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

[Guest]

http://www.sunstar-s...igfootnames.htm

Below are some of the names that Native Americans had for Bigfoot

Nope, they are names for ghosts, giants, cannibals etc that bigfooters have later interpeted as bigfoot.

[Guest LarryP]

Nope, they are names for ghosts, giants, cannibals etc that bigfooters have later interpeted as bigfoot.

Proof ?

[norseman]

Nope, they are names for ghosts, giants, cannibals etc that bigfooters have later interpeted as bigfoot.

I really don't see the distinction between a Yoruk "Hairy man" and a Anglo Saxon "Bigfoot".

Unless your saying that all Indians thought they were spirits. Which isn't true either.

norseman,

I just found this and I think it illuminates the issue greatly; apparently, "mammouth" does mean mammoth. I was surprised.

http://lewis-clark.o...?ArticleID=2860

The link doesn't work...........but I think Mr. Thompson was confused with his Indian legends

Maybe those of you with familiarity with bear tracks can illuminate me. Would not an overtrack occur only occasionally in a trackway and not with each track?

A bear, all bears have an over step. When he is running it makes it more pronounced.

Also bears use the same paths and try to make the same steps in those paths.

I think this is where it would happen the most is when the bear is purposely trying to place both feet in the same hole.

[Guest]

I really don't see the distinction between a Yoruk "Hairy man" and a Anglo Saxon "Bigfoot".

What are the similarities besides them both being hairy?

And while you're at it what are the similarities between owl woman and bigfoot?

[Guest]

This is a tough topic to weigh in on. I don't feel I have the wriiting, spelling, sarcasm, wit, or patience to be a long term player in this debate, but here's my two cents.1) There is clearly evidence of Bigfoot. It in my mind, is impossible to write of the giant pile of empirical data in the form of eyewitness accounts, footprints etc. In the case of all the people who have had up close, face to face, encounters, It is very improbable in my mind to suggest that all off these people are either, lying, mis-indentifying, or delutional, about what they report seeing. There is clearly evidence to suggest that not only Native Americans, but Europeans, both here and in Europe had encounters. Again, at least for me, there is empirical evidence in the form of drawings, totems, etc., that eyewitness encounters go back as far as we can trace. For me there is enough evidence to accept that some unknown creature/animal/primate/hominin is walking around our planet.2) Evidence is one thing, proof is quite different. I have no choice but to hang onto my skeptic moniker, simply because I cannot understand why the proof, is so elusive. I have, and will continue to resist the notion of some paranormal explanation for the lack of proof, although that makes about as much sence as the other options. A) They are so elusive, ninja like, we simply cannot achieve the proof, this would also seem to indicate some level of burial, body hiding, etc., It also solicits the question of fossil record. They are so rare the odds are just against finding the proof. This flys against the eyewitness evidence. C) Proof has already been found but for what ever reason is rejected. Conspiracy or the flat refusal of science to accept this new species. If this is true I cannot understand it. I have heard all the reasons, just cannot buy them. D) They don't and have never existed. This I cannot accept for all the reasons I have already articulated.I know this is the ultimate fence riding position, and the safest place to ride out the debate. I think I will always come down on the side of science, but often wonder why the main stream guys can discount the empirical evidence. One analogy that comes to mind is the argument for intelligent life outside of earth. Most or many scientist think the mathmatical probability of this makes it almost certain. It would seem this logic would work with the Bigfoot phenomenon also. It is thousands versus billions, so maybe that is the reason.

I had this laid out in nice paragraphs, but tried to edit it and it popped into this crazy rambling format, sorry.

Edited February 10, 2013 by LTBF

[Guest LarryP]

What are the similarities besides them both being hairy?

And while you're at it what are the similarities between owl woman and bigfoot?

What are the similarities between The Stone Man, Hairy Savage, Big Elder Brother, Wild Man and Bushman ?

[Guest]

norseman,

The link works at this end. Perhaps: Google- Maps and Mammoths.

Thompson had heard a First Nation story about a very large animal with joinless legs that would lean against trees. He took this to possibly mean a surviving mammoth. Apparently, no where in his writings do we find even a hint of native belief in a sasquatch type animal.

[Guest]

Addressing the eyewitness problem, here is an interesting article from a skeptical page: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/eyewitness_to_the_paranormal_the_experimental_psychology_of_the_unexplained/

[Guest Crowlogic]

Eat crow? Nah not the slightest chance! At some point it has to be argued that if Bigfoot was out there confirming it would have happened by now.

The prevalence of video and still capture devices are nearly universal in this country and in Canada as well. But what do we get from all of this? We get more stills and videos than ever before and none of it is unquestionably a genuine Bigfoot. Does that not tell us something? Does the eternal failure of dedicated research outfits like BFRO not tell us something? Does the mixed messages contained in the Ketchum scenario (which is the most promising study since the Patterson film) not tell us something? It's not a case anymore of science not paying attention or a university unwilling to fund a proper study. Each and everyone of us is equipped with a camera, video recorder and sound recorder all neatly contained in our cell phones. We go deeper and easier into the wilderness than ever before and in greater numbers and we return with nothing time and time again. Furthermore it appears that we don't even need to venture into the wilderness to experience Bigfoot. It seems to be everywhere in the lower 48 states. But we don't get proof that there is anything left to the Bigfoot question. At some point the light bulb comes on in the mind and realization sets in. If Bigfoot does in fact exist we would have found it by now.

[Guest njjohn]

The same could be said for the countless new species or variations of species discovered each year. With all the technology we have, population is still largely concentrated around cities. All the numbers of video and still photographs don't cover every inch of space every minute of every day.

As to the blurry photo... go into your own backyard or nearby park. Take a camera or video camera and try to get sharp images of local wildlife. It's not as easy as it sounds. i take my camera out and go birding all the time. My average keep vs trash rate is 1 in 50. There are so many factors that will degrade a photograph or video. For that one cover shot on National Geographic, about 1000 shots were discarded.

Also the above is also about wildlife that we know about. We know their habits and know their tendencies. We don't fully understand how a Sasquatch would react or what its habits are. They are smarter than you're giving them credit for.

[Guest]

What are the similarities between The Stone Man, Hairy Savage, Big Elder Brother, Wild Man and Bushman ?

Probably superfical.

[Guest Transformer]

Not so much the text, as to the fact that he singled out that experience and wrote it down. I think your right, I think he was thinking through all the plausible explanations. But if he believed 100 percent it was a bear track I don't think we would know of it now, it would have been forgotten.

That's what a overlap looks like for a bear. Maybe? With native American trackers there? Not likely.

I disagree, while it's certainly plausible that Mr. Thompson had no idea what the legends said? If you take a Grizzly bear hind foot track, make it bigger, take away the claws, and broaden the heel? Well...........you have a Sasquatch track. That's what the man IS describing.

I think Mr. Thompson was conflicted about what he saw, the Indian guides were insisting it wasn't a Bear, and Mr. Thompson felt that it was important enough to write the report down.

Whether it was a Squatch or not is irrelevant, the point I'm trying to make is that early explorers did record some things they deemed "strange" concerning the subject.

Here is another one:

http://www.bigfooten...ds/spokanes.htm

Transformer is completely wrong with the hypothesis that nothing was observed or recorded by early Europeans about the subject. As if it was somehow a invention of the last century. It's also completely wrong to think that the Native Americans themselves didn't draw or carve or record their myths of the creature other than by oral tradition.

Interestingly enough I just posted a thread about "straw bears" in Europe. It would seem that the Europeans THEMSELVES had their own myths and legends about a similar creature. Better known as wildemann or woodwose, whatever.

Please re-read my post. I never said that nothing was observed or recorded by early Europeans about the subject. I was pointing out that a very vast network of Hudson's Bay Proctors who lived and worked amongst and married into the various tribes within a huge expanse of Canada made no reference to them in daily records and writings goiing back to the 1670s.

The Thompson writings are interesting but have no bearing on what I originally posted as I was specifically refering to the people in the lands that drained into the Hudson's Bay and the specific individuals that were looking for a North-West Passage and that is certainly not in the area that Thompson was exploring. Again, if you actually read my post you might actually see that I was pointing out the fact that the present day sasquatch myth is NOT shared by the majority of Naitve Indian tribes in Canada and does not go from coast to coast. That was the specific point I was addressing if you will note the quote in my original post.

The Pacific Northwest does have a bit of history going back to wildmen that might be construed as the modern sasquatch.

With respect To Ms. Strain, her interpretations of those rock carvings are definitely in the minority.

[Guest]

Proof ?

Read their legends. What proof is there that these monsters are bigfoot?

[Guest]

The same could be said for the countless new species or variations of species discovered each year.

Wrong wrong wrong. It is not the same to discover a caterpillar with a different antennae, and a 8 ft. 600 lb apeman. Stop this BS. Bfers have to stop trotting out every new subspecies of insect discovered and saying "see, new animals are being discovered every year."

[Guest njjohn]

You can discount subspecies, but how about entirely new species? The sneezing monkey of Myanmar?