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

[dmaker]

Thanks for the response DWA. Do you believe in the theory that the regional variations in the reports prove that there are 2 or 3 ( more maybe?) species of BF in North America? Your response seemed to indicate to me that reports that seem to collectively all describe in various words a creature that looks like Patty ring the truest for you.

[Guest DWA]

I agree with ya! Most people I have talked with have seen the film or pictures of it at one point or another, it is very commercialized and used time and time again with the media when BF is concerned.

The key phrase there being "...or pictures from it," which I've been seeing on a more or less steady basis since 1968.Watching it move didn't add much. But I will say this: it verified what people with relevant credentials who vouch for it say they see.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

The key phrase there being "...or pictures from it," which I've been seeing on a more or less steady basis since 1968.Watching it move didn't add much. But I will say this: it verified what people with relevant credentials who vouch for it say they see.

I think the PGF will stay right were it is in the world of BF, 50/50 could or couldn't be, personally years ago I was all for it being real, but after many years doing my own thing looking for the truth in all this, I have gone with a suit, I base that on there being no tangible evidence BF ever existed, so that has to fall back to the PGF being a fake.

[Guest DWA]

Thanks for the response DWA. Do you believe in the theory that the regional variations in the reports prove that there are 2 or 3 ( more maybe?) species of BF in North America? Your response seemed to indicate to me that reports that seem to collectively all describe in various words a creature that looks like Patty ring the truest for you.

Patty is an individual, of one species. Reports indicate that either (1) there is a considerable individual variation in sasquatch appearance, just as there is with one other primate that happens to be posting here, or (2) there's more than one species. Everywhere there is one known ape, there is another. So I can't say that would surprise me.

[Guest]

All this back and forth about whether primates can live in places where it's cold without technology is doing nothing about:

1. The ones that definitely are;

2. The huge pile of evidence that there's another one we don't know about, which is not affected one bit by speculation otherwise.

Practically every kind of animal one can think of has temperate, tropical and polar representatives that aren't using technology to be there.

Primates are the only exception?

Logic would say not; and look at this. Evidence agrees.

There is only ONE primate that I'm aware of that can live in snow and we covered that already. It has special fur that the purported BF (Pattty) doesn't not have. I would venture to say, if BF exists, it has a coat much like any other ape..Gorilla...chimp. As I have indicated, the MOUNTAIN Gorillas, which do have a thick coat (not like the Japanese monkey's FUR though) do not live in snow and live in temps between 39-58F. The areas that BF is purported to inhabit in the WINTER reach temps WELL BELOW 20F..well below freezing. Primates are NOT suited for climates that have SNOW in the winter and I remain convinced a BF is not either. Showing me *footprints* in snow is not going to meet the standard of proof and we know why.

[norseman]

:banghead: :banghead:

[Guest]

There is only ONE primate that I'm aware of that can live in snow and we covered that already. It has special fur that the purported BF (Pattty) doesn't not have. I would venture to say, if BF exists, it has a coat much like any other ape..Gorilla...chimp. As I have indicated, the MOUNTAIN Gorillas, which do have a thick coat (not like the Japanese monkey's FUR though) do not live in snow and live in temps between 39-58F. The areas that BF is purported to inhabit in the WINTER reach temps WELL BELOW 20F..well below freezing. Primates are NOT suited for climates that have SNOW in the winter and I remain convinced a BF is not either. Showing me *footprints* in snow is not going to meet the standard of proof and we know why.

"The scientific community discounts the existence of Bigfoot, as there is no evidence supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature. The evidence that does exist points more towards a hoax or delusion than to sightings of a genuine creature.^[5] In a 1996 USA Today article, Washington State zoologist John Crane said, "There is no such thing as Bigfoot. No data other than material that's clearly been fabricated has ever been presented."^[69] In addition to the lack of evidence, scientists cite the fact that Bigfoot is alleged to live in regions unusual for a large, nonhuman primate, i.e., temperate latitudes in the northern hemisphere; all recognized nonhuman apes are found in the tropics of Africa and Asia

[Guest Kerchak]

What tells you where bigfoot isn't?

Logic. They simply can't be numerous and widespread over nearly all of the USA and still remain uncatalogued.

They can, however, be in smaller numbers in a relatively limited section of the USA and still remain uncatalogued, especially if they are on their way out.

Bigfoot has a better chance of remaining uncatalogued in the rugged and remote coastal mountain forests of BC than the woods of Pennsylvania. Wouldn't you agree?

Are the hundreds of reports in the eastern U.S. for some reason less reliable than the hundreds from the western U.S.?

I don't think most reports from the west are authentic either. I think bigfoot has now become part of pop culture to such an extent that it's hard to separate the authentic from the wishful thinking, misidentifications and leg pulls. One reason why today I don't go gaga over modern sightings. I just don't know what to buy anymore.

The stuff I tend to discuss comes form the North West corner of the USA/Canada. I know I have seen at least one one bona fide sasquatch caught on film from the west in 1967 which doesn't look anything like any man in a suit.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Kerchak

[Guest Kerchak]

By the way Saskeptic you didn't answer MY question.

Are you one who has the opinion that just because bigfoot can't be everywhere then it means bigfoot must be nowhere?

[Guest DWA]

:banghead: :banghead:

move over, man. My turn...

"The scientific community discounts the existence of Bigfoot, as there is no evidence supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature. The evidence that does exist points more towards a hoax or delusion than to sightings of a genuine creature.^[5] In a 1996 USA Today article, Washington State zoologist John Crane said, "There is no such thing as Bigfoot. No data other than material that's clearly been fabricated has ever been presented."^[69] In addition to the lack of evidence, scientists cite the fact that Bigfoot is alleged to live in regions unusual for a large, nonhuman primate, i.e., temperate latitudes in the northern hemisphere; all recognized nonhuman apes are found in the tropics of Africa and Asia

I discount the scientific community on this question. That quote from Crane is a major reason why. So is that temperate-zone dismissal. Name a kind of animal; it has polar, temperate and tropical representatives. The exceptions aren't worth noting. And surely the smartest and supposedly most-adaptable animals wouldn't be one of the exceptions.

The bulk of the scientific community use the same demonstrably incorrect pseudo-non-arguments that ignorant laymen use.

I don't agree with you because You Are A Scientist! I agree with you because you are clearly applying your scientific understanding to the evidence on offer.

Meldrum/Krantz/Bindernagel/Mionczynski et al: are.

Crane et al: aren't.

Primates are NOT suited for climates that have SNOW in the winter.

After we - in fact you, in this very post - talked about the ones that do? Interesting.

Edited January 11, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

DWA, if you are not a scientist ( though you play one on a message board ), and you are not an ignorant layman, than how would you classify yourself? I am curious because however it is you classify yourself it affords you the position to be able to , as you put it, discount the entire scientific community. Pretty impressive indeed.

[Guest DWA]

DWA, if you are not a scientist ( though you play one on a message board ), and you are not an ignorant layman, than how would you classify yourself? I am curious because however it is you classify yourself it affords you the position to be able to , as you put it, discount the entire scientific community. Pretty impressive indeed.

I'm not discounting the scientific community based on my advanced grasp of quadratic equations. (College is for drinking women and making out with beer, not for that.) I'm doing it based on common sense.

When I ask a scientist: why do you think something is real? I expect an answer steeped in his discipline. I'm not, in other words, asking a physicist, like the one whose advanced primatological credentials had him demanding Meldrum's tenure, about apes. (If I'm the physicist's boss I'm considering yanking his tenure. Stop impeding science.) I'm expecting an answer like the one I hope I would get if I asked a zoologist about unicorns: Well, where is your evidence on that? And I don't believe I would be able to find any. (If anyone can direct me to The Unicorn Database I'd be grateful.)

I said it up there: The bulk of the scientific community use the same demonstrably incorrect pseudo-non-arguments that ignorant laymen use.

When you are a scientist, and I can refute your arguments by simple reference to the evidence, you aren't doing your job. To me, that so many do what that Crane guy up there does simply speaks to either a monumental lack of curiosity, or a private conviction, or at least ambivalence, conflicting with a sincere desire not to have to deal with other people's monumental lack of curiosity, one or the other. (Or, OK, a desire to be seen as "the expert," which apparently forbids the words "I don't know" or "might be.")

When a scientist says "the fossil record doesn't support it," that's a facepalm moment, substantiated amply by all the animals we confirmed before the fossil record told us anything about their ancestors. When a scientist says "in the temperate zone?", I dealt with that up there. When the scientist says "eyewitness accounts are bad evidence," he is simply wrong. Not-proof does not mean bad-evidence. If you can follow it to proof - as the TBRC seems to be doing - it was good evidence, correct?

I am not impressed by credentials if one shows clearly that one is not bothering to apply them.

Edited January 11, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

I don't think you really dealt with the temperate zone argument. There are some pretty convincing arguments from the scientific community as to why that is pretty unlikely. I am not going to sweep them aside simply because you disagree with them even though you have a tiny, Japanese monkey on your back.

Sometimes doing your job might just include not wasting your time. Maybe this large group of scientists that don't rush out to the woods have seriously ( perhaps not to your lay person standards) considered the possibility and discounted it as not worth the effort. Or not likely to bear fruit. I wonder at what point you would be satisfied? How large an effort must be launched and sustained before you will concede that science gave it a fair shot but still came up empty handed? And by empty handed I mean no type specimen. Probably never? It makes for great fuel for this debate, but as far as there ever being a resolution, probably not going to happen. Not as long as one side is skeptics saying give me a body and the other are staunch proponents saying we're still looking, but we know it's there and we don't care if you believe. That will go on forever and ever and ever because I am pretty sure a specimen is NEVER going to be produced. So guess what? I never have to move off my position and neither do you.    We can do this forever

Edited January 11, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

But does that justify a scientist saying no-way? No it doesn't. Crane's stance is unjustifiable.

If we have a debate that could go on forever, on what, praytell, are the naysayers saying nay?

There is one answer - and one only - that is acceptable. And that is:

Not proven.

Yet.

I've already said this about when do we stop looking? The answer is: when do we start? No scientist properly apprised of the scope of sasquatch research and responding objectively would presume proof by now (yet another marker that when they pronounce they haven't done their homework).

How about this: when are skeptics going to stop their eternal vigil for the first piece of evidence that P/G was faked?

Edited January 11, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

Do you feel you are in a position ( not being a scientist) to be able to pronounce what science has done so far to be not a proper appraisal? There are obviously qualified scientists who feel that it has been properly appraised and was found wanting. How is that a lay person gets to challenge that appraisal and say not good enough? What is that based on?