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

[Guest Theagenes]

I thought the BF sightings map compared to the population density map a few pages ago was very interesting. Just for comparsion purposes, here is the BF sighting map compared to a forest density map.

Superficially they seem to match up pretty well. The biggest area of discrepency appears to be Illinois.

The topo map (elevation) doesn't seem to match up well at all.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Theagenes

[Guest DWA]

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

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

OK, the evidence says: you are wrong on all three counts.

On the latter two: hunters have reported shooting them and drivers have reported hitting them. To simply assume that these activities would lead to scientific confirmation shows a need to think about this more.

And you are absolutely certain there are no unambiguous trail camera shots?

No you aren't.

[Drew]

Theagenes, the maps are awesome. It seems pretty obvious that Bigfoot sighting reports would follow the forest-cover maps.

If indeed Bigfoot is a myth, a Boogie-man story passed on over generations, of a Boss-of-the-Woods, a Hairy forest monster, a stealer of young maidens who carries them into the woods, etc... It would be expected that most sightings would be based around woods and/or forests.

1. If it is a hoax, the guy in the suit is going to choose an area with woods, because that is where his targets would expect such a monster to be.

1A. If it is simply a story fabrication, of course the person reporting it is going to pick a spot in or near the woods, because who is going to believe the story "I saw Bigfoot in Downtown Detroit near the Rosa Parks Bus Depot.

2. If it is a misidentification of a human in a ghillie suit, or a black bear, these are going to occur in places where people hunt, or where there are bears. These are typically in wilderness areas, on wood-edges or in swamps/forests.

3. If Bigfoot is indeed a subconscious fabrication of someone's mind, either through a hynagogic hallucination, or a sleep paralysis incident, the subconscious mind will most likely incorporate the details of the Bigfoot legend into the hallucination. Bigfoot lives in the woods, Bigfoot is hairy, Bigfoot is Big. If someone is on the arctic tundra, it is unlikely someone will subconsciously fabricate a Bigfoot dream.

So it seems patently obvious that Bigfoot sightings would follow closely the related forest cover maps. I mean who would believe the Operation Persistence thing, if they were coming to you from Zug Island in the Detroit River?

[Guest DWA]

I always get a chuckle when I hear somebody say they "really want" Sasquatch to be real. In response, I'd just offer up the idea that chosing between wanting, or not wanting, is to misunderstand what is on offer here. Better to spend your time considering what is, or not, I'd say. If you are "wanting", but not stretching the boundaries of your comprehension of what is possible in this world, you are only a spectator, at best . The "wanting" skeptic risks nothing worth having, I believe. It is safe to want, if that is all you are doing. To say you "want" proof is to be completely passive and accepting of the status quo, and allows you to find refuge in a pseudo-quest. The chance of your dissapointment is so intellectually remote as to be of no inducement at all towards finding the true boundary between truth and fiction. Want without rigor is a trope.

+++ fifty.

I would not call waiting for actual, real physical evidence to be taking a back seat and not risking anything. I don't have to drink the Kool-Aid and join you in your group delusion, or as you put it " stretch the boundaries of your comprehension of what is possible in this world..." The staus quo ( where you so accusingly put me) is based on what is KNOWN to science. It is not some safe haven for skeptics to scurry to because we lack the balls to run around the woods at night yelling into empty air and banging sticks on trees.

The only delusion operative here is that under which those are who misunderstand the difference between evidence and proof.

There is copious evidence. To use the lack of proof as a lazy excuse for discounting the evidence convicts one of conduct unbecoming a scientist.

Science follows evidence to proof.

Period.

[Guest Theagenes]

Agreed Drew, I don't think the maps support either side necessarily, but it's certainly interesting to compare them.

I think the high number of sightings in Illinois despite the lack of dense forest is interesting. I've never been to Illinois, so is the forest map misleading?

Edited January 3, 2013 by Theagenes

[Guest]

OK, the evidence says: you are wrong on all three counts.

On the latter two: hunters have reported shooting them and drivers have reported hitting them.

And yet no body was recovered, how convenient.

And you are absolutely certain there are no unambiguous trail camera shots?

No you aren't.

Where are they then?

Edited January 3, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest Kerchak]

Except I don't need an invitation from you to be a member of this forum. This forum is not only for those that believe. This is not some group quest forum where we're all out to prove the existence of Bigfoot and anyone not on that group quest has to leave. So if you don't mind, I am going to keep my account open thank-you, and 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

I think his point is that if folks are so sure there is nothing to bigfoot and that it's all hogwash then why do they even bother to waste their time giving it even a second's thought. At least that's how I understood it.

I think fairies are nonsense. I wouldn't dream of joining a fairy forum (and no, that's not a dig at men of a different sexual persuasion LOL).

Edited to fix typo.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Kerchak

[Guest DWA]

Excellent post Nalajr.

In fact ghosts and aliens have a much larger number of sightings, and many more videos and photos than bigfoot. There is much more evidence in favor of either, than for bigfoot. (because what has been claimed to date as bigfoot evidence is easily faked by men or simply misidentified)

Not true.

Examine the alleged evidence for ghosts and aliens and you will find nothing - nothing - on which science can search.

I would be willing to bet substantial money that, were a scientific expedtion with mainstream backing to use protocols existing to follow up on sasquatch evidence, we would have one of two things within the year:

1. proof;

2. evidence more than sufficient to convince every scientist on the team to continue the search until the proof is obtained.

Oh wait! Operation Persistence. Boom boom.

[WSA]

Re: Illinois.

The forested overlay map actually does correspond to the area of S. Illinois where most of the sightings are reported in that state. Very compelling Theagenes, and thanks for pointing this out.

[dmaker]

+++ fifty.

The only delusion operative here is that under which those are who misunderstand the difference between evidence and proof.

There is copious evidence. To use the lack of proof as a lazy excuse for discounting the evidence convicts one of conduct unbecoming a scientist.

Science follows evidence to proof.

Period.

In your world it seems science leapfrogs from unsubstantiatable evidence to proof. What kind of science is that? There is not one speck of BF evidence that cannot be explained away as something else, either another animal or a hoax. And until such evidence exists, either a type specimen alive or dead, or a conclusive DNA test accepted by peers, then science will never move from evidence to proof on the BF issue. Stop quoting science when science has not yet accepted Bigfoot as a new animal. It really detracts from your argument when you go around waving the science flag, yet science does not acknowledge BF.

[Guest DWA]

In your world it seems science leapfrogs from unsubstantiatable evidence to proof. What kind of science is that? There is not one speck of BF evidence that cannot be explained away as something else, either another animal or a hoax. And until such evidence exists, either a type specimen alive or dead, or a conclusive DNA test accepted by peers, then science will never move from evidence to proof on the BF issue. Stop quoting science when science has not yet accepted Bigfoot as a new animal. It really detracts from your argument when you go around waving the science flag, yet science does not acknowledge BF.

Proved my point. Thanks.

I simply do not respect most scientists' opinions on this, because they spout the same lazy objections I see above. They obviously haven't done their homework.

The vast majority of scientists are not at the frontiers of science. That is the way it has always been. Science is a nearly perfect discipline...which, unfortunately, is practiced by scientists, who aren't.

Edited January 3, 2013 by DWA

[Drew]

I always get a chuckle when I hear somebody say they "really want" Sasquatch to be real. In response, I'd just offer up the idea that chosing between wanting, or not wanting, is to misunderstand what is on offer here. Better to spend your time considering what is, or not, I'd say. If you are "wanting", but not stretching the boundaries of your comprehension of what is possible in this world, you are only a spectator, at best . The "wanting" skeptic risks nothing worth having, I believe. It is safe to want, if that is all you are doing. To say you "want" proof is to be completely passive and accepting of the status quo, and allows you to find refuge in a pseudo-quest. The chance of your dissapointment is so intellectually remote as to be of no inducement at all towards finding the true boundary between truth and fiction. Want without rigor is a trope.

This is an absolutely ludicrous statement.

Let me straighten it out for those who might not see it.

Please fill in the blank at the end WSA, I'm curious what your take on that would be.

Bigfoot Believer 'Wants Bigfoot to be real' is doing it right

Bigfoot Skeptic 'Wants Bigfoot to be real' is doing it wrong

World renowned anthropologist 'wants Bigfoot to be real' _____________________ .

[dmaker]

I think his point is that if folks are so sure there is nothing to bigfoot and that it's all hogwash then why do they even bother to waste their time giving it even a second's thought. At least that's how I understood it.

I think fairies are nonsense. I wouldn't dream of joining a fairy forum (and no, that's not a dig at men of a different sexual persuasion LOL).

Edited to fix typo.

Understood, but I don't think he gets to dismiss everyone with a different opinion than his and show them the door. Regardless, I never once said that I thought ALL eye witness reports are "Ka-Ka". I just said that eye witness reports ( scientifically speaking, which so many people here seem to love to preach but not follow) are very poor "evidence".

[Guest DWA]

There is not one speck of BF evidence that cannot be explained away as something else, either another animal or a hoax.

You just announced your utter ignorance of the evidence. Don't feel bad. It's a big club.

This is an absolutely ludicrous statement.

Let me straighten it out for those who might not see it.

Please fill in the blank at the end WSA, I'm curious what your take on that would be.

Bigfoot Believer 'Wants Bigfoot to be real' is doing it right

Bigfoot Skeptic 'Wants Bigfoot to be real' is doing it wrong

World renowned anthropologist 'wants Bigfoot to be real' _____________________ .

...no, make that actually thinks bigfoot is real, and the evidence says he's right. (Meldrum/Krantz/Swindler)

Always glad to help.

[dmaker]

Proved my point. Thanks.

I simply do not respect most scientists' opinions on this, because they spout the same lazy objections I see above. They obviously haven't done their homework.

The vast majority of scientists are not at the frontiers of science. That is the way it has always been. Science is a nearly perfect discipline...which, unfortunately, is practiced by scientists, who aren't.

I'm sorry but I am not sure at all what you are saying. I'm lazy because I haven't read every BF eye witness report and taken it as gospel truth and evidence extroidinaire of BF? Or I'm lazy because I am proposing science actually wait for indisputable, physical proof of a species before declaring its' existence to the world? I guess in your world Bobo must the best scientist ever.

You just announced your utter ignorance of the evidence. Don't feel bad. It's a big club.

...no, make that actually thinks bigfoot is real, and the evidence says he's right. (Meldrum/Krantz/Swindler)

Always glad to help.

Maybe he was referring to Dr. Goodall?"You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to"

Edited January 3, 2013 by dmaker