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

[Cotter]

To find a Bigfoot, all I need do is visit a "squatchy" area, and from what I can tell, squatchy means "has trees".

Now that right there is some funny stuff! LOL.

But in all seriousness. I think that having close friends and/or family discuss close up sightings that were not just 'mere glimpses' weighs a little heavier on someone than hearing the story from some stranger that just may want some company.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Cotter

[dmaker]

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).

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.

Challenge....accepted! And since you seem to have no issue with accepting eye witness reports as proof, then all I need to do is sound convincing and voila, you have your proof!

Now that right there is some funny stuff! LOL.

But in all seriousness. I think that having close friends and/or family discuss close up sightings that were not just 'mere glimpses' weighs a little heavier on someone than hearing the story from some stranger that just may want some company.

I totally agree with you, but even then I would have difficulty. The reason for that is that the legend/myth/tale of Bigfoot is so wide spread that how could I rule out that something my brother/sister/cousin heard in the recent past did not subconsciously effect what their brain was seeing or how their memory recalled the event? Though I do see what you are getting at, and yes it would be more difficult to discount, but I probably would. I still think the relative would be misidentifying some other animal.

[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.

So Byrne only worked for 3 days? maybe this grant wasn't big, but Tom Slick and other's money - full time for years....(oh yea, it doesn't agree with your view so make fun of it)

the actual information is that Byrne (and everyone else involved in BF research - including operation persistence) have yet to bring the proof - that's not "uban objection"

what about Willinyc's interviews?

[Guest]

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).

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.

@ DWA

I've said many times to me this isn't about anyone winning or losing something. It's about is there something out there? (to me) I'm not trying to prove bigfoot is a crock. I asked you to back up your position, and I'm ok with no answer too. I just wanted you to clarify your stance and show focus to the real data. (3 pieces)

To my knowledge the TBRC has not presented any evidence to back their claims. If so can someone present a link to it? TIA!

[Guest]

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.

Yes...but we have MANY so called accounts of SEEING a BF or spotting TRACKS or seeing broken branches don't we? So, they aren't *rare* enough to prevent seeing these. ERGO>>>

Then why don't we have a web cam shot..clear and distinct?

[Guest DWA]

So Byrne only worked for 3 days? maybe this grant wasn't big, but Tom Slick and other's money - full time for years....(oh yea, it doesn't agree with your view so make fun of it)

the actual information is that Byrne (and everyone else involved in BF research - including operation persistence) have yet to bring the proof - that's not "uban objection"

what about Willinyc's interviews?

Urban objection. Doesn't understand the situation on the ground. To those that do, it's eminently obvious why we don't have the proof:

Inadequate field time. Totally. By a lot. As in: no one should expect proof with this little investment in the field.

When full-time scientists are in the field, full time, give me a call.

Yes...but we have MANY so called accounts of SEEING a BF or spotting TRACKS or seeing broken branches don't we? So, they aren't *rare* enough to prevent seeing these. ERGO>>>

Then why don't we have a web cam shot..clear and distinct?

Because we, er...I know this is a trick question....[agonize agonize]don't?

Using the lack of proof to invalidate the evidence: a non-starter in science.

Thousands of people know bigfoot's real? So should we just declare it real? I think so....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And since you seem to have no issue with accepting eye witness reports as proof, then all I need to do is sound convincing and voila, you have your proof!"

Yep, challenge accepted! And you show, with that sentence alone, the strongest symptom of Skeptics' Disease: you don't understand the clear and obvious distinction between compelling evidence and proof.

Surprised? Moi? Non.

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.

You were right the first time. You aren't going to get any satisfaction here given what you seem to want, which is a bigfoot in your garage.

You do get that the examples you are talking about could not be more unlike one another, or less relevant? Right?

Do I really need to post examples of why the' skeptical' take on this really isn't skepticism, but true belief in what one wants to believe? Others are doing that for me! Above is an example.

Edited January 3, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

Urban objection. Doesn't understand the situation on the ground. To those that do, it's eminently obvious why we don't have the proof:

Inadequate field time. Totally. By a lot. As in: no one should expect proof with this little investment in the field.

When full-time scientists are in the field, full time, give me a call.

Because we, er...I know this is a trick question....[agonize agonize]don't?

Using the lack of proof to invalidate the evidence: a non-starter in science.

Thousands of people know bigfoot's real? So should we just declare it real? I think so....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And since you seem to have no issue with accepting eye witness reports as proof, then all I need to do is sound convincing and voila, you have your proof!"

Yep, challenge accepted! And you show, with that sentence alone, the strongest symptom of Skeptics' Disease: you don't understand the clear and obvious distinction between compelling evidence and proof.

Surprised? Moi? Non.

I get it. Compelling evidence IS proof. You find the body of evidence to be compelling enough to PROVE to you that BF is real. That's cool. I just don't happen to share that conclusion. I am simply not as compelled by the evidence enough to feel that the existence of Bigfoot is proven. That's all. You do, I don't. Yet you seem to want to dismiss me as being diseased simply because I don't feel as convinced about something as you do. I am not calling you gullible or anything ( well maybe yesterday I called you delusional, but I was just pissy because you were being all patronizing, so for that I do apologize [ better late than never]).

And since this is a forum for the discussion of Bigfoot and I don't happen to be in the "evidence has proven the existence camp", then I am going to challenge what I read here.

[Guest DWA]

Wrong, but thanks for playing!

(Pissy ain't science.)

Compelling evidence is NOT proof. Proof is proof. Compelling evidence says: get off your butt and follow this and you are likely to have your proof. See the diff?

All the butt-sitting in the world won't prove the sasquatch. But it won't make it less real either.

[Guest]

Urban objection. Doesn't understand the situation on the ground. To those that do, it's eminently obvious why we don't have the proof:

Inadequate field time. Totally. By a lot. As in: no one should expect proof with this little investment in the field.

When full-time scientists are in the field, full time, give me a call.

Because we, er...I know this is a trick question....[agonize agonize]don't?

Using the lack of proof to invalidate the evidence: a non-starter in science.

Thousands of people know bigfoot's real? So should we just declare it real? I think so....

You have it backwards. Evidence is required to prove something. Scientific requirements for* PROOF* requires *evidence* that must meet strict

criterion..of which PROVENANCE is one of them. It goes without saying then, the LACK OF PROOF IMPLIES that there has been no credible evidence to date to meet the threshold for proof.

I think all these eye wittness accounts...tracks...sounds..supposed *photos and Vids are technically just CLUES that *MAY* point to a creature like BF .. but they aren't *EVIDENCE* in the scientific world.

[dmaker]

Wrong, but thanks for playing!

(Pissy ain't science.)

Compelling evidence is NOT proof. Proof is proof. Compelling evidence says: get off your butt and follow this and you are likely to have your proof. See the diff?

All the butt-sitting in the world won't prove the sasquatch. But it won't make it less real either.

Proof is a logical conclusion one comes to after examining evidence. Proof, is not a piece(s) of evidence. As in look at the evidence, there is your proof. Or to prove a point. It feels like we're splitting hairs a bit and going in circles. It's hard, though, because I think you go out of your way to be difficult. I think you may have Dr.Sheldon Cooper disease. I wish a Bigfoot would come and eat you whole. :)Bzzzzt! Sorry, DWA is not here anymore..he is i a lab being analyzed as part of a Bigfoot skat sample. But thanks for playing.

[Guest DWA]

And they wonder what makes us pissy. And think they're not difficult, no not in the slightest. Oh, OK.

[Guest]

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!

Exactly what whopper of a "slip" did this people let out? Is it somehow news to you that I think there's an inordinate amount of nonsense and chicanery in bigfootery?

[Egump]

Yes...but we have MANY so called accounts of SEEING a BF or spotting TRACKS or seeing broken branches don't we? So, they aren't *rare* enough to prevent seeing these. ERGO>>>

Then why don't we have a web cam shot..clear and distinct?

again, we're talking about probabilities. yes, there are sightings and supposed tracks. but in relation to those of other animals, the frequency simply can't compare. across the continent, how many deer sightings per day do you figure there are? easily thousands. perhaps tens of thousands per day. i had tracks in my suburban back yard today. how many sasquatch sightings per day on this continent? maybe one or two? at best. if they exist, they are needles in a haystack.

[Guest DWA]

You have it backwards. Evidence is required to prove something. Scientific requirements for* PROOF* requires *evidence* that must meet strict

criterion..of which PROVENANCE is one of them. It goes without saying then, the LACK OF PROOF IMPLIES that there has been no credible evidence to date to meet the threshold for proof.

I think all these eye wittness accounts...tracks...sounds..supposed *photos and Vids are technically just CLUES that *MAY* point to a creature like BF .. but they aren't *EVIDENCE* in the scientific world.

Nope.

Lack of proof, in the face of this much evidence, doesn't "imply" that insufficient research is going on. It STATES it.

Using the lack of proof to discount the evidence, a non-starter in science. You can't say the evidence is a crock just because there isn't proof. Particularly since no one is looking, on anywhere near the scale that one needs to to confirm this.

And in the scientific world - as has been pointed out approximately 574 times by various posters on this thread - it most certainly is evidence. That the vast majority of scientists aren't looking at it is, if one knows anything about scientific history, par for the course.

Edited January 3, 2013 by DWA

[Cotter]

I totally agree with you, but even then I would have difficulty. The reason for that is that the legend/myth/tale of Bigfoot is so wide spread that how could I rule out that something my brother/sister/cousin heard in the recent past did not subconsciously effect what their brain was seeing or how their memory recalled the event? Though I do see what you are getting at, and yes it would be more difficult to discount, but I probably would. I still think the relative would be misidentifying some other animal.

Hi dmaker - that is where the phenom REALLY grabs my attention. I've always been a 'buff', but never really thought real hard about the true possibility of this creature.

Then I met a few folks that have had some pretty unmistakable sightings. Some of these folks are close enough that I trust my life with them. It makes it difficult for me to believe they were mis-ID'ing an animal over a long period of time (one of my closest fellows had a sighting last for several hours as he was taking refuge in his pickup). Another was a father-in-law of a fellow fire fighter. He didn't want to talk to me about it, but after a couple beers I got the story out of him his was daylight at an estimated 30 yds (he was on a bridge, the animal was underneath drinking, they had several seconds of eye contact before they both turned tail and ran). I don't know what it was they saw, but I am certain they weren't mis-IDing a bear or having a prank pulled (though not out of the realm of possibility).

So anyway, it doesn't prove anything, just makes me more interested in the subject and more open (gullible?) to hearing peoples' experiences.....

On a side note, I don't believe EVERYONE'S encounter, no matter how firmly they believe what they've seen (was able to debunk a sighting over the summer personally, quite an interesting thing when the 'BF' spotted was a friend of a friend in camo).

Anyway, for what that's all worth and 4 bux will get you a gallon of gas.