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

[Guest]

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.

Yes..people are *reporting them*....but if they aren't CAPABLE of living where they are *reported* to be living..*Huston, we have a problem*.

I have been asking the question..so provide me with a resonable answer. Some have said sheer body mass. NO..that will not do. An elepahant cannot live in SNOW. The WOOLY MAMMOTH (a relative) did.....I wonder why??? It had the thick wooly coat didn't it. We can *see* Patty doesn't qualify..looks more like typical ape.

Bottom line..there is nothing in the BF *evidence* that supports it's capability of living in the areas it's REPORTED to be living in. To the contrary...if it's a PRIMATE it's highly unlikely that it can.

Edited January 13, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest DWA]

^^^^Faulty thinking, but I've gone into that at length on this thread, go back and reread at leisure.

There is nothing that says these things cannot live where they are reported. You'll have to show me what your credentials are before I take your word over the scientists' word who have studied the evidence. Sorry.

[Guest]

I guess this about does it for the Chinese Bigfoot... http://www.isu.edu/r...ese Wildman.pdf

No, it 'about does it' (at most) for certain researchers' involvement with Chinese bigfoot research.

Nothing in the paper in any way "proves" that the Chinese BF or Yeren does not exist.

Finishing an earlier post that I had to split:

Let’s review how the game cam excuse has evolved

Early 2000’s: So why hasn’t a BF been caught on a game cam yet? Answer, there just aren’t enough of these in service to nail a BF.

2005 – popularity of game cams have increased, so we can’t use the insufficient numbers explanation anymore. Let’s declare that game-cams are too big and bulky and BF knows these things are man-made and avoids them like the plague. For good measure, we’ll also ramp up BF’s vision so he can now spot these things well beyond the range of the trigger mechanism.

2010 – These number in the hundreds of thousands now and look how small and compact they are. As a further complication, we’ll also need to address why the $1 million Bushnell bounty failed to produce a BF image. So let’s update BF’s MO accordingly. Let’s increase BF IQ by a factor of 10. He is now far smarter than humans to be duped into getting caught on camera. This will also validate the controversial Jacob Photos, it really was a juvenile BF and he should have known better.

2013 – Still no BF photo, let’s start attacking the technology behind game cams. They aren’t designed for Sasquatch recon and even if they were, humans are stupid and aren’t deploying them properly for use on Sasquatches. Since we have no obligation to prove anything, we’ll throw in that obscure unsubstantiated coyote study and insist that BF’s social hierarchy is identical to coyotes. If skeptics question this, we'll demand they prove otherwise

2064 – still no BF images and the resolution of game cams have improved to the point where the more expensive ones are now in low Earth orbit. We really need to think outside the box on this one.

So here goes, BF fur possesses unique electromagnetic properties and tend to absorbs photons. This in turn renders all Sasquatches immune to photography. It's a phenomenon similar to how stealth aircraft materials absorb radar energy.

Alternatively, we can say BF's exude a dense gaseous and pungent substance through special glands on their bodies. The refractive properties of these vapors are quite extreme causing ambient light to scatter in all directions. This explains why all BF photos always appear out of focus. We call this the BS phenomenon. No, not that BS, but rather the BlobSquatch phenomenon. And again, we'll drive the skeptics crazy by demanding they prove a negative.

Of course it's darn convenient that every GC pic that has been proffered for BF has been summarily dismissed as "inconclusive", "bear" ,"hoax", etc...darn convenient for Skeptics that is.

So aside from the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the "no GC pics" claim to begin with, it's STILL documented fact that the overwhelming majority of the N American landmass is NOT under GC surveillance.

Let us suppose that there are as many as 1 million game cameras up at any one point in time (and I feel that is a VERY generous assumption). If we assume that each camera is going to have an average FOV of maybe 100 square feet or so. That's 100 million square feet.

The total number of square feet in N America is ~ 261,081,216,000,000. Therefore, game cameras would cover only 1 in 2,610,812 square feet of land.

That assumes both an even distribution of cameras AND BF. Given human land use patterns that dictate that we tend to use a relatively small proportion of land compared to that available, and the purported shyness and elusiveness of BF, the odds are even longer than that that any given trailcam even has the portential to snap a BF pic to begin with.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Mulder

[dmaker]

^^ That is true, however your statement has zero utility and zero relevance. No one can prove a negative. The paper ( which I have read actually) does not prove that Yeren does not exist. I agree Just like no paper in the world could prove that Bigfoot does not exist; nor could it prove that Unicorns do not exist, or vampires, or leprechauns, or mermaids...shall I go on?

[Guest]

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.

And the multiple scientists with degrees in anthropology, primate anatomy, etc (including one with both primate and ungulate experience) who say otherwise are what? Deluded? To stupid to know what they are talking about? Not telling the truth?

Which is it RRS? And what evidence do you have to support it?

^^ That is true, however your statement has zero utility and zero relevance. No one can prove a negative. The paper ( which I have read actually) does not prove that Yeren does not exist. I agree Just like no paper in the world could prove that Bigfoot does not exist; nor could it prove that Unicorns do not exist, or vampires, or leprechauns, or mermaids...shall I go on?

Spare us the obvious dodge. Drew's skepticism made a claim his evidence couldn't cash, and I pointed it out.

The fact remains that that paper does not in fact "about do it" for the existence of BF in China, no matter how much Skeptics would like for it to.

Yes..people are *reporting them*....but if they aren't CAPABLE of living where they are *reported* to be living..*Huston, we have a problem*.

Objection: assumes facts not in evidence.

We can *see* Patty doesn't qualify..looks more like typical ape.

She looks darn hairy to me. Certainly more so than the average gorilla.

Bottom line..there is nothing in the BF *evidence* that supports it's capability of living in the areas it's REPORTED to be living in. To the contrary...if it's a PRIMATE it's highly unlikely that it can.

Bottom line...you have provided no evidence to back up this claim.

[Guest]

And the multiple scientists with degrees in anthropology, primate anatomy, etc (including one with both primate and ungulate experience) who say otherwise are what? Deluded? To stupid to know what they are talking about? Not telling the truth?

Mistaken?

The most intelligent humans have been known to make mistakes.

[dmaker]

"Spare us the obvious dodge. Drew's skepticism made a claim his evidence couldn't cash, and I pointed it out.

The fact remains that that paper does not in fact "about do it" for the existence of BF in China, no matter how much Skeptics would like for it to"

You know what? You're right. That paper does not, in FACT, do it for the existence of BF in China. Just like no paper could ever do. It does, however, add to the ever growing pile of reasonable doubt. I find the closing paragraph of that paper to be quite well written and there is a little bit for both the skeptic and the believer in that paragraph.

[Guest]

Mistaken?

The most intelligent humans have been known to make mistakes.

Ok, what evidence is there to support that claim? What laboratory examinations or other scientific investigations and observations have th Skeptics undertaken to seek this evidence?

Barring that, how do you know it is in fact not the SKEPTICS who are mistaken?

As it stands at present, the weight of the scientific observations is on the proponent side.

You know what? You're right. That paper does not, in FACT, do it for the existence of BF in China.

Thank you for stipulating that.

Just like no paper could ever do.

Which is why I called Drew on posting the link, since that was what he was claiming.

It does, however, add to the ever growing pile of reasonable doubt.

Only if you accept the notion of "negative evidence", which I do not.

I find the closing paragraph of that paper to be quite well written and there is a little bit for both the skeptic and the believer in that paragraph.

Fair enough.

[Guest]

Barring that, how do you know it is in fact not the SKEPTICS who are mistaken?

I don't know that.

I never presented an argument pretending to know anything for sure related to bigfoot evidence or those who research it.

But I do know humans make mistakes regardless of their level of intelligence or what side of the fence they reside.

[Guest COGrizzly]

mkianni - haven't seen you post in a LONG time, nice to see you!

[Guest]

mkianni - haven't seen you post in a LONG time, nice to see you!

Thanks grizz! Good to see you too

[Guest]

Yes..people are *reporting them*....but if they aren't CAPABLE of living where they are *reported* to be living..*Huston, we have a problem*.

I have been asking the question..so provide me with a resonable answer. Some have said sheer body mass. NO..that will not do. An elepahant cannot live in SNOW. The WOOLY MAMMOTH (a relative) did.....I wonder why??? It had the thick wooly coat didn't it. We can *see* Patty doesn't qualify..looks more like typical ape.

Bottom line..there is nothing in the BF *evidence* that supports it's capability of living in the areas it's REPORTED to be living in. To the contrary...if it's a PRIMATE it's highly unlikely that it can.

This keeps going in circles. What is it about primates and great apes that makes you convinced they couldn't live in a very cold climates when so many other mammals can.

Because none known to science currently do? (other than the jacuzzi ones).

So it's not possible that a primate could evolve both an appropriate cost of hair and body mass to make the migration from north east Asia. Because that's what we are talking about. Being big and hairy doesn't make sense in the South's stupid hot summers, but it does makes sense if it had to make a couple thousand mile journey over generations through Alaska and Canada to get to more temperate climates at lower latitudes.

BTW, Neanderthals, dispite having tools fire and clothing, evolved physically to their cold ice age environments.

[Guest Kerchak]

No serious scientist who is really thinking about the topic argues that because we don't know it it can't be real. This is, in fact, how one can identify scientists - I'm looking at YOU, Eugenie Scott - who can't be taken seriously on this topic. They do what you're doing.

I can't take Eugenie Scott seriously about anything. During a presentation where she dismisses bigfoot she referred to the basking shark as 'actually a whale'.

Huh????

This keeps going in circles. What is it about primates and great apes that makes you convinced they couldn't live in a very cold climates when so many other mammals can.

He'd probably be arguing that elephants can't either....if there was never such a thing as the woolly mammoth.

[Guest]

ronn1 is guilty of nothing more than really considering what might be necessary for a species like what we think a bigfoot is to survive a harsh northern winter. At this point the discussion seems suited to a separate thread.

I grew up in the foothills of the Adirondacks in NY. It is an interesting question to consider how large mammals survive those winters, 'cause they can be really brutal and there really isn't that much to eat. Deer and moose (not that there are a lot of moose in the Adirondacks, but there appear to be some) survive harsh winters by eating lots of low quality vegetation (what, twigs for dinner again?), reducing energy expenditure as much as possible, and growing dense winter coats. Bears pile on huge amounts of fat, have dense coats, and go dormant for a few months to reduce energy expenditure.

What might bigfoots do? Well, they could pile on fat, go dormant, grow dense coats, eat a lot of low quality food, or eat a lot of high-quality food. Any and all of the previous would be possible; what ronn1 is caught on is that none of them seem at all likely given what we think we know about bigfoots right now. When you really start to visualize how any one of them might work, you quickly arrive at something untenable.

I've already addressed the problem with "caves", another popular one is that bigfoots simply turn their attention to running deer in the winter. That would solve the "food" problem of trying to figure out how bigfoots might process enough willow twigs to stay alive by providing them with a really nutritious, energy-rich food source in venison - and venison liver! But again, when you really start thinking about how many deer it might take to sustain a small family of bigfoots living, I don't know, just for the sake of argument at toejam's research site in Ontario, those numbers pile up. It sure wouldn't be easy for a bunch of bigfoots to keep their presence a secret if they're relying on hunting a deer every couple of days just to survive. Wolf hunts leave an awful lot of footprints in the snow; I imagine bigfoot hunts would too.

These kinds of speculative discussions don't mean that bigfoots can't have some whiz-bang mechanism for surviving harsh northern winters that we don't know about or can't figure out, but they never seem to be the tidy explanations that a lot of folks would like them to be. It's just another thing about bigfoot that doesn't mean there's no bigfoot, but it certainly doesn't help the case for bigfoot.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

And the multiple scientists with degrees in anthropology, primate anatomy, etc (including one with both primate and ungulate experience) who say otherwise are what? Deluded? To stupid to know what they are talking about? Not telling the truth?

Which is it RRS? And what evidence do you have to support it?

lol What evidence do you have to support it was a BigFoot ? Huh Huh ?? round and round we go ~~~~~ let it rest, it was 12 years ago and has been hashed to death. And stop putting words in my mouth, I was already eating a sandwich and almost choked.

Tim

Edited January 13, 2013 by RedRatSnake