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

[Guest DWA]

"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.

That's because you don't understand personal incredulity.

Evidence is about the way to bet your money. Anyone who knows what the scientific proponents know about this would be extremely unlikely to bet significant money on the alternative. Personal incredulity is about total shutdown because I DON'T BELIEVE IT! One guy who reviewed P/G said he felt it was authentic...and in the next sentence basically said, nope, I can't believe the sasquatch is real. THAT is personal incredulity. Not thinking about it, just dismissing it.

What is the sun? What astronomers say it is? Or a heat lamp erected by the ancient Etruscans?

To someone familiar with sasquatch evidence, and applying reason and science, that is the gap between "this is real" and "this is fantasy."

"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.

"No proof", as I have pointed out numerous times, isn't even sauce, let alone weak. The gray squirrel was once "unproven."

"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.

...and, ditto.

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?

Nope, you just don't read reports without presuming, up front, that they can't be real. What the witness says can be your only guide. What else do you have? You are presuming that the whacked-out witness could be suffering from....Nope. If there isn't direct evidence to make one believe that....on the pile. All you can do.

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.

That paragraph is a pile of assumptions. Unlike the sasquatch, it is backed by no evidence.

Edited February 1, 2013 by DWA

[Guest thermalman]

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.

For such an intelligent creature, suburban sightings seem to go against their elusive nature.

Edited February 1, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest DWA]

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.

(Losing count of the number of times I have said this.)

"Suburban" sasquatch sightings occur almost without exception on the edge of large tracts of what - given evidence so far - would seem to be extremely suitable habitat. You're gonna see bear and fox and wolf in such places too, if they're present.

The more remote you make sasquatch, the less plausible it becomes. How is all this evidence coming from an animal that virtually no one sees? This is yet another example of the argument from incredulity: it can't be in those places. Um, from the number of people who are reporting it in those places, the smart money is to bet, um, yes it can, because it is.

Disbelief goes a long way toward estabishing a premise of nonexistence. Look! It's working.

Edited February 1, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

I've got to say, the opponents' arguments for discounting eyewitness accounts is the very definition of "cognitive dissonance."

Here's just a partial list:

Yellowstone caldera

China

Giant squid

Small pox vaccine

The Grand Canyon

Tool use in higher primates

South Pass

Microbes

Heavier than air flight

Pluto

Ascent of Mt. Everest, etc., etc., etc....

Can we all note the common denominator in all of these phenomenon/events/facts/discoveries/accomplishments? That's right, humans believed other humans' oral accounts, followed up on those accounts, and we don't question them as fact. Sue, not everything reported as real, is real. Some things are harder to confirm than others. Some you'll have to just take somebody's word for. Some will never be confirmed, or not. But, civilizations that ignore plausible and consistent reports of phenomenon and dismiss them out of hand will stall their own advancement and that of humanity in general. So, as our friends in B.O.C. are wont to sing: "History proves again and again, how nature points out the folly of men...." Or, as K. Vonnegut used to say: "So it goes."

[Guest]

^I'd say that history proves again and again that if you go looking for something that exists, you'll find it. Some folks say that no one has looked for bigfoot, which is poppycock. Those people are committing some kind of "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy, because "looking" has been going on for centuries.

[Guest DWA]

There are too many unfounded assumptions being tossed around by bigfoot disclaimers as blanked discreditors of the evidence: somebody would have shot one (people have); hit one (people have); found remains (people have); hunters would have seen them (that's most of who do); etc.

(Leaving out the weasel words "[people] say they have...")

Of all the unfounded assumptions, i.e,, backed by no evidence, that I can come up with, here's the most likely (like, near 110% probability) to be true:

If sasquatch has the range that encounter reports make it appear to have, LOTS of people are seeing them. Probably more than see wolves, cougar or wolverines.

In fact, John Green concludes from reports that this animal is neither rare nor endangered. I concur, if it's real.

So, if the evidence says lots of people are seeing them, then one reasonable thing to assume is that lots of people are. It's not any mental stretch at all to go from that to: somebody with mainstream cred has to follow up and move evidence up the chain of custody before thousands of authentic sightings amount to anything.

^I'd say that history proves again and again that if you go looking for something that exists, you'll find it. Some folks say that no one has looked for bigfoot, which is poppycock. Those people are committing some kind of "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy, because "looking" has been going on for centuries.

Well, no. We've talked about this. The idea that the scientific mainstream is unrelentingly hostile to this topic - or that the response to it really could not logically come out closer to the case that would obtain were that true - now, that ain't poppycock.

My second-most-likely presumption unbacked by evidence: if science cared, we'd have proof. (About 98-102% probability, take your pick.)

All those other unfounded assumptions? Poppycock. Evidence says so.

Oh. You're right on this. Those people who are looking for bigfoot? FINDING IT. Evidence says so.

Edited February 1, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

Saskeptic...my bigger point being: Some of these subjects/phenomenon were considered "real" by people for long periods based on hearsay accounts only. Are we somehow superior to them for disbelieving anectdotal evidence? I guess that is your thesis.

BF is reported as "found", on average, about 15 times (+/-) per month on this continent. What I'm talking about is the opponents' view that these, somehow, don't count for jack. I'm always drawn back to this implicit assertion, and I'm always left scratching my head. As I wrote yesterday, we as a culture suffer from a paucity of imagination on that point. Granted, we've always acted this way, but it seems the habit is getting more entrenched the more we are convinced we are somehow outside the boundaries of what all saner cultures and times considered axiomatic.

That is: If enough people consistently describe something, at some threshold number of reported experiences, absent any other reasonable explanation (Still waiting on that, btw...) the probability of reasonably discounting those is insurmountable. Not impossible, but, "I don't believe it" is not a suitable or satisfactory explanation in any field of endeavor. (Or, as we used to say on the playground: NUH-UHHHHH!!!)

So, instead, were left with the opponents' (I guess) refrain: "You going to believe me, or your lyin' eyes?" Passing strange.

Edited February 1, 2013 by WSA

[Guest DWA]

My points, exactly.

As soon as someone shows me, and backs it with evidence, this reasonable alternative explanation to normal people with normal faculties just reporting what they see, and normal scientists using normal science and normal curiosity to research something unusual...[drums fingers]...gonna be a loooooooong wait, methinks.

(Oh. Right. By "something unusual," I'm not talking about sasquatch. Mountain goats are more unusual. It's "an animal living in North America that is frequently seen by sober people, who are so far ahead of organized science in affirming its reality that the scientists actually appear to be the very last people who will in fact know.")

Science - and the ultra-skeptic, bordering on cynic, mindset it has spawned - is a double-edged sword. Sometimes it's like extra-long antennae, giving us advance notice of the unknown.

And sometimes it's like extra-long shoelaces. Left untied. Start running and [WHAM!]

Edited February 1, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

Saskeptic...my bigger point being: Some of these subjects/phenomenon were considered "real" by people for long periods based on hearsay accounts only. Are we somehow superior to them for disbelieving anectdotal evidence?

Not at all. The difference is that we have an established standard for the recognition of a new species, and that standard has not been met in the case of "bigfoot". It has nothing to do with superiority or cynicism. It simply boils down to bigfoot is or bigfoot isn't. For us to recognize that bigfoot is, we need a piece of a bigfoot.

[dmaker]

Could someone attempt to explain why there is so much empty handedness in Squatchery? There have to a pretty high number of amateur researchers out in the field at any given time. These people are out there with the intention and purpose of finding a Sasquatch or tracks, hair or other pieces of evidence. Sometimes we get tracks, more often we get blobsquatch photos, coyote howls, bird whistles and other non-squatchy things. So if they are out there in the numbers that John Green estimated, and people are looking for them ( maybe not "mainstream science", but people intent on finding them), then why are they always coming up empty handed? Sure you can say I went out looking for minks and saw none. Perfectly believable. But when that many people head out to find one, and that many people fail to bring back anything tangible, why would that be? If that many people went out looking for any other animal with Sasquatches reported distribution and size, I'm pretty sure they would come back with some nice photos, or hair, or even a dead one. Why not so much with Bigfoot?

And by empty handed I mean nothing physical that you can hold in your hand. I am not talking about tales or reports, I mean something that we can all look at, or touch, or feel.

[Guest DWA]

(Losing track of how many times he has attempted to answer this question.)

(Losing track of how many times he has heard proof and evidence - and what to do with them - confused.)

(Wanting to come up with a concomitant phrase to "empty-handedness" to explain wassup. Decides to hold off.)

You ain't gonna come close to proof until someone gives a piece of a bigfoot to someone who says, zowie! piece of a bigfoot! Gives it to somebody who says zowie! piece of a bigfoot...! and so on and on until that piece lands with someone whose word counts with the mainstream and who is willing to give bigfoot the time of day.

Chances that will happen with current zoological mindset: hovering at or below zero.

One won't get a change in that mindset until the evidence is seen as what it is.

Evidence.

Copious evidence. Consistent evidence. Compelling evidence. Over and out.

This is so easy to get that I wonder whether a government conspiracy is behind the difficulty in getting it.

[dmaker]

I get what you say about evidence and proof. I wasn't anywhere near asking about that. I am asking that with so many people actually out looking for Bigfoot, then why is there no piece of Bigfoot yet??? How can that be possible if the creature actually exists? Are they all inept? Does one require a Phd in Biology to go out in the woods and find one? That seems odd. People find other large mammals constantly without advanced degrees or training. And even if "mainstream science" decided to indulge you, do you really think it would mean THAT many more feet on the ground? Would there suddenly be 100's or 1,000's of Phds swarming around in the woods? Probably not. Why have all the efforts to date not produced one single piece of a Bigfoot?

Edited February 1, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

(Lost count of how many times he has said this.)

Effective number of people searching, in the field, for bigfoot at any given time; zero.

Where does the perception come from that this big search is going on? When "Finding Bigfoot" - the way I would prescribe to ensure failure - is all that's out there?

Mainstream interest will mean money to do this the way it must be done: extended time - spent in the field - by qualified people, in an area of much recent evidence.

The average TBRC three-day expedition, had anyone with mainstream connections been on it, been honest, and been swayed not by his incredulity but by the simple facts, would have led that person to conclude by the end of the three days that there was something here worthy of big-time investment, by it-wouldn't-take-many people.

Oh wait. It's happening. The TBRC is finally doing it. But they have done it so far nowhere near the time it takes, on average, to confirm any species. To convince them, to a man, to a woman, that the animal is real: yes. (There are very serious people in the TBRC. That they can't get the mainstream's attention is an indictment of the mainstream, right there.)

But to convince those who won't move off square one until there is proof? No.

Edited February 1, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

So how long does it take, on average, to confirm a species? I'm curious to know. Also, I don't think that you can say there are zero people in the field. People talk on here all the time about what they do when out "researching". I am , and let's be clear on this because you said it not me, in NO WAY AT ALL talking about Finding Bigfoot. I mean the dedicated amateurs that go out quite frequently if they are to be believed. Maybe I should start a thread asking people to chime in on how much time they have spent in the field and we can see if, according to your standards, that equates to ZERO effective people in the field at any given time.

[Guest DWA]

So how long does it take, on average, to confirm a species? I'm curious to know. Also, I don't think that you can say there are zero people in the field. People talk on here all the time about what they do when out "researching". I am , and let's be clear on this because you said it not me, in NO WAY AT ALL talking about Finding Bigfoot. I mean the dedicated amateurs that go out quite frequently if they are to be believed. Maybe I should start a thread asking people to chime in on how much time they have spent in the field and we can see if, according to your standards, that equates to ZERO effective people in the field at any given time.

Simple answer to your first question: years, after somebody gets the first piece of evidence that there may be something here. (And provided it's a kind of animal that the mainstream doesn't reject out of hand.)

And that relates to another thing you aren't thinking about. Proof is never among the first 100 pieces of evidence obtained. If the building blocks are ignored, no building. (No shock.)

And I don't care if (oh, I'm right btw) 1,000 people are out in each state, each week. One cannot wave off the evidence by finding out that simple fact. One then needs to see why they don't have it done yet. (Hint: most of them don't know how to go about looking. Remember: "Finding Bigfoot.")