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

[Guest DWA]

I like your answer better than mine. Plussed, WSA. (Yeah, I know.)

[dmaker]

^^^ Oye, never gonna live this one down.

[Guest DWA]

Laughter in this field is a necessary piece of equipment.

[dmaker]

^^^ Very true, and to prove no hard feelings, I just plussed ya!

[Guest DWA]

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

And even though I've said it a million times:

"perfectly elusive" is, to me, a woo-woo take that explains "why no one ever sees them," an assertion at serious loggerheads with the evidence that says many do.

When no follow-up, to any of those encounters, is made by people getting mainstream funding to get to the bottom of this...well, what I would count on is the mistaken impression of "perfectly elusive" that we have. After all: science hasn't individually confirmed any wildlife sighting I have ever had. I'd suspect that's all that's going on here.

[Guest]

And even though I've said it a million times:

"perfectly elusive" is, to me, a woo-woo take that explains "why no one ever sees them," an assertion at serious loggerheads with the evidence that says many do.

When no follow-up, to any of those encounters, is made by people getting mainstream funding to get to the bottom of this...well, what I would count on is the mistaken impression of "perfectly elusive" that we have. After all: science hasn't individually confirmed any wildlife sighting I have ever had. I'd suspect that's all that's going on here.

You don't need alot of funding to find an animal with this distribution.

[Guest DWA]

You don't need alot of funding to find an animal with this distribution.

Absolutely you don't. Look at all the people who are! Shame mainstream science is gonna be last one to the party!

[Guest]

Absolutely you don't. Look at all the people who are! Shame mainstream science is gonna be last one to the party!

Because no one has given them a specimen.

[Guest thermalman]

@ jm Go yourself, for a walk in the bush. You'll soon learn how "small" you are on the map.

[Guest DWA]

Because no one has given them a specimen.

Given the history of science, that is (1) not the way to go about science, proven over and over and (2) it's a great way to be last to the party.

When the public believes what it sees, and you demand a dead body, last is how you might wind up.

[Guest]

Given the history of science, that is (1) not the way to go about science, proven over and over and (2) it's a great way to be last to the party.

A specimen is how you prove a new species. Thats how its always been.

When the public believes what it sees, and you demand a dead body, last is how you might wind up.

No shame in being last and absolutely sure.

@ jm Go yourself, for a walk in the bush. You'll soon learn how "small" you are on the map.

And....

Edited February 6, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest thermalman]

Be the first to drag a speciman out, JM!

[WSA]

Now here's a good exercise in discernment. Take a look at this report posted to the BFRO website's sightings reports today:

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=38061

As I've said, I see lot of compelling points to be gleaned from eyewitness encounters. Here is an example of the opposite. Frankly, the fact this investigation did not even mention that these "possible BF tracks" were within human limits is a huge red flag, and a serious blow to the credibility of this otherwise useful compendium of information. I see absolutely no reason to conclude this track way was made by a BF, or maybe I'm just missing something. If I am, please, somebody tell me what.

If I'm not missing something, this report has all the earmarks of a shark-jump. Skeptics could rightly point to this as an example. BUT.....it is quite another thing to say this proves there are no legitimate BF tracks out there. The best evidence points to the contrary.

[Guest]

No one thinks every BF sighting is legit. If BF exists then it is a combination of hoaxes/misid's/etc. The question is then what percentage of sightings are true? The skeptics think it is more likely that JM's map has zero red in it. Not 1 red dot anywhere. Every track/whoop/nest/knock/photo/stink/hair/legend/sighting is just BF hysteria. All because of the "we would have found one by now" philosophy. And it is all based on the fallacy that the distribution of sightings represents the distribution of BF. In which case, given the wide distribution of dumpster diving BF, we would have bagged one by now.

We need to address the dataset of sightings and establish the level of false sightings. A cluster analysis applied to the sightings distribution might give us an indication how many sightings did not follow a normal population distribution. A database full of hoaxes might stand out like a sore thumb. Then maybe we can redraw the map with a more reasonable distribution of red dots. THEN try to restate your argument without using terms like "needle in a haystack".

[Guest DWA]

NOT PLUSSED, WSA! YOUR 'ANALYSIS' IS HOOEY!

(That just made dmaker feel a lot better.)

There is more than one legitimate way to look at reports. I consider his one, and mine another. I will admit that mine is more, shall we say, inclusive.

The print photos say nothing much to me....except for the straight line in which they travel, a characteristic of trackways considered potentially legitimate. (Ours tend to fall either side of a center line, with left and right toeing out those directions. Little surprised the researcher didn't mention that.) One must, in my opinion, also take into account the witness's experience, his description of where those tracks were going (a little surprised the researcher didn't validate that by visiting the site, which it doesn't sound like happened), and the apparent impression of neighbors that those tracks weren't routine.

My verdict? Toss it on the pile, the growing pile of compelling but unverified infiormation. That the tracks are within human size range says little, as sasquatch, during the progression to adulthood, very definitely cross all the way through that range. Call it a minor yellow flag...in a report that leaves me very unconvinced someone would go to this tightrope/shinscratch trouble to leave those tracks. (Which don't look like they were made by something wearing shoes; and bigfoot/human are the only possibilities that appear reasonable. Brrrr.)

Neither WSA nor I think this one is a must-have. Toss it, makes no nevermind to me. There is too much that can't be tossed by a reasonable person. But if I saw those tracks in the snow on my back forty I'd be at least intrigued.

Edited February 6, 2013 by DWA