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

[Guest DWA]

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..."

Wait. You said you didn't know how many fakes there are. It's implicit from that passage that you do.

Here is the absolute minimum reading for Sasquatch 001:

Both of Bindernagel’s books, and Meldrum’s, and J.Robert Alley’s “Raincoast Sasquatch,†and Meldrum’s ichnotaxonomy paper, and every report on both bfro.net and texasbigfoot.com, at a minimum, are Sasquatch 001. You should read some Krantz, too. And John Green’s database (although many reports from that are written up by Bindernagel).

Anyone who thinks this is too much, well, has an uninformed opinion. At least I only offer opinions on things I know something about. Isn’t that reasonable? I think so.

[Cotter]

Quick question to the skeptics sparring with DWA - have any of you sat down and interviewed an eyewitness?

Have any of you had a friend or relative witness one?

Can you share your experiences with those discussions?

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.

Hi Sask.

Is there any way you can make available your research findings discussing your BF research? I'd be interested in reading about your techniques, tactics, strategies, assumptions, and hypotheses regarding your efforts.

Thx.

[dmaker]

DWA: Thank-you for the recommended reading list. Sadly not many of them are available on Amazon still. I tried Google Play and the only two BF books ( aside from campfire story type ones) are Sasquatch:Legend Meets Science ( Meldrum) and Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America (Coleman), both of which I purchased quite a while ago. There are a couple in your list that are still in stock, but not too many. I will get my hands on what I can, where I can, as I would very much like to read more on this subject. As far as things online report databases, I have read quite a few reports from places like BFRO and Ontario Sasquatch, but I will continue to read more. I find them very entertaining, and I don't mean that in a snide way.

Cotter:

No

No

[Guest]

Quick question to the skeptics sparring with DWA - have any of you sat down and interviewed an eyewitness?

Yes, I've interviewed several, in person, eye-to-eye. These ranged from a Native American kid telling me about the long history of bigfoots as common knowledge among his people to a trusted field biologist and Iraq War veteran. Their stories are compelling, but they haven't led to the collection of physical evidence for bigfoots.

Is there any way you can make available your research findings discussing your BF research? I'd be interested in reading about your techniques, tactics, strategies, assumptions, and hypotheses regarding your efforts.

I conduct long-term research in a county in a state that has multiple bigfoot encounters logged in the BFRO database. I've even had my own "not sure" encounter one night that I've described here on the BFF.

I do some night searching a few times a year, but the more frequent work I do is to scour streamsides for prints, hair, bones, etc. I also search uplands and stream bottoms for caves, dense thickets, etc. that would provide the kind of cover that could hide something like a bigfoot during daylight hours.

I don't want to create the impression that I'm some kind of hard core squatcher, and certainly my inability to come up with anything in the field shouldn't be seen as the last word on bigfoot. I just want to keep pointing out that DWA's characterizations of science, bigfoot, and skeptics are way off the mark. Of course, you cannot reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into, so there's really not much more I can add to the thread.

[Guest DWA]

DWA: Thank-you for the recommended reading list. Sadly not many of them are available on Amazon still. I tried Google Play and the only two BF books ( aside from campfire story type ones) are Sasquatch:Legend Meets Science ( Meldrum) and Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America (Coleman), both of which I purchased quite a while ago. There are a couple in your list that are still in stock, but not too many. I will get my hands on what I can, where I can, as I would very much like to read more on this subject. As far as things online report databases, I have read quite a few reports from places like BFRO and Ontario Sasquatch, but I will continue to read more. I find them very entertaining, and I don't mean that in a snide way.

Cotter:

No

No

I think most follks who read all that would find it a very difficult body of evidence to presume was all false positives.

And this might be a good place to talk about the BFRO database.

First: all one has to do is watch "Finding Bigfoot" to assess the likelihood that Bobo et al. are making all those reports up. They don't even give themselves enough time to find Bigfoot much less write The Great American Novel.

Second: just like the TBRC database, BFRO's is the public, sending in their reports of what they've seen to a database that Moneymaker et al. are definitely smart enough to set up and administer (i.e., no Meldrum required). Investigative followup is frequently helpful, as most submitters either are (1) not Shakespeare or (2) concerned they will be laughed at, or both (as the followup interviews seem to bear out). The BFRO, "Finding Bigfoot" aside, have a lot of pretty good local curators who do, generally, decent and in many cases excellent followup.

Just wanted to put that up now as a preemptive strike against anyone who thinks that "Finding Bigfoot" is some kind of blow against the validity of the BFRO database. Apples and Ganymede. For one thing, the reports on the TBRC database are consistent with what is reported on the BFRO's, even though the two groups have no contact. For another, when I read Bindernagel's and Meldrum's books, I found them coming to the same conclusions I had, even though they were basing them largely on yet a third database (Green's) of which I'd read little. That's quite the authenticity marker.

"Finding Bigfoot" may be doing one good thing. (I'm trying to be nice here.) When new reports come up on the BFRO database, they usually include reports of encounters either in the current calendar year or last. And again, those are consistent with what is being reported elsewhere; and I'm pretty sure Bobo and Matt aren't giving liars enough material to do that from my read.

Yes, I've interviewed several, in person, eye-to-eye. These ranged from a Native American kid telling me about the long history of bigfoots as common knowledge among his people to a trusted field biologist and Iraq War veteran. Their stories are compelling, but they haven't led to the collection of physical evidence for bigfoots.

...the likely reason for which is virtually no one spending sufficient time in the field. You've confirmed below that you don't; no knock, just a fact. Even the TBRC needs a little luck to get proof with the time they put in, which they haven't had yet. Were Operation Persistence, however, sponsored by the National Geographic Society, you'd be hearing far more about it than you are.

And even with the time you've put in you have a "not sure." (I've spent no time looking, and I have likely tracks and one other piece of not-sure-but-what-else-would-do-this-evidence.) The search engine here being what it is, what thread is yours in?

I don't want to create the impression that I'm some kind of hard core squatcher, and certainly my inability to come up with anything in the field shouldn't be seen as the last word on bigfoot. I just want to keep pointing out that DWA's characterizations of science, bigfoot, and skeptics are way off the mark. Of course, you cannot reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into, so there's really not much more I can add to the thread.

Oh, I've reasoned my way into it. "There's no evidence;" "There's no proof [which means there's no evidence];" and "I give this a [tiny number with no explanation] percent chance of being real" are the mindsets that dominate the scientific community. Other than the TBRC, no one is spending any more time out there than you are. What would they expect?

[Drew]

"Finding Bigfoot" may be doing one good thing. (I'm trying to be nice here.) When new reports come up on the BFRO database, they usually include reports of encounters either in the current calendar year or last. And again, those are consistent with what is being reported elsewhere; and I'm pretty sure Bobo and Matt aren't giving liars enough material to do that from my read.

I can tell you this, they are certainly giving people the impression that the best story gets you on the TV.

I know that if I want to get on the TV, I will record some howls, and tell them I recorded them THIS MORNING at 4AM, and certainly the Finding Bigfoot crew will be comin out to the back 40 to do some squatchin.

[Guest DWA]

It would be best not to get me started on "Finding Bigfoot," which (its impact on reports aside) is one of the heaviest blows sqiuatchers have inflicted upon their own cause. I would make a fair bet that *I* could get "FB" into my necka if I really wanted to.

[WSA]

About these eyewitness reports then.

I think DWA nails the description: The Great American Novel. Except some percentage of them are to me (and for many others) not fiction. No doubt though, people being people, some are made up of whole cloth. I guess Ms. Waln, my 2^nd Grade teacher, had it nailed all those years ago: It is always the actions of a few, that ruin it for all the rest (overlooking the fact she was typically talking about me), and I believe this goes double for Sasquatch reports. But you can be a discerning reader, and you have to be before you can glean the wheat from the chaff here.

Let me just presume to predict that some who profess to be a skeptic regarding these reports have a niggling feeling at the base of their medulla that there is something more to these reports than a bunch of bumpkins getting off on woofing the gullible to get them to come and spend tourist dollars, or to get their hit count up on Youtube. It’s o.k. to admit it, if so. It is a natural thing. Listen and follow that voice, I’d say, or you’re going to need to consider what the opposite conclusion means, and it is even more vexing.

What I think it would mean, is this:

Sociologists would study the phenomenon of BF sightings long, long after the hypothetical definitive debunking of Sasquatch had been accomplished. Those whose training it is to examine the madness of crowds, will put this head and shoulders above the South Sea bubble and Tulipmania. It would represent a phenomenon waaaaay more extraordinary and compelling than the possible existence of an evolutionarily un-extraordinary critter in our midst. This is frankly the point on which so many BF enthusiasts get caught, I believe. It caught me, for sure. To crib from James Howard Kunstler, I’m allergic to conspiracy theories, whether they be deliberate or accidental ones. THIS however would be the mother of all such, and just to be blunt… as a species, we ain’t that good. You can attempt to draw parallels to reports of seeing [insert your favorite mythical creature here], but it is akin to comparing lightning to the lightning bug.

[Guest DWA]

^^^^My point.

Any serious thought about a world in which this kind of body of evidence doesn't add up to "real" leads to: that's not the world I've been living in.

Edited January 3, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

I have no problem admitting to that niggling feeling at the base of my medulla, but when I do so I get chuckled at by proponents and my motives for even being on this site are challenged. It seems it's an all or nothing club here.

I think that there is a lot of BF evidence out there that is compelling, but just not convincing for me. Maybe I'm just a faithless person by nature. As in I don't deal with the intangible well. I need to see and touch something to believe it. If 50 people stood in front of my and said they saw BF last night and seemed totally credible then there would still be a small part of medulla with a niggling feeling, but this time saying that's not really what they saw, surely there is some other explanation.

[Guest DWA]

If my best friend told me he'd seen one (one friend has), I'd go: nice. Wish I had proof though.

"Proof" to me equals "I will know what a bigfoot looks like, moves like, etc." This DNA stuff is getting zero attention from me other than my pointing out to people that you are kind of gonna need a specimen with that DNA. You haven't convinced me if you don't have one.

Even the P/G film - which if I had to bet I'd say is genuine - has been poisoned for me by the reception it got. That may be what one looks like but I'm not 100% sure, even though no one seems to be able to come up with a hoax scenario or a suit.

What the reports say to me is: if I had to bet, real.

That's not proof to me, and I wouldn't think it would be to anyone.

[WSA]

I certainly understand that approach dmaker. Just speaking for me-my-own-personal-self? I believe the congnitive dissonance from that is likely to lead to insomnia, neuralgia and the heartbreak of psoriasis. :-) Be on your toes!

[Drew]

Any serious thought about a world in which this kind of body of evidence doesn't add up to "real" leads to: that's not the world I've been living in.

This is one of the main reasons that I think Bigfooters do not want to admit that human failings are the crux of Bigfootry. They do not want their romantic view, of a place where monsters still roam freely, without being constrained by humans, to be shattered by reality. Something science can't get a grasp on.

The fact that you just admitted you aren't living in a world where the heretofore collected Bigfoot evidence doesn't add up to 'real', tells me that you would be willing to stretch your BS meter in order to keep the false-hope alive. Do you think you have a faulty BS meter DWA? Is it because if you didn't, you would be living in a world which you refuse to live in?

Edited January 3, 2013 by Drew

[Guest DWA]

I'm just saying:

Neither I nor you are aware of any phenomenon with nearly this much evidence that hasn't been proven real.

[dmaker]

I'm just saying:

Neither I nor you are aware of any phenomenon with nearly this much evidence that hasn't been proven real.

As mentioned before in this thread: what about aliens and ghosts?