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

[dmaker]

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.

Hey, WSA. I too find this fun and exciting to talk about, and sometimes, yes, it does get too heated. And sometimes I too lose sight of what's being discussed and find myself just reacting to someone's rhetoric or style and not the actual subject matter. But I do think that is inevitable. I find myself at loggerheads with you and DWA constantly, but I'm sure you're both decent fellas and I'd happily buy you a beer :)Not sure I agree about the most important thing in the natural world right now. Cancer seems a bit more important to me. Unless you meant strictly in the sense of animal discovery in natural sciences, then sure this is maybe important. I'm curious, what is the degree or probability of BF being real for you? I think for DWA it is 100 percent, since he swears up and down that Patty is a BF until proven otherwise, so I must assume he is a believer. You are not?

[Guest DWA]

^^^"Until proven otherwise" says I'm done talking about P/G. The "for" evidence is significant; the "against" evidence hasn't happened yet. 45 years and counting tells me we shouldn't be holding our breath.

The evidence for sasquatch is so overwhelmingly in favor of reality (again, no evidence has ever been submitted to give anyone good reason to believe it's all a crock) that the only justified pronouncement by scientists paying attention - if they aren't trying to solve it themselves - is, I wish the searchers luck; it's definitely a legitimate endeavor.

None of the negativity I've seen by scientists on this topic uses science. Red flag, if you ask me.

I'd buy the second round.

Edited February 7, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

Marlboro, BFF members- kind of pick up on this thread late however, Can I just say that #1 there is a vast difference between evidence and proof. So to respond to the question of this thread about being no evidence. First unless you live under a rock or just haven't bothered to explore this forum- there is a great deal of evidence forwarding the notion of Bigfoot. Footprints,scat PGF and a few other good clips; not to mention testimonials. Now, as far as proof, well may this thread needs a differant title such "why no proof" or something like that. Hate to split hairs here but lets know what we are talking about. BTW, I am with you on your last post DWA.

Edited February 7, 2013 by ptangier

[dmaker]

^^^"

The evidence for sasquatch is so overwhelmingly in favor of reality (again, no evidence has ever been submitted to give anyone good reason to believe it's all a crock) that the only justified pronouncement by scientists paying attention - if they aren't trying to solve it themselves - is, I wish the searchers luck; it's definitely a legitimate endeavor.

This I don't understand completely. No evidence ever been submitted to give anyone good reason to think it's all all a crock? But surely the amount of hoaxes (some good, some bad), ridiculous YT videos, the number of genuine, Gosh Almighty, real deal BF samples that come back as carpet, dog, or human hair, or Bear flesh. You don't think that casts a pall of crockery on the rest of the evidence, or maybe it's better to say on the phenomena as a whole? I sure do.

Wait, I know, I know...the guys in the zebra suit, right?

Edited February 7, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

This I don't understand completely. No evidence ever been submitted to give anyone good reason to think it's all all a crock? But surely the amount of hoaxes (some good, some bad), ridiculous YT videos, the number of genuine, Gosh Almighty, real deal BF samples that come back as carpet, dog, or human hair, or Bear flesh. You don't think that casts a pall of crockery on the rest of the evidence, or maybe it's better to say on the phenomena as a whole? I sure do.

Wait, I know, I know...the guys in the zebra suit, right?

When one is well acquainted with the evidence, one knows that people aren't seeing guys in suits. Watch YouTube videos; read reports. The YouTube videos might as well be zebras, for their relevance.

The fakes are a significant factor to people who don't realize the volume and consistency of the other evidence. The "pall" therefore is unjustified. It is, indeed, exactly as if I pointed to the two people in the zebra suit and said, see, no zebra!

Most samples sent in for testing get summarily tossed. (Or the people who find them, toss them. They're not scientists specializing in DNA testing. Shoot, most don't even look for tracks when they saw one.) It's an expensive and lengthy process; people aren't going to go through it for "something that doesn't exist." It's a body or nothing.

Edited February 7, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

You raise an interesting point I had not thought of Dmaker. Although I always cringe when somebody advocates saving something or other because it "might hold the cure for cancer", who knows what genetic secrets possible DNA might evidence, eh? But yeah, I meant in the realm of zoology, natural systems, ecology, etc.

My probability %? Well, it certainly is not 100%. I don't tag anything with that probability unless it has already happened. If I had ever come face to face with one, I might be there. I say "might" because I've heard some tell they STILL didn't believe it after it happened. Such is the tenacity of our disbelief in some matters. Mine are high, but maybe not as high as some who've not had a bona fide encounter. I'd peg it as somewhere between satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence, and shy of beyond a reasonable doubt. Until this is confirmed with irrefutable biological evidence, I'm always going to be entertaining the idea that I could be mistaken. I think much of the controversy hereabouts is caused by the idea that you can't simultaneously advocate for the subject of BF needing further attention but still reserve final judgment on the probabilities. You can, and I do.

[Guest DWA]

(Gotta do it when it reflects my position.)

[WSA]

Also, I think "believer" is a destination, and I'm just a quester. Besides, you are forced to choose to "believe", or not, only if something lacks the ability to be confirmed or refuted objectively. This subject does not fit in that category, I don't think.

Dammit DWA, if we keep on doing that folks are going to twig that we are actually just one guy, using different I.D.'s. BTW, I think tomorrow is your day to be me, but let me check the schedule.

[Guest DWA]

Also, I think "believer" is a destination, and I'm just a quester. Besides, you are forced to choose to "believe", or not, only if something lacks the ability to be confirmed or refuted objectively. This subject does not fit in that category, I don't think.

Dammit DWA, if we keep on doing that folks are going to twig that we are actually just one guy, using different I.D.'s. BTW, I think tomorrow is your day to be me, but let me check the schedule.

I'M YOU TODAY. THAT'S ME TYPING. AS YOU, THAT'S ME.

If you don't keep this straight it's gonna be our first serious disagreement....[sob]

[dmaker]

Also, I think "believer" is a destination, and I'm just a quester. Besides, you are forced to choose to "believe", or not, only if something lacks the ability to be confirmed or refuted objectively. This subject does not fit in that category, I don't think.

Dammit DWA, if we keep on doing that folks are going to twig that we are actually just one guy, using different I.D.'s. BTW, I think tomorrow is your day to be me, but let me check the schedule.

Yeah, I get confused sometimes too

[Guest DWA]

And I gotta say, speaking strictly as WSA, now, that "believer" is such an un-fun thing to be that I'd never consider it.

I used to say I was a skeptic. ('Bigfoot skeptics' aren't, which is why I make sure to use the prefix.) I'd probably say proponent now. But that is 100% based on evidence that someone might get around to challenging, one of these days. Until then...

[xspider1]

I'm happy to be a 'credulous bleever'. I have no doubt that there are 'wild people' living in the woods- my brother did it for a year as a human! :B What those wild people are or what they have become, most of us don't know yet but, they're out there. It's nice to "believe" sometimes because that makes for there being a lot less lying in the world than many people may think.

[Guest DWA]

To me the fun is in the evidence. If one has deprived oneself of this, one has truncated the experience. Shame, that.

I'm hearing all this THEY'RE HUMAN but the evidence gives me no reason to believe that, and the folks saying it don't hand me any human markers at all. (Ketchum? I'll believe it when everyone else does. Right now, unlike the case with sasquatch, there's no reason for me to lend credence to Ketchum; the evidence doesn't support her.)

But the evidence also gives me no reason to presume that "human" is a wrong assessment, and case closed. We don't have a specimen yet. That's the only way we'll know. I admit to having once been absolutely convinced that no way could sasquatch be human (again, the evidence still tells me to bet no). But J. Robert Alley's intelligent handling of the question in the must-read Raincoast Sasquatch tells me to at least keep the possibility in mind - as well as the one that it might be neither human nor ape, nor a hybrid, but a "new" kind of primate. Remember, that's humanity's call to make. We're the only species that we know of that does taxonomy.

It's like WSA and I have been saying. Expect proof by now, and one hasn't thought about all the totally logical reasons there isn't proof, chief among them in my view the European wildman tradition (we KNOW it's a myth, so it is one); our congenital inability to trust those we perceive as different from us (quaint native superstitions. How cute); and our species' unparalleled ability to rationalize away what it's uncomfortable with. Make assumptions, and one stops thinking about what the evidence says about those assumptions.

I see bigfoot skeptics taking the highly un-skeptical tack of evaluating each individual piece of information only after stamping it "this ain't real." Then, when one does not present a carcass with the latest report, yet another goes into the fire of oblivion. Each piece is evaluated individually, rather than being sifted against the mental picture of the coherent and voluminous whole.

That is FUN? Not to me.

And maybe scientists had the fun of science beaten out of them by a steady diet of quadratic equations and Cray glitches. But know what? There's a reason people write books about science, with titles like "The Race To..." and "The Astounding..." and "The Amazing Story Of The Discovery Of...."

People!

It's because science is fun.

And bigfoot denying ain't science.

[Guest]

^You still don't get it, DWA.

I absolutely consider the patterns inherent in the hundreds of anecdotal accounts of bigfoot to form my working hypotheses about bigfoot. I also enjoy very much reading those stories.

The difference is that I read those accounts and formulate the following picture of bigfoot (just the North American one): Very tall (generally well over 6'), hairy humanoid creature, inhabiting marginally forested landscapes, continental-scale distribution. They are usually very powerfully built, but I assume they actually wouldn't be much more than a few hundred pounds. These creatures are highly intelligent, and have been encountered by humans in North America since prehistoric times. They most likely evolved in the Old World and dispersed to North America through Beringia during the most recent glacial maximum. They may be active day or night. They are omnivorous and opportunistic, and perfectly capable of survival in roadless wilderness or on the outskirts of major metropolitan, exurban zones. Personally, I consider them to be facultatively riparian in their habitat selection, as evidenced by the large number of reports near creeks and river bottoms. They are likely nomadic. Given their reported range across the continent, there would have to be at least a few thousand individuals out there, right now.

Now, does my view of the hypothetical bigfoot sound to you like someone who's ignorant of the information contained in the anecdotal accounts?

The difference is that those accounts do not in and of themselves convince me that there are real bigfoots. I use them to construct an overall hypothesis that such a creature would have been collected at some point through a few centuries of exploration, intentional collection, well-digging, mining, general settlement, etc. My hypothesis can be proven incorrect in an instant, but so far it's as strong now as it was at the dawn of the 19th Century.

[Guest DWA]

...and there's the assumption at the end that pretty much invalidates anything before.^^^

There's no reason to assume that. The evidence directly contradicts the assumption. In scientific terms: you haven't done enough thinking about this. I know you read them. You're one of the models for that approach I put up there: this ain't real; let's read this one; body? nope; this ain't real...

Oh. I get it.

Edited February 8, 2013 by DWA