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

[Guest]

Here we go AGAIN..ad Nauseum. I'l keep on saying this over and over>>>insufficient evidence (all evidence PROFFERED so far is insufficient) will remain insuffcient and you can't *add it up* to make it *proof*! No amount of insuffcient *evidence* (it's really not evidence at all) adds up to make it true evidence.

Foot prints, eyewitness accounts, etc are not proof. They are not even good enough to create the body of evidence which proof relies on. But they are enough to warrant a thorough investigation by qualified scientists.

If there were anecdotal stories coming from all over the U.S. that people who drank more than the average amount of milk have a lesser chance of getting cancer, scientists would line up for funding to do studies to see if there is something to this. All the anecdotal stories of milk consumption lessening chances of cancer are not evidence, nor could they be considered a part off the body of evidence which proof requires. But it would be enough to initiate a search for the truth in the anecdotal evidence.

And, that's the issue here.

[WSA]

@Saskeptic....Where to look? Well, the evidence I see is that BF could possibly be many places, but certainly not everywhere. Which, granted, still covers a heck of a lot of real estate. I can't speak for BF, but I've spent most of my discretionary time tramping the backcountry of the lower 48 for the best part of 40 years and I feel I've barely scratched the surface. Don't take this the wrong way , but I really would have to know your outdoor experience before I could address this. Did your field research and/or other travel take you into remote and foot access-only areas for extended periods? If it has, you're going to have a much higher appreciation of what lies out there, and I just don't believe the average person has that knowledge much anymore...at least it is not as common as it once was. Share, if you don't mind.

As to what do you find in the middle-ground? Possibilities, my friend, quite reasonable possibilities I might add, well beyond the search for a [insert preferred mythical creature here]. I believe we are already at a point where BF "kind of" exists anyway, aren't we? It is a weird kind of quasi-existence, isn't it? Science has a very tough time grappling with such a status, and that is where I believe the root of our current limbo status lays. Science deals very well with the binary, not so well with the tertiary...well it has little patience for it in the long run , doesn't it? I find that science in general enjoys and tolerates a nice fat, albeit quirky, question but it is usually the obsessed cranks who run it to ground in the end after science in general grows impatient. Well, scientists are people, after all.

I guess we do part company on this one point: You have faith that the further search for Sasquatch couldn't yield any valuable information of any other kind if it doesn't find a specimen. Me, my clairvoyant’s license expired last year, and I never renewed it. With all due respect to you Saskeptic, I'm glad you weren't signed on to the Apollo missions! (Umm, you weren't, were you?)

I must say too, you continue to puzzle me, a lot. I hear you to say "push the search", but then you repeatedly raise what you think is the futility in doing that, and narrow the scope of the inquiry at the outset , or you presume to know the answer of what will happen, so what would be the point? Well, none of us are simple to figure out, are we?

[Guest]

Anecdotal evidence is might be evidence.

Why is this so hard to keep straight?

[Guest]

Man, come on. Do I really need to explain? As I have repeatedly said: I have no idea/proof/evidence that any of the prints are real or not. I have never seen one or looked at any casts. I am however, through the process which I like to call 'thinking', allowed to express an opinion which is, shock horror, based upon things I have read written by people who I have decided, again by 'thinking', are intelligent and know about stuff better than me. I find this approach serves me well in everyday life when building opinions about things of which I have no firsthand experience. And for the record, I actually do consider many of those prints compelling.

@ Stan Norton

By that logic, why would you accept the opinion of a few fringe interest scientists that seem to have a very biased view, rather than accept and follow what science as a whole has to say about the subject? That seems a bit off to me. Do only those few scientists that believe bigfoot is real count?

Edited January 7, 2013 by LWD

[Guest]

@Saskeptic....Where to look? Well, the evidence I see is that BF could possibly be many places, but certainly not everywhere.

Feel free to suggest a location where anecdotal accounts suggest there are bigfoots but where there has been comparable exploration to someplace like the Vu Quang in 1991 or the Virungas in 1900. Even if you could identify such a place, I could identify dozens more where bigfoots are alleged to occur but that have been quite thoroughly explored and settled. The alleged anecdotal evidence suggests quite strongly that the problem is not that we haven't explored where bigfoot is, but that we are unable to collect bigfoot regardless of where he lives.

(Yes, I understand wilderness. Though I certainly am tied to the office much more now than in my younger days, I am a field biologist.)

I guess we do part company on this one point: You have faith that the further search for Sasquatch couldn't yield any valuable information of any other kind if it doesn't find a specimen.

My interest, the broader scientific interest, and the only thing that would warrant a publication at this point is the description of a new species through the collection of a physical specimen. It is a binary; there is no intermediate advance. Either we have a bigfoot specimen or we don't. Imagine if we had the Apollo rocket on the platform but had no ability to invent a propulsion mechanism for it . . .

I must say too, you continue to puzzle me, a lot. I hear you to say "push the search", but then you repeatedly raise what you think is the futility in doing that, and narrow the scope of the inquiry at the outset , or you presume to know the answer of what will happen, so what would be the point? Well, none of us are simple to figure out, are we?

The answer depends on the question. If you ask if I think people should go look for bigfoot then sure, go look for bigfoot. If you ask why I don't go look for bigfoot (at least not with any real gusto!) then the answer is that I don't think there's a bigfoot to find.

[Guest Theagenes]

@ Stan Norton

I see you deflect to others opinions often when I've asked for yours. I googled the footprints you mentioned and found a website that has some of them mentioned. Here is a website that features Jeffery Meldrum and bigfoot prints hosted on a isu.edu website so I'm guessing it may be one of his actual websites. (though I cannot verify that personally)

http://www.isu.edu/~.../fxnlmorph.html

I'm curious which of those examples look very convincing to you? (can you point out three please?)

You must put this into context. Jeffery Meldrum is the same scientist that called an elk lay an alleged unidentified primate impression.

And he still has the BCM tracks there, including one of the obvious fakes that was made with the Wallace stomper that has the crack in the heel. You know I don't think it's a big deal to get fooled occasionally, but to not be able to be admit it even in the face of clear evidence is very disappointing.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Theagenes

[Guest]

@ Theagenes

I've seen a bigfoot conference that was videotaped of Meldrum claiming that the stompers were made after the fact. I personally find that theory ludicrous. Wallace had been photographed with many sets of stompers that just so happened to coincide with many of the tracks reported. Here are some examples I've seen posted here before. I've also seen it posted before that Freeman also admitted to some sort of hoaxing with tracks. The bottom track casts are Freemans.

Edited January 8, 2013 by LWD

[Guest]

@ LWD

Can you please list your 3 most compelling pieces of evidence that believers think are the real deal, but you think are hoaxes.

[Guest DWA]

Why is this so hard to keep straight?

Dunno. Lemme fix it.

Anecdotal evidence is might be evidence.

Class: I know you get this. Dismissed. Uh uh uh! NOT YOU. You have to read this, from Wikipedia:

--------------------------------

The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.^[1][2] Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a claim; it is accepted only in lieu of more solid evidence. This is true regardless of the veracity of individual claims.^[3][4][5]

The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, ...

--------------------------------------

I am not sure that my use of those terms in the many times I have used them could be written more clearly than that. Sometimes, you can trust Wikipedia.

So stop thinking that you are disagreeing with me! You are not. It is your failure to understand that which the class - into their third beer now, no doubt - is finding amusing and talking about down at the bar.

Now answer my questions above.

(Ouch on that truth thang.)

Foot prints, eyewitness accounts, etc are not proof. They are not even good enough to create the body of evidence which proof relies on. But they are enough to warrant a thorough investigation by qualified scientists.

If there were anecdotal stories coming from all over the U.S. that people who drank more than the average amount of milk have a lesser chance of getting cancer, scientists would line up for funding to do studies to see if there is something to this. All the anecdotal stories of milk consumption lessening chances of cancer are not evidence, nor could they be considered a part off the body of evidence which proof requires. But it would be enough to initiate a search for the truth in the anecdotal evidence.

And, that's the issue here.

Plussed. (Folks getting it. Love that.)

Edited January 8, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

Plussed. (Folks getting it. Love that.)

You were referring to this post:

"If there were anecdotal stories coming from all over the U.S. that people who drank more than the average amount of milk have a lesser chance of getting cancer, scientists would line up for funding to do studies to see if there is something to this. All the anecdotal stories of milk consumption lessening chances of cancer are not evidence, nor could they be considered a part off the body of evidence which proof requires. But it would be enough to initiate a search for the truth in the anecdotal evidence."

Note he also said this in that statement:

"All the anecdotal stories of milk consumption lessening chances of cancer are not evidence, nor could they be considered a part off the body of evidence which proof requires"

It's not that people have ignored purported sightings/foot prints...but over the last 50yrs there has been NO FURTHER progress in finding one...even with enhanced modern technology for detection. Your argument that we aren't *LOOKING HARD ENOUGH* is really a *Red Herring* here..sure we can always look harder, but that's really not a primary issue. People ARE looking everyday..maybe not as hard as you would like..

but that's not why we haven't found one. Of course, for one like yourself that is convinced BF exist, no amount of searching will be enough.

[Guest DWA]

You were referring to this post:

"If there were anecdotal stories coming from all over the U.S. that people who drank more than the average amount of milk have a lesser chance of getting cancer, scientists would line up for funding to do studies to see if there is something to this. All the anecdotal stories of milk consumption lessening chances of cancer are not evidence, nor could they be considered a part off the body of evidence which proof requires. But it would be enough to initiate a search for the truth in the anecdotal evidence."

Note he also said this in that statement:

"All the anecdotal stories of milk consumption lessening chances of cancer are not evidence, nor could they be considered a part off the body of evidence which proof requires"

It's not that people have ignored purported sightings/foot prints...but over the last 50yrs there has been NO FURTHER progress in finding one...even with enhanced modern technology for detection. Your argument that we aren't *LOOKING HARD ENOUGH* is really a *Red Herring* here..sure we can always look harder, but that's really not a primary issue. People ARE looking everyday..maybe not as hard as you would like..

but that's not why we haven't found one. Of course, for one like yourself that is convinced BF exist, no amount of searching will be enough.

I'm gonna have to admit missing the sentence I put in italics above. As I have shown above, it is evidence. But in the case of someone who understands how anecdotal evidence is used, I can forgive what in context is a small error.

Now you're gonna have to admit you have me confused with someone else. I can't be convinced sasquatch is real, because I don't have proof. What I also do not have is any reason that I should not consider its existence a likely thing. The footprints and anecdotal evidence have not begun to be explained in any other way by anyone who considers them false positives.

Sorry. Saying something ain't so doesn't make it not so any more than saying something is so makes it so.

And to say there is anything approaching a part-time, never mind full-time, field search for sasquatch is, well, not reflective of the situation on the ground. When the number of searches lasting more than a week of straight time in the field I can list on the fingers of one hand and not use them all, it's not that I don't like the amount of searching.

It is that the amount of searching is inadequate to produce proof.

Edited January 8, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

@ LWD

Can you please list your 3 most compelling pieces of evidence that believers think are the real deal, but you think are hoaxes.

@ arizonabigfoot

I won't suppose to know what believers feel is real or not because that could vary quite a bit depending on which flavor you choose of belief. Some feel that bigfoot has paranormal aspects, and glowing eyes and can move at speeds beyond almost all other animals. Others have a more simple mundane description of the legendary beast. What I can say I've noticed is the PGF seems to be the centerpiece of it all. I'm not sure outside of that who might consider what else as an authentic piece of evidence. Even some proponents that might consider the PGF to represent a hoax may feel some other evidence is authentic. To each is own?

What is your idea of best evidence available to date? (specific things that science should be investigating further)

Foot prints, eyewitness accounts, etc are not proof. They are not even good enough to create the body of evidence which proof relies on. But they are enough to warrant a thorough investigation by qualified scientists.

If there were anecdotal stories coming from all over the U.S. that people who drank more than the average amount of milk have a lesser chance of getting cancer, scientists would line up for funding to do studies to see if there is something to this. All the anecdotal stories of milk consumption lessening chances of cancer are not evidence, nor could they be considered a part off the body of evidence which proof requires. But it would be enough to initiate a search for the truth in the anecdotal evidence.

And, that's the issue here.

@Dobbsquatch

I think scientists have looked at what has been claimed as evidence of bigfoot and is still willing to. There are some current studies going on related to the subject to support that. The thing we need to really ask is, what is the evidence. What is it truly evidence of? If there is no bigfoot, then all of what has been claimed is not really evidence. If bigfoot were to be proven tomorrow, some might be considered evidence. The problem to me is (that i feel many proponents ignore) we can prove the source for much of this claimed evidence. Even a lot of the "famous evidence" from the past.

real. The same can be said of bigfoot. We must verify the source of claimed evidence, or its just "unidentified origin". With bigfoot evidence, overwhelmingly the source has been proven to be humans, and humans misidentifying. Can we agree on that at least?

Are there any other real animals out there where humans can be proved as making evidence to be purported of said real animal? Why is that so? The bigfoot is credited with so many capabilities and such a broad range, yet the only proof of source we have is humans?

[adam2323]

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.

Just catching up on the thread WSA major +1

[Guest]

@ arizonabigfoot

I won't suppose to know what believers feel is real or not because that could vary quite a bit depending on which flavor you choose of belief. Some feel that bigfoot has paranormal aspects, and glowing eyes and can move at speeds beyond almost all other animals. Others have a more simple mundane description of the legendary beast. What I can say I've noticed is the PGF seems to be the centerpiece of it all. I'm not sure outside of that who might consider what else as an authentic piece of evidence. Even some proponents that might consider the PGF to represent a hoax may feel some other evidence is authentic. To each is own?

What is your idea of best evidence available to date? (specific things that science should be investigating further)

I think the recent thermal footage obtained by Bart Cutino (a mere 300 yards away from where the Sierra Shooting allegedly took place) is something that could, or at least should start a much larger and intense investigation in that area. This is not just some random footage loaded by some anonymous freak onto YouTube, Cutino is a well known and highly respected researcher who should be taken seriously. The size recreations of the subjects in the footage show extremely large figures, and there are mulitple witnesses who were present. Obviously this is not conclusive proof, but it may show that the suspected Sasquatches in this particular area seem to be more susceptible to efforts to obtain evidence of their presence. If you want to go all the way, you could say this particular group has been caught of film, interacted with, and shot at. I don't know how much of that happened, but the thermal footage may show that indeed something is happening out there. I guess I feel it could be something to look at.

[Guest]

Has that footage been released? A quick google search suggests to me it's not readily available.