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

[Guest]

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.

@ DWA

Actually it appears to be a more true statement if you were to say something like: Proponents of bigfoot take a very incredulous position.

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.

@ WSA

A man in a fur suit walked across a sand bar and was filmed by another man. Do you think the subject filmed could not be a man in a suit? Explain why it can't be. Explain why the scientific community ignores this film.

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.

The elk lay thing is a great example of men misidentifying normal animal sign as purported bigfoot evidence. Some still cling to the idea that this shows an impression of a bigfoot butt. (despite the elk tracks, and hair all over the place, and the impression shows the outline of an elk.)

Edited January 10, 2013 by LWD

[Guest toejam]

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.

What a completely ridiculous notion that we should know where they go during the daytime. If we knew then this discussion wouldn't be taking place and the mystery solved.

Do you have any realization how much forested area is in north america? it's vast. You can even disregard that if you understand that we completely underestimate their abilities. I'm witnessing it first hand and have shown evidence to back up the claims.

It's incredible how they can move around us yet retain complete anonymity. They're smarter, faster, stealthier and completely tuned to their environment while us as a race are dumbed down and lack the natural awareness given to each of us. We lack insight and acceptance. We lack understanding and good judgement. We lack our own natural instincts allowing complete ignorance to take it's place.

Of course I'm not talking about everyone. That's a general consensus regarding the state of the human race today. Sure we're smart technologically but we're removed from our own natural given instincts. Again, that doesn't include everyone but in general.

With the amount of people and reports we should have evidence but we don't? HELLO! Proof? No. Evidence? It's piled so high you'd have a difficult time getting to the top.

Again, someone who mistakes evidence as something else. Sure it's not solid proof but trackways, prints/casts are EVIDENCE. Eyewitness accounts are EVIDENCE. Hair/scat samples, sightings, etc are all EVIDENCE. There's a vast amount of evidence.

There's no excuses. Fact is they're smarter than us but we're too ignorant to accept that. At least some of us are.

[Guest DWA]

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

36% believe in UFOs (http://news.discover...fos-120810.html)

48% believe in Ghosts (http://www.cbsnews.c...162-994766.html)

18% Loch Ness ( and Bigfoot too only at 18% if you believe this source) http://primarysource...s-baylor-survey

20% for witches http://jezebel.com/5...ieve-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..

Then we better not put those in front of a jury, eh?

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.

Not even close, unless Anton can show me how an elk can get up without putting its feet under it.

@ DWA

Actually it appears to be a more true statement if you were to say something like: Proponents of bigfoot take a very incredulous position.

Ours is backed by copious evidence. Yours?

@ WSA

A man in a fur suit walked across a sand bar and was filmed by another man. Do you think the subject filmed could not be a man in a suit? Explain why it can't be. Explain why the scientific community ignores this film.

They need to. They're experts. How could they ever be wrong?

The elk lay thing is a great example of men misidentifying normal animal sign as purported bigfoot evidence. Some still cling to the idea that this shows an impression of a bigfoot butt. (despite the elk tracks, and hair all over the place, and the impression shows the outline of an elk.)

Now you will explain to me why Dr. Daris Swindler (him over you, every time) found the primate heel in that imprint.

Um, by the way. Please debunk P/G and Skookum as fast as you can. You have thousands more pieces to go.

Edited January 10, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

Not even close, unless Anton can show me how an elk can get up without putting its feet under it.

He can't, but he can show you that If its legs are laying to the side of its body an elk can get up without leaving its tracks in its body outline.

[Guest DWA]

...which would amount to what I'm saying he has to show. So you are saying he can't.

Bottom line. Show me, or you're wrong. I'm going with Daris Swindler over some "skeptic."

[Guest]

Ours is backed by copious evidence. Yours?

@ DWA

Copious evidence of what? Can you please show three specific examples of the evidence you claim is copious?

My position is backed by the scientific community at large. All we need to change our opinions is an actual bigfoot.

They need to. They're experts. How could they ever be wrong?

They need to?

Now you will explain to me why Dr. Daris Swindler (him over you, every time) found the primate heel in that imprint.

Um, by the way. Please debunk P/G and Skookum as fast as you can. You have thousands more pieces to go.

I'm not going to start a debate about the elk lay here. That piece of claimed evidence shouldve been tossed long ago. If you'd like to believe that to represent a bigfoot butt impression, you're welcome to. Most of us familiar with animal sign can easily identify that impression. The claimed heel impression was an from an elk knee.

Edited January 10, 2013 by LWD

[Guest DWA]

@ DWA

Copious evidence of what? Can you please show three specific examples of the evidence you claim is copious?

My position is backed by the scientific community at large. All we need to change our opinions is an actual bigfoot.

We. Whoa. You are a scientific expert in what?

The scientific opinion doesn't impress me, because...ok, here. I ask a man with a third-grade education; a guy who graduated high school; and a primatologist to tell me why bigfoot isn't real. They all give me the same answers; and the answers show they aren't thinking about this pretty much at all. (Like that answer that keeps asking for three pieces of evidence so the guy can say 1. That's not proof; 2. That's not proof; and 3. That's not proof.)

They need to?

It is honestly the only explanation I can come up with for why a scientist would insist on taking the tack that isn't either (1) scientific or (2) fun.

I'm not going to start a debate about the elk lay here. That piece of claimed evidence shouldve been tossed long ago. If you'd like to believe that to represent a bigfoot butt impression, you're welcome to. Most of us familiar with animal sign can easily identify that impression. The claimed heel impression was an from an elk knee.

Oh, I have no intention of debating Skookum; P/G; or any other single piece of evidence, with anyone. It never leads anywhere but to the recognition that here is yet another opinion unbacked by evidence. Swindler over you, every time.

[WSA]

LWD>>>Re: P/G

Glad to know it.....so direct me to the film/video that recreates it with verisimilitude? I mean, seeing as it is just a guy in a suit, it must been reenacted, what, dozens of times, right? Most discussed and dissected piece of film since Zapruder and all, right? How hard could it be to pull off a duplicate, huh? And yeah, feel free to use CGI at will. I'll even turn my lights down and promise not to look too hard at it, sort of squint maybe, take off my specs even if you'd prefer. Like I said, I'll wait.

And I'm gonna be wating a long, long., looooooong time. ;-)

[dmaker]

^^^^ And at the same time you can trot out a real, live Bigfoot. I suppose that will be a long, long, looooooong time too.

[Guest DWA]

^^^^ And at the same time you can trot out a real, live Bigfoot. I suppose that will be a long, long, looooooong time too.

Well, it could be in the next couple of months, or tomorrow. Patty? We aren't holding our breath.

I just wonder about the curiosity - and that ain't all - of people who continually come here loudly declaiming points of view for which they have no evidence. I mean, I don't run around looking for crop circle sites, you know?

[dmaker]

^^^ I am not sure why I should need to produce evidence for why I choose not to believe in something that has yet to be proven or accepted by science. And I don't understand why you continue to think that this board should only be frequented by people that share your opinion.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

I don't run around looking for crop circle sites, you know?

Crop Circle researcher ain't such a bad hobby, you can find those. "Bigfoot" not so much ~

[dmaker]

I tried to explain my position a bit more on here previously by stating that I want Bigfoot to be real. Currently I do not see enough strong evidence to constitute sufficient proof of the big guy's existence. In the meantime, however, I am not going to let the mystery lover in me, or the person who wants BF to be real to cloud my judgement of the evidence that I have seen to date. Maybe I am overly skeptical in an effort to avoid fooling myself into a position. I have stated before, I don't deal well with the intangible in life. In University I took a lot of religious studies courses because I thought they were interesting electives. I even toyed with the idea of pursuing that life more seriously, either a monastic lifestyle, or some other sort of clergy. But then I finally just had to accept the fact that I did not have a strong enough faith for something like that and while I found the subject matter and the reading material fascinating, at the end of the day I " just wasn't feeling it". So maybe it's just something in me, but I challenge very strongly what I cannot touch or see.The last time I tried to explain this I got a very infuriating, condescending chuckle from you and a lecture about how want without rigour is trope. So this is the last time I try to explain why a skeptic like me would frequent these boards and actually voice and opinion.

Edited January 10, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

^^^ I am not sure why I should need to produce evidence for why I choose not to believe in something that has yet to be proven or accepted by science. And I don't understand why you continue to think that this board should only be frequented by people that share your opinion.

I just consider it odd that people need to keep coming here saying things that are clearly contradicted by the evidence for something that one would think everyone here would want to get to the bottom of. Scientists see this, and don't want to surf that tide. It's a tar baby to them. They just have other things to do, so they deflect this so they won't have to argue with people all the time. That is the honest reason I think science isn't engaging this topic. They all think: could I be Jeff Meldrum? Could I do that, every day? Pretty much "no" appears the answer for almost all of them. They don't have time for the hassle. Science is already paying their bills. And they want that to continue.

Were I you, here would be my attitude: I'm just staying away from this and seeing what happens. I mean: I'm having fun. The evidence is on my side, and I'm educatin'. Wild animals are my thing; and the scientists pursuing sasquatch show all the earmarks of applying the purest science. Not so the bigfoot skeptics.

I guess I'm just wondering what dog you have in this hunt.

Crop Circle researcher ain't such a bad hobby, you can find those. "Bigfoot" not so much ~

There are thousands of people more who have seen bigfoot than have watched aliens make a crop circle.

Edited January 10, 2013 by DWA

[Martin]

Maybe the wrong spot for this but anyway....

I don't understand why more sightings are not explained like this:

Reporter: What did it look like?

Witness: Patty. or Patty no boobies.

I mean how many rare and evasive primate species are we supposed to be dealing with here anyway. NW are full bodied passive, mid-Western more aggressive and of course the southeastern is said to be dumb and skinny barely above an chimp. Funny how that seems fits into regional stereotypes.

plus

I also think a clear case can be made to exclude all class B and C sightings.

The bar for evidence is so low currently (post Finding Bigfoot, Habituation Stories etc) that things appear to be moving backward.

Now any common sound or shadow in the brush can be attributed to squatch re: mimicry etc.

Just saying.