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

[roguefooter]

I just kind of like the mystery behind it so I have no problem if it continues for another 100 years.

I also like to see people rip their hair out over it. It brings out the absolute worst in people.

[Guest RayG]

^^ there are a good number of reports where a BF was shot and the body turned over to authorities, never to be seen again.

There are??

Never seen again? How convenient.

No, what we have are a very few second-hand reports where we've heard that a supposed bigfoot was shot and the body was allegedly turned over to authorities. We have no traceable evidence of this, however.

Plus we have the Sierra shootings, which sounds like may have resulted in DNA turned over to a study.

Unless it was all bs and it turns out to be diddly-squatch. Again.

But those are the ones we know about...

No, those are the ones we've heard about. We don't ~know~ anything convincing.

Its the social stigma that is the problem. No-one wants their career ruined and who can blame them??

Which scientists have had their career ruined by being involved in investigating bigfoot evidence? I content your speculations are quite unsupported by any facts.

Besides, any scientist worth his salt is going to jump at the chance to prove the existence of bigfoot.

RayG

[bipedalist]

I just noticed five posters gave a "thumbs up" to the OP's very condescending and rude post starting this thread, but why am I not surprised? I would like to think they agreed with his points but his boorish attitude towards those who believe I suspect played a big part.

Could be it's just a symptom of a card-carrying cult fetish on the disbeliever side like Darrell refers to us believers in another thread.... maybe a strong flock instinct know?

Maybe even a new trend....

Edited August 25, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest]

Why do you need all that stuff?

Because that's what it takes to put in the kind of effort you are asking for. Time, money, and manpower that the ameture community simply does not have.

It is entirely unfair of you to blame a group of underfunded weekend researchers for not producing university/Nat Geo quality results, and you know it.

Someone SAYS they have. We all know how that works with regards to Bigfoot.

Scientists got a picture of the ONE wolverine in California. Then they mobilized and got DNA from the ONE wolverine in California. Then they put out a website showing the ONE wolverine in California. And they weren't even looking for wolverines.

Scientists mobilized to get footage of the giant squid in the wild. Arguably there are as many giant squid in the oceans if not more than there are wolverines in N America.

It took almost 2 decades to get the footage.

Luck plays a part in things, Drew.

And as for Meldrum, he bent over backwards to make bigfoot the cabin vandal without even considering the possiblity that it was teens from the nearby native settlement.

Teems with huge, inhumanly proportioned feet? Who hiked God-knows how far through the wilds to get home after impaling a foot on a nail board? And for which there is no record documenting the treatment thereof?

Selling BF cast replicas at $50 a pop doesn't help the cause either.

Doesn't hurt it either. It's not relevant.

What is this 'plenty of solid tangible evidence' you speak of? Is it possible you are mistaken in your understanding?

Tracks with distinctly non human biometrics (including dermals) that map to a normal distribution curve, forensically typed hairs belonging to "no known primate", credible eyewitness reports across 1000s of miles and decades/centuries of time that agree in descriptive details on appearance and behavior..

It's all well known, Ray. If you'd open your mind and stop with the denialism you'd understand that.

Which scientists have had their career ruined by being involved in investigating bigfoot evidence? I content your speculations are quite unsupported by any facts.

They've tried to ruin Meldrum's carrer for one.

Besides, any scientist worth his salt is going to jump at the chance to prove the existence of bigfoot.

Oh, then why are there so many so-called "scientists" who think it's a waste of time to even investigate such a thing (easly shown through their public pronouncements, such as those documented in LMS).

[Guest]

OP it's simple; the reason Bigfoot Researchers have "No Evidence" is because there is no evidence and no bigfoots.

[Guest]

Oh, okay. Thanks for figuring it all out for us, Brent. Make sure you let everyone who claims to have seen one with their own eyes know they can rest easy since they are all either mistaken or lying.

[Guest]

I wouldn't compare searching for the giant squid, in the deepest fathoms of the giant blue abyss, to searching for a land animal that walk the earth in the same cities, towns, and dumpsters as us...it comes off as pathetic and pleading.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Not if it exists

[Guest]

Niceguyjon ,Where are these "bigfoot witnesses" that you speak of; i don't see them. It is possible they have seen a bat that they thought and mistaken as a bigfoot. That "Bigfoot Research" is not evidence.

[Guest]

OP, wow, i saw that Monsterquest episode you are speaking of with Meldrum and the log cabin and i am very surprised. Now we all know the "Sasquatch Attack" was just a fake and not real "Bigfoot Research." Nice find OP.

[Guest]

I wouldn't compare searching for the giant squid, in the deepest fathoms of the giant blue abyss, to searching for a land animal that walk the earth in the same cities, towns, and dumpsters as us...it comes off as pathetic and pleading.

I was about to type a huge response to this, but since it's obvious bunkum I'll spare the board the storage space. Anyone who doesn't understand the contexts of BF sightings and tries to paint it as some sort of "urban" animal is just pot-stirring.

Niceguyjon ,Where are these "bigfoot witnesses" that you speak of; i don't see them.

*raises hand* Hi, I'm Mulder, and I've personally seen a bigfoot.

OP, wow, i saw that Monsterquest episode you are speaking of with Meldrum and the log cabin and i am very surprised. Now we all know the "Sasquatch Attack" was just a fake and not real "Bigfoot Research." Nice find OP.

As the saying goes: "So let it be written, so let it be done".

[Guest]

Oh please. There is plenty of evidence for BF but as yet no verified proof.

Some of you guys post here in complete defiance of the following rule...

Skeptics welcome! Assuming you don't come in with preconceived and immovable notions regarding Bigfoot and those who discuss the phenomenon, you'll find a spirited and thought-provoking debate waiting for you here. But keep in mind, this is a Bigfoot forum. You must accept the proponents point of view if you expect yours to be considered. This is by nature a “Bigfoot House†and is intended to foster intelligent discussion of the subject. This is not “The Anti-Bigfoot Forumâ€.

So, skeptics are clearly welcome to post here so long as they adhere to the above quoted rule.

But make no mistake about this being a BF Forum devoted to the discussion of the subject.

Gonna give RayG and saskeptic a pass as they've each been long-time BFF members and sort of played important roles in building this place.

RayG used to post from a much more proponing stance and anyone who is a Premium Member can go back in the *old* archives and read some of his posts from when he held that view.

Not sure what to say about saskeptic other than I respect him and his opinion.

He posts in a pointed manner, that leaves zero imagination as to his stance, but he seems adept at doing so in a respectful manner.

Some of you other guys appear *trollish* in all sincerity.

Obvious that you have preconceived and immovable notions, and post in a manner meant to demean eyewitness or proponing views.

Makes me wonder why you are here if not to troll.

The OP said...

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

There is plenty of evidence to support the theory of BF.

Tons of continuing eyewitness reports, footprints, hair, pics, and videos.

No verified *proof* yet, (I think it is coming), but there is plenty of evidence.

Are you guys really going to continue to poo-poo eyewitness reports from credible folks and claim mass mis-identification, hoaxes, and paredoila as the root causes?

If so that is really demeaning to a significant portion of our membership and shows a close-minded stance that is rife with preconceived and immovable notions.

I have had the honor to get to know most of our members that are proponents and they are not whacko's, rookies/city slickers, hallucinating, or the type to hoax.

Wish you guys that claim such could know these fine folks as I do.

[Guest thermalman]

Niceguyjon ,Where are these "bigfoot witnesses" that you speak of; i don't see them. It is possible they have seen a bat that they thought and mistaken as a bigfoot. That "Bigfoot Research" is not evidence.

Look around Brent, some are here.

[Guest]

Thanks for the support, HR!

[Guest]

While I appreciate the pass I would seek no special treatment here. I think we've got some newer folks around asking the same questions I've been asking for years.

My notion is preconceived: when I first started lurking and posting on the BFF 1.0 I was just as skeptical of the existence of bigfoot as I am today. I came here to see if there was anything to convince me otherwise.

I am not convinced that anyone here - likewise Roger Patterson, Albert Ostman, William Roe - has ever encountered a "bigfoot." I have considered all manner of evidence for the existence of such creatures, and I find that evidence wanting. I am absolutely comfortable making a black-and-white statement like "There is no bigfoot."

While that sounds like an immovable notion, it is in fact very much movable: show me a bigfoot and I'll move it. Few things in this world would make me happier than being able to say "I was once absolutely convinced that there was no such thing as bigfoot, but I was wrong."

So I come here with preconceived and immovable notions, but if you consider why I come here it's to challenge my preconceptions and potentially nudge my notions.

Bigfoot can be proven to me with the most mundane of evidence. Find me a bigfoot - the same standard used for every other species ever described - and I'll do a complete 180 (accented with a gleeful heel-kick at my error).

What I would like to know is the conditions under which proponents of real, live, flesh-and-blood bigfoots would change their tune. If we're trying to solve some "mystery," then we need ground rules to decide when the search has been sufficient and it's time to move on. I know that's especially difficult for people who are convinced that they have personally seen a bigfoot, but what about others? At what point can we say, "Yeah, we really did look for a bigfoot, and we didn't find it"? We skeptics are ready to turn on a dime, are you?

The best comparison I can offer is the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and their (with partners) long time search for a rediscovery of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. The Lab has invested millions in the search based on the same kind of "evidence" offered for bigfoot: passionate observers relaying tearful eyewitness accounts, sound recordings, feeding and nesting sign, grainy photographs and video - it's really quite similar. They've had organized teams of trained field biologists, leading woodpecker experts from around the world, the absolute state-of-the-art in wildlife survey technology, a veritable army of amateur weekend-warriors contributing and in various permutations over the last 20 years or so. For all that effort, they ultimately are no closer today than they were way back when. They effectively closed shop on Ivorybill operations a couple of years ago with the statement "We do not believe that a recoverable population exists."

What are the conditions under which bigfooters would be willing to make such a statement? I think our best bet for honest and intelligent discussion of the bigfoot phenomenon begins with a spirit of mutual respect across the divide and the establishment of conditions under which each side would be willing to admit having been on the wrong side of the debate.

Edited August 25, 2012 by Saskeptic