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

[dmaker]

DWA, you are ( shockingly) missing the point of the psychology paper that was linked here. The main gist of that is that people that are otherwise completely sane can have sub-clinical ( or so low levels that they are undiagnosed) tendencies to ADHD or dissociation, or depression that can make the mind play tricks with memory and sightings. It's not saying they are crazy or hospitalizeable, quite the opposite in fact But of course, you never read it, did you? Because the only acceptable explanation for you is that the BFRO ( an organization that loses respect every time Bobo or Moneymaker opens their mouth) report database is full of infallible eye witness reports that MUST indicate a real, live animal. Nothing else could be possible.

WSA, if you want to believe in fairy tales and myth, all the power to you. Just don't expect every one to take it as seriously as you do. But, yes, it's risk free, so carry on and have fun by all means.

I think you need to understand the context.....saying there was a cougar roaming wild in the Blue Ridge in those years was tantamount to saying there was a bandersnatch on the loose. It was as easily dismissed as impossible as some now dismiss BF. And no, you could not go to the zoo then, or now, and see an E. Puma. Going back about a decade from then, the implausability of a coyote being seen in Central Va. was equally remote....although stockgrowers had been consistently reporting it. My point being, sometimes it pays to take people at their word, especially when you risk nothing by doing so. And really, what do you risk by taking BFRO reporters at their word? I don't know about you, but I risk nothing by doing that. You?

I do understand the context. Saying there was a cougar running around wild in Southern Ontario was equally ridiculous. I know, I was there, I remember how people reacted. But it still is no where near the same as suggesting that an unconfirmed cryptid is running around the woods. One deals with a real, live animal. And please don't quibble about sub species, let's nail down BF's existence before we start splitting hairs about what type of puma. The point is a cougar is a real animal. Everyone knows that. It's difficult to imagine certain areas being a habitat for one, but the point is you do not have to struggle with the mere existence of the animal. That is the relevant context here. Nothing else.

Edited February 12, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

DWA, you are ( shockingly) missing the point of the psychology paper that was linked here. The main gist of that is that people that are otherwise completely sane can have sub-clinical ( or so low levels that they are undiagnosed) tendencies to ADHD or dissociation, or depression that can make the mind play tricks with memory and sightings. It's not saying they are crazy or hospitalizeable, quite the opposite in fact But of course, you never read it, did you? Because the only acceptable explanation for you is that the BFRO ( an organization that loses respect every time Bobo or Moneymaker opens their mouth) report database is full of infallible eye witness reports that MUST indicate a real, live animal. Nothing else could be possible.

Nah, not a trick. You guys are the shocker. (Hey, WSA. Look! [crickets] every time.) What you are utterly shockingly missing is something I have said so many times here that sub-clinical mumbo-jumbo might be involved in missing it. But maybe not. You can just re-read at leisure.

(Scientists using their science vouch for the animal; no scientist who disagrees shows evidence of a bachelor's degree in his response; but dmaker is right. Oh-kay there.)

A bipedal ape is what this spectacularly prevalent phenomenon is inducing people to conclude, with a consistency that would say "species" to any biologist paying attention? Can you, um, take something for that belief?

WSA, if you want to believe in fairy tales and myth, all the power to you. Just don't expect every one to take it as seriously as you do. But, yes, it's risk free, so carry on and have fun by all means.

Whoa. Tetchy. Something sub-clinical? (You know, it would be cool to play all this back to you guys when sasquatch is confirmed.)

I do understand the context. Saying there was a cougar running around wild in Southern Ontario was equally ridiculous. I know, I was there, I remember how people reacted. But it still is no where near the same as suggesting that an unconfirmed cryptid is running around the woods. One deals with a real, live animal. And please don't quibble about sub species, let's nail down BF's existence before we start splitting hairs about what type of puma. The point is a cougar is a real animal. Everyone knows that. It's difficult to imagine certain areas being a habitat for one, but the point is you do not have to struggle with the mere existence of the animal. That is the relevant context here. Nothing else.

The evidence says sasquatch is as real as puma, and likely more numerous than that. If you insist on the fantasy that all that evidence so obviously amounts to a false positive that it can be trashed without review...well, I think then that that article might do someone some good.

[WSA]

BF ain't real. Rinse and repeat.

So, somebody tell me on the skeptic's side of things here, what do you, personally, risk by taking some folks at their word? I'm having a tough time getting inside your motivation. As J. Garcia famously said, "Nothing more exhilirating than pointing out the shortcomings of others." Is that really it? Me-my-own-personal-self, I risk nada, buy you aren't me. Help me get this.

[Guest DWA]

^^^the two things every American knows: how to paddle a canoe, and BF ain't real.

[dmaker]

I'm confused, what scientist in this current discussion is mentioning a bachelor's degree? Sharps is a PhD. It's funny how you care about credentials when it comes to people you agree with, i.e. Meldrum et al. But when someone without a science degree contradicts you, you just magically confer scientific credentials onto them, a la Beringe. Handy that

I'm not American. So it seems even us Canadians know that Bigfoot is not real.

And no, the living, breathing pumas say a puma is real; you and the BFRO say Bigfoot is real. See the difference?

In this race, I'll bet on the horse that can actually show up, not the one that exists solely in the minds of the people making reports.

BF ain't real. Rinse and repeat.

So, somebody tell me on the skeptic's side of things here, what do you, personally, risk by taking some folks at their word? I'm having a tough time getting inside your motivation. As J. Garcia famously said, "Nothing more exhilirating than pointing out the shortcomings of others." Is that really it? Me-my-own-personal-self, I risk nada, buy you aren't me. Help me get this.

So is this another way of asking why am I here if I don't believe in Bigfoot? Why can't I just silently not believe? Why do I have to come here and argue with people that do believe? Do I enjoy stealing candy from babies too, I suppose? You like to come here and explain why you do believe in Bigfoot; some people like to come here and explain why they don't believe in Bigfoot. There is still a common denominator and it's pretty obvious. I don't have an interest in any other cryptid, so you won't find me on a Nessie forum trying to pop their bubbles. Bigfoot interests me. Even if I don't believe.

Edited February 12, 2013 by dmaker

[WSA]

dmaker, it really is axiomatic: You can not ever get to scientifically based PROOF if you don't give credence to any of the EVIDENCE. You are stuck in a positive feedback loop of your own construction, with no possible way out except the deux ex machina conclusion. As they say, hope is not much of a strategy.

Let's turn this discussion a bit off our present heading: What do the opponents consider credible evidence on this subject? Anyone? Anything? Is that possible for you to articulate? If not, why not? Serious question.

[Guest DWA]

I'm confused, what scientist in this current discussion is mentioning a bachelor's degree? Sharps is a PhD. It's funny how you care about credentials when it comes to people you agree with, i.e. Meldrum et al. But when someone without a science degree contradicts you, you just magically confer scientific credentials onto them, a la Beringe. Handy that

Handier still? Your not seeing any reason to address scientists who use superior knowledge to disagree with you. wha wha? They use evidence? No they don't, 'cause I don't read any. Sharps? Who he? You're gonna tell me see, you don't even read. You don't have any idea who has been getting that message over and over about information actually relevant to this discussion, eh?

I'm not American. So it seems even us Canadians know that Bigfoot is not real.

Try telling that to John Green.

And no, the living, breathing pumas say a puma is real; you and the BFRO say Bigfoot is real. See the difference?

Yes. Pumas don't go to school. Why would I take the word of a puma on anything? How many pumas have you seen? Those could be photos of blown-up Photoshopped puddytats, ya know.

In this race, I'll bet on the horse that can actually show up, not the one that exists solely in the minds of the people making reports.

I just wanna be able to replay these. For easy access, why not put them all on the "What If It's Real?" thread.

So is this another way of asking why am I here if I don't believe in Bigfoot? Why can't I just silently not believe? Why do I have to come here and argue with people that do believe? Do I enjoy stealing candy from babies too, I suppose? You like to come here and explain why you do believe in Bigfoot; some people like to come here and explain why they don't believe in Bigfoot. There is still a common denominator and it's pretty obvious. I don't have an interest in any other cryptid, so you won't find me on a Nessie forum trying to pop their bubbles. Bigfoot interests me. Even if I don't believe.

OK. This is funny. Why do you have to come and argue? Um, you don't, same reason I don't go to Ghosts They're Real sites and argue with them. ( We're not arguing, we're educating.) How in the heck does bigfoot 'interest' you? When things interest me I know stuff about them, not go dredge up some pseudoscience from some shrinkazoid who comforts me in my denier stance. I mean, just me.

Edited February 12, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

@WSA That's a bit of pot calling the kettle, don't you think? You and DWA are so firmly stuck in your positive feedback loop that you never need really worry about a way out either. At least my position is technically, and very easily, fallible. Show the monkey already! It's that simple. You and DWA get to sit back and wait until someone does the impossible--proving a negative. And in the meantime someone produces a Bigfoot, or a piece of one, great, skeptics are proven wrong. But if not, you get to sit up there on your feedback loop forever saying no one is looking hard enough, or in the right places, etc. Now who's feedback loop is more breakable than the other? Care to retract that statement a bit?

Ah, but I have read DWA. I have read one of Dr.Meldrum's books, and I have read one of Loren Coleman's books, and I have read quite a few sighting reports and about 10,000 internet posts. I am currently trying really hard to find a copy of Bindernagel The Discovery of the Sasquatch (2010). That one is proving tough to get. The only place that offers it for anything less than 125 bucks is beachcomberbooks, and they don't confirm if they will ship to Canada, and it's 50 bucks for local shipping,not sure what CDN shipping would cost. I can't find an ebook for purchase of it either. But I did read what was available of it in the Amazon preview and I thought it might be important to read that one, because honestly you sound just like Bindernagel. So I thought I would read that one, IF I can manage to find a copy. So yes, I read. Though thanks for the insult.

[WSA]

"So is this another way of asking why am I here if I don't believe in Bigfoot? Why can't I just silently not believe? Why do I have to come here and argue with people that do believe? Do I enjoy stealing candy from babies too, I suppose? You like to come here and explain why you do believe in Bigfoot; some people like to come here and explain why they don't believe in Bigfoot. There is still a common denominator and it's pretty obvious. I don't have an interest in any other cryptid, so you won't find me on a Nessie forum trying to pop their bubbles. Bigfoot interests me. Even if I don't believe."

Steady on, nothing of the kind. I'm just very curious to know what shapes an individual's view of humanity to the point where no credence is given to any account that falls outside of that person's individual experience. I think this is what I read in your comments. Help me to understand that, will you? Is your interest in BF at odds with your inability to suspend disbelief for even a second to follow an evidence trail? I don't think I understate the internal conflict I'm picking up on, but I'm not trying to cast aspersions, only trying for an understanding of your view of how the world works, because it is far, far outside my own experience. That's all I'm getting at.

[dmaker]

And so why am I here? I came as a curious wanderer who wanted to read more about Bigfoot. The jury was still out in my head, but I didn't really know too much. But I was interested. I had seen every documentary I could get my hands on and started reading what books I could find. So I ended up here to try to find smaller snippets of Bigfoot stuff to entertain my day while at work and on a break. The problem with Footery is that once you start digging you uncover some pretty ridiculous stuff. The sheer number of hoaxes, the ludicrous claims made by habituators, the "evidence" put forward by some amateur researchers, etc. Those started to tilt me more toward the, huh, doesn't seem like there is much truth to this BF thing. And even reading the science by the people you so adore, does not convince me. When I read contrary opinions by other scientists that say things like BF's purported habitat is a dietary wasteland, etc. I start to wonder. Shows like Finding Bigfoot ( whether you like it or not) start to dissolve whatever credibility the BFRO may have ever had. So I'm left with a handful of scientists, and eyewitness reports that are vetted by pro-footers. I'm sorry, it's just not convincing. But in the end, I do enjoy the debate for some reason. Go figure. I'll leave this thread forever if it will make you happy.

Edited February 12, 2013 by dmaker

[WSA]

I will also leave the excoriating of scientists to DWA, and that is really not my gig too much. I'm more interested in the human perception of the BF evidence, and what it says about all of us as a species. If I have my own feedback loop it only says, "keep on looking, because you don't know yet."

[Guest DWA]

@WSA That's a bit of pot calling the kettle, don't you think? You and DWA are so firmly stuck in your positive feedback loop that you never need really worry about a way out either. At least my position is technically, and very easily, fallible. Show the monkey already! It's that simple. You and DWA get to sit back and wait until someone does the impossible--proving a negative. And in the meantime someone produces a Bigfoot, or a piece of one, great, skeptics are proven wrong. But if not, you get to sit up there on your feedback loop forever saying no one is looking hard enough, or in the right places, etc. Now who's feedback loop is more breakable than the other? Care to retract that statement a bit?

Um, er, noper.

Nothing needs to be retracted by those demonstrably on the side of the evidence. Who's asking anyone to prove a negative? (re: below. You're welcome, anytime.) We've said it time on freaking time: the only contribution worth making that a skeptic can make to this discussion is proving a FALSE POSITIVE. This is not a bigfoot; it is this. And showing - proving, not just out-of-left-field speckalatin' - you are right. To beg off because the task is too big is tacit acknowledgement of the power of the evidence, and the need for mainstream science to step in and resolve this. And why should mainstream science NOT?

[CRICKETS]

uh huh. Talk about your self-serving loops.

Ah, but I have read DWA. I have read one of Dr.Meldrum's books, and I have read one of Loren Coleman's books, and I have read quite a few sighting reports and about 10,000 internet posts. I am currently trying really hard to find a copy of Bindernagel The Discovery of the Sasquatch (2010). That one is proving tough to get. The only place that offers it for anything less than 125 bucks is beachcomberbooks, and they don't confirm if they will ship to Canada, and it's 50 bucks for local shipping,not sure what CDN shipping would cost. I can't find an ebook for purchase of it either. But I did read what was available of it in the Amazon preview and I thought it might be important to read that one, because honestly you sound just like Bindernagel. So I thought I would read that one, IF I can manage to find a copy. So yes, I read. Though thanks for the insult.

Great. You've read. Now read for comprehension. (You're welcome, no seriously.) Your stance is untenable if you've read Meldrum's book - just that - and understand what's in it. You either have a reasoned response that addresses the evidence, or you, well, don't.

[WSA]

And so why am I here? I came as a curious wanderer who wanted to read more about Bigfoot. The jury was still out in my head, but I didn't really know too much. But I was interested. I had seen every documentary I could get my hands on and started reading what books I could find. So I ended up here to try to find smaller snippets of Bigfoot stuff to entertain my day while at work and on a break. The problem with Footery is that once you start digging you uncover some pretty ridiculous stuff. The sheer number of hoaxes, the ludicrous claims made by habituators, the "evidence" put forward by some amateur researchers, etc. Those started to tilt me more toward the, huh, doesn't seem like there is much truth to this BF thing. And even reading the science by the people you so adore, does not convince me. When I read contrary opinions by other scientists that say things like BF's purported habitat is a dietary wasteland, etc. I start to wonder. Shows like Finding Bigfoot ( whether you like it or not) start to dissolve whatever credibility the BFRO may have ever had. So I'm left with a handful of scientists, and eyewitness reports that are vetted by pro-footers. I'm sorry, it's just not convincing. But in the end, I do enjoy the debate for some reason. Go figure. I'll leave this thread forever if it will make you happy.

No, it wouldn't make me happy. But if my question is not one you're willing to entertain, fair enough. Shame though, because if the real purpose of this little harmless exercise is to get somewhat closer to the truth, we'll need all the sharp minds we can assemble to do it.

[Guest DWA]

I will also leave the excoriating of scientists to DWA, and that is really not my gig too much. I'm more interested in the human perception of the BF evidence, and what it says about all of us as a species. If I have my own feedback loop it only says, "keep on looking, because you don't know yet."

Leave it to me? I'm you today, pal!

I don't excoriate them. That implies, you know, excoriation. I am against it. It's a religious thing. I simply lambaste any individual among them who demonstrates that he is judging without thinking. In a scientist that is...well, were I the dean of your college we would Have A Talk, we would. The word "tenure" might come up.

And there it is. "keep looking because we don't know yet" is some kind of dooming, self-serving loop? It is LIBERATION, dude! Been working for scientists (Eureka!) time out of mind. The dooming, self-serving loop is: I have read Meldrum and he is wrong and I don't know why. (Repeat.)

[dmaker]

<p><p>@WSA, it's a fair question and I will try to answer it. My inability to suspend disbelief and follow an evidence trail. Ok, that's the crux I think of your question and what you perceive me failing to do. I would argue that that has already been done by quite a few people. But that aside, I do suspend my disbelief long enough to admit that maybe it's possible for a BF creature to exist. That is the crumb that drew me here in the first place. I was hoping to find more than scraps in my search--that has not happened. In fact, I have come to the conclusion that there is no BF. It is hard to suspend disbelief in a phenomenon that is littered with dirt bags like Biscardi and Dyer. That has more non-starters than I can care to count--Ketchum, Sykes, Smeja, et al. Every where you look in Footery there is a boy currently crying wolf. Again and again and again. I think the better question is how can you, and others, cling to your belief? What in the world is that based on?

But even taking all of the above and setting it aside, I still struggle with the idea of BF. At first I had what is probably the main stream casual person's idea of BF. Elusive creature who inhabits remote areas of the PNW. I had heard highlights of arguments like it's an extant neanderthal, or G.Blacki. Ok, those sound "sciency", maybe BF is possible. And again we are drawn to why I ended up here, or with my nose in a Meldrum book. The scraps looked promising, what was actually on offer, though for me, proved to be very unsatisfying. The very idea that the BF of popular culture could possibly be running around NA with the numbers and distribution that is claimed, is just ludicrous. And you now have shows like Finding Bigfoot declaring every square inch of the map to be "Squatchy". That really opened my eyes. We're not talking a bout a remote, moderate climate, primate. We're talking about something that lives in my backyard, behind Home Depots, and in sub-arctic conditions, and in very great numbers. All without leaving a trace.

So yeah, my suspension of disbelief cracked under all that weight. What I can't understand is why yours hasn't yet.

Nothing needs to be retracted by those demonstrably on the side of the evidence. Who's asking anyone to prove a negative? (re: below. You're welcome, anytime.) We've said it time on freaking time: the only contribution worth making that a skeptic can make to this discussion is proving a FALSE POSITIVE. This is not a bigfoot; it is this. And showing - proving, not just out-of-left-field speckalatin' - you are right. To beg off because the task is too big is tacit acknowledgement of the power of the evidence, and the need for mainstream science to step in and resolve this. And why should mainstream science NOT?

So you mean something like saying this is not Bigfoot hair, it's carpet, or dog hair, or human hair, or bear? You mean something like that? Yeah, that's been done every time.

Edited February 12, 2013 by dmaker