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

[bipedalist]

Wrong, doesn't matter if it's small mammal or large mammal a thinking "mammal" like BF could run rings around your AT shelter without setting off a gamecam....... the actual narrow pathway called the AT is exactly analogue to the larger problem of game cams in heavily forested montane environs of N. America. They are never going to come close to scratching the surface, and quit quoting the post immediately in front of yours..... it's bad style.

[Guest DWA]

Ever walk in swim fins?

Yes. That's how I know that Patty isn't a guy in swim fins.

[Guest]

Wrong, doesn't matter if it's small mammal or large mammal a thinking "mammal" like BF could run rings around your AT shelter without setting off a gamecam....... the actual narrow pathway called the AT is exactly analogue to the larger problem of game cams in heavily forested montane environs of N. America. They are never going to come close to scratching the surface,

Just curroius..can you name a mammal in NA that has NEVER been caught on a cam or any camera clearly?

Edited January 27, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest thermalman]

Bigfoot.....................lots of blobsqatches but no clear picture, except for one, the PGF.

[Guest]

Of course...LOL. I guess I should have added>>>>...

*Any animal at all for which we have had a BODY (dead or alive), but have been unable to photograph in it's natural habitat*

Edited January 27, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest]

How do you know? And for the record I used the term "alleged".

It's not a stump or a bear........so it's either real or a hoax.

But your explanation as to why it is a hoax "because Matt Moneymaker says it is" is weak sauce..............

It is such an obvious hoax it's not even worth arguing over, but I do have some oceanfront property in arizona for sale.

[norseman]

It is such an obvious hoax it's not even worth arguing over, but I do have some oceanfront property in arizona for sale.

I didn't know you were George Strait!?

Bud, your missing the whole point.

[dmaker]

How do you know? And for the record I used the term "alleged".

It's not a stump or a bear........so it's either real or a hoax.

But your explanation as to why it is a hoax "because Matt Moneymaker says it is" is weak sauce..............

The explanation that MM says so may be "weak sauce", but the explanation offered in the Hall of Shame is much more interesting.

Wasn't it George Parker that sold all the fake public real estate? Or was that only in NY?

Actually, Norseman, if you don't mind could you re-articulate your point please? I think what you were saying is that most people say that no one has provided clear footage ( with the emphasis on clear) of a Sasquatch since the PGF. But you disagree and point to examples such as Todd Standing ( and perhaps others you feel provide clear footage of a Sasquatch but did not mention here). I think the problem with using Todd Standing as your example is that most people consider him a hoaxer. To which you say, why, prove it. Well I can just respond based on my own reaction to his material and it looks fake. Also, the examination of his material ( and hence why he is in the Hall of Shame) done on squatch detective also support my gut reaction to Todd's evidence as being faked. I can't prove it to you, but I can share my personal opinion and point you towards others that share that opinion backed up with analysis.

[norseman]

Actually, Norseman, if you don't mind could you re-articulate your point please? I think what you were saying is that most people say that no one has provided clear footage ( with the emphasis on clear) of a Sasquatch since the PGF. But you disagree and point to examples such as Todd Standing ( and perhaps others you feel provide clear footage of a Sasquatch but did not mention here). I think the problem with using Todd Standing as your example is that most people consider him a hoaxer. To which you say, why, prove it. Well I can just respond based on my own reaction to his material and it looks fake. Also, the examination of his material ( and hence why he is in the Hall of Shame) done on squatch detective also support my gut reaction to Todd's evidence as being faked. I can't prove it to you, but I can share my personal opinion and point you towards others that share that opinion backed up with analysis.

No, what I'm saying is there HAS been clear footage since the PGF. These are little pet peeves of mine that skeptics trot out and prance around the stage with quite often.

So Todd Standing has clear footage of a Sasquatch. It's not a stump with eyeballs nor is it a bear or a moose rump turned sideways.

Skeptics respond that yes the footage is clear but it's a hoax...........how do they know it's a hoax? They claim that there is this elusive animal out there somewhere in the depths of the universe called the "clear footage that will convince me that Sasquatch is a real animal". Todd Standing's footage is pretty convincing........it's a cone shaped headed creature that its eye balls blink, it's pretty close up and all that. So you would think the skeptics would flock over to Todd Standing and ask him questions, ask to go see the creature for themselves.......whatever. But instead what we see them doing is allowing another Bigfooter to do a vetting process on Todd Standing for them. Not only is this lazy, it's also not good skeptical work either. And on top of all of that, Moneymaker has a dog in the fight, because Standing is a threat to his status as THE guy. And we can see this sort of friction in Bigfootdom all the way back to the beginning.

The crux of my whole argument is that if your going to whine about no good footage at least be honest with your self and admit that there is probably NO SUCH ANIMAL that is going to convince you. No photo, no film is going to give you what you need to "believe". And I'm ok with that..........I'm a type specimen proponent myself. But don't sit there and tell me that there isn't any good video out there......... Good video to me is video that shows an unknown animal on the screen no doubt about it. All that's left is to prove it not to be a hoax.............WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE. We have looked for the zipper in the PGF for almost 50 years now........nothing. So then the character of the film's owner is called into question. Which unless Jesus or Ghandi take the film? I doubt we are going to do well going down that route.

My personal belief is that Todd Standing is a hoaxer. I really don't trust the anti kill crowd when they have something to sell me. And that includes a much broader range of people than just Todd. But I will admit that he has some **** fine video of a alleged Squatch and I will admit that I have been known to be wrong in life.

But ultimately it isn't about that, it's about the skeptics that will fight heaven and earth to prove something wrong............but if a "believer" proves them right? They accept it at face value and just walk away.............what's up with that?

[dmaker]

No, what I'm saying is there HAS been clear footage since the PGF. These are little pet peeves of mine that skeptics trot out and prance around the stage with quite often.

So Todd Standing has clear footage of a Sasquatch. It's not a stump with eyeballs nor is it a bear or a moose rump turned sideways.

Skeptics respond that yes the footage is clear but it's a hoax...........how do they know it's a hoax? They claim that there is this elusive animal out there somewhere in the depths of the universe called the "clear footage that will convince me that Sasquatch is a real animal". Todd Standing's footage is pretty convincing........it's a cone shaped headed creature that its eye balls blink, it's pretty close up and all that. So you would think the skeptics would flock over to Todd Standing and ask him questions, ask to go see the creature for themselves.......whatever. But instead what we see them doing is allowing another Bigfooter to do a vetting process on Todd Standing for them. Not only is this lazy, it's also not good skeptical work either. And on top of all of that, Moneymaker has a dog in the fight, because Standing is a threat to his status as THE guy. And we can see this sort of friction in Bigfootdom all the way back to the beginning.

The crux of my whole argument is that if your going to whine about no good footage at least be honest with your self and admit that there is probably NO SUCH ANIMAL that is going to convince you. No photo, no film is going to give you what you need to "believe". And I'm ok with that..........I'm a type specimen proponent myself. But don't sit there and tell me that there isn't any good video out there......... Good video to me is video that shows an unknown animal on the screen no doubt about it. All that's left is to prove it not to be a hoax.............WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE. We have looked for the zipper in the PGF for almost 50 years now........nothing. So then the character of the film's owner is called into question. Which unless Jesus or Ghandi take the film? I doubt we are going to do well going down that route.

My personal belief is that Todd Standing is a hoaxer. I really don't trust the anti kill crowd when they have something to sell me. And that includes a much broader range of people than just Todd. But I will admit that he has some **** fine video of a alleged Squatch and I will admit that I have been known to be wrong in life.

But ultimately it isn't about that, it's about the skeptics that will fight heaven and earth to prove something wrong............but if a "believer" proves them right? They accept it at face value and just walk away.............what's up with that?

Thanks for clarifying your point. I dismiss Todd for more reasons that just some other Footer has debunked him. I go with my gut, and my gut in this case ( and all others to be honest and full disclosure and all that) says fake before I even learned he was in some Hall of Shame. His stuff looks like B movie SyFy channel type stuff to me. You see it as more compelling and that is perfectly fine. I am not going to travel from Ontario to Sylvanic and suffer the costs to do so to investigate what I immediately felt was fake from the first moment I laid eyes on it. I think there is other footage out there that looks better than his, but I still believe them to be fake. So does that mean that there is no such thing as footage that would convince me? Maybe not, maybe you are right. I like to think that there could be, but I have yet to see it. And I'm sorry but an eyeball blinking behind some foliage...nope, no where near good enough. The PGF? Pretty close actually, but my gut reaction is still that it's fake. But I keep looking at all the footage and reading all the same things as everyone else. I'm just not convinced... to date. A specimen would be great. But I do believe that clear footage from a reputable source would be just as convincing for me.

To add a follow-up question. Do you hold the same to be true for believers? What about the countless videos that FB/FB confirms? Are the believers supposed to go and vett everyone of those or is it ok for some other Footer to vett those and pronounce them genuine? If so, why so? Why don't they have to go out and confirm for themselves like you expect skeptics to do before we can align with some one else's analysis?

Edited January 28, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

To add a follow-up question. Do you hold the same to be true for believers? What about the countless videos that FB/FB confirms? Are the believers supposed to go and vett everyone of those or is it ok for some other Footer to vett those and pronounce them genuine? If so, why so? Why don't they have to go out and confirm for themselves like you expect skeptics to do before we can align with some one else's analysis?

I don't buy the conflation of the woo-woo and I-won't-use-a-pejorative-here-OK-FB/FB? proponents with the scientific proponents.

Putting FB/FB and Biscardi et al., on the one hand, and Meldrum, Bindernagel, Krantz, Swindler, Mionczynski et al., on the other in the same camp is the critical pseudoskeptical error. It shows one is not thinking about this topic the way a scientist should. FB/FB is a joke; anyone serious about this topic knows that. (I honestly think that it is an intentional practical joke. It's just too funny.) Biscardi is a joke too.

The main reason the 'bigfoot skeptics' cannot be taken seriously is their utter refusal to confront the scientific proponents on science's ground.

[dmaker]

I'm sorry DWA, not sure I follow exactly what you are trying to say. Norseman said skeptics take the easy way out because we rely on other people in the BF community to do our analysis and refutation for us rather than go out and personally vett people's claims. He never mentioned any scientists, nor was the word science ever used. So then, I guess by your logic, everyone should be held to a higher standard than what we had been using (insofar as the post exchange between Norseman and me), and that Norseman should run out and seek the buy in from Meldrum, et al on Todd Standing's material? And that I should not use some thing like squatchdetective's Hall of Shame to back up my opinion that Todd Standing is a hoax? And for the record, I don't recall ever putting Meldrum et al in the same camp as FB/FB. I'd be curious to see how you peronally categorize someone who is serious enough for you someone who isn't because I see quite a few posts that either reference FB/FB or that will say things like "I wonder what FB/FB will say about this footage", etc. I completely agree with you that FB/FB is a joke, just not sure all the other folks are on board with that.

My follow up question was more just an attempt to see if what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Edited January 28, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Well, I think I've given an idea of who is serious enough for me. The above names I cited; the TBRC; the BFRO when it isn't Finding Ratings (you can tell those guys aren't making those reports on that database up, and there are some very good regional investigators); Bill Dranginis, the VA researcher; Bill Munns; and anyone else who pays the demonstrated attention they do to the evidence.

FB/FB once "confirmed" pixelated crap - that was very clearly either fog or simply video artifact - in a badly fuzzy video as a sasquatch. That's the worst I have seen. But not by much.

So what I am saying is: FB/FB shouldn't be in a serious discussion of this topic. That is what I was reacting to. To determine who is serious and who is not, one needs to make a careful read of this subject and know more than a bit about people, the outdoors, and animals. Other than that you're on your own.

Edited January 28, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

Well not to split hairs but you made it pretty simple to determine who is serious and who is not: "FB/FB is a joke; anyone serious about this topic knows that." The fact that I agree with you does not negate the fact that you probably just dismissed the conviction of quite a few people on this board. But that's neither really here nor there.

Personally I think Todd Standing is a joke, so I guess bringing in FB/FB into a discussion where someone else brought in Mr. Standing, well that seemed sort of natural to me. But I do agree with you that FB/FB should not be mentioned in any serious discussion about this subject matter. That point I have no problem whatsoever agreeing with you upon, and furthermore I thank you for the steering back on to a serious course.

Edited January 28, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Well, maybe I should say what I think "serious" is.

Serious is when one has made a pretty thorough read of encounter reports and writings and internet material by the folks and organizations I have mentioned; reads other stuff, assesses against that, and forms opinions accordingly; knows what the mainstream of the evidence seems to be describing; and is very careful about either accepting or dismissing anything outside of that.

Folks who just say it's human; or just say it can't be real; or say it's an Emissary of the Saucer People; or postulate anything else that isn't healthily informed by what the mainstream of the evidence is describing, I have a hard time calling serious on this topic. And that includes people who have had encounters, and think that the encounter qualifies them as biologists. "It is human because I have seen one and I know."

I am sure many have seen dolphins and call them fish. Which they are, when one is talking about the right dolphin.

Edited January 28, 2013 by DWA