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

[xspider1]

Let's use a different court of law analogy:

Footer - Your honor, we have thousands of reports from credible eye-witnesses indicating that Bigfoot, while not recognized by mainstream Science, do in fact exist.

Judge - That's interesting.

Footer - We have many images and videos of Bigfoot which cannot be shown to be fake, hair samples which apparently do not belong to any classified animal and many, many footprints which would have been very difficult to fake.

Judge - That's interesting. Do you have a Bigfoot body to show?

Footer - No

Judge - Well, in the interest of realizing that we do not yet know everything there is to know (although some will always think that we do), let's just say that we can't say exactly what they are.

Footer - That sounds about right for now. Thank-you sir, have a good day.

[Guest]

ETA: Sorry to take a huge wind out of the skeptic's sails.

Like most outspoken advocates, you think too highly of your own opinions and you've only served to add an updraft of hot air into the sail by limiting your argument to smartphones,

Moreover, your contention that nobody is looking for BF is hilarious to say the least. As stated in my OP, there are hundreds of thousands, arguably millions, of unmanned sentinels up for this endeavor. Not originally tasked to snap a photo of BF, but part of a giant surveillance network nonetheless because of the financial windfall if a pic is obtained. So what will it be this time, Sasquatch's hearing is so advanced, he can detect the sound of electrons bouncing around inside the Trail-Cam housing. Can he smell residual photons when the flash went off as deer walked by the camera several hours earlier. Perhaps all portable power supplies emit ultrasonic vibrations that cause the massive corns on BF's ginormous feet to tingle as he walks in close proximity of a trail-cam.

That's the luxury of being Squatcher, you can continue adding to the steaming pile of excuses as you see fit regardless of how farfetched they. The only doctrine that must be observed is it must perpetuate the BF phenomenon.

So how do you prevent an enraged Sasquatch from beating the snout out you as asked in another thread ? Easy, you just wear a trail-cam around your neck.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Marlboro

[Guest]

Like most outspoken advocates, you think too highly of your own opinions and you've only served to add an updraft of hot air into the sail by limiting your argument to smartphones,

Moreover, your contention that nobody is looking for BF is hilarious to say the least. As stated in my OP, there are hundreds of thousands, arguably millions, of unmanned sentinels up for this endeavor. Not originally tasked to snap a photo of BF, but part of a giant surveillance network nonetheless because of the financial windfall if a pic is obtained. So what will it be this time, Sasquatch's hearing is so advanced, he can detect the sound of electrons bouncing around inside the Trail-Cam housing. Can he smell residual photons when the flash went off as deer walked by the camera several hours earlier. Perhaps all portable power supplies emit ultrasonic vibrations that cause the massive corns on BF's ginormous feet to tingle as he walks in close proximity of a trail-cam.

That's the luxury of being Squatcher, you can continue adding to the steaming pile of excuses as you see fit regardless of how farfetched they. The only doctrine that must be observed is it must perpetuate the BF phenomenon.

So how do you prevent an enraged Sasquatch from beating the snout out you as asked in another thread ? Easy, you just wear a trail-cam around your neck.

I'm not convinced that BF is real. I don't know that it isn't either. Which shoots your characterization of me to bits. I also don't ignore the odds of BF existing like you do. You're just out to lunch re the odds is all. I'm a digital mapper by trade and I process endless aerial photos and convert them into ortho-maps of the earth's surface. Do you have any idea how many hours it would take you to survey the NA landmass in a plane flying at 5,000 meters high? And that's just 1 brief pass over.

You have NO appreciation of the vastness of the land. If an animal wanted to hide in it, it could. This is a red herring that you skeptics keep bringing up. Sorry, but the "we would have found one by now" argument has no scientific validity. I can counter that argument by asking you how could so many reports be BS? If you want to use stats to make your argument, you must assign weight to probabilities, and justify them. Do you skeptics ever do that? You just assume that time is up, where's the monkey? After all, it's been a whole 50 years and we ain't getting any younger.

If 1 million game cams were operating around the clock and each one covered 2000 square feet, then they would cover the area denoted by the tiny red dot on the map below (mid-Ontario). The area covered by hunters would be even smaller.

[gigantor]

Marlboro, you should well know that absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence...

btw, wonder where that Ivory Billed Woodpecker's evidence is after all the millions spent looking for it.

Edited February 19, 2013 by gigantor

[Guest]

Marlboro, you should well know that absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence...

btw, wonder where that Ivory Billed Woodpecker's evidence is after all the millions spent looking for it.

The is evidence of absence, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

[dmaker]

^^ Yes, but the proponents are going to argue that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot, you're just not acquainted with it. Even using the wiki link you provided makes this an easy argument to push aside for anyone that believes in Bigfoot. There is ( they will argue) sign of Bigfoots' presence i.e. tracks,etc that you would have to refute conclusively each and every one of them in order for the absence of evidence argument to adhere. And even then they will hold up the eye witness reports as something else you must exhaust yourself proving wrong. And how can you tell some person who hallucinated back 30 years ago when they were 12 that they were wrong and prove it? You simply cannot. Therefore it's not even worth bringing up this line of thinking. The Footers will conveniently transfer the burden of proof off of the claimant ( them) onto you and think they are being all scientific. It's a joke, save your breath.

[Guest DWA]

If there's a huge pile of evidence, and disproving it is too much work, doesn't that imply that it needs to be explained? I'd think so.

What's a joke is to toss it all off as being things that you can not only not prove but have no evidence for, happening to thousands of people you know nothing about.

"Area X" is in Oklahoma. Speaking of which, what if 5 years pass and the TBRC has nothing concrete to show for its efforts, no hard evidence, no dead or captured Wood Ape. Would you then conclude they never really had any experiences with Wood Apes? Or would you conclude they did experience Wood Apes, but the apes moved on? Or would you not have a conclusion about it at all?

I ask the same questions, but 10 years have passed and nothing definitive from "Area X."

I ask again, but for the sake of argument, 30 years haved passed and nothing definitive. 40 years? 50?

I guess I would say that when there is an explanation that holds water for what all this evidence represents, then we're done. (Unless the explanation is a species new to science, at which point we've only started. Or a peculiar mass psychosis which may be unexplainable.)

What I don't feel comfortable with is the "toss" option when we don't even know (key word, not "guess") what is causing all this evidence to happen.

[Guest DWA]

OK, let's use the court of law analogy.

Footer - Your honor, we have a load of forensic related material from bigfoot. We won't grant access to the opposing scientists, but you have to trust us that it's from BF.

Judge - I'm sorry, but this material must be made available for scientific scrutiny

Footer - OK, but can we get someone like Meldrum or Ketchum to verify? We've always had bad luck when the scientist does not possess an unhealthy obsession with BF.

Footer - We have in our possession a 47 year old grainy film of BF, our expert says it's real

Judge - we just heard testimony from Dr. Schmitt and Daegling who's combined disciplines encompasses everything from anthropology to analyzing animal locomotion on film. Their assessment indicates the film cannot yield the visual details you claim and the motion of the subject in the film is totally reproducible by a human. Moreover, Dr. Grieves, an expert in human gait has offered testimony that the PGF gait is that of a human. So what makes your expert worthy to contradict these assessments?

Footer - uh - he glues fur to fabric for a living

Footer - we also have a statistical report that indicates the probability of the PGF of being faked to be 1:20000

Judge - who performed this analysis because I don't seem to see much in the form of numerical calculations in this document ? Looks more like creative writing.

Footer - uh - he glues fur to fabric for a living

Garbage in...garbage out.

Speaking of "out," handy out, isn't it? Anyone who's interested in sasquatch has an unhealthy obsession. Slam-dunk, eh?

Tell me, how unhealthy is it compared to [RedQuote] below? Now that's unhealthy.

Edited February 19, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

Here's a fun fact to know and tell..

Anybody here know what percentage of the total number of U.S. sighting reports in the BFRO database are accounted for by the top 7 U.S. states, ranked by number of reports? You get extra credit if you can name those top seven states, and extra-extra credit if you can list them in order.

I just throw this out there just to counter the "proponents say BF are everywhere" argument. My personal opinion is that you'd be a fool to believe every report as gospel, but an equal fool to discount all of them. But, statistical trends being very real in this area of endeavor, it pays to know this.

[WSA]

As of 2/17, there are 4,302 encounter reports listed on the BFRO website. (For the purpose of this answer, I'm not ranking the degree/quality of the purported encounter) Of these, the top 7 states reporting account for close to 50% (2,080) of the total.

In order of total reports submitted, greatest to smallest, the states are:

WA

CA

OR

OH

TX

IL

FL

Note: I've also not compared the land mass of these 7 states (considerable) to the remaining continental U.S., ditto for total human population, which might also be useful if any are inclined to tackle it.

And, for any who would like me to consider reports of werewolves/ghosts/unicorns/leprechauns/shapeshifters/Ted Nugent eating vegan, in parity with BF reports....bring me 4k similar reports collected within the timespan of this database's existence, and I'll be glad to do it.

Edited February 19, 2013 by WSA

[Guest poignant]

Garbage in...garbage out.

My thoughts exactly. Just another flavor of false analogy and straw man.

[Guest DWA]

As of 2/17, there are 4,302 encounter reports listed on the BFRO website. (For the purpose of this answer, I'm not ranking the degree/quality of the purported encounter) Of these, the top 7 states reporting account for close to 50% (2,080) of the total.

In order of total reports submitted, greatest to smallest, the states are:

WA

CA

OR

OH

TX

IL

FL

Note: I've also not compared the land mass of these 7 states (considerable) to the remaining continental U.S., ditto for total human population, which might also be useful if any are inclined to tackle it.

And, for any who would like me to consider reports of werewolves/ghosts/unicorns/leprechauns/shapeshifters/Ted Nugent eating vegan, in parity with BF reports....bring me 4k similar reports collected within the timespan of this database's existence, and I'll be glad to do it.

Um, that would be "touche."

They won't do it, so don't hold your breath.

This is what "evidence" means, people. If you don't think this is evidence...well, you don't have a good reason to think that. Dictionary definition: Sastisfied. Legal definition: bingo. And whatever you may think of this, here's what the society thinks:

If it's potentially good enough to put somebody away for life, or terminate his, it is more than good enough to make the presumptive case here, too.

[WSA]

Well DWA, don't ya know? This could only be considered EVIDENCE of something if we had a PROOF of that something. Which we don't. So, you know, it can't be. When you bring here the PROOF, only then will we be open to declaring this to be EVIDENCE. But you can't. Because there is no PROOF. Because this something doesn't exist. So there can't be any EVIDENCE. So there is no need to consider it. Confused? Then go back to the beginning and start over. Repeat as many times as necessary.

[Guest DWA]

...^^^and yes, some scientists have actually used that reasoning.

And clarifying for those who may be unsure: go to everybody you know and ask this question:

If 4,000-odd people saying yes, he did it, is enough to make the case that hey, he possibly did, would you say that is also enough people to make the case that that big monkey they say they saw is possibly real?

If any answer: fry the murderer but the monkey's fake, tell him his reasoner needs to go back to the shop.

Edited February 19, 2013 by DWA

[norseman]

The PGF is a fake, there is no such thing as BF, it is a mythical creature! It is more amazing that people still believe BF exists than the idea of BF itself. No new PGF like footage in almost fifty years, yet there are more people in NA, less remote areas to remain hidden, more people actually looking for BF than ever, better technology, and even though almost everyone has a camera on them these days (in the form of a cell phone), not a decent photo or sequence of footage has been presented since 1967? That is because BF is not real, it doesn't exist. There is no way a population of BF is living on the edges of NA populations centers and science hasn't catologued it...or taken it seriously.

What a load of hogwash. There are PLENTY of pictures and video out there that shows something that isn't a bear...........or a stump. It's either a dude in a suit or it's something unexplained. We even have thermal video of something that isn't a bear or a stump, how is that for technology?

This is just another example of the EPIC FAIL of any type of film or picture proving anything to anyone. And unfortunately this is the chosen medium of the "more people" searching for the creature.

If BF were real...one would get blasted on opening day of hunting season, a day when millions and millions of the dudes in camo put down their remotes and pick up their rifles and wander into the woods of NA to kill something. What? BF circles that day on his calendar and stays in? Moves the family into the cave? It is not real?

This is just a simply ignorant statement. It really bothers me that people actually think that hunters are fat, lazy slobs that waddle out on opening day and just slaughter everything in sight. It reminds me of a conversation I had with a woman from the humane society that had a rather dour opinion of cougar hunting with hounds. I challenged her to strap on her snow shoes and follow hounds through deep snow ridge after ridge attempting to tree a cougar and get back to me on her opinion............and that is of course after years of breeding, feeding, mucking out the kennel, watering, doctoring and TRAINING your hounds.

This type of stuff just offends me.

Doesn't the fact that people claim BF is everywhere in NA bother footers, or at least set off some red flag in their minds? What? Any State that has a few trees has BF? BF everywhere means BF is nowhere! If some dude in Kansas, or far more fantastical PEI, can be convinced he saw BF....then anyone can be convinced they have BF in their hood. But they don't, because it is a mythical creature.

I used to believe in this stuff, did for years, talked to tons of folks about it, including some of the big names, a few I've even seen post on here, but after all these years, they're still looking, they're no closer to finding the truth...because you cannot find what is not there.

All BF is now is a good story to tell the lady friend when we're huddled in a tent in the back country, and rightfully so, in the light of day she will say...'I can't believe you scared me with that silliness ...'did some dude really claim he was hauled off in his sleeping bag and wake up with a family of BF?'. At which point we laugh, and I have to admit that I used to believe in these fables too. But if we can't laugh at ourselves....well, you know how the story goes.

Anyway, carry on believing, getting out in the bush beats watching TV, but don't be too disappointed if you never ever find proof of BF. If that is what you're after, you're destined for failure because BF does not exist. Better to head out and enjoy the wilderness with BF as a secondary goal and the possibility (though futile in reality) you will see something while you're there.

My opinion is thus...just sayn'.

I've seen something that I cannot easily explain away, so there fore I cannot dig my feet in like you have.