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

[dmaker]

^^^ Makes sense, thanks for the reply.

[norseman]

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.

But I thought skeptics worked on facts........tangible stuff. What I'm reading above is that your gut instinct tells you the whole subject is fake. Which is fine your certainly entitled to your opinion. But what I don't like to read is when skeptics talk about there not being any good footage out there of an alleged Sasquatch........that it's just all blurry non sense that could just as easily be a charred stump as a Sasquatch. Which is nonsense. But a hoax? Well that's tougher isn't it?

My opinion on any media concerning Sasquatch is that we cannot ever rule out a hoax. It has two arms, two legs, walks bipedal and could always be a person in a monkey suit. Another point that I think is important is that when I see footage of Oliver or a Gorilla walking around on two legs..........they look kinda B movie to me as well. Apes don't walk on two legs normally and when they do they look odd to me............and I think that could be a deep seated bias in the human mind.

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.

But who is reputable that is out there currently looking for one? I think part of the problem is is that if your apart of the "community" then your footage is "suspect". Which this reputation is certainly well deserved with our past history and the amount of shysters that have been involved in the subject. Which is unfortunate.

Here is an example to illustrate my point:

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/memorial_day_bigfoot_video_a_closer_look/

And somewhere in the audio, as the subject comes into view is this: “looks like a white boy to me,†a statement made without a doubt by the late Fred Bradshaw, an avid Bigfooter from Elma, Washington. Having known Fred Bradshaw since 1995, his voice is easily recognizable. Isn’t it convenient, or too convenient, that a Bigfooter would be present when a camping couple just happens to film a Bigfoot?

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 think the believer side of the coin does one heck of alot more investigation into this phenom, than skeptics do. The problem with that is that you have a believer talking to a believer. So when we watch Finding Bigfoot? There isn't very many accounts that are thrown out. In the case of Todd Standing specifically, Finding Bigfoot did go and talk with him and he told him the area was too dangerous to take them into. That sent up red flags and justifiably so. So I guess that is one case that they were skeptical.

With FB/FB I would say these guys do not go out and investigate alleged footage of Sasquatch. They don't look over the scene or talk to witnesses. (I could be wrong). They simply look at footage and make a determination...........certainly not good scientific work. But by the same token skeptics come off as holier than thou.....they are scientific in their approach. So is it fair to hold a you tube channel of believers to the same standard as the skeptics?

Shouldn't this make skeptics all the more persistent in their inquiry?

I guess skeptics are waiting for some footage to tickle their fancy before becoming more involved..........I'm just rather skeptical that there is something out there in the future that is going to accomplish this.

But I wish skeptics would get more involved, if for nothing else to help explain why people see what they see if there is nothing out there to see or photograph or cast tracks from.

Edited January 29, 2013 by norseman

[dmaker]

Hey Norseman, great post and I agree with pretty much everything you said actually. The only comment I would add is a response to your last line that skeptics do not get involved to explain why people see what they see, or hear, or photograph, etc. Well that's not entirely true. If you mean in the strict sense of visiting report sites, interviewing eye witnesses, etc..then no maybe not a lot of skeptics do that. And that might be that they come from a position of disbelief. I am not going to go investigate a ghost report for two reasons: It does not interest me ( unlike BF); and I simply don't believe in ghosts, so why waste my time? But skeptics do constantly provide alternate explanations for alleged BF photos, sounds, images, etc. There was a thread on here recently where a member had posted links to recording of common wild animals pointing out how they sounded identical to some alleged BF vocalizations and whistles. This is just one example of many, but when that happens ( and depending on the disposition of the claimant) the skeptic is usually dismissed, the reasoning debunked whilst defying all logic and the proponent/claimant stubbornly stands by ( what seems clear to most as most definitely not a BF) his/her dubious evidence.

Edited January 29, 2013 by dmaker

[dmaker]

I just reread my post and I realize that I unintentionally made one of DWA's favourite points--the argument of personal incredulity. I said I would never chase down a ghost sighting because I simply do not believe in them. Clearly, that is dismissing the notion due to my personal belief of it is not possible for it to exist therefore it does not exist. I just wanted to acknowledge that I did that but also take a moment to point out that I do not feel exactly the same way for BF. I don't think that BF exists, or I am not convinced that BF exists, but I do think it is somewhat possible. I know that sounds like a hodgepodge of non committal comments, and it is, but that is the best I can do right now I think.

I realize that my wish washy statement on the existence of BF may seem incongruent with my sometimes ardent skeptical stance in some discussions. That is, I think, because I get very tired of the every shadow, every bump in the night, every noise, every figure that could easily be explained by something else is so often attributed to BF. That drives me a bit crazy and makes the skeptic in me seem much louder than the margin for existence mindset. I also struggle with the inconsistencies in reported BF behaviour. How can you be this shy, elusive creature that trail cams cannot even photo, yet at the same time have numerous reports where you bang on cottages or houses constantly during the night, walk into campsites for rib picnics in day light, stroll around in broad daylight following hunters, vocalize quite loudly in the presence of humans, throw objects at them ( nothing gets my attention better than a rock to the head I gotta tell you), etc? I probably need to spend some more time separating the chaff from the genuine and then maybe re-examine my position on BF. It's a challenge though given the conflicting evidence, the hoaxes, the lack of physical evidence ( other than tracks) and everything else that makes true faith in the existence of BF a huge intellectual leap for me. So in the meantime I'll remain skeptical and probably challenge most things that are presented.

[Guest DWA]

^^^I'm not chasing down a ghost report, or a guy bending spoons with his brain, or mummies walking at night.

Main reason? I'm not interested, really. But more power to anybody who is curious enough to want to know and work to find out.

(If one wants to present me with the evidence, please, the executive summary, not the 277-pager, thanks. But I am rooting for you and keeping an open mind.)

I think the shyness-and-elusiveness thing is overblown. As I've said here more than once: it's our ignorance and denial that is creating this 'elusiveness.' How that got started, you got me. But I consider the evidence pile more than large enough to stop fretting over that.

[norseman]

Hey Norseman, great post and I agree with pretty much everything you said actually. The only comment I would add is a response to your last line that skeptics do not get involved to explain why people see what they see, or hear, or photograph, etc. Well that's not entirely true. If you mean in the strict sense of visiting report sites, interviewing eye witnesses, etc..then no maybe not a lot of skeptics do that. And that might be that they come from a position of disbelief. I am not going to go investigate a ghost report for two reasons: It does not interest me ( unlike BF); and I simply don't believe in ghosts, so why waste my time? But skeptics do constantly provide alternate explanations for alleged BF photos, sounds, images, etc. There was a thread on here recently where a member had posted links to recording of common wild animals pointing out how they sounded identical to some alleged BF vocalizations and whistles. This is just one example of many, but when that happens ( and depending on the disposition of the claimant) the skeptic is usually dismissed, the reasoning debunked whilst defying all logic and the proponent/claimant stubbornly stands by ( what seems clear to most as most definitely not a BF) his/her dubious evidence.

That was my thread.

But as a skeptic if you take an interest in Sasquatch then you need to hold yourself to the same expectations as the believers. It's not enough to simply take pot shots from the sidelines........you have to get in the game. And to give credit where credit is due, many skeptics do exactly that, but others do not.

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.â€

― Theodore Roosevelt

[Guest DWA]

^^^This is my primary objection to bigfoot skepticism: it's not arena-based.

• I don't dismiss the mainstream Because I Believe. I dismisss it because the very things mainstream scientists say broadcast, to anyone acquainted well with the evidence, that they are not. I shouldn't think this, not being a scientist and all. But it is extremely, emperor-no-clothing obvious. They might as well tell me my lack of an advanced science degree makes everything I see just wrong, and cut to the chase.
  
• Ben Radford (to cite a favorite!) tells people who report encounters: pat head, I wasn't there...and here's what you saw. Thanks, there, Ben! He also says that the critical discipline in cryptozoology is psychology (i.e., you saw a bigfoot. OK, I will now diagnose your illness. Never mind, Ben, that one of psychology's first principles is that what you see is, generally, what you saw. People couldn't function otherwise.)
  
• The observational skills possessed by hundreds and hundreds of witnesses - many of them handling deadly weapons and driving vehicles when they had their encounters - are simply dismissed, easy for people who don't have to think. As one witness said about his job and what he saw: People are willing to spend a lot of money based on what I tell them I saw. (He assessed land for potential precious-mineral deposits.) As one can read right here, the smart money is that this guy saw just what he says he did: http://www.amazon.co...hick and vaughn
  

In short: if one tells me the sasquatch evidence is lacking, I'm going to assess that person's knowledge and credentials, and they better be there. And the credentials better show the earmarks of actual use. Krantz/Meldrum: check. Disotell/Scott/Cartmill et al: not so much.

Edited January 29, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

I guess, until we have a BF IN REAL TIME...dead or alive...OR we've found in tact skeletal remains, this debate will go on forever and ever. Looks like it will, since we're never going to get the aforementioned scenario. Cheers.

[Guest DWA]

Well, I don't believe in the occult and paranormal, you know, stuff like crystal balls, so I have a problem with your prediction.

[Guest]

Well, I don't believe in the occult and paranormal, you know, stuff like crystal balls, so I have a problem with your prediction.

Well it's 50 years so far...

carry on.

[Guest DWA]

50 years of nothing is nothing.

My clock doesn't even start until a mainstream organization funds a full-time effort. Effective number of people looking, for effective required time:

None. We wouldn't expect to find a set of keys with the effort devoted so far.

[Guest]

Well then...come on over our Dyer thread! I'm hanging out there. Might get what you're waiting for after all. LOL.

[norseman]

Well it's 50 years so far...

carry on.

I hear you, I really do.

But how much real professional effort has been put forth in harvesting a type specimen?

We rely on logging trucks, deer hunters and mushroom pickers to deliver the goods to us.........

A system must be put in place that stacks the odds in our favor, which will also require a complete rework of the mindset of the average Bigfooter.

[Guest DWA]

Well then...come on over our Dyer thread! I'm hanging out there. Might get what you're waiting for after all. LOL.

Dyer's a sideshow. Only an opinion, yeah. But with these guys, for me, it's just show me the body and stop all the posturing, you know?

[dmaker]

I hear you, I really do.

But how much real professional effort has been put forth in harvesting a type specimen?

We rely on logging trucks, deer hunters and mushroom pickers to deliver the goods to us.........

A system must be put in place that stacks the odds in our favor, which will also require a complete rework of the mindset of the average Bigfooter.

I hear you Noresman, but I can't help but wonder where is that funding going to come from. I heard this morning in another thread that the Falcon Project looks to be either dead or running into some serious funds issues with only hitting $11k of their targeted $355K I believe? If a University is not going to do it, or NatGeo or someone ( or at least haven't by now), then who will? I think this upcoming Spike TV thing will be a joke and I have zero faith in the Rick Dyer + Minnow films + the backlot of a Home Depot = a BF body. So that doesn't leave much other than private investors. I guess we need a BF enthusiast to win the lottery or something.