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

[Guest]

Either hit the quote button. (lower right corner)

Or scroll down to the quick reply box, or top right hand corner hit the reply to topic button.

I don't see the quick reply box you are talking about. all I am seeing is report, edit ,multiquote and quote.

are you talking about the more reply options? I do not see a quick reply.

Edited February 2, 2013 by catt.thre

[norseman]

I don't see the quick reply box you are talking about. all I am seeing is report, edit ,multiquote and quote.

Scroll all the way down. It's under the last post.

[Guest]

I see it . thank you.

Tom

[Guest]

A) People find this scientific method archaic, and simply will not attempt to collect one because it is barbaric.

Sure, now that's a common sentiment. But even just a few decades ago, there was a whole lotta collectin' going on. If you think that a major obstacle to collecting bigfoot in 2013 is that there are fewer people out there likely to shoot such a thing, then you're missing the major point about collecting. It's something that was done with gusto for about 200 years. Especially through the 19th Century, museums would pay big money for anything rare or unusual. People made their livings collecting for museums. Collecting was a significant player in the demise of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, as museums and private collectors scrambled to get one before they went extinct. You think P. T. Barnum would've paid big money to have a bigfoot (stuffed or live) in his show? You bet he would. So it's a mistake to look around now, only find a handful of people who might be willing to intentionally collect a bigfoot, and somehow attribute that to the reason one has never been collected.

In addition, the other side of collection - unintentional - remains wide open. Look at all those bigfoot accounts of the beasts crossing roads, seen from roads, etc. I don't care how "smart" they are, if such creatures are out there and hanging around roads, then a bigfoot road pizza is inevitable. Bigfoots still must die of natural causes - that remains an avenue through which one can be collected. Bigfoots still would have lived and died for thousands of years in their purported range. That's a whole lotta bigfoot remains that should be waiting for discovery in some cave, streambank sediments, etc.

Finally, there are efforts at collection going on right now, if we are to believe Ketchum and Sykes. With today's technology, collection need not be lethal. Didn't Ketchum claim to have over 200 samples sent to her? Any one of those has the potential to be the elusive proof of bigfoot, verified with a holotype tissue sample.

If bigfoots are real, collection is inevitable with the things people are doing every day.

[Guest DWA]

I'm not sure anybody should be theorizing about what known animal in the fossil record bigfoot is, might be, or is descended from.

The best scientific estimate thus far taken indicates that we have evidence for about five percent of the extinct primates that have ever lived.

https://www.scientif...ests-primates-a

(Primates, co-existing with dinosaurs. Impossible.)

I am a leading proponent of the theory, oh, sorry, fact, that the fossil record is silent on what is alive today. But that every known animal talked about as a bigfoot progenitor has not been found in fossil form in North America says that bigfoot's line is somewhere in that 95%.

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.

I wanted to say one more thing about this.

It's not just that science has the skills; it's that the public will take the mainstream seriously. Science - and it makes sense to say 'ergo, the public' - isn't even taking serious research orgs like the TBRC seriously.

Edited February 2, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

"The best scientific estimate thus far taken indicates that we have evidence for about five percent of the extinct primates that have ever lived". YES..but they're talking about primates that go back over a span over 50 million years! I would expect for an animal that CURRENTLY EXISTS and goes back (according to Ketchum) 15 THOUSAND years...you would certainly have a fossil/skeletal remains readily available.

[Guest BFSleuth]

By that logic we should "have...fossil/skeletal remains readily available" for the 95% of extinct species that we haven't found yet. Does that mean those species never existed? That would be a false statement. Perhaps you might modify your statement to say "fossil/skeletal remains could be available" and it would fit better with the situation.

[norseman]

Sure, now that's a common sentiment. But even just a few decades ago, there was a whole lotta collectin' going on. If you think that a major obstacle to collecting bigfoot in 2013 is that there are fewer people out there likely to shoot such a thing, then you're missing the major point about collecting. It's something that was done with gusto for about 200 years. Especially through the 19th Century, museums would pay big money for anything rare or unusual. People made their livings collecting for museums. Collecting was a significant player in the demise of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, as museums and private collectors scrambled to get one before they went extinct. You think P. T. Barnum would've paid big money to have a bigfoot (stuffed or live) in his show? You bet he would. So it's a mistake to look around now, only find a handful of people who might be willing to intentionally collect a bigfoot, and somehow attribute that to the reason one has never been collected.

As I said above, I certainly agree with what your saying, as I mentioned Pioneers shooting things to extinction. The problem I feel is that the pioneers were not dealing with a regular "animal", when they were rarely encountered at all. In other words the old hunter with his dog towing him along with a lantern and rifle slung............somehow failed.

And take this into account, we didn't simply plunk down on this continent all at once..........take Bluff creek for example, the logging roads they were cutting into that northern California back country were the first road EVER there. And that was the 1950's...........not the 1850's.

In addition, the other side of collection - unintentional - remains wide open. Look at all those bigfoot accounts of the beasts crossing roads, seen from roads, etc. I don't care how "smart" they are, if such creatures are out there and hanging around roads, then a bigfoot road pizza is inevitable. Bigfoots still must die of natural causes - that remains an avenue through which one can be collected. Bigfoots still would have lived and died for thousands of years in their purported range. That's a whole lotta bigfoot remains that should be waiting for discovery in some cave, streambank sediments, etc.

I don't see "pizza" as you say a good mechanism for discovery. It sees like we see. Even if it was placed on a busy highway I think it has the smarts and vision to survive the encounter.

On the other hand remains should be found, if there is a living breathing population of anything out there........that's not an easy one to answer, but not overly worrying for me as I don't normally find much of anything besides deer skeletons while in the woods. So for me not surprising but for a whole nation to find absolutely nothing is difficult.

Finally, there are efforts at collection going on right now, if we are to believe Ketchum and Sykes. With today's technology, collection need not be lethal. Didn't Ketchum claim to have over 200 samples sent to her? Any one of those has the potential to be the elusive proof of bigfoot, verified with a holotype tissue sample.

If bigfoots are real, collection is inevitable with the things people are doing every day.

I've heard this for 30 years now...... a hair, a blood sample, so on and so forth. I don't hold out alot of hope for discovery coming this way.

I still say that a well equipped pro kill team on a hot trail is our best hope.

[Guest DWA]

"The best scientific estimate thus far taken indicates that we have evidence for about five percent of the extinct primates that have ever lived". YES..but they're talking about primates that go back over a span over 50 million years! I would expect for an animal that CURRENTLY EXISTS and goes back (according to Ketchum) 15 THOUSAND years...you would certainly have a fossil/skeletal remains readily available.

Nope. ZERO PROJECTIONS about what should be living now can be made from the fossil record.

If I handed a space alien every fossil ever collected, and asked him to project the current Earth faunal assemblage from those remains, no peeking, and he got a 1% overlap with the current roster of species, he's cheating.

The most recent dinosaurs are 65 million years old. Argument most decisively skewered.

Come on, folks. This is why crypto isn't taken seriously as a science. Arguments like this should not be given the time of day. Not sure why anyone could be so desperate that bigfoot not be real as to resort to saying something like this.

Even my bet that sasquatch progenitors have not been found yet is nothing more than a bet. A number of candidates are in the fossil record; we just don't have a clear lineage through today for practically any primate but humans. Long-known species have gotten their first fossil ancestor representation this century. What, they didn't exist before then?

Sheesh.

Edited February 3, 2013 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

Huh?

A Squatch hasn't been collected yet because 99% of the people out "looking" are not into "collecting" one.

Not just that. 99% of that 'looking' time is blogging; interviewing witnesses; driving; eating breakfast on the way out and dinner on the way home; etc.

And if the "Finding Bigfoot" folks can't even figure this out with a key evidential database...what makes one think that any of the others have anything figured out?

(Except the TBRC, now. And they are spending little enough time in the field that specimen collecting will be largely luck. And they haven't gotten lucky yet.)

[Guest]

I am a leading proponent of the theory, oh, sorry, fact, that the fossil record is silent on what is alive today.

?I'm confused. Are you suggesting that there's no fossil record of species alive today or are you just suggesting that you can't predict from species alive today which ones will be well represented in the fossil record?

"...take Bluff creek for example, the logging roads they were cutting into that northern California back country were the first road EVER there. And that was the 1950's...........not the 1850's.

Sure, the first roads might not have been cut there 'til the 1950s, but you don't need roads to go off into the wilderness and shoot something. Don't you hunt elk in roadless areas?

I don't see "pizza" as you say a good mechanism for discovery. It sees like we see. Even if it was placed on a busy highway I think it has the smarts and vision to survive the encounter.

Despite aggressive safety campaigns for both motorists and pedestrians, "4,280 pedestrians died in traffic crashes in 2010, a 4% increase from the number reported in 2009." I-n-e-v-i-t-a-b-l-e.

I've heard this for 30 years now...... a hair, a blood sample, so on and so forth. I don't hold out alot of hope for discovery coming this way.

Why wouldn't it work? If we can't hunt bigfoot because people are squeamish to shoot something that looks human, then surely we can collect their hairs and prove them for realz using DNA. Ketchum claims 200+ samples, right? I don't know how many are in the Sykes study, but I'm willing to bet it's more than 10.

So what do you do when you get 200+ plus samples sent in for DNA testing, all by people who swear up and down that they came from a bigfoot, and the analysis gives you no bigfoot? I conclude from that that 200+ times someone who was 100% sure they encountered as bigfoot did not actually encounter a bigfoot. I'm no math whiz, but 0-200 seems like a pattern.

<edited to clarify question for DWA.>

Edited February 3, 2013 by Saskeptic

[norseman]

Sure, the first roads might not have been cut there 'til the 1950s, but you don't need roads to go off into the wilderness and shoot something. Don't you hunt elk in roadless areas?

I do yes, but there is a distinction here that I'm hunting elk, I've never dedicated a wilderness hunt to go after a nocturnal predator. Unless he crawled into my tent with me at 2 am I'm not actively out there at night looking for him.

But while we do not have a body produced during the time your describing, we do have stories. Such as the Bauman story and others. If those stories are to be believed we certainly can see how a lack of technology especially concerning night operations hamstrung them. During the last centuries Armies parked it for the night, this is in stark contrast to how war is conducted today. Even hunting more mundane predators has changed drastically with night time hunting becoming much more doable.

But this debate is subjective to what people believe the creature is. If its a common animal living in 49 states and eating Subway scraps in the back lot of urban areas? Then I can understand the skepticism much more readily. But if the animal is rare, nocturnal, smart and only habitats areas that are not readily accessible to humans, now or in the past, I think it's plausible.

People 100 years ago spent 99 percent of their time trying to exist. They didn't have large amounts of free time to go out searching for a "mountain devil". Unless their home or stock was directly threatened of course.

But you bring up good points, and I will openly admit that it doesn't seem that probable. But I guess as long as people continue to see something out there not easily explained away, the question will persist.

Despite aggressive safety campaigns for both motorists and pedestrians, "4,280 pedestrians died in traffic crashes in 2010, a 4% increase from the number reported in 2009." I-n-e-v-i-t-a-b-l-e.

I have problems with statistical data at times...... I've heard your 100x more likely to be hit by lightning than be attacked by a grizzly or a shark. Well..........OK, if your standing in your back yard in Indiana, that makes sense. But if your Timothy Treadwell? Your living on borrowed time....... What I'm saying is that statistical data can be useful but not always.

So back to Sasquatch.......if this creature habitats urban areas? Your statistical data applies. But if it inhabits wilderness areas with the occasional two lane highway crossing? Much less so. In my 20 years as a fire fighter, I cannot recall one instance of a pedestrian being hit by a car in my fire district.......of course we are very rural.

Why wouldn't it work? If we can't hunt bigfoot because people are squeamish to shoot something that looks human, then surely we can collect their hairs and prove them for realz using DNA. Ketchum claims 200+ samples, right? I don't know how many are in the Sykes study, but I'm willing to bet it's more than 10.

So what do you do when you get 200+ plus samples sent in for DNA testing, all by people who swear up and down that they came from a bigfoot, and the analysis gives you no bigfoot? I conclude from that that 200+ times someone who was 100% sure they encountered as bigfoot did not actually encounter a bigfoot. I'm no math whiz, but 0-200 seems like a pattern.

It's my understanding that they have hairs that defy classification but haven't yielded DNA because they are too far gone. This is not my area of expertise, and maybe that is why I don't put much stock in it. Or getting DNA that wasn't ape or human but something different........but could not rule out human contamination. I have no dog in the fight, and I'm just listening to the reports from a layman's understanding.

But my personality is direct, and I really don't understand why your filming a Sasquatch on a thermal camera stealing candy bars when you can mount a thermal weapons sight on a high powered rifle and end the mystery in milliseconds. After all..........if your that sure it's a Squatch and not a human on the thermal? Put your money where your mouth is. And when your "anti kill" and yet you sell expeditions and film footage, etc? It raises my eyebrows.

[Guest DWA]

?I'm confused. Are you suggesting that there's no fossil record of species alive today or are you just suggesting that you can't predict from species alive today which ones will be well represented in the fossil record?

Neither.

You cannot predict from a review of the fossil record what we would have today, provided you didn't know already (the reason for my space-alien example).

ronn1 is saying that if sasquatch were real we would, for sure, have identified fossil lineage. First: how could we do that when the species is unconfirmed? Second: it's simply not true. Science has known about one heck of a lot of species substantially before fossil ancestors were confirmed.

[Guest DWA]

I'm still seeing efforts to discount the evidence by trying to poke at things that seem incredible to the person doing the poking.

Sorry. Evidence must be debunked. Personal incredulity doesn't cut it.

Human fatalities from cars, for one thing, result from lots of things animals don't do, like deliberately driving (or playing chicken) while intoxicated. Apples and Ganymede. Besides, there is one very good reason to clear a dead bigfoot off the road and never tell anyone: avoid headaches.

[Guest]

Science has known about one heck of a lot of species substantially before fossil ancestors were confirmed.

True, if you just compare broadly the number of species known to exist and the number we know from fossils. I prefer to take context into account when considering fossils, and what *should* have been found. Considering living, terrestrial mammals in North America, I don't know of a species over 25kg for which we lack a fossil record, and we actually have many fine fossils of mice and bats if you want to get into the < 30g categories.

Near as I can tell, if bigfoots are real, then this is the only species of large mammal in North America that has no fossil or other prehistory.