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

[Guest Theagenes]

Didn't his family say that he did and wasn't his brother working on the site?

[Guest Kerchak]

^

Yeah his family claimed he did but the stompers don't match the Crew cast at all and the Crew cast doesn't look like anything Wallace ever came up with. His family were just speculating, no more. It's a shame they didn't even know what the Crew cast looked like. They didn't even bother to check.

[WSA]

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.

Personally, I have no problem admitting that someone as experienced as Jeff Meldrum has been, or could be, hoaxed by some print casts. I DO have a problem though with extrapolating this fact to conclude that all BF casts are fake. This faulty logic permeates the so-called skeptic's approach to the evidence. My reaction to this point is always: So what? All it proves is it is possible to hoax a BF track, and to sustain the hoax for a little while...until the scientific community catches up to the hoax. As hoaxing goes, the low-hanging fruit has done been plucked.

To take up the point regarding "mainstream science's" allergy to BF studies.

Saskeptic, you are on the inside of academia, and I'm not, so I'm bound to defer to you on the subject of how the topic is received by your peers. I will agree in saying the U.S. Govt. does not seem inclined to allocate resources to the field (would you care to see the WSJ's coverage of THAT floor vote...!?), but I think science does have an obligation aside from how we allocate of public funds. What is distressing to me and many others is how seemingly apologetic any biologist still must act if he/she wants to come out of the closet on this topic. I'm not talking about statements such as "I'm curious", or "I want to believe in it.." etc. What I'm talking about is a no-holds barred, all-in commitment to making such a life's work, willing to take credit or blame, regardless of the outcome. I don't have the standing to insist a community of academics take on the job in that fashion, but I'm more than a little puzzled as to why more would not stake a claim...do or die. Isn't there at least a cabal of young Frank Bucks out there somewhere who have the marbles to put such a proposal in front of their Department? Is it that big a taboo, and a guaranteed career killer? I really want to know. You can quibble about what the evidence shows, or not, but you can't deny this is where the potential action is, for many academic disciplines. Where is the lust inside our institutions for these kinds of quests? Have we atrophied to this extent? A pure shame, if so.

[Guest]

^You're assuming that such a lust exists for bigfoot but that none of us (except heroes like Jeff Meldrum I suppose) have the Moxy to stand up and fight for it. That's inaccurate because when people like me who are interested in the topic dig a little deeper, we find nothing to convince us that we would be successful in the endeavor. My boss doesn't care if I work on bigfoot, so long as I can publish high-end manuscripts on bigfoot, attract competitive grants for bigfoot, and train graduate students in bigfoot. This is the reason Meldrum gets criticized by his scientific peers. It's not that he's after bigfoot, it's that he hasn't published a legitimate peer-reviewed paper on his bigfoot research.

I'm sure there'd be a lot more academic folks actively engaged in bigfootery if we weren't under the publish or perish paradigm, but we are. Short of a physical specimen, there's nothing scientific one could publish about bigfoot, which is why Medlrum went the route of writing a book and going on TV all the time. As I have zero confidence in my ability to design a research program that would result in the successful collection of a bigfoot specimen, I have zero confidence that I could publish any papers on my bigfoot work, so such work would not help me fulfill the duties of my job.

Scientists still love quests, but quests have destinations. Bigfoot isn't a quest because there's no destination.

[Guest Theagenes]

^

Yeah his family claimed he did but the stompers don't match the Crew cast at all and the Crew cast doesn't look like anything Wallace ever came up with. His family were just speculating, no more. It's a shame they didn't even know what the Crew cast looked like. They didn't even bother to check.

It may not match any of the known stompers, but that doesn't mean it still wasn't Wallace using a stomper that's no longer extant. The fact is you have tracks appearing at one of Wallace's sites, found by his employees. It's not like his family's exactly going out on a limb with this speculation. And his brother was on site and claims Ray did it.

Maybe I was too strong in my wording, but really does anyone still believe the Crew prints are real given all that we know now about Wallace? Let me put you on the spot a little bit, Kerchak. In your opinion, do you think the Crew prints are real? Do you think the BCM tracks are real?

WSA, I'm saying that simply because some tracks are fake that all of them are fake. I'm saying that if the first recorded and publicized tracks (Crew) are fake then most of the ones after that the have the same basic foot morphology are likely copycats, unless that original hoaxer was incredibly prescient.

[WSA]

Wildman, life does imitate art on occasion! Well, actually, it frequently does.

Saskeptic...you could say it is because the quest is perceived to not have a destination I guess, but I would just put forth the old saw about the journey being the destination, etc. It is amazing what science discovers on the way to trying to learn something else. And let's not forget, definitively showing all BF reports and other evidence to be hoaxes, delusions or misinterpretations IS a significant outcome. Hell's bells, just definitively proving Patty is a guy in a suit would be HUGE! What would be the academic laurels a young human psychology doctoral candidate could garner by diving into the idea of a mass BF sighting psychosis...if your hypothesis of the origins of those reports is correct?

I guess all fields of endeavor are burdened with the exigencies of personal security. I am predicting though, we are presently growing those who have a burning curiosity to follow evidence where it leads. Just as surely as there is some skinny 10 y.o. kid with funny looking hair posing with his pawn shop guitar in front of his mirror somewhere, and who will stand modern music on its ear someday, I have to believe there is a kid playing with a Squatch action figure, dreaming of being "The Guy." Go man, whoever you are.

[Drew]

Professor to Dept. Head:

I am going to apply for a grant to go look for Bigfoot in the woods next term.

Really? Which woods are you going to?

Well, there are some really good sightings in the Salt Fork State Park in Ohio

Is there any evidence showing you that they are actually at the park?

Well there are these footprints, and howls, and the sightings...

Bigfoot? Really? you don't think a grant to help inventory the effect of Burmese Pythons on Kangaroo Rats in the Florida Keys would be more applicable? Really?

Edited January 7, 2013 by Drew

[Guest DWA]

Just as surely as there is some skinny 10 y.o. kid with funny looking hair posing with his pawn shop guitar in front of his mirror somewhere, and who will stand modern music on its ear someday, I have to believe there is a kid playing with a Squatch action figure, dreaming of being "The Guy." Go man, whoever you are.

Right. And the only thing - the only thing - I have been saying is that there is more than enough, and more than compelling enough, evidence for everyone to refrain from catcalling that kid into ratcheting back his ambition to confirming obscure subspecies of mouse lemurs. This is a legitimate scientific quest, with a very, very definite destination.

[Guest DWA]

"You're assuming that such a lust exists for bigfoot but that none of us (except heroes like Jeff Meldrum I suppose) have the Moxy to stand up and fight for it. That's inaccurate because when people like me who are interested in the topic dig a little deeper, we find nothing to convince us that we would be successful in the endeavor."

The argument from personal incredulity - which appears the entire content of the bigfoot-skeptic case - doesn't wash in science.

That there is not enough for most scientists to risk personal investment doesn't mean there isn't ample material to search on.

[Guest]

It is amazing what science discovers on the way to trying to learn something else.

Sure, when the destination is a cure for cancer or a Higgs boson there are intermediate discoveries to be made that themselves are publishable. When the destination is the collection of a piece of bigfoot there is no intermediate step that's publication-worthy. There's just find the bigfoot (ding-ding-ding, we have a winner!) and not find the bigfoot (oh, just like everybody else).

And let's not forget, definitively showing all BF reports and other evidence to be hoaxes, delusions or misinterpretations IS a significant outcome.

No it's not, that's what we scientists think already. Even if someone could prove that impossible negative it wouldn't be publishable.

. . . I have to believe there is a kid playing with a Squatch action figure, dreaming of being "The Guy." Go man, whoever you are.

That's fine and I wish that kid well, but your premise is based on there being an actual bigfoot out there for the kid to find. If there isn't, then no amount of hard work, dedication, or creativity from the kid is going to result in the collection of a bigfoot specimen.

[Guest Stan Norton]

It may not match any of the known stompers, but that doesn't mean it still wasn't Wallace using a stomper that's no longer extant. The fact is you have tracks appearing at one of Wallace's sites, found by his employees. It's not like his family's exactly going out on a limb with this speculation. And his brother was on site and claims Ray did it.

Maybe I was too strong in my wording, but really does anyone still believe the Crew prints are real given all that we know now about Wallace? Let me put you on the spot a little bit, Kerchak. In your opinion, do you think the Crew prints are real? Do you think the BCM tracks are real?

WSA, I'm saying that simply because some tracks are fake that all of them are fake. I'm saying that if the first recorded and publicized tracks (Crew) are fake then most of the ones after that the have the same basic foot morphology are likely copycats, unless that original hoaxer was incredibly prescient.

Yes, but the entire point about the Wallace feet was that they are wooden planks. That don't match the purported Sasquatch tracks. How did he make his planks bend to create variable prints?

Again, like 99% of the folks on this forum I have never seen or held any alleged prints from this site, but I will defer to the opinion of Dr Meldrum (and others) who would appear to be eminently qualified to tell a fake plank from a real, flexible foot.

[Guest DWA]

^^^^Plussed. Not hard to get at all.

You separate out the obvious fakes...and you are left with a large number of tracks that show no such signs.

[WSA]

Just remember Saskeptic:Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. Your unwillingness to consider proponent evidence as compelling will be/is the same standard that will be applied to your theories of fakery and delusion. Personally, I’m willing to be subjected to both ends of that spectrum.

Truly though, the whole yes/no, does/doesn't, is/isn't exercise bores the tar out of me. It may not be boring for you, and if so, fine and dandy, and we can drop this discussion right here. If it bores you as well, I'd be much more interested in discussing the ground that lies between, and what all of us will do to arrive at a much more considered analysis. You (or any BF proponent for that matter) saying repeatedly "but I HAVE considered it" leaves that middle ground up for grabs, and in that space, reason and true knowledge lives. Unless you are one of the few who claim to have seen the Big Man up close, we/you/me should be reminded of this unassailable fact: We don't know for certain. How to get from not knowing to knowing for certain? (And please don't say you know for certain....you don't) A: With LOTS more work, money, doubt, analysis, testable theories and all the grunt work that goes into acquiring knowledge. If you devote your time and energies towards strangling that idea in its crib, well then, the most I can say is you've picked a very safe course.

The first point I wanted to address is the idea you raised about how a deeper look into the evidence would not/could not yield useful results if they were not Sasquatch confirmations. Really? Is science really so tied to predicting a return on investment that there lives no ambition to just follow an evidence trail to see where it goes? I mean, to just plain dog it for all it is worth. Forget we are talking about Sasquatch for a minute. Any evidence trail?

If Sasquatch is the sole exception in the field of zoology, would it be useful to examine why we think that is? Have we as a people just convinced ourselves we've catalogued all the important species, and the rest hold no potential for meaningful return on investment? Have we all just reached a level of world weariness through repeated information enemas that our ability to consider what history shows us repeatedly to be true has withered away. Namely: We are not half as smart as we think we are, ever. Have we any reason to believe this questions is somehow exempt from our innate inability to just get things right (usually) the first time?

Like I said, I really want to know.

[Cotter]

That's fine and I wish that kid well, but your premise is based on there being an actual bigfoot out there for the kid to find. If there isn't, then no amount of hard work, dedication, or creativity from the kid is going to result in the collection of a bigfoot specimen.

True, but that quest could lead him into the far corners of the earth to discover Congo Apes, and Sneezing Monkeys....

Which are of course....still being discovered.

;-)

[Drew]

Thinking you see a Bigfoot, and seeing a Bigfoot are two totally different things that get confused around here.