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

[Guest DWA]

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.

Now there's somebody who took the class.

[Guest]

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.

It might be more accurate if you were to word that statement differently. Maybe something like: There is evidence that could be bigfoot evidence. Or, there is purported bigfoot evidence. Possible bigfoot evidence. As of this date, there is none attributed to a bigfoot. There is plenty of unknown origin, and plenty identified as coming from man. (claimed bigfoot evidence) Also plenty of misidentified evidence from other animals.

The one thing there isn't, is any confirmed as coming from a bigfoot. Until a bigfoot is produced, it is all just possible, purported, or unidentified.

[Guest Stan Norton]

It might be more accurate if you were to word that statement differently. Maybe something like: There is evidence that could be bigfoot evidence. Or, there is purported bigfoot evidence. Possible bigfoot evidence. As of this date, there is none attributed to a bigfoot. There is plenty of unknown origin, and plenty identified as coming from man. (claimed bigfoot evidence) Also plenty of misidentified evidence from other animals.

The one thing there isn't, is any confirmed as coming from a bigfoot. Until a bigfoot is produced, it is all just possible, purported, or unidentified.

Indeed. All evidence of this creature must be qualified as purported/putative at the present time. There are clearly, very clearly, differing views on the 'evidence' and unfortunately this thread (as so many others) has descended into yet another 'he said, she said' squabble.

The only logical option, in my opinion, is therefore to take a good look at the purported evidence. There are those who wish to focus on the PGF, although I note that the chief sceptical protagonist on that thread has now disappeared up his own, sorry, ascended to a higher plane of consciousness and now inhabits a new reality. Sightings and sounds seem to me to be a dead-end as they are so subjective. The key bit of 'evidence' to me appears to be footprints - I have yet to hear any rock-solid argument to explain away the most compelling of these: if they're fake I would love to know how this is (and has been) done.

Anyway, carry on...

[Guest DWA]

Really, the distinction is meaningless. Evidence is evidence, period.

To say anything else is just to reiterate, over and over: it's not proven. And don't we all know that.

The evidence is compelling. Anecdotes are potential range maps, showing scientists where to look. Footprints actually serve the exact same function, and the depth and frequency of both kinds of evidence makes them equally strong.

There is nothing to pore over. Ask the TBRC, who are doing what needs to be done: following evidence into the field, and staying for confirmation. Shame they have real jobs that are sort of minimizing that time.

[Guest]

@Saskeptic. Well, I guess E. is E., huh? We still talk past each other when we conflate evidence with proof.

I really don't see what is so difficult about this concept. The evidenciary standard for description and scientific recognition of a new species is a physical specimen. A physical specimen would provide a subset of the evidence for bigfoot that would amount to proof. It is undeniable, unassailable, and unambiguous. That's my interest in bigfoot. If there is physical evidence of such creatures out there, then I'm very much interested (as would be every biologist to whom I've ever spoken about the topic, which is most biologists with whom I've interacted).

There is a great deal of purported evidence for bigfoot: anecdotal accounts, plaster casts, grainy photographs, etc. This is ample evidence, some say, to warrant a serious investigation into trying to find real, physical evidence that could stand as a type specimen for the description of a new species. Many biologists agree, and this is why Krantz, Bindernagel, Meldrum, Fahrenbach, Ketchum, et al. have engaged in long-term and serious efforts to do just that.

DWA claims that the efforts of these people don't count because they are "pariahs". Nevermind the obvious special pleading, but I disagree: Krantz was very well respected throughout his career; Jeff Meldrum was recently promoted to full professor and I just stumbled on his smiling mug on TV this morning. Seems to me that ol' Jeff is doing fine. Here are some other non-pariahs who've publicly stated their interest in bigfoot and/or participated in searches themselves: Edmund Hillary, Marlin Perkins, Daris Swindler, George Schaller, Jane Goodall (she was just Grand Marshall at the Rose Bowl!), Tod Disotell, Bryan Sykes, Henry Gee - no pariahs on this list . . .

So the problem is not evidence vs proof, it's the quality of evidence some folks try to use as a stand-in for proof. One thousand reports of bigfoot do not proof of bigfoot make, and neither would 10,000 or 100,000.

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.

Drew had it right - that's what I said myself.

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?

I'm not sure what you mean. My personal forays afield to try to find bigfoot evidence play no part in my opinion of the phenomenon. As far as I'm concerned, the lack of a physical bigfoot collected by about 1900 confirms to me that there is no bigfoot to be collected. All of those 20th and 21st Century scientists I've mentioned have merely reinforced that position by their failure to collect one either. But every so often I'll go look for some evidence myself, and I check in daily here, because I'm open to the possibility that I could be wrong. That actually is how science operates: on the condition of new refutory evidence being presented, a theory can be modified or even abandoned. If the "theory" is that there's no bigfoot, then the only type of evidence that actually could refute that theory would be proof, i.e., a body or part thereof.

[Guest]

@ DWA

To the contrary. The distinction is absolutely the most important thing. One needs to ask, what is it evidence of? So far, we can prove what a lot of claimed bigfoot evidence is evidence of, and it is not bigfoot. In fact, its almost to the point of ridiculousness at how much of claimed bigfoot evidence turns out to be other sources and completely explainable with some investigation. It would seem as if people claiming the evidence are trying to pull off a big one, or misidentifying almost all of what is claimed as bigfoot evidence. Without the distinction, it's useless.

@ Stan Norton

Footprints of any kind can be faked. They are only impressions in the ground. You can even find shoes with bigfoot, or other animal prints in them on google.

[Guest DWA]

I'll take the scientists who disagree with you over you, every time, particularly when they agree with me.

[Guest]

@ DWA

What scientists are those? None of them are saying this (insert piece of evidence here) is authentic and proof of bigfoot. What specific points I mentioned do scientists disagree with? Please list them.

Also, what points do those scientists agree with you on. (and please name/source your scientists statements)

Can you name any other animal that is real, with so many hoaxes of its "evidence" and tracks? Ask yourself why...

[Guest DWA]

I invite you to do the reading you have not been doing. I have a list, up there in this thread somewhere. Your first task (it tells me you are up for the second): find that post.

Second task: start reading.

(And still that conflation of evidence and proof. No known antidote, I guess.)

[Guest]

I have a feeling you won't source your statements because you cannot back them up.

Edited January 4, 2013 by LWD

[Guest DWA]

Think what you want. I know you aren't one of the folks I need to convince. In fact, the number of people in that category are at a constant hover around zero.

But if you get your kicks out of doing stuff like this on the web, go at it. No skin off mine.

[Guest]

Think what you want. I know you aren't one of the folks I need to convince. In fact, the number of people in that category are at a constant hover around zero.

But if you get your kicks out of doing stuff like this on the web, go at it. No skin off mine.

I'm confused? What exactly am I doing except asking you to back up your statements?

[Guest DWA]

[remember folks: all I asked him to do was find a post in this thread and I'm getting this.]

Edited January 5, 2013 by DWA
Removed inappropriate comment.

[WSA]

Saskeptic....thanks for the reply. I'm just trying to understand what informs you, and what the nature of your quest might be, or not. Thanks for indulging me.

No, you and I really are not saying different things, we are only saying them differently. It amounts to little concern for me, truly, because I really believe we (i.e., all who frequent here) have only two possible points of view that matter much. I'm also presuming we agree on which is proper, but I dunno. It arises from the answer to this question: Should more, or less resources be applied to this search? If you would say "more", it would make me very curious about your (apparently) conflicting stances. From the tenor of your posts, I might conclude you see the search for Sasquatch as a fool's errand, but I don't really think you would say that, and thus my heightened curiosity about you.

I used "Siren" in the classic Homeric sense.

[Guest]

Should more, or less resources be applied to this search? If you would say "more", it would make me very curious about your (apparently) conflicting stances. From the tenor of your posts, I might conclude you see the search for Sasquatch as a fool's errand, but I don't really think you would say that, and thus my heightened curiosity about you.

It doesn't bother me that people try to find evidence for bigfoot; as mentioned that's something I do myself now and then. From an academic standpoint, however, I wouldn't support an investment in public research dollars to launch some big bigfoot expedition because we have so many other priorities for existing species and ever-decreasing budgets. I probably wouldn't officially oppose such an effort, however, because it would be interesting to watch. If the NSF announced a new "let's get a bigfoot" program, I might even apply for a grant myself.

Is bigfoot a fool's errand? It depends on what folks do with it, I suppose. Finding Bigfoot is, of course, a joke. People who present evidence of known and easily recognizable animals they attribute to bigfoot can be very tiresome when they are unwilling to consider misidentifications in their approach. People who, under the guise of scientific authority, bilk bigfoot enthusiasts out of their time and money irk me too. But folks who approach the phenomenon with genuine, objective interest, focus on the collection of physical evidence, and who are willing to admit when they've found nothing of substance? Go for it.