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

[Guest DWA]

And so why am I here? I came as a curious wanderer who wanted to read more about Bigfoot. [snip snip. All that work and this attitude? Hmmmm] 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.

And there's where reading and curiosity help a lot. Know what I do with those sideshows? Laugh at them, and focus on the evidence. (Those sideshows are drops of water in a river.) If someone told you the Apollo 11 crew were actually rabbits, would you start wondering what all there was to this rabbit thing? I think you'd still believe in rabbits. And if you can think there is any possibility of anything at all for only what's proven...well if people were that way, science never would have gotten started. We would never have made it to caves.

@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.

And practically everybody in the TBRC has seen a sasquatch in Area X. I know some of those folks. You bet against them, tell me. I want a piece of that.

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?

Everybody you cite is someone I roll eyes at. See what happens when the mainstream refuses to engage in a question? That involvement would make the dirtbags irrelevant. Think about this, and you see that.

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.

Simple. You just listed the jokesters. If I told you the NFL was completely composed of gorillas, would you start doubting the gorilla?

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.

Except for all the times that boriing result "primate, unknown" has come back. Except for the times people called in to debunk evidence have embraced it as real. Forgot those.

Listen to the hucksters and you either only buy what they huck or you don't buy anything, two unhealthy extremes.

[dmaker]

I don't believe that the chaff is obscuring my view of the wheat. The field is fallow, there is nothing there to begin with. And would I bet against the TBRC? You bet I would. Every last penny, in a heart beat. Nothing against any of them. They seem earnest and serious. At this point, I need results. Not talk. I'm done with rumours of this group, or that area, or this DNA study. For God's sake, show the dang monkey or shut up already! ( generally speaking, not you personally)

I have simply lost any faith that I ever may have had in the existence of BF. From now on the only thing that will restore that faith is an actual Bigfoot. Until someone shows the Monkey to the world, he does not exist. Regardless of any thing else.

[Drew]

I have read Meldrum and he is wrong and I don't know why. (Repeat.)

I know why.

[WSA]

I think it is very possible to wind up with your conclusions Dmaker, and understandable as well. I'll be the first to admit there is a whole lot of me-too junk out there. We Americans especially are prone to self-promotion and hucksterism, as I'm sure you appreciate. The task will always be to separate the signal from the noise, and there is considerable noise. What I'd caution against is letting that reality erode your sense of wonder to the point where nothing is extended any credibility at all. This would = No Fun. I have to say, my impression of some who come here to hold forth is they aren't enjoying this question half as much as I think they should. I, like you probably, already have a full-time job, and I hold no personal stake in being ultimately judged right/wrong by anyone. It is an intellectual exercise that crosses between hard science,history, popular weirdness and the hard realities of human nature. How can that not be a total ball? If I can presume to make a recommendation,it would be to not let some wahoos ginning up b.s. self-promoting nonsense detract you from engaging with the core evidence...which has every appearance of holding up to scrutiny. If this discipline has a future, it requires us to exclude those charlatans with impunity. Your assistance is respectfully requested.

[dmaker]

I will happily join with you in dismissing the charlatans ( a kinder word than I would use). You have my full throated support on that one. I can't really get behind you with your embracing of the core evidence though. It just doesn't do it for me.

@DWA, Could you please link to some of the major DNA studies that have come back as "primate, unknown"? I'd like to read them. I thought most of those were actually unable to classify, not definitely primate. One means one thing, the other means a whole different thing. I'm not being sarcastic here with this request. I tried googling it and sadly all I get are dozens of links to Ketchum right now. So I figure you must have something handy.

Lol, you know what WSA? Bigfoot really was more fun before I starting looking into it more. Maybe I am too jaded by all the Dyers of the community and the off the wall crazy claims of some folks. It used to be, oh there's a BF documentary on this week, that should be fun, I'll be sure to catch that. I would enjoy it, but not really do too much follow up. Now after peeking under the covers, I'm a bit aghast of some of the crap that goes on in the BF community. It sours the milk to be sure. I now get so irritated with things like, hey listen to this vocalization, it MUST be a BF. No, it's clearly a coyote..no way man, it's a BF, you're just not educated ( not aimed at you or DWA). It sometimes feels like diving for pearls in a sewage tank.

[Guest DWA]

I know why.

[CRICKETS] a candid world awaits. That convinced people whose opinion I would trust more than yours on this. Just sayin'.

What I'd caution against is letting that reality erode your sense of wonder to the point where nothing is extended any credibility at all. This would = No Fun. I have to say, my impression of some who come here to hold forth is they aren't enjoying this question half as much as I think they should. I, like you probably, already have a full-time job, and I hold no personal stake in being ultimately judged right/wrong by anyone. It is an intellectual exercise that crosses between hard science,history, popular weirdness and the hard realities of human nature. How can that not be a total ball?

I can not sum up my inability to understand the bigfoot skeptics any better.

I expect good evidence, and hold this field to that standard. I toss out the trash like we all should. And I have fun with this. I have never understood the fun of naysaying. It was never any fun even when I did it.

Science uninformed by wonder isn't science. Einstein would agree. Emphaitically.

@DWA, Could you please link to some of the major DNA studies that have come back as "primate, unknown"? I'd like to read them. I thought most of those were actually unable to classify, not definitely primate. One means one thing, the other means a whole different thing. I'm not being sarcastic here with this request. I tried googling it and sadly all I get are dozens of links to Ketchum right now. So I figure you must have something handy.

Nope, I don't. Read it; checked the source; OK, what reason would this person have to be making this up?, and tossed it on the pile.

(Except now for the stories of Jeff Meldrum, George Schaller, Jimmy Chilcutt and Daris Swindler, called in to debunk and winding up proponents. Right in Meldrum's book. Who woulda thunk.)

Besides which: no DNA read establishes proof unless it comes from a type specimen. If people treat the P/G film, the footprints, and the thousands of reports, each of which I consider stronger by light years than DNA, the way they do, what good would it do me to assemble "unknown primate" findings? Not floatin' my boat. It's an animal, not a petri dish.

This is the cool part of having fun with this, and about knowing what bones to worry and what not. I can't believe all the hammering at P/G I am seeing from skeptics, none of it addressing the most basic components of what would have had to happen for a hoax. So, you know, DNA, whatever. But that it's ever come up doesn't excite the smidge of curiosity? There's a point where, like WSA, I just go, OK, I'm good with that, unless somebody else has better.

I'd change my mind on this in a minute. The thing I keep pounding on is: no one has given me one thing that would change a rational person's stance from the one I hold.

Edited February 12, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

I have a simple question specifically for DWA, but also for anyone else:

Can you conceive of a scenario that would cause you to say, "I guess I was wrong, I guess bigfoot does not exist"? If so, what is it?

[Guest DWA]

Sure.

A systematic debunking - i.e., proof and not random, toss-crap-at-wall speculation - that that isn't a bigfoot, it is this - of so many pieces of evidence as to give me good reason to believe the rest would go down similarly.

If you don't require the same, I gotta wonder why.

[Guest]

Yeah, but that's a cop out. That's not specific, that's just a general, "Yeah, if you got proof, I will believe it." What does that mean? Does it mean every person who ever claimed to see one fesses up to a hoax? Does it mean we find something in the water that causes people to hallucinate specifically 7 foot tall apes?

And for the record, I'd consider myself skeptical, but not a Skeptic. I think it would be awesome if bigfoot existed. I find the subject fascinating! But there are a lot of red flags for me -- counter-evidence you keep claiming no one presents. BUT -- I know for me there are multiple scenarios that would 100% cause me to say, "Yup, bigfoot for sure exists, I was wrong, now let's tackle the questions of why we didn't 'discover' bigfoot earlier." One such scenario would be a body. Another would be DNA evidence; and I think most skeptics would agree those would work. For me, good video of photographic evidence would certainly be compelling, I just haven't seen it yet. Patty is good, but there are so many details surrounding it that it at least is dubious and not definitive.

So. I have plenty of concrete, explicit scenarios that would lead me to conclude bigfoot exists. Your turn.

[dmaker]

Irony can be fun

" The thing I keep pounding on is: no one has given me one thing that would change a rational person's stance from the one I hold. " - DWA

I would say exactly the same thing my friend

Yeah, but that's a cop out. That's not specific, that's just a general, "Yeah, if you got proof, I will believe it." What does that mean? Does it mean every person who ever claimed to see one fesses up to a hoax? Does it mean we find something in the water that causes people to hallucinate specifically 7 foot tall apes?

And for the record, I'd consider myself skeptical, but not a Skeptic. I think it would be awesome if bigfoot existed. I find the subject fascinating! But there are a lot of red flags for me -- counter-evidence you keep claiming no one presents. BUT -- I know for me there are multiple scenarios that would 100% cause me to say, "Yup, bigfoot for sure exists, I was wrong, now let's tackle the questions of why we didn't 'discover' bigfoot earlier." One such scenario would be a body. Another would be DNA evidence; and I think most skeptics would agree those would work. For me, good video of photographic evidence would certainly be compelling, I just haven't seen it yet. Patty is good, but there are so many details surrounding it that it at least is dubious and not definitive.

So. I have plenty of concrete, explicit scenarios that would lead me to conclude bigfoot exists. Your turn.

I agree 100%. I'm totally willing to change my position once someone coughs up a monkey.

Maybe I should change that to:

I will not change my position until someone coughs up a monkey.

Edited February 12, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Yeah, but that's a cop out. That's not specific, that's just a general, "Yeah, if you got proof, I will believe it." What does that mean? Does it mean every person who ever claimed to see one fesses up to a hoax? Does it mean we find something in the water that causes people to hallucinate specifically 7 foot tall apes?

And for the record, I'd consider myself skeptical, but not a Skeptic. I think it would be awesome if bigfoot existed. I find the subject fascinating! But there are a lot of red flags for me -- counter-evidence you keep claiming no one presents. BUT -- I know for me there are multiple scenarios that would 100% cause me to say, "Yup, bigfoot for sure exists, I was wrong, now let's tackle the questions of why we didn't 'discover' bigfoot earlier." One such scenario would be a body. Another would be DNA evidence; and I think most skeptics would agree those would work. For me, good video of photographic evidence would certainly be compelling, I just haven't seen it yet. Patty is good, but there are so many details surrounding it that it at least is dubious and not definitive.

So. I have plenty of concrete, explicit scenarios that would lead me to conclude bigfoot exists. Your turn.

The evidence says to me what it says.

What are you telling me? That without any change to that, I suddenly go Eureka! Bigfoot isn't real? What could cause that, something in the water that causes people to suddenly go I was wrong?

Debunk the evidence, or you have done nothing that compels me to change my mind.

What is with this when-will-you-stop-bllleeeeeeeeebing question? It is not about belief; it is about evidence. When the evidence has led to no conclusion, I am supposed to what, force one? Particularly when the evidence fairly screams you are forcing the wrong one?

BTW, your stance in a nutshell: "Yeah, if you got proof, I will believe it." Mine fell short of absolute proof that I am wrong. Your turn.

I'm totally willing to change my position once someone coughs up a monkey.

Maybe I should change that to:

I will not change my position until someone coughs up a monkey.

a) it's not a monkey; and if you have seen somebody cough up a monkey I would require video to believe you.

(Good way to point up that when you type b-right-apostrophe, you get . )

I let evidence tell me what to expect. That's the fun of evidence. I don't put any more eggs in the basket than the evidence seems to indicate. Just like saskeptic, I could do a 180 on this as soon as the evidence told me to.

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?

Er, ah, evidence. The stuff that's crushing you makes us laugh, because we know what the evidence says, and it says those guys are fulla.

(Stand for something or fall for anything.)

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.

First, the bigfoot of popular culture is nonexistent except in popular culture. It's a different but very consistently reported animal, no naive concept of an ape-man at all, that people are reporting. Finding Bigfoot is a joke, even though thought will make it plain that the BFRO database isn't. And if you see a bigfoot in your backyard or Home Depot, call us. Very great numbers? 75 million, maybe? That's about how many I think there would need to be for us to acknowledge bigfoot as real....no wait, 756 million wouldn't do it if no one believes anyone who says they saw one.

Again, one man's 'weight' is another man's mirth. They crack me up. But they crack you. The pitfalls of belief...

Edited February 12, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

You're still missing the question. I'm not asking you to change your mind. I'm not even asking you to identify evidence NOW that makes you doubt it -- pretty much in every post you let us know that all of the evidence tells you it exists, and I'm not arguing against that. I'm simply asking you what WOULD change your mind. As far as I can tell, your answer is "nothing".

The reason it's important, is because there's no point in entering an intelligent discussion with someone who, from the outset, will not possibly change his or her mind. It undermines any credibility you have when you claim you've looked at all the evidence, are more informed, etc etc. You could fix that if you just provided a theoretic scenario that would cause you to say, "Oh, I guess I was wrong."

[Guest DWA]

No, there's no point in entering an intelligent discussion with a person who just wants you to abandon your point of view for what they want you to think. For, you know, no **** reason but they want to be right.

What in the world could you possibly want me to say? There's the evidence. It's crap? Oh. Do tell!

And you better.

Talk to anyone who cites a scenario that does not involve debunking the evidence as something that would change their mind, and you are talking to somebody who just wants to be your buddy, or you are not talking to a serious person. Actually, as regards this topic, both are the same.

Do you know what the word 'evidence' means? Evidence so far leads me to believe: no.

Edited February 12, 2013 by DWA

[Guest LarryP]

let's nail down BF's existence before we start splitting hairs about what type of puma.

This is where it turns into an inductive argument.

You're saying "let's nail down BF's existence".

But I personally don't need to nail it down because I know from personal experience that it does in fact exist.

[Guest DWA]

Oh, so you're just here to stir crap up. I see.