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

[norseman]

WE NEED A BODY!

A) If your a skeptic? Find a comfy spot on the couch and wait or roll up your sleeves and come help. Worst case scenario is you will see some beautiful country and meet some interesting people.

B ) If your a proponent? Get crackin! If your squeamish about collecting a type specimen? Then focus your strengths in other ways to help prove it's existance.

But make no mistake science has spoken! Skeptics are not being jerks just to be jerks, they are making a valid point! The evidence thus far doesn't impress them but a body would! So that is where each and every one of us should set the bar! Casts are cool, photos are neat, etc, etc, etc, but if none of these things lead us to closure to the mystery then ultimately they are just curiosities........

Edited December 18, 2012 by norseman

[Drew]

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!

Alleged DNA, is when people say they have DNA, and it will be published, and there is no paper.

DNA Sequences, is when people say they have DNA, and show you the exact results, what primers they used, who tested them, and how the DNA fits in to related fauna.

Here is a paper relating to sea snakes. It is typical of a zoological paper and the DNA analyses which are performed. Look at the detail this author goes through, this is standard stuff for a species related paper. Although it is far more detailed than some I have read. http://www.venomdoc....tal_2012c-1.pdf

Edited December 18, 2012 by Drew

[Guest DWA]

WE NEED A BODY!

A) If your a skeptic? Find a comfy spot on the couch and wait or roll up your sleeves and come help. Worst case scenario is you will see some beautiful country and meet some interesting people.

B ) If your a proponent? Get crackin! If your squeamish about collecting a type specimen? Then focus your strengths in other ways to help prove it's existance.

But make no mistake science has spoken! Skeptics are not being jerks just to be jerks, they are making a valid point! The evidence thus far doesn't impress them but a body would! So that is where each and every one of us should set the bar! Casts are cool, photos are neat, etc, etc, etc, but if none of these things lead us to closure to the mystery then ultimately they are just curiosities........

No question. As somebody who follows the science of this and not the sideshows, I'm down with Meldrum and the TBRC.

Philosophically I'm no-kill. Practically, I'm guilty-pleasure; I'll take proof however it comes, although technology exists now to do it without a body on a slab.

It's that A) where I have problems with the skeptics. The second sentence is what all of them should be doing (pick an option, and if it's the couch, kindly keep the catcalls out of it and only talk when you actually have something productive to say). What I don't get is that every one of them seems to be trying to protect science from dealing with the issue. Instead of formulating search protocols around the evidence we have, and calling for more professional interest to supplement the pretty-much-zero time amateurs get to spend on this (watch how often websites get updated if you doubt me on that), it's always derision, that's-not-proof-duh-we-know-that, and generally couldn't-be-more-unhelpful stuff.

If you want to see this thing proven (or the proponents put in their place), you can help that happen more quickly, skeptics.

Help out, or silence is golden. Just wish the searchers luck.

Thank you.

[Drew]

Instead of formulating search protocols around the evidence we have...

I think the Bigfooters have that pretty well covered.

The evidence tells us that Bigfoot lives in semi-rural areas. State Parks, Rest Areas, Dirt Roads, Casino Parking Lots, Campgrounds, Trailer Parks etc... these are where most sightings occur.

Salt Fork State Park would be one of those areas, formulating search protocols for that area is not required. In fact, I have heard that you can make a Bigfoot howl in SFSP, and you will get back at least 2-3 responses from other Bigfooters in the park. So that one is well covered.

There are more cars and trucks on the roads now than ever before, these Bigfoots are surely going to have to cross one of those eventually. So that one is covered well.

There are millions of game cams out in the woods, we are still waiting for one showing a decent Bigfoot, this would help focus the efforts of the Bigfoot Hunters.

Really, I could just go out in the woods and do my standard Herpetological wanderings, and have as good a chance of locating a Bigfoot corpse as any one out there with the sole purpose of finding Bigfoot. Same goes for anyone out in the woods. Eventually a Bigfoot is going to have a few too many over-ripe Thimbleberries, and lose his footing on a rocky outcrop, falling to his death on the forest floor below. Right?

[Guest DWA]

And thanks for all the help, as usual. Including the statement "I don't read encounter reports."

[Guest]

Ahh...thanks Drew.

[norseman]

I think the Bigfooters have that pretty well covered.

The evidence tells us that Bigfoot lives in semi-rural areas. State Parks, Rest Areas, Dirt Roads, Casino Parking Lots, Campgrounds, Trailer Parks etc... these are where most sightings occur.

Salt Fork State Park would be one of those areas, formulating search protocols for that area is not required. In fact, I have heard that you can make a Bigfoot howl in SFSP, and you will get back at least 2-3 responses from other Bigfooters in the park. So that one is well covered.

There are more cars and trucks on the roads now than ever before, these Bigfoots are surely going to have to cross one of those eventually. So that one is covered well.

There are millions of game cams out in the woods, we are still waiting for one showing a decent Bigfoot, this would help focus the efforts of the Bigfoot Hunters.

Really, I could just go out in the woods and do my standard Herpetological wanderings, and have as good a chance of locating a Bigfoot corpse as any one out there with the sole purpose of finding Bigfoot. Same goes for anyone out in the woods. Eventually a Bigfoot is going to have a few too many over-ripe Thimbleberries, and lose his footing on a rocky outcrop, falling to his death on the forest floor below. Right?

Believe it or not? I've had the same thing happen to me during hunting season in Washington. Ton's of elk bugles here, there and every where and no elk. If I was only there to record elk bugles I would have been in a bonanza. (except of course none of them were real elk) In fact some humans sound better than the **** elk do.

I don't put any faith in game cameras, I own a couple and they are not as useful of a tool as I would have hoped for. But I suppose it's one more fishing line in the water, a person would not otherwise have.

The problem with most Bigfoot hunters is that they are not Bigfoot hunters at all. They are track hunters, whoop hunters, blobsquatch hunters, etc.......

Not many of them are equipped or in the proper mind set to end the mystery, instead they only extend the mystery into perpetuity.

No question. As somebody who follows the science of this and not the sideshows, I'm down with Meldrum and the TBRC.

Philosophically I'm no-kill. Practically, I'm guilty-pleasure; I'll take proof however it comes, although technology exists now to do it without a body on a slab.

It's that A) where I have problems with the skeptics. The second sentence is what all of them should be doing (pick an option, and if it's the couch, kindly keep the catcalls out of it and only talk when you actually have something productive to say). What I don't get is that every one of them seems to be trying to protect science from dealing with the issue. Instead of formulating search protocols around the evidence we have, and calling for more professional interest to supplement the pretty-much-zero time amateurs get to spend on this (watch how often websites get updated if you doubt me on that), it's always derision, that's-not-proof-duh-we-know-that, and generally couldn't-be-more-unhelpful stuff.

If you want to see this thing proven (or the proponents put in their place), you can help that happen more quickly, skeptics.

Help out, or silence is golden. Just wish the searchers luck.

Thank you.

Look at Jerry Manderer with whom you have sparred in here quite abit. His take on the topic is that the search is OVER. That if there was something to be found they would have found it in the 1800's at the latest. So with the search over in his mind, all that is left is a bunch of melodrama, hoaxing and myth worship. So obviously he isn't going to take much seriously from the believer side of things.

I think there are some mindsets that you haven't considered yet. His mind is made up as well as many others. Nothing short of a body is going to dissuade them. And we cannot expect much help from them, and some of them may certainly find pleasure when we trip. But for those that do want to help it's icing on the cake.

Edited December 18, 2012 by norseman

[Guest]

Actually, the beauty is in the fact that bigfoot's existence could be proven at any moment to serve up a delicious banquet of crow, specially seasoned for the JREFers. Ah the stammering that would ensue as they reflected on the wasted years ridiculing bigfootery. On the other hand, footers never have to worry about the scoftics disproving bigfoot. The PGF might succumb to the debunkers, but not bigfoot. You can't prove there is no Santa either, SO DON'T GO THERE!

Merry HO HO

GF

[Drew]

Isn't that what the JREFFERS have been saying?

"You can prove Bigfoot exists, we can't prove it doesn't exist."?

Most of them would be elated to find out Bigfoot exists.

[Guest BFSleuth]

From my reading of the JREF they say, "Because bigfoot doesn't exist we mustn't look at evidence and must ridicule those who proffer evidence". Something along those lines....

... but you are correct that many on JREF say they would be delighted if bigfoot is proven to exist. They just don't want to look at any evidence until it is proven to exist.

[Drew]

From my reading of the JREF they say, "Because bigfoot doesn't exist we mustn't look at evidence and must ridicule those who proffer evidence". Something along those lines....

... but you are correct that many on JREF say they would be delighted if bigfoot is proven to exist. They just don't want to look at any evidence until it is proven to exist.

You are mistaking those times when someone says there is hair evidence, and they ask for the results of the study, and none is proffered.

[Guest BFSleuth]

... like those times that said evidence must be proffered right NOW!!!?

[Guest]

From my reading of the JREF they say, "Because bigfoot doesn't exist we mustn't look at evidence and must ridicule those who proffer evidence". Something along those lines....

Read more closely. Who won't "look at" the alleged evidence? I do. Drew does. Parnassus does. Kitakaze does. RayG does. The list of active and vocal skeptics who consider the merits of alleged bigfoot evidence is quite long.

I think a big problem pervading this thread is that I interpret "look at evidence" to mean reading accounts, evaluating putative evidence, and developing an opinion as to the strength of that evidence as suggestive of a real population of living, breathing, pooping bigfoots. Other folks seem to interpret the phrase "look at evidence" to mean "believe in bigfoot because there are a lot of people who claim to have seen one, mmkay?"

Why is there no option for those of us who have looked at that evidence and found it insufficient to convince us of real bigfoots?

[Guest BFSleuth]

There are a few folks on JREF that seem to be open to looking at or discussing evidence. Then there are those whose posts look at character assassination. Rather than getting into quotes from the JREF just suffice it to say that the point of my post was to note the lack of civil discussion about evidence, whether the forum member considers it putative or not. Rather than attacking the argument or the evidence many posts are attacking the arguer or resorting to character assassination.

[Guest]

Most of them would be elated to find out Bigfoot exists.

Are you joking? Most of them are about mocking the concept. They think it's all a joke so they don't care about bigfoot itself. You really think Parcher is going to respond with "happy day, I was wrong and the footers were right, they're real!"