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

[Guest DWA]

But in the interest of education and fun:

"Asking for three pieces of evidence from folks that believe that the "evidence is there" is not irrelevant."

It is. But one other thing it is is "a waste of time." Not only because it won't convince you and we know it and we know why ("it's not proof," the ultimate skeptic excuse not to engage), but also because if the 100 best pieces of evidence - take anyone's list - were debunked tomorrow, things essentially would remain unchanged. if this stuns you, it should: it's an index of how much reading up you need to do. (Scientists, schooled in directly relevant disciplines, vouch for the animal's existence. And this does nothing for you? You'd rather accept a 'consensus' based on laziness and ignorance.)

"Lets look at the specific pieces of claimed evidence. If not, why not? (because most "believers" cannot even name 3 pieces they feel might be authentic, or that hasnt been analyzed to death already by "scientists")"

I could name approximately 755. It would not matter how many I showed you. Capisch? You can just read up and find out all the fun stuff I know for yourself. That's what I did. That's why I bother being here.

"Apparently you believe science is not willing to take a look at the claimed evidence, yet you've been asked to specify three pieces that they should be looking at and each time you refuse to answer. I find that to be a void response, to a void issue. It is what it is, and opinions won't change what is there or not."

A void issue. Yep, that's what I called it all right. Those merit a void response. We're not here to entertain you and we don't need to convince you.

Edited January 14, 2013 by DWA

[Guest RedRatSnake]

I get a chuckle whenever the *how smart they are* mantra rears it's head.

Bingo~

That has been a core argument for BF research since I started on these forums some six + years ago, " they out smart us" I see that and just throw it in the another excuse pile, a rather high pile I might add and getting higher, your posts makes a very good point, We! yes I said We! on an internet forum, Are the dominate species on this planet, I hardly think some monkey has the brains to outwit our technology and our human brain, we have satellites that can look into a persons window, we can detect heat signatures from miles away, yet people can't find a 9' tall 500 pound monkey stealing scraps from a dumpster behind a strip mall.

Tim

Edited January 14, 2013 by RedRatSnake

[Guest]

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

Your claim, your burden of proof. The proponents have made their observations. Your side wants to say they're wrong, pony up the homework.

Otherwise you're back to:

Thanks for the quaterstaff by the way...I can always use spares.

Can we all agree...

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

Irrelevant. I can't point to a nuclear bomb or an aircraft carrier in real time...doesn't mean they aren't out there.

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

In fact..I think it's FANTASY.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

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

Seems to me the very fact that we are here shows that's not true.

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

You contradict yourself in the very next line:

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

Hardly "nothing"

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.

Larger, hairier, frankly "fatter".

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.

Again assumes facts not in evidence. You presume your assertions are in fact true.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Mulder

[Guest]

Your claim, your burden of proof. The proponents have made their observations. Your side wants to say they're wrong, pony up the homework.

.

Skeptics aren't saying the proponents are *wrong*...they're saying the burden of proof for existence of BF has not been met. This fact is really not even in question. That is why Ketchum. et al..are trying their level best to provide the requisite data. Unfortuneatley...I don't think Ketchum's study will meet the criterion required (such as credible provenance for all samples tested).

[Guest]

How is the position backed with proof incredulous?

What "proof". All Skeptics have done is try to throw poo at various items of evidence and call it "proof". Lot's of claims, no backing.

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

So what?

Can you show me one real bigfoot?

Can you show us that 100% of them are men in suits/illusions of light and shadow/et al?

We only need one to be true to win. You need them all to be false to win.

Are there some obvious put up jobs on you tube? Sure. If you want to make that claim for ALL of them, do your homework.

Source?

Easy to reach one: the work of Bill Munns, documented right here at BFF in both the public and members only forums.

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

Dr Meldrum takes it seriously. As have other scientists he cites. Read Legend Meets Science.

Are you going to acknowledge that qualified scientists have also looked at it and found it to be an elk lay?

I have yet to see any evidence of that. Have they gone to examine the cast, taken the time to sit down with Meldrum, Schaller, Swindler, et al and go over it in detail? Link me to where this has been done.

[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.

Which reports do you want scientist to find more compelling, the ones made anonymously to a website or the ones made decades after the encounter when the eyewitness was in kindergarten? You don't think it's merely a coincidence that reports have spiked exponentially with the advent of the internet. And In the rare cases where there is a token follow up, i always get a chuckle at what the investigator has to say. Typically, these comments help sugar coat the report with phrases like the eyewitness looked sincere, honest, level headed, honorable, reliable or trustworthy. It would also be safe to say that each and every question asked is intended to lead the witness into the direction of what the BF investigator wants to hear.

[Guest]

Part 2 in response to LWD:

The cast is also not available for inspection by just anyone.

It is available to those willing to meet the entirely reasonable conditions set by the cast owner to protect his interests in not having people running around making false statements about the cast. I'm also sure that the bigfooters would dislike any official conflicting opinions and will avoid it if possible.

I'm positive if this impression was shopped around to scientists more familiar with elk sign, its a no brainer.

So Dr Schaller, who has experience with BOTH primates and ungulates is what then?

The "real" bigfoot researchers and so called bigfoot scientists should be willing to conceed that it most likely does not exist.

1000s of sightings and accounts covering 100s and 1000s of years, forensically typed hairs, cast tracks with dermatoglyphics, distinct bio-metrics, etc conforming to a natural size populations/distribution curve, films, audio, etc, and you seriously are going to claim that it "most likely does not exist"...in the face of ALL that?

This is why Skeptics are not to be taken seriously.

That would be a more honest approach.

No, that would be the very definition of "faith over knowledge" and belief-based thinking..

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.

You have just accused credentialed scientists (Meldrum, et al) of not being from the "real world of scientists". Nice to know where you stand.

Which reports do you want scientist to find more compelling, the ones made anonymously to a website or the ones made decades after the encounter when the eyewitness was in kindergarten? You don't think it's merely a coincidence that reports have spiked exponentially with the advent of the internet. And In the rare cases where there is a token follow up, i always get a chuckle at what the investigator has to say. Typically, these comments help sugar coat the report with phrases like the eyewitness looked sincere, honest, level headed, honorable, reliable or trustworthy. It would also be safe to say that each and every question asked is intended to lead the witness into the direction of what the BF investigator wants to hear.

Proof?

[Guest DWA]

Which reports do you want scientist to find more compelling, the ones made anonymously to a website or the ones made decades after the encounter when the eyewitness was in kindergarten? You don't think it's merely a coincidence that reports have spiked exponentially with the advent of the internet. And In the rare cases where there is a token follow up, i always get a chuckle at what the investigator has to say. Typically, these comments help sugar coat the report with phrases like the eyewitness looked sincere, honest, level headed, honorable, reliable or trustworthy. It would also be safe to say that each and every question asked is intended to lead the witness into the direction of what the BF investigator wants to hear.

Your proof of every assertion you made at any time you are ready to supply it. (Watch him say "nuh-uh, it's on you to prove bigfoot." 1 - it's not on me; 2 - make a claim in a scientific discussion, no matter what side you are coming from, and you have to substantiate it or we can't accept you on an equal footing.)

When there is an obvious and rational reason for the spike, why go to the mental gymnastics required to cook up a reason that satisfies one's intense desire to believe something!? 'smatta, you having trouble with our refusal to pay attention to your erroneous thread title? You should try allowing some fun in your life, man. You know, like allowing the possibility of an animal the fossil record says we should expect and that thousands of records support. What is your problem with this, man? It's scaring some of us, you know, the concerned ones.

Edited January 14, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

Proof?

Any one of those shows impersonating an educational documentary or scientific investigation. But your best bet is to watch Finding Bigfoot. You know, that show with the founder of the BFRO where all those reports are from.. Even that girl who is supposed to be the resident skeptic does it.

[dmaker]

I have to agree with Marlboro on this one. Quite often the BFRO database is held up as strong evidence for the existence of BF on this board. Well, I'm sorry, but having the founder of that organization on TV doing what he does weekly is really doing that organization a huge disservice. MM attributes everything to a squatch and leads witnesses through the interview so that he can more easily declare, yes you saw a squatch. It really does, at least for me, call into question the entire BFRO database if that is how their "investigations" are conducted. They really should get MM off the TV if they want to be taken seriously.

Note: I am only talking about the BFRO sightings database. I am not making any assumptions or accusations about any of the other databases that seem to be highly regarded around here.

[Guest DWA]

^^^My reservation with discounting the BFRO database based on "Finding Bigfoot" and whatever the heck is happening to Matt Moneymaker is that in the vast majority of cases, he's not doing the followup investigation and, again, that's the public filing the reports.

As a matter of fact, "FB" is doing one great service to the BFRO database: it's making it pretty clear that those guys couldn't be making all those reports up themselves. But they are more than competent enough to put the DB out there for the public to fill in, which the public is doing.

One can do the occasional eyeroll on the follow-up, as "squatches do this" does happen there too. But in the end, whether any report goes on the pile for me is based on my assessment of two things: 1. Can we say they didn't see it? (Generally, we can't.) 2. Does it seem reasonable that they did, and less reasonable that they got hoaxed?

Not much one can say about lies, although I have yet to see anything to make me think this is just a tissue of same. But major mental illness, one might think, would come across in the follow-up. One hopes.

Edited January 14, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

If we can take the BFRO at their word, they screen out and eliminate many reports that don't ever get posted for failing the "smell" test.

Funny how some can see the proliferation of sighting reports as a phenomenon explained by the need to fabricate internet content, and not by the alternative explanation: The internet is providing, for the very first time, a repository of reports that always have existed, but we never knew the extent of those, because, well.... we had no place to go to report and read them. Back in the day, you might have shared them with your buddies or even just kept your mouth shut because you might have thought you were the only one and had no means to check yourself. At most, your story might have shown up as a tongue-in-cheek human interest story in your local paper of circulation 500. (And those, BTW, have always existed too) It is a natural human tendency to be uncomfortable if you feel you are the first to share information. In case you were wondering, it is hardly a coincidence more and more sex offenders are being exposed now. Victims are finding strength in numbers, and the internet is bolstering that. Ever been in a group of people who don't want to share something uncomfortable...that is until the first person open's up and then it all comes pouring out? I see this often in jury selection when you have to broach something sensitive during voire dire. This phenomenon is no different. People want cover when it is something extraordinarily weird they are talking about. Mostly, it is just more reassuring when you have that . That emotion is way more compelling than the brief jolt you get by makig up a story and seeing it on a website. Who anymore thinks THAT is worth the time and effort? Most of the people filing these reports have jobs, families and way more important things to do with their times y'all!

[Guest DWA]

^^^^Precisely.

To say that some might do that, sure, some do ...and those are the ones that you never see on the websites. Mainly because it takes about five seconds to type BIGFOOT MAN!!!!!!!! WE SAW BIGFOOOOOOOOOOOTTT!!!! HUGE 'N'STANKY 'N'ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!

(See?)

But to rule out, out of hand, even a significant fragment of the ones I've read based on that assumption is just silly, and shows that one hasn't properly considered it in the context of (that huge pile of) everything else.

(Come on, folks. Read up. If it's worth being here it's worth that.)

You wouldn't do it. You know no one who does; no one you know knows anyone who does.

Cut it out with the hasty assumptions and do some sifting. Swallow stuff whole, could be some glass in there.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

I have to agree with Marlboro on this one. Quite often the BFRO database is held up as strong evidence for the existence of BF on this board. Well, I'm sorry, but having the founder of that organization on TV doing what he does weekly is really doing that organization a huge disservice. MM attributes everything to a squatch and leads witnesses through the interview so that he can more easily declare, yes you saw a squatch. It really does, at least for me, call into question the entire BFRO database if that is how their "investigations" are conducted. They really should get MM off the TV if they want to be taken seriously.

I agree with ya a 100%, He uses the BFRO to keep BF in the news, it took him a while but it finally paid off, now he has his show and his paycheck is growing, so many of those reports have bogus info, locations that are in parking lots, large wooded areas that are 1/4 acre in size, people being interviewed over the phone, the list goes on and on, the BFRO exists for the sole purpose of making money, for those of you that don't mind and think you will find a BF with him, go pay the fee and check out an expedition, don't bring a camera cause they don't like those. Tim

[Martin]

As a matter of fact, "FB" is doing one great service to the BFRO database: it's making it pretty clear that those guys couldn't be making all those reports up themselves. But they are more than competent enough to put the DB out there for the public to fill in, which the public is doing.

I think the Finding Bigfoot show may further corrupt the BFRO database. The bar for having an "encounter" is getting lower and lower.