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

[Guest]

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.

Add misidentified and hoaxed to no. 2.

I think this post from a different thread is worth reading when it comes to eyewitness accounts. http://bigfootforums...stical__st__375 (POST No 375)

If the map posted above, and the 1000's of sitings are from orgs like the BFRO, then it is hardly a subjective source. If "Finding Bigfoot" is an indication of how sightings are evaluated then all all you have to do is tell Bobo to hold his hand above his head... "it was that tall" and poof "YOU SAW A REAL SASQUATCH!!!"

Sorry, but until someone puts some real "proof" out there, the answer is 100% no. 2.

Edited January 2, 2013 by comncents

[WSA]

Just speaking for me-my-own-personal-self dmaker, I've never howled in the woods (when sober) or banged on trees with sticks (only when trying to make little ones out of big ones when gathering firewood).

I remember the pose of the skeptic very well. I'm not talking just about this topic, but about many things. As a much younger man, that described my approach to just about everything. As I am now well into my 6th decade, I can look back with a little perspective. I suppose I thought it made me worldly, or mature beyond my years. I guess I thought chicks dug it. Maybe law school had a lot to to with it. I realize now it stunted my appreciation for just how mysterious and weird this universe is, and how poor a vocabulary we possess when we try to describe its complexity. You have to be willing to look a fool in this life if you ever want to accomplish anything worthwhile, I now believe.

Here's a prime opportunity. Science is on your side too, so how cool is that? Don't let it go to waste, I say. If it was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt tomorrow that Sasquatches ain't, I'd shrug, laugh, and find another windmill to tilt at. OTOH, sometimes we're given the opportunity to be on the right side of history. You may reasonably convince yourself this is one of those times. Live a little, man.

[Guest Kerchak]

(because what has been claimed to date as bigfoot evidence is easily faked by men or simply misidentified)

The PGF is not easily faked by men. In fact, all analysis points towards it being real. They guys who claimed they were behind it got nowhere near to it when trying to recreate it

In fact ghosts and aliens have a much larger number of sightings, and many more videos and photos than bigfoot.

None of which have been 'proven' to be what they purport to be anymore than bigfoot. In fact, rather less.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Kerchak

[Rockape]

Now that the MK "study" has relied on BEAR and HUMAN DNA as the centerpiece of their work

Really? They have? So you've seen the results?

[Guest]

Its actually more complex than not remembering minor details or about getting a few minor details wrong. When memory is reconstructed, eyewitnesses don't just use their "original memory" but also information they received after the incident. A witness to a crime can read other reports of the crime and these can influence their own memories. This same problem exists for bigfoot and eyewitnesses. I wouldn't doubt that someone had an experience something in the woods but given that many of these reports are given months, years or even decades after the fact. Its not hard to imagine how distorted they can get.

I completely agree in that time has a massive impact on the accuracy of eye witness accounts. But it's the claim that all eye witnesses can't be truthful based on the possibility that eye witness testimony can be inaccurate that is poor logic, and is used too often on these boards.

I believe there are many counts of misidentification and even issues with hoaxing as well. But there are too many close face to face encounters. The only way to explain these away is to call these people liars, and I doubt very much that this is the case in all instances.

It's hard to believe people and that is just human nature, but if you look at the shear volume, I just find it hard to explain it all away.

[WSA]

If you are willing to concede the obvious, and you might want to, here it is: The visual confirmation is the greatest body of evidence that we have to pursue. And yes, you have to consider the possibility that a fairly high percentage of those are not real. Where that evidence will take us eventually is unknown to anyone. It is guaranteed though to take us nowhere if we don't follow up on it and don't give it some credence (and we haven't). It may conclude in proof if we do. If we don't....?

Look, human oral narratives are messy things. I deal with them daily, usually under oath in a deposition room or from a witness stand in a courtroom, and believe me, I've been lied to a plenty. I’ve also seen how people (me included) can misapprehend physical reality while under significant stress. To say the least, my b.s. meter is finely tuned and always on. What is contained in the body of BF sighting reports is another thing entirely. But, you have to put the time in to read them and you have to have enough knowledge and experience as to make sense of what you are reading. Sometimes the narratives don't make sense, but a large percentage of the time they do.

We live in a world where most now passively watch far more people talking to them from a screen than ever having a real live give and take conversation on anything meaningful . We have also as a culture mostly lost our critical reading skills for the same reasons. Believe me, both are learned skills, to do that critically and competently, and most people you know don't have the chops to ever pull it off. Yes, I’d include a lot of BF researchers in that category. Not their fault, but if you want to get to the crux of the gist on this subject, you gotta dig a little deeper than dismissing millions of words and thousands of experiences with a backward brush of the hand. Well, if you want to be taken seriously on the subject you do.

[Guest DWA]

^^^^^^^^If I could give that fifty plusses I would.

Too many people aren't following that first sentence, and given what they obviously think, should. Beer tastes good, boys and girls.

I completely agree in that time has a massive impact on the accuracy of eye witness accounts. But it's the claim that all eye witnesses can't be truthful based on the possibility that eye witness testimony can be inaccurate that is poor logic, and is used too often on these boards.

I believe there are many counts of misidentification and even issues with hoaxing as well. But there are too many close face to face encounters. The only way to explain these away is to call these people liars, and I doubt very much that this is the case in all instances.

It's hard to believe people and that is just human nature, but if you look at the shear volume, I just find it hard to explain it all away.

Bingo. There is no sillier nor less relevant canard anywhere than "eyewitness testimony is poor evidence."

Um, no it's not.

Just speaking for me-my-own-personal-self dmaker, I've never howled in the woods (when sober) or banged on trees with sticks (only when trying to make little ones out of big ones when gathering firewood).

I remember the pose of the skeptic very well. I'm not talking just about this topic, but about many things. As a much younger man, that described my approach to just about everything. As I am now well into my 6th decade, I can look back with a little perspective. I suppose I thought it made me worldly, or mature beyond my years. I guess I thought chicks dug it. Maybe law school had a lot to to with it. I realize now it stunted my appreciation for just how mysterious and weird this universe is, and how poor a vocabulary we possess when we try to describe its complexity. You have to be willing to look a fool in this life if you ever want to accomplish anything worthwhile, I now believe.

Here's a prime opportunity. Science is on your side too, so how cool is that? Don't let it go to waste, I say. If it was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt tomorrow that Sasquatches ain't, I'd shrug, laugh, and find another windmill to tilt at. OTOH, sometimes we're given the opportunity to be on the right side of history. You may reasonably convince yourself this is one of those times. Live a little, man.

Read it again, folks. That's somebody who gets this. Nice.

[dmaker]

^^^^^^^^If I could give that fifty plusses I would.

Too many people aren't following that first sentence, and given what they obviously think, should. Beer tastes good, boys and girls.

Bingo. There is no sillier nor less relevant canard anywhere than "eyewitness testimony is poor evidence."

Um, no it's not.

Read it again, folks. That's somebody who gets this. Nice.

Except the key point you are missing here is that this is not how science works. It's not up to, or even possible, for someone to prove that something doesn't exist. People that are saying BF is real need to prove that because of it right now, it has never been proven properly. To turn it around and say here is your opportunity, science is on your side, etc is backward thinking. Science is my side? How is that exactly? Science does not take sides. Science has not, as of yet, accepted BF as a new animal. And until that happens the burden of proof is on the claim that BF does exist, not the other way around. That is simply absurd and ridiculous beyond the pale.

So many people here like to boast about science this and scientific method that and then turn around and say that science is on the skeptics' side as he charges us with proving that BF does not exist. Uhm, what scientific method exactly is that??

[Guest]

But there are too many close face to face encounters. The only way to explain these away is to call these people liars, and I doubt very much that this is the case in all instances.

It's hard to believe people and that is just human nature, but if you look at the shear volume, I just find it hard to explain it all away.

This is the *logistical* trap many fall into. Of the thousands of accounts..some must be the real deal. In other words, at some point the shear NUMBER of instances translates into to *REAL* proof.

This fallacious reasoning..at least according to scientific criterion. Yes..they can ALL be wrong or at best INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (ie, not conclusive)...or better put...The sum of ALL insuffcient evidence is still insufficient evidence.

Edited January 3, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest]

Except the key point you are missing here is that this is not how science works. It's not up to, or even possible, for someone to prove that something doesn't exist. People that are saying BF is real need to prove that because of it right now, it has never been proven properly. To turn it around and say here is your opportunity, science is on your side, etc is backward thinking. Science is my side? How is that exactly? Science does not take sides. Science has not, as of yet, accepted BF as a new animal. And until that happens the burden of proof is on the claim that BF does exist, not the other way around. That is simply absurd and ridiculous beyond the pale.

So many people here like to boast about science this and scientific method that and then turn around and say that science is on the skeptics' side as he charges us with proving that BF does not exist. Uhm, what scientific method exactly is that??

Me like

[Guest]

The PGF is not easily faked by men. In fact, all analysis points towards it being real. They guys who claimed they were behind it got nowhere near to it when trying to recreate it

[/font][/color]

None of which have been 'proven' to be what they purport to be anymore than bigfoot. In fact, rather less.

I'll agree that the PGF was a good hoax, not an easily done one. Patterson deserves credit for pulling off a good one. Especially for 1967 terms. Much better than any other efforts to date. One of my other favorite videos was the bigfoot chasing the guys on a trail that was made by some film company. I can't agree with the statement of them being proven less or more. (ghosts, aliens, bigfoot etc) I think right now the playing field is pretty equal in terms of proof. I was pointing out other phenomenons that have more evidence to support them. (anecdotal and other alleged claims that aren't supported with facts yet) Bigfoot is not alone in that it has been reported on a wide spread scale, and in wide spread areas that pretty much follow population of human beings.

It would almost seem that with so many sightings, and so much technology, time is running out on the cryptids having much validity. Our technology will keep advancing, and as time goes on I've lost the view of it "could" be out there. It seems more likely that it fits with other similar phenomenons that have people sighting things and making reports on them. Usually those reports are to special interest websites that do privatized data collection like the BFRO and some UFO websites, ghost websites etc do. There is definitely a market and an interest in those subjects. It's mysterious and everyone loves a good mystery! I know I do. Someone has to make those mysteries too. (or write about them at least)

I'm "OK" with folks wanting for it to be out there, and would love to see a real bigfoot. At this point if it was out there someone would've shot it, skinned it, and mounted it, sold parts of it. Ate it! If you want examples, look at the gorillas and other apes. The natives were certainly doing those things with them. In a country like the USA, with so many reports, why no proof? Why in 2013 is bigfoot not collected, described and cataloged in the taxonomic chart? It's definitely a valid question, and one that needs addressing. This is one of those things where the burden of proof lay on the proponent of the bigfoot. Science does not have to prove something doesn't exist. (in fact it is impossible to do so!)

I've seen this quote used elsewhere and it is a good one for proponents to embrace. This isn't a contest about who can win. It's about is there something out there.

eta quote:

Grover Krantz: "Bigfoot/Sasquatch evidence"(1992) p. 3 & 7

"The skeptics are under no obligation to disprove all or, for that matter any of the evidence. The burden of proof rests with those who think that the animals are real. The skeptics are not obligated even to look at the evidence....Science requires solid evidence for the existence of a new species...A "type specimen" must be obtained, which is then described in a scientific journal and continues to be available for other experts to examine."

Edited January 3, 2013 by LWD

[Guest Nalajr]

I am not overestimating the intelligence of humans at all. There's some mighty stupid people that fill this country of ours, this HUGE country we call HOME. All you need for evidence of that is to look at the last election results.

One thing I do know is that Humans are really good at a few things and one of them is finding and capturing or killing those that are lower on the tree than we are. We've been doing it for a LONG, LONG time.

I also know and talk to a LOT of hunters. I read a lot of their stories and am fascinated by the sport. Now for sure, I am not trying to convince anyone that it is a representative sample of ALL hunters, just the ones I have come in contact with. One of the most magnificent and majestic creatures in our country is the ELK. Do you know how many hunters save up every single dime they can get their paws on year after year to head out west, buy an elk tag and trapse through the woods trying to kill an elk. This happens every year. During this time and much before, the elk woods are littered with trail cams. Plenty of times I have seen pics that are posted of HUGE Elk, Bear and many images of Mountain Lions, never a SASSY. I've always thought that very odd that one has never been captured on one. I mean a CLEAR and immediately recognizable picture of a SASSY that could run on every news show and everyone would instantly know what it was. I've read all the excuses and for me they just don't hold water. Sooner or later a SASSY that wasn't as smart as the others would slip up and get caught. We've all seen litters of dogs that have one or 2 that just aren't as sharp as the others, why not SASSY offspring? Anyway, this could go on all night. Suffice it to say that the lack of credible evidence really troubles me.

As for the MK study, go and read the thread about the Sierra Kills DNA. The guy that had it tested has had the results for some time and before he made them public he told MK about them and wanted to talk to her...or anyone on her team to try and explain what was going on. They declined every offer he made to them to discuss it. Why? He said that Justin said she had samples from the same piece of meat that he had tested. How can his come from a reputable DNA lab that says its bear and Smeja DNA and MK's lab says it's Sassy Mito DNA? MK said the Smeja sample was the CORNERSTONE of her study. Don't you think she's got some 'splainin" to do? I would say she's got a LOT of it to do and she hasn't said a single word about the discrepancy. I know I would if in her situation. It just looks BAD no matter how you try and explain it away.

The one group I am impressed with is the one doing Operation Persistence. Now that bunch has my attention. I have talked to Bipto via messages several times and I am going to join the group this year. I would absolutely LOVE to be one of their eyes on on the ground at Area X. I would be tickled to death if someone came out of that place with a DEAD SASSY in the back of a truck for the world to see. What a day that would be. I don't think there is a Zoologist, Biologist or Evolutionary Anthropologist that wouldn't think that would be the GREATEST DAY they have ever had. It would re-write every science text in existence.

Nalajr

[Egump]

in dismissing the lack of trail cam evidence, it's important to put things in perspective. take the province of BC for example, where deer populations can run in the range of 300,000 specimens. add in another 150,000 bears - both black and grizzly. and wolves, foxes, coyotes may reach another 100,000. and then there are the moose, 170,000 of them. and these are species, save the grizzly, that can be found anywhere in the province - the same range of the reputed sasquatch as well.

of course, we don't know the population of the alleged sasquatch, but certain researchers have pegged a North American population of between 3,000 to 15,000. how many of them might be in BC, noted hotbed for the squatch? let's say one tenth for the sake of argument.

so in BC, we might have 300 to 1,500 of these exceedingly rare, allegedly shy, mostly nocturnal creatures ranging across a wilderness that is comparable in size to Washington, Oregon and Northern California while competing for camera time with 700,000 real creatures of some size who are generally not camera shy in the least. yes, there are plenty of game cam photos of these real creatures, but are there hundreds and hundreds of thousands of them? because when they are, there might finally be one of the elusive, nocturnal beast that has captured all your imaginations, whether believer or skeptic.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Egump

[Guest Kerchak]

I'll agree that the PGF was a good hoax, not an easily done one. Patterson deserves credit for pulling off a good one. Especially for 1967 terms.

Except I don't have the opinion it's a hoax. In my opinion it would have been impossible in 1967, as well as today.

I can't agree with the statement of them being proven less or more. (ghosts, aliens, bigfoot etc) I think right now the playing field is pretty equal in terms of proof.

I go in favour of bigfoot with regards to evidence.

Take ghosts. It has no more been established that what people are calling 'ghosts' are definitely spirits of dead people. In fact it's rather less established than what people are calling bigfoot is a large upright hairy hominid/hominoid of some sort. We know such a thing is possible to exist, and in fact creatures not a great deal dissimilar to bigfoot are known in the fossil record. In contrast it has never been established that people die and their spirits live on as ghosts. It hasn't even been established to be 'possible' as yet.

So I don't think it's on the same level.

I was pointing out other phenomenons that have more evidence to support them.

I don't think they do. See above.

(anecdotal and other alleged claims that aren't supported with facts yet)

Well the PGF is supported by facts which argue in it's favour and which argue against it being a man in a suit.

I'm "OK" with folks wanting for it to be out there,

I wish I didn't have the opinion bigfoot is out there. It's of no use to me in my every day life. I can think of a whole lot more exciting things I 'wish' were true. On the face of it, bigfoot is a pretty staid and unexciting phenomenon. Its just an animal, or near human animal....and they don't really appear to do much more than just stand there, look and then walk away. Hardy King Kong.

In a country like the USA, with so many reports, why no proof? Why in 2013 is bigfoot not collected, described and cataloged in the taxonomic chart? It's definitely a valid question, and one that needs addressing.

Maybe because these days the 'phenomenon' has taken over the facts and that most reports are not true? Maybe there are such creatures but they aren't as widespread or as numerous as the phenomenon suggests. Maybe there is a chicken nugget of truth to bigfoot, but it just isn't a whole bucketful of KFC.

Do you think it's possible that small numbers could be there in the PNW or British Columbia?

Perhaps they are on the way out and are only found in select few remote and rugged areas?

This is one of those things where the burden of proof lay on the proponent of the bigfoot. Science does not have to prove something doesn't exist. (in fact it is impossible to do so!)

The proponent doesn't always have to prove anything either. Many proponents don't care that science doesn't except it and are quite happy for things to continue as they are. For a lot of them, they are just happy 'knowing' they are right. That's good enough for them. Obviously a large amount of proponents are also trying to get that proof.

[dmaker]

If you are willing to concede the obvious, and you might want to, here it is: The visual confirmation is the greatest body of evidence that we have to pursue. And yes, you have to consider the possibility that a fairly high percentage of those are not real. Where that evidence will take us eventually is unknown to anyone. It is guaranteed though to take us nowhere if we don't follow up on it and don't give it some credence (and we haven't). It may conclude in proof if we do. If we don't....?

Look, human oral narratives are messy things. I deal with them daily, usually under oath in a deposition room or from a witness stand in a courtroom, and believe me, I've been lied to a plenty. I’ve also seen how people (me included) can misapprehend physical reality while under significant stress. To say the least, my b.s. meter is finely tuned and always on. What is contained in the body of BF sighting reports is another thing entirely. But, you have to put the time in to read them and you have to have enough knowledge and experience as to make sense of what you are reading. Sometimes the narratives don't make sense, but a large percentage of the time they do.

We live in a world where most now passively watch far more people talking to them from a screen than ever having a real live give and take conversation on anything meaningful . We have also as a culture mostly lost our critical reading skills for the same reasons. Believe me, both are learned skills, to do that critically and competently, and most people you know don't have the chops to ever pull it off. Yes, I’d include a lot of BF researchers in that category. Not their fault, but if you want to get to the crux of the gist on this subject, you gotta dig a little deeper than dismissing millions of words and thousands of experiences with a backward brush of the hand. Well, if you want to be taken seriously on the subject you do.

I am going to get a beer, sit down right beside you and continue to express my opinion as politely and as often as I can. Cheers