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

[Drew]

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.

Yes, all these people are seeing a completely elusive-to-science animal. Are you not picking up the correct conclusion to draw from your scenario?

Hint: These people are not seeing a real, biological creature. (they are seeing something else)

How do you take all of those thousands of sightings, in a country that has been explored more thoroughly than most, and conclude they must be seeing a GIANT HAIRY UNCLASSIFIED BEAST? No, you are not seeing the correct pattern.

[Guest DWA]

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.

And go to the Sightings blogs on that one. Go to the FL report, Orange County, about the HS teacher and his students who went squatchin' on consecutive nights and saw one (my bet, the same one) BOTH nights.

Maybe "Finding Bigfoot" will do some good in the end. People will take off the industrial-strength shades and LOOK.

Yes, all these people are seeing a completely elusive-to-science animal. Are you not picking up the correct conclusion to draw from your scenario?

Hint: These people are not seeing a real, biological creature. (they are seeing something else)

How do you take all of those thousands of sightings, in a country that has been explored more thoroughly than most, and conclude they must be seeing a GIANT HAIRY UNCLASSIFIED BEAST? No, you are not seeing the correct pattern.

Wrongo, boyo.

You aren't paying attention, not only to this topic, but to the history of science.

When thousands are reporting something, and the mainstream is doing the dark-glasses-tap-cane thing, I'm going with the former.

Oh wait. The only scientists I have encountered who are demonstrably using their science on this topic are going with the former.

Sorry. The argument from authority has never held water.

[Guest]

If scientists really were the way you say they are about bigfoot, we would know by now.

Correct. If there was such a thing as bigfoot, we would have known by now. Personally, I think we would've known by about 1885.

I'm not sure what you meant by "slam", but I'll play along. Slam.

[Guest DWA]

Correct. If there was such a thing as bigfoot, we would have known by now. Personally, I think we would've known by about 1885.

I'm not sure what you meant by "slam", but I'll play along. Slam.

Well, the game is not misreading what I said, that's for sure. Ridicule and sasquatch go together like snow and winter. When one group of scientists is practicing ridicule, and another is practicing science, I don't care how big the former group is. The only way to go is with the latter group.

Slam. (Might as well.)

[dmaker]

@DWA, so if thousands are reporting something, it must be true? Do you believe in UFOs? A quick search tells me there are several thousand per year, in fact 8,303 since Oct 2003. Bigfoot sightings are estimated at 400 per year. 12,000 documented cases of ghost sightings in the USA in 2010. These are numbers pulled from a quick Google, not hard research, but let's assume the broad range of them are true. So by the above, you must put your faith behind UFOs and ghosts as well as BF as the sightings cannot be wished away. Or does this logic only apply to Bigfoot?Poor Nessie only gets about 20 sightings per year.

Edited January 31, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

@DWA, so if thousands are reporting something, it must be true? Do you believe in UFOs? A quick search tells me there are several thousand per year, in fact 8,303 since Oct 2003. Bigfoot sightings are estimated at 400 per year. 12,000 documented cases of ghost sightings in the USA in 2010. These are numbers pulled from a quick Google, not hard research, but let's assume the broad range of them are true. So by the above, you must put your faith behind UFOs and ghosts as well as BF as the sightings cannot be wished away. Or does this logic only apply to Bigfoot?

UFOs are what the abbreviation says they are. Ghosts? What the heck is a ghost? My answer, supported well by evidence:

whatever the hell someone who saw a ghost saw.

Guidebook descriptions of sasquatch have been written, that well reflect what thousands of people are seeing.

[privately wonders whether skeptics confuse evidence and proof on purpose or not]

If that doesn't interest you, your scientist hat isn't on.

And once again with the simplifications. MY GOD with the simplifications. Please, please, God. If You aren't gonna let us prove sasquatch, let me see one skeptic who has really thought about this any. ONE.

Edited January 31, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

Wasn't asking you to define evidence or proof. You said if thousands are reporting something, and the mainstream goes the other way, then you go with the thousands. I was just wondering if that applies to things like aliens and ghosts as well. Though fairly good dodging on your part.

[Guest DWA]

Wasn't asking you to define evidence or proof. You said if thousands are reporting something, and the mainstream goes the other way, then you go with the thousands. I was just wondering if that applies to things like aliens and ghosts as well. Though fairly good dodging on your part.

Doesn't have to be dodging when...

[tries to count the number of times he has typed this; fails]

...when the mainstream shows, BY THE VERY THINGS THEY SAY, that they are paying no attention, and that a HS student with a C average who has read what I have would see it, as plainly as I do.

[Edit: OK, no. One not only has to read it, but to understand fully what one has read, and to have the experience and knowledge to leaven what one has read by, and judge it using, one's own experience. So not every HS student would qualify.]

Your belief in the infallibility of mainstream science is as touching as it is unjustified by the history of science.

Edited January 31, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

You know what? It doesn't matter if you believe in UFO's or ghosts, we're talking about Sasquatch. So forget the question altogether. If I am the you in the statement about the infallibility of mainstream science jab, the you're far off the mark. My disbelief in Sasquatch does not stem from the fact that science doesn't recognize it, therefore I do not either. Science cannot define love, but I know I love my wife. My disbelief in Sasquatch comes from one of your favorites: personal incredulity. I do not find the notion credible. An animal of that size roaming around undetected in our very midst is, TO ME, not credible at all, to put it succinctly. The fact that science has yet to find one and catalog it, just reinforces that notion. I cannot prove that there is no such thing as a flying pig, but I can find the idea not very credible.

I understand that there are hundreds, thousands even, of reports that just keep coming in. But as it stands right now, I need something more than eye witness reports if my belief were to ever shift. And nothing like that is happening. It's always hoax after hoax after hoax. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe. 'Nuff said.

[Guest DWA]

Not about belief.

About evidence.

All the disbelief in the world doesn't change the facts. There's the evidence. What is causing it?

If one doesn't know for sure - and skeptics demonstrably don't - one would want to find out, or am I wrong on that?

Skeptics seem to be protecting mainstream science from its ignorance. Why keep science from finding out? You don't want to know?

[dmaker]

I would love if some mainstream, scientific organization were to put together a great team and head for the woods in search of Sasquatch. Show me a petition, I'll sign it. That is not happening. Why? Answers have been given here many times, but you don't seem to think they are acceptable and that mainstream science is passing the buck. Ok fine, you are entitled to your opinion and I enjoy hearing it. I don't happen to agree, but that certainly is far from tragic. I don't have the same level of faith in the mountain of evidence that you so often point to. Why? Because it consists ( mostly) of eye witness reports. It is anecdotal, conditional and inconclusive. It does not matter to me that there is a mountain of it, that is has consistencies and patterns and that it comes from people with no reason to lie, from people in situations that you believe create an impossibility of a misidentification for some reason. You believe ( you don't like that word, but suck it up) that enough of these reports are true to warrant more from the mainstream. I don't. It still is what it is at the end of the day: not really enough to go on.

"All the disbelief in the world doesn't change the facts. There's the evidence. What is causing it?"

Misidentification, pareidolia, guys in monkey suits, hysteria, ...take your pic. The fact that nothing tangible has been produced yet just underscores the answer to the question. Why are you so sure that the evidence is due to an unidentified animal and not all the other possibilities?

At least I can point to numerous examples of misidentification and hoaxes as the cause to some of the evidence. And that can be done with zero margin of error. Can you do the same? No, you cannot.

[WSA]

dmaker, how many times has civilization followed anecdotal accounts to proof? Here's one we can all relate to: The discovery of N. America, to name just one. (What? How could there be an entire CONTINENT right in front of us and we haven't gotten PROOF of it yet??!!) It is THE chief method we humans share information and arrive at proof. One of the tragic aspects of our current zeitgeist is we think we are living outside of history. And we're constantly relearning that we aren't.

[Guest DWA]

Plussed. Cut it out, man, my plus finger's getting tired.

[dmaker]

So, there is the equivalent of 1,000s of miles of ocean that takes months to cross between us and a single, solitary, Bigfoot? They found the New World, it wasn't even that hard. Let me know when someone finds Bigfoot.

[Guest DWA]

"All the disbelief in the world doesn't change the facts. There's the evidence. What is causing it?"

Misidentification, pareidolia, guys in monkey suits, hysteria, ...take your pic. The fact that nothing tangible has been produced yet just underscores the answer to the question. Why are you so sure that the evidence is due to an unidentified animal and not all the other possibilities?

At least I can point to numerous examples of misidentification and hoaxes as the cause to some of the evidence. And that can be done with zero margin of error. Can you do the same? No, you cannot.

Red herring.

Two kids in a zebra suit is not evidence against the zebra. No identified hoax can be considered evidence against what was being hoaxed. (And don't try what everyone tries when I say this: the zebra is proven. Logically, that means nothing. Whether it's proven or not is irrelevant. If bigfoot's real, it's as real as Reese Witherspoon, as real as Barack Obama and Swiss cheese. Right now. Counter decisively invalidated.)

Why am I so sure? Because I have taken enough time to think about it to realize how absurd the alternative would be were it really true. Way beyond any absurdity I have yet encountered. Count on that. Compared to that - acutally, in absolute terms - sasquatch and gray squirrel are about equally plausible. It's simply that we are for some reason maniacally prima facie against the former concept for reasons beyond me.

As the skeptics love to say, because it allows them to check brains at the door: you can't make me prove a negative. I am not. I am making you prove an enormous number of false positives.

The only way a skeptic can gain points, and respect, in this conversation is by debunking evidence.

One is not allowed to blanket-sling "Misidentification, pareidolia, guys in monkey suits, hysteria, ...take your pic" at the wall and walk away. That simply isn't acceptable. (Oh. BTW, I have not read one report explainable by any of those. You probably haven't either.) One must show, report by report: that isn't a bigfoot...that is THIS. One must PROVE that. If one cannot ...the problem must be tossed to the scientific mainstream with the demand: solve this already. Stop acting blind, deaf and [not dumb, but the s-word]. Solve this already. It's your dam job.

The proponents have done their job. It's the mainstream that has failed the public on this one. The skeptical defense of the mainstream's inertia on this topic - in the face of the most evidence, ever, for anything still unproven - is the most unexplainable thing I have ever come across. No. More unexplainable than that. Um, than that too.

Edited January 31, 2013 by DWA