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

[dmaker]

"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."

Sniff, sniff. That smells an awful lot like personal incredulity. You don't believe that the alternative is possible, therefore it is not possible.

"I am making you prove an enormous number of false positives."

Pretty sure I can prove way more hoaxes and misidentifications than you can prove sasquatch sightings.

"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"

I cannnot prove a report isn't a BF anymore than you can prove that it is. I can prove many that turned out to be hoaxes and even find examples of ones that were later recanted due to new information that pointed to a misidentification. That's more than you can do.

I'm curious, you say have not read one report that could be explained away by misidentification, pareidolia, hoaxing or otherwise. How is that even possible? The only way I can imagine that to be possible is if you only consider reports that come from credible witnesses ( won't ask you to define credible, I imagine we have enough in common on that one for me to concede) and include a close-up or even face to face encounter. Are those the only reports you put on your pile?

Edited January 31, 2013 by dmaker

[norseman]

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

Slow down now........

If sightings are to be believed (humor me for a moment) then most people are going out in to the woods not specifically looking for Bigfoot. They are going out into the woods, hiking, camping, biking, picnicking, etc. and seeing something that they had not intended to see. Very few of those people are indeed going into the woods to specifically look for a Bigfoot. "Look for" is key here.........because that does not include intent to collect a type specimen for most of that small group. They are looking for track ways to cast, or interaction while recording audio or an actual sighting that is going to yield a photo or a video clip.

Following logic I have to ask, if Drew had gone out looking for snakes and instead of encountering a mink had encountered a Bigfoot? Was he prepared to take a type specimen? Or would he have came back scratching his head and his testimony simply added to another list to be scoffed at by skeptics? Or maybe he wouldn't have said anything at all fearing ridicule.........

All I can do is continue to press believers to reevaluate their beliefs and continue to nod my head "yes" every time a skeptic restates what science demands in order for it to recognize a species.

Very often I feel like I'm standing in the middle of the cross fire, I'm not loved by the Bigfoot community for what I advocate and I'm not loved by the skeptics because I cannot rule out the improbable because of my own personal experience.

[Guest thermalman]

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?

Would 2 billion acres of forested land in NA have anything to do with not getting any physical evidence, dmaker?

[dmaker]

^^ Of course it would thermalman, but if only Bigfoots were sighted in remote areas only then you might be on to something. But when they are everywhere including our backyards, parks, Home Depot bushes, urban green spaces, etc..then no, sorry I do not buy the argument based on the wide open spaces.

Edited February 1, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

(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.)

I know your mantra about not looking enough. Thing is... we really shouldn't have to *look* for this purported creature should we? In the 15000 yr history (according to Ketchum) BF has been wondering this planet...at least SOMETHING should have been stumbled upon by ever observant HUMANS wandering around as well. Now you're gonna say.*.well maybe they did, but we have no record of it*. If they did...you would see REAL PHYSICAL things that have been collected and harvested. Oh yeah..the NA people considered them *sacred*..so they didn't keep any goodies. I don't buy it. No matter how good these purported creatures are at *hiding*..they simply not *that good*..no creature is. You can make all the excuses in the world as to how *good they are at evading us*...even though we have MANY supposed *accounts* of SEEING THEM..so how *good* can they be?? The fact we aren't looking enough isn't the answer as to why we haven't *discovered* (ie, actually FOUND) one. I don't have to state the obvious do I? yeah..I know...it's not obvious to those who think we can never look hard enough.

[Guest thermalman]

^^@dmaker. A lot of those suburban sightings would have to be taken with a grain of salt, IMO. I feel that more emphasis of truth should be placed on those sightings seen in the wild and in isolated instances.

[dmaker]

I hear you thermalman, but that leads to all sorts of other issues. So what is the cause of the suburban sightings if not BF? And why would those same factors not apply to sightings in more BF hospitable terrain? People are only fallible ( when it comes to BF) when near city limits? How does that work exactly? See what I mean? It becomes harder to defend the idea of BF when you get to dismiss sightings reports because the locale is not suitable for the purported species IMO.

[norseman]

I hear you thermalman, but that leads to all sorts of other issues. So what is the cause of the suburban sightings if not BF? And why would those same factors not apply to sightings in more BF hospitable terrain? People are only fallible ( when it comes to BF) when near city limits? How does that work exactly? See what I mean? It becomes harder to defend the idea of BF when you get to dismiss sightings reports because the locale is not suitable for the purported species IMO.

Not really........

There is NOTHING in the wilderness that walks bipedally. With the exception of other humans...........so if the human population of the area is nil? Then the amount of misidentification is going to go down as well. Obviously nothing is absolute, but I would certainly back this theory as a dang good rule of thumb.

And I do not understand this mindset anyhow. Skeptics dismiss ALL sightings.......so how does the case for Bigfoot diminish because some sightings are not accepted because of locale by the Bigfoot community?

If I was looking for a new species of ape in the Congo.........I certainly wouldn't focus on reports that were reported behind a dumpster in down town Kinshasa. But that's just me............

[dmaker]

Your points certainly make sense Norseman. I said recently in a different thread that if I were to get behind any theory of BF, it would be the only lives in very remote areas idea. I still don't buy it, but that at least is an easier sell in my opinion.

[Guest]

And I do not understand this mindset anyhow. Skeptics dismiss ALL sightings.......so how does the case for Bigfoot diminish because some sightings are not accepted because of locale by the Bigfoot community?

If I was looking for a new species of ape in the Congo.........I certainly wouldn't focus on reports that were reported behind a dumpster in down town Kinshasa. But that's just me............

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised...should they exist...to see a creature like this being *opportunistic* in fetching an easy high caloric meal. In fact, I would EXPECT them to be attracted to sources like this as we encroach closer and closer into their normal habitat. I know they're not bears (all types including Polar), but I would use them as an analogy none the less.

Edited February 1, 2013 by ronn1

[dmaker]

^^ Yes, but then that makes it even harder to explain the lack of physical evidence. We can't have 600 lb giants going dumpster diving in suburbia and expect there to be no trace of it.

[Guest]

^^

Yep

[norseman]

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised...should they exist...to see a creature like this being *opportunistic* in fetching an easy high caloric meal. In fact, I would EXPECT them to be attracted to sources like this as we encroach closer and closer into their normal habitat. I know they're not bears (all types including Polar), but I would use them as an analogy none the less.

Easy? Dodging cars and mobs of potentially harmful people? As well as tons of other modern things that they couldn't possibly understand whether it was a threat or not? I.e. Sirens, lights, aircraft, etc?

[dmaker]

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised...should they exist...to see a creature like this being *opportunistic* in fetching an easy high caloric meal. In fact, I would EXPECT them to be attracted to sources like this as we encroach closer and closer into their normal habitat. I know they're not bears (all types including Polar), but I would use them as an analogy none the less.

And bears always get caught when they do this and are replaced back into the wild.

[Guest DWA]

^^ Yes, but then that makes it even harder to explain the lack of physical evidence. We can't have 600 lb giants going dumpster diving in suburbia and expect there to be no trace of it.

There are traces of it. Read the numerous reports. Of course, they were just bears. Or wolves. Or coyotes.

With the strength of two or three bears. And hands. Whatever.

Traces go to nothing when they are not followed up by scientists with mainstream cred, who are ready to acknowledge primate evidence when it's right in front of them. Period.

Edited February 1, 2013 by DWA