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

[Guest Stan Norton]

@ Stan Norton

What do you think of these quotes?

Not quite sure what you expect me to say. I like them. The first merely states, quite obviously, that prints can be faked which really should come as no surprise to anyone, and as for the second, I couldn't agree more. I could say that the books within which these quotes appear then go on to explain, in no little detail, just why someone of Krantz's particular expertise considers prints to be the best evidence beyond a body part. Indeed, the entire purpose behind Krantz's books is to say 'well, here's the evidence, my position is that these are from a real creature'. If that line in the sand has been drawn then it is really a bit slack to then say 'well, I'm under no obligation to even look'. The logical, inquiring mind would either say 'No, you're wrong ...and here's why...(insert carefully analysed evidence, not link to Wikipedia)' or simply ignore. If you want to engage in the former then at least present a case that backs up the null hypothesis: that those prints which Krantz considers real are fake.

Taking that second quote, I do wonder why self-proclaimed sceptics and critical thinkers (always felt that was a strange phrase), rather than ignore the silly misguided fools, then spend such an inordinate amount of their time in trying ever-so-hard to ensure that other people should stop being so wrong. I could waste an awful lot of my time countering theological arguments on religious forums, but I simply can't be bothered as I have a life to live.

[Guest DWA]

Not quite sure what you expect me to say. I like them. The first merely states, quite obviously, that prints can be faked which really should come as no surprise to anyone, and as for the second, I couldn't agree more. I could say that the books within which these quotes appear then go on to explain, in no little detail, just why someone of Krantz's particular expertise considers prints to be the best evidence beyond a body part. Indeed, the entire purpose behind Krantz's books is to say 'well, here's the evidence, my position is that these are from a real creature'. If that line in the sand has been drawn then it is really a bit slack to then say 'well, I'm under no obligation to even look'. The logical, inquiring mind would either say 'No, you're wrong ...and here's why...(insert carefully analysed evidence, not link to Wikipedia)' or simply ignore. If you want to engage in the former then at least present a case that backs up the null hypothesis: that those prints which Krantz considers real are fake.

Taking that second quote, I do wonder why self-proclaimed sceptics and critical thinkers (always felt that was a strange phrase), rather than ignore the silly misguided fools, then spend such an inordinate amount of their time in trying ever-so-hard to ensure that other people should stop being so wrong. I could waste an awful lot of my time countering theological arguments on religious forums, but I simply can't be bothered as I have a life to live.

I could not have said it better.

I always call it bigfoot skepticism because there is no critical thinking involved in it at all, just a continual stretching of reality to fit what you want to think. (If you say my last sentence characterizes proponents, you just made my point.)

I wonder in how many areas of scientific endeavor people would be tolerated who said: look, I don't really know how to think about this and am not acquainted with the evidence Or, you know, if I am I decided up front that it's all a crock, so I don't read it or think about it critically. I'm just going to grab up handfuls of crap, throw them at the wall and see what sticks. And if you call me on it, I'll just say you can't make me prove a negative.

It's tolerated here.

By most of us, that is.

Yes, apes do live in COLD climates..but not the BITTER FREEZING COLD OF WINTER...IN SNOW. Can you DEMONSTRATE how a so called "PATTY" is adapted to live in this type of habitat? They all can't live in caves..as someone just mentioned. Anyway... these are very large animals and finding *caves* would also be problematic. Apparently they don't hibernate either. Sure..go ahead and *make up* a scenario how a BF can live for months on end in subfreezing cold. I'm sure your imagination will come up with something.

You've been making up that it's impossible. How would it be any different from my end?

One does not get to shout down the evidence with preconceived notions based on nothing. You seem to be imagining a world in which the scientific method does not exist. Please, continue.

[Guest]

I always call it bigfoot skepticism because there is no critical thinking involved in it at all, just a continual stretching of reality to fit what you want to think. (If you say my last sentence characterizes proponents, you just made my point.)

I wonder in how many areas of scientific endeavor people would be tolerated who said: look, I don't really know how to think about this and am not acquainted with the evidence Or, you know, if I am I decided up front that it's all a crock, so I don't read it or think about it critically. I'm just going to grab up handfuls of crap, throw them at the wall and see what sticks. And if you call me on it, I'll just say you can't make me prove a negative.

It's tolerated here.

By most of us, that is.

There is one thing we have in common, that is we never seen one, but I'm like most, I'm not going to take this so called evidence as proof of bf.

Why is it, that these stories, witnesss accounts, blurry photos, etc..... after all these years...still nothing solid.

You say no critical thinking is involved, sorry bro, but that's what science is all about. As of now there is nothing strong enough to to say it's real. I think most critically thinking proponents would agree. So what do you want them to do? With all the hoaxes, tabloid stories, and just plain exagerations has put this topic in the area of fantasy.

[Guest]

There is one thing we have in common, that is we never seen one, but I'm like most, I'm not going to take this so called evidence as proof of bf.

Why is it, that these stories, witnesss accounts, blurry photos, etc..... after all these years...still nothing solid.

You say no critical thinking is involved, sorry bro, but that's what science is all about. As of now there is nothing strong enough to to say it's real. I think most critically thinking proponents would agree. So what do you want them to do? With all the hoaxes, tabloid stories, and just plain exagerations has put this topic in the area of fantasy.

There are some proponents and researchers so lacking in critical thinking, they could be on a trans-Atlantic voyage on a ballistic missile sub and still somehow find evidence that a BF was on board. Whether it be sweeping up little curly hairs from the latrine or hearing strange noises from the dark bowels of the ship, it would be attributed to BF.

[Guest]

I could not have said it better.

I always call it bigfoot skepticism because there is no critical thinking involved in it at all, just a continual stretching of reality to fit what you want to think. (If you say my last sentence characterizes proponents, you just made my point.)

I wonder in how many areas of scientific endeavor people would be tolerated who said: look, I don't really know how to think about this and am not acquainted with the evidence Or, you know, if I am I decided up front that it's all a crock, so I don't read it or think about it critically. I'm just going to grab up handfuls of crap, throw them at the wall and see what sticks. And if you call me on it, I'll just say you can't make me prove a negative.

It's tolerated here.

By most of us, that is.

You've been making up that it's impossible. How would it be any different from my end?

One does not get to shout down the evidence with preconceived notions based on nothing. You seem to be imagining a world in which the scientific method does not exist. Please, continue.

Not *impossible*..but extremely unlikely. These are primates..not bears or moose. Unless they have a VERY SPECIAL FUR like the Japanese monkey...(and there is NO EVIDENCE that they do....in fact, the purported *Patty* appears to have a typical *ape* coat) they would need additional protection (shelter..fire..clothing) to prevent HYPOTHERMIA. Again, I'm not talking about the COLD...it's quasi ARCTIC temperatures that these purported creatures are said to occupy.

[Guest]

1) Where? Point them out to me. *tracks

2) We have covered the "no bigfoot tracks mystery" in this thread, please re read.

3) I understood that they got a typical "maybe" hair from this cast.

Your exactly right, we haven't been looking "good" enough. Can you point to one government or scientific backed expedition with the sole mission of collecting a type specimen? No of course not, instead we are relying on Bobo to get us the next grainy photo and really cool story.

And I have agreed about eight freakin times in this thread that Bigfoot DOES NOT............DOES NOT officially exist.

But I have had something happen to me that I cannot explain. There fore I'm seeking some answers through UNOFFICIAL channels of course. Yanno it's my own personal hell, in which I deal with sharp people who have sharp tongues and make fun of my experience and my search for answers.........it's a hoot. I didn't ask for this to happen to me, but it did. Why your here on the other hand with no personal experience to compel you may interest me more than the mystery of sasquatch.

Please briefly recount the experience again for refreshers. If you don't want to, then PM me. I think it's important here. It's YOUR experience, so I won't challange it..just want to know what it was.

[Guest DWA]

There is one thing we have in common, that is we never seen one, but I'm like most, I'm not going to take this so called evidence as proof of bf.

Why is it, that these stories, witnesss accounts, blurry photos, etc..... after all these years...still nothing solid.

You say no critical thinking is involved, sorry bro, but that's what science is all about. As of now there is nothing strong enough to to say it's real. I think most critically thinking proponents would agree. So what do you want them to do? With all the hoaxes, tabloid stories, and just plain exagerations has put this topic in the area of fantasy.

Well, here's part of what I mean: the hoaxes, tabloid stories and just plain exaggerations are totally ignored by those of us who are read up on the evidence, because we recognize them for what they are. Those who haven't read up, however, are distracted by them and think the field has nothing going for it scientifically.

This couldn't be more wrong.Meldrum and Krantz and their brethren have already totally discounted that stuff. It's not part of their sample. They pay no attention to it; neither do I.

It's the ones who think that blobsquatches, "Finding Bigfoot," P/G over-analysis (the analysis of P/G is done), fetishized bigfoot relics, Georgia Boys, Todd Standing, Justin Smeja and Sierra Steaks and Melba Ketchum are the heart of the field who are misinformed. They're tilting at windmills. What they are discussing has no more bearing on this topic than two people in a zebra costume has on the existence of the zebra.

That is where critical thinking comes in, in recognizing that central fact. If one tells me that this field is rife with hoaxes and that's why one can't respect it, first, it's odd to care as much as one seems to and second, one has just announced to me one's failure to apply sufficient critical thinking. Continually backing Bob Hieronymous and Ray Wallace and "eyewitnesses are bad evidence" and "elk can magically get up without using their feet" and "P/G is a blurry mess, but we can conclude from it that Patty could not survive in the temperate zone" simply show that one has not applied the serious thought to this that WSA laid out in his post above. That's all.

Except for this: critical thinking is what science is all about. And if one does not know that the mainstream is not applying it to this question, one has not applied it oneself.

Not *impossible*..but extremely unlikely. These are primates..not bears or moose. Unless they have a VERY SPECIAL FUR like the Japanese monkey...(and there is NO EVIDENCE that they do....in fact, the purported *Patty* appears to have a typical *ape* coat) they would need additional protection (shelter..fire..clothing) to prevent HYPOTHERMIA. Again, I'm not talking about the COLD...it's quasi ARCTIC temperatures that these purported creatures are said to occupy.

If I showed you a pic of a whitetail deer, or a bird, and you had never seen or heard of either, you wouldn't think they could make it in the temperate zone either. (Look at those skinny legs. They'll FREEZE!)Once again, Patty looks loaded for a snowy winter to me. But one cannot make conclusions from that film one way or the other. When we are still arguing over whether sasquatch is real or not, to talk about whether or not it is confirmed to have anything, much less the proper kind of hair, is simply premature.

Edited January 13, 2013 by DWA

[Guest RedRatSnake]

There are some proponents and researchers so lacking in critical thinking, they could be on a trans-Atlantic voyage on a ballistic missile sub and still somehow find evidence that a BF was on board. Whether it be sweeping up little curly hairs from the latrine or hearing strange noises from the dark bowels of the ship, it would be attributed to BF.

It may seem funny but one of the reasons I went from believer to non, was because of the way folks seem to handle themselves with this subject, it became apparent after a few years that the lack of real seriousness was excused away in so many different colorful ways, I had no choice in my mind but to step back and take time to think.

Tim

[Guest DWA]

"It may seem funny but one of the reasons I went from believer to non, was because of the way folks seem to handle themselves with this subject, it became apparent after a few years that the lack of real seriousness was excused away in so many different colorful ways, I had no choice in my mind but to step back and take time to think."

Well, one piece of evidence that you might not have thought enough in the first place is that word "believer." This isn't about belief, it's about evidence; and all the evidence is on the side of the proponents. It's the bigfoot skeptics who are all about true belief; witness their eternal candlelight vigil for the first piece of evidence that P/G was faked.

Edited January 13, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

It may seem funny but one of the reasons I went from believer to non, was because of the way folks seem to handle themselves with this subject, it became apparent after a few years that the lack of real seriousness was excused away in so many different colorful ways, I had no choice in my mind but to step back and take time to think.

Tim

Here,here. add the fact of technology advancement and human sprawl... still nada

[Guest DWA]

<p>

Can you point out three pieces of claimed bigfoot evidence that science should be analyzing and aren't? Is that real world enough? =)

<

This is an example of not engaging critical thinking. Unless that thinking is: watch what happens to this poor sucker who doesn't realize I have asked a totally inappropriate question. (You seem oddly compelled to get an irrelevant answer to this irrelevant question, which itself shows a failure to think critically about evidence.)

<p>

Can you not see the elk prints all over that cast? I'm sure someone here can red circle them for you. Can you link to the no bigfoot print explanation? Thank you.

<

Doesn't matter how many elk prints are anywhere in that cast, if there are not four count 'em four in the places there must be for an elk to stand up from that spot. This is kind of elementary.

I wonder what makes some feel so strongly, other than winning an internet argument.

Give me three pieces of evidence that the proponents here are doing that. The wininternetargumenters, um, I mean the bigfoot skeptics, certainly appear to be. And I can cite at least three pieces of evidence for that opinion.

Edited January 13, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

When we are still arguing over whether sasquatch is real or not, to talk about whether or not it is confirmed to have anything, much less the proper kind of hair, is simply premature.

Yes..but the PURPORTED habitat of BF that INCLUDES very cold *arctic like* alpine climates, so this begs the question...*How is that possible*?

That question really goes to the heart it's existance. That's why I keep hammering away at this particular purported *feature* of BF.

One of the fundamental characteristics of BF is it's ability to thrive in sub-freezing climates and that seems to conflict with it's status as a PRIMATE (with *human* dna none the less). If you can't make a case for the viability of BF in this particular environment, then you cannot really make a cogent argument for it's existance at all. The fact they live in other more *friendly* habitats means little, since a significant part of the *lore* and purported *evidence* includes alpine locations in the snow (tracks and footprints).

[Guest DWA]

Yes..but the PURPORTED habitat of BF that INCLUDES very cold *arctic like* alpine climates, so this begs the question...*How is that possible*?

That question really goes to the heart it's existance. That's why I keep hammering away at this particular purported *feature* of BF.

One of the fundamental characteristics of BF is it's ability to thrive in sub-freezing climates and that seems to conflict with it's status as a PRIMATE (with *human* dna none the less). If you can't make a case for the viability of BF in this particular environment, then you cannot really make a cogent argument for it's existance at all. The fact they live in other more *friendly* habitats means little, since a significant part of the *lore* and purported *evidence* includes alpine locations in the snow (tracks and footprints).

You can hammer at this forever and ever, without touching the single fact you absolutely must touch: People are reporting them. Why is this happening? It's an animal supported by much incredibly complementary evidence - incredible, that is, for something that's not real. How can you hypothetically hypothesize that since you know it's not real, it must not be able to stay warm? Explain.

Edited January 13, 2013 by DWA

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Here,here. add the fact of technology advancement and human sprawl... still nada

Hey! I'm trying to work my way back in, don't go makin waves ~

[Guest]

Hey! I'm trying to work my way back in, don't go makin waves ~

Waves? Me?

Well I am a Cali boy!