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

[WSA]

I suppose BF's unpardonable sin is to be smarter than us...making us look foolish in our own eyes We're surely not used to being out-adapted by other monkey men. You want to talk about an enduring cultural icon? I got one for you: The righteously pissed off American in denial hugging tight to the status quo. Now THAT archetype has got some legs. :-)

[Guest]

40 years Ray and still no personal proof? I think maybe a different approach might be in order.

It's really not that difficult to encounter them. Just have to utilize your sources to their maximum potential and persist persist persist.

Not diffecult to encounter them? What's your secret?

[Guest toejam]

Not diffecult to encounter them? What's your secret?

I said it three times in my last post Ray. Persist persist persist.

Utilize google earth to check out a region. Find reports near you is a good place to start.

Make sure there's a water source nearby. A few wood knocks will gain their attention if they're around.

Fine tune your hearing to your natural surroundings. Look for sign. Structures, prints, odd limb breaks, twists, etc.

Listen intently, always.

Don't think that they couldn't be there because they can be wherever they want.

Persistence is key.

After my first run in with them I spent almost a year putting in time every weekend until they blatantly let me know they were there again.

Persistence will eventually pay off. You have to put the effort in though, or maybe you'll get lucky.

It's become a way of life for me. I live for being out in the field.

[Guest]

I suppose BF's unpardonable sin is to be smarter than us...making us look foolish in our own eyes

Yes indeed...we're making ourselves look foolish alright....and we don't a BF to help us either.

[Doc Holliday]

Not diffecult to encounter them? What's your secret?

peanut butter & duct tape......works every time

[Guest DWA]

I suppose BF's unpardonable sin is to be smarter than us...making us look foolish in our own eyes We're surely not used to being out-adapted by other monkey men. You want to talk about an enduring cultural icon? I got one for you: The righteously pissed off American in denial hugging tight to the status quo. Now THAT archetype has got some legs. :-)

Now THAT made my New Year's Day. Thanks, man.

Look where? The forests of Ohio and Indiana? The garbage dumpster behind the casino?

Look where the reports tell you to look. If that's where, look, kemosabe. (They've been seen, all right, in those places. No surprise there.)

The technology afforded *US* today far exceeds what was available 30 yrs ago. You now have a MUCH more concerted effort today than ever before. So far>>BUBKISS..ZIP. These aren't Giant Squid 5000 Ft under the ocean (which we have found BTW). They are supposedly BULKY 8ft.. 800 lb behemoths roaming within miles of civilization! AND>>>we can't>>FIND ONE. We can film em...hear em...see their tracts...feed em treats...BUT...low and behold...we can't FIND ONE dead or alive. Of course they are illusive..so illusive they can live among us and go UNDISCOVERED. Undiscovered in a civilization that can spy from space and pic up the #s on a license plate!

Nope, sorry, not how science works.

Science follows evidence to proof. Using lack of proof to invalidate the evidence is not how the scientific mind operates. When, er, it's, um, ah, operating.

When WSA and I are talking about "urban objections," your post is a prime example. People who don't know much about wildlife, the outdoors, or the actual lay of the land in America think this is impossible, when actually it's far more plausible than many things science has confirmed.

Edited January 2, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

Nope, sorry, not how science works.

Science follows evidence to proof. Using lack of proof to invalidate the evidence is not how the scientific mind operates. When, er, it's, um, ah, operating.

When WSA and I are talking about "urban objections," your post is a prime example. People who don't know much about wildlife, the outdoors, or the actual lay of the land in America think this is impossible, when actually it's far more plausible than many things science has confirmed.

Lack of proof is just that. I'll leave you with this>>>> Has science acknowledged the existence of this creature yet?

[Guest DWA]

Who cares if they haven't? The evidence stands there and needs addressing. Not my fault if science refuses to address it, now is it?

[Guest]

When WSA and I are talking about "urban objections," your post is a prime example. People who don't know much about wildlife, the outdoors, or the actual lay of the land in America think this is impossible, when actually it's far more plausible than many things science has confirmed.

Ah no, an animal with this distribution.......

........can't avoid getting unambiguous trail camera images, getting shot by hunters or becoming roadkill.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest]

Who cares if they haven't? The evidence stands there and needs addressing. Not my fault if science refuses to address it, now is it?

But in your own words>>

Science follows evidence to proof

Ergo>>

We have no proof to date.

Ah no, an animal with this distribution.......

........can't avoid getting unambiguous trail camera images, getting shot by hunters or becoming roadkill.

BINGO!

Edited January 2, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest DWA]

Ah no, an animal with this distribution.......

........can't avoid getting unambiguous trail camera images, getting shot by hunters or becoming roadkill.

Assumption. Evidence backing it?

Zero. In fact, the evidence CONTRADICTS it.

And a scientist is still stuck with having to explain all that evidence. So far, nada. Get crackin', science. Don't keep telling me why it isn't happening.

It is happening.

[Guest]

Assumption. Evidence backing it?

Zero. In fact, the evidence CONTRADICTS it.

And a scientist is still stuck with having to explain all that evidence. So far, nada. Get crackin', science. Don't keep telling me why it isn't happening.

It is happening.

Here we go again...you say *evidence*...I say what?

Is a foot print *evidence*? Is a broken branch *evidence*? Is an account from a *witness* *evidence*? Is a photo *evidence*? Is a vocal recording

*evidence*? Is DNA from an *unknown* *evidence*? Sure they all *COULD BE* >>>>but they don't PROVE anything. We need a body or PROVENANCE that links one to DNA.

I say..*SHOW ME DA MONEY*.

[Guest toejam]

Here we go again...you say *evidence*...I say what?

Is a foot print *evidence*? Is a broken branch *evidence*? Is an account from a *witness* *evidence*? Is a photo *evidence*? Is a vocal recording

*evidence*? Is DNA from an *unknown* *evidence*? Sure they all *COULD BE* >>>>but they don't PROVE anything. We need a body or PROVENANCE that links one to DNA.

I say..*SHOW ME DA MONEY*.

Together it all adds up and in some cases enough to convict serious criminal acts. There's already been enough trace evidence to say we have sas.

Trace evidence is evidencethat occurs when differentobjects contact one another.Such materials are oftentransferred by heat inducedby contact friction.

The importance of trace evidence in criminalinvestigations was shown by Dr. Edmond Locard in the early 20th Century. Throughout the past century, forensic scientists have used trace evidence to reconstruct crimes, as well as to describe the people, places and things involved in them. Case studies of real life homicides have been published in the forensic science literature showing how trace evidence has been used to solve these crimes, free the innocent, and bring the guilty to justice. Trace evidence is also important in accident investigation, where movement of one part against another will often leave a tell-tale mark. Such analysis is of great use in forensic engineering.

[Guest Nalajr]

All that RED splashed all over that map and not a single TRAIL CAM pic that can be readily ID'ed as a SASSY. NOT ONE. How does that happen? One would expect that just by accident or chance that someone would catch one. There are hundreds of thousands of trail cams out there, probably more, much more during hunting seasons and nothing. Every other animal on this planet has been captured on a trail camera or by other photographic techniques, but not SASSY. I'm talking the GIANT SQUID, Snow Leopard, Wolverine, and even a Coelacanth, but no SASSY.

I am growing pretty weary of the "SASSY is smarter than humans" stuff too. Aren't you? You know that isn't the case. If it were, we'd KNOW it.

If someone would've asked me 10 years ago whether I believed in SASSY, I would've answered probably 95% YES. Now, it is the other way, 95% NO. What done it for me was when I seen the pics the Japanese scientist was able to capture of the Giant Squid. In an environment that is a MILLION times more difficult to explore than earth and this guy is able to get a pic of the Giant Squid with relative ease and no one can get a decent pic or video or any other indisputable evidence in over 40 years for SASSY?

Even if SASSY was SUPER INTELLIGENT and HYPER AWARE of their surroundings, they have to eat and drink and that means traveling and spending a great deal of each day finding and consuming food and water. It stands to reason that one would be captured on a trail camera at some point. Even if they were ultra intelligent you'd expect to run across a retarded one at some point that is too dumb to follow the rest of the clan to avoid the cameras.

Now that the MK "study" has relied on BEAR and HUMAN DNA as the centerpiece of their work, I hope for the team in Great Britain to prove something is out there, but I don't hold out much hope for them as well.

Nalajr

[WSA]

Naljar, all I can say is that you seriously underestimate the size of this country and overestimate the intelligence of our species. Read the sighting reports (all of them...no cheating!) look up the Operation Persistence thread here. (And those guys are just, what, woofing you to get their jollies on the internet? Seems to be a rather eccentric past time with a pretty minimal return on investment, don't you think? Have you logged in to tell them that yet? No? Why not?).

What DWA wrote above we all learned in 5th grade earth science class. (All together class) "Science follows evidence to proof." When you keep uncovering further evidence (Uh, yeah, check) and you have not arrived at proof yet, you pursue some more evidence. You do this even when you are frustrated and confused about your lack of proof. You stop only when the evidence reaches a dead end or you explain why it is not evidence. And no, the "persistent cultural icon" trope won't ever scour. That just gives me swamp gas.

Let's just take the ol' razor to this statement: Tens of thousands of people have reported to have seen/heard/smelled/sensesd a large hariy bipedal hominid on this continent, supported by the historical record and well within the bounds of evolutionary probability. Which of the two explanations would a scientist favor:

1. There is a large hairy bipedal hominid on the continent, or..

2. Everyone who has ever claimed to have encountered a Sasquatch is either lying, crazy or hallucinating.

Even if you peg the probabilities of either to be 50 %, you've still got a hell of a lot of work to do.