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

[Guest]

Saskeptic, who is this "we" you speak of? :-)

The ICZN.

Norseman and Cotter: Dudes, seriously? Are you seriously suggesting that I, the Saskeptic, didn't imply "collection" in my comments? It's right here explicitly:

"This notion that people only collect evidence of the specific thing they are looking for is a fallacy."

I'm well aware of the number of people who claim to have encountered bigfoots and the small number of reports of people shooting bigfoots. The successful collection is the important part.

[Guest]

Simple: what they say.

I have not yet heard a scientist dismiss the evidence who has given me a reason to dismiss what i think of it. If the footprints are bogus one must show why; same with the sightings. I should expect at least an engagement with Meldrum that shows good reason to discount what he says and thinks. Same with Krantz and Bindernagel.

So far, nada. Good basis, I'd say.

It seems to me that you simply stick to your favorite experts even if they are shown to be wrong.

Meldrum stated an elk couldn't have made the Skookum cast because they lay like this

But he didn't note that they also lay like this....

and this....

[Guest RedRatSnake]

True RSS, and they are in the field what, a total of 45 days/year? Give or take? (I really don't know, so please correct me if I'm wrong).

Would that constitute a "lengthy" time spent in the field?

I don't know what a lengthy time would be, 45 days sounds pretty good, I suppose if you calculated it in BF terms forever maybe? Thing is there are plenty of people that are into this BF stuff, some live in the woods, some just do the day hike thing, others spend a lot of time searching, every person out there increases the odds of finding one or something substantial to validate the Big Guy, here we are still talking about it and still waiting, you can't put the blame on the people out looking for it, there has to be another reason why BF can't be found/bagged etc.

[norseman]

The ICZN.

Norseman and Cotter: Dudes, seriously? Are you seriously suggesting that I, the Saskeptic, didn't imply "collection" in my comments? It's right here explicitly:

"This notion that people only collect evidence of the specific thing they are looking for is a fallacy."

I'm well aware of the number of people who claim to have encountered bigfoots and the small number of reports of people shooting bigfoots. The successful collection is the important part.

OF COURSE IT IS! Otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

But from your line of argument you must assume that everyone most be lying, but I do get tired of people talking about how no one takes photos of the thing or no one has shot one...........hello? Yes..........yes they have. It's just that the skeptics do not find any photos credible and no one has ever drug one out of the woods by one foot.

Which I'm a big proponent for........

It seems to me that you simply stick to your favorite experts even if they are shown to be wrong.

Meldrum stated an elk couldn't have made the Skookum cast because they lay like this

But he didn't note that they also lay like this....

and this....

This argument always baffles me.

So the elk that is laying with his legs splayed out to the side? How do you imagine he gets up? He is going to roll back up to where his feet are centered under him and stand up. He isn't going to cantilever up off the ground with his legs horizontal like some sort of zombie. Physics still apply here. That animal has to "gather" himself to get up.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

But from your line of argument you must assume that everyone most be lying, but I do get tired of people talking about how no one takes photos of the thing or no one has shot one...........hello? Yes..........yes they have. It's just that the skeptics do not find any photos credible and no one has ever drug one out of the woods by one foot.

I think Mellisa's BF picture was pretty good, clear as can be and close up, but why from the back, see there is always some doubt to be found and for me that is what I look for, after doing this for as long as I have I need solid proof, that is not really much to ask for from people that claim the existence of the creature on a daily basis, we ain't talking the loch ness monster, BF has been sighted raiding dumpsters in mall parking lots.

Now with that said I am not pushing here, just shooting the **** and having some fun.

[Guest]

It seems to me that you simply stick to your favorite experts even if they are shown to be wrong.

Meldrum stated an elk couldn't have made the Skookum cast because they lay like this

But he didn't note that they also lay like this....

and this....

Those Elk images have obviously been photoshopped then.

[norseman]

I think Mellisa's BF picture was pretty good, clear as can be and close up, but why from the back, see there is always some doubt to be found and for me that is what I look for, after doing this for as long as I have I need solid proof, that is not really much to ask for from people that claim the existence of the creature on a daily basis, we ain't talking the loch ness monster, BF has been sighted raiding dumpsters in mall parking lots.

Now with that said I am not pushing here, just shooting the **** and having some fun.

There will always BE doubt in a photo..........no photo is ever going to provide you with the evidence you seek.

[Guest]

This argument always baffles me.

So the elk that is laying with his legs splayed out to the side? How do you imagine he gets up? He is going to roll back up to where his feet are centered under him and stand up. He isn't going to cantilever up off the ground with his legs horizontal like some sort of zombie. Physics still apply here. That animal has to "gather" himself to get up.

Of course not. He shifts his body to the side again his legs will prop up horizontally again from where they are.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

^^^ There isn't a North American animal that can be mistaken for Sasquatch? I'm honestly dumb founded here, or I'm missing something implied but not stated. This happens all the time. I just saw something ( older,not current) on the BFRO.net site an hour ago that showed a picture of a porcupine that was mistaken as a sasquatch. It actually looked kind of convincing until you read the explanation. It's things exactly like that, in fact, that make me lean towards 1 more than 2, 3, or 4.

I can say with pretty much certainty, having done this a number of times, that if you encounter a porcupine in the wild you are NOT thinking sasquatch.

People think the "what's in this photo?" applies in the field. It doesn't. The very context in which that was presented implied sasquatch. That's not happening to you outside, in the woods.

People don't see a known and promptly label it unknown. They see unknowns and try to make knowns out of them. To say the former is a significant factor in sighting reports is to make in my mind a totally unwarranted reach - particularly if one reads reports.

And remember: If you are judging a statement as being ANY of the five categories withouth honestly applying the criteria, you're making a subjective/objective determination into just a subjective one. If you ARE using the criteria, you should be able to articulate the found/unfound indicators when called on to do it. In other words, your "gut" is not a valid criteria in my book.

Yeah, it is a lot of work to do this correctly.

Plussed. Most people show their bias by the way they do it...starting with "eyewitness encounters are bad evidence," and just getting worse from there.

Not proof does not necessarily equal bad evidence. The number of species confirmed by science on the basis of a single piece of evidence is rather small.

[WSA]

" Years later when we visited him again, YIN Hongfa told the truth– that he fabricated thestory of fighting the Wildman only to scare the little children awayand discourage themfrom running around at night, hoping that they would come home earlier rather than wanderaround. And that is it."

Drew, nice example of how a witnesses motives can be assessed. It also illustrates how perilous it probably is to attempt to do that across cultural boundaries. You have to have an intimate understanding of the context of the cultural community you are looking at. I feel competent to only do that in some specific areas of N. America, although we are becoming increasingly homogenous due to media influences.

One truth I hold to be nigh on universal though is that for every one person who would tell a lie when the truth would sound better, there are thousands who would rather pull out their own eyelashes than to even tell an innocent fib. We lie to ourselves with impunity, but not to each other so much.

[Guest DWA]

One truth I hold to be nigh on universal though is that for every one person who would tell a lie when the truth would sound better, there are thousands who would rather pull out their own eyelashes than to even tell an innocent fib. We lie to ourselves with impunity, but not to each other so much.

Right. Just as the lousiness of eyewitness testimony is decisively debunked by just about every waking moment of your day, the idea that we have a huge coterie of liars who are all together on lying about this thing is a non-starter by and large. Just as is the idea that we have all these people walking around who randomly hallucinate and innocently mis-identify stuff too...

...and that the total body of all these random burps looks like just what a biologist would expect for a good head start on the biology of an unlisted animal.

Edited January 11, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

...and that the total body of all these random burps looks like just what a biologist would expect for a good head start on the biology of an unlisted animal.

Or a cultural icon that is suppose to be an animal as opposed to a supernatural being.

[norseman]

Of course not. He shifts his body to the side again his legs will prop up horizontally again from where they are.

So your suggesting the animal throws his body into the air with his feet staying where they are? The feet are the hinge and the body rotates in a arc skyward?

It's impossible.

There will be tracks inside an outline no matter if the elk was lying on it's side or not. Because as the elk gathers himself to get up he will pull his feet and rock himself centered over them and get up. There will be a body outline of the animal in the kneeling position before it stands up no matter what.

Edited January 11, 2013 by norseman

[Guest DWA]

So your suggesting the animal throws his body into the air with his feet staying where they are? The feet are the hinge and the body rotates in a arc skyward?

That's the precise mechanism. I've seen it. The five tones weren't quite the same ones as in "Close Encounters," though, which puzzles me.

Or a cultural icon that is suppose to be an animal as opposed to a supernatural being.

Holding a misconception doesn't make it right. To simply go "cultural icon/supernatural" and shelve this can't really be done if you've read up.

Edited January 11, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

And maybe you should read up on eyewitness reports on how memory is reconstructed and influenced instead of relying on the tired strawman of "Truth, Crazy or Lie".

So your suggesting the animal throws his body into the air with his feet staying where they are? The feet are the hinge and the body rotates in a arc skyward?

No he shifts his body to where his legs are all while proping his legs up (on the knees).

Edited January 11, 2013 by Jerrymanderer