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

[Guest]

^^ 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.

Maybe it wasn't homo heidelergensis, because it was taller than 6 feet. Maybe 7 1/2 feet to 8 feet tall and it was definitely a male (no breast). But I can tell you that it wasn't gigantopithecus, no way it was an ape. What I saw was human, but more like cave man type human.

[dmaker]

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.

I hear you, but I'd like to make something very clear. I don't really think that many of the witnesses are lying. Sure, some are, no doubt about that. But I honestly think the vast majority of the sightings are mistaken identity of either a known animal or paredolia, or hysteria, or whatever you want to call it, but simply the witness is mistaken.

[Guest]

Until the scientific community puts forth the effort along with millions of dollars, the discovery will NEVER happen.

Thats a pretty strong statement. You don't really need that big of an expedition to find an animal sighted in the thousands from Alaska to Florida.

[Guest]

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.

What about the Patagonian indians that have no hair at all? They live in the extreme southern part of South America where the average temperature is 43 °F and the average extreme low temperature is 28 °F, but it gets a lot colder than that during the winter months.

[Guest]

. 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.

If it had a light covering of hair....how is it going to survive in an area where *ELK hunters don't go*? I presume this is a mountain terrain and has very cold weather to say the least. Edited February 1, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest DWA]

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.

Plussed.

[Guest]

What about the Patagonian indians that have no hair at all? They live in the extreme southern part of South America where the average temperature is 43 °F and the average extreme low temperature is 28 °F, but it gets a lot colder than that during the winter months.

They have clothing protection I assume....along with fire.

[Guest]

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.

Me too, but why would you expect a "mass delusion" to pass? If the conditions that fostered the delusion persisted, I don't see any reason for the delusion not to persist.

In this case, folklore is more likely than delusion. Bigfoot folklore is bigger than ever: blogs, advertising, television, movies, books, discussion boards, etc. There's even a lot of money to made for a select few like Matt Moneymaker with a good business model. I was in a conversation a few months ago with someone claiming regular bigfoot contact on private land from which the landowners ran some kind of guide service. The person admitted flat out and without hesitation that while the guide business was foundering, the "come check out where bigfoot lives" business was brisk. There's money in bigfoot. There's attention to be had in bigfoot. There's feeling like a bigshot on an Internet discussion board to be had in bigfoot. So long as those things exist (especially the first one!), so too will bigfoot.

<edited for fingers slower than brain>

Edited February 1, 2013 by Saskeptic

[Guest DWA]

I hear you, but I'd like to make something very clear. I don't really think that many of the witnesses are lying. Sure, some are, no doubt about that. But I honestly think the vast majority of the sightings are mistaken identity of either a known animal or paredolia, or hysteria, or whatever you want to call it, but simply the witness is mistaken.

Reading the reports makes that highly unlikely. How many known animals can be confused with an eight-foot bipedal ape? (Thinking a sasquatch is a bear or a moose: sure. Thinking the other way: un unh.)

Reports show a distinct lack of the other two factors. You got focused witnesses when they see something like this.

Edited February 1, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

dmaker....as for the guy in the suit who got run down, I think it is a self-explanatory revelation. This is why it is not likely that legions of suit-hoaxers exist out there dashing across road lanes at all times of the day and night. It is dangerous as all get-out. Besides, as DWA noted, nothing in the reports tend to support a case for a bubba wearing a furry bathrobe. These animals are large and fast. Bubba is large, but he ain't fast. Not that large anway. If you had those stats, you'd probably be playing the backfield this Sunday and have much better ways to spend your free time.

I hear you, but I'd like to make something very clear. I don't really think that many of the witnesses are lying. Sure, some are, no doubt about that. But I honestly think the vast majority of the sightings are mistaken identity of either a known animal or paredolia, or hysteria, or whatever you want to call it, but simply the witness is mistaken.

Let me ask you dmaker, do you, or anyone you know, have a reputation for completely mistaking objects in plain view, paredolia or hysteria? Me neither. Don't bend over backwards so far my friend, you might dislocate something! Remove your persona bias and see a LOT more clearly, I'd just suggest.

Saskeptic,all possibilities to consider and rule out, if it can be done. I note the frequency of certain folk tales also wax and wane. None stay constant. Certain urban myths crest in frequency and then crash. Fashion and novelty, and our culture's lust for those, no doubt drive many narratives. Still, if there is a trend at the moment, it is of more evidence. Will that be sustained? I'm curious to know. Our culture's attention span is notoriously brief. I'll be watching to find out.

Edited February 1, 2013 by WSA

[Guest]

Let me ask you dmaker, do you, or anyone you know, have a reputation for completely mistaking objects in plain view, paredolia or hysteria? Me neither. Don't bend over backwards so far my friend, you might dislocate something! Remove your persona bias and see a LOT more clearly, I'd just suggest.

Given the strikingly large number of bigfoot witness reports in populated areas, one would think that there would be more undisputed physical evidence. One possible explanation is a group delusion phenomenon. That's certainly not the only possibility, but it would explain the state of the evidence.

[Guest DWA]

Given the strikingly large number of bigfoot witness reports in populated areas, one would think that there would be more undisputed physical evidence. One possible explanation is a group delusion phenomenon. That's certainly not the only possibility, but it would explain the state of the evidence.

"Undisputed physical evidence" means scientific confirmation. We know why that hasn't happened. And the explanation that folks are seeing this is far more plausible than group delusion. As I believe anyone involved in gathering information will tell you: if there is no reason to disbelieve the witness, madness lies down the road of insisting on disbelieving the witness.

dmaker....as for the guy in the suit who got run down, I think it is a self-explanatory revelation. This is why it is not likely that legions of suit-hoaxers exist out there dashing across road lanes at all times of the day and night. It is dangerous as all get-out. Besides, as DWA noted, nothing in the reports tend to support a case for a bubba wearing a furry bathrobe. These animals are large and fast. Bubba is large, but he ain't fast. Not that large anway. If you had those stats, you'd probably be playing the backfield this Sunday and have much better ways to spend your free time.

Common sense, a requirement for sussing evidence.

Let me ask you dmaker, do you, or anyone you know, have a reputation for completely mistaking objects in plain view, paredolia or hysteria? Me neither. Don't bend over backwards so far my friend, you might dislocate something! Remove your persona bias and see a LOT more clearly, I'd just suggest.

Right. As you noted, that position requires a kneejerk "sheesh evahbody more crazy den me!"

Saskeptic,all possibilities to consider and rule out, if it can be done. I note the frequency of certain folk tales also wax and wane. None stay constant. Certain urban myths crest in frequency and then crash. Fashion and novelty, and our culture's lust for those, no doubt drive many narratives. Still, if there is a trend at the moment, it is of more evidence. Will that be sustained? I'm curious to know. Our culture's attention span is notoriously brief. I'll be watching to find out.

As will I. I got all the time in the world. It's everybody else who seems to be anxiefying over this.

[Guest]

"Undisputed physical evidence" means scientific confirmation. We know why that hasn't happened. And the explanation that folks are seeing this is far more plausible than group delusion. As I believe anyone involved in gathering information will tell you: if there is no reason to disbelieve the witness, madness lies down the road of insisting on disbelieving the witness.

By "physical evidence" I was referring to tangible things to confirm the existence of bigfoot. I know there is some evidence in the form of forensic hair sample studies and claims of dermal ridges on foot print casts. But that physical evidence is extremely limited and inconclusive. When compared to the large quantity of eyewitness reports in populated areas, something just does not add up about it -- that was my only point.

[Guest DWA]

By "physical evidence" I was referring to tangible things to confirm the existence of bigfoot. I know there is some evidence in the form of forensic hair sample studies and claims of dermal ridges on foot print casts. But that physical evidence is extremely limited and inconclusive. When compared to the large quantity of eyewitness reports in populated areas, something just does not add up about it -- that was my only point.

I wish I knew why the didn't-add-up didn't add up. I have a theory (Europeans came here knowing wildmen were a myth, and the well was poisoned from Day One), but neither theory nor the lack of sufficient evidence for proof lessens the compelling nature of what we have. And really, that's my only point.

Edited February 1, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

By "physical evidence" I was referring to tangible things to confirm the existence of bigfoot. I know there is some evidence in the form of forensic hair sample studies and claims of dermal ridges on foot print casts. But that physical evidence is extremely limited and inconclusive. When compared to the large quantity of eyewitness reports in populated areas, something just does not add up about it -- that was my only point.

I know what you mean Plen. But think about it this way: You find a new fossil in your backyard, you send it to the Field Museum, or some such custodian of communal relics. Find a rare 12th century codex? Get me the Library of Congress...stat! Bigfoot takes a dump in you azaleas? Ummm.