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

[Guest]

. . . you'd have a lot more fun suggesting search strategies . . .

. . . And if you were so well read about all things bigfoot as you claim you might know that I've been doing that right here at the BFF for years.

I primarily recommend systems of redundant sampling in areas of high suspected bigfoot activity. Hair catchers, track plates, and camera traps work beautifully for other rare, low density populations of large mammals. I see no reason that such sampling would be ineffective against bigfoots.

Re: Goodall: How 'bout she's open to the possibility but she's unconvinced by the evidence?

[Guest DWA]

You forgot to suggest the bake sales to buy all that stuff. OK, to buy one camera. It's a start.

The BFF is not the very first place I'd go to be well read on all things bigfoot. There are better places to spend one's limited reading time; and I'd done that before I ever came here. As I say: science, not sideshows. I come here to educate, not to argue. And the fundamental point is one the history of science makes time and again: you can't walk away from evidence.

[masterbarber]

What "proponents" think the evidence is...

image removed

What "skeptics" think the evidence is...

image removed

Truth is most likley somewhere in the middle folks

?

[Guest DWA]

^^^^BETTER THAN GOLD! I knew it!

Re: Goodall: How 'bout she's open to the possibility but she's unconvinced by the evidence?

More like: she has said that she's convinced by the evidence...before she found out that even Jane Goodall might want to avoid dancing too close to this tar baby.

If I've said it once I've said it a hundred times, and that's just here:

Nothing else with this much evidence remains unproven. That that is true should be all I need to say; that it gets this much resistance...well, makes it obvious that it's a taboo topic.

[Guest]

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..."

This whole debate keeps going in circles because you keep wanting to slip what YOU consider evidence into a debate that involves scientific evidence when they are mutually exclusive...apples and oranges. You continue to use the term *overwhelming evidence*. There is no such thing..evidence doesn't *overwhelm* because it's not cumulative to the point of proof. Insufficient evidence remains so..and there is no amount of insuffcient evidence that suddenly translates into scientific evidence. You can stack up hundreds of so called sightings..foot prints..broken twigs...sounds. None of these are evidence and never will be without directly linking each and every one of them to a creature thru physical verification. I'm not saying IGNORE all these things...but I am saying you must SET THEM ASIDE when trying to make the LEAP to CONFIRMATION (proof if you will). Nothing you can say here will change this, since you're trying to argue something that's simply false. Evidence is what it is...and there are strict guidelines that determine what it is and what it isn't.

The fact you think all these things are so compelling that any person with common sense would accept them as PROOF...is NOT a scientific argument and never will be.

Your argument is FUTILE...though you'll never admit it. So we go on and on and on ad nauseum in this *debate* which really isn't a debate at all.

Edited January 7, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest]

I think a couple of guys are adding to DWA's agrument, then attacking those pieces, things that really aren't his argument at all. From what I've gathered, he isn't saying researchers haven't been out there looking, he is saying they haven't been out there looking LONG ENOUGH. You know, more than a couple of days at a time. Then he isn't saying there is overwhelming evidence that would somehow constitute proof, he is saying there is enough evidence to get the research world paying serious attention to the subject, and when that happens, proof would follow.

I understand that Saskeptic feels that it has been seriously considered, and at this point it's been decided that there really isn't much to go on at this point, so I guess that is where you could be at loggerheads.

I myself have had an encounter that was extremely conclusive to me, and it constituted proof, of course that means absolutely nothing to anyone here, but it sure was cool.

[Guest]

?

LOL!

[Oonjerah]

If I've said it once I've said it a hundred times, and that's just here:

Nothing else with this much evidence remains unproven. That that is true should be all I need to say;

that it gets this much resistance...well, makes it obvious that it's a taboo topic.

Yes and No, DWA.

People can talk about Bf all they want within certain boundaries. You can have all

the comedy or horror Bf movies you want; you can have let's pretend stuff, like

"Finding Bigfoot;" and mainly, you can have need heaps of ridicule, invalidation.

If I want to talk to a socially conservative acquaintance about Bigfoot, and I make

it clear that I am serious, and speaking on the subject in a respectful, open way ...

that's Taboo. To let Bf be a normal, acceptable topic is taboo. Today.

But ... a person who's skillful at persuasion could probably take advantage of this

established mindset and start pushing the topic from taboo to interesting. That person

might create scenes in which person who's confident and charismatic is also really

calm and comfortable talking about Bigfoot respectably. => Someone we like & admire

likes Bigfoot! ... Bigfoot's not just for Fringe Nuts anymore!

Hire some PR genius to change Sasquatch's public image.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Oonjerah

[Guest]

This thread certainly is not short on excuses and whining. But what it comes down to is, if bigfoot were real we would have proof by now. Somehow, anyhow, one would have shown itself. Period. End of story.

[Guest Cervelo]

Masterbarber,

Hummm it's dark colored, could be smelly, that could be anything LOL!!!

Good one Bro!

DWA,

Sorry man you've been served!

Edited January 7, 2013 by Cervelo

[Drew]

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!

pwned.

I know for fact that Anthropologist Dr. John Hawks would be 'totally thrilled' to have bigfoot be discovered. How many scientists were working on Denisovan culture and DNA mapping BEFORE the finger bones were found in the Denisova cave? Zero. How many are working on it now? Hundreds.

If evidence of such a creature were discovered, or just genetic evidence of such a creature were found, Anthropologists/Biologists would be all over it, just like Denisova.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Drew

[Guest DWA]

Um, I'll come back when you guys are interesting again.

I think a couple of guys are adding to DWA's agrument, then attacking those pieces, things that really aren't his argument at all. From what I've gathered, he isn't saying researchers haven't been out there looking, he is saying they haven't been out there looking LONG ENOUGH. You know, more than a couple of days at a time. Then he isn't saying there is overwhelming evidence that would somehow constitute proof, he is saying there is enough evidence to get the research world paying serious attention to the subject, and when that happens, proof would follow.

I understand that Saskeptic feels that it has been seriously considered, and at this point it's been decided that there really isn't much to go on at this point, so I guess that is where you could be at loggerheads.

I myself have had an encounter that was extremely conclusive to me, and it constituted proof, of course that means absolutely nothing to anyone here, but it sure was cool.

Somebody gets it.

[dmaker]

I think a couple of guys are adding to DWA's agrument, then attacking those pieces, things that really aren't his argument at all. From what I've gathered, he isn't saying researchers haven't been out there looking, he is saying they haven't been out there looking LONG ENOUGH. You know, more than a couple of days at a time. Then he isn't saying there is overwhelming evidence that would somehow constitute proof, he is saying there is enough evidence to get the research world paying serious attention to the subject, and when that happens, proof would follow.

I understand that Saskeptic feels that it has been seriously considered, and at this point it's been decided that there really isn't much to go on at this point, so I guess that is where you could be at loggerheads.

I myself have had an encounter that was extremely conclusive to me, and it constituted proof, of course that means absolutely nothing to anyone here, but it sure was cool.

That's a good summary. And I agree. Everything else is style and rhetoric. But that does seem to be crux of it.

[Guest Theagenes]

Again, it is not I who is best placed to say whether any tracks are 'evidence' or not. I merely stated that those who are best placed (i.e. Meldrum, Krantz etc) repeatedly argue that there are numerous sets of prints which they, being experts, cannot explain away. Just read any of Krantz's books, Meldrums book or his recent footprint paper. Examples (some of many) which they cite are e.g. Bluff Creek casts taken by Bob Titmus after the PGF; Blue Creek Mountain road, September 1967 (John Green), Bluff Creek casts from Al Hodgson, October 1963 and, the ones that got Meldrum thinking, Walla Walla tracks (1994?). There you go. These are the best ones in the opinion of those, unlike myself, who have actually seen them and studied them. I find that compelling.

Getting back to the footprints as some of the best evidence, the Blue Creek Mountain prints that Green, Meldrum et al. have accepted as real are clearly fake as they match up with some of the Wallace stompers. I know there are still people here who refuse to accept this, but they are clearly in denial of something that is just patently obvious. Here is the Ray Wallace thread from the PGF forum where everyone can see the arguements and photographic evidence for themselves:

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/3040-ray-wallace-hoaxing-and-the-pgf/

Those that still support the BCM trackway as real are basically reduced to arguing that Wallace carved his stompers to match casts of real prints. That kind of leap in logic to try and defend the indefenisble is just mind-boggling.

But this addresses the larger problem with prints as evidence. The first time you started having prints and casts associated with Sasquatch were the ones associated with Crews in 1958, right? Yes, you had wildman stories and the like, but the giant footprint thing began with Crews. And those prints we now know were were done by Wallace. So essentially we're being asked to believe that even though all of the earliest print and cast evidence was fake, there were later real prints that just coincidentally look a lot like the early fake ones. Wallace just happened to get lucky and created fake stompers that looked just like the real footprints that continued to be found everywhere over the next five decades.

To me this is a big problem as it really stretches the coincidence factor.

[Guest Kerchak]

The 1958 Crew cast doesn't match any of Ray Wallace stompers. Who says we 'now know' that they were made by Wallace? This hasn't been established in any way.