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

[Guest Particle Noun]

Drew, I defend your position in not accepting the existence of bigfoot, but I still find it more intellectually honest to state something like "I have seen no convincing evidence that Bigfoot exists, therefor I don't think it exists" rather than something which has the smack of sounding like objective truth like " Bigfoot doesn't exist"

Throwing those qualifiers in may seem ridiculous, but for me, if someone is really trying to express a position rationally, declarative statements of objective truth should be VERY rare, and certainly not in the realm of something with as much circumstantial evidence as Bigfoot. It is fine to believe Bigfoot doesn't exist, and there are good rational augments for that position, but I think it is disengenuos to state it as an objective truth. Was the world flat before it was discovered to be round?

[Guest BFSleuth]

^ +1. Better stated than the point I was trying to make earlier.

Declarative statements don't seem to be the correct purview of a skeptic.

[Guest]

. . . certainly enough that the matter is worthy of further study and inquiry.

Okay, well we've so far had one person in the thread commit to some specifics about what would constitute a good faith effort at that "further study and inquiry." That answer was something comparable to the effort to rediscover Ivory-billed Woodpecker, e.g., tens of millions, trained observers, gadgets, about 20 years, etc.

What about you, Mulder? I know you're an infallible observer or whatever so you can never be convinced that there's no bigfoot, but what about the rest of us? At what level of investment without the proverbial "slab monkey" payoff would you concede that it was appropriate for a critically-thinking person to conclude that there is no bigfoot?

Remember, there are plenty of people just like you who swear up and down that they're not lying, not crazy, not mistaken, couldn't have been hoaxed and are absolutely convinced that they encountered something that the results of the most sophisticated, expensive, and coordinated wildlife inventory effort ever conducted suggests is not there.

[Cotter]

Sas - can you direct me to the wildlife inventory effort?

It'd be interesting to see what animals (if any) they missed.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Sas, I concur that a reasonable person, based on the evidence, can conclude there is no BF. The information about BF is not a singular data set that everyone can access or that everyone has read, heard, or seen. Some of the information is private and some of the information is personal observations. Therefore if some people have access to information that others haven't had access to, then they may reach a different conclusion.

From what I have observed in discussion on this forum, it seems that some "skeptics" (I paraphrase that because not everyone that declares they are a skeptic really seem to function as skeptics) are unwilling to look at evidence or information. This also applies to some proponents that are unwilling to look at evidence proffered by skeptics to debunk certain sighting reports or other evidence in favor of BF.

I favor an approach that notes each data point (sighting report, video, etc.), gives some weight to the value of that data, and logs it in the overall personal data set. If the general weight of evidence is favorable to the existence of BF then I would conclude that the likelihood of BF is possible and worthy of continued effort to establish it as a fact, if the weight of the evidence doesn't favor the existence of BF then continued effort is called into question. Without a personal sighting I have given weight to the body of evidence that is available to me and think that BF likely exists and further research is warranted.

[Guest digsy11]

Reality is what is, not what you "perceive" or "believe".

You claim to be reason and logic, but your statement is inherently illogical and unreasonable. "There is no bigfoot" as a statement of absolute, objective reality is not in any way an intellectually defensible position, given the voluminous evidence that there it does in fact exist.

That is simply reality, whatever beliefs you hold notwithstanding, just as you are still affected by gravity regardless of whether or not you "believe" in it.

Let me make this clear. I claim there is no BF because I do not believe there to be based on the law of Science which is what I believe, as yet it is not a recognized spieces.

I am not stating BF does not exist to you or anyone else who believes in it because I can't disprove this to you or have any evidence to suggest what you have seen is not real because I wasn't there. I would never say "hey you're an idiot to think these things are real" as it's your right to believe whatever you want.

My unicorn statement in my opening post was merely an analogy to illustrate my viewpoint on the matter NOT to belittle anyones beliefs, not being an old skeptic, it is not an old "skeptic trick" of mine.

Simply put I am saying I don't believe BF is real NOT that BF is not real per-se.

[Guest John]

For real skeptics, there will be no need for consuming crow if BF is proven real.

I'm not at all convinced by the evidence so far for bigfoot/sasquatch as an unclassified species. Neither would it seem is 'mainstream science' (you know the sort that keeps jets in the air and cures or searches for cures for horrific diseases - as well as some things that we may have less reason to be proud of).

However, if and when scientifically acceptable proof arrives I'll be on board and buying an updated wildlife encyclopaedia or dedicated book to catch up on all the new stuff.

[Guest]

Who does or does not have a seat at the crow dinner seems to be a point of contention within the Bigfoot community. I do not think it is so simple as to say "the skeptics will be eating crow!" if and when Bigfoot is proven to be real. I think that level of "snarkiness" has a great deal to do with it. In general, if you are simply skeptical of the existence of Bigfoot because you do not feel there is enough evidence to convince you otherwise, I do not think you need to make plans to attend the feast.

However, if you appear to enjoy declaring that those who have had a sighting are "crazy" or "lying", or if you make blanket statements like "There will never be evidence" or "There is no Bigfoot", or just seem to have an all around know-it-all and better-than-those-silly-believers attitude about the whole thing, then you will be saddling up (when it happens).

For me, it's on a case-by-case basis, but I do not believe that simply being skeptical puts you in that category. As Justice Potter Stewart put it, "I know it when I see it".

[Guest]

Sas - can you direct me to the wildlife inventory effort?

It'd be interesting to see what animals (if any) they missed.

I'm referring to efforts by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology to confirm the existence of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. The animal they seem to have missed in their inventory is the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. That's why this example is relevant to the discussion of survey efforts for bigfoot.

[Guest]

Yes, I am a witness. I saw two of them in Area X (TBRC) in May. I had more than a week to experience and observe their behavior. We have a nice little thread going on about it in the Premium Area. You can also listen to eposides 38 and 39 of the Bigfoot Show for more information. And yes, as a trained anthropologist, I think very much that I can start drawing lines in the sand. No matter what their DNA may show, they are not human.

Wow...

Thanks for the very informational reply. I really wish I could access the Premium area to take a gander, but I am running on $$ fumes until payday. Maybe then...

And I did realize that you are a trained anthropologist (love reading much of what you have written concerning BF), and that was part of what begged my question (I.e., what in your view has caused you to take that stance...I have been of the opinion that what we find out about these creatures may cause us to re-define the term "human"). Because of the experiences to which you allude, you are apparently privy to much more "real' info than the "theoretical" stuff that gets jockied about on the forums, so thanks for sharing and pointing (me, at least) in an inquistive direction...

...Sorry to derail (although this bit of info is, to me, more valuable than the rest of the thread)

[Drew]

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/folder.2010-04-20.2993097079/2007-08%20IBWO%20Surveys%20LA%20Final%20Report1.pdf

[Guest]

From what I have observed in discussion on this forum, it seems that some "skeptics" . . . are unwilling to look at evidence or information.

I don't see that Sleuth, and I never have. This notion of "good" skeptics and "bad" skeptics is a red herring. Who is unwilling to look at evidence or information? No one I know. The skeptics with whom I interact both here and on the JREF consider video, photographs, audio, footprints, buttprints, ancient legends, newspaper articles, alleged eyewitness accounts, DNA samples from alleged tissue, etc. What do you call someone who carefully considers such things but concludes that they do not stand up to scrutiny?

Oh right - thanks Drew!

Link to Ivorybill Central: http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/

Edited August 27, 2012 by Saskeptic

[Cotter]

Ahh, Thx Sas (and Drew for the link):

I misunderstood your post thinking that there was some sort of exhaustive inventory project trying to document all life in North America.

I found it difficult to believe.

I'm straightened out now....thx again.

[Guest BFSleuth]

I don't see that Sleuth, and I never have. This notion of "good" skeptics and "bad" skeptics is a red herring. Who is unwilling to look at evidence or information?

Rather than name names I would say that when I read (and I paraphrase) things like "I don't need to look at the evidence because it is all ridiculous" or "BF will never be proved", it seems to beg the question of whether the person has suspended belief. Rather it seems they are operating from a point of belief and as such they aren't conducting themselves as skeptics per se, but rather as cynics or some other belief system. The notion of "good" or "bad" skeptics is simply noting whether they are behaving as skeptics or are behaving as a "true unbeliever" as it were.

What do you call someone who carefully considers such things but concludes that they do not stand up to scrutiny?

A skeptic. Especially if they make the conclusion based on the evidence at this time and are open to new evidence and to review their conclusion in the future. I think you have made your position clear in this regard and I consider you to be a "good" (ie. valid) skeptic.

[Guest Darrell]

As far as eating crow goes, I did that once during survival training with 1st SFG at Ft Lewis back in the late 80's. Not so bad if you use some salt and pepper and sprinkle some tabasco on it. Not as good as chicken but better than Thai snake gall. Ate some type of rat during an exercise in El Salv that was pretty good actually.