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

[Guest]

However, we're not talking about litigation. We are talking about a scientific pursuit to prove the existence of a species with an absence of physical evidence. I would argue that those contexts are entirely different.

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.

dmaker,

From my original post conceding your point:

".... the level of exactitude in the courts should not be compared to the exactitude of scientific rigor...."

(Read below the context in which I was posting)

ronn1,

If you read my original post, I do not argue that eyewitness accounts are scientific proof for the existence of BF.

I was talking about the nature of eyewitness accounts to shed some light on how some can be wrong but the reality is that most are not.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Dobbsquatch

[Guest DWA]

No, the claimant has the burden of proof. Even according to Dr. KrantzGrover 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."

Krantz is only talking about science's obligation (note: it is SCIENCE'S obligation) to prove the animal. All the proponents can do is provide evidence. The mainstream is obliged to pass on that submission. We would both agree that there isn't enough yet for me, were I a scientist, to declare a new species.

But any scientist looking at the evidence should see - or turn in his scientist card - that ample evidence exists to get in the field and obtain the proof, even if that simply amounts to encouraging the proponents' efforts.

What has no standing in this discussion is aimless ridicule, which is basically the "bigfoot skeptic case." In other words, the skeptics don't really have a logical reason for a single thing they are saying. And if they really did "want the animal to be real," their best way of showing that would be to shut up, and encourage the big dogs of science to hunt.

[adam2323]

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.

To me DWA has hit it. Science may be so called perfect but thoose conducting are far from perfect and have their own preconceived nottions aand beliefs with unfortuntely cloud theif judgement with this subject

Edited January 3, 2013 by adam2323

[Guest]

That's a joke, right?

Know what you would say? "Those could all be [use your illusion]."

It is the volume and consistency of the evidence that is the thing. But if you are unaware of it, you wouldn't know that.

Here's your hint, though: if the Patterson/Gimlin film - or any other piece, three pieces, fifty or 100 pieces - were found to be fake tomorrow, not one person well acquainted with the evidence would change his mind. That's how much there is and how deep it is. Read up.

Nope, I just told you how science works. Your not knowing that doesn't change it, nannabooboo as you (undoubtedly) will. I've made all the response I need to. Read up or find something other than a dead end to introduce.

No, it's not a joke. We can prove what made many bigfoot prints. Men. We can prove what is in many videos and photos. Men in suits. The only proof points to men, not an animal referred to as bigfoot or sasquatch. In fact we cannot prove that bigfoot has left even one footprint. That seems a bit odd doesn't it?

As for the sighting reports, people report seeing all sorts of things. Ghosts, UFOs, bigfoots, leprechauns. If we were to accept sighting reports that were consistent as an indicator of something being a real animal or entity, by that reasoning leprechauns must be real!

Your interpretation of what science is, and does seems to be very interesting, and not very accurate. As someone just pointed out even Grover Krantz understood what it seems you cannot. (as does Jeffery Meldrum)

Edited January 3, 2013 by LWD

[dmaker]

Krantz is only talking about science's obligation (note: it is SCIENCE'S obligation) to prove the animal. All the proponents can do is provide evidence. The mainstream is obliged to pass on that submission. We would both agree that there isn't enough yet for me, were I a scientist, to declare a new species.

But any scientist looking at the evidence should see - or turn in his scientist card - that ample evidence exists to get in the field and obtain the proof, even if that simply amounts to encouraging the proponents' efforts.

What has no standing in this discussion is aimless ridicule, which is basically the "bigfoot skeptic case." In other words, the skeptics don't really have a logical reason for a single thing they are saying. And if they really did "want the animal to be real," their best way of showing that would be to shut up, and encourage the big dogs of science to hunt.

I find the first two paragraphs of this response to be very reasonable and help me understand a bit more where you are coming from. I can't agree with the third paragraph, but am not interested in providing a logical basis for conclusive evidence. We'll just let that lie for now. I do have a serious question for you though: you say I need to read up. OK. Help me with that please. I have read what I thought to be the leading monographs, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science ( Meldrum) and Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America (Coleman) { less impressive in my opinion}, as well as countless eye witness reports on countless web sites and have, of course, watched just about every BF video available on Youtube. I have watched every documentary ( serious or otherwise) on the subject, with my favourite being Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide ( History Channel I believe). So again, I ask you ( in all seriousness, not being sarcastic) what more should I be reading or watching?

Edited January 3, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

That's . . . how deep it is.

Oh, it's deep all right.

[Guest]

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.

So your argument is that the extremely small number of scientists that agree with you are smart and hard working and the rest are just lazy or stupid. Seems to be the same logic you use verses skeptics... "if you don't agree with me, you're ignorant".

Eyewitness evidence in a court of law: Witness;" I saw the defendant pull a knife out of his pocket and stab the victim"

key points - "the defendant" - a known person - actually exists. "a knife" - known object - actually exists - found on defendant at scene of crime. "Victim" known person - actually exists - found at scene. eyewitness testamony accepted.

Bigfoot eyewitness: I was sitting in my hunting stand looking to kill the 38 point buck I saw yesterday when I smelled this terrible smell, kinda like wet dog and rotten egg. Then out of the corner of my eye I saw this bigfoot. He came down the trail hiding behind trees all the way. Then he used his superior intellengence to avoid my trail cam. I watched as he hid and waited to ambush a deer. Sure enough, one came along and he jumped out and ran it down on four legs. When he caught it, he slammed it against a tree to break its back, then he used his sharp claw to slit it open and take out the liver. I'm not sure why that deer didn't smell that bigfoot - I sure could and I'm just a dumb human - I guess deer can't smell bigfoot smell. So anyway, I was going to shoot the bigfoot, but i just couldn't. No I didn't take any pictures. You just have to take my word for it. It wasn't a bear - I've killed about 1000 bears so I know the difference.

Do you see any reason to question that story?

or back to the court of law - "your honor - I saw a unicorn stab that victim" - eyewitness testamony not so good.

In answer to the question of why, as a skeptic who thinks all eyewitness evidence is No. 2 ( actually one of two choices stated in a previous post - but also a funny reference to "ka-ka" ) comes to this forum,...I ask myself that quite often. I started out "on the fence", but but have ended up, based on my evaluation of things presented as evidence to be convinced that BF doesn't exsist. If something convincing ever shows up, I'm open to changing my mind. No, I haven't read every eyewitness report, but I have read many, many studies of NA forklore that were done in the early 1900's (pre-bigfoot explosion) and found that Sas isn't nearly as prevalent a legend as most proponets want it to be. (google "acient texts" or "sacred texts") But I guess I'm just one of those lazy and ignorant skeptics.

Actually, at this point I want to quit visiting this forum, but with all the things going on right now in the world of BF - ie Ketchum/Smeja/Operation reload persistence etc, this deal has more twists and drama than a UNIVISION soap opera - I'm addicted.

[Guest]

But any scientist looking at the evidence should see - or turn in his scientist card - that ample evidence exists to get in the field and obtain the proof, even if that simply amounts to encouraging the proponents' efforts.

. . . And as I and others have illustrated for you multiple times in this thread, many scientists HAVE gone to the field to search for that proof and come up empty. You can keep shoveling this tripe but doing so does not make it true.

Dude, I am one of these scientists you keep lecturing us about, I've been following this for many years, and yes I do conduct field research with the intent of uncovering physical evidence for bigfoot. My very participation here in this thread demolishes your premise.

Why have I been unsuccessful in finding bigfoot? I think two reasons: First, there's no actual physical evidence of bigfoots out there for me to find. Second, I don't talk myself into believing that every odd twig snap I hear in the woods came from the bigfoots checking me out.

Seems to be the same logic you use verses skeptics... "if you don't agree with me, you're ignorant".

Yes, he's been doing that all through this thread.

[Guest DWA]

. . . And as I and others have illustrated for you multiple times in this thread, many scientists HAVE gone to the field to search for that proof and come up empty. You can keep shoveling this tripe but doing so does not make it true.

Dude, I am one of these scientists you keep lecturing us about, I've been following this for many years, and yes I do conduct field research with the intent of uncovering physical evidence for bigfoot. My very participation here in this thread demolishes your premise.

Why have I been unsuccessful in finding bigfoot? I think two reasons: First, there's no actual physical evidence of bigfoots out there for me to find. Second, I don't talk myself into believing that every odd twig snap I hear in the woods came from the bigfoots checking me out.

Forgot this one: you haven't - and no one other than Patterson and the TBRC have - spent enough time in the woods to confirm any unconfirmed animal. My premise stands pristine. Your attitude toward the evidence I find simply puzzling. I don't know why you bother. "This is fake, but OK, let's read it....um, fake...."

Yes, he's been doing that all through this thread.

No, here's what you and your buddy have been doing all through this thread:

1. Ridiculing people who insist on viewing the world the way a scientist should (yes, I just indicted most of the scientific mainstream, which for anyone even passingly familiar with the history of science shouldn't be surprising);

2. Using lack of proof to discount the evidence, which would have all of us "safely" perusing the world from the safety of our caves, if not extinct, were that the uniform human response to evidence.

[dmaker]

So your argument is that the extremely small number of scientists that agree with you are smart and hard working and the rest are just lazy or stupid. Seems to be the same logic you use verses skeptics... "if you don't agree with me, you're ignorant".

Eyewitness evidence in a court of law: Witness;" I saw the defendant pull a knife out of his pocket and stab the victim"

key points - "the defendant" - a known person - actually exists. "a knife" - known object - actually exists - found on defendant at scene of crime. "Victim" known person - actually exists - found at scene. eyewitness testamony accepted.

Bigfoot eyewitness: I was sitting in my hunting stand looking to kill the 38 point buck I saw yesterday when I smelled this terrible smell, kinda like wet dog and rotten egg. Then out of the corner of my eye I saw this bigfoot. He came down the trail hiding behind trees all the way. Then he used his superior intellengence to avoid my trail cam. I watched as he hid and waited to ambush a deer. Sure enough, one came along and he jumped out and ran it down on four legs. When he caught it, he slammed it against a tree to break its back, then he used his sharp claw to slit it open and take out the liver. I'm not sure why that deer didn't smell that bigfoot - I sure could and I'm just a dumb human - I guess deer can't smell bigfoot smell. So anyway, I was going to shoot the bigfoot, but i just couldn't. No I didn't take any pictures. You just have to take my word for it. It wasn't a bear - I've killed about 1000 bears so I know the difference.

Do you see any reason to question that story?

or back to the court of law - "your honor - I saw a unicorn stab that victim" - eyewitness testamony not so good.

In answer to the question of why, as a skeptic who thinks all eyewitness evidence is No. 2 ( actually one of two choices stated in a previous post - but also a funny reference to "ka-ka" ) comes to this forum,...I ask myself that quite often. I started out "on the fence", but but have ended up, based on my evaluation of things presented as evidence to be convinced that BF doesn't exsist. If something convincing ever shows up, I'm open to changing my mind. No, I haven't read every eyewitness report, but I have read many, many studies of NA forklore that were done in the early 1900's (pre-bigfoot explosion) and found that Sas isn't nearly as prevalent a legend as most proponets want it to be. (google "acient texts" or "sacred texts") But I guess I'm just one of those lazy and ignorant skeptics.

Actually, at this point I want to quit visiting this forum, but with all the things going on right now in the world of BF - ie Ketchum/Smeja/Operation reload persistence etc, this deal has more twists and drama than a UNIVISION soap opera - I'm addicted.

That is a colourful analogy that does a good job of pointing out the challenges inherent in eye witness testimony for Bigfoot. And it didn't even mention what I consider to be the biggest challenge to eye witness reports---the hoaxing history. It makes it so much more difficult to take seriously when it has been hoaxed 100's or 1,000's of times before. Add to that the bufoons out there on shows like Finding Bigfoot and then you wonder why a large group of skeptics will accept nothing less than a specimen or something like a conclusive, peer accepted DNA report?

[Guest DWA]

No, it's not a joke. We can prove what made many bigfoot prints. Men. We can prove what is in many videos and photos. Men in suits. The only proof points to men, not an animal referred to as bigfoot or sasquatch. In fact we cannot prove that bigfoot has left even one footprint. That seems a bit odd doesn't it?

As for the sighting reports, people report seeing all sorts of things. Ghosts, UFOs, bigfoots, leprechauns. If we were to accept sighting reports that were consistent as an indicator of something being a real animal or entity, by that reasoning leprechauns must be real!

Your interpretation of what science is, and does seems to be very interesting, and not very accurate. As someone just pointed out even Grover Krantz understood what it seems you cannot. (as does Jeffery Meldrum)

Oh no. I get it, quite. In fact, Grover, Jeff and I would definitely agree on this over a beer.

One other thing we'd agree on: you don't agree with us, and may need to read up some.

That is a colourful analogy that does a good job of pointing out the challenges inherent in eye witness testimony for Bigfoot. And it didn't even mention what I consider to be the biggest challenge to eye witness reports---the hoaxing history. It makes it so much more difficult to take seriously when it has been hoaxed 100's or 1,000's of times before. Add to that the bufoons out there on shows like Finding Bigfoot and then you wonder why a large group of skeptics will accept nothing less than a specimen or something like a conclusive, peer accepted DNA report?

Hoaxing is no challenge to eyewitness reports. Look at the hoaxes. Read what eyewitnesses are reporting. Apples and Ganymede.

"Finding Bigfoot" is a humorous sideshow to which no attention should be paid.

Nor should any be paid to a DNA report which comes with no specimen to tell us what that DNA came from.

Edited January 3, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

Hoaxing is a challenge to every single eye witness report. The sheer volume of hoaxes has to dilute the legitimacy of witness reports in general. It's the classic boy who cried wolf syndrome. I don't see how you can say eye witness reports and hoaxes are like apples and ganymede.

What would stop me from calling up the BFRO or whoever one calls to report a sighting and providing a completely false ( i.e. HOAX) report. If I was careful to repeat all of the expected "legitimate" BF hallmarks such as smell, feeling of being watched, some ape sounding vocalization, etc, etc...does that mean you would take it at face value as real and not a hoax, therefore an Apple and not a Ganymede? How many times do you think that has happened in the past? Quite a few I would imagine. What is the motive behind doing that? I have no idea, but not all hoaxes involve monkey suits. Some are simply people lying.

[Guest DWA]

How many fakes are you aware of? Statistics please.

How do you know that fakes challenge every eyewitness report? Um, they don't. Not if you have read the accounts they don't.

[dmaker]

How many fakes are you aware of? Statistics please.

How do you know that fakes challenge every eyewitness report? Um, they don't. Not if you have read the accounts they don't.

I don't know how many fakes there are, and neither do you. My point was that it would seem like a very easy thing to do and given the amount of deceit that already exists in Footery...well, it's not hard to see how that much hoaxing can taint any kind of evidence that is not conclusive. But I ask you again, what accounts am I not reading? Where should I be looking to find the accounts that ring so loudly of authenticity? If you point me to them, I will gladly read them.

[WSA]

My aplogies if I came across as unduly strident (and our moderator gave me a friendly reminder that I might have been). It appears some did not see the point in my reductio ad absurdum comment about tendering your BF Forums membership if you felt the eyewitness reports are all invalid. I certainly didn't mean to imply that a contrary view of that evidence is illegitimate....only that holding both ideas in your head at the same time is very inconsistent and might need to be examined. My blunt characterization of that fell flat, I now see. Fair enough. Let me see if I can approach this in less oblique language...