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

[Guest]

I tend to look very askance at claims without bodies.

(Eyewitnesses aren't making claims; they're looking for validation that they aren't crazy. Rickster on the other hand...)

Dyer claims to have one..stay tuned..lol

[Guest DWA]

If he hasn't shown it yet...I'm pushing in more chips. Show, Rickie.

[Guest]

If he hasn't shown it yet...I'm pushing in more chips. Show, Rickie.

Oddly enough..the ball seems to be in Dyer's court right now. Smeja has been neutralized (so far).... Ketchum is buried in a morass of DNA ..Dyer has a *body on ice* and people like Noel and Lindsay are buying his story.

[Guest Roberty-Bob]

...And ^^^^that would be the conflation of evidence with proof.

No proof means get crackin' scientists. Doesn't sittin' on yer hands get kinda old?

(It also puts the lie to "nobody wants bigfoot to be real more than me." Um, PROVE it.)

How is that sort of statement a "lie"? So those of us that don't believe are allowed no interest in the subject at all? I'd like aliens to be real too, but I don't read forums or news stories dedicated to UFOs because I don't care all that much about the subject. I'm not incurious about alien life in the cosmos - far from it - but I'm not interested in the UFO culture and mythos like I am with sasquatch.

I'll grant you that most people on these boards will probably be way more excited than I would be (and feel vindicated to boot) if the big guy were proven to be real. But I'd be pretty darned ecstatic. Are you so bitter about skeptics you can't even allow us that tiny sort of concession to our argument? Come on dude!

I left the BFF.1 a few years ago because I was fed up with a lot of BS going on at the time, and I can honestly say that it turned me into a firm skeptic when I used to be a shaky believer. I only registered on the BFF.2 to add info to a story that was local to me. I hang around because I'm curious to see how the Ketchum story plays out, and because I guess I can't let BF go so easily. But when friendly skeptics like me have our motivations questioned at every turn - "You can't be a true fan, man, or you'd help us prove it!" - then why should I consider anything you have to say? Do you want to run off people like me, who are at least willing to listen to any and all evidence? Do you think closing ranks and only having like-minded thinkers here helps your cause? Because I can't imagine it will. I'm just a humble lurker, but if you don't have people like Saskeptic to challenge you, then you risk stagnation.

Again, I say with all sincerity - I hope BF is real. I truly do. But I feel no obligation to help you prove it.

[Guest]

Again, I say with all sincerity - I hope BF is real. I truly do. But I feel no obligation to help you prove it.

Yes...so far ALL BFers..hang on *HOPE*...so many here continue to reject the demand for scientific proof (the ONLY PROOF). The FALSE mantra...*WE HAVE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE*...*ALL OF THE SIGHTINGS CAN'T BE WRONG*...

Bring us a body...or body part...nothing else will suffice.

Having said this..yes I have seen *compelling* vids..photos and accounts..but I'm still a skeptic.

Edited January 6, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest]

Just thought I'd post this from Wikipedia:

The scientific community discounts the existence of Bigfoot, as there is no evidence supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature. The evidence that does exist points more towards a hoax or delusion than to sightings of a genuine creature.[5] In a 1996 USA Today article, Washington State zoologist John Crane said, "There is no such thing as Bigfoot. No data other than material that's clearly been fabricated has ever been presented."[69]>>>IMPORTANT!>>>> In addition to the lack of evidence, scientists cite the fact that Bigfoot is alleged to live in regions unusual for a large, nonhuman primate, i.e., temperate latitudes in the northern hemisphere; all recognized nonhuman apes are found in the tropics of Africa and Asia.<<<<<

As with other proposed megafauna cryptids,IMPORTANT!>>>> climate and food supply issues would make such a creature's survival in reported habitats unlikely.<<<<[70] Great apes are not found in the fossil record in the Americas, and no Bigfoot remains are known to have been found. Scientific consensus is that the breeding population of such an animal would be so large that it would account for many more purported sightings than currently occur, making the existence of such an animal an almost certain impossibility.[6] In the 1970s, when Bigfoot "experts" were frequently given high-profile media coverage, the scientific community generally avoided lending credence to the theories by debating them.[71]

A few scientists have been less skeptical about the claims of the existence of Sasquatch. Idaho university professor Jeffrey Meldrum characterizes the search for Sasquatch as "a valid scientific endeavor".[citation needed] and says that the fossil remains of an ancient giant ape called Gigantopithecus could turn out to be ancestors of today’s commonly known Bigfoot.[72] John Napier asserts that the scientific community's attitude towards Bigfoot stems primarily from insufficient evidence.[73] Other scientists who have shown varying degrees of interest in the legend are anthropologist David Daegling,[74] field biologist George Shaller,[69][75][76] Russell Mittermeier, Daris Swindler, Esteban Sarmiento,[77] and discredited racial anthropologist Carleton S. ****.[78]

Jane Goodall, in a September 27, 2002, interview on National Public Radio's "Science Friday", expressed her ideas about the existence of Bigfoot. First stating "I'm sure they exist", she later went on to say, chuckling, "Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist", and finally: "You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to."[7]

Edited January 6, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest Kerchak]

ALL BFers..hang on *HOPE*..

What, even those who have seen them?

[adam2323]

Just thought I'd post this from Wikipedia:

The scientific community discounts the existence of Bigfoot, as there is no evidence supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature.

That is the problem; mainstream science is so close minded to their own agenda. They Just turn their collective heads away from all the evidence.

[Guest]

That is the problem; mainstream science is so close minded to their own agenda. They Just turn their collective heads away from all the evidence.

So, you're saying that scientists are going to turn there heads on the biggest discovery of the century because they are closed minded?

Throw away a chance at fame, recognition, not to mention funding towards research, etc... a once in alifetime event?

Don't think so

[Guest DWA]

So, you're saying that scientists are going to turn there heads on the biggest discovery of the century because they are closed minded?

Throw away a chance at fame, recognition, not to mention funding towards research, etc... a once in alifetime event?

Don't think so

Sure they are. They're doing it, right?

That's the justification they're using! "This would be the greatest discovery of all time! Can't you see that? We'd be looking....if it was real!"

How is that sort of statement a "lie"? So those of us that don't believe are allowed no interest in the subject at all? I'd like aliens to be real too, but I don't read forums or news stories dedicated to UFOs because I don't care all that much about the subject. I'm not incurious about alien life in the cosmos - far from it - but I'm not interested in the UFO culture and mythos like I am with sasquatch.

I'll grant you that most people on these boards will probably be way more excited than I would be (and feel vindicated to boot) if the big guy were proven to be real. But I'd be pretty darned ecstatic. Are you so bitter about skeptics you can't even allow us that tiny sort of concession to our argument? Come on dude!

I left the BFF.1 a few years ago because I was fed up with a lot of BS going on at the time, and I can honestly say that it turned me into a firm skeptic when I used to be a shaky believer. I only registered on the BFF.2 to add info to a story that was local to me. I hang around because I'm curious to see how the Ketchum story plays out, and because I guess I can't let BF go so easily. But when friendly skeptics like me have our motivations questioned at every turn - "You can't be a true fan, man, or you'd help us prove it!" - then why should I consider anything you have to say? Do you want to run off people like me, who are at least willing to listen to any and all evidence? Do you think closing ranks and only having like-minded thinkers here helps your cause? Because I can't imagine it will. I'm just a humble lurker, but if you don't have people like Saskeptic to challenge you, then you risk stagnation.

Again, I say with all sincerity - I hope BF is real. I truly do. But I feel no obligation to help you prove it.

I just think it's weird that people like you hang around here. You're closed to any information that conflicts with what you want to think.

If you really were read up on this...but of course I know what it is. You were True Believers once...it's been too long....and you've soured on it.

To finish the sentence: if you were really read up on this, you'd realize that the clock doesn't even start ticking until the mainstream is focused on the topic. They aren't.

I probably need to add that Saskeptic stopped challenging me long ago. He lists scientific pariahs - who shouldn't be - as "mainstream" scientists; he has a set Discovery Date of 1900, after which it's pretty much impossible that it could be real; and he tosses all the evidence because there isn't proof yet (Skeptics' Disease).

Just thought I'd post this from Wikipedia:

The scientific community discounts the existence of Bigfoot, as there is no evidence supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature.

The total incorrectness of that sentence alone is one of the primary reasons you gotta be careful about Wikipedia. It doesn't get better from there.

(Edit. That sentence is half right. The part befre the first comma, the reason we don't have confirmation yet, as that is the scientific community's job.)

Edited January 6, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

Sure they are. They're doing it, right?

That's the justification they're using! "This would be the greatest discovery of all time! Can't you see that? We'd be looking....if it was real!"

Ever think that the evidence just isn't strong enough?

I just think it's weird that people like you hang around here. You're closed to any information that conflicts with what you want to think.

We want the truth, don't you? btw, I'm here for the chicks

If you really were read up on this...but of course I know what it is. You were True Believers once...it's been too long....and you've soured on it.

If you wait long enough, you begin to wonder

To finish the sentence: if you were really read up on this, you'd realize that the clock doesn't even start ticking until the mainstream is focused on the topic. They aren't.

And how do you propose to get the mainstream focused?

I probably need to add that Saskeptic stopped challenging me long ago. He lists scientific pariahs - who shouldn't be - as "mainstream" scientists; he has a set Discovery Date of 1900, after which it's pretty much impossible that it could be real; and he tosses all the evidence because there isn't proof yet (Skeptics' Disease).

I think he got tired of you, you claim skeptics are too closed minded, perhaps your'e too open minded. Either one is not a good thing

[Guest DWA]

1. The only people who don't think the evidence is strong enough are those who first, haven't read it, or second, have made up their minds before they do.

2. If you want the truth, listen to people who are paying attention.

3. If you are beginning to wonder, not my fault. Until science is fully involved, I know what the problem is.

4. The mainstream gets focused when it does. Their call, not mine.

5. Saskeptic never ever gets tired of me. I'm his Moriarty. He keeps on and keeps on coming back for more. I'm tireder than he is, count on that.

[Guest]

1. The only people who don't think the evidence is strong enough are those who first, haven't read it, or second, have made up their minds before they do.

I have been following this for some time, but I fell off the fence. So I wouldn't say my mind was made up

2. If you want the truth, listen to people who are paying attention.

It's just their opinions, I like to form my own

3. If you are beginning to wonder, not my fault. Until science is fully involved, I know what the problem is.

What will it take to get them involved?

4. The mainstream gets focused when it does. Their call, not mine.

It gets focused on facts, something this subject is lacking

5. Saskeptic never ever gets tired of me. I'm his Moriarty. He keeps on and keeps on coming back for more. I'm tireder than he is, count on that.

And pure reading enjoyment it is!

Don't think I'm attacking you, you has a strong passion in your beliefs, I respect that.

But for me, and others, we need more. I tend to follow my instincts.

[Guest Cervelo]

What "proponents" think the evidence is...

What "skeptics" think the evidence is...

Truth is most likley somewhere in the middle folks

[Guest DWA]

Well:

I'd say that the encounter reports are facts. I mean, there they are. They don't exhibit any tellttale markers of true believers, drug addicts, mentally impaired people, or liars. We don't just generally presume people are wrong when there is no evidence that they are; and lack of proof is not evidence that they are.

The footprints are definite facts; and no source has been determined for way too many that bear no obvious signs that a human made them, and much sign that would lead one to believe a human didn't. As Stan Norton pointed out above, a secret guild of expert track fakers is the only obvious alternative to the possibility that an undocumented animal made them.

I think that what it will take to get the mainstream involved is Max Planck. He needs to come back from the dead, knock on the door of Scientific American Magazine, and write an article on my favorite quote of his:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

There is a new generation of scientists coming up now, a number of which seem interested in - familiar with - this topic. Maybe Planck could pull them together and have them lay out their rationale, in a magazine that scientists and those interested in science actually read. (Oh, it's been treated in SciAm; with the "sadly, there's no evidence" (wrong) tack.)

We find one imprint in one rock of one thing and we make it a species. The thing could look like a foot; but we wind up speculating on its skin color; what it ate;and how it had sex.

There's a lot more evidence for sasquatch than there is for many of those things that we recognize as species based on, essentially, one piece of evidence. And when scientists have their heads on straight, they will tell you that lots of consistent anecdotal evidence for a phenomenon - while it can't be proof - can be seen as a serious incentive to look, when there seems to be no reason to discount the reports. (No proof yet isn't a reason.)

And my clincher:

When scientists with clearly relevant credentials are interested...so am I.

What "proponents" think the evidence is...

What "skeptics" think the evidence is...

Truth is most likley somewhere in the middle folks

Well, some proponents take a properly skeptical tack (i.e., somewhere in the middle). They think that a lot of evidence is [sign]; but they also think that a lot of it is, if not precious minerals, at least a dowsing rod bobbing up and down. Now to find out whether that dowsing rod is responding to something or just being moved around by somebody.

But you don't know 'til you look. And sorry BFRO; weekends aren't looking enough. Operation Endurance? Now we're moving in the right direction.