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

[Guest]

Most of those doing the inventory, I suspect, knew what would happen to them if they reported a bigfoot.

I know what would happen to me: I'd make the discovery of a lifetime, publish my greatest work, and never again worry about funding for my lab. Of course, I also understand that I have nothing to "report" unless I've got a piece of a bigfoot. That's what's different: you're still concerned about sightings of bigfoot and I've been saying from the get-go that sightings won't prove the existence of bigfoot. To do that we need a bigfoot, or at least a piece of one. So far, we don't.

[dmaker]

I can't help but think that if this large animal was out in the places it's reported to be, in the numbers it would have to be, that we would have had to even accidentally stumbled upon it by now. Never mind concerted effort. We'd be bumping into these by accident now in the pursuit of completely unrelated activities. We can footage of a giant squid 1000m under the ocean, but we can't come up with one scrap of conclusive evidence of a giant, hairy hominid living in our backyards..? It defies belief.

[Guest thermalman]

In a sense you're correct dmaker, BUT think of all the people that seems to vanish forever, without ever a trace of them being found? It too, defies belief. We know they were here, then gone!

[Guest]

I know what would happen to me: I'd make the discovery of a lifetime, publish my greatest work, and never again worry about funding for my lab. Of course, I also understand that I have nothing to "report" unless I've got a piece of a bigfoot. That's what's different: you're still concerned about sightings of bigfoot and I've been saying from the get-go that sightings won't prove the existence of bigfoot. To do that we need a bigfoot, or at least a piece of one. So far, we don't.

This is what is frustrating about the 45 year long debate about the Patterson Gimlin film. You will never prove anything with that film. You must have a body to prove Bigfoot exists, nothing less will suffice.

Edited January 31, 2013 by fishnut

[WSA]

dmaker... we stumble on it, or it on us, quite frequently. Only those who dismiss the sighting reports, footprints and films out of hand are wondering what all the fuss is about. It is a great way to avoid heavy lifting....requires very little intellectual rigor and your conclusion is guaranteed. (No body, no evidence!) Plus (always a bonus) those who approach the evidence this way get to be smug and condescending. What's not to love?! (Shoot, I may take it up)

[dmaker]

I hope I didn't sound smug or condescending. I think the heavy lifting is more in the leap of faith that is required to connect the rather intangible pieces of evidence that exist to the physical reality of a population of giants in our midst yet we can't get a SINGLE PIECE of one?

[Guest DWA]

I know what would happen to me: I'd make the discovery of a lifetime, publish my greatest work, and never again worry about funding for my lab. Of course, I also understand that I have nothing to "report" unless I've got a piece of a bigfoot. That's what's different: you're still concerned about sightings of bigfoot and I've been saying from the get-go that sightings won't prove the existence of bigfoot. To do that we need a bigfoot, or at least a piece of one. So far, we don't.

(I can't count the number of times I've typed this.)

If you don't look you don't find anything. Amount of looking for bigfoot going on right now, actually make that, in history:

Well, I've spent more total time in my life looking for flying squirrels and mink, almost all that time in places rife with them. Never a one.

Until the mainstream has accepted this as a puzzle that is way past time to solve and let's solve it: science is me, looking for flying squirrels and mink.

And we know what you would do, and we know that maybe two other scientists who haven't openly said they're looking for sasquatch feel that way.

(I have as much evidence for that as anyone has presented me that sasquatch isn't real.)

[Drew]

Well, I've spent more total time in my life looking for flying squirrels and mink, almost all that time in places rife with them. Never a one.

Protip: You're doing it wrong.

[Guest DWA]

No wronger than mainstream scientists "looking - not - for bigfoot."

Which was precisely my point.

[Drew]

I was looking for rattlesnakes last spring and found a mink. Go figure.

[Guest]

^That's impossible Drew! You can't find animals for which you aren't specifically looking. Everybody knows that!

[Guest DWA]

Some people are out hanging laundry, and see a bigfoot. Some people are deer hunting and see a bigfoot. Some people are driving to their job at a prison/fast food place/homeless/shelter/hospital/government agency and see a bigfoot. Some people are logging and see a bigfoot. Some people are fishing and see a bigfoot. Some people are walking the dog and see a bigfoot. Some people are hanging on the porch and see a bigfoot. Some people...sensing a pattern?

Go figure.

[WSA]

dmaker.....no, I wasn't pointing at you, or really anyone here on this board. We are all good eggs, brush after every meal and change our socks daily.

I have to tell you though, the mainstream's discomfiture over Sasquatch's more ethereal qualities is a very European, post-enlightenment one. Native populations haven't/don't have this driving need to measure, collect and validate. They are very much satisfied with personal confirmation. The idea that a sentient being can only exist if the common consensus says it is so is just a trait of the dominant culture, not of all citizens, and not a very endearing one. If my reading is any indication, most of those who see a BF up close and personal have very little incentive to convince anyone else of its existence. Bearing witness seems to be the primary drive for retelling these stories. In that regard, it seems to track the approach of many N.A. Indian cultures.

[Guest DWA]

OK, Saskeptic, you have talked past me long enough. Here it is, slam:

If scientists really were the way you say they are about bigfoot, we would know by now. We would not be having these discussions; we would know. We likely would have known by the summer after P/G was shot.

If scientists were the way you say they are.

We don't.

So they are clearly not.

I love the three-term syllogism. Escape that one. Go.

dmaker.....no, I wasn't pointing at you, or really anyone here on this board. We are all good eggs, brush after every meal and change our socks daily.

I have to tell you though, the mainstream's discomfiture over Sasquatch's more ethereal qualities is a very European, post-enlightenment one. Native populations haven't/don't have this driving need to measure, collect and validate. They are very much satisfied with personal confirmation. The idea that a sentient being can only exist if the common consensus says it is so is just a trait of the dominant culture, not of all citizens, and not a very endearing one. If my reading is any indication, most of those who see a BF up close and personal have very little incentive to convince anyone else of its existence. Bearing witness seems to be the primary drive for retelling these stories. In that regard, it seems to track the approach of many N.A. Indian cultures.

B.T. plus. Science is the biggest blinder we have sometimes.

[WSA]

And just every once in awhile DWA, somebody goes looking form BF and finds one. Of course, that is the worst luck of all, because as Patterson and Gimlin found out, nobody believes you when you find what you are looking for.