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

[WSA]

I'll pay you later DWA....remind me.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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

Sorry, I haven't checked that thread so I know not of this drama you speak. The reason I don't check that thread is because it has "Dyer" in the title.

If it's something like he's got a new freezer with a new bigfoot in it, then I'm sure I'll hear all about it in due time.

[norseman]

This is the last post I'm going to make in this thread. I'm sure I've said this before........

Is there conclusive evidence that an unknown species of ape resides in N. America? NO.

Is there enough anecdotal evidence of an unknown species of ape residing in N. America for those with an interest to follow up on? YES.

Can we convince science that an unknown species of ape resides in N. America with really cool film footage? NO. Will it take a body or a skull or a good portion thereof? YES.

Does someone who is giving this pursuit an honest shake have to distinguish between what reports seem credible vs. those reports that seem like hallucinations? YES.

Do skeptics suck because they don't take the issue seriously? NO.

Do witnesses hate most skeptics because they don't feel like skeptics give them any credit? YES.

Does Norse rock because despite some skeptics attitudes, he would absolutely include his BFF skeptic buddies in on any earth shaking discovery made by his bullet? Which would hopefully advance their careers in science and make them look really really smart? YES.

Does Norse rock because even though he isn't absolutely certain that there is a creature out there, he is going to go beat the bushes anyhow, while NOT looking for UFO's and shoot a creature if the stars align and the heavens sing? YES.

Does Norse rock because if he hears a bear or a coyote or a cougar in the woods he won't attribute it to Squatch? YES.

Does Norse rock because he has been quite frank with the Bigfoot community about what they hear, see, observe and how they go about trying to prove the species existence? YES.

Does Norse suck because he feels it's certainly plausible that an unknown species of primate exists in N. America? Yes, just ask my wife every time I go out. And probably many skeptics as well.

Does Norse suck because everybody on this forum is so sick and tired of him yelling out pro kill all over the place, they just want to be sick? YES.

Yes some of the above is tongue in cheek.........I don't dislike skeptics, although I do not always agree with their positions. But the same goes for some believers and people who see paranormal explanations to everything.

If Squatch doesn't exist I'm not going to commit suicide, I saw something I cannot explain, but there is always a small chance that a master hunter such as myself* could.......possibly..........maybe made a mistake.

*= Don't ask me for my hunting partners phone numbers.

Have fun taking pot shots at each other and covering the same ground over and over and over again. I would rather spend my time separating aliens from biology and taking a best guess shot at the issue from there.

Enjoy!

[dmaker]

We'll miss you in this thread Norse.

Does Norse rock because no where in the above post did he mention Todd Standing? YES

Just teasing you

[Guest McGman]

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.

You've built yourself quite a little defense there.

No matter how much money or time is spent if they dont find Bigfoot they didn't try hard enough.

Always leaves an out for you pretty much.

[Drew]

If Squatch doesn't exist I'm not going to commit suicide, I saw something I cannot explain, but there is always a small chance that a master hunter such as myself* could.......possibly..........maybe made a mistake.

Drew likes that you are able to admit your human fallability. Drew had to do that as well.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Drew

[Guest DWA]

You've built yourself quite a little defense there.

No matter how much money or time is spent if they dont find Bigfoot they didn't try hard enough.

Always leaves an out for you pretty much.

Defense? Common sense is more like it!

You seem to think I have something emotionally invested in this. What's gonna be really interesting is to listen to you bigfoot skeptics when the animal's confirmed. That's gonna be a hoot.

Norse, we'll miss you man (on this thread anyway). But for the educators, the job goes on.

- If You Can Read Bigfoot Evidence, Thank a Teacher -

[dmaker]

DWA, I understand what you're saying about the evidence. But it does seem like you have built yourself a handy little fantasy bubble that no one can burst. You constantly say it has to be qualified scientists who discover BF. Amateurs cannot do it ( not sure why you feel this way). When it is pointed out to you that mountain gorillas were discovered ( or the specimen was recovered) by a non qualified scientist then you magically and immediately grant him qualifications as a scientist in your mind so that you can cling to the illusion that only scientists can possibly retrieve a specimen. This conveniently allows you to sit back and never have to waver on your position as you wait for skeptics to do the impossible--no one can prove a negative, and of course you know that. But until there are...what, let's say a dozen phds roaming the woods for every acre..maybe then you might say "science" is looking hard enough. But you know, that won't happen and even if it did, and when they come up empty handed, you STILL get to say, "Bah, you didn't look in the right place".."warm, warmer, ..cold, no warm..." it could go on forever and ever and ever. There will never be the right effort, by the right people, in the right places for you to ever change your position. That's pretty handy.

To add to this, I'm curious how you can say amateur footers are not qualified or capable enough or for whatever reason they are lacking in your mind ( I suppose other than their complete failure to date to retrieve a verifiable sample or specimen). And say only "science" can do this once they take it seriously. Yet just above you posted:

"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."

So amateur footers do not qualify as people who follow inconclusive evidence to a conclusion, or are at least trying to? Why is that? It works for you to twist your argument to allow for Beringe to be a scientist, sans creds, but not for the average footer? It works for a Prussian army officer, but not otherwise? Again, handy that....So who would be these mythical, non-technician scientists that you are waiting for? Let me guess, Meldrum, et al? So I guess once they are no longer around that the chance of BF discovery are pretty much zero in your mind? Are there any young, up and coming scientists--and I don't mean their hard earned academic credentials--but true scientists, not technicians, that will take up the Bigfoot gauntlet? Or is your bubble pretty much safe and sound?

Edited February 7, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

Unbreakable bubble; unsinkable rubber duck. This is what you get to be when you decide on and commit to an outcome regardless of what can be empirically shown to be true. This is "education", apparently.

In my world, all anyone has to do is show me a piece of a bigfoot and I do a complete 180 on this thing. This is why my approach is scientific: it is falsifiable.

[Guest DWA]

Unbreakable bubble; unsinkable rubber duck. This is what you get to be when you decide on and commit to an outcome regardless of what can be empirically shown to be true. This is "education", apparently.

In my world, all anyone has to do is show me a piece of a bigfoot and I do a complete 180 on this thing. This is why my approach is scientific: it is falsifiable.

But everyone's a fool on a fool's errand until there's proof.

Yep, science has always operated that way. Thanks for apprising me.

[Guest DWA]

DWA, I understand what you're saying about the evidence. But it does seem like you have built yourself a handy little fantasy bubble that no one can burst.

I think "fantasy bubbles" are reserved for people who title threads things like "why there's no evidence." But thanks.

You constantly say it has to be qualified scientists who discover BF. Amateurs cannot do it ( not sure why you feel this way).

Have they done it yet? Nope, they've come up with, according to you and many others, no evidence. Did Beringe give his gorilla specimen to a men's club in New York? Oh, but I'm ahead of myself.

When it is pointed out to you that mountain gorillas were discovered ( or the specimen was recovered) by a non qualified scientist then you magically and immediately grant him qualifications as a scientist in your mind so that you can cling to the illusion that only scientists can possibly retrieve a specimen.

I can retrieve a specimen. So can you. Neither of us appear so inclined. Anyone can. It's just that people seem to think this is some kind of full-time endeavor. It couldn't charitably be called part-time. I'm just trying to make you guys think. The reason you think there's no evidence is because a bunch of guys with letters behind their names say there isn't. That's not science at work. That's people sitting on their butts and pot-shooting at the people doing science.

Beringe followed evidence (you're making my point by using him; anecdotal reports are evidence) to a conclusion. That's what scientists do. So: Beringe was much more a scientist - and so is Meldrum; so is Krantz; so is Bill Dranginis; so, what the heck, are Moneymaker, Bobo and Cliff! - than some guy who says "I give this a 5% chance at best" and can't give a good reason why, but has letters behind his name. That's obstructing a scientific investigation! At least have a reason supporting your numbers. "I'm an Expert, Look At My Degrees" isn't one.

This conveniently allows you to sit back and never have to waver on your position as you wait for skeptics to do the impossible--no one can prove a negative, and of course you know that.

Bigfoot skeptics keep saying that. What they have to prove is an enormous number of false positives, which can be done. (Hint. Proving the animal would be easier.)

But until there are...what, let's say a dozen phds roaming the woods for every acre..maybe then you might say "science" is looking hard enough. But you know, that won't happen and even if it did, and when they come up empty handed, you STILL get to say, "Bah, you didn't look in the right place".."warm, warmer, ..cold, no warm..." it could go on forever and ever and ever. There will never be the right effort, by the right people, in the right places for you to ever change your position. That's pretty handy.

So, you are saying the effort is adequate? Your evidence, please. This should be good. Jim Buck Bobby could shoot one tomorrow, and Hahvid could have it by Tuesday. So. You're betting on that? Of course not. The search is ongoing; it blankets North America, every time a twig snaps a biologist hears it; and nothing yet. Talk about handy. How much handier can you get? You have the biggest out I ever heard.

If it reflected reality (pray for Jim Buck Bobby), it would be even better!

To add to this, I'm curious how you can say amateur footers are not qualified or capable enough or for whatever reason they are lacking in your mind ( I suppose other than their complete failure to date to retrieve a verifiable sample or specimen). And say only "science" can do this once they take it seriously.

Um....."total failure" is in your eyes, success! Talk about an out.

"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."

It's true. What are most scientists doing? Working on what's known, to add a known or two. Give them something for which they don't have that handle, and look at them. "No evidence." Fortunately, Beringe wasn't like that. And Krantz and Meldrum aren't either.

So amateur footers do not qualify as people who follow inconclusive evidence to a conclusion, or are at least trying to?

As I believe I have said here, more than once, look up there! ^^ You're more of a scientist when you are doing what science requires than when you are sitting on your butt saying nope, nope, nope...But according to you, we should just leave the field to the amateurs, and laugh at them, and fail eternally to note (what a fantasy bubble, eh?) the elephant in the room: the people who should be looking are the ones doing the laughing....? All this defense of those clowns sickens me. Are they paying you?

I just want scientists doing what the public pays them to do! They're not being paid to laugh; they're being paid to figure out the world for us. Other than showing us how little exercise a degree can get, not too swift on that front from what I can see.

Are there any young, up and coming scientists--and I don't mean their hard earned academic credentials--but true scientists, not technicians, that will take up the Bigfoot gauntlet? Or is your bubble pretty much safe and sound?

Oh, Darren Naish is pretty good. Leila Hadj-Chikh is pretty good. Now it would be nice if the old people running biology departments would just (1) retire (2) die or (3) say, look, we don't have proof of bigfoot yet. Maybe one of you in this 400-seat lecture hall - or maybe 50 of you - could be it.

The bubble backed by the evidence is the hardest one to break. You're gonna acquaint yourself with that real soon now, right?

Edited February 7, 2013 by DWA

[Drew]

The evidence doesn't equal: A GIANT HAIRY, BIPEDAL, PIG-TOSSER, THAT LIVES IN SEMI-RURAL AREAS OF NORTH AMERICA exists.

Your evidence is barely enough to keep a few thousand Bigfooters out in the woods looking for it, and you expect scientists to drop whatever they are working on and send an expedition out to find one? No thanks, the REAL animals need their attention right now. When you find some of that classification-of-species type evidence, then the scientists working on real animals, will be able to help.

[WSA]

And sometimes I think it pays for me to recall why I'm here, and probably why everyone else is here. Mainly, because it is really, really exciting and fun to talk about this stuff and parse the evidence, whether you lean pro or con. I don't think I overstate the matter by saying this question is probably the most compelling and outstanding unknown in the natural world we in our lifetimes will have the privilege to contemplate. Some of us will undoubtedly die before the question is put to rest. The lack of a specimen will always leave us with a degree of uncertainty...fill in your personal probability % here... but when the rhetoric heats up, I'm going to remind myself I only dispute the degree of probability of this being true, or not. This is what mystery is, and gawd knows we are all richer for it. Unless I'm mistaken, this probably sums up the attitude of most, if not all, of us here.

[Guest DWA]

(Yes, WSA and dmaker: that were me.)

The evidence doesn't equal: A GIANT HAIRY, BIPEDAL, PIG-TOSSER, THAT LIVES IN SEMI-RURAL AREAS OF NORTH AMERICA exists.

Your evidence is barely enough to keep a few thousand Bigfooters out in the woods looking for it, and you expect scientists to drop whatever they are working on and send an expedition out to find one? No thanks, the REAL animals need their attention right now. When you find some of that classification-of-species type evidence, then the scientists working on real animals, will be able to help.

All I ask - if you've been paying attention - is that scientists stop laughing, and recognize that sweeping evidence under a rug ain't science, no matter how many letters there are behind your name. Oh look, some of them have. And it will be obvious in time - as has happened so very many times in the history of science -- that they're embarrassing the ones who haven't, by showing them how science works.

But if your stance is fun, um, er, OK there.

Recognizing there are other kinds of evidence than proof and bad evidence will help you make it more fun. Believe me. Teach is gonna bring out the ruler here and start rapping knuckles soon.

Edited February 7, 2013 by DWA