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

[Guest BFSleuth]

.... good point Darrell! lol

For anyone that feels they need to consider dining on crow, there are more palatable recipes. The Crow Creole looks pretty good....

[Guest]

I was formerly a hard core skeptic, I thought most people who claimed sightings or experiences were misidentifying something or lying or just weird folks. However I have an open mind, and can be truly dispassionate about most anything. I dont have a dog in the fight so to speak I guess. I started to actually analyze this phenomenom and the more I studies the subject, especially the eyewitness testimony I became more and more convinced that I could be wrong in my assessment. My long laundry list of objections I attacked one at a time and I found my questions could be addressed in a manner that was consistent with physical and biological laws of nature. But reading of eyewitnesses behavior was the thing I placed the most credence in. I realize eyewitness testimony is in a general sense very unreliable. But I have had the pleasure to serve with people like Darrel who I put a great deal of confidence in their ability to correctly relate what they have experienced. My father was a sniper in Europe in WWII. He had acquired the ability to actually look at things and see them and remember them. He did not forget what he saw. I was fortunate later to learn how he did that and be around folks who I would place my life in their observing abilities. If these guys said they saw a leprechaun I would seriously consider it.

[Hairy Man]

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)

I am very glad for the experience....it has changed my perspective in many ways. I am very grateful for the invite from the TBRC to go there, grateful for the sighting, grateful that three others witnessed the sighting with me, and grateful for the week of other experiences.

[Guest]

Man I gotta get a golden ticket into Area X. Can't they have a raffle to let one of us accompany Scott Heriott??

[Hairy Man]

Is Scott Herriott wrapped in bacon?

[Guest]

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.

That sounds about right to at least make a creditable effort if it were explicitly dedicated to bigfoot, and not some general "wildlife survey"..

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?

Snarky much?

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?

Given the voluminous evidence to hand, no level of investment will "prove there is no bigfoot" (there's that pesky "proving the negative" fallacy again by the way).

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.

You can't pull that "we've seen it all" bull with me, Sas. I know how those surveys are conducted and what they DO do and what they DON'T do. Those surveys are as much guesswork (however educated) as they are basic counting, and have not individually counted every animal nor have they ever examined every square inch of land on the continent.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And we don't even have "absence of evidence", given the sightings, photos, tracks, forensically typed hairs, etc already on record.

Sas, I concur that a reasonable person, based on the evidence, can conclude there is no BF.

Sleuth, we generally get along, but I have to call you on this one. To suggest that such a finding is either reasonable or logical given the evidence to hand is about the same as saying smoke can generate itself without something burning to produce it.

You are seriously suggesting that someone could read the library full of reports, view all the photos, examine all the cast tracks, study the scientific findings of Fahrenbach, Meldrum, Pinker, Moore, Schaller, and on and on and on and STILL come to the conclusion that there isn't at a minimum more the case to be likely than not that there is a bigfoot?

Seriously?

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 species.

Blatant appeal to authority.

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.

No you're just saying I'm crazy or irrational or delusional without actually using those words. That what I saw was all in my head, or that I was too stupid to understand what I saw.

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.

When a debate trick is old enough your grandfather could have been using it it's an "old skeptic trick".

And frankly, yes you ARE belittling me. You are implying I either hallucinated what I saw, was too stupid not to understand that I was seeing something else, or making the whole thing up. In what way is that not belittling someone?

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.

No they don't. They sit around and post snarky, belittling comments about them. Remember, I have an account over there and I DO still read in on those threads occasionally even though I stopped posting in them because it's not a fair forum over there.

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

Given that that involves dismissing the scientific opinions of a large number of experts in related fields, I call them "wrong". "Pseudo-skeptic" or "Skeptic" also spring to mind.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest RayG]

You are implying I either hallucinated what I saw, was too stupid not to understand that I was seeing something else, or making the whole thing up. In what way is that not belittling someone?

Surely you understand the problem with presenting only three choices, when there could be many. We're under no obligation to believe or trust some anonymous person on the internet when they make an unsubstantiated claim. How is that belittling them?

RayG

[Guest BFSleuth]

I think a reasonable person can set out with very strict standards for what evidence they would accept for the existence of BF. With very strict standards they could finish their survey of available current evidence and say that none of it rises to the level of acceptable evidence. However, I think that with such strict standards they may overlook the volumes of evidence that strongly implies there is something out there and that it warrants further investigation.

From my personal point of view, without a first hand sighting (only a first hand "hearing of the commotion" and follow up first hand interview with my brother years later), I am what I would say is a strong proponent that BF exists based on my own review of sighting reports, trackways, Sanderson, Fahrenbach, Meldrum, etc. To me it is more reasonable to say that the likelihood BF exists is strong. I think it is less reasonable to review everything and say it doesn't exist, but not outside the realm of all reason. I would rather argue the level standards that need to be met than to argue the reasonableness of a man.

[Guest]

I see a lot of old tricks in use on here,from the list of 38,

Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits;

exaggerate it.

The more general your opponent’s statement becomes,

the more objections you can find against it.

The more restricted

and narrow your own propositions remain, the easier they are to

defend.

State a false syllogism.

Your opponent makes a proposition, and by

false inference and distortion of his

ideas you force from the proposition other propositions that are not

intended and that appear absurd.

It then

appears that opponent’s proposition gave rise to these inconsistencies,

and so appears to be indirectly refuted.

That is numbers one and twenty four of a guideline on how to win an argument. It appears your "innocent " remark, is a well documented technique Drew. I sometimes wonder if all involved, on both sides to be fair, really care about the existence of Bigfoot, or rather, just like to engage in the debate.

[Guest]

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.

According to what I've read, enough Tabasco makes just about anything at least palatable. That's why SF pack a bunch of it in their kit whenever possible.

Surely you understand the problem with presenting only three choices, when there could be many. We're under no obligation to believe or trust some anonymous person on the internet when they make an unsubstantiated claim. How is that belittling them?

RayG

Those three catch-alls pretty much cover the bases. It was either all in my mind (didn't see anything at all, just thought I did), I didn't understand what I saw (which would include all misidentifications and hoaxes), or I'm making it up.

What other options are there?

And what reasons do you have to doubt either my mental state, intellect, or honesty?

Unlike Skeptics, I don't make assumptions about other persons' natures without evidence to support it.

I think a reasonable person can set out with very strict standards for what evidence they would accept for the existence of BF. With very strict standards they could finish their survey of available current evidence and say that none of it rises to the level of acceptable evidence. However, I think that with such strict standards they may overlook the volumes of evidence that strongly implies there is something out there and that it warrants further investigation.

From my personal point of view, without a first hand sighting (only a first hand "hearing of the commotion" and follow up first hand interview with my brother years later), I am what I would say is a strong proponent that BF exists based on my own review of sighting reports, trackways, Sanderson, Fahrenbach, Meldrum, etc. To me it is more reasonable to say that the likelihood BF exists is strong. I think it is less reasonable to review everything and say it doesn't exist, but not outside the realm of all reason. I would rather argue the level standards that need to be met than to argue the reasonableness of a man.

That is a fair enough way to put it, Sleuth.

[Guest RayG]

Those three catch-alls pretty much cover the bases. It was either all in my mind (didn't see anything at all, just thought I did), I didn't understand what I saw (which would include all misidentifications and hoaxes), or I'm making it up.

What other options are there?

Were you under the effects of stress, drugs, or alcohol? What about perceptual expectations? Perhaps you saw what you wanted to see. Are you somehow immune to the myriad of things that affect everyone's perception?

And what reasons do you have to doubt either my mental state, intellect, or honesty?

Unlike Skeptics, I don't make assumptions about other persons' natures without evidence to support it.

Yet you want me to make assumptions about the nature of your your mental state, intellect, and honesty, even though I don't have any evidence for them when it comes to your claim of a bigfoot sighting. I wasn't there to witness whatever you witnessed, don't know you from a hole in the ground, don't know what your mental state was, don't know whether you're being honest or not, and since no bigfoot specimen has ever been produced for close examination, I have no reason to believe or trust you. What, I should believe and trust you because you say I should? Would you believe and trust a random stranger?

There's a show that runs nearly every night up here called Just for Laugh Gags. In it they invariably have the comics dress as cops, or a motorcycle gang member, or priest, or some other recognizable figure, so as to make the gagee believe and trust them.

RayG

[Guest BFSleuth]

Were you under the effects of stress, drugs, or alcohol? What about perceptual expectations? Perhaps you saw what you wanted to see. Are you somehow immune to the myriad of things that affect everyone's perception?

Wouldn't it make more sense to ask Mulder for the particulars of his sighting first... or have you already read his sighting report? It seems rather out of line in my opinion to start jumping to questioning mental state right off the bat. Rather rude in fact.

[Guest RayG]

Mulder asked what other possibilities there might be and I responded with a few. If you have some evidence that we humans are not subject to a great variety of perceptual errors, then I will gladly stand corrected.

If you believe and trust everything strangers tell you, there's this Nigerian guy...

RayG

[Guest]

Ivory billed woodpeckers are extinct? I have seen these birds a dozen times here in the south. I will try to get a good picture. I see them occassionally..Havent seen Sasquatch, but the birds are here.

[Guest]

Were you under the effects of stress, drugs, or alcohol?

Which would either make me see things that weren't there at all or misidentify what I actually DID see, which would be either of the first two options.

And the answer is "no" to all three.

What about perceptual expectations? Perhaps you saw what you wanted to see.

I wasn't "wanting" to see anything, nor was I expecting to see anything. I wasn't even thinking about bigfoot at that particular moment. And frankly, at the time, for a long time afterward, and even occasionally today I wish I HADN'T seen one under those circumstances. Our locals have a rather questionable reputation, and, like with any other potentially dangerous animal, I'd rather limit my viewing of them to television, or with them firmly behind strong barriers, as in a zoo.

Are you somehow immune to the myriad of things that affect everyone's perception?

Probably not. That said, you have absolutely no evidence of anything that either would or did affect my perception.

Yet you want me to make assumptions about the nature of your your mental state, intellect, and honesty, even though I don't have any evidence for them when it comes to your claim of a bigfoot sighting.

That is exactly what you are doing. You assume I was either seeing things, didn't understand what I saw, or am being deceitful. You have absolutely no evidence for it, but you do it anyways.

Do you assume EVERYone you meet or correspond with is such? Why am I different? Because I saw something you don't want to accept that I saw.That's why.

I wasn't there to witness whatever you witnessed, don't know you from a hole in the ground, don't know what your mental state was, don't know whether you're being honest or not,

So you assume I'm either hallucinating, stupid or not telling the truth. Just like I said.

and since no bigfoot specimen has ever been produced for close examination, I have no reason to believe or trust you. What, I should believe and trust you because you say I should? Would you believe and trust a random stranger?

1) Having a specimen would prove nothing. We could have 100 specimens and I would still be considered unreliable in your eyes as I would not be able to "prove" to you that I saw one. So what difference does that make?

2) Unless I had VERY good reason not to (like someone telling me it was midnight at high noon). People as a rule are generally honest. Society couldn't function otherwise.

But when it comes to something like BF, in Skepticworld that basic presumption of honesty is thrown straight out the window.

There's a show that runs nearly every night up here called Just for Laugh Gags. In it they invariably have the comics dress as cops, or a motorcycle gang member, or priest, or some other recognizable figure, so as to make the gagee believe and trust them.

Image removed

RayG

So what? You have any proof that I was "gagged"?

Again, you ASSUME that I was. You CLAIM that I was. Entirely w/o evidence.

Finally, I want to go back to something you said about the law of Science:

Does science possess god-like power, Ray? Does reality come into being when accepted by Science and cease to exist when denied? Was the world flat until the Greeks discovered that it was round? Would airplanes not be able to function prior to the discovery of the physics of winged flight?

Of course not.

So why do you insist that the "acceptance" of Science is the be-all and end-all determinant of the reality of bigfoot? Any institution or person making such a claim is guilty of hubris of the highest order. Also guilty of hypocracy when it continues to insist on it's objectivity while simultaneously violating it's own rules and guidelines.

Edited August 28, 2012 by MikeG
.......previously-posted image removed