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

[Guest DWA]

You can call all the expert witnesses you want to, I am still going to get up there and ask them if they have any DNA from such a creature, or if there is one in a museum somewhere. Of course I will get some experts on Biology, and Ecology, I will ask theye think there is a possibility that a 9'x6' 600 lb creature is living undiscovered in the semi-rural areas of North America.

I've got the whole world of experts to choose from, you've got like 10.

The big advantage we'd have over you is that your experts are demonstrably (and oh it would be) unacquainted with the evidence. Remember, they repeatedly show it. Actually, you are showing it up there.

I think that the credentials of the witnesses alone would have the jury tossing its hands up before we'd called the 25th one. Remember, 30% of the population thinks the animal's real. Not too many trials start with one-third of the jury already convinced.

What tells you where bigfoot isn't? Are the hundreds of reports in the eastern U.S. for some reason less reliable than the hundreds from the western U.S.?

They are every bit as reliable...which I don't think he would contest.

Edited January 10, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

Meet the Yaghan tribe...........

http://en.wikipedia....i/Yaghan_people

Despite the extreme cold climate in which they lived, early Yahgan wore little to no clothing until their contact with Europeans.[5] They were able to survive the harsh climate because:

They kept warm by huddling around small fires when they could, including in their boats to stay warm. In fact, the name of "Tierra del Fuego" (land of fire) is a name given to the island cluster by passing European explorers who witnessed these fires burning.

They made use of rock formations to shelter themselves from the elements.

They covered themselves in animal grease.[citation needed]

Over time they had evolved significantly higher metabolisms than average humans, allowing them to generate more internal body heat.[6]

Their natural resting position was a deep squatting position, which reduced their surface area and so helped to conserve heat.[7]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Who else here brought up metabolism? We can back up speculation with what is known about other primates living in extreme conditions.

I brought up metabolism paired with a large body mass as a great way to survive very cold temperatures.

A bit of speculation: how about the attributed bad smell of BF being something similar to the Yaghan people's coating themselves in grease as a way to help conserve heat. Perhaps BF does this as a way to better waterproof their hair. This would be significantly aid in keeping the skin dry in the wet (rain/snow) environments which BF is attributed to live in. And, I cook for a living and I can tell you that rancid grease/fat is an absolutely foul smell. I've seen people gag and vomit from from it.

Just a thought.

[Drew]

The big advantage we'd have over you is that your experts are demonstrably (and oh it would be) unacquainted with the evidence. Remember, they repeatedly show it. Actually, you are showing it up there.

My Cross of Dr. Meldrum:

Dr., could you please show me the scientific journal which describes the animal you refer to as Bigfoot or Sasquatch?

...

Well certainly there is a journal showing the DNA structure of such a creature?

...

Dr., despite the lack of a scientific journal paper describing Bigfoot, or the paper describing it's DNA, is there a paper showing the range, behavior or mating rituals of such an enormous creature, living in populations across the entirety of North America?

...

Have you ever physically examined one of these creatures?

...

Your cross of my experts:

Dr., are you familiar with the evidence surrounding Bigfoot?

"I'm sorry which journal is that evidence available in?"

[Guest DWA]

For something that isn't proven by science - as remember this isn't - that discussion won't happen.

The jury is going to be asked whether they can believe these 3,000 people are all making this up when much evidence says they aren't.

[Guest]

Where do the bigfoots supposedly go during the daytime hours? Doesn't that seem like an obvious way to "find them" rather than chasing something people claim cant be chased. They have to be someplace during the day. I've seen a few posts in the habituaion thread where people felt they saw a nest. Seems like an easy way to get your proof.

The excuses to why there is no evidence are tired, and used up. With the amount of people, and amount of reports, we should have evidence that points to bigfoot, but we don't. What we do have instead, is a lot of purported evidence that turns out to be evidence of men. How long will bigfooters keep claiming we cant identify the source of the evidence? We can. Many times over, but never once, not one iota can be attributed to a bigfoot. I'm just tired of hearing the same old excuses. (and that is all they are)

When we take the gloves off and stop playing pretend, and take a good hard look at the claimed evidence, the truth of the legend is explainable.

Edited January 10, 2013 by LWD

[WSA]

And remember Drew....even though I admit I took us off on this legal proof tangent...most here are quick to acknowledge BF is not proven by even 3000 eyewitness reports, nor is it disproven by a lack of a specimen. We're just jawing about the state of the evidence, and I only wish to point out it is not nothing at this stage of the quest.

But sure, why not explore that>

That is one way a cross of Meldrum could go, no doubt, but it is not the only way. In fact, I doubt I would even call him to testify in my case. I'm notorious in my office for NOT calling expert witnesses to testify when I've got a good lay witness who can prove the same thing. Here would be a good example of me probably not calling one . OTOH, if you called the only expert witness in the case, you can probably count on him getting gutted with his own sword. Or, as has been said, 50 million Elvis Fans can't all be wrong. Don't discount that. Like I said, it is not nothing.

[Guest DWA]

When we take the gloves off and stop playing pretend, and take a good hard look at the claimed evidence, the truth of the legend is explainable.

No, we just see that the "skeptical case" against sasquatch is nothing more than the dismissable argument from personal incredulity. Which can be resolved by merely paying attention.

[WSA]

Sure LWD, give us the boilerplate explanation of how the PG film was faked. Then, show us somebody doing it that even approaches realism and doesn't make us double over in laughter. Shoot, they can even use today's technology to do it if they want, not the technology available the year it was released. We'll wait. Get back to us on that.

[Guest DWA]

Put another way:

The "skeptical" willingness to swallow pretty much anything on a moment's notice isn't skeptical.

[dmaker]

30% believe in BF? So what? They also believe the following:

36% believe in UFOs (http://news.discovery.com/space/why-do-people-believe-in-ufos-120810.html)

48% believe in Ghosts (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-994766.html)

18% Loch Ness ( and Bigfoot too only at 18% if you believe this source) http://primarysources.newsvine.com/_news/2006/10/29/419696-18-of-americans-believe-in-loch-ness-monster-and-bigfoot-says-baylor-survey

20% for witches http://jezebel.com/5617890/way-too-many-americans-believe-in-witches

All that says to me is that 18 - 48% of your jury believes in things that don't exist. Might as well blame it on a leprechaun at that point..

[Guest]

The big advantage we'd have over you is that your experts are demonstrably (and oh it would be) unacquainted with the evidence.

Sure they are when they have access to them. Anton Wroblewski was given a copy of the Skookum cast and showed how it correlated with an elk bodyprint.

And how about that, elk hoofprints were found around the site but no bigfoot prints.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest Cowlitz2]

I for one have enjoyed this Thread despite the controversial nature. Guess it takes something like that to get a good technical discussion flowing. I am not seasoned in BF research gear and techniques as are many of you folks are. Perhaps there could be some organized training presentations about equipment and techniques. An example, I did enjoy Scott Carpenter's demonstration on collecting BF hair....I assumed he wasn't misrepresenting the results he got. Maybe a field manual exists for a price that isn't bogus?

My funds are limited, but would appreciate help/advice concerning what to buy and try...Thanks

Edited January 10, 2013 by Cowlitz2

[Guest DWA]

Sure they are when they have access to them. Anton Wroblewski was given a copy of the Skookum cast and showed how it correlated with an elk bodyprint.

And how about that, elk hoofprints were found around the site but no bigfoot prints.

See, Anton was wrong, and anyone reading about this would know why. Meldrum's book explains your reservations with no problem.

[Drew]

Get some barbed wire, a plastic container, some tweezers, and some latex gloves. Boom.

[Guest]

See, Anton was wrong, and anyone reading about this would know why. Meldrum's book explains your reservations with no problem.

Unfortunately he didn't. Meldrum stated that it couldn't be an elk because elk lay with their legs under their bodies. Anton demonstrated that they also lay with their legs by the side of their bodies and in this position they can get up without leaving hoofprints in the body's outline.

So Meldrum's premise on why it couldn't be an elk turned out to be dead wrong.