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

[Guest RayG]

Dude, go debate with Meldrum.

You do know Meldrum is the guy who refers to Cryptozoology as the Science of Hidden Animals, right?

Nope, just somebody who thinks more about what he reads than a lot of people. And who reads much more, before he pronounces on something, than one heck of a lot of scientists.

That's disappointing. I was looking forward to you baffling us with your self-proclaimed bigfoot brilliance.

i suspect most of the experts are self professed...

Yes, but few profess it so loudly. And often.

RayG

[Guest DWA]

But you guys don't show me anything about what you think other than, no proof no proof no proof...

So since you know the answer, self-professed experts, then tell me.

When are we going to get proof when nobody's looking for pretty much no time?

And if you disagree with that last sentence, either you aren't reading, or don't think enough about what you read.

(And don't come on with the TBRC and all the time they spend in the field. Because you aren't reading, or thinking about what you read, if you think they are.)

You do know Meldrum is the guy who refers to Cryptozoology as the Science of Hidden Animals, right?

Well, that's why you should debate Meldrum.

Edited December 17, 2012 by DWA
to remove taunt

[Guest RayG]

I think the evidence is unconvincing. Convince me. Show me a single scrap that's been matched to a squatch.

I'm no self-professed bigfoot expert, and never claimed I was. In my opinion there ARE no bigfoot experts. There are bigfoot enthusiasts, like you, me, and a whole pack of others, but in the 40+ years I've been following this mystery I haven't heard of a single soul that can match a claim or report to an actual bigfoot.

So far bigfoot has avoided discovery & death from logging trucks, hunters, loggers, trappers, fishermen, hikers, bikers, smokers, tokers, biologists, zoologists, campers, cavers, birders, herders, disease and stupidity. What makes you think a specific group of scientists, with no idea where they should start looking, are going to be successful?

You're supposedly more knowledgeable than anyone else, why can't you bag one?

RayG

[Guest DWA]

OK, I've tried this before, dozens of times. But steel is hard to dent, so here's one more.

Who would you folks out there think are the self-styled experts? Choose one.

• The guy who's reasoning simply follows that of the best minds in the field (raises hand), or
  
• The guys who insist they are smarter than the best minds in the field, i.e., those other guys?
  

Fortunately I am not holding my breath on my challenge to those other guys to come up with one negative quote from all those scientists who aren't paying attention that I can't rip apart.

Why don't I bag one? Because - paying attention to evidence as I do and many don't - I know how hard it is. I'll leave it to others to do that. The evidence is enough for me.

Not a good strategy to believe in something. There is clearly a lot of that going on here. You let evidence tell you what to think.

[Incorrigible1]

Whom is it you're ragging on? Science? Scientists in general? What do you hope to accomplish?

Help me understand.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Art1972
to remove personal comment

[Guest DWA]

Whom is it you're ragging on? Science? Scientists in general? What do you hope to accomplish with your drone of nagging postings?

Help me understand.

Nothing but express how tired I am with people coming on here with convictions they haven't thought about too much, that's all.

Edited December 17, 2012 by DWA
to remove inflammatory content

[Drew]

Simpler than that.

Bring any quote you want on here, from any scientist who thinks this is a bunch of hooey. Go ahead.

You could have an eighth-grade education and know more about it than some of them, and all you need is what they say.

You are so backwards on this.

Any decent scientist would not say this is a bunch of hooey. A decent scientist would say something like Dr. John Hawks said about the DNA study. (And Dr. John Hawks is not a decent scientist, he is probably the best in his field)

This has been developing for a while. Until I see the data, I am withholding judgment.

One benefit of the world of genetics as opposed to traditional anthropology: The original sequence data must be made available to the public. No data, no discovery.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/pseudoscience/bigfoot-dna-press-release-2012.html

That is how a real scientist would respond to a claim about Bigfoot.

It is how I have been responding to claims about hair samples, scat, dna.

I have the priviledge of being able to offer my personal opinion, which is based on the lack of any of the above and their test results. A real scientist doesn't give opinions on something that has no data.

[Incorrigible1]

Nothing but express how tired I am with people coming on here with convictions they haven't thought about too much, that's all.

Noted. Time and again.

[Guest DWA]

You are so backwards on this.

Any decent scientist would not say this is a bunch of hooey. A decent scientist would say something like Dr. John Hawks said about the DNA study. (And Dr. John Hawks is not a decent scientist, he is probably the best in his field)

Then there are a lot of indecent scientists out there. If this weren't a taboo topic in scientific circles, do you honestly think we'd still be where we are on this? The answer should be obvious.

Edited December 17, 2012 by DWA
to remove inflammatory content

[Drew]

Then there are a lot of indecent scientists out there. If this weren't a taboo topic in scientific circles, do you honestly think we'd still be where we are on this? The answer should be obvious.

Where do you get the idea that it is taboo?

They are waiting for evidence before commenting, didn't you read Dr. Hawks quote? They are waiting for the same thing they wait for on EVERY animal that proposed to exist in the entire world. If you asked someone like Dr. Hawks what he thought about a frog you discovered in Costa Rica, he would say the same thing, 'show me the data'. That does not mean the subject is taboo with scientists, it means the subject is a non-starter without the data.

And by data, I don't mean alleged hair samples, alleged scat, alleged footprint dermal ridges, and alleged DNA. The type of data a scientist would be requiring are things like DNA sequences, specimen photos, range data, things that are provided with every single animal proposed. When this is provided you will see scientists broaching the subject. Until then, you will get things similar to what Dr. Hawks said.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Drew

[southernyahoo]

You are so backwards on this.

Any decent scientist would not say this is a bunch of hooey. A decent scientist would say something like Dr. John Hawks said about the DNA study. (And Dr. John Hawks is not a decent scientist, he is probably the best in his field)

http://johnhawks.net...lease-2012.html

That is how a real scientist would respond to a claim about Bigfoot.

It is how I have been responding to claims about hair samples, scat, dna.

I have the priviledge of being able to offer my personal opinion, which is based on the lack of any of the above and their test results. A real scientist doesn't give opinions on something that has no data.

Thats a fair statement from Mr. Hawks, I think he'll get to see the data.

[Guest]

Which scientists are supposed to follow up on bigfoot evidence anyway? Academia doesn't work that way. Scientists are specialists that have their own strict agendas with a very narrow scope. If an ornithologist happens to spot a bigfoot, hopefully they will report it. But their employers won't have any budget to follow up with an investigation even if the evidence is compelling. There is also the stigma associated with bigfoot evidence so it must be irrefutable to get anyone's attention. Even then, who you gonna call? A DNA lab technician? This is clearly not the job of any scientist until cryptozoology is recognized as a branch of science. Then the cryptozoologists would get funding exclusively to confirm or refute bigfoot's existence. Good luck with that.

Until then, it is up to the layman to body-slam a BF corpse (or part of one) onto a scientist's desk and proclaim, "See, I told you so..now get to work".

[Guest]

OK GUY'S LISTEN UP....

#1) IF YOU LOOK AT ABOVE POSTS, FROM LATE LAST NIGHT THROUGH THIS MORNING, AND SEE THAT YOUR CONTENT HAS EITHER BEEN REMOVED, OR EDITED, IT WAS DONE SO BECAUSE OF THE GENERAL DISREGARD FOR FORUM RULES AND GUIDELINES.

#2) SEVERAL OF YOU HAVE MADE COMMENTS SUGGESTING THAT THE OTHER ISNT COMPREHENDING CONCEPTS THAT A 7TH OR 8TH GRADER SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND. WHILE THAT'S DEBATEABLE, WHAT IS TRUE- IS THAT WE HAVE A GROUP OF ADULT PEOPLE HERE WHO CANT SEEM TO COMPREHEND OR FOLLOW A SIMPLE SET OF RULES- THAT ARE TYPICALLY WHAT'S EXPECTED OF A GRADE SCHOOL STUDENT !

#3) FAIR WARNING: THE NEXT POST I SEE IN THIS THREAD, OR GETS REPORTED, WHERE ONE OF YOU CHOOSES TO MAKE IT PERSONAL ABOUT ANOTHER MEMBER, THE OFFENDER IS GOING TO GET A +2 INCREASE AND TWO WEEKS OFF FROM THE FORUMS.

THAT INCLUDES:

A ) COMMENTING ON HOW MANY EDITS SOMEONE HAS

B ) COMMENTING ON HOW MUCH/LITTLE EDUCATION SOMEONE HAS.

C ) COMMENTING ON PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES AND TRAITS OF THE THE OTHER MEMBER.

D ) COMMENTS PURPOSEFULLY MEANT TO ANNOY, PROVOKE, OR ANTAGONIZE OTHER MEMBERS (TROLLING)

IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A MEMBER TO LEARN, AND FOLLOW THE FORUM RULES AND GUIDELINES.

YOU CAN CHOOSE TO DO SO, OR NOT, BUT EITHER WAY YOU WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS HERE.

YOU GUY'S KEEP PUSHING, EVEN AFTER STAFF HAS BEEN EXTREMELY LENIENT AS OF LATE- HANDING OUT MOSTLY VERBAL WARNINGS.

FOR ME- THAT ENDS TODAY. I WOULD TAKE THE ABOVE WARNING SERIOUSLY, AND SUGGEST YOU DONT TEST ME. I WILL BE INSTRUCTING OUR MOD'S AS WELL, NO MORE "FREEBIES".

KEEP THAT IN MIND IN OTHER THREADS AS WELL !

YOU'VE BEEN WARNED.

[Guest]

Nothing but express how tired I am with people coming on here with convictions they haven't thought about too much, that's all.

Not trying to inflame you, but don't you see our point as in this so called evidence just isn't strong enough.

I'm just trying to get an understanding on how someone who has never seen one, claims without a dought, it exists

[Guest]

And by data, I don't mean alleged hair samples, alleged scat, alleged footprint dermal ridges, and alleged DNA. The type of data a scientist would be requiring are things like DNA sequences, specimen photos, range data, things that are provided with every single animal proposed. When this is provided you will see scientists broaching the subject. Until then, you will get things similar to what Dr. Hawks said.

I like your point, Drew and think you are right about how the scientific community will react. But what is the difference between "alleged DNA" and "DNA sequences"? Is there such a thing as alleged DNA anyway? Either it is or it isn't IMO.

As to ranges, I find the sightings maps to be very interesting. To me, they make me lean a little towards the believer camp. I want to believe, to me it's so fascinating and brings me back to seeing the Patterson film as a kid. But I'm not completely convinced either way. Maybe it's more fun that way!