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

[Guest Stan Norton]

Here is an elk laying on it's side, the front hooves never plant under neath it when it gets up.

go to 1:29

Yes, but unfortunately this creature appears to have a extra pair at the rear which, surprisingly, plant down smack bang in the middle of where it was resting. Those other two funny leg-type looking things at the front also appear to touch the ground too. But I guess that a professor of primatology and a professor of primate foot anatomy might have got a tad confused about that and assumed the prints were left by a huge ape...

[Guest DWA]

Really, it's easier to just assume the ape is real than to assume levitating, retro-rocketing elk.

Or to assume that an aerospace engineer could confuse the Wright Flyer with the Lunar Excursion Module, to use yet another example of Technical Specialists: Aren't They Scwewy...! How could anyone trust a kook like this...!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daris_Swindler

Edited January 11, 2013 by DWA

[norseman]

Watch it again.

His knees are under him yes. But his hooves do not contact the ground until he leaps out of the wallow.

The knees coincidently are the 'heel' of the Bigfoot.

Yes they do. In fact that is exactly how he is able to leap out of the wallow. He is planting his hooves under him. And again we are talking about his front hooves........his hind hooves are totally drawn under him just like Meldrum's diagram.

Yanno Drew, I wasn't there, I didn't see the casting area. But being an elk hunter and rancher and watching elk, cows, mules and horses getting up and down often, The chances of not having a track UNDER the animal at the moment in gathers itself and comes up is impossible.

It's impossible for a human to do it if his hands are tied behind his back and he cannot pull himself up. In that case you have to draw your legs under you.

And if I duct taped your ankles to your thighs you would not be able to leap resting on your knees. The elk used his knees as spring boards, with his hooves firmly planted on terra firma

Really, it's easier to just assume the ape is real than to assume levitating, retro-rocketing elk.

Well no.........of course not.

Drew and other skeptics are bringing up valid points but there are limitations to what they are trying to explain away.

Edited January 11, 2013 by norseman

[Guest DWA]

Well no.........of course not.

Drew and other skeptics are bringing up valid points but there are limitations to what they are trying to explain away.

Note I said: levitating, retro-rocketing elk. No rocket prints in the Skookum Cast.

But when I start getting testy on this is when people tell me they know more than the Swindlers do. Or question my mistrust of a scientific community that is clearly playing the role of incredulous layman here.

I think that attempts to explain away the footprints and eyewitness testimony with a hand-wave are no less naive than what we just witnessed here.

[norseman]

"Yes they have claimed to have shot one", but until such a claim can be verified it is just another claim. Take Justin Smeja who claims to have shot multiple bigfoots rather recently. He even claims to have had a witness with him at the time, and to have returned to the site of the alleged shooting. He claims to have collected some tissue from the site that might have been from one of the animals he shot. Unfortunately, analysis of that tissue revealed it to have come from a bear, not a bigfoot.

What does that mean? Was Smeja lying, mistaken about what he shot that day, or was he simply unable to collect any physical evidence that could corroborate his claim? From a scientific standpoint, it doesn't really matter because the result is the same: someone made a claim about bigfoot and did not provide physical evidence that could substantiate the claim.

Again I agree with you 200 percent a type specimen is needed and not claims.

But obviously the claim that it "evades" us made by you is speaking to the fact that science doesn't have evidence of one. And not so much about the animal being able to remain undetected and unseen by every day witnesses.

And again, which you did not respond to, it's a FACT that the FBI has ignored eye witness testimony in the face of a missing child. So what real reward is there for the every day witness to come forward?

Re: photos - Recall that I'm on record here at the BFF for years with my opinion that high-quality photographic evidence has the potential to result in a published description of bigfoot as a new species. I can't describe for you exactly what such a photo would look like, but I have many times linked to trailcam photos of the quality that could potentially convince me. When I see something that good I'll let you know. (Remember too that provenance and analysis of the photographs themselves would play a big role in the overall "quality" of such a photograph.)

And you'll remember that I think it's a fool's errand. A photo relies on your perspective as a observer who is remotely viewing the photo. A foot on the other hand? Is a slam dunk. And it's almost harder to carry the camera around and get a good picture than it is to carry a adequate rifle and get a good shot.

It's too bad modern day squatchers are anti kill.

[WSA]

The ICZN.

Norseman and Cotter: Dudes, seriously? Are you seriously suggesting that I, the Saskeptic, didn't imply "collection" in my comments? It's right here explicitly:

"This notion that people only collect evidence of the specific thing they are looking for is a fallacy."

I'm well aware of the number of people who claim to have encountered bigfoots and the small number of reports of people shooting bigfoots. The successful collection is the important part.

Copy that Saskeptic. In the practice of defending civil cases, we have an expression that covers this: "If it ain't in the file, it ain't." Sort of a similar concept, I think. I only hope the ICZN would not look askance at at, say, a well perserved skull, only on the grounds of a lack of provenance for it.

perserved preserved skull...

[Guest]

Not to say anything wasn't amiss in the 'Dennis Martin case' that is referenced in Norseman's post above, but there is no

credible evidence to suggest that Bigfoot took him.

See this: http://www.uscg.mil/tcyorktown/ops/sar/inland/Docs/DennisMartinReadAhead.pdf, a very good read.

[norseman]

Not to say anything wasn't amiss in the 'Dennis Martin case' that is referenced in Norseman's post above, but there is no

credible evidence to suggest that Bigfoot took him.

See this: http://www.uscg.mil/...inReadAhead.pdf, a very good read.

Where is the Key testimony in that report?

[Guest]

But obviously the claim that it "evades" us made by you is speaking to the fact that science doesn't have evidence of one. And not so much about the animal being able to remain undetected and unseen by every day witnesses.

Right, and it's even worse when so many people claim these close-up encounters and claim to have shot them.

And again, which you did not respond to, it's a FACT that the FBI has ignored eye witness testimony in the face of a missing child. So what real reward is there for the every day witness to come forward?

I don't know how the FBI decides to carry out its business, so there's nothing I can offer you about that. If you're asking about reward for someone who actually retrieves a piece of a bigfoot, all I can say is that it would be "handsome", and that's been the case since at least the mid-19th Century. We've had entire threads dedicated to the potential monetary gain from bagging a bigfoot, with people arguing that there'd be no gain. I disagree, but that's not the first time I've disagreed with folks here on the BFF.

[Guest]

Then what is it's distribution and on what do you base your opinion?

Re: Cold. I don't necessarily agree with ronn1 that a cold-adapted bigfoot is such a big stretch, but it is a stretch and he raises good points that add to the unlikelihood of such creatures. Anything we could come up with to propose how bigfoots survive harsh northern/alpine winters would be speculation, and some of that speculation comes pre-challenged by things we already know.

For example, people suggest "caves" as a way for bigfoots to survive harsh winters. Well, if that was true then North American caves would have evidence of thousands of years of winter cave occupation by bigfoots, and these would be excellent places for remains to have been preserved, as they have for so many other animals both extinct and extant. Caves are not evenly distributed across landscapes, so we can't just assume that there are suitable caves within the home range our your friendly, local bigfoot. In the U.S. and I assume at least southern Canada, most caves big enough for a human to squeeze into have been at least partially explored and mapped. I'd be shocked if there are more than a handful of unexplored caves in the U.S. that are big enough to accommodate a bigfoot and its winter larder. Cavers really get jazzed about being the first folks to get in and map a cave.

So . . . we just need to be careful that speculating about what bigfoots might do can get problematic once you really try to tease apart the mechanisms.

There you go.

[norseman]

Right, and it's even worse when so many people claim these close-up encounters and claim to have shot them.

Like I said........evade "whom". 99.99 percent of the witnesses out there are minding their own business. It seems odd to me that science would rely on Bobo getting them physical evidence. Sasquatch doesn't need to evade anyone, because in our modern culture nobody means them any harm evidently.

I don't know how the FBI decides to carry out its business, so there's nothing I can offer you about that. If you're asking about reward for someone who actually retrieves a piece of a bigfoot, all I can say is that it would be "handsome", and that's been the case since at least the mid-19th Century. We've had entire threads dedicated to the potential monetary gain from bagging a bigfoot, with people arguing that there'd be no gain. I disagree, but that's not the first time I've disagreed with folks here on the BFF.

That's not what I mean at all. What I'm saying is that bigfoot like reports given to authorities are **** canned, even when a child's life is on the line. There fore the whole system is geared towards dissuading people from making reports.

Edited January 11, 2013 by norseman

[Guest DWA]

<p>

It seems to me that you simply stick to your favorite experts even if they are shown to be wrong.

They haven't been shown to be wrong yet. Yours, however, demonstrably are. "No evidence?" Oh, OK.

You seem to simply stick to saying things are so that demonstrably aren't. Like that elk have jet engines in their sides so they don't need legs to stand up. That's where the blue quote comes from. If that, um, works for you.

Edited January 12, 2013 by DWA

[Guest RedRatSnake]

You seem to simply stick to saying things are so that demonstrably aren't. Like that elk have jet engines in their sides so they don't need legs to stand up. That's where the blue quote comes from. If that, um, works for you.

If you take that elk lay thing and look at the entire picture, what happened to the BF tracks.

[Guest]

Very easy. I always considered it only one piece of evidence; I didn't consider it to be possible to play with any further than it had been; science's opinion on it was settled and that was that; P/G wouldn't change a thing I think on the topic were it proven fake tomorrow except: Patty's fake. That, to me, is like debunking two or three pretty cool sighting reports, max. So? And in my opinion, all one has to do is see the stills to doubt, very highly, that a human could be made to fit in that suit. Surprise! Bill Munns agrees. So. Who needs to watch a minute of film? I knew, before I'd ever seen the stills actually move, that I had never seen a person walk like that, ever.

And I have never, ever seen anybody spend any time on any thing to so little effect as I have seen both sides of the debate spend on Patty. It would be far easier to just get in the field and confirm the animal.

I just didn't need to. I paid attention to all the evidence, screened out the sideshows, and put Patty in perspective.

so why did you use yourself as an example of how most people have not seen the film?

I have no way to prove this but I'm pretty confident that most adults have seen at least part of the video

Edited January 12, 2013 by mbh

[Guest]

After we - in fact you, in this very post - talked about the ones that do? Interesting.

(Referring to Japanese Monkey)...

Yes, this is the ONE KNOWN exception. Other than highly insulating FUR COAT, these animals also have a special social adaptation of closely *hugging* as well as seeking out hot springs. Here's the caveat as far as attempting to put BF in that category>>>

You can't establish BF has the type of FUR that this monkey has or this *hugging* feature either. In fact, pictures of the purported ICON (Patty) appears to show hair very similar to apes and monkeys. It's NOT DENSE FUR LIKE THIS>>>

Different coats here>>These creatures CAN NOT live in the snow>>

Edited January 12, 2013 by ronn1