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

[Guest DWA]

You insist on this, don't you? You just said that scientists don't do what you are doing. Go back and read it again.

The evidence says - as loudly as anything short of proof has ever said it:

There must be bigfoots out there to find.

The cultural phenomenon doesn't come close to describing the multifaceted nature of the animal spelled out clearly in encounter reports.

But hey, good luck there. Just so you realize you're not spending enough time to get it done, we're both good.

[Guest]

It takes time to get close to this species. That's the part you guys don't get. You think it's just waltz in, set up trail cams everywhere and bingo, sas pic. Don't think so.

You think it's cheap? Not when you add in the amount of time it takes.

Trail cams are for the most part useless in this game. They are smarter than us in their domain. We stumble around blind in comparison. Naysayers and skeptics don't give sas enough credit for their abilities. The ignorance of the human race is the barrier here.

Special pleading again.

[Guest]

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?

Sorry if I missed a specific request. Classes start Monday, and it's been pretty busy here this week.

A potentially credible bigfoot encounter sounds like someone out somewhere remote and getting a good close-up view of a bigfoot. There are probably dozens of reports like that. The problem is that we can't know if the report is truly credible because it is anecdotal. It doesn't matter who the alleged witnesses are, how much training they've had, if they're law enforcement, etc. These people could still be lying, have suffered a hallucination, been hoaxed by someone else, etc.

Anecdotal is anecdotal. I'm sorry if that's good enough to convict a man of a capital crime in a court of law, it's not good enough to prove the existence of a species new to science, and it never has been. I didn't set that scientific standard, but I support it.

You insist on this, don't you? You just said that scientists don't do what you are doing. Go back and read it again.

What are you talking about? Bindernagel, Krantz, Meldrum - every name on the lists I provided you and more - those folks have invested way more in the search for bigfoot than I have.

[Guest DWA]

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?

Great post. (I just keep including them in their entirety in the hopes that those who disagree with us will read them sometime.)

I'm game.

A sasquatch sits in the clearing of a Southern Applachian forest. He mulls.

They TRY to avoid us. They TRY to. It's the weirdest thing I've ever seen. Deer season; kill 'em like flies. Squirrel season, boom boom. I keep telling the bears about bear season, tell 'em: you gotta go bipedal, make ape sounds, thrash veggies, they'll never touch you. They'll run like rabbits. Then nobody will believe the guy even saw you. %$% bears never listen, fine.

Guy's feedin' me dam donuts, by the gross, day-olds, bags and bags of 'em, right off his back deck. Good donuts, even day-old. Every dam human here to Nacogdoches - they know nothing about me, I've visited every chicken coop here to 'Cog - says: where's your proof? PROOF? JUST COME TO THE GUY'S HOUSE YOU STUPID ^%%@$@! Swear, they couldn't be avoiding us better if they tried....so they must be trying...!!! Huh. Whoa. OK, this is it. Guy's a ^%@!%!%$! biologist - been in his backyard God knows how many times...OK...this is it...I'm gettin' DISCOVERED, MAN....

He runs into the trail, grabbing a big limb off a tulip poplar on the way, for effect, intimidation, cover his family jewels, all the usual reasons.

WHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.....!!!!!!!!

The man stops, stiffens, eyes going wide as shotgun barrels as the stain spreads over his pants. He turns, runs.

Well, if that doesn't do it...can't stand it when all my buds go, how long you gonna keep at this before you realize they want nothing to do with us? ...How do you know unless you try...? [eats handful of leaves off the poplar branch]...hey, these are good...not gonna beat donuts, though...speakinawhich....[looks at setting sun]...gettin' 'round that time...[slides into the undergrowth, vanishes]

Guy'll be ten years at least putting it up on BFRO, if ever.

A potentially credible bigfoot encounter sounds like someone out somewhere remote and getting a good close-up view of a bigfoot. There are probably dozens of reports like that. The problem is that we can't know if the report is truly credible because it is anecdotal. It doesn't matter who the alleged witnesses are, how much training they've had, if they're law enforcement, etc. These people could still be lying, have suffered a hallucination, been hoaxed by someone else, etc.

Anecdotal is anecdotal. I'm sorry if that's good enough to convict a man of a capital crime in a court of law, it's not good enough to prove the existence of a species new to science, and it never has been. I didn't set that scientific standard, but I support it.

Um, er, part of that scientific standard is exiting the Naugahyde to follow up on the reports and confirm the animal. Particularly when no other natural phenomenon with this much evidence has gone unproven.

What are you talking about? Bindernagel, Krantz, Meldrum - every name on the lists I provided you and more - those folks have invested way more in the search for bigfoot than I have.

You keep listing pariahs, laughed at by their scientific peers. Someday you will tell me why you do that ...and what you are talking about....not holding my breath, though...

Edited January 4, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

@Saskeptic. Well, I guess E. is E., huh? We still talk past each other when we conflate evidence with proof. I speak only for myself, but until I see a dead Sasquatch or encounter one close-up, it won't be "proven" to me either. But I'm more than willing to expend considerable time and effort to study the matter due to the heightened possibility the anecdotal evidence brings.

With all due to respect to you, and not to minimize the effort you expended in your search, all that can be said at the end is that you failed to locate a Sasquatch. I'm not able to judge if that effort failed because your methods were flawed or not substantial enough, or if you were just looking in the wrong place and/or at the wrong time. Could be both, could be neither. Could be it was there and you missed it. Could be there is no such animal, but I'd just ask that you consider that your own failure does not represent the last word on this matter, and I think you would concede success usually arrives riding on the shoulders of repeated failures. I wouldn't expect this matter to be the exception. It has been, and probably will be, a long quest. I hear you say the quest is over for you, so be it, but I'm guessing this is also a siren's call. Am I right?

[Guest DWA]

"@Saskeptic. Well, I guess E. is E., huh? We still talk past each other when we conflate evidence with proof. I speak only for myself, but until I see a dead Sasquatch or encounter one close-up, it won't be "proven" to me either. But I'm more than willing to expend considerable time and effort to study the matter due to the heightened possibility the anecdotal evidence brings."

Where we are right, and they are wrong.

Science follows evidence to proof.

[WSA]

Yep, I reckon so.

[Drew]

, but I'd just ask that you consider that your own failure does not represent the last word on this matter, and I think you would concede success usually arrives riding on the shoulders of repeated failures. I wouldn't expect this matter to be the exception. It has been, and probably will be, a long quest. I hear you say the quest is over for you, so be it, but I'm guessing this is also a siren's call. Am I right?

He didn't say this to show you that the quest is over, He mentions his search, only to counter DWA's repeated claims that scientists aren't out in the woods looking for the creature.

[Guest]

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.

Why do you say the clock hasn't started? Are you dismissing efforts by Krantz, Bindernagel, Fehrenback, Meldrum and all of the other scientists that have explored this mystery for quite some time? Are you saying they don't get funding? (because public record says otherwise)

You seem to want to ignore that science has looked, and were not convinced with the current state of evidence. It's not that science won't look as you keep insisting. It's that nothing is found that is convincing.

Your view is far from skeptical, and seems to be much closer to a fanatical view. You're pointing fingers at everyone blaming them for not finding the dragon in your garage. They haven't looked hard enough, they refuse to look at the evidence presented, everyone must follow your view or they are ignorant to the evidence. Horse hockey! I'm glad that there are folks here that keep reminding you that science has looked, and still is. The evidence just isnt there. You could not even name 3 specific pieces of evidence you felt were authentic and should be investigated further. It would seem as if barking at the passing cars seems to be more fun than actually addressing the points made.

[Drew]

The evidence says - as loudly as anything short of proof has ever said it:

There must be bigfoots out there to find.

If Bigfoot exists, then there must be evidence.

There is evidence

Therefore Bigfoot exists

Anyone recognize this fallacy?

[Guest DWA]

Oh god, you two and Saskeptic too.

I laid it out up there. The clock starts when the very few who spend any time on this (virtually none of that in the field) are swelled by the ranks of those who take the search seriously and full-time. And the last sentence you post describes you well, as note your success in addressing my points, chief among them your utter refusal to get my utter refusal to touch the 3-specific-pieces red herring but also including your utter failure to even read my dismissal of the hey-they're-mainstream fallacy you and Saskeptic are living.

Yes, Drew, I get the fallacy. It's the fallacy of thinking one understands three-term syllogisms. Plus once again that Skeptic Disease: inability to understand the diff between evidence and proof. Take a class, man. Um, take two, and call me in the morning.

And while yer at it, read my nice little blue and red signatures down there. This is clinical, guys, clinical.

Edited January 4, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

Drew, I suppose Saskeptic will let me know if I've presumed incorrectly, thanks.

[Drew]

Drew, I suppose Saskeptic will let me know if I've presumed incorrectly, thanks.

He already did in post 1879

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.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Drew

[WSA]

Thanks Drew, but I'd rather talk directly to him about it nonetheless. My question addresses something broader than the context you quoted, or at least that is my intent. If he doesn't believe so, he can tell me.

[Guest Kerchak]

If Bigfoot exists, then there must be evidence.

There is evidence

Therefore Bigfoot exists

Anyone recognize this fallacy?

I prefer this.

If bigfoot doesn't exist then there shouldn't be any evidence.

But there IS bigfoot evidence.

Therefore, there is indication it DOES exist.