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

[dmaker]

^^^ Really? It just looks like it is sniffing the ground. Pretty common behaviour I would think. Am I missing something? I don't know a lot about wolf behaviour, so I am honestly asking the question here.

[Drew]

That wolf has been travelling around NoCal to the tune of 4000 miles or something like that.

[Guest]

I think it is apparent that the wolf was sick or otherwise behaving in a non-natural manner.

Nope, he was looking for a new home or some mates.

[Guest DWA]

OK. People are missing the real question here.

Given what we think about sasquatch pictures - given what has already happened to a pretty clear *movie* of one - why would anyone think that anyone getting a bigfoot on their ttrail cam would bother running the gantlet of public scorn? I'll tell you, I probably wouldn't. I'd sure have to think about it.

[Guest]

Not who's making assumptions?

[Guest DWA]

Sauce for the goose, now ain't it?

[norseman]

Not who's making assumptions?

It's true, a photo of an unknown species that's considered a myth isn't going to convince anyone.

http://www.sylvanic.com/

There is one good clip in his video that is VERY convincing. Do you not agree? The one with the eye blink.

I think it's all BS, for the same reason you do...........where's the body?

But it's certainly a "convincing" photo......if we are just taking the photo at face value.

Edited January 9, 2013 by norseman

[Guest]

Even alpha coyotes avoid trail cams on their territories. Why do you think these are going to be any more effective than camera phones (which will never get a sasquatch, count on it, and if you don't know why, please think about it some), until we know - as we do for all game cam subjects - practically everything about them?

Let’s review how the game cam excuse has evolved

Early 2000’s: So why hasn’t a BF been caught on a game cam yet? Answer, there just aren’t enough of these in service to nail a BF.

2005 – popularity of game cams have increased, so we can’t use the insufficient numbers explanation anymore. Let’s declare that game-cams are too big and bulky and BF knows these things are man-made and avoids them like the plague. For good measure, we’ll also ramp up BF’s vision so he can now spot these things well beyond the range of the trigger mechanism.

2010 – These number in the hundreds of thousands now and look how small and compact they are. As a further complication, we’ll also need to address why the $1 million Bushnell bounty failed to produce a BF image. So let’s update BF’s MO accordingly. Let’s increase BF IQ by a factor of 10. He is now far smarter than humans to be duped into getting caught on camera. This will also validate the controversial Jacob Photos, it really was a juvenile BF and he should have known better.

2013 – Still no BF photo, let’s start attacking the technology behind game cams. They aren’t designed for Sasquatch recon and even if they were, humans are stupid and aren’t deploying them properly for use on Sasquatches. Since we have no obligation to prove anything, we’ll throw in that obscure unsubstantiated coyote study and insist that BF’s social hierarchy is identical to coyotes. If skeptics question this, we'll demand they prove otherwise

2064 – still no BF images and the resolution of game cams have improved to the point where the more expensive ones are now in low Earth orbit. We really need to think outside the box on this one.

So here goes, BF fur possesses unique electromagnetic properties and tend to absorbs photons. This in turn renders all Sasquatches immune to photography. It's a phenomenon similar to how stealth aircraft materials absorb radar energy.

Alternatively, we can say BF's exude a dense gaseous and pungent substance through special glands on their bodies. The refractive properties of these vapors are quite extreme causing ambient light to scatter in all directions. This explains why all BF photos always appear out of focus. We call this the BS phenomenon. No, not that BS, but rather the BlobSquatch phenomenon. And again, we'll drive the skeptics crazy by demanding they prove a negative.

[dmaker]

It's true, a photo of an unknown species that's considered a myth isn't going to convince anyone.

http://www.sylvanic.com/

There is one good clip in his video that is VERY convincing. Do you not agree? The one with the eye blink.

I think it's all BS, for the same reason you do...........where's the body?

But it's certainly a "convincing" photo......if we are just taking the photo at face value.

I thought Todd Standing was proven to be a hoaxer? He is listed as one in a recent thread on this board and he is a hoaxer hall of shame elsewhere..

[Guest DWA]

Let’s review how the game cam excuse has evolved...blahblahblah (and I can't help but note you didn't address my specific questions)

Matters nothing to me. The evidence isn't diminished by anything other than by specific debunking.

If you can't show that all of that evidence is something other than what it purports to be, you have made no progress and the evidence remains standing.

I could care less what game cams show or don't. What is all that evidence coming from?

Telling me that we are asking you to prove a negative? Sounds like an excuse to me. No I'm not. I'm asking you to prove false positives. That you certainly can. If you claim that that is too big a job...I agree. Get out of the way and let science prove this, OK?

This harp harp harp on game cams...well, I don't know what the specific argumentative fallacy is called, but you are practicing it. It's pretty obvious to me - and I said so - why we can't rely on game cams. I'm just educating you on it, so you can get to what you should be doing, which is either:

1. Debunking all the evidence, piece by piece: or

2. Clamoring for science to jump in and solve this because we all want to know, right?

Edited January 9, 2013 by DWA

[norseman]

Jacobs photos - never ruled a hoax, shot by a trail camera.

Easton hunting photo - never ruled a hoax, shot by a trail camera.

Vermont apple bandit photo - never ruled a hoax, shot by a trail camera.

I could go on and on........with photos, videos, etc.

There is some **** good video of Bigfoot, at least to the fact that you can say without a doubt it wasn't a bear or a human or a squirell. BUT WAS IT A HOAX?

People take known animals at face value when they see them.......because nobody hoaxes them.

I thought Todd Standing was proven to be a hoaxer? He is listed as one in a recent thread on this board and he is a hoaxer hall of shame elsewhere..

While I have my suspicions I don't think ANYBODY has proven Todd to be a "known" hoaxer. People look at his video evidence and claim it's a hoax.........just like they did with PGF.

Why? It has nothing to do with quality or blob squatches...........it has to do with the fact that they have made up their minds that this creature cannot exist.

I'm just asking people to be honest with themselves, that's all.

No photo is going to convince someone.

[Guest toejam]

I'm 6'6 with Big feet, and I've tried to navigate through 6' deep snow in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

Some Bigfoots are shorter than me, and have smaller feet.

First hand experience on that claim as well.

So that means you know how a sasquatch moves? I don't think so. You're just another human stumbling through the snow like the rest.

It's thinking like this that holds back on understanding the true aspects of them. We relate our own selves thinking if I can't do then they can't either.

[Guest toejam]

A trackway in deep snow is not made by the creature you think it is.

Maybe not, but this is.

[WSA]

The moment to definitively prove by way of film/video/photo came and went with Patty. If that didn't do it... before humanity invented CG and digital manipulation of photographic images... it ain't gonna happen now. And it matters only now, and won't matter later.

[Guest DWA]

Why? It has nothing to do with quality or blob squatches...........it has to do with the fact that they have made up their minds that this creature cannot exist.

I'm just asking people to be honest with themselves, that's all.

It's pretty obvious to me that the entire "bigfoot skeptic" case - and it ain't a case - is the argument from personal incredulity, which doesn't scan in a scientific discussion. It's like me saying your underwear doesn't exist because I have never seen it.

Edited January 9, 2013 by DWA