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

[Guest DWA]

Can you find an alien or a ghost? Can you show me where to go and what to do?

I can show you how to do it for a sasquatch. Can't tell you whether or not it was my suggestion, but the TBRC is doing it. Go read the Operation Persistence thread. I was telling them to do that. Whether they listened to me or came up with it themselves...they're doing it. And I based my suggestion on nothing else but what I'd read.

And now, tell me how to find an alien or a ghost.

Edited January 3, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

Can you find an alien or a ghost? Can you show me where to go and what to do?

I can show you how to do it for a sasquatch. Can't tell you whether or not it was my suggestion, but the TBRC is doing it. Go read the Operation Persistence thread. I was telling them to do that. Whether they listened to me or came up with it themselves...they're doing it. And I based my suggestion on nothing else but what I'd read.

And now, tell me how to find an alien or a ghost.

Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ghost+caught+on+tape&oq=ghost

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ufos+caught+on+tape&oq=ufo

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=orbs+caught+on+tape&oq=orbs

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=chupacabra+caught+on+tape&oq=chupa

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=shadow+man+caught+on+tape&oq=shadow+man

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=swamp+monster+caught+on+tape&oq=swamp+monster+caught+on+tape

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lake+monster+caught+on+tape&oq=lake+monster

[Guest DWA]

Youtube.

http://www.youtube.c...n tape&oq=ghost

http://www.youtube.c... on tape&oq=ufo

http://www.youtube.c...on tape&oq=orbs

http://www.youtube.c...n tape&oq=chupa

http://www.youtube.c...e&oq=shadow man

http://www.youtube.c... caught on tape

http://www.youtube.c...oq=lake monster

In other words...where all the other crap is, like phony bigfoot videos. Great lead there.

[Guest]

In other words...where all the other crap is, like phony bigfoot videos. Great lead there.

Where are the real bigfoot videos and evidence that the scientists are missing? Please point out three pieces of evidence that should validate your opinion.

[Cotter]

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.

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.

Fair enough Sask...the reason I was asking about your techniques and what-not is I am interested in how you going about it and when you were going about it.

Were you employing whoops and tree-knocks for example. Did you stick to summer months or spread your investigation out over the seasons and what-not.

I have begun research in an area that, due to the amount of people that frequent the place, I've begun to feel that they may not be as vocal as some would be in more desolate areas, and additionally, I'm thinking they use the area as more of a travel/migration route than a permanent home.

For instance, a person can sit in Wisconsin in the month of january looking for evidence of Robins......they will not find any evidence until spring when they migrate back......

not the best comparison, but I'm willing to bet you catch my drift on it.

Thoughts?

[Guest DWA]

Where are the real bigfoot videos and evidence that the scientists are missing? Please point out three pieces of evidence that should validate your opinion.

Didn't we address this up there a ways? Yes.

[Guest]

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?

Good question Cotter. To answer your question, me personally - no, but I point you to this post by Willinyc - http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/12125-what-is-the-statistical-probability-that-all-sightings-are-false/page__hl__statistical__st__375 post no 375.

Here is an answer from someone who did this pre-internet. note his results. The post also brings up Byrne's conclusion in regards to eyewitness accounts.

You guys remember Byrne - the guy who spent years and millions looking for BF. Read up on all that he did and then let me know if his qualifications, time, money and effort should have been enough to find some evidence. http://petercbyrne.com/greatsearches.html

from a couple of reviews of his book..." Mr. Byrne operated the Bigfoot Information Center in the Dalles, Oregon for several years. He investigated and interviewed many witnesses. He discusses some of these sightings at length in this book. The Information Center was a clearing house in the 1970's for reports of sightings and footprints."

" and under a grant from the Academy of Applied Science began a full time investigation. He has reported and investigated numerous sightings that are presented in this volume. At the time this book was written, there was a base in The Dalles, Oregon that Mr Bryne worked out of pursuing his investigation. There was an information center and a newsletter published also at that time. This book is written from the viewpoint of an experienced animal tracker/hunter and the sightings are detailed."

oops - there goes that "science never looked into it" deal. a grant from the Academy of Applied Science. and yet - no proof.

[Guest DWA]

Oh, it's deep all right.

And that you keep doing this is...well, it makes some of us wonder about you...

[Guest]

Didn't we address this up there a ways? Yes.

No, you never listed 3 specific pieces of evidence that you feel are authentic and that would validate your position.

[Guest DWA]

Here is an answer from someone who did this pre-internet. note his results. The post also brings up Byrne's conclusion in regards to eyewitness accounts.

oops - there goes that "science never looked into it" deal. a grant from the Academy of Applied Science. and yet - no proof.

Um...what did that grant cover? Tell me and...no wait, I'll tell you: one guy to spend most of his time interviewing people and compiling evidence and the remaining two days doing, um, what?

Another urban objection, stubbornly refusing to be dented by actual information.

No, you never listed 3 specific pieces of evidence that you feel are authentic and that would validate your position.

And I won't, because, well, if you thought about this for, well, a second would be spotting you way too much time, you would know that there is no single, three, 50 or 500 pieces of evidence I could cite that would sway you.

Nor would listing one be worth my time. I can already tell you aren't one of the ones I'm interested in convincing.

Edited January 3, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

Um...what did that grant cover? Tell me and...no wait, I'll tell you: one guy to spend most of his time interviewing people and compiling evidence and the remaining two days doing, um, what?

Another urban objection, stubbornly refusing to be dented by actual information.

And I won't, because, well, if you thought about this for, well, a second would be spotting you way too much time, you would know that there is no single, three, 50 or 500 pieces of evidence I could cite that would sway you.

Nor would listing one be worth my time. I can already tell you aren't one of the ones I'm interested in convincing.

Can you interpret that for me into three pieces of evidence that support your position? If not, that's ok. I won't ask a third time. I wanted to give you a fair chance at backing up your position rather than folding. It is easy to talk around the points. However, to focus in on the "ground situation" and reality is a completely different thing. If you can't name three things, that says a lot about how strong your position is and how strong the evidence really is. (in my opinion of course) You seem to get angered by this. You say science won't look at the evidence, yet you can't name three specific pieces of evidence that should represent the animal being a real entity.

[Guest Kerchak]

And that you keep doing this is...well, it makes some of us wonder about you...

Sometimes these people's real thoughts 'slip out' by mistake. They can't be false/on their game all the time. When they slip...it's a whopper....but not surprising. And some folks here still give them the befit of the doubt. Sheesh!

[dmaker]

Can you find an alien or a ghost? Can you show me where to go and what to do?

I can show you how to do it for a sasquatch. Can't tell you whether or not it was my suggestion, but the TBRC is doing it. Go read the Operation Persistence thread. I was telling them to do that. Whether they listened to me or came up with it themselves...they're doing it. And I based my suggestion on nothing else but what I'd read.

And now, tell me how to find an alien or a ghost.

Sure I can. To find a ghost, visit a haunted house or a graveyard. Many eye witness reports mention those places. Now I can't guarantee you that you're going to find one, they are very elusive :)To find a Bigfoot, all I need do is visit a "squatchy" area, and from what I can tell, squatchy means "has trees". But of course, they are elusive so I am not likely to have an encounter.

[Guest DWA]

Can you interpret that for me into three pieces of evidence that support your position? If not, that's ok. I won't ask a third time. I wanted to give you a fair chance at backing up your position rather than folding. It is easy to talk around the points. However, to focus in on the "ground situation" and reality is a completely different thing. If you can't name three things, that says a lot about how strong your position is and how strong the evidence really is. (in my opinion of course) You seem to get angered by this. You say science won't look at the evidence, yet you can't name three specific pieces of evidence that should represent the animal being a real entity.

Wow. You really don't get how this works, do you? If you want to claim a little victory today and get a pat on the head, just tell the world that DWA just proved to you that bigfoot is a crock. Um, good luck with that (although there are people right here who will give you the pat on the head, no worries there).

Sure I can. To find a ghost, visit a haunted house or a graveyard. Many eye witness reports mention those places. Now I can't guarantee you that you're going to find one, they are very elusive :)To find a Bigfoot, all I need do is visit a "squatchy" area, and from what I can tell, squatchy means "has trees". But of course, they are elusive so I am not likely to have an encounter.

When you do that and find a ghost, let me know. And I want PROOF.

The TBRC, on the other hand, is finding animals. That the proof doesn't meet your personal timetable worries those of us who understand what's going on not a bit.

[Guest toejam]

Good question Cotter. To answer your question, me personally - no, but I point you to this post by Willinyc - http://bigfootforums...stical__st__375 post no 375.

Here is an answer from someone who did this pre-internet. note his results. The post also brings up Byrne's conclusion in regards to eyewitness accounts.

You guys remember Byrne - the guy who spent years and millions looking for BF. Read up on all that he did and then let me know if his qualifications, time, money and effort should have been enough to find some evidence. http://petercbyrne.c...atsearches.html

from a couple of reviews of his book..." Mr. Byrne operated the Bigfoot Information Center in the Dalles, Oregon for several years. He investigated and interviewed many witnesses. He discusses some of these sightings at length in this book. The Information Center was a clearing house in the 1970's for reports of sightings and footprints."

" and under a grant from the Academy of Applied Science began a full time investigation. He has reported and investigated numerous sightings that are presented in this volume. At the time this book was written, there was a base in The Dalles, Oregon that Mr Bryne worked out of pursuing his investigation. There was an information center and a newsletter published also at that time. This book is written from the viewpoint of an experienced animal tracker/hunter and the sightings are detailed."

oops - there goes that "science never looked into it" deal. a grant from the Academy of Applied Science. and yet - no proof.

Being well known and having money doesn't guarantee a thing and doesn't make anyone an expert on the subject.