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

[Guest MikeG]

brent michalycia

You have a PM. Please click on the link (red number on envelope icon, top RH corner of the page) before you post anymore, anywhere on the forum.

Mike

[Guest]

Mike g I have no idea what you are saying, just post it here.

[Guest MikeG]

Here are some really simple instructions, brent michalycia:

1: scroll up to the top of any page on the forum

2: about 2 inches over from the "sign out" button is an envelope symbol

3: near this symbol is a red number. This indicates the number of Personal Messages (PMs) awaiting you.

4: click on the envelope, and open my message.

5: respond.

In the meantime, until I hear from you, your posts are being automatically hidden.

Mike

[Guest digsy11]

Well when you say that you admire people who go searching for BF, that's a lot different than starting off by pulling the unicorn card out right off that bat. That's insulting to people who've seen it.

It was merely an illustration of my point of view, not an indication on the validity of someones claims. I'm not saying you have not seen one I'm just saying I can't fully believe it as much as I would like to because I was not there.

To be fair, as someone else who has seen one, I find declarations like yours to be insulting (not trying to start a fight, just pointing out how I feel about what you have said). It implies that I am either crazy or not telling the truth about what I have seen. And what others have seen. And what credentialed scientists have determined about the physical evidence.

I also find it insulting from an intellectual point of view. Reality is not shaped by what one person does or does not personally experience. The reality of BF is not contingent on your acceptance, nor that of institutional science. For you or it to say "we haven't personally had absolute proof laid out for us on a silver platter, therefore it isn't real" is an offense against reason and logic.

If you have any proof people who say they have seen a bigfoot are either nuts or not telling the truth, feel free to post it. Only the cynic assumes all statements not "proven" true are necessarily false.

Reality is in the eye of the beholder. In my reality BF does not exist, in yours it does. See my previous post to adress your logic & reason.

Edited August 27, 2012 by MikeG
....misquote and personal comment removed

[Guest MikeG]

Folks,

can I make it very clear that no-one should respond to anything that they think could conceivably be considered as trolling.....other than by hitting the report button.

DO NOT argue with suspected trolls. Leave it for staff to deal with.

This is not referring to any one particular poster, but is a general comment.

Many thanks

Mike

[Guest toejam]

What an incredible species to come so close to us for so long and still by labelled a myth.

I hope there's enough crow to go around when the truth is finally revealed by science.

[Guest]

What BFSleuth said, "Belief shouldn't have anything to do with it."

Toejam. For real skeptics, there will be no need for consuming crow if BF is proven real.

[Guest toejam]

I've said it before. All it takes is some knowledge and persistence. Anyone can encounter them.

They're more widespread than black bear and their population IMO is stable and healthy.

There wouldn't be enough crow to go around anyways

[Guest]

Reality is in the eye of the beholder. In my reality BF does not exist, in yours it does. See my previous post to adress your logic & reason.

Reality is what is, not what you "perceive" or "believe".

You claim to be reason and logic, but your statement is inherently illogical and unreasonable. "There is no bigfoot" as a statement of absolute, objective reality is not in any way an intellectually defensible position, given the voluminous evidence that there it does in fact exist.

That is simply reality, whatever beliefs you hold notwithstanding, just as you are still affected by gravity regardless of whether or not you "believe" in it.

[Drew]

You claim to be reason and logic, but your statement is inherently illogical and unreasonable. "There is no bigfoot" as a statement of absolute, objective reality is not in any way an intellectually defensible position, given the voluminous evidence that there it does in fact exist.

Compare 'There is no Bigfoot', to "There is a Bigfoot"

now Compare 'There is no Unicorn', to "There is a Unicorn"

Digsy is not mistaken, he is approaching this exactly as a scientifically trained person should. Your bitterness at people not believing in Bigfoot, does not equate to people simply throwing out a process that has worked for several centuries. Your claim that we must provide proof that a sighting is not true, is absolutely counter to how it works. You can shout it out all day and night, but in the end, the guy who claims he saw bigfoot, if he wants people to believe him, has got to cough up something tangible.

You are mistakenly attacking the person who is making a claim based on the lack of evidence provided by those claiming Bigfoot exists.

Because you have 'seen a bigfoot' we are supposed to throw out hundreds of years of scientific protocol, so we can appease you?

Edited August 27, 2012 by Drew

[Guest]

I have seen a bigfoot. I know that I cannot convince everyone that I am telling the truth. So I'll not even try. I've enjoyed reading this thread. Please carry on.

[Drew]

Yes, I am a witness. I saw two of them in Area X (TBRC) in May. I had more than a week to experience and observe their behavior. We have a nice little thread going on about it in the Premium Area. You can also listen to eposides 38 and 39 of the Bigfoot Show for more information. And yes, as a trained anthropologist, I think very much that I can start drawing lines in the sand. No matter what their DNA may show, they are not human.

If they are not human, how do you speculate that they populated the Ouachita Uplift region?

[Guest Particle Noun]

Saying there is no Bigfoot is far more absolutist and declarative than saying "I don't accept the evidence for Bigfoot" or something similar.

[Drew]

The problem I have with that staement PN, is that the evidence for Bigfoot's existence, does not fly as evidence to a scientific person.

Big, goofy feet that make no sense for the terrain they are found in, nor do they make sense for how they managed to get to North America.

Hair samples? I have not seen the paper examining this. I have asked for it.

Sightings, we have already seen that sightings are not a reliable form of evidence. We know people can mistakenly identify things, or that the mind can trick you, we also know that there are a certain number of people out there tricking people, or being misidentified.

Hairyman claims to have seen one over in the premium membership area, but she has no clear photo, and she knows that her claiming this, means nothing until she can get something concrete.

Dr. Meldrum agrees with me. He knows that the evidence thus far is lacking. He would publish a paper in a heartbeat if the evidence was of any merit.

[Guest]

Compare 'There is no Bigfoot', to "There is a Bigfoot"

now Compare 'There is no Unicorn', to "There is a Unicorn"

Not the same thing at all, and you know it Drew. There is a massive amount of supportive evidence for the case for BF as opposed to unicorns.

Comparing BF and unicorns an old Skeptic trick (argument by ridicule). That might work in an (un)critical thinking forum like JREF, but not here, or in any other forum where legitimate critical thinking is carried out.

Digsy is not mistaken, he is approaching this exactly as a scientifically trained person should. Your bitterness at people not believing in Bigfoot, does not equate to people simply throwing out a process that has worked for several centuries. Your claim that we must provide proof that a sighting is not true, is absolutely counter to how it works. You can shout it out all day and night, but in the end, the guy who claims he saw bigfoot, if he wants people to believe him, has got to cough up something tangible.

And proponents have done that time and time and time again. Tracks, photos, forensically typed hairs, and so on.

What have Skeptics put up to show that each and every proffered item of evidence is false?

Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Bupkis. Just a bunch of speculation, assumptions, name calling and other shoddy argumentation.

You are mistakenly attacking the person who is making a claim based on the lack of evidence provided by those claiming Bigfoot exists.

Because you have 'seen a bigfoot' we are supposed to throw out hundreds of years of scientific protocol, so we can appease you?

The evidence is on public record, much of it put there BY scientists such as Drs Kranz, Meldrum, Sarimento, et al.

Now it's the Skeptics turn to pony up THEIR positive evidence to support THEIR positive claim that all that evidence is meaningless and invalid.

Otherwise, it's the Skeptics who aren't following "scientific protocol", not proponents, your condescending snark about "appeasement" notwithstanding.

The problem I have with that staement PN, is that the evidence for Bigfoot's existence, does not fly as evidence to a scientific person.

It does for legitimate scientists who practice real science.

Big, goofy feet that make no sense for the terrain they are found in, nor do they make sense for how they managed to get to North America.

Dr Meldrum seems to think otherwise, and he is a primate locomotion expert and anthropologist.

Next fail?

Hair samples? I have not seen the paper examining this. I have asked for it.

The findings of Pinker, Moore, et al have been documented.

Sightings, we have already seen that sightings are not a reliable form of evidence. We know people can mistakenly identify things, or that the mind can trick you, we also know that there are a certain number of people out there tricking people, or being misidentified.

Speculation, assumption and "belief". Where is your evidence that ALL sightings are thus, particularly those of persons whose encounters were in good light at good range who are VERY clear on what they saw? Even more so when thost sightings are backed up by video (as in some LEOs who have dash cam footage), co-witnesses, etc. Additionally many of those sightings are by people who possess the requisite skills and/or knowledge to make them highly creditable witnesses (LEO, forrest serivce, military, educated professionals, etc).

Dr. Meldrum agrees with me. He knows that the evidence thus far is lacking. He would publish a paper in a heartbeat if the evidence was of any merit.

NO, he says proof (as in evidence that erases all doubt) is lacking, which I have always stipulated is the case. He is very clear thatthere is plenty of evidence that supports the likelihood of BF, certainly enough that the matter is worthy of further study and inquiry.

Get your facts straight.