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

[Guest]

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

Not as often as I would like, because I live in Mississippi and I'm not rich. A trip to the Pacific Northwest with an extended stay can be quite expensive. The last trip I was off work for 3 weeks and the total trip cost over $5,000 not counting the time off work. Kapish?

[dmaker]

^^ I do Kapish, and would love to do something like that simply for being outdoors. Not so much the BF side of it. I am lucky enough to live within a 25 - 30 min drive of the Niagara Escarpment and the Bruce Trail. Some truly fantastic hiking opportunities in SW Ontario. I get out almost every weekend, all year long. Never seen a Bigfoot, but my eye is always open I just enjoy being out in the forest. There is something invigorating about it. Especially early spring or early fall. It gets pretty hot here in the summer. Anyway, I am digressing and derailing, but I do love that aspect of Footery. That it gets people outdoors and enjoying themselves. We have more in common than you would think probably. I just don't happen to believe there is enough evidence to convince me that there is a real, unidentified animal at the heart of all of this.

Can I ask if you've ever had a sighting? You don't have to answer if you don't want to, or can PM me, but I'm curious. I wonder sometimes when I'm fencing with someone here if they are more like DWA, an obviously intelligent individual who examines the evidence and feels the way he does and approaches this whole thing from that angle; or if I am talking with someone that has actually had an experience and that is why they feel so strongly. The question is genuine and not meant to be taken as a challenge or hostile in any way.

Edited February 1, 2013 by dmaker

[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.

Until the scientific community puts forth the effort along with millions of dollars, the discovery will NEVER happen. And then again, maybe the scientific community doesn't want the discovery to be made??? I mean come on, what would the world and the scientists think if it was discovered that Homo heidelbergensis wasn't extinct and was living among us in the remote wilderness areas of the world?

How many millions of dollars and how many years were put forth before the giant squid was finally captured on video and seen by human eyes? And even then it was only a 4 meter specimen. No where near the 10+ meters of some specimens swimming around in our vast oceans.

[Guest DWA]

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?

This is an I-don't-read-reports marker.

Did that guy cross the road in 2 or three strides? at 40 mph? Was he eight feet tall? Oh, that woulda been a flush.

"He shuffled into the right lane...hesitated, shuffled back...kinda lurched into the right lane...waited for us...looked kinda clumsy..."

[dmaker]

^^ Fair enough.

[Guest]

Until the scientific community puts forth the effort along with millions of dollars, the discovery will NEVER happen. And then again, maybe the scientific community doesn't want the discovery to be made??? I mean come on, what would the world and the scientists think if it was discovered that Homo heidelbergensis wasn't extinct and was living among us in the remote wilderness areas of the world?

How many millions of dollars and how many years were put forth before the giant squid was finally captured on video and seen by human eyes? And even then it was only a 4 meter specimen. No where near the 10+ meters of some specimens swimming around in our vast oceans.

We don't need science to FIND a BF at all. We only need science to confirm and add it to the taxonomy in the animal kingdom.

Edited February 1, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest DWA]

The animal's size, grace and speed are prominent, in the extreme, in reports. People call it an instant marker that what they were looking at wasn't human.

Even that mid-tarsal break thing has been reported by witnesses who didn't have the foggiest about tarsals. One report from AK isn't online but this one is ("foot rolling"):

http://www.bfro.net/...rt.asp?id=21839

Edited February 1, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

Can I ask if you've ever had a sighting?

I have had a sighting, and I even captured the 3 second encounter on video. My video has never been released to the public for many reasons. First of all, I don't want to hear the word "Blobsquatch" because it was 150 yards away and caught on a head cam (But you can see that it's an upright being walking on 2 legs). Second of all, I don't want the area of my sighting revealed to keep people from visiting the area and trying to kill one, I believe they are human. After I caught the being on video, I was able to view the face of the being with my binoculars for a brief time as it looked out from behind a tree. It was a life changing experience for me, and I can say for a fact that what I saw was NOT an ape of any kind. It looked more like a cave man type being that you would see in a museum or on the discovery channel, but with a light coating of hair on it's body. Not fur like a bear, but a light covering of hair where you could still see skin underneath the hair. From the research that I have done, I believe that what I saw was Homo heidelbergensis. It is very plausible that they did not go extinct, and they survived the meteor strike that killed the dinosaurs.

[Guest]

So it's not possible you were hoaxed? " It is very plausible that they did not go extinct, and they survived the meteor strike that killed the dinosaurs." >>>>I think you better do some research on when Dinosaurs went extinct.

Edited February 1, 2013 by ronn1

[dmaker]

^^ Cool ,thanks for sharing that.

Homo heidelbergensis does not fit with Sasquatch morphology very well at all. They were not terribly hairy and the upward height is figured to have been around 5.9" That's not very squatchy at all. Maybe some other extant hominid is more likely, like the oft mentioned G.Blacki. But Homo heidelbergensis? Doesn't fit with what most people say when they describe BF. But maybe yours was a juvenille or something, who knows? Not trying to knock your sighting, just saying that Homo heidelbergensis seems an unlikely prospect for a Sasquatch.

Oh, I might be mistaken. There seems to be some evidence, or thought, that there were some that were over 7ft tall in South Africa.

[Guest]

So it's not possible you were hoaxed?

No way was I hoaxed. If you would have saw the face that I saw in my binoculars, you wouldn't even have to ask that question.

I was in the middle of a wilderness area where elk hunters don't venture. Too far to carry the meat out, and I was so far in that I really don't think human feet had touched the soil there for a long time. Too long of a hike (many days) just to be hiking or to go fishing.

[dmaker]

But even still, with no real fur to speak of, and there is no evidence of tool use or fire amongst North American sasquatches, really has to raise the question of how could something like Homo heidelbergensis survive winters in places like Alaska, Northern Ontario, etc? They would freeze and have very little to eat.

Edited February 1, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

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.

Some of us don't have any baggage - as scientists for the most part appear to - keeping us from saying what we think about this. And some of us have really thought about this. (And some scientists are either really constrained by professional baggage...or have really not thought about this.) And not all bigfoot researchers are created equal.

The scientific mainstream can solve this in a jiffy. Once they are allowed to take it seriously and commit time and resources.

Edited February 1, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

Did you ever read those survey results where folks are asked a question like, "What percentage of the population is inclined to be be truthful?" The survey taker will throw out an opinion like 20 or 40%. Then, when all the survey takers are asked, "How often do you tell the truth?", the numbers skyrocket. Everyone is more prone to lie than you, right? Well, no, they aren't.

So, if you are sensible enough to overcome this bias, you'd have a much better appreciation of the weight we should give to these witnesses. If you are prone to lie, you'll predict that tendency in others more often...also a statistical truth. Most of us are truthful though. Carry that realization to your reading of these reports and you'll have a much clearer picture of the evidence.

[dmaker]

^^ So, DWA, if the scientific mainstream dedicated a vast amount of resources in a serious fashion ( even enough to satisfy you), but still came up empty handed, would you concede that there likely is no such thing as Sasquatch? Or would you still maintain your current position?