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

[WSA]

Plussed back atcha DWA, and let me just offer some insight into cultural motivations, as I've experienced them.

The correlation of BF sightings to wild/rural locations is pretty much a given, no matter if you believe in the animal or not. As a natural consequence, the majority of the lay sightings (i.e., not be people professing to have been looking for one) are by rural people. Can you extrapolate any characteristics of the motives of you typical rural citizen, and how does that flavor your assessment of credibility? I think you can.

My experience is the average person who lives in a remote area has a couple of near universal characteristics. They are more reliant on themselves and the neighbors in their communities when confronted with difficult circumstances than any other "outside" person. They are also very sensitive to their reputation in the community, especially as it may tend to influence the motivation of their neighbors when they need their help. (No higher compliment from one about another is the comment he or she is not adverse to hard work, or a person of his word...all characteristics tending to indicate dependability) In other words, the mutual dependence tends to promote honesty and fair dealing. Any individual who publicly admits to encountering anything as bizarre as a Sasquatch runs the risk of real consequences within his/her community. Thankfully, this stigma seems to be fading. If you read the reports, you'll see it is still very much at work though. You will repeatedly see individuals saying (to paraphrase) "I don't care anymore what anyone thinks about me...I know what I saw." Obviously, if you are voicing that concern, it is something that preys on your mind, despite protestations to the contrary.

Does this alone indicate the likelihood of the individual actually encountering a real animal. No, of course, but you need to consider it.

[Guest DWA]

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".

Only tired to people who don't read the evidence. (THAT gets tired. Where did your true belief get started?) "Memory reconstructed and influenced" is a leap followed by a helicopter trip followed by space flight. No, people just, you know, see animals. "You were brainwashed to see that bigfoot, weren't you? Just tell us and things will go easier for you..."

No he shifts his body to where his legs are all while proping his legs up.

Uh huh. Which the Skookum cast decidedly does not show. One impression. No elk prints in it.

Primate heel. But thanks for playing.

[Guest]

Uh huh. Which the Skookum cast decidedly does not show. One impression. No elk prints in it.

Primate heel. But thanks for playing.

Err no, an elk can rise back up without leaving hoofprints in the impression if his body was to the side of his legs.

Only tired to people who don't read the evidence. (THAT gets tired. Where did your true belief get started?) "Memory reconstructed and influenced" is a leap followed by a helicopter trip followed by space flight. No, people just, you know, see animals. "You were brainwashed to see that bigfoot, weren't you? Just tell us and things will go easier for you..."

In other words.

[WSA]

Jerrymanderer, you raise a good point, which I omitted from my criteria. Here it is:

All other things remaining equal: Experiences memorialized closer in time to the occurrence will be given more weight than those memorialized at a later time.

[Guest DWA]

Err no, an elk can rise back up without leaving hoofprints in the impression if his body was to the side of his legs.

By the mechanism postulated by Norseman, yes. But I insist that the five tones will not be the ones you hear in Close Encounters, because that cannot happen in Earth gravitation, and Richard Dreyfuss is sticking to it and I can't change his mind.

Edited January 11, 2013 by DWA

[norseman]

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".

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

No.

He is going to draw his legs towards his body while rocking to get over them at the same time. Some species will then put a fore foot out to assist with getting up. But your going to have tracks in a body outline regardless, as Meldrums diagram shows.

Also.........an elk laying on his side is not going to leave typical elk tracks there. After all his hooves are horizontal to the ground.

[Guest DWA]

Jerrymanderer, you raise a good point, which I omitted from my criteria. Here it is:

All other things remaining equal: Experiences memorialized closer in time to the occurrence will be given more weight than those memorialized at a later time.

And of course this bears no connection at all to all the BFRO reports of encounters from the current and prior year that have started happening since "Finding Bigfoot." I don't think your mind goes from rabbit to sasquatch in a few months.

[Drew]

Here is an elk laying on it's side, the front hooves never plant under neath it when it gets up.

go to 1:29

[Guest RedRatSnake]

no photo is ever going to provide you with the evidence you seek.

Maybe not completely, but if people could do better that might raise a few eyebrows on the skeptical side, possibly open up some new and interesting dialog, sure would be a breath of fresh air in an otherwise kinda stale hobby at times.

[Guest DWA]

Here is an elk laying on it's side, the front hooves never plant under neath it when it gets up.

go to 1:29

Um, wow.

Demonstrably, visually, YES.

THEY.

DO!

What you have, if that is the Skookum Cast, is four count 'em four prints right where there are zero count 'em zero in the Skookum Cast.

(Primate heel, though.)

But this is important, as it compelliingly shows what one can see when one wants to. Thanks!

[norseman]

Here is an elk laying on it's side, the front hooves never plant under neath it when it gets up.

go to 1:29

Yes they do, his knees are completely folded underneath of him.

In the case of the horse, the horse throws his hooves forward and then in the act of getting up brings them back under him. And what about the hind feet?

[Guest]

Jerrymanderer, you raise a good point, which I omitted from my criteria. Here it is:

All other things remaining equal: Experiences memorialized closer in time to the occurrence will be given more weight than those memorialized at a later time.

There's even more to it than that.

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

[Guest]

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.

"Yes they have claimed to have shot one", but until such a claim can be verified it is just another claim. Take Justin Smeja who claims to have shot multiple bigfoots rather recently. He even claims to have had a witness with him at the time, and to have returned to the site of the alleged shooting. He claims to have collected some tissue from the site that might have been from one of the animals he shot. Unfortunately, analysis of that tissue revealed it to have come from a bear, not a bigfoot.

What does that mean? Was Smeja lying, mistaken about what he shot that day, or was he simply unable to collect any physical evidence that could corroborate his claim? From a scientific standpoint, it doesn't really matter because the result is the same: someone made a claim about bigfoot and did not provide physical evidence that could substantiate the claim.

Re: photos - Recall that I'm on record here at the BFF for years with my opinion that high-quality photographic evidence has the potential to result in a published description of bigfoot as a new species. I can't describe for you exactly what such a photo would look like, but I have many times linked to trailcam photos of the quality that could potentially convince me. When I see something that good I'll let you know. (Remember too that provenance and analysis of the photographs themselves would play a big role in the overall "quality" of such a photograph.)

[Drew]

Watch it again.

His knees are under him yes. But his hooves do not contact the ground until he leaps out of the wallow.

The knees coincidently are the 'heel' of the Bigfoot.

[Guest DWA]

Watch it again.

His knees are under him yes. But his hooves do not contact the ground until he leaps out of the wallow.

The knees coincidently are the 'heel' of the Bigfoot.

I'm taking Daris Swindler's interpretation over yours. (He went from scoffer to convinced on this alone, so it's highly unlikely he was seeing what he wanted to.)

And there we must leave the matter.

(Along with: those front legs make a mess no one is confusing with the heel of anything.)