Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[Guest DWA]

WSA, 1, 2, 3, and 4 EVERY time. I have no problem whatsoever believing and accepting that as true. I think the majority of them are #1. I don't envision a massive, coordinated hoax going on, but I do easily see a bunch of people seeing something and believing it to be something else. This happens all the time, and not just with BF.

I have almost not read a report that could have been #1. Although I have to consider it conceivable, almost every one I have ever read is 2, 3 or 5.

There isn't a North American animal that can be mistaken for sasquatch other than humans - which when one reads the reports one can pretty safely rule out, not as inconceivable but as no-way-you'd-bet-it.

[dmaker]

^^^ There isn't a North American animal that can be mistaken for Sasquatch? I'm honestly dumb founded here, or I'm missing something implied but not stated. This happens all the time. I just saw something ( older,not current) on the BFRO.net site an hour ago that showed a picture of a porcupine that was mistaken as a sasquatch. It actually looked kind of convincing until you read the explanation. It's things exactly like that, in fact, that make me lean towards 1 more than 2, 3, or 4.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Well that was more to imagine a scenario that would satisfy DWA. I am already satisfied that BF does not exist. I believe the arguments and evidence against to be stronger than the arguments and evidence for.

Ok that saves me some time, I was going to gather a list of research organizations and individuals that search for the hairy guy, now I can go back to watching Gerry Andersons "Thunderbirds"

[dmaker]

Or perhaps you were saying in the reports animals cannot be easily mistaken as sasquatch? Not necessarily in the pictorial or video evidence? Ok, fine, I can see that more easily. But what about that same encounter sans camera? The individual later reports it ( sometimes MUCH later) and the mind naturally fills in some blanks or pulls stuff from previous life experience and maybe, just maybe, we have one of your bona fide eye witness reports that is based on a porcupine sighting.

Edited January 11, 2013 by dmaker

[WSA]

And remember: If you are judging a statement as being ANY of the five categories withouth honestly applying the criteria, you're making a subjective/objective determination into just a subjective one. If you ARE using the criteria, you should be able to articulate the found/unfound indicators when called on to do it. In other words, your "gut" is not a valid criteria in my book.

Yeah, it is a lot of work to do this correctly.

[Guest]

Evades whom exactly?

As far as we know, every biological survey, hunting trip, logging truck, well excavation, archaeological dig, frontiersman, angry farmer, camera trap, bigfoot hunter, etc. ever. This notion that people only collect evidence of the specific thing they are looking for is a fallacy. Countless species - including notables like both species of gorillas - have been described based on physical specimens collected opportunistically. If bigfoots are real, they should be too. So if bigfoots are real and they haven't been collected, then there must be something truly extraordinary about their ability to evade collection - even after death and after thousands of years.

[WSA]

Saskeptic, who is this "we" you speak of? :-)

[Guest RedRatSnake]

I just saw something ( older,not current) on the BFRO.net site an hour ago that showed a picture of a porcupine that was mistaken as a sasquatch. It actually looked kind of convincing until you read the explanation.

I remember that very well, porky in a tree, it was debunked on the old BFF1 in about half a dozen posts, the BF world was a buzz for a while on that one.

Edited January 11, 2013 by RedRatSnake

[Drew]

Saskeptic, who is this "we" you speak of? :-)

You mean other than humans beings as a whole?

You really need to go read this, if you think misidentifications don't lead to bigfoot sightings. http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Zhou__Tracking%20the%20Chinese%20Wildman.pdf

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Saskeptic, who is this "we" you speak of? :-)

Come on don't play it that way, everyone is just talking here, have fun with it.

[norseman]

As far as we know, every biological survey, hunting trip, logging truck, well excavation, archaeological dig, frontiersman, angry farmer, camera trap, bigfoot hunter, etc. ever. This notion that people only collect evidence of the specific thing they are looking for is a fallacy. Countless species - including notables like both species of gorillas - have been described based on physical specimens collected opportunistically. If bigfoots are real, they should be too. So if bigfoots are real and they haven't been collected, then there must be something truly extraordinary about their ability to evade collection - even after death and after thousands of years.

Actually no, that's not true from anecdotal reports. Pissed off miners and loggers, etc have SHOT AT THEM........probably with a deer hunting rifle, but they have been shot at for sure.

We just have no body to show for evidence.

And modern day squatchers are not going to give you one because they don't believe in harming the animal. So they are going to give you more grainy blobsquatch photos.

I also feel we are dealing with (if real) a very different type of animal than say a gorilla. They seem to be loners, shy and nocturnal.

But why haven't we found fossils? I cannot tell you that, other than the fact that I think that the fossil record is far from complete with the majority of species that once roamed the earth.

[Cotter]

As far as we know, every biological survey, hunting trip, logging truck, well excavation, archaeological dig, frontiersman, angry farmer, camera trap, bigfoot hunter, etc. ever.

Evades capture, not sightings, correct?

Do biological surveyors typically bring high powered weaponry in the field? Hunters do I know, and they've seen them, and only 1 modern instance I know of where someone came out and is currently trying to prove it. Loggers, well diggers, archaeologists don't pack, do they?

Camera traps don't collect specimens either as far as I know. Heck, most BF hunters don't pack enough firepower to take down an animal like this.

I would say that every person you described above HAS indeed had an encounter, but not the gumption to drop one of the things.

[Cisco]

There are many documented incidents of people shooting at a Sasquatch and, in some instances, actually killing them. However, they are all testimonial in nature and none, to my knowledge, resulted in any physical evidence. I'm not including the Sierra Kills as the results, from MK, have not been published.

The bottom line is, we don't have a tremendous amount of physical or photographic evidence but we do have a tremendous amount of anecdotal evidence.

This is the "rub," so to speak. A skeptic will present many logical reason as to why Bigfoot does not exist and it's hard to counter that because they are right.

However, the flip side is also true, in that we can present a tremendous amount of anecdotal evidence, from very credible sources, and it's very hard to counter the sheer volume, detail and credibility of the sightings and/ or the person telling it. Some can be weeded out, but not all and there a lot of sightings that can't be easily dismissed.

So, until a body is found, or all of the sightings can be discredited, we're in a no win situation.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Cisco

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Do biological surveyors typically bring high powered weaponry in the field? Hunters do I know, and they've seen them, and only 1 modern instance I know of where someone came out and is currently trying to prove it. Loggers, well diggers, archaeologists don't pack, do they?

Camera traps don't collect specimens either as far as I know. Heck, most BF hunters don't pack enough firepower to take down an animal like this.

Operation Endurance

[Cotter]

True RSS, and they are in the field what, a total of 45 days/year? Give or take? (I really don't know, so please correct me if I'm wrong).

Would that constitute a "lengthy" time spent in the field?