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

[WSA]

Squatcher.....very cogent take on the data. Thanks for that.

[dmaker]

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.

Sasquatch as super elusive fits great when you get to discount %90 of the Class A reports. And why is it, exactly, that you get to dismiss %90 of them?

[Drew]

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.

Forget the Native American stories, the place should have been crawling with them back then right?

Probably could have launched a shore party from the HMS Henry, walked up to one rocking back and forth behind a virgin Oak Tree and popped a cap in its arse. Game over, gift for the King from our new land of bounty!!

[Guest DWA]

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.

Every kind of sign is reported from sasquatch that one would expect from any animal, from hair and footprints to feces, blood, bones, mummified body parts, etc.

Now. Convince someone that came from a bigfoot. Good luck.

[WSA]

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.

Indeed we do, I agree...but don't let perfect be the enemy of good. We are "pretty good" on Sasquatch evidence, i.e., there seems to be more of it reported each year than less of it. Watch that trend. If this is some kind of mass delusion, it too shall pass, and BF "evidence" will evaporate with it. I'm betting on more in my lifetime, not less.

[Guest]

Sasquatch as super elusive fits great when you get to discount %90 of the Class A reports. And why is it, exactly, that you get to dismiss %90 of them?

Because I believe that 90% of the reports out there are either misidentification or fabrication. By misidentification I mean that they saw a bear standing on it's hind legs, or a chimp or gorilla that was displaced from captivity by a hurricane or other event. Or maybe Uncle Joe was so drunk while camping, that the bear he saw was really a Sasquatch because of the amount of Vodka in his system. Misidentification could amount to 80% of the 90% I mentioned. The other 10% are people trying to perpetuate a hoax for fun, or just looking for attention or an appearance on the local news channel. Who knows if my 90% figure is correct, but I stand by it.

[dmaker]

Every kind of sign is reported from sasquatch that one would expect from any animal, from hair and footprints to feces, blood, bones, mummified body parts, etc.

Now. Convince someone that came from a bigfoot. Good luck.

Reported, sure. Gathered and analyzed in a lab? How often does that happen?

Because I believe that 90% of the reports out there are either misidentification or fabrication. By misidentification I mean that they saw a bear standing on it's hind legs, or a chimp or gorilla that was displaced from captivity by a hurricane or other event. Or maybe Uncle Joe was so drunk while camping, that the bear he saw was really a Sasquatch because of the amount of Vodka in his system. Misidentification could amount to 80% of the 90% I mentioned. The other 10% are people trying to perpetuate a hoax for fun, or just looking for attention or an appearance on the local news channel. Who knows if my 90% figure is correct, but I stand by it.

Oh, I tend to agree with you Squatcher. With one teeny exception: I reserve the right to add an additional %10 to your figure ( but also have it account for hoaxes too), and then we're probably right on the money.

[Guest DWA]

Sent to a lab and thrown out? Numerous instances.

Lost? By a major research institution, which contradicted itself as to what it had on its hands? Minaret Skull, plus who knows how many other instances.

Says nothing about the evidence, which stands un-debunked. Still gotta work on that.

Oh, I tend to agree with you Squatcher. With one teeny exception: I reserve the right to add an additional %10 to your figure ( but also have it account for hoaxes too), and then we're probably right on the money.

Not without some reason you would add such a number.

Edited February 1, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

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 .

But *Thou doth protest too much, methinks".....LOL

[Guest DWA]

Because I believe that 90% of the reports out there are either misidentification or fabrication. By misidentification I mean that they saw a bear standing on it's hind legs, or a chimp or gorilla that was displaced from captivity by a hurricane or other event. Or maybe Uncle Joe was so drunk while camping, that the bear he saw was really a Sasquatch because of the amount of Vodka in his system. Misidentification could amount to 80% of the 90% I mentioned. The other 10% are people trying to perpetuate a hoax for fun, or just looking for attention or an appearance on the local news channel. Who knows if my 90% figure is correct, but I stand by it.

I believe that there are few if any reports I have read that can be attributed to anything other than:

1) Total fat lie, or

2) hospitalizable mental illness, or

3) what the witness says they saw.

Alcohol isn't a hallucinogen, unless consumed in quantities that would make the sighting report pretty much impossible.

In my opinion, you never see suit fakes hoaxing the witness, or innocent misidentifications, on the websites. Reading the report rules those out.

But *Thou doth protest too much, methinks".....LOL

Not protesting.

Educating.

I am comfortable with this whole thing. Lotta people aren't, though. Just trying to help with that.

Indeed we do, I agree...but don't let perfect be the enemy of good. We are "pretty good" on Sasquatch evidence, i.e., there seems to be more of it reported each year than less of it. Watch that trend. If this is some kind of mass delusion, it too shall pass, and BF "evidence" will evaporate with it. I'm betting on more in my lifetime, not less.

The mass delusion, if there is one, is more likely mainstream science thinking that the way this topic is treated befits science than it is deluded witnesses.

But this dovetails with my impression that the vast majority of scientists are more technicians than anything else. Science with the big S is something they tend to have a problem with.

[Guest]

Oh, I tend to agree with you Squatcher. With one teeny exception: I reserve the right to add an additional %10 to your figure ( but also have it account for hoaxes too), and then we're probably right on the money.

If you do your research, you will find that there are quite a few credible sightings by some very credible people that have no reason or motive to fabricate their stories. Until you totally dismiss the existence of Sasquatch, maybe you should get out from behind your computer screen and hike into the middle of a very remote wilderness area and spend about a week or so camping out there. You never know what you could find or what you might encounter.

[dmaker]

You never see suit fakes hoaxing the witness? Really? So what about that poor soul who was hit by a car recently while wearing a BF suit to hoax people? What would the report have read like had he not had his unfortunate accident?

Somehow you would have been able to suss that one out as hoaxed?

If you do your research, you will find that there are quite a few credible sightings by some very credible people that have no reason or motive to fabricate their stories. Until you totally dismiss the existence of Sasquatch, maybe you should get out from behind your computer screen and hike into the middle of a very remote wilderness area and spend about a week or so camping out there. You never know what you could find or what you might encounter.

That sounds like fun. How often do you do that?

[Guest]

Reading the report rules those out.

My grandpa told me many times, "Believe 0% of what you hear, 50% of what you read, and 100% of what you see".

[Guest]

There is something strange about the argument that the scientific method is somehow inherently flawed and that scientists are committing malfeasance on the subject of bigfoot, implying that bigfoot researchers possess some superior outlook that makes them more objective and open minded. But then in the next sentence, it is maintained that bigfoot researchers are not qualified to conduct the search and that the scientific community is the only group with the necessary skill to achieve an unambiguous discovery.

[dmaker]

If you do your research, you will find that there are quite a few credible sightings by some very credible people that have no reason or motive to fabricate their stories. Until you totally dismiss the existence of Sasquatch, maybe you should get out from behind your computer screen and hike into the middle of a very remote wilderness area and spend about a week or so camping out there. You never know what you could find or what you might encounter.

I have read quite a few reports, and many of them by what I think both of us would call credible witnesses. Unfortunately, credible does not mean infallible. They could still be mistaken.