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

[Guest]

One of the problems with this line of thinking Mulder, is that there are "100s if not 1000s of " Bigfoot sightings, I'm sure one day there will be Millions of sightings.

Plus photos, cast tracks, forensically typed hairs, sound recordings, and more.

You keep leaving that out Drew. Why you do so is obvious: Because you want to paint the case for BF as nothing but hearsay from people you tar with the brush of "unreliability".

[Guest]

Zoala, question for you.....if someone you knew very well and trusted totally told you they saw a large hairy bi-pedal man-like creature and it was in plain sight, what would you say?

KB

I would treat that with the same amount of doubt as the many other respectable individuals who claimed to see bigfoot. I'm not saying the eyewitnesses are crazy, stupid or delusional, however, the human mind can very easily be manipulated into thinking a certain way.

Are you assuming this, or do you actually see these reports? With bigfoot sightings, there are actually databases where one can go and read sighting reports, and get some sort of survey of sighting characteristics and volume. I can grant that there are a similar number of 'ghost' sightings, but vampire, unicorn and dinosaurs? Respectfully, can you back up that claim at all?

Okay, the unicorn part was just me exaggerating a bit. However there are plenty reports of supposed dinosaurs like all the Nessie sightings and Mokele Mbembe sightings in Africa. As for vampires, many Romanians still believe in its existence and not too long ago villagers were still digging up graves and destroying bodies of normal deceased individuals.

According to a survey performed in the 2009, 23% of Americans believe they have either seen or were in the presence of a ghost.

http://www.cbsnews.c...162-994766.html

It's that much? Wow, I am speechless.....

[Guest]

Any other institutions you'd like to modify to suit your whims Mulder, or is it just science?

Spare me, Sas...no one is calling for "science" to modify anything.

I'm calling for science to follow it's own rules by objectively considering the evidence to hand and following it to it's most logical and reasonable conclusion.

I'm calling on Skeptics to follow their own rules and present their positive evidence that all the sightings are false, all the tracks are false, all the forensically typed hairs are false, all the scientific work done by many reputable scientists is in error.

Since neither Science nor Skeptics seem to be in any hurry to do that, I have to question just exactly who is changing things to suit their whims...

If there are people who are content to ignore the logical fallacy in accepting anecdotal information as proof of phenomena, then go for it.

Same thing I said to Drew: stop deliberately ignoring the HARD evidence (tracks, forensically typed hairs, etc).

I have been crystal clear - for YEARS - that my interest in the bigfoot phenomenon is to determine if there is evidence to warrant the description of a new species according to the standards of, for example, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. If every other animal ever recognized since at least Linnaeus has had to meet their standard, then I see no reason to abandon that standard to accommodate "bigfoot."

And there's that hubris again. Who elected said commission? Who is it accountable to? What makes their determinations conclusive or inherently correct? What is the legal or moral authority that compels us to do things the way they say things must be done? What is the appeals mechanism if they make a wrong decision?

Simple answer: they are self-proclaimed, self-appointed, answerable to NO ONE, and have no legal or moral authority to tell anyone what they must think or how they must think.

But let's not look at the man behind the curtain...Science is all-powerful, all-knowing, and always correct...

[Guest toejam]

As far as evidence goes, there's lots of it. Trace evidence that shows there's a large bipedal walking the forests of North America.

Many eyewitness accounts are corroborated by prints. Prints put under scrutiny by science give a plethora of info. Weight that's impossible to duplicate by a human.

Size can be distinguished through prints as well as height. They can tell if it curled it's toes on one step and opened them up on the next. This alone has been documented.

If science hadn't shunned the whole idea in the first place, media might have taken a different stance. Media has distorted the truth. Now it's just an uphill battle to classify what already is.

Edit: Science for the most part has failed to scrutinize the plethora of casts that date back over 65 years.

Edited August 28, 2012 by toejam

[Guest]

People report stuff such as ghosts, zombies, unicorns, vampires, dinosaurs etc all the time. It doesn't mean they actually saw the thing. This applies to bigfoot as well.

Argument ad ridicule

[Guest]

Plus photos, cast tracks, forensically typed hairs, sound recordings, and more.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Isn't a lot of this material kept under lock and key with only a hand picked few being granted access? A good example of this is that amazing video that's been mentioned in this thread. The one where one of our forum mod's was given an oppurtunity to view it. If it's so ground breaking, why not share it if it can help the cause?

As for photos, do you think you can post some here (assuming you don't violate any copyright(s))? Most of the images I've seen are of the blobsquatch variety.

[gigantor]

Marlboro,

What do you make of the thousands of witness reports?

Edited August 28, 2012 by gigantor

[Guest]

One more thing, if the statistic of 23% of Americans having ghost encounters is true, does that mean ghosts must exist? I mean there are supposed evidence of their existence as well, such as EMF readings, crappy videos, blurry photos, sound recordings and LOTS of sightings. Sounds a lot like bigfoot don't you think? Bigfoot also has lots of sightings, lots of blurry photos, lots of crappy videos, lots of purported sound recordings. So why is it that most of you bigfoot believers don't believe in ghosts but believe in bigfoot?

[Guest]

Marlboro,

What do you make of the thousands of witness reports?

What do you make of all the alien abduction reports?

[indiefoot]

A good example of this is that amazing video that's been mentioned in this thread. The one where one of our forum mod's was given an oppurtunity to view it. If it's so ground breaking, why not share it if it can help the cause?.

Maybe the owner of the video has seen what has been said and written about Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin.

One more thing, if the statistic of 23% of Americans having ghost encounters is true, does that mean ghosts must exist? I mean there are supposed evidence of their existence as well, such as EMF readings, crappy videos, blurry photos, sound recordings and LOTS of sightings. Sounds a lot like bigfoot don't you think? Bigfoot also has lots of sightings, lots of blurry photos, lots of crappy videos, lots of purported sound recordings. So why is it that most of you bigfoot believers don't believe in ghosts but believe in bigfoot?

Have you taken a pole or are you just guessing?

[Guest RayG]

Marlboro,

What do you make of the thousands of witness reports?

Not much.

Thousands? Are you including the ones where there was no sighting?

Are you talking about the huge database (4,434 in North America) at the BFRO? If so, are you including their Class B reports? If we start going through this database of 4434 reports, how far in do we go before the reports start sounding less than convincing? Which ones, for example, would comprise a list of the top 50 reports? How about the top 100? Let's say we just take the top 10% of the total database - a mere 443 reports. How convincing would each of those be? And if we start running out of convincing reports before we've even reached the 10% mark, what does that say about the other 90%?

So while I've heard some folks challenge skeptics to debunk each and every one of these thousands of reports, I'd be satisfied if proponents could provide a list of those convincing reports that made it to the top 10%.

RayG

[Guest]

What do you make of sighting reports made by extremely well respected researchers?

[Guest]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Isn't a lot of this material kept under lock and key with only a hand picked few being granted access? A good example of this is that amazing video that's been mentioned in this thread. The one where one of our forum mod's was given an oppurtunity to view it. If it's so ground breaking, why not share it if it can help the cause?

You'd have to ask the rights holders. Some may be trying to make a buck. Others just don't want to be bothered/ridiculed/hounded and have to be talked into releasing them.

The matter of hairs is not really a closely guarded secret. Unknown primate hairs have been positively identified as far back as the 1970s (Pinker, Moore). Dr Fahrenbach has a collection of such hairs and isn't shy about letting it be known (though his research has taken him in other directions since then).

As for photos, do you think you can post some here (assuming you don't violate any copyright(s))? Most of the images I've seen are of the blobsquatch variety.

There are a lot of those, but some very GOOD ones as well. Melissa Hovey posted a very good one a few months back.

Even BETTER ones were posted just recently (the Temagemi) photos.

Look in the Film/Photo section for them and others. I personally endorse the Temagemi pictures as they depict a critter virtually identical to the one I saw.

Be warned that you will have to wade through a sea of Skeptics claiming "This is fake, that is fake, everything is fake." They never pony up any hard evidence, just innuendo and speculation.

One more thing, if the statistic of 23% of Americans having ghost encounters is true, does that mean ghosts must exist? I mean there are supposed evidence of their existence as well, such as EMF readings, crappy videos, blurry photos, sound recordings and LOTS of sightings. Sounds a lot like bigfoot don't you think? Bigfoot also has lots of sightings, lots of blurry photos, lots of crappy videos, lots of purported sound recordings. So why is it that most of you bigfoot believers don't believe in ghosts but believe in bigfoot?

More argument ad ridicule

So while I've heard some folks challenge skeptics to debunk each and every one of these thousands of reports, I'd be satisfied if proponents could provide a list of those convincing reports that made it to the top 10%.

RayG

In other words, you have no intention of ever presenting your positive case to debunk the entirety of the reports. Got it.

[gigantor]

Are you talking about the huge database (4,434 in North America) at the BFRO? If so, are you including their Class B reports?

Well, our SSR database has the entire Mangani Google Earth dataset, that's 6473 reports. Plus the John Green database (4000+) - soon. Of those, we have classified 430. 216 of those are Class A reports. Extrapolating, that's about 50% of all reports are Class A.

Yes, I'm talking about those thousands of witness accounts.

Edited August 29, 2012 by gigantor

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

And who knows how many people haven't reported their sighting! I think most people who have actually seen one haven't reported it.