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

[Guest]

Meldrum

The same Meldrum who was on board with with the Snelgrove Lake thing and thinks that a bigfoot would sit down in a muddy patch by the side of a road to take some obvious bait from humans?

Drew's point is spot-on: the really wacky stuff is easy to spot and remove from consideration. Then there's a huge gray area of reports that don't seem to fit at all with the rarest and most elusive wood ninja ever.

[Drew]

So the people that saw Bigfoot get off of a spaceship are Kooky, and the ones who saw Bigfoot peering in the trailer window are knowledgeable about the wildlife and stuff?

I don't understand where you draw the line? Where does 'real bigfoot animal' start? and where does 'obviously a kook' begin?

[norseman]

The problem with Cherry picking Bigfoot reports, is the problem that the guy who says 'He saw Bigfoot jump off of a UFO like a 1st AirCav soldier jumping off of a Huey', has as much verifiable evidence of his belief, as someone who thinks Bigfoot eats berries, and 'hides in a secret cave when hunting season rolls around'. Both can be 'Knowers', and both have the same amount of verifiable evidence as the other. What is the criteria for throwing sightings out? Is it when they can detect hidden infrared lights?, or when they can emit infrasound?, or maybe it is when they "Bzzt" into another dimension? Which is it?

well i certainly think its more plausible that it hides out in a cave than a ufo. also if it hides out in a ufo there isnt much i can do about it.....

[Guest DWA]

So the people that saw Bigfoot get off of a spaceship are Kooky, and the ones who saw Bigfoot peering in the trailer window are knowledgeable about the wildlife and stuff?

I don't understand where you draw the line? Where does 'real bigfoot animal' start? and where does 'obviously a kook' begin?

If you're a psychologist, help me with that.

If you aren't, then, how do you know?

If science can't do anything to confirm (shapeshift/multi-dimensional/turns into Albert Schweitzer in tight spots etc.), not sure what you want me to do with it.

Peering in a trailer window? Every animal I've ever seen can look in a window (knowledge of animals! Applied! hEEEEEE-YAH!), and that's your he-kwazee marker? Oh. OK.

Edited February 5, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

Gentlemen, each and every day you no doubt bring the breadth of your knowledge, experience, reason and judgment to bear on a multitude of situations. Each and every day, thousands of jurors are given this charge, or a similar one: "Ladies and gentlemen, you are not to exclude your common sense and experience in weighing the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses." Metrics have their place, but in the realm of evaluating human testimony that application is a decided non-starter. If it were possible to any degree of acceptable reliability, polygraph results would be admissible. But, you can't measure credibility with any kind of meter. If this presents a problem for your interpretation of the evidence, I have nothing very constructive to offer you. Your training does not serve you well on this point I am afraid.

Drew, +1 to DWA's comment. And let me just point out how high you've raised the burden of proof here... to the level where only plus ultra evidence (a/k/a "proof") is admissible in your court of opinion. I dare say, if you put that standard on all of your daily interactions well.....why assume the sun will even rise tomorrow or the tide will go out?

You ask where to draw the line. Let me suggest: Somewhere between a certain "yes" and a definite "no", where all reasonable men draw lines in matters of uncertaintly.

Edited February 5, 2013 by WSA

[Guest DWA]

If humans required absolute proof before doing anything...we'd have died out before becoming humans. Shoot, lizards are smarter than that.

The same Meldrum who was on board with with the Snelgrove Lake thing and thinks that a bigfoot would sit down in a muddy patch by the side of a road to take some obvious bait from humans?

Drew's point is spot-on: the really wacky stuff is easy to spot and remove from consideration. Then there's a huge gray area of reports that don't seem to fit at all with the rarest and most elusive wood ninja ever.

I'd go slightly nuts too if I had to deal with bigfoot skeptics. So did Krantz. (b.s. Hmmmm.)

Who's calling this animal a wood ninja? No more so than gorillas and chimpanzees, of which you could have a couple million in the state of TX unconfirmed by science if no one believed anyone who saw one.

Oh. "Obvious bait"? To whom? So you're one of those smarter-than-us guys too?

Edited February 5, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

Oh. "Obvious bait"? To whom? So you're one of those smarter-than-us guys too?

You don't think that a hypothetical bigfoot would think there's something fishy about a pile of apples in a mud puddle on the side of a road?

[Guest DWA]

If it's hungry, maybe not.

Since for the moment they're hypothetical, couldn't tell you. Personally, I doubt they're significantly smarter than known apes, and that we have more to do with their remaining unconfirmed than they do. Unanswered question.

But when Daris Swindler says that's an Achilles tendon/heel, I'm taking that over an elk that doesn't use its feet to stand up.

[Guest]

Then theres no reason why Bigfooters can't collect a speciman.

[norseman]

You don't think that a hypothetical bigfoot would think there's something fishy about a pile of apples in a mud puddle on the side of a road?

Free food? I certainly think it's plausible. Their mistake was not putting a stake out on it with intent to kill.

Then theres no reason why Bigfooters can't collect a speciman.

If I could convince them that it's a worthy cause? Sure.

So the people that saw Bigfoot get off of a spaceship are Kooky, and the ones who saw Bigfoot peering in the trailer window are knowledgeable about the wildlife and stuff?

I don't understand where you draw the line? Where does 'real bigfoot animal' start? and where does 'obviously a kook' begin?

If you feel the whole subject is kooky to begin with? Then I could understand someone's confusion in the matter.

But if you cannot discern the difference between a report of a crypto animal peeking in a window and a report of a crypto animal using space travel with alien technology on your BS meter? Well.......then there isn't a whole lot that I can do here.

Diggin' the honesty, norseman. I think a lot of folks think like you do and if they were as honest and outspoken as you are the hucksters and loonies in bigfootery would eventually fade into the background.

Your comments are appreciated.

Unlike most of the Squatch community I understand that we are 4th and 15 backed up to our own end zone.

[Guest]

Who? Is this Squatch in the freezer guy?

I like skeptics...........they keep it real, and if the stars ever align for me I have full intentions of including them in this discovery.

As you're aware I'm a full blown skeptic...but I'm *parked* at the Dyer thread tonight. Rumor has it this Musky fellow (a skeptic) is to view the *body* tonight.

[dmaker]

On a side note, to WSA and DWA, you two really enjoy plussing each other don't you?

Edited February 6, 2013 by dmaker

[norseman]

As you're aware I'm a full blown skeptic...but I'm *parked* at the Dyer thread tonight. Rumor has it this Musky fellow (a skeptic) is to view the *body* tonight.

Well good.......then I can take the kids fishing this summer instead.

[Drew]

I take all sightings with equal value.

I do not know whether Bigfoot is a spaceman, or a happy peaceful bush-hippie upright gorilla.

The point about where you draw the 'kook' line is directed towards the footers.

I'm completely cherry picking reports! You understand my mission in this subject.......... I have to take those reports of the highest probability of being real. I'm also **** canning reports of it shape shifting, time warping, smoking cigs at a back yard BBQ............so on and so forth.

I have no problem with anyone selecting reports they find most credible and compelling, and pointing out others that don't pass muster.

It's the footers that want to throw out certain sightings, not me. I just want to know the criteria. How do you determine when a sighting is just a made up story talking about a interdimensional Bigfoot, or if a sighting is a solid piece of evidence? I can't determine the difference between the two. They both present the same amount of evidence, they both are simple anecdotal descriptions of what the witness said they saw.

This is too easy,

Somewhere between a certain "yes" and a definite "no"

Give me some criteria, is it when the beast can detect infrared?, is it when it emits an infrasound blast incapacitating the witness?, is it when it's eyes emit self-generated light?, or is it when it 'Bzzts' out of the dimension, leaving only a round circle in the camera lens?

Give me something to go by please. Clearly DWA knows when the sightings become silly, and when they are real.

[norseman]

I take all sightings with equal value.

I do not know whether Bigfoot is a spaceman, or a happy peaceful bush-hippie upright gorilla.

Drew,

Why? I think you need to explain your position in a logical manner better than your doing.

Bigfoot as a biological creature is improbable but not implausible, the reason is simple.......earth has a vast history of different species of apes.

But Bigfoot as a spirit or a alien? Well doesn't that add a impossible mystery on top of a improbable mystery?

We know different species of apes existed in the past........but a spirits? Do we know they exist? How about aliens?

My gut tells me your baiting here...........and if you insist on including time warp bigfoot reports with berry eating bigfoot reports, then you can somehow make the whole subject that much more kookier. I really don't care, do whatever you need to do. But just tell me so I don't waste anymore time trying to reason with you.