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

[WSA]

RedRatSnake.....just so I'm clear on your point of view and sources of information...

The BFRO is paying folks to submit these and/or creating them for themselves, or otherwisre perpetrating a fraud for financial gain? Is that what you are saying? If so, please be clear.

We must also be reading two different databases, because I've not seen many, if any fitting the descriptions you made. Would you link me to one of those?

Look, I carry no brief for M.M. and FBF et al. BUT, it is a much different thing to say the things I think you are saying, or are you?

[Guest DWA]

Apologies: I tried to break up the text but for some reason the edits aren't taking.

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

Well, the only way that bar gets adjusted - and kinda hard to determine where that should be for something that isn't confirmed - is with what we think of the ones we read. If one sounds bogus to me, that's my read on it.When I read a report, I ask myself what my subjective/objective read on it is. And yeah, you will inevitably mix them. Here's a non-exhaustive list of what I consider:- Does this sound like a similar animal is being described to the composite read I get from my assessment of the evidence?- Does the witness seem to include a rich background of descriptive detail? Does one come out in the follow-up investigation?- Am I seeing a number of markers consistent with what I would expect given my composite read of the evidence?- Is there any good reason at all to distrust the witness, the investigator, or both?- Does the encounter appear to have happened in a place I would expect from my composite read of the evidence?Anyway, you get the idea. The reports I have been seeing since "Finding Bigfoot" don't sound significantly different from the ones I was reading before "Finding Bigfoot." I would think I would see a lot more "dumbed down" reports reflecting your idea of a lowered bar. ("We thought the woods looked squatchy...then something big ran by! It looked like Bobo, only bigger!") But I don't think I am.There is one difference: the very large number of encounters from the current or previous calendar year. That's easy to attribute to a lot of people now knowing where they can report something because it's being publicized on a well-known TV show.Bogus reports just smell that way to me. Most of what I read on BFRO, though, doesn't. It's consistent with my take on all the other evidence I am aware of."FB" is an unfortunate thing to juxtapose with the evidence. But I see no reason to believe it corrupts it. They are two different things.

Edited January 14, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

@WSA "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? "

Uhm, Ed Smith, and probably some others on this board but I have to try to stay within the rules, so no names....

Edited January 14, 2013 by dmaker

[Martin]

I just went and looked at what appears to be the most recent report.

Report # 36710. Class A.

Observed: We were out driving looking for a bigfoot sighting, and after driving for over an hour we had one.

Follow-up: On October 19, 2012, late in the night, a school employee and several of his high school students were driving in the Christmas area squatching.

Wonder why they were out squatching?

[WSA]

Oh sure dmaker, actions of a few, etc., but taken as a whole, offering it as THE explanation for ALL (or almost all) of these reports strikes me as a long stretch. People are just not known be that uniformly and consistently dishonest.

Martin, DWA and I were bouncing that report around between us earlier today. I was less open to it being useful. I told him I'd put it on the pile, but near the bottom: More unlikely than likely. Mostly, it is the lack of good detail and general supporting circumstances (i.e. "I saw it over by that tree that Uncle Billy tied that birdfeeder to six years ago, about the time he shipped out to Iraq...the one next to the oak that got hit by lightning in the 2008 tornado that stove up granny's henhouse") I thought to myself: Right, they were looking for BF and found it. Then again, I said, so was Patterson, so...

But, you've given me an opportunity to say, "Believing in the likelihood of BF does not require you to accept every report, hook, line, bobber and sinker." This is a good example of one I can't feel strongly about and it doesn't add anything to my knowledge. Maybe the next one from this vicinity, if there is one will.

[Guest DWA]

More apologies: Suddenly I can't seem to separate paragraphs here and I'm not sure why.

Oh sure dmaker, actions of a few, etc., but taken as a whole, offering it as THE explanation for ALL (or almost all) of these reports strikes me as a long stretch. People are just not known be that uniformly and consistently dishonest.

Martin, DWA and I were bouncing that report around between us earlier today. I was less open to it being useful. I told him I'd put it on the pile, but near the bottom: More unlikely than likely. Mostly, it is the lack of good detail and general supporting circumstances (i.e. "I saw it over by that tree that Uncle Billy tied that birdfeeder to six years ago, about the time he shipped out to Iraq...the one next to the oak that got hit by lightning in the 2008 tornado that stove up granny's henhouse") I thought to myself: Right, they were looking for BF and found it. Then again, I said, so was Patterson, so...

But, you've given me an opportunity to say, "Believing in the likelihood of BF does not require you to accept every report, hook, line, bobber and sinker." This is a good example of one I can't feel strongly about and it doesn't add anything to my knowledge. Maybe the next one from this vicinity, if there is one will.

To me, it's a common fallacy that if you go out looking for something, you should not find it. Patterson and Gimlin went into an area they chose based on much recent sign. They also went on horseback; folks who do that tell you you see more wildlife when you do. I can't be utterly stunned that they got a close look at something the evidence tells them was there. I mean, skeptics keep saying how can we miss something this big? Well, it's harder to miss it if you go in prepared to see it. And as to the reports WSA cites: there are a number of reports of two encounters close to each other in time and space. If we are talking about a real animal, that does happen, although it would seem for this one that that would be the exception. When I put one "on the pile" that means: I see no reason to believe they are lying or mistaken, and what happened is of a piece with my understanding of the animal given other evidence.

Edited January 14, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

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.

At least we can agree that it is a void issue, if on no other points. The reason why it is a void issue is because to date nothing as claimed bigfoot evidence has ever led to the source being identified as a bigfoot. In fact, quite the opposite. It has led to the discovery of men hoaxing, and men misidentifying animal sign. That is the important distinction. Folks are claiming to see something, so it must be real is not a valid argument. (easily demonstrated) So, the real question is, can all of the witness reports and footprints, claimed data be erroneous/fabricated/mistaken identity? Yes, absolutely and overwhelmingly yes. The stats demonstrate that point quite well. You can compare the bigfoot phenomenon with many other "paranormal" claims such as ghosts, aliens, or even the leprechaun example I posted.

The amount of claimed sightings, and amount of real authenticated evidence are not even equal. In fact there are many more videos and photographs of ufos and ghosts, and reports of them than of bigfoot. Many more people "believe" it to be real also. Does that mean leprechauns must be real? All of those people can't be mistaken. (that is according to your logic!)

The real hard data says otherwise. It says, this isn't so much of a mystery as it is a prank played on folks. Lets look at what can be proven, instead of what can't be. Men hoax bigfoot prints. Men hoax bigfoot videos/films/photographs. Men misidentify normal animal sign as bigfoot evidence.

Is there any type of bigfoot evidence that we cannot explain with multiple examples of "proof of origin" and that origin being men?

You don't have to like the answers, but they aren't changing for anyones opinions. That is the whole point of discussing the specific evidence claims. What is really there? What is this (insert piece of evidence) evidence of? Is there something really out there? What is it? We have those answers. Many proponents just like to distort the facts.

Edited January 14, 2013 by LWD

[Guest DWA]

"Folks are claiming to see something, so it must be real is not a valid argument. (easily demonstrated)"

My opinion could not be stated better.

"So, the real question is, can all of the witness reports and footprints, claimed data be erroneous/fabricated/mistaken identity? Yes, absolutely and overwhelmingly yes."

My opinion could not be stated better.

And beyond this point, I can't seem to fix what comes after. Apologies. Something's jacking with my editor today.

Where we differ is where scientists do: on what to bet. Pursuing evidence = placing a bet. There's way too much and way too consistent evidence to bet on all of this amounting to a false positive. It behaves too much, a detailed read clearly shows, like consistent reports showing an animal whose behaviors and appearance are finely detailed. In short, one doesn't bet against evidence." It has led to the discovery of men hoaxing, and men misidentifying animal sign." And all of that has been summarily tossed (the debunking, one might add, having, in every case, been conducted by the proponents). The "huge pile" I frequently refer to is the stuff that can't be traced to any such source.

Edited January 14, 2013 by DWA

[Guest Stan Norton]

LWD -

Sorry but that is simply jibberish. You unfortunately give the impression of not actually having taken the time to read/research any of the purported 'evidence'. And please do note that I use 'purported' before lumping me in with that group of 'believer' folks that you seem to despise. As has been stated ad infinitum here, the 'evidence' is just that; 'evidence'. I certainly make no claim that it equates to proof. You however seem to make that assumption of others and go forward from there.

Firstly, if you really think that all, every last bit, of the purported evidence has been proven to be fake then you really ain't done your homework. Can you please point me to any (one will do) scientific paper which looks at the alleged footprint evidence and states categorically that it is fake. You won't find one I'm sure. I can point you to a fairly recent paper by a chap called Meldrum (happens to be a professor of primate anatomy by the way) which sets out the case for the authenticity of a particular set of tracks - see what I did there?...I inserted an actual piece of evidence for you to analyse. The line has been drawn - analyse and criticise away. Oh, and take any three of those casts and there's your answer to the 'show me three pieces of evidence' question. I think there a few more than three so take your pick of any three you like. Or did you mean more than three?

There are, without any doubt whatsoever, a number of pieces of 'evidence' which have not been proven to be fake - this is a fact, like it or not.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Stan Norton

[Cotter]

Stan - you make an interesting challenge.

Has anyone attempted to discredit Meldrum's research with a thorough (scientific) rebuttal?

[Guest DWA]

LWD: Here is my criterion for lingering on a topic, for indeed even finding it interesting:

When you tell me I'm wrong, I read up so I can understand it better. Or if I have read up (that is, what you have told me I need to read), I consider your arguments, and respond to them specifically.

Example. If you tell me - and someone once did - that 9/11 was a Government conspiracy, and as proof here's all this discussion of how the physics of the Towers' fall are just all wrong, ...well. I looked at the discussion; realized quickly that I'm not a physicist; and told my interlocutor: sorry, you have to start, with me, on evidence that our Government was in on a cover-up. You can't toss physics at me, because I consider the official story of what happened convincing, and if you tell me it isn't, that's not a language (Physicsese) that I understand.

So. Tell you what. Let me know when the paper comes out, and I just want the exec summary. But I didn't stay around, catcalling and ignoring things people were saying to me. I'm open to being shown I'm wrong. But I'm going to consider the evidence, carefully, and respond to what people say to me, if I'm hanging around. I'm not, for example, gonna keep asking for three-best-pieces-of-evidence if someone who seems to know what he's talking about tells me, clearly, why that will lead nowhere (it's pretty obvious to most why it won't, when something hasn't been proven yet), and I have no direct answer for that.

Just, you know, sayin'.

Edited January 14, 2013 by DWA

[Guest Stan Norton]

Stan - you make an interesting challenge.

Has anyone attempted to discredit Meldrum's research with a thorough (scientific) rebuttal?

No. As far as I am aware this has not happened in a scientific paper. Not sure any journal would accept a paper based on debunking, however well-written and presented, an undescribed organism. Ironic really!Anyway, I would love to see one - I would absolutely love to see a decent paper addressing the evidence from the 'other side' as it were. It may then move the argument on from Meldrum, Meldrum, Meldrum which, as much as I respect the chap, would be no bad thing for the argument (which I have used repeatedly myself!). At least we'd have a robust counterweight rather than ' those prints is fake so there and I'm not obliged to say why!'.

[Guest DWA]

Stan - you make an interesting challenge.

Has anyone attempted to discredit Meldrum's research with a thorough (scientific) rebuttal?

I have never seen a skeptical rebuttal to sasquatch evidence that stood up from the most basic scientific standpoint. If someone can point me to one I would love to read it. I will likely wind up showing why, nope, this isn't it, and here's why.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Well, as far as the footprint evidence goes there has been no robust, comprehensive rebuttal at all. I remember catching a documentary (History Channel I believe) featuring Meldrum, Anna Nekaris, Ian Redmond and others in which Dave Begun stated that the mid-tarsal break and the big toe just didn't add up in his opinion, but unfortunately (this being TV) nothing much else was made of that - would like to see this explored further.

The best work on prints ('purported', again) is clearly Krantz and Meldrum. One of the key killer points, for me, in Krantz's work was the demonstration of the undercutting on the side walls of prints, indicating that a flexible, fatty foot had retracted upon release of pressure, thereby allowing a very distinctive wall profile to the print. This clearly removes any possibility of a wooden/rigid fake foot. I have yet to see any explanation of how this might be done (and result in a long set of tracks with no evidence of the faker!).

Another thing which I would love to know if Krantz's two 'secret' criteria for identifying a real from fake tracks - does anyone know what they might have been??

[dmaker]

I have never seen a skeptical rebuttal to sasquatch evidence that stood up from the most basic scientific standpoint. If someone can point me to one I would love to read it. I will likely wind up showing why, nope, this isn't it, and here's why.

This does not meet your lay person standards? It's written by a PhD anthropologist. http://www.amazon.co...bigfoot exposedAh, just found your opinion on this on the cryptomundo forum. I think I'll read it anyway.

Edited January 15, 2013 by dmaker