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

[Guest Stan Norton]

Anyway, whoever said Sasquatch is prehistoric? We're not talking about a bunch of walking bones but an extant animal. This word alone should tell you that Wikipedia is perhaps not the font of all knowledge.

[Guest Roberty-Bob]

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.

People like me, huh? You know me that well, do you? I thought that being here - mostly lurking mind you, because I am interested in the subject and its mythology and have no interest in debating, arguing or making fun of anyone - kinda, sorta maybe shows I have an open mind on the subject and can entertain the possibility that a rather large primate might be roaming our dense forests here in North America - not to mention yeti, almas, yowie, etc. elsewhere.

For the record - since you seem to like to beat the tin drum that skeptics don't read any of the literature - on my bookshelf I have: Meet the Sasqutch, Meldrum's Legend Meets Science (hardback), a first printing of Patterson's Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? (a gift from a friend) the basic update and reprint of Patterson's book, Bigfoot Film Controversy (a lot of great reprints of frames of the PGF in it). Raincoast Sasquatch, Krantz's Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence (I had the first edition, Big Footprints, but sent it to a friend who hadn't been able to find it), Where Bigfoot Walks (signed by the author with the inscription, "To one Bigfoot Bob to another, may the grace of the gentle giants go with you"), North America's Great Ape, Bigfoot Casebook and Green's Sasquatch The Apes Among Us. I've given away as gifts some others - off the top of my head, Powell's book The Locals plus some fiction I've enjoyed (Dark Woods comes to mind). These books sit next to ones by Randi, Shermer and Sagan - and I have to say the volume of BF books to skeptic's is tilted in the big guy's favor.

So much for the notion that skeptics "don't read up on this."

Do you want to know why the "mainstream" isn't focused on your evidence? Because the subject of BF got hijacked by the tabloids long ago and turned the big guy into a joke. Once something like that starts, it's hard to break free from it. It's frustrating and infuriating to be sure, but there you have it. If the "bigfoot community" would get its act together and quit worrying about who gets credit for what and worked together maybe - if the big guy is out there - just maybe, you all could get the proof you want to throw in our faces. But all I see are endless, petty squabbles like, "My evidence is better than your evidence!" The alliances and subsequent betrayals in the BF field put a soap opera to shame. And you all want to be taken seriously?

And therein lies the tragedy - because I sincerely believe that there are dedicated, honest and lucid individuals who have a solid belief in BF that get lost in the noise. I may disagree with their conclusions, but by golly a large part of me wants them to be right and me to be wrong. Why is that idea so hard for you to grasp? I can admit in the possibility of being wrong - can you? If not, who exactly is the closed-minded one here?

[Guest]

Do you want to know why the "mainstream" isn't focused on your evidence?

Silliness and backstabbing aside, the reason this mainstream scientist doesn't do mainstream science on bigfoot is the simple reason that most of us don't: I see nothing in the purported evidence that leads me to believe there's a bigfoot to find. If I saw anything in the mounds of purported evidence to convince that I could ever really find a bigfoot, I'd be on it like white on rice. (White rice, that is.) The tabloid stuff actually has very little to do with mainstream science's attitude toward bigfoot, if we're going to try to paint such a diverse group of people with one broad brush.

I can admit in the possibility of being wrong - can you? If not, who exactly is the closed-minded one here?

We already know the answer, as DWA has indicated multiple times in the thread that the choice is "you agree with me or you are ignorant."

Meanwhile, I keep waiting for his explanation of exactly how Goodall, Swindler, Hillary, Perkins, Gee, Schaller, Krantz, Disotell, et al. are/were "pariahs."

[Guest Roberty-Bob]

I guess I was using "mainstream" as more of a wider population than just scientists, but I would have to think not a lot of them think much of the notion of BF beyond the scope of tabloid fodder. Not being a scientist, though, I can speak with no authority on this matter and bow to your expertise in the matter.

[Guest]

No bowing necessary. Among my skewed sample of scientists (wildlife ecologists) there are many who are quite well versed in the nonsense - and the possibility - of bigfoot. My copy of Napier's book was given to me by my department head -the guy who hired me. Especially the older guard among mammalogists and physical anthropologists are many familiar with Krantz, Schaller, Swindler, et al. I know people who were in the audience when Bindernagel spoke at the American Society of Mammalogists meeting several years ago. Rank and file wildlife ecologists are not just pooh-poohing bigfoot because of what they see in the tabloids when waiting in line at the grocery store. The thing that probably affects their outlook more than anything else is what they don't see in their decades-long careers in the field: physical evidence of bigfoots.

[Guest]

Don't forget funding Saskeptic, there really is no corporate profit in Bigfoot, so sponsorship or funding is few and far between. I know Dr. Meldrum gets a little, but its a far cry from the kind of funding we see in other interests. Not to mention the continuing campaign against the subject, in the form of ridicule, etc. I know a lot of people,in the scientific community who very interested, and open minded about the possible existence of Bigfoot, but they are not prepared to fund the research themselves, nor do they have any desire to defend their position on it, particularly since the culture of ridicule has so much influence. I have watched news reports on Dr Ketchum that where obviously on the verge or ridicule, why is that? In most cases the reaoction if coming from people who do not know anything about Bigfoot, its just what they have been taught is the appropriate response. No ne is prepared to pay a photographer to dig a whole, and poo in a plastic bag for months and months to get a good picture of a Bigfoot, like they did for a Siberian tiger, they are to afraid of failure, and ridicule.

Personally I think there is a core to this mystery, and I doubt if its folklore or legend, although we may all be surprised one day on just what it is.

Edited January 7, 2013 by JohnC

[Guest Roberty-Bob]

I guess I was taking my viewpoint from a scientist - I think he is a physicist - who thought Meldrum should be fired because he was an "embarrassment" to the school. This was years ago, so I could be wrong on the details. It seemed clear to me that he refused to entertain any idea of listening to anyone about possible BF evidence. A local newspaper columnist would also shred Krantz along the same lines - he was an embarrassment to WSU. Seeing things like this back in the day when I was prone to prone to believe in the Skookum cast and dermal ridges and that Patty couldn't be replicated with 1967 technology, all I wanted was more scientists to look at what was offered and give me an alternative explanation. When I finally started reading BFF.1 and saw that there could be alternative explanations - and convincing ones - from postings from people such as yourself, Saskeptic, but also several others, it helped clear up questions I had.

It's nice to know that the subject of BF and its evidence is better known by the appropriate branches of science than I thought it was, and I thank you for educating me on that.

[Guest]

I'd say that the encounter reports are facts.

the ones most compelling are:

-encounters involving the uneasy feeling of being watched

-accounts that are reported decades after the fact when the person was 4 yrs old but are now in their 70's

But above all else, ones that are provided anonymously through a website which I'm sorry to say are pretty much all of them. It's surprising how many of these folks are members of law enforcement or ministers/priests when you don't have to reveal who you really are. Sort of reminds me of that member of the Nigerian Royal family who needs your banking info.

And I'm sorry to say that what you call Facts, Science will not concur because Science is not going to lower their standards to what it considers factual to suit the needs of Squatchers.

[Guest DWA]

^^^^Once again the conflation of evidence and proof.

If there is no reason to discount the sightings - and there isn't - you don't. It's silly cooking up nonexistent reasons to ignore the evidence.

Silliness and backstabbing aside, the reason this mainstream scientist doesn't do mainstream science on bigfoot is the simple reason that most of us don't: I see nothing in the purported evidence that leads me to believe there's a bigfoot to find. If I saw anything in the mounds of purported evidence to convince that I could ever really find a bigfoot, I'd be on it like white on rice. (White rice, that is.) The tabloid stuff actually has very little to do with mainstream science's attitude toward bigfoot, if we're going to try to paint such a diverse group of people with one broad brush.

We already know the answer, as DWA has indicated multiple times in the thread that the choice is "you agree with me or you are ignorant."

Meanwhile, I keep waiting for his explanation of exactly how Goodall, Swindler, Hillary, Perkins, Gee, Schaller, Krantz, Disotell, et al. are/were "pariahs."

Speaking of silliness and backstabbing.

Goodall = backpedals whenever pressed (shame on her but she has a career to think about)

Swindler = pretty much the end of his career (life)

Hillary = hatchet job on the yeti (you are calling him friendly...?)

Perkins = in the Hillary boat

Gee = one quote doesn't seem to make his opinion "mainstream," now does it?

Schaller = keeps his distance so he doesn't have to backpedal like Goodall (same reason)

Krantz = "my university supports my research. They don't fire me." Yeah, wow.

Disotell = YOU ARE CALLING HIM FRIENDLY...?

Kidding me? Good God.

Come to me when somebody stands up; says "it is silly (and it is) that we can't even talk about a phenomenon to which all the evidence overwhelmingly points as an unconfirmed animal"; and scientists start lining up behind him to stop the stonewalling and talk freely about the topic.

(Sure, you can talk about bigfoot anywhere, in any workplace, no problem. Suuure. Get out some.)

That all of those people (edit! whoops, a couple of them did NOT) have expressed positivity toward the topic - and that this doesn't affect their colleagues (harrumph) in the slightest - paints the huge difference between the almost-perfect discipline of science and the pretty constant stumbling of the people who practice it when they're dealing with the unknown.

If their opinions on this were mainstream - and supported as they are by the evidence they should be - we'd know by now. As it is, you can't even talk about it.

Oh. And nice to not mention Meldrum, one of your favorite "mainstreamers," who has a physicist - a physicist - calling for his tenure on a stick.

Were I that physicist's boss, he might have been surprised whose tenure I started dangling in front of him and asking him whether the guy should keep it. I sure wouldn't cotton to obstructing scientific inquiry from a position of utter ignorance.

Edited January 7, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

I'm sorry, you wrote (at least twice) that the people I listed who are scientists who've examined bigfoot evidence or said something welcoming toward bigfoot are pariahs. Pariahs don't amass the awards of George Schaller. Pariahs don't get invited to be the Grand Marshall of the Tournament of Roses Parade. Pariahs don't get to be the science editor for Nature.

You have again trapped yourself in your own illogical rhetoric, because you are apparently unable to consider facts that contradict your opinions.

You've also played your hand beautifully in this last post by admitting that scientists who've considered bigfoot but haven't been convinced don't count. They aren't "friendly", to use your term. So what you've really been after all along are not scientists who've been willing to engage the evidence, you're really only interested in scientists who believe in bigfoot despite the evidence to the contrary. Bravo!

[Guest DWA]

I'm not trapped in nothing.

Show me all of their published works on sasquatch.

I think we have game, set and match.

(And you always avoid touching what you can't counter. Well-not-played.)

[Guest]

Don't forget funding Saskeptic, there really is no corporate profit in Bigfoot, so sponsorship or funding is few and far between.

There's no corporate profit in what I do either. That's why I have to get grants to fund my research program, like every other wildlife ecologist I know. Now if I do a good job and convince a funding agency that what I'm proposing to do satisfies their needs in a particular funding program, then I can be successful doing that. So the key to getting grant funding for bigfoot research is to convince the NSF, NIH, NASA, USDA, DoD, USGS, and USFWS that "collecting a bigfoot" should be an important funding priority.

This is another thing bigfooters (as a group at least) never seem to grasp: Your beef is not with scientists who don't get grants to go look for bigfoot, it's really with the federal agencies who do not feel compelled to make such a thing a priority.

[Guest DWA]

You know, instead of continuing this oddly reverse sniping against overwhelming evidence - the single most unfathomable thing about "bigfoot skepticism" - you'd have a lot more fun suggesting search strategies (instead of leaving that to me, although science could do worse than me, right TBRC?) and actually thinking about what you read, rather than approaching the evidence as "this is probably fake" (reads it) "yep, this is probably fake..."

A scientist knows what to do with evidence. I'm not even a scientist, and I do. Why, you and other mainstreamers could make science what it always is at its best - fun - by joining in the effort to free up those research dollars. But oh, I forget. "They're all fake, all mistake, every one just gimme a break..."

Edited January 7, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

Show me all of their published works on sasquatch.

Ah, the bait and switch. Inevitable, I suppose. How exactly would the anemic bigfoot publication record make any of these people pariahs? Wouldn't it just mean that no one's collected a bigfoot that would justify a publication?

[Guest DWA]

You're only a pariah when you talk about bigfoot. You aren't getting that, are you? That's been Goodall lately. "Yes, I was positive once. Why are you following me around with it? Please...people are counting on me..." She knows how science works when it comes to this topic. Distance yourself or pay the price.

A select few have enough stature to even mention it. But they know that's all they can do. The shame is that all the lesser lights don't follow even the meager lead they've gotten.

And once again, great job in refusing to touch what you can't argue with. What is with that? If I'm right why not just say so? That hurts that much?

Edited January 7, 2013 by DWA