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

[Guest DWA]

So basically..... your poistion is there's enough anecdotal evidence and science is ignoring perhaps the greatest single discovery in modern times.....on purpose?

Your Vietnam analogy is a little weak.....

Um, a map of Vietnam helps us here, how?

Wars, constantly, for decades, in that teenytiny little country - and no evidence of the saola in all that time?

Vietnam is about 20,000 square miles smaller than Montana. AAAnnnnnnnd.... "With an estimated 87.8 million inhabitants as of 2011, it is the world's 13th-most-populous country,"

Montana's population, wait for it: "The United States Census Bureau estimates that the population of Montana was 998,199 on July 1, 2011."

(Both Wikipedia)

Actually: thanks for strengthening my case.

Oh. You missed my lawyer friend up there. Anyone who thinks that scientists don't, frequently, actively wage war against the expansion of knowledge has just announced his total unfamiliarity with the history of science.

Edited December 22, 2012 by DWA

[Guest Cervelo]

Well glad I could help

[Guest DWA]

Science does not care how it's advanced. Pro bono, dude. Pro bono.

[Guest Cervelo]

Okey dokey you win!

[Guest toejam]

So basically..... your poistion is there's enough anecdotal evidence and science is ignoring perhaps the greatest single discovery in modern times.....on purpose?

Your Vietnam analogy is a little weak.....

Why wouldn't they ignore it? It changes everything.

All our teachings, religion, etc. in the gutter.

Who in the world of science wants to be responsible for going against everything we've been taught?

It all comes down to $$$, funding, etc. Go against the grain and you have no job, or you better have some solid evidence and backup.

Sooner or later the truth will reveal itself. There's too many involved.

[Guest Cervelo]

TJ,

Well just like the OP says that sounds more like an excuse for the state of Bigfoot "existence".

You and DWA can keep pushing your scientific conspiracy, end of the world as we know it, you can't handle the truth, till the cows or squirrels come home.

But the fact is research of any type that you guys would like to see is done with other peoples money.

Apparently there's not enough evidence for a major study or else we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And you and I wouldn't be hanging out in the woods listening to owls.....well I proably would either way

[Guest RayG]

By contrast, I can list the sasquatch expeditions - in history - on the fingers of one hand and not use them all. Patterson; Operation Endurance; Operation Persistence.

Just did it.

Each one of them came back with something significant.

They did? A bigfoot would be something significant, any of them bring one of those back?

And why did you snub other bigfoot expeditions?

What about Operation Thicket Probe

Operation Thicket Probe II

Forest Vigil

Tom Slick's Pacific Expedition

The Bigfoot Research Project

Six Rivers Expedition

Pepsi sponsored Japanese Yeti expedition

The Skookum Expedition

The Siberian Yeti Expedition

The Olympic Project

The North American Ape Project

The Michigan Recording Project

The Erickson Project

The dozens of BFRO Expeditions over the past decade (more than a dozen slated for 2013 alone)

and the Destination Truth/MonsterQuest/Finding Bigfoot in-the-field investigations?

One thing ALL the expeditions have in common is the failure to produce a bigfoot.

Who in the world of science wants to be responsible for going against everything we've been taught?

If they're true scientists -- every single one of them. Scientific journals are filled with scientists going against everything we've been taught. That's why science is so awesome and works.

RayG

[Guest toejam]

Not with this subject RayG.

There's been casts that have sat for decades not being examined because of fear or ridicule and just plain ignorance.

[Guest RayG]

And not a single foot to match to those casts.

I think even DWA's lawyer friend would agree that they'd have to match my bootprint to my actual boots before they could convict me on bootprint evidence.

RayG

[Guest toejam]

Of course there's no foot to match but there's enough evidence in foot casts (especially old casts when we didn't have technology on our side) to document size, weight, authenticity, etc.

This whole thread is redundant. It'll always be back and forth, both sides debating, although one side is ignorant to the facts that defy human scale, proportion, ability, etc.

An example would be back in the PGF days when they tried to recreate the footsteps and failed miserably but still claimed it was a suit worn that was never produced.

The claim was a farce and still stands as one to this day. The more the PGF has been scrutinized the stronger it holds.

The day of the big crow feast is coming.

[Guest]

You can have your poor quality 1960's film. I'll take these;

[Guest RayG]

I'm not adverse to consuming crow, but I'd have to be presented with an actual crow, not just crow tracks.

I'm not going to accept the existence of bigfoot on your say-so either. You got bigfoot? Prove it.

RayG

[Guest toejam]

It's not an overnight endeavor.

Trust takes time to build.

Anyone that claims a habituation site knows it takes a long time to get there.

Edit: Let me rephrase that. Anyone that claims a habituation site understands that it could happen at any time or it could take years.

Edited December 22, 2012 by toejam

[Guest RayG]

And in the meantime, four simple words:

Got bigfoot? Prove it.

RayG

[Guest thermalman]

Check out SA3 thread. TJ's got all the evidence over there. It'll leave no doubt in your mind.