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

[dmaker]

^^ Honestly, I was not trying to insult Native Americans in anyway. Not even sure how you got that from what I said. Native American legends are brought up on this forum quite often in an effort to lend credibility to the notion of Sasquatch. I was just saying one oral tradition is just as good as the other, so why not mention something like The Odyssey. But I am quite happy to omit Homer from this discussion if that parallel upsets you so. It's hardly that germane. I apologize if you perceived an insult to Native Americans. I was not intentional at all.

[Guest DWA]

(hey Drew! You listen in too!)

The Odyssey was not (check me with that degree if I am wrong):

• Compiled from thousands of sightings by all walks of life, insisting on the veracity of what they saw, despite significant societal pressure not to come forward (such that anonymous witnesses tell bigfoot websites they don't want to be ridiculed for doing this);
  
• Loaded not just with the full spectrum of visual experiences but with extremely consistent footprint, sound, smell and other evidence, found both independently and in conjunction with sightings;
  
• Substantiated by many fossils (Homer, don't think he knew what those were) of similar animals;
  
• Descriptive of any creatures that Greeks go on seeing, right to this very day;
  
• Vouched for by top Greek biologists, specialists in just the kind of evidence that happens to be most prominent;
  

...You know, like that.

When the Native legends not only corroborate sightings by non-Natives but are repeatedly vouched for, by modern Natives, as describing real creatures, description of which is extremely consistent with the animal being seen by non-Natives....

....suffice it to say that we ain't talking little-Greek-boy-run-away-from-home here.

Unless I'm, you know, wrong.

(Don't worry. The Native Americans have taken worse and survived.)

And:

101 pages about "No Evidence." Howzat, Marlboro?

Watch him come back and confuse evidence and proof again.

[Guest]

Um, I've read him? Your next assumption please...(reaches for envelope)...

Just so we're clear, if Bindernagel says there are a few thousand bigfoots that's okay, but if I say it I'm a deluded rube?

[Guest DWA]

No. It's what I said:

Estimates vary, I said why; and I said that's why you have that hill of rock salt nearby to take them with.

One thing is for sure though:

If an estimate - in this case bearing with it a number of assumptions, of necessity - looks like it's too low to support the animal that is producing all this evidence, I'm gonna hold out for just the wee-est possibility that estimate might be rather badly wrong. One never lets assumptions trump evidence; assumptions are only for when the evidence runs out. Otherwise you should be using the evidence.

The estimate wiggle-room means scientists don't have a corner on the market. Some scientists appear to think these guys are rare. John Green doesn't think so at all; and I think he may be right.

Edited February 8, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

@DWA, Like I said, I'm willing to remove Homer from the discussion quite easily. And you are right, I have to agree with you that it's not like modern day Greeks are running around logging reports of Cyclops sightings. So yes, let's not use Homer. I was simply saying how can you immediately dismiss one oral tradition over the other. But upon closer examination, I am forced to agree with you.

Actually, DWA I would like you to either clarify where I said something insulting about Native Americans or apologize for the accusation. I am sorry, but just do not see where I said anything insulting. Is it insulting to say that they have an oral tradition that includes the fantastic? I doubt anyone would argue that or find offense in it.

Edited February 8, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

Saskeptic...consider this. You've been able to come to very specific conclusions about this putative animal, from reading the encounter reports. You would not have been able to do that were they not remarkably consistent and detailed. Of course, consensus can be reached on purely mythical encounters....but I'm failing to have any come to mind,

That's because you're not thinking of a creature of myth. Hint: "Santa". There is abundant consensus on the appearance and habits of Santa Claus that is based purely on the cultural transmission of Santa folklore. (There is also variability in that folklore that results in variability in Santa's appearance and habits, just as there is for bigfoot, e.g., folks claiming "different species" of bigfoot in different parts of the country.)

I also think your hypothesis hangs by a thread...the presumption that no Sasquatch has ever been killed,captured or scavenged.

That's not my presumption, never has been, and I don't know why you think that's what I presume. I'm always clear in my statements that no bigfoot has been collected and described. That's what I think is untenable given what a hypothetical bigfoot species must be. Several prominent stories claim a fatal bigfoot interaction; the lack of proof of such thing is extraordinarily unlikely, even allowing for all the reasons why such a thing might not be proven.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Saskeptic

[Drew]

; people who have lost their jobs, girlfriends and peace of mind over their conviction that they saw it and the way it turned their scoftical world upside down.

I would venture that the reason they lost the jobs, girlfriends etc. is not the Bigfoot sighting.

[Guest DWA]

Several prominent stories claim a fatal bigfoot interaction; the lack of proof of such thing is extraordinarily unlikely, even allowing for all the reasons why such a thing might not be proven.

I can think of so many reasons the lack of proof might happen that I don't share your assumption - which it is - that it is "extraordinarily unlikely."

• Didn't know what the heck it was (at least one instance);
  
• Didn't know the interaction was fatal (count on it there have to be several of those);
  
• Had a major change of heart after pulling the trigger;
  
• Didn't want to tell anyone what had damaged his front end (at least one instance);
  
• Had a major change of, well, stomach after pulling the trigger (um, cut off its....um.....um.....hunh..???)
  
• Acted in self defense and has no desire to get involved with this noise (knows it's naive to presume fame/fortune and more level-headed to think prison sentence);
  
• Got a shovel/shut up order because our timber claim ain't going to some dam wildlife preserve;
  

...OK, good for starters.

I simply don't think the world is full of intrepid adventurers that will involve themselves in this no matter what because it'll make them richrichrich. Mainly because I don't think a lot of people think it will. Then add in all those who were gonna shoot....until they had the chance, and thought about it....or those who saw it and didn't want to shoot either for fear or because they didn't want to kill something like this....I simply don't think lack of proof is as "extremely unlikely" as many seem to think it is.

I would venture that the reason they lost the jobs, girlfriends etc. is not the Bigfoot sighting.

Well, your proof any time you care to submit it. Sauce for the goose etc.

@DWA, Like I said, I'm willing to remove Homer from the discussion quite easily. And you are right, I have to agree with you that it's not like modern day Greeks are running around logging reports of Cyclops sightings. So yes, let's not use Homer. I was simply saying how can you immediately dismiss one oral tradition over the other. But upon closer examination, I am forced to agree with you.

Not all traditions are created equal when context is tossed in.

Actually, DWA I would like you to either clarify where I said something insulting about Native Americans or apologize for the accusation. I am sorry, but just do not see where I said anything insulting. Is it insulting to say that they have an oral tradition that includes the fantastic? I doubt anyone would argue that or find offense in it.

It's just that when people say something is real and they saw it they like to be taken seriously. If someone does this and isn't, um, if I'm them, that's an insult, pure and simple.

Pocket gophers have some flat paranormal attributes when one looks at legends. Not saying we have to take the legends for fact; we just need to note that the Natives did this for all the animals they knew. (We do stuff like that too. Big Bang? OK. Suppositions pick up where the evidence leaves off, for them and for us.) My theory is that Europeans came here from a tradition in which "wild men" were clearly mythical, constructed and used as archetypes. So those reports got singled out for dropping; everything else got accepted, even though we didn't go with them that Coyote and Raven Created the World. Works for me; and apparently for Myra Shackley (Still Living?) too.

When modern Natives are saying, hey look, fine about Coyote and Raven but these are real too, well, maybe somebody could listen to them. If people aren't, well...maybe when this animal's confirmed some apologies will be due.

Edited February 8, 2013 by DWA

[Drew]

Well, your proof any time you care to submit it. Sauce for the goose etc.

No. People lose jobs for reasons well documented in the scientific literature. Claiming that a bigfoot sighting caused someone to lose a job is your burden.

[Guest DWA]

Not really concerned about anything but the reports and what they say. If you can't prove it and I can't either guess what? Doesn't go away.

So no back atcha; and I'm no wronger than you although the wall of denial on this topic makes it substantially more likely I'm right.

Don't believe me? Try it at work.

Edited February 8, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

I don't believe any reports of a Bigfoot are the result of actually seeing a Bigfoot, whether the report comes from a native or otherwise. I'm not discriminating here.

[WSA]

Speaking of quaint native legends...

You know, I had always heard that tribes from both sides of the continent currently have eerily similar accounts of Sasquatch encounters, habits and descriptions, or had them in their oral tradtion for generations. O.K., I thought, they read newspapers too. Not too compelling. Then, on reading further, I realized there are multiple accounts of these distant tribal populations giving these accounts to Europeans at or around the time of their first contact with whites. Now, you tell me, what explains that, aside from the obvious? Archetypical myths just don't come with that level of detail.

[dmaker]

And for the record, I never said quaint native legends....DWA did.

[WSA]

You know Saskeptic, when an adult takes what I thought we considered to be a serious cryptozoological discussion to the point of comparison to Santa Claus, I find I have better things to do with my time. You dissapoint me. I also have to wonder what is in it for someone to devote their time to this subject and treat it so flippantly. At any rate, I'll be withdrawing now. Perhaps we might take it up seriously at a later date. I hope so as I typically enjoy your commentary.

And for the record, I never said quaint native legends....DWA did.

Understood. I make no point of it.

[Guest DWA]

I don't believe any reports of a Bigfoot are the result of actually seeing a Bigfoot, whether the report comes from a native or otherwise. I'm not discriminating here.

And I believe that the consistency and volume argue differently. Difference of opinion.

I just don't think European culture has a corner on truth; and failing to consider that has cost us much, in knowledge to say the least.

And I should note that anyone who's telling the truth and is made fun of has a right I can't deny to feel insulted. I sometimes wonder how a skeptic would respond if told to go before every eyewitness and tell that person they're lying or were drunk or (biggest whopper of all) mistook a bear for a bipedal ape.

That's because you're not thinking of a creature of myth. Hint: "Santa". There is abundant consensus on the appearance and habits of Santa Claus that is based purely on the cultural transmission of Santa folklore. (There is also variability in that folklore that results in variability in Santa's appearance and habits, just as there is for bigfoot, e.g., folks claiming "different species" of bigfoot in different parts of the country.)

SANTA! The two situations are utterly and absolutely incomparable. Utterly and beyond absolutely.

As it is so obvious why - to anyone truly conversant with evidence - I need say nothing. [snort] will do. Any defense of this one will reveal ignorance of the evidence, or an inability to think about it in a manner befitting a scientist; and if such occurs I will simply note the need to do some way serious elevation of one's game.

So let's not.

Ditto, WSA. I spend time zero on anything I am unable to take more seriously than that.

Edited February 8, 2013 by DWA