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

[Guest DWA]

I know when the sightings become silly. Real? We'll know when we know what's producing all this evidence, and not before.

Silly is when people start inventing stuff - and then he turned into my father, and then he disappeared! - that science can't do anything with at the moment, real or not. Heck, maybe they aren't inventing it, but how can we assess that, when the vast bulk of accounts don't mention it at all? And how would we assess it even if we tried? ("Can you get him to come back here so we can watch this?" Bet Scientific American would go for that one.) I will never ask a scientist to evauate paranormal claims; heck, even if they're real, science doesn't have the tools yet, so that line of inquiry is going nowhere. (In this case I find it unnecessary anyway; what is being reported is a critter.)

If it's two feet tall and purple, I'm tossing that one. (It will be the first I have read.) Silly is orbing and standing next to me at the bus stop, invisible; silly is following me from Athens, GA, to Arcata, CA; silly is it telepathically told me, you are one of us...do I need to go on...?

The ones I take seriously are the ones that seem to fall within the bell curve of what other people are reporting; that jibe with what I know about animals (apes and other primates in particular), people and the outdoors; and that make me think that, among the possibilities, "this guy had an encounter with a sasquatch" is a prominent one.

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

It's a favorite skeptic tactic, so we're just aping (primate behavior!) Besides we are two smart guys.

So are you telling me that adds to your list of reasons bigfoot isn't real? Don't laugh. Another favorite skeptic tactic is blaming the animal's nonexistence on the people looking for it.

Edited February 6, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

I know when the sightings become silly. Real? We'll know when we know what's producing all this evidence, and not before.

We do know. It's humans, and their imagination and misidentification along with pranks. It can be proven many times over. Bigfoot however, remains an imaginary beast, only in the minds of those who choose to believe.

[Guest DWA]

We do know. It's humans, and their imagination and misidentification along with pranks. It can be proven many times over. Bigfoot however, remains an imaginary beast, only in the minds of those who choose to believe.

There's really no blunter or truer way to respond to that than: it ignores the evidence.

Proven? Not with one scrap of evidence, ever. Anyone who thinks hoaxes are a significant factor in this discussion thinks two people in a zebra costume is evidence against the zebra.

(Right, logicians? Right.)

[dmaker]

@DWA, LOL, no I don't think that you and WSA engaging in daily high fives on this board does , in any way, contribute to my disbelief of BF's existence. I happen to find that there are other skeptics on here that are highly intelligent and well spoken, but I don't feel the need to fist bump them for the crowd on a daily basis.

Edited February 6, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Well, neither do we, and I'm just curious about certain presumptions, particularly since, as I put it, skeptic fist-bumping is one of the most prominent things I have noted on this site.

Of course, teaming up with blatant fist bumps to continue science's oblivion to reality - sorry, defense of stolid existing paradigms - is a key feature of the history of science.

Edited February 6, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

What presumptions are you curious about? I really didn't mean anything more than that it gets a bit eye roll inducing every time I see another "plussed you bro", followed by "plussed you right back bro" between you two. That's all. I mean we get it, you like each others comments. But I don't want to derail, or seem like I'm trying to moderate you, was just sayin.....is all. Carry on

You may be right, but I don't recall seeing an endless stream of skeptic plussing comments. If I plus someone, I don't mention it at all, much less in the thread. Again, nothing wrong with it, but when it's all the time, between the same two people, it gets a bit nauseating after awhile.

[Guest DWA]

Sorry about the nauseating, but when we agree, we agree, and we're gonna say so. Not sure that's gonna change.

Besides which, I don't think I've seen any behavior on this site that would do anything to me, plus or minus, if I saw it as few times as we have actually done it.

And at least our agreements come with a studious look at evidence rather than gloss-over-ignore, which again is very clearly the mainstream-skeptical take on this. And once again: all I need as evidence is what they say. It's self-indicting.

Edited February 6, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

^^ No worries, I'm sure I don't always elicit warm, fuzzy reactions from some people on here. We're human, we're going to get on each others nerves once in a while

[WSA]

If it would make you feel any better to know it, DWA is under contract to "+ 1" me whenever I insert the pre-arranged code word in my postings. For instance, like the one I just typed. Wait for it....

[Guest DWA]

REACHED MY QUOTA! DAG!

Look, I'll talk to the mods, we'll fix this.

[Drew]

Silly is when people start inventing stuff - and then he turned into my father, and then he disappeared! - that science can't do anything with at the moment, real or not. Heck, maybe they aren't inventing it, but how can we assess that, when the vast bulk of accounts don't mention it at all? And how would we assess it even if we tried? ("Can you get him to come back here so we can watch this?" Bet Scientific American would go for that one.) I will never ask a scientist to evauate paranormal claims; heck, even if they're real, science doesn't have the tools yet, so that line of inquiry is going nowhere. (In this case I find it unnecessary anyway; what is being reported is a critter.)

OK, how about these attributes, will you tell me if these qualify as silly?

Emitted an infrasound blast and caused me to collapse.

It's eyes generated their own light, it wasn't a reflection.

It's foot sunk into the sand deeper than an 1800 pound horse.

It laid down in the middle of a highway while a giant truck drove around it, and then another one did it right after that.

It supports it's metabolism without leaving any verifiable trace of it's existence.

It can sense infrared trigger mechanisms

It can sense cameras.

It is a perfectly elusive creature, yet howls at people, throws rocks at them intentionally drawing attention to itself.

I honestly don't know Norseman. Neither UFO Bigfoot, or Zoological Bigfoot has any verifiable evidence. The two are tied in the verifiable evidence category. I can't point to one and say 'oh my, the verifiable evidence for a zoological Bigfoot is greater than the evidence presented for a UFO Bigfoot.' Until one or the other is presented, to me, neither one exists.

[WSA]

Or maybe, to increase credibility, I should just randomly slag you at appropriate intervals. Tell you what, just say something inane like "there is zero evidence for a bipedal animal aside from humans on the N.A. continent", and I'll pile on. See, this could be fun.

[Guest DWA]

Or maybe, to increase credibility, I should just randomly slag you at appropriate intervals. Tell you what, just say something inane like "there is zero evidence for a bipedal animal aside from humans on the N.A. continent", and I'll pile on. See, this could be fun.

Hulk Hogan is HUMAN, WSA. Don't keep on and keep on with that one.

OK, how about these attributes, will you tell me if these qualify as silly?

Emitted an infrasound blast and caused me to collapse.

Hmmmm. Tigers are documented to do something similar to their prey. Elephants are another animal that uses infrasound. Whales too. The eye evolved, independently, something like 40 times. If infrasound works - like eyes, or wings, or claws - it too might evolve more than once. Hmmmm.

It's eyes generated their own light, it wasn't a reflection.

That might be a naive impression (just like the ones that go: it's human, I saw one and I know. No you don't, just because you saw one). I find it unlikely given what I know about other animals. I'm also not sure what function it would serve. That said, I'm not tossing the reports I've read with that feature in them on that assessment alone. There's too much there that runs true to drop it based on that, other than to serve a denialist agenda. Science isn't about denial.

It's foot sunk into the sand deeper than an 1800 pound horse.

You don't say. Context?

It laid down in the middle of a highway while a giant truck drove around it, and then another one did it right after that.

You don't say. Ever seen animals in roads? What is unbelievable about that?

It supports it's metabolism without leaving any verifiable trace of it's existence.

Non sequitur. "Verifiable" means biologists can identify bigfoot evidence. Howzat when they deny the animal?

It can sense infrared trigger mechanisms

Do you know it can't? How? However they do it, alpha coyotes avoid trailcams; you never see the alpha on a trailcam shot. Scientists found that out.

It can sense cameras. I think we have "ditto" there.

It is a perfectly elusive creature, yet howls at people, throws rocks at them intentionally drawing attention to itself.

I got a better one than that: it does all these things; thousands of people have seen them; and scientists just go, without looking at any of it, nope, we're better than those folks and we just know they're wrong.

I honestly don't know Norseman. Neither UFO Bigfoot, or Zoological Bigfoot has any verifiable evidence. The two are tied in the verifiable evidence category. I can't point to one and say 'oh my, the verifiable evidence for a zoological Bigfoot is greater than the evidence presented for a UFO Bigfoot.' Until one or the other is presented, to me, neither one exists.

Non sequitur. "Verifiable evidence?" UFOs: none. Sasquatch: much. If one doesn't look, however, one cannot verify.

[WSA]

Drew, for some of those, I'd have to see the report you are referring to. But yes, the laws and probabilities of physics still apply to observations of all animals, obviously. Would you think otherwise? You might be conflating what is clearly physically impossible under universal laws as we know them to be, and perfectly acceptable premises based on axiomatic characteristics most animals share, and reasonable extrapolation based on observation and experience. The exclusion of some does not argue for the exclusion of all, but we see some making that error in logic repeatedly here.

I think you could more reasonably rephrase a couple of those questions as:

Do we know of any other animals that throw objects and makes threatening territorial displays?

Are there other elusive creatures who are occasionally spotted out in the open and unaware of being observed?

Do we have documentation of other animals able to detect and avoid remote cameras?

I think you can easily answer those for yourself. Why is that such a leap of faith? Truly, this is a terrestrial being, if it exists, bound by the very same laws of nature we share in common with them.

Edited February 6, 2013 by WSA

[dmaker]

Or maybe, to increase credibility, I should just randomly slag you at appropriate intervals. Tell you what, just say something inane like "there is zero evidence for a bipedal animal aside from humans on the N.A. continent", and I'll pile on. See, this could be fun.

WSA. I never meant to imply anything about your credibility. I don't often agree with you or DWA, but your credibility is pretty solid in my opinion. You are both intelligent folks that just happen to be on the opposite side of an opinion from me. And yes, DWA, I understand, it's not a matter of opinion or belief, but evidence.

Edited February 6, 2013 by dmaker