claim you need, and then pretend you didn't ask for it. Here it is. Kindly take on the question under the terms you've asked for. I always regret engaging you for this reason.

Yeah, speaking of canards, the ol' "un-falsifiable" one...at least as it applies to this topic...is a perennial misdirection. In the classic rhetorical sense it applies to an hypothesis that can never, ever be proven false by the opponent. If I said: There are angels dancing on the head of this pin, too small to be seen under any magnification", you have a statement that is not subject to being refuted by any scientific measurement. This does not fit the hypothesis of Big Foot's existence for the simple reason it chooses to overlook the existence of plenty of physical evidence that substantiates what our opponents arbitrarily and obstinately choose to classify as un-falsifiable. So, you can test a footprint, you can test a film imprint, you can test a hair, you can test DNA, you can test a sound recording, you can test teeth marks...stop me when you've heard enough. Take the PG film as just one example. A classic example of a witness report, backed up by Class A physical evidence. How much effort has been undertaken to prove Bill Munn's hypothesis false? i.e., the physical properties of the thing on the film prevent it from being merely a human in a costume. The answer to that question is "nil" on any serious scientific level. So don't give me this un-falsifiable crap. He has pages and pages of analysis that begs refuting. If you asked Bill, he tell you he'd welcome anyone to try. Start here and then we'll talk. Hell, start on any of the things on the list and we'll talk. Big Tree Walker will be glad to take your call, I feel fairly certain. You think a porcupine made those tooth marks on those elk bones? Show your work and then we'll talk. Instead, all we hear is more angels on a pinhead. The lack of intellectual integrity is breathtaking. No, what is obvious to all who seriously study this matter is that all attempts to prove this hypothesis as false have failed miserably, or were not even attempted, not that it is un-falsifiable. Big, big difference. There is plenty in all of this to offer science a chance to prove it false but until science removes head from posterior, and treats the hypothesis of Big Foot 's existence on a par with invisible dancing angels, the needle for science won't budge. Lazy man's way of explaining the world it is.

Buses do not tend to bang on trailer doors, howl into the night, raid dumpsters, build stick huts in suburbia, etc, etc....

Only in bigfootery would the President of the United States of America issue a memo affecting the entire government and likely costing millions of dollars to hide the DNA study of Melba Ketchum. Wow. I had been under the impression that the involuntary testing ban was regarding HIV or the like while never figured out the blatant attempt to hide Bigfoot DNA. Thank you Branco and FarArcher.

When I see a statement like this with the qualifier, "cannot," I tend to cringe. I realize not everyone has actually been in the field - never been in remote areas - never been in difficult terrain - never tried to find something large in thousands and tens of thousands of acres - and realize how difficult that can be. Hot on the trail of four individuals, we crossed into an allies area of operation - and only 200 meters in, we ran into what at the time was referred to as "The Lost Regiment," 900-men strong. With all the aerial recon, with our allies constant patrols seeking groups like this - they'd missed a 900-man regiment for three years. Our recon company was basically a hundred man unit - numbers varied with casualties and transfer - but we tied up two enemy divisions - who's entire mission was to interdict us. But we only went out in five and six man teams. dmaker, I can hide a yellow schoolbus - no - I can hide ten yellow school buses in one valley in say, Oregon - and you won't find them. And the buses are not trying to hide. The buses won't try to evade you. The buses won't run away to avoid detection if you get close. I think your practical knowledge falls far short of your perceived knowledge - which is why you make these erroneous assumptions. You'll think I'm entirely FOS, and I don't care - but the biggest mistake I see most making is that they think they're after an animal. A "dumb" animal - and put up glaringly obvious trap cams, or try to "drive" these things, or even set up ridiculous traps, trying to catch one. All of these things work on dumb animals with varying degrees of success, but because they don't work on these critters - folks reach the wrong assumption - they don't exist. These things are primitive men. Not human, but men. Call it a man/hybrid, a primitive man, or just use the simpler term "caveman." When you start fresh with that perspective, or really stretch it out - assumption - then the reason they're not stumbled on, caught in traps, or carelessly walk into an area laced with trap cams - becomes more clear. In the Rangers, we had 5-man and 6-man teams - very, very difficult to detect. Our A-teams were ten men, but it was divided into two separate five-man teams - again, very, very difficult to detect. We've had a company size unit walking all over us, actively looking for us, and we went undetected. If you don't want to be found - you probably won't. We didn't even use ghillie suits - yet the long, non-reflective (non-sheen) hair on these cave men act as a natural ghillie suit - making then ten times harder to detect than a man in camo. If they just get down, and remain stationary, folks will walk right by them - because they'd walk right by me. I urge you. I beg you. Stick to the things you're very familiar with - have volumes of practical experience with - have practiced with. Repeating ridiculous assumptions that some other unknowing folks have said - doesn't make them true.

I don't buy this. There is no reason the hoaxes have to be deliberately coordinated. I think that is a gross exaggeration meant to add legitimacy to the reports as evidence. There is nothing, that I can see, in the reports that requires any kind of close collaboration. Anyone can read a few reports, or watch a bigfoot documentary, and pick up enough classic report "markers" to easily fabricate an encounter that would pass an enthusiast sniff test. Easily. No one has bothered to offer any examples of reported behaviour that would only be known to a trained primatologist. The claim is often made by DWA, but never, not even once, substantiated with any examples. Maybe you would like to try? Ironically, the reports are, to me, the most damning bit of bigfoot evidence. You simply cannot have an animal of that size, numbers and reported range, with that reported behaviour, escape confirmation for that long. The sheer number of reports are what make bigfoot seem less likely, not more. I understand you have a different opinion. I'm just offering mine. If you want to get personal and attack me for that, that is fine, just do it in PM or buy a premium membership, and I'll meet you there and you can take as many swings as you want.

1. Besides unsourced footprints, what physical data exists? Anecdotes are not data, sorry everyone that feels differently.

Thank you, 7.62, for lessening the snark level. Bravo. Some really fragile egos, hereabout. ITGs notwithstanding.

Not affected my belief. I was and am still reasonably sure the creature does not exist. Now having said that, I have learned a lot from witnesses ,stories and this community . Explanations and some scientific approaches to the subject that I had not considered. I enjoyed the suit or no suit explanations of the PGF .There is a lot of strong opinions and interaction among proponents and others. I try not to engage in personal stuff unless it is all in fun and with respect.

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.

Careful, you're getting all emotional again, and you're such a valuable poster you don't want to say something that will get you another 'vacation.' Back on topic. Ontario, you're absolutely correct that man in academia are very reluctant to pursue in any manner what some would consider an element of cryptozoology. Or any other fringe topic a researcher would like to do work on, but knowing that the results regardless of the findings - would be frowned on by their peers. Speaking with a physicist/chemist last night, he spoke of this - and the gist of what he lamented was that there are those who work within the framework of either academia and those who do research for firms - and neither will fund such outlier efforts. Leaving it up to individual researchers - who also must pay the bills - leaving little to spend on something that the unknowing say doesn't exist. I think you 'slop' pigs. You're light is burning bright, tonight.

Dmaker I have given you a lot of respect as a strong skeptic. You also know that no one has given me the respect I deserve and I really do not care. I have been posting here since 2002 or around that time . But since that time I have showed evidence of these creatures on BFF 1.0 till now with exception of not having a body to show as proof that they exist. But if They ever give me a chance to get a picture or to get a single well placed shot believe me you will have that body. I have shown pictures of them but have been criticize by others since they were not clear pictures. The evidence that I have put on this forum is still on this forum and has been criticized but not denied. You can say what you want that what I seen or that what I have experience is all in my head but the evidence that I have placed on this forum says different. Like I have said I am not afraid to be criticized and others in my state have experience the same as my self with maybe the same creatures. So I am not alone in what I have seen or what they have done. They are not bigfoot fairy tales but a living being that I cannot explain. Whether they are some type of Human ape being or they are just an animal with a knowledge that we have no understanding. But people can look me up as julio12 when they join as a premium member since I am not sure on how they have their server set up. I am not looking for any book sales, yet there is enough info for myself here for me to write a book. I have gone public twice and believe that this is all I will do. I am only here so that the truth can be said. I am not afraid to speak my mind and will tell it how it goes with them. I am very open minded with this subject and have experience a lot of strange events that I cannot explain in a normal sense where science can under stand. The capabilities of these creatures is incredible and must be experienced to understand. This is why I do not blame you for being a skeptic or anyone else who has not experienced what I have. It is a normal human response to deny these creatures existence. For myself if there is a heaven then the woods would be my heaven. Through out the years that I have been on this forum I have learned not to get angry over a skeptic point of view over my sighting. I hope that I do come across a dead creature so that I can prove all the skeptic wrong. But this would have to be a gift by them and maybe one day it will happen. So be ready for that day.

Disagreeing is a good thing during discourse. Blowing off every other indicator by posters is destructive to discourse. Maybe you'd like to investigate just a bit, and determine active participants on this site now as opposed to say, two or three years ago. My money is on the number of active participants is drying up - fast.

Ontario - I can fund research to support a finding I want - and the scientific group I fund - will provide proof of that finding. Good, scientific proof. I can fund another research effort to support a finding to the contrary, and the scientific group I fund will likewise find scientific proof to the contrary. Good, scientific proof. Academia - by definition - learn by rote, and teach by rote. New ideas can only be incrementally tested. Or the funding dries up. Change is painfully slow. I spent four hours on the phone last night with a research doctor who's worked for some of the most well funded, top research facilities in the nation, and he's been published - not once or twice - but twenty five times. And this was a good part of our discussion. Evolved from what species previous? (Please don't tell me you don't know, or can't find it in the fossil record.) It was your example after all.

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?

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.

As I think I said before, I can't be absolutely sure what year I had my first sighting. I know it was deer season, so probably October, 'cause we were sitting on a sand bar waiting for my aunt to come off the mountain so she didn't have to walk the rest of the way home. I remember my cuz was old enough to drive but I wasn't. That locks it down to 1 of 3 years. I probably could call another cousin who was staying with us and working for my grandmother that year .. she was only there one year. But .. does it matter? '75, '76, or '77 ... does it matter now? I only remember my second sighting 'cause it was the 2nd saturday of deer season and it was 2013 so it was pretty likely Oct 6. Almost 4 years later ... does it matter what day it was? The bigfoot is not there right now. The only people it really matters to are those looking for some reason to dismiss what happened. Does anyone believe I really care what they think? Does anyone think me so weak that I need their approval? .. 'cause if you do, I have news for you. MIB

^^^^ Says the guy that spends a whole lot of time on a Bigfoot forum. We should be studying you.....