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

[Guest]

The evidence is clearly not strong enough to stand as proof, which we wouldn't be doing this if we had.

That is true

But my read of it tells me what it tells a number of scientists with solid technical qualifications: the animal appears to be out there.

To just just a handful,unfortunatly, not the whole community. My impression is, if the evidence was strong enough, every scientist on the planet would want to put his/her name on it

Wouldn't you want to know for sure? I would.

Sure, it would give me more scary stories to tell my kids

Generally, what scientists do with inconclusive evidence is go into the field to get conclusive evidence. Were I a skeptic, I'd want them to get cracking on that.

Like I said, they would if the evidence was stronger, maybe this dna study might change that. I'm just an ordinary layman type, who as a kid, loved the idea of BF, but now I find it VERY improbable that such a creature exists in 2013.

ADD

Mind you, I'm not slammin" anyones beliefs,or any encounter/ situation, just to me, it just doesn't seem possible

[Guest BFSleuth]

Here's a question for skeptics and those who have "examined the evidence and found it wanting".

If sasquatch/bigfoot is proven to be an actual living entity that is extant today, then would you explain the lack of evidence up until the moment of "discovery"? In other words, how is it possible that such a large animal could exist without us "knowing"(*) about it?

(*) Knowing by the definition of having a body on a slab type specimen for the comfort of the scientific community.

[Guest]

Here's a question for skeptics and those who have "examined the evidence and found it wanting".

If sasquatch/bigfoot is proven to be an actual living entity that is extant today, then would you explain the lack of evidence up until the moment of "discovery"? In other words, how is it possible that such a large animal could exist without us "knowing"(*) about it?

(*) Knowing by the definition of having a body on a slab type specimen for the comfort of the scientific community.

Well, I think most would be puzzled.

But that hasn't happined

[southernyahoo]

Here's a question for skeptics and those who have "examined the evidence and found it wanting".

If sasquatch/bigfoot is proven to be an actual living entity that is extant today, then would you explain the lack of evidence up until the moment of "discovery"? In other words, how is it possible that such a large animal could exist without us "knowing"(*) about it?

(*) Knowing by the definition of having a body on a slab type specimen for the comfort of the scientific community.

I think you would hear the same things proffered by proponents.

They must be smart, (camera avoidance) and (dodging cars.)

They must dispose of their dead, or nature does, or we do.

They avoid us mostly and hide well.

They are rare, but not really

The evidence has not been recognized for what it was.

They are elusive and stealthy when pursued.

[Guest RayG]

Here's a question for skeptics and those who have "examined the evidence and found it wanting".

If sasquatch/bigfoot is proven to be an actual living entity that is extant today, then would you explain the lack of evidence up until the moment of "discovery"?

Would I explain the lack of evidence? Easily. There wasn't a single solitary scrap of an actual sasquatch that matched up to any of the evidence presented. Just like there isn't a single solitary scrap of an actual ghost/UFO occupant that has matched up to any of the evidence presented.

In other words, how is it possible that such a large animal could exist without us "knowing"(*) about it?

Lots of critters exist without us 'knowing' about them. New discoveries are made every year. A new species of primate was discovered less than a week ago in the jungles of Borneo, for example. I suspect a body on a slab or a verified DNA sample would be sufficient to convince this skeptic about the existence of bigfoot.

RayG

[Guest BFSleuth]

This "thought experiment" is an exercise to consider not whether bigfoot exists, but how it exists without detection.

The evidence has not been recognized for what it was.

This is the likeliest part of the scenario in my opinion. I think someone noted earlier in this thread that the most likely outcome of someone actually seeing a glimpse of a bigfoot moving in the trees is to think they saw a recognizable species, like a bear. Footprints could be thought of as either bear prints or human. I think most of the time people just don't know what to look for in terms of sign (vocalizations, tree knocks, footprints, droppings, breaks, etc.) and wouldn't give much thought about them if they saw or heard them them. KBHunter's experiences come to mind, he had years of sign, but until he put two and two together it didn't mean much to him.

As such I can see how it may be possible for them to come close in to urban areas, taking advantage of the cover of darkness to move about and having daytime hides in more remote or densely covered areas. What this all points to is that they would have to be extremely intelligent and aware of human activity and have an instinct or adaptation for evading us.

At any rate, the issues of whether bigfoot exists will hopefully be laid to rest in the not too distant future. The more interesting conversations will be regarding the nature of their existence.

[norseman]

To play along for a moment......

I think first and foremost we have to be dealing with something that is fairly intelligent, nocturnal, a loner, a traveler with low population densities. It's also a omnivore with a wide range of food choices available to it and adaptable to different environments. It also has to have a fair understanding of dealing with human populations that it shares it's habitat with. With a specialization in avoiding confrontation with humans in most cases.

This is only addressing the issue from a standpoint of a real biological entity, and I will avoid the supernatural side of the equation that seems to be popular with some.

With a type specimen to examine, I think science would of course be shocked at the improbability of it all, but hopeful with a specimen provided some light could be shed on many of these biological questions. Of course a body would not solve all of them. But hopefully with science now on board fully, a better inquiry would be mounted that could do this for us.

[Guest BFSleuth]

I think your assessment is right along the lines of what I'm thinking, with the possible exception that I doubt that they are loners. It would be more likely they work in some type of cooperative group, whether family unit or more. I might also add that I would consider them exceptionally intelligent in their environment, which I think is key to their ability to avoid detection. Intelligence would be critical to explaining how such a large creature would be able to avoid contact with humans, yet so often be in proximity of humans. If/when their existence is confirmed this is the line of thought I am working with, that they really are masterful in their use of the environment.

[Drew]

I think they would all be marvelling at the teleportation organ in the abdomen of the creature.

[Guest DWA]

Here's a question for skeptics and those who have "examined the evidence and found it wanting".

If sasquatch/bigfoot is proven to be an actual living entity that is extant today, then would you explain the lack of evidence up until the moment of "discovery"? In other words, how is it possible that such a large animal could exist without us "knowing"(*) about it?

(*) Knowing by the definition of having a body on a slab type specimen for the comfort of the scientific community.

Well, a number of us would say there isn't exactly a lack of evidence. (And thousands apparently know about it just fine, having seen one.)

I've always thought that the sasquatch comes armed with two evasion cloaks that work almost perfectly: our ignorance and our denial. No paranormal abilities needed. What scientists will have to explain is why they haven't been paying attention. That could be rather difficult.

To play along for a moment......

I think first and foremost we have to be dealing with something that is fairly intelligent, nocturnal, a loner, a traveler with low population densities. It's also a omnivore with a wide range of food choices available to it and adaptable to different environments. It also has to have a fair understanding of dealing with human populations that it shares it's habitat with. With a specialization in avoiding confrontation with humans in most cases.

This is only addressing the issue from a standpoint of a real biological entity, and I will avoid the supernatural side of the equation that seems to be popular with some.

With a type specimen to examine, I think science would of course be shocked at the improbability of it all, but hopeful with a specimen provided some light could be shed on many of these biological questions. Of course a body would not solve all of them. But hopefully with science now on board fully, a better inquiry would be mounted that could do this for us.

Besides what I said above responding to BF Sleuth, we have to acknowledge that being a super-smart bear, with hands and more food options including full-grown, healthy game animals, is gonna have an edge in adapting to life around humans.

[Guest]

BFSleuth, I spent many years playing that thought experiment. It was a major focus of mine during my "rediscovery" of bigfoot in the 1990s. I considered habits, habitat, diet, intelligence, cooperation, nomadism, lifespan, minimum viable population, distribution, etc. I've written about all of these things either here, on the BFF 1.0, or at the JREF. No doubt DWA has read my statements on these issues.

While it can be fun to speculate about such things, to use speculation to build a case for something that otherwise can't be proven to exist is the logical fallacy of special pleading, beautifully illustrated by Carl Sagan in his essay about the dragon in his basement. If we are to approach a phenomenon objectively, we have to be always on guard not to commit this particular fallacy, because it's very easy to do when searching for explanations about how something could be so when it cannot readily be shown that it is so.

Confront a inconvenient fact that makes bigfoot seem less plausible? Simple! Suggest something that another creature does to get around that problem and speculate that bigfoot does it too! If you are a persuasive communicator, your idea can even be co-opted within the larger bigfoot abilities canon (Drew has done a great job of keeping track of all the amazing qualities of the bigfoots). Example: Some people report feeling "paralyzed" or otherwise terrified when they encounter bigfoots. How could bigfoot strike such fear in its witnesses? Well infrasound exposure can make people feel exceedingly anxious. Elephants and whales use infrasound, maybe bigfoot does too. Result? Lots of folks think bigfoots use infrasound to disable humans who might try to shoot or photograph them.

Here's another example: From Roger Patterson through Grover Krantz and on to Jeff Meldrum, bigfoot was an ape. The Giganto-hypothesis was very strongly supported by the heaviest of heavy hitters in bigfootery. Now, there's this charge to recognize that bigfoot, like Soylent Green, is people. Makes sense, right? If bigfoot is barely distinguishable from us modern humans, then all sorts of "large human" remains in fact are the type of physical evidence people like me have been asking for all along. A human bigfoot helps us makes sense of all those purported bigfoot samples that came back with human DNA. The samples weren't contaminated, that was the bigfoot!

The problem with this, of course, is that we have no better idea if these suspected attributes of bigfoot are any more plausible than the existence of the creatures themselves. So, with apologies for the long answer, if bigfoot were proven tomorrow, I would have no idea how to explain the mechanisms through which the species had evaded confirmation for so long. Clearly some of the putative evidence for bigfoot that we have now would have been authentic. Which evidence and how we would know that would still be untenable, however.

[Guest DWA]

Sagan's essay doesn't apply. (You might want to look in his garage.)

Sasquatch eyewitnesses are talking about something they saw, not something they are seeing now. They are also describing it pretty consistently.

Sagan's understanding seems only of paranormal enthusiasts who indeed invent reasons that "people aren't seeing these" ...that are notably absent from the encounter literature, which involves people who are. (Don't get me started on what the paranormal has done to sasquatch research.)

The evidence is physical, and involves everything from footprints and hair (and bones) to feces and blood. That none of this has survived the gauntlet to scientific analysis and proof doesn't change that it's been reported, frequently under compelling circumstances. People who make monsters up usually don't bother with feces and hair. (Which frequently to hear tell get thrown out by the testers. Suuuure they didn't because no WAY they would...see, Sagan's Garage can cut both ways.)

There is no equivalent in this case to looking into a garage and seeing nothing there...unless I am OK with looking into the woods, seeing no deer and rabbits, and presuming there are no animals back there.

By the same token, your discussion of the evidence seems to presume that The Bigfoot Board sat down and made up a bunch of stuff. Once again, pretty much everything you are mentioning - infrasound in particular - is intelligent speculation based on the eyewitness reports of scoffers...who aren't, anymore.

None of it needs to be taken for salt but:

There seems to be an animal out there. Field research - right TBRC? - is how we confirm animals.

[Guest]

Ah yes, thanks for the correction, DWA. I don't know why I typed "basement" - senior moment, I suppose. I'll add that I've seen the pegasus in Sagan's garage, and often wondered if it inspired his essay.

Physical evidence? I'm not sure why you think "reported under compelling circumstances" trumps "analyzed and not found to indicate a bigfoot" . . .

Enter garage; see no dragon. Enter North America, shoot and collect hundreds of species for the past 3 centuries; no bigfoot among those species.

Sagan was spot-on.

[Guest DWA]

I still don't see the connection. Again, people are seeing them; the reports are the full range of encounters one would expect from a wild animal; and "no proof" doesn't mean no-evidence.

Some rather odd societal attitudes, however, could result in no proof.

I can't discount evidence because it hasn't resulted in what I want. I still have to explain it.

[Drew]

The evidence is physical, and involves everything from footprints and hair (and bones) to feces and blood. That none of this has survived the gauntlet to scientific analysis and proof doesn't change that it's been reported, frequently under compelling circumstances.

Does anyone else see a problem with this statement?

It doesn't matter if analysis of the evidence comes out negatively, it's the reporting of the evidence that counts?

I still don't see the connection.

You don't see the similarity between Bigfoot and Sagan's Dragon in the Garage?

Protip: Read this, and focus on the Summary portion of the entry http://rationalwiki....on_in_My_Garage

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage" Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin^[3]) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Edited for Bigfoot to show the parralels.

"A Giant Hairy Apeman lives in my woods" Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of Apemen over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no Apeman.

"Where's the Apeman?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she is extremely difficult for most humans to see."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the Apeman's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this Apeman knows how to avoid leaving tracks"

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the Body heat.

"Good idea, but the invisible fur is highly insulated, you can't see the heat signature."

You'll spray-paint the Apeman and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal Bigfoot and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Drew