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

[dmaker]

If you believe the reports, and I know you do, then it would seem that it takes absolutely no special expertise at all to find a Bigfoot. Common everyday people going about common everyday tasks bump into them constantly in the report literature. So why can someone, who is intent on finding one, not have the same result? In fact, you would expect that someone who has a passion for this subject matter, reads up on supposed Bigfoot behaviour and habitat, gets tips from other Footers, well you would have to think that this person would have a higher chance of success, would you not? It just doesn't compute.

[Guest DWA]

I don't "believe the repports." I believe THAT the reports exhibit a pattern that flat out barks, to any serious scientist: LOOK HERE!

What is "finding one?" People are doing that all the time. The reports, remember?

Plus, as I said, the TBRC - which isn't about finding ratings but confirming sasquatch - has great protocols. They'd just laugh. They know. Proof is what takes time. Particularly when nothing other than a body will satisfy, and pretty much everybody underrates the difficulty of getting that.

Edited February 1, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

So, 1,000 people are out in each state, each week, TRYING to find Bigfoot, and they can't? But Joe Farmer can bump into him in his chicken coop? Sounds fishy to me.

[Guest]

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?

Maybe they are looking in the wrong places? Maybe they don't have the funding necessary for extended research in very remote areas? Maybe Sasquatch is the most elusive being on the planet? No one can give you a definitive answer to your question.

Why did it take mainstream science so long to obtain video footage of the legendary giant squid? Why did it take until 1902 for the mountain gorilla to be discovered? Why was the Coelacanth fish which was thought to have gone extinct 65 million years ago, rediscovered in 1938 and not before then?

[Guest]

No True Scotsmen:

Finding Bigfoot is not really looking for bigfoot.

TBRC is not really looking for bigfoot.

Jeff Meldrum is not really looking for bigfoot.

Rene Dahinden was not really looking for bigfoot.

Bryan Sykes is not really looking for bigfoot.

etc.

The one that makes the least sense to me, however, is this idea that because scientists are allegedly "hostile" to bigfoot that prevents non-scientists from finding a piece of one.

"Why has bigfoot not been collected yet?"

"Because scientists are mean to us!"

non sequitur

[Guest DWA]

^^^^If that's how your world works.

[Guest]

So how long does it take, on average, to confirm a species?

In the cases of western lowland gorilla, mountain gorilla, coelocanth, and saola, the answer is 0 years: Every one of those species was a serendipitous discovery made by people who were not looking for gorillas, coelocanths, or saolas.

In the case of okapi, the answer is < 1 year. Johnston announced his plans to find this strange animal of which the natives spoke and in less than one year said natives brought him an okapi hide from which the species was described.

[dmaker]

By finding one, I mean returning with something physical. I mentioned that up thread about an hour ago.

[Guest DWA]

In the cases of western lowland gorilla, mountain gorilla, coelocanth, and saola, the answer is 0 years: Every one of those species was a serendipitous discovery made by people who were not looking for gorillas, coelocanths, or saolas.

In the case of okapi, the answer is < 1 year. Johnston announced his plans to find this strange animal of which the natives spoke and in less than one year said natives brought him an okapi hide from which the species was described.

Great! Then just listen to the natives of the USA and in a year we're done.

[Guest]

By finding one, I mean returning with something physical. I mentioned that up thread about an hour ago.

Yes, I'm talking about the physical remains from which each of these species was described and named in the zoological literature.

Great! Then just listen to the natives of the USA and in a year we're done.

Okay, well that year should have been around 1600.

[Guest DWA]

By finding one, I mean returning with something physical. I mentioned that up thread about an hour ago.

I've mentioned everything I've mentioned on this site dozens of times.

I don't care whether there is something physical yet or not. The evidence says the animal's there. It has not been debunked.

When somebody wants to come in with a part, any time now. No worries on my part.

Yes, I'm talking about the physical remains from which each of these species was described and named in the zoological literature.

Okay, well that year should have been around 1600.

If listening had taken place, sure. See, gotta have that listening part.

Instead we have:

The natives are, er, mistaken.

[dmaker]

"The one that makes the least sense to me, however, is this idea that because scientists are allegedly "hostile" to bigfoot that prevents non-scientists from finding a piece of one. "

Yes, that is exactly what I am getting at. Surely, with that many non-effective, even, people bumbling around trying to find one and return with something physical ( or even a decent CLEAR photo or video { and I don't mean something as contested as the PGF})something would have been produced by now. And it simply hasn't. I don't care if there are a thousand TBRC groups silently waiting in the wings delighted over their results. I want to see something tangible or something clear and indisputable, but no one seems able to do that.

[Guest DWA]

^^^What you want to see is what you want to see.

What I see convinces me that if I had to bet money, "real" is what I'd bet.

This is why it's so easy for me to dismiss the sideshows (and to suss what the sideshows are). I know the evidence very well. It says the animal is real. I see no good reason to doubt it. That's not proof, but for now I'm good with it. Proof takes time, particularly when you have to make sure and double sure and triple sure that the thing you're about to shoot isn't a guy in a costume. Not such a problem with a gorilla or an elephant.

[Guest]

If you believe the reports, and I know you do, then it would seem that it takes absolutely no special expertise at all to find a Bigfoot.

I don't agree with your statement.

The BFRO currently has 4,296 reports in the US and 282 reports from Canada for a total of 4,578. Now, if we look at a few counties from Washington State and Oregon you will see that only 40% of these reports are Class A Reports where someone actually saw one cross the road, or had a 5 second glimpse of one while camping. Grays Harbor County WA - 37 Reports of those 15 were Class A = 40% Snohomish County WA - 41 Reports of those 16 were Class A = 39% Clackamas County OR - 24 Reports of those 10 were Class A = 41 %. So out of the 4,578 BFRO reports only 1,831 were Class A Reports. Let's assume that out of those 1,831 Class A Reports that 90% of those are either misidentification or false reports, then there are only 183 credible reports of Sasquatch on the BFRO. Kind of a small number don't you think? That leads me to believe that Sasquatch is quite elusive and when someone does have a sighting it is only by chance.

[dmaker]

^^^What you want to see is what you want to see.

What I see convinces me that if I had to bet money, "real" is what I'd bet.

This is why it's so easy for me to dismiss the sideshows (and to suss what the sideshows are). I know the evidence very well. It says the animal is real. I see no good reason to doubt it. That's not proof, but for now I'm good with it. Proof takes time, particularly when you have to make sure and double sure and triple sure that the thing you're about to shoot isn't a guy in a costume. Not such a problem with a gorilla or an elephant.

But surely shooting one isn't the only road to proof? Surely they must poop? They must die and leave bones. Hair falls out of a human body at the rate of 200 or so a day and we're not even that hairy. There must be quite a bit of Squatch fuzz out there to be found and analyzed. So all these people that see one ( not equipped to photograph or shoot with a firearm) also have no ability to try and gather some hair? And if you believe the habituaters they should be able to put one in a tux and trot him out for prom pics. So still...why nothing? That's a tough one to get past.