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

[Guest DWA]

Translation: I don't have to bring in a specimen. I'll stick to my campfire stories.

If you're getting that from what I said: I think I see your problem.

Do you or DWA have a file with these reports handy? Or is the pile you two refer to often a figurative one? I'd be curious to read the body of reports that you two consider worthy of follow-up investigation. Not so I can debunk it, but out of genuine interest. Sure you can say that that would be doing the work for me, and you would be right to a point. All you're doing is separating the wheat from the chaff--or what you consider them to be. I would think you would be happy to hasten the road to enlightenment for some of us. Even if that means helping us get to the "good stuff" from the report databases. If not, then fine, I tried. Let's suppose that someone has read all of these reports but still does not place as much emphasis on them as you two do. What then? Can that person then debate with you without being subject to your derision about "not being acquainted with the evidence"? Or is it not possible for someone,lay or otherwise, to read this body of evidence and not share your opinion?

Read what I read.

Both of Bindernagel’s books, and Meldrum’s, and J.Robert Alley’s “Raincoast Sasquatch,†and Meldrum’s ichnotaxonomy paper, and every report on both bfro.net and texasbigfoot.com, at a minimum, are Sasquatch 001. You should read some Krantz, too. And John Green’s database (although many reports from that are written up by Bindernagel).

Do I keep a separate file of credble/incredible? No. Why should I? As WSA points out, it is the evidence taken as a whole that is compelling - the number of times the same changes get rung, no matter the witness demographic nor the date of the report. If no single one is proof, what's the point of going through that exercise? It's the weight and consistency that impress me, not what I think of individual reports. Some curl my lip a bit more than others. Which means nothing. As I have said here numerous times: debunk P/G tomorrow and it makes not a jot of difference. THAT MUCH weight and consistency.

(Oh. I am the only person I need to convince.)

WSA nails it: one must bring to the table considerable knowledge of people, the outdoors and animals, and suss based on that. Many of the conclusions reached by Meldrum and Bindernagel I reached independently of them, before I read them. For Bindernagel, I had barely read from the John Green database when I bought his books - and the accounts were instantly compelling. Now why would that be, hmmmm?

There are no shortcuts. This is a scientific question. How could there be? Every American knows two things: how to paddle a canoe and bigfoot ain't real. Well, not so much.

If you disagree, you must tell me why, and it must pass the most basic of sniff tests. The next such I read...will be the first.

[Drew]

Actually, that's not what research says about tigers.

http://rense.com/general7/freq.htm

I'll have to look at that study, if there is one. (I can't find it)

Does it say anything about how the Tiger's roar itself might scare animals into paralysis?

Did they actually study it? or is this simply a claim from someone who was scared by a Tiger roar? I don't know, can't find the study.

I did find a more recent study that outlines the characteristics of a tiger's roar. It makes no mention of paralysis. It says the low frequency may be used to intimidate a rival. This is of course meaningful, because it is believe tigers have the ability to hear infrasonic sounds, which we do not have. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=archengfacpub

Here is an article from 2012 that calls the theory of infrasound rattling animals 'untested'

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=E7CdLqPyRQAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA2&dq=bengal+tiger+infrasound&ots=fp9bDp1EtF&sig=x5xq4pz6GOpy9ym7wEJqv-T0LSc#v=onepage&q=bengal%20tiger%20infrasound&f=false Page 15

[Guest]

You can only cling to inconclusive evidence for so long. The longer Meldrum and co go without bringing in the monkey, the worse it looks.

[Guest DWA]

You can only cling to inconclusive evidence for so long. The longer Meldrum and co go without bringing in the monkey, the worse it looks.

Nah, not really.

The search hasn't even begun until it gets serious. Any search confined to amateurs, by definition, isn't.

The evidence stands until proof is obtained. Period.

Although, yeah, I gotta wonder why someone would hold an opinion like that. Do you have a bet down or something?

What's this "cling" stuff? Mine is the cold-eyed anthracite glare of the scientist.

Everyone else is tossing all this emotion into it. Not me.

Edited February 6, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

The search hasn't even begun until it gets serious. Any search confined to amateurs, by definition, isn't.

The mountain gorilla would disargee.

The evidence remains unconfirmed until proof is obtained. Period.

Fixed.

[Guest DWA]

First one: That guy wasn't an amateur; he was a scientist. Formal designation doesn't matter, regardless what scientists think. Anybody who follows inconclusive evidence to a conclusion? Scientist. Most scientists are [snif] mere technicians.

Second one: And your point? Actually, you made mine. Thanks!

Edited February 6, 2013 by DWA

[Guest thermalman]

Actually, that's not what research says about tigers.

http://rense.com/general7/freq.htm

My thinking is, that the primal instinct of fear would be the only evaluation here, thus the frozen aspect of our nature at that time.

[Guest]

First one: That guy wasn't an amateur; he was a scientist. Formal designation doesn't matter, regardless what scientists think. Anybody who follows inconclusive evidence to a conclusion? Scientist. Most scientists are [snif] mere technicians.

Friedrich Robert von Beringe wasn't a scientist.

Second one: And your point? Actually, you made mine. Thanks!

The point: It hasn't been confirmed and Meldrum and co have failed to bag the monkey dispute its alledged distrubution.

[Guest]

^^^Not sure what that means I should think.

What it means is that your statements to the effect that unknown species only get discovered when scientists specifically go looking for them are demonstrably false. What it means is that your statements that the people claiming encounters with rare or undescribed species are not equipped to produce the proof of those species are demonstrably false.

You are correct about one thing: You should think. You should really think about these examples before you spout off something that is not true and then claim you're here to "educate."

If you were honestly here to educate, then you would recognize the problems with your positions and modify them in light of new information. To wit, if bigfoot is anything like gorillas or okapis or saolas, then proof of its existence could come quite readily from (1) someone not ostensibly looking for it or (2) non-scientists who claim to have encountered it.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Saskeptic

[Guest DWA]

Friedrich Robert von Beringe wasn't a scientist.

Oh, yes he was. Problem is, some who don't call themselves that are; some who do, aren't.

The point: It hasn't been confirmed and Meldrum and co have failed to bag the monkey dispute its alledged distrubution.

They are spending NO time "bagging the monkey." Jeff's research is gathering support for the evidence, not monkey-bagging.

Nobody is spending no time doing this, effectively speaking. When somebody does, give me a call. I would be in no way satisified that the search has even started yet. Not even the TBRC is spending enough time in the field.

What it means is that your statements to the effect that unknown species only get discovered when scientists specifically go looking for them are demonstrably false. What it means is that your statements that the people claiming encounters with rare or undescribed species are not equipped to produce the proof of those species are demonstrably false.

You are correct about one thing: You should think. You should really think about these examples before you spout off something that is not true and then claim you're here to "educate."

If you were honestly here to educate, then you would recognize the problems with your positions and modify them in light of new information. To wit, if bigfoot is anything like gorillas or okapis or saolas, then proof of its existence could come quite readily from (1) someone not ostensibly looking for it or (2) non-scientists who claim to have encountered it.

Thinking would be assessing the evidence and telling me what you think of it, other than "this doesn't have a piece of a bigfoot attached and is therefore worthless." Not to mention disingenuous and spurious and generally useless generalizations (like your entire first paragraph, that includes nothing I either say nor think).

I'm right, but thanks for checking. I give education time to take. Some students are simply recalcitrant.

Edited February 6, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

dmaker, the database I've spent the most time combing through is found on the BFRO website. You can access it to look up the newly posted (almost daily) reports or look through all of them. They are grouped by geographic region/county/province/township, which makes it all the more interesting for someone who has lived and traveled across the U.S. as I have. Find a favorite area and check it out. If you are like me, you'll find telltale signs of credibility just based on where the sighting is purported to occur.

But, to respond to your hypothetical...go do it, and then let's talk. I'm willing to entertain any response other than "I don't believe it." Might I suggest too, put aside subjective incredulity (just as one should put aside faith-based acceptance) as much as you can.

And you might come to a different conclusion, for good reasons. You don't share my life's experiences, and I don't share yours. Still, there are presumed common denominators that all humans share, and I'll count on those. Enjoy it.

[Guest DWA]

If you were honestly here to educate, then you would recognize the problems with your positions and modify them in light of new information. To wit, if bigfoot is anything like gorillas or okapis or saolas, then proof of its existence could come quite readily from (1) someone not ostensibly looking for it or (2) non-scientists who claim to have encountered it.

But because it's fun.

My position has no problems. Yours has a major one: you toss the evidence without a good reason. "No bigfoot" is the worst reason.

"Could," eh? Really. So where's our proof, when thousands of non-scientists claim to have encountered it?

I'll tell you, and a hardcore scientist agrees with me. We have it. It's just the scientific mainstream hasn't gotten the word yet.

When no member of the scientific mainstream has made a pronouncement on this topic that passes the most basic stink test, you don't think so?

http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360187462&sr=1-1&keywords=the+wisdom+of+crowds

Hmmmm. Yeeeeaaaaaahhhhh. Me too.

Edited February 6, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

What it means is that your statements to the effect that unknown species only get discovered when scientists specifically go looking for them are demonstrably false. What it means is that your statements that the people claiming encounters with rare or undescribed species are not equipped to produce the proof of those species are demonstrably false.

You are correct about one thing: You should think. You should really think about these examples before you spout off something that is not true and then claim you're here to "educate."

If you were honestly here to educate, then you would recognize the problems with your positions and modify them in light of new information. To wit, if bigfoot is anything like gorillas or okapis or saolas, then proof of its existence could come quite readily from (1) someone not ostensibly looking for it or (2) non-scientists who claim to have encountered it.

SASKPETIC.....What's your take on this DYER drama unfolding today?

[WSA]

Just to interject a little reality check here folks: The probability of the existence of Sasquatch does not hinge on whether it uses infrasound, or not. I mean, it WOULD if that were the only characteristic we had to consider, but it isn't, by a long shot.

[Guest DWA]

PLUSSED, BABY, B.T.!!!!!!!!!!!!

(We gotta perpetuate that tooth-grinding annoyance factor to counter the many on the other side.)

It is humorous in the extreme. Like a rat grabbing one steel fiber of that hawser and going I think I can I think I can I think I can....and we see it over and over and over....