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

[Egump]

A single wolverine that wandered in California was caught by a game cam. So was a wolf in Oregon.

http://www.redding.com/news/2012/jan/05/wild-wolf-enters-shasta-county/

yes, but it is worth adding that the wolverine population is not known so the significance of the game cam photo is not clear. and further, the gray wolf is no longer an endangered species in the USA.

[Guest]

yes, but it is worth adding that the wolverine population is not known so the significance of the game cam photo is not clear. and further, the gray wolf is no longer an endangered species in the USA.

We do know that the wolverine population in CA is zero or aleast very very low. Same with the wolf in OR.

[Guest]

all these other critters outnumber the sasquatch though, if it does exist, by magnitudes of thousands or tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands, depending on the species. and that was the point. on that basis alone, it's 'possible' one hasn't been captured in trail cams. yet.

True, it's purported that there relatively less BF, but in spite of this, there have been many reported sightings which are LESS likely than detection by trail cams...especially if they are set up to TARGET BFs in *KNOWN* habitats.

Over time..it may take longer to capture one, being realtively sparce in numbers, but over the many years they have been in operation and the extensive number of remote locations that they have been placed, we should have captured a good image by now. These creatures are very large and stand upright, which a significant *plus* as well.

[Egump]

True, it's purported that there relatively less BF, but in spite of this, there have been many reported sightings which are LESS likely than detection by trail cams...especially if they are set up to TARGET BFs in *KNOWN* habitats.

Over time..it may take longer to capture one, being realtively sparce in numbers, but over the many years they have been in operation and the extensive number of remote locations that they have been placed, we should have captured a good image by now. These creatures are very large and stand upright, which a significant *plus* as well.

you'll have to clarify what you mean when you refer to 'sightings that are less likely than detection by trail cams'. how would we know this? are you imlpying that we know quantitatively what percentage of the wilds are being recorded by game cams? and as such, the reported sightings falling outside of these zones are impossible? some presumption here it would appear.

i would agree that over time if trail cams are targetted in known habitats, there ought to be success. but i can't believe that research efforts are at that tipping point yet. you seem to think they are? is anyone in a position to quantify what we are talking about? given the haphazard efforts of bigfootery, i seriously doubt it.

[Guest]

you'll have to clarify what you mean when you refer to 'sightings that are less likely than detection by trail cams'. how would we know this?

Sightings are basically pure luck encounters by individuals who just *happen* to run into what they think is a BF like creature. yes..there are those BF researchers that report sightings, but the vast majority of *sightings* are the former *naive* observers. I say automated cams are more likely because they are in remote areas..and are constantly in *observation* mode. The shear # of these mutiplied by the *ON* time (day and night) puts a hell of a lot more TOTAL observation time into the *AREA UNDER THE CURVE* (to use a statistical model) than the observation time of people simply wandering around tripping upon a BF by pure happenstance. BTW..these don't need to be *targeted* cams...BF is purported to be present in the same terrain as many other animals that are monitored.

Edited January 4, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest]

...unless of course one is operating with that critical "bigfoot skeptic" delusion: The Impossibility of Bigfoot Delusion.

It's the only way to explain a lot of stuff I am reading here and have been reading time out of mind.

See, Bigfoot Is Impossible! (a 10 on an impossibility scale of 10)

That means that ANYTHING THAT OFFERS AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION MUST BE A NINE OR LESS, AND THEREFORE MORE PLAUSIBLE.

(I'm only explaining how their minds work, don't come crying to me.)

Now the "bigfoot skeptics" start making sense. Well, no, but you know...because you still have to deal with my two bright red and blue signatures down there...

All it would take to convince this skeptic is a real bigfoot alive or dead available for testing outside of the bigfoot world.

Are you willing to reconsider your own position given nothing is ever found? How many years would it take for you to say, theres nothing to it? (if no real body, live or dead is ever brought in)

[Egump]

Sightings are basically pure luck encounters by individuals who just *happen* to run into what they think is a BF like creature. yes..there are those BF researchers that report sightings, but the vast majority of *sightings* are the former *naive* observers. I say automated cams are more likely because they are in remote areas..and are constantly in *observation* mode. The shear # of these mutiplied by the *ON* time (day and night) puts a hell of a lot more TOTAL observation time into the *AREA UNDER THE CURVE* (to use a statistical model) than the observation time of people simply wandering around tripping upon a BF by pure happenstance.

ok, i see where you are going with this. but we need to know a few more things to make real conclusions. we've got possibly hundreds of millions of people sometimes instersecting with the wilds and very, very occassionally spotting a squatch versus how many game cams covering how much of the forested wilds. it's a lot of math that leads nowhere without some hard inputs.

there are roughly 30 million deer in north america. how many show up on trail cams every day? hundreds? maybe thousands? sounds like a lot until you consider it as a % of the species; it is **** small.

[Guest Kerchak]

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?

Edit.

Ah what's the bloody point!

And no it's not news to ME.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Kerchak

[Guest DWA]

All it would take to convince this skeptic is a real bigfoot alive or dead available for testing outside of the bigfoot world.

Are you willing to reconsider your own position given nothing is ever found? How many years would it take for you to say, theres nothing to it? (if no real body, live or dead is ever brought in)

From the time I see that serious scientific attention is being given to this topic - as in, full-time funding of field research on a scale sufficient to confirm - ten years. (Probably won't take one.)

As in: clock hasn't started yet.

And you bet I get to determine what satisfies me in terms of "sufficient."

What the heck is it with all this "how long before you give up?" How long before I stifle man's quest for knowledge in favor of let's-just-stay-bored-and-ignant? How 'bout never? Why don't we just stop doing science while we're at it?

Somebody will explain the "bigfoot skeptic" - IT AIN'T SKEPTICAL - mindset to me, one day. Not holding my breath, though.

And of course you know that "available for testing outside of the bigfoot world" puts the onus where it has always been - on the scientific mainstream - for proof. Kudos! You are the first bigfoot skeptic I've seen recognize that basic responsibility.

Edited January 4, 2013 by DWA

[Drew]

yes, but it is worth adding that the wolverine population is not known so the significance of the game cam photo is not clear. and further, the gray wolf is no longer an endangered species in the USA.

You'll find that the Grey Wolf is endangered in most of it's range. It has been de-listed in several of it's ranges. But still remains on the list in several states.

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A00D

[Guest]

What the heck is it with all this "how long before you give up?" How long before I stifle man's quest for knowledge in favor of let's-just-stay-bored-and-ignant? How 'bout never? Why don't we just stop doing science while we're at it?

If "never" is when you plan to give up on a research endeavor that's not bearing fruit then you're not being objective about that endeavor. You begin with the assumption that there must be bigfoots out there to find. A scientific approach to the phenomenon makes no such prior assumption, especially given the fact that the places bigfoots are reported to live have been so thoroughly explored/trapped/mapped/hunted/logged/settled/farmed for centuries.

[Guest DWA]

Why do you do what you do?

You are searching for an animal you are sure isn't real. I'm not looking for one I'm pretty sure is.

As long as the evidence says the thing you are looking for is out there the answer is never. That's science.

A scientific approach to the phenomenon follows - first, foremost, always and only - the evidence.

Which says:

There must be bigfoots out there to find.

[Cotter]

^With sightings in the areas you've mentioned for centuries as well, no?

[WSA]

Ah yes, the ol' trail cam canard. What faith we place in our technology to always pull the chestnuts of our misconceptions out of the fire of our reality. I once had a refrigerator magnet of the R. Crumb character "Mr. Natural", and it pretty much sums this up. It said: "Here's a handy tip, at home or at work, get the right tool for the job." I'd offer this addendum to that: When one tool doesn't work, pick another one. If I'm hammering on a stuck bolt, I wouldn't want to be so rash as to say a wrench wouldn't work without trying one. Plus, boogering up a bolt with a hammer is going to make it only harder to make the wrench work. Dr. Jeff Meldrum right now is in the process of picking another tool. We’d do best to follow his example, I believe.

Saskeptic, I really wanted to see if you would engage in the thought experiment I proposed. That was: Imagine for us what a credible BF encounter/sighting report would look like? Game?

[Guest]

A scientific approach to the phenomenon follows - first, foremost, always and only - the evidence.

Which says:

There must be bigfoots out there to find.

No, that evidence suggests quite the opposite with respect to a physical, biological bigfoot. The evidence overwhelmingly points to a societal/cultural phenomenon, and nothing more.

It might be your adherence to absolutes that leads you so astray. Why do I bother with bigfoot? Because I'm open to the possibility that despite everything I know to be true about the world, I could be wrong. This is the same scientific attitude espoused by all of those bigfoot scientists you choose to simultaneously champion and ignore as suits your preconceived worldview.