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

[Guest]

@ DWA

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

Corrected.

@ WSA

A man in a fur suit walked across a sand bar and was filmed by another man.

Proof? Or even Evidence?

Do you think the subject filmed could not be a man in a suit? Explain why it can't be.

Been done many times over.

Explain why the scientific community ignores this film.

Also covered many times over. Not everyone in the community "ignores" the PGF.

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.)

So multiple accredited primatologists and other associated experts, INCLUDING one (Schaller) who also has extensive expertise in researching ungulates (which an elk is a type of) can't tell the difference between primate anatomical details and elk?

Now who is making an incredulous argument?

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

Argument from consensus. All you need to change your opinion is to properly and objectively look at the evidence on proffer and follow where it leads in toto.

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.

Translation: "I can't counter the scientific opinions of Sarimento, Schaller, Swindler, Meldrum, et al, so I'm going to fall back on 'It looks like an elk to me, and everyone knows it looks like an elk....' "

Edited January 12, 2013 by Mulder

[norseman]

If you take that elk lay thing and look at the entire picture, what happened to the BF tracks.

I do believe the hypothesis was that it laid down to reach the food bait. Primates can crawl around on the ground where as a cloven hooved animal doesn't do that.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Proof? Or even Evidence?

Here you ask for Proof & Evidence

Been done many times over.

Here you refuse to give Evidence

Can't have it both way's there bud, slow down on the blast posts and take time with the answers, give some time to a good response as those that have responded to you.

Tim

[Guest]

<p>They haven't been shown to be wrong yet. Yours, however, demonstrably are. "No evidence?" Oh, OK.

You seem to simply stick to saying things are so that demonstrably aren't. Like that elk have jet engines in their sides so they don't need legs to stand up. That's where the blue quote comes from. If that, um, works for you.

No jet engines need, they just need to rock to where their feet are and the proping of the legs.

Translation: "I can't counter the scientific opinions of Sarimento, Schaller, Swindler, Meldrum, et al, so I'm going to fall back on 'It looks like an elk to me, and everyone knows it looks like an elk....' "

Great so where have they published their studies?

Edited January 12, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest RedRatSnake]

I do believe the hypothesis was that it laid down to reach the food bait. Primates can crawl around on the ground where as a cloven hooved animal doesn't do that.

It is my understanding that the BF did do what I will call a low crawl to the apple, ok that could happen, in that case at some point it walked to the site then got down to low crawl, those particular impressions are lacking, we have a bigfoot/elk lay but no elk/bigfoot lay, some pieces of the puzzle are missing and that's what I see is the problem, two sides to every story kinda stuff.

[norseman]

No jet engines need, they just need to rock to where their feet are and the proping of the legs.

You need to go visit a elk farm.

It is my understanding that the BF did do what I will call a low crawl to the apple, ok that could happen, in that case at some point it walked to the site then got down to low crawl, those particular impressions are lacking, we have a bigfoot/elk lay but no elk/bigfoot lay, some pieces of the puzzle are missing and that's what I see is the problem, two sides to every story kinda stuff.

Like I said, I wan't there, therefore I cannot tell you how close the elk tracks where or if there was additional scuffing associated with the body print, I really have no idea how a scientist is getting the heel tendon of a large primate mixed up with the knee tendon of an elk. But I think it would be easily demonstrable by casting some elk laying down at a game farm.

I only take exception to the ludicrous explanation that keeps rearing its ugly head that elk do not need to gather themselves to come up off the ground. That they can somehow leave their feet stretched out and still as a hingepoint and somehow catapult their body over that hinge point. Like I said, as a hunter and a rancher? Show me. It's bull pukey.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

I only take exception to the ludicrous explanation that keeps rearing its ugly head that elk do not need to gather themselves to come up off the ground. That they can somehow leave their feet stretched out and still as a hingepoint and somehow catapult their body over that hinge point. Like I said, as a hunter and a rancher? Show me. It's bull pukey.

You know what you know, that don't mean others look at it the same way, no biggie that's why we talk about it, I personally have no frigging idea how an elk lifts up, never seen one do it, I argue that no BF prints lead to the area so it's fairly logical that a species the frequents was responsible.

[Guest]

I only take exception to the ludicrous explanation that keeps rearing its ugly head that elk do not need to gather themselves to come up off the ground. That they can somehow leave their feet stretched out and still as a hingepoint and somehow catapult their body over that hinge point. Like I said, as a hunter and a rancher? Show me. It's bull pukey.

No, they curl their legs again while rocking their bodies up.

[norseman]

You know what you know, that don't mean others look at it the same way, no biggie that's why we talk about it, I personally have no frigging idea how an elk lifts up, never seen one do it, I argue that no BF prints lead to the area so it's fairly logical that a species the frequents was responsible.

No. It's a simple fact, and they are arguing a physical impossibility. You do not have to know how an elk lifts up, go watch any farm animal with four legs and hooves. Have a friend tie your hands behind your back laying down and then try to get up without drawing your feet under you. What they are arguing is something akin to special effects in a "crouching dragon" kung fu movie.

I concede the point to everyone in this thread and mentioned it earlier that it's certainly logical to assume that with elk tracks around one would assume the body cast is from an elk. But with what I understand the ground around the wallow was very hard and did not lend itself to registering tracks, especially something that does not have hooves.

I know from first hand experience that a bear is harder to track than a elk or deer.

But ultimately we cannot give a elk special attributes to side step the question any more than we can assume it's a unknown species responsible.

[Guest]

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

I would say the numbers on both sides of that assertion are ZERO.

Prove it. Particularly the first side.

I'm going with Daris Swindler over some "skeptic."

And I'll take Anton Wroblewski over a bigfoot "expert".

A new Skeptical low jerry.

His CV (from his wikki bio):

He went on to study anthropology at West Virginia University and the University of Pennsylvania.^[1] A long-time professor at the University of Washington, Dr Swindler also taught human anatomy at Cornell University Medical College (now known as Weill Medical College of Cornell University), at the University of South Carolina and Michigan State University.

Swindler assisted police in many criminal cases, notably the searches for serial killers Gary Ridgway (a.k.a. the Green River Killer) and Ted Bundy.

Swindler was generally acknowledged as a leading primate expert, having specialized in the study of fossilized teeth; his book An Atlas of Primate Gross Anatomy is a standard work in the field.^[2]

He's every bit as qualified as Anton Wroblewski.

Different coats here>>These creatures CAN NOT live in the snow>>

*pic removed per board rules*

In your opinion.

Great so where have they published their studies?

Where have yours? Have any of your Skeptical "experts" (I can use derisive quote marks too) published a peer-reviewed study in a "reputable" journal disproving the observations of the scientists I named?

[norseman]

No, they curl their legs again while rocking their bodies up.

Which is going to give you tracks INSIDE the body cast.

[Guest]

Where have yours? Have any of your Skeptical "experts" (I can use derisive quote marks too) published a peer-reviewed study in a "reputable" journal disproving the observations of the scientists I named?

The proponents haven't published their findings so why should the skeptics?

Which is going to give you tracks INSIDE the body cast.

Don't need to go that far in.

[norseman]

Don't need to go that far in.

They need to draw their knees under their body in order to get up. The knee is the catalyst to the whole action, as it's using it as a spring to rise up.

Just thought I would post this so we could see what we are fighting about.

[Guest]

Can we all agree...

there is no BF we can point to...in real time?

Until this event occurs...all this is simply ... speculation.

In fact..I think it's FANTASY.

What amazes me are the lenghts people will go to argue the existance of a creature NO ONE can find.

I mean..it's been 50 yrs plus since it was called a BF and we have NOTHING

Sure..we have what a BF LEAVES IN IT's WAKE...film..footprints...sounds...poop...broken branches...huts...

but we NEVER cross the goal line do we? Ah yes...we just haven't looked hard enough...yep...that's it.

Different coats here>>These creatures CAN NOT live in the snow>>

In your opinion.

Yes..but we know a mountain Gorilla can't live for prolonged periods below 32F, since they live between 39-59F.

Show me how BF is radically different, since we see *Patty* looks remarkably similar.

Even if we concede Mountain Gorillas *could * live at 30F...BF is purported to live at temperatures between -10 and 20F!

With NO fire...questionable shelter...and a coat that cannot be substantiated to be sufficient to insulate it from perpetual freezing cold.

Edited January 12, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest]

They need to draw their knees under their body in order to get up. The knee is the catalyst to the whole action, as it's using it as a spring to rise up.

Just thought I would post this so we could see what we are fighting about.

There are elk prints all over this. Maybe deer prints also. Where are the bigfootprints? Did bigfoot levitate in and out? The reports from this stated that there were a number of animal hairs present within the impression. Most of which were elk. There was one hair that was thought to be from one of the researchers on sight. No bigfoot hairs after laying in the mud? No prints found anywhere in the area?

Interesting conclusions reached by the "researchers" on this one.

Corrected.

How is the position backed with proof incredulous? Your responses are quite interesting. Accurate? Not so much.

Proof? Or even Evidence?

Go to youtube and search for "bigfoot caught on film" you will find at least 50 videos of men in fur suits.

Can you show me one real bigfoot?

Been done many times over.

Source?

Also covered many times over. Not everyone in the community "ignores" the PGF.

Source? If you want to debate the points, you have to list your points and sources. Lets talk specifics.

So multiple accredited primatologists and other associated experts, INCLUDING one (Schaller) who also has extensive expertise in researching ungulates (which an elk is a type of) can't tell the difference between primate anatomical details and elk?

Are you going to acknowledge that qualified scientists have also looked at it and found it to be an elk lay? The cast is also not available for inspection by just anyone. I'm positive if this impression was shopped around to scientists more familiar with elk sign, its a no brainer. I'm also sure that the bigfooters would dislike any official conflicting opinions and will avoid it if possible.

There needs to be a bigfoot, to make a bigfoot impression. The "real" bigfoot researchers and so called bigfoot scientists should be willing to conceed that it most likely does not exist. That would be a more honest approach. Instead, you have all this tom foolery garbage that makes the whole thing appear like a joke.

Now who is making an incredulous argument?

Proponents.

Argument from consensus. All you need to change your opinion is to properly and objectively look at the evidence on proffer and follow where it leads in toto.

Translation: "I can't counter the scientific opinions of Sarimento, Schaller, Swindler, Meldrum, et al, so I'm going to fall back on 'It looks like an elk to me, and everyone knows it looks like an elk....' "

Do only the opinions of your bigfoot friendly/believers count? Or can we poll from the real world of scientists that have given their opinions on bigfoot.

Edited January 12, 2013 by LWD