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

[Guest toejam]

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

Maybe not, but this is.

[norseman]

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.

Yes but we frickin play right into their hands.....

I mean we had the PGF in the late sixties, that wasn't good enough, then comes a string of other photos and video, some of them hoaxes and some of them never proven to be.......that wasn't good enough.

So along comes thermal imaging.......and we get some thermal images.......that wasn't good enough.

So what now?

Well......we are going to attach a thermal camera to a blimp.

I mean it's a fool's errand if anyone is attempting to prove the existence of a species through media.......I just want to break cameras over researchers heads I get so frustrated.

[Guest]

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.

They weren't hoaxes, they were blurry photographs that could have been something else. (A bear, a guy in a hooded jacket and an owl).

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.

Arguments from lack of roadkill, dead specimans from hunters and trail cameras are not "personal incredulity". They would be stronger than those eyewitness encounters you value so much.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

Yes but we frickin play right into their hands.....

I mean we had the PGF in the late sixties, that wasn't good enough, then comes a string of other photos and video, some of them hoaxes and some of them never proven to be.......that wasn't good enough.

So along comes thermal imaging.......and we get some thermal images.......that wasn't good enough.

So what now?

Well......we are going to attach a thermal camera to a blimp.

I mean it's a fool's errand if anyone is attempting to prove the existence of a species through media.......I just want to break cameras over researchers heads I get so frustrated.

Well, you know, I have to remember where I was on this. I mean, my first exposure was National Wildlife Magazine on the PG film. Not gonna get more mainstream or a more balanced treatment.

Then, I read that people in 49 freakin' states had seen one. I went, oh. Right. Like UFOs. OK, never mind. And like most people who couldn't rouse their minds to think about this, that was it...until, whoa...wait a minute....there's this website....BFRO....and like a normal, curious person who actually wants to know stuff, I went there and started reading reports to see how this could be happening. Then I read TBRC reports. Same stuff. Bindernagel. He's using reports from John Green...and they're reporting the same stuff...

Knowing as I do a lot about wild animals, the reports rang an immediate bell. These are wild animal encounters, I thought. Every shade of wild animal encounters is in these reports.

And...well, yeah. You get into the Media Follies in this discussion, and, well, it's a sideshow to me. Game cams, whatever. The evidence speaks loudly; and you can't dismiss it because it isn't being served on the platter you prefer.

Arguments from lack of roadkill, dead specimans from hunters and trail cameras are not "personal incredulity". They would be stronger than those eyewitness encounters you value so much.

Um, naaaaah. This snippet, right here, is the argument from personal incredulity, to a T. Since I haven't heard of any of these things personally, why, why, why...it's just impossible.

I didn't want bigfoot to be real. Apes in NA just seemed, well, well....SILLY....but I have to let my brain rather than my emotions think for me, so I went deep into the evidence, and deep into thought about this.

Know what I found out?

That's where both the truth, and the fun, are in this game. There is nothing duller than the argument from personal incredulity, yet it continues to be seductive.

Edited January 9, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

So-called skeptics in this debate would make excellent criminal defense lawyers. You know what the job of the criminal defense lawyer is, dontcha? Right. Don't talk about the evidence the prosecution has, talk about the evidence the prosecution doesn't have. Never go off message. Never. Witness the conviction rate of most prosecutors. It is the only strategy available, most often, but a demonstrably poor one.

[Guest]

Don't talk about the weak evidence the prosecution has, talk about the strong evidence the prosecution doesn't have. Never go off message. Never. Witness the conviction rate of most prosecutors.

Fixed.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

^^^^Hey WSA! Case in point. Nailed it, man!

[Cotter]

^^^ 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.

Sure, but it is extremely far out of it's home range - that in and of itself indicates that there is a behavioral 'hiccup' happening.

Same thing when bears and cougars wander into city centers - they are usually dispatched b/c of safety concerns. This one just happens to be aimlessly wandering around the wilderness, miles upon miles of it's known habitat/range - hence the non-natural behavior otherwise we'd have wolves spotted on trail cams all over the country in places they are not 'supposed' to be.

[WSA]

Jerrymanderer...the point, which you might have missed, is: Criminal defense lawyers routinely fail way, way more often than they succeed. Like I said, a demonstrably poor strategy. There's a reason for that record. There is an old expression in the legal field that sums it up: You don't get to make up the facts of your case. When you attempt to do that, and go too far, a jury will let you know it. (Some of that going down here though, me thinks.) :-)

[Guest DWA]

Sure, but it is extremely far out of it's home range - that in and of itself indicates that there is a behavioral 'hiccup' happening.

Same thing when bears and cougars wander into city centers - they are usually dispatched b/c of safety concerns. This one just happens to be aimlessly wandering around the wilderness, miles upon miles of it's known habitat/range - hence the non-natural behavior otherwise we'd have wolves spotted on trail cams all over the country in places they are not 'supposed' to be.

Well, yes, but behavioral 'hiccups' do happen, and it seems to be a pretty long shot that a trail cam would catch one. Even were the 'hiccup' a simple expansion of range. After all, this is how that happens. A wolf was photographed in Yellowstone well before they were reintroduced. Way lucky.

The wolverine game cam shots (and a hiker's photos, for Pete's sake) were also really long shots.

Which of course bolsters the proponent case.

It's a long shot (not really, but let's allow it) that no good photo of a sasquatch (that we are aware of) has come from a game cam yet.

So? Look at the other long shots that happen.

It's just a so-what.

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.

Correct. Yet another example of the argument from personal incredulity. Doesn't really have much meat, that bone.

Edited January 9, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

Jerrymanderer...the point, which you might have missed, is: Criminal defense lawyers routinely fail way, way more often than they succeed. Like I said, a demonstrably poor strategy. There's a reason for that record. There is an old expression in the legal field that sums it up: You don't get to make up the facts of your case. When you attempt to do that, and go too far, a jury will let you know it. (Some of that going down here though, me thinks.) :-)

Probably some of that going on both sides of the fence around here. At the top of this page you have Toejam posting yet another pic of a foot print that he is convinced is a BF, so he says, hey here are some BF foot prints. But that's not a fact, that is his assumption. The FACT is that it could be a BF, it could be a hoax. It is not a fact that it's a BF track. So it shouldn't be presented as such.

And in case anyone is wondering, he is not claiming to have actually laid eyes on these Bigfoots, they are far, far too elusive for that.

Edited January 9, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

There are probably 4 or 5 monkeys species that regularly experience seasonal temperatures below freezing. Among apes, it gets pretty cold on those high slopes in the Virungas.

I have no problem envisioning a hypothetical Bigfoot that is cold-adapted.

I don't think it's as COLD as the vast areas in North America and Canada are in winter.. covered in SNOW .

"Mountain gorillas have significantly longer hair than their conspecifics, while ... though mountain gorillas are restricted to two locations, Virunga Volcanoes where ... Temperatures range between 3.9° C (39° F) and 14.5° C (58° F)

The mountain gorilla inhabits the Albertine Rift montane cloud forests and of the Virunga Volcanoes, ranging in altitude from 2,200–4,300 metres (7,200–14,100 ft). Most are found on the slopes of three of the dormant volcanoes: Karisimbi, Mikeno, and Visoke.^[15] The vegetation is very dense at the bottom of the mountains, becoming more sparse at higher elevations, and the forests where the mountain gorilla lives are often cloudy, misty and cold.^[16]

Edited January 9, 2013 by ronn1

[norseman]

@ronn1

What about Homo Erectus during the last ice age?

[Guest]

@ronn1

What about Homo Erectus during the last ice age?

Human's (Neander..modern man)can only live in frigid conditions with>>..fire..shelter (caves)and *clothing* (pelts, foot protection). I don't know about homo erectus..but if he didn't have those, then he didn't live in frigid conditions. Mountain apes can live in fairly cold weather due to fur coat, but, as I pointed out, not it's as cold in their moutains as it is in the winter's of North America/Canada in the snow. Looking at *Patty* (the classic model for a BF).. it doesn't look like the type of coat required for spending prolonged periods in frigid weather. Not all areas have caves either. Just my take.

[norseman]

Human's (Neander..modern man)can only live in frigid conditions with>>..fire..shelter (caves)and *clothing* (pelts, foot protection). I don't know about homo erectus..but if he didn't have those, then he didn't live in frigid conditions. Mountain apes can live in fairly cold weather due to fur coat, but, as I pointed out, not it's as cold in their moutains as it is in the winter's of North America/Canada in the snow. Looking at *Patty* (the classic model for a BF).. it doesn't look like the type of coat required for spending prolonged periods in frigid weather. Not all areas have caves either. Just my take.

Well they did live in frigid conditions, albeit it's a debate about how much they used fire, if they could start it, etc. And I don't think they are associated with clothing.

In my opinion this isn't as much of a stretch as you think it is.