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

[Guest]

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!

You have to see how bizarre your response to this is. I don't want to go in circles, so I'll address your post specifically rather than just saying, "I already talked about this, why don't you read what I said":

I'm not asking you to abandon your point of view.

I'm not saying that you should enter an argument assuming you'll be convinced of the opposite point of view.

I'm not saying your current evidence for the existence of bigfoot is bad.

I'm not saying you have drawn the incorrect conclusion from the evidence.

You ask, "What in the world could [ I ] possibly want [you] to say?"

I've already stated this, but I will state it again. I want you to provide a concrete, hypothetical scenario that would lead you to believe bigfoot does not in fact exist. WHAT it is is somewhat irrelevant. That is all I'm asking. And if you can't or won't make a post answering the question (those crickets you keep talking about), that concretely shows to the rest of the forum that while you expect us to listen to you and be convinced by your information and point of view, you have absolutely no intention of doing the same to anyone else.

Edited February 12, 2013 by PJam

[Guest DWA]

OK, the words "concrete hypothetical" do not go together in English.

I am not expecting anyone to listen to me. I seem to know quite a bit about this compared to some here, but the opp is yours to take or decline. Your call.

What's bizarre is what you're doing: raving skeptic one post; 100% proven they're real in the next.

i.e., stirring crap up. As you were...

[Guest]

Here's about as simply as I can put it: I'm not currently trying to change your opinion or argue about bigfoot.

You are so hell-bent on countering any argument against the existence of bigfoot, that you can't even tell that my dialogue with you is not about the existence of bigfoot. It's about your overt refusal to remain un-biased. Just because you can think of a hypothetical scenario that would cause you to change your mind about bigfoot doesn't mean that scenario WILL happen, or that the current evidence for bigfoot is any worse.

You seem like a smart guy, but all I see from your posts is that any of your positive evidence gets lost because you so overtly lack objectivity. Evidence isn't binary, life doesn't work that way. There's pros and cons. As long as you refuse to acknowledge this, you undermine your own argument.

[Guest DWA]

Why don't you go read what I've put up on this thread, seeing as a careful read would counter every word in your post? Talk about stirring crap up.

Come on, man. I'm not going to say O my God you're right!, or take any slant on this that runs counter to the clear trail of the evidence.

Speaking of a need to read up, get on that.

[dmaker]

EDITED post out, I had something backwards. Nothing to see here.

Edited February 12, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

Why don't you go read what I've put up on this thread, seeing as a careful read would counter every word in your post? Talk about stirring crap up.

Come on, man. I'm not going to say O my God you're right!, or take any slant on this that runs counter to the clear trail of the evidence.

Speaking of a need to read up, get on that.

Again, I'm not asking you to deny any of the evidence you've seen. Nothing about our conversation has anything to do with any evidence you've seen. And I'm not asking you to counter every word in my post, all I'm asking is to answer one question. You are doing exactly as I predict you will do, which is avoid answering my question.

Here, choose one, A or B:

A ) Nothing will ever convince me that bigfoot does not exist.

B ) I can conceive of a scenario that would cause me to believe bigfoot does not exist, and that scenario is __________.

If B, fill in the blank.

Edit to add: I'm trying to be as civil as possible toward you, and I'm trying to have an actual, productive discussion about the topic. I'd appreciate it if you would do the same, and avoid acusing me of just being on here to stir up trouble. If you have any evidence that that's what I'm doing, please let me know.

Edited February 12, 2013 by PJam

[Guest DWA]

Blank filled in.

If the evidence leads me to believe what I do, the scenario that would change my mind is - and I repeat:

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

Not sure how much clearer I could be. That's how a scientist would answer, and it's the way he should.

And what experience leads to your 100% conviction praytell? While we are on direct questions?

Edited February 12, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

Just because I am curious, what types of evidence are in scope here? Only physical, i.e. tracks, hair, scat, etc? Or reports? You seem to rely most heavily on reports. So your above statement, if it must be reports that are debunked, really does not commit to anything. No one can go prove that some one back in 1994 really saw a bear, not a Bigfoot. That is impossible, and you know that. Not exactly fair, now is it?

[WSA]

dmaker, keep the fire burning man! There ain't no other as crucial cryptozoological mystery out there as this. It only gets more probable the more "me too" confessions you see. This thing Al Gore invented (forgive the American view) has changed data collection for good. I had not advanced much in my thinking since P/G was published when I was 9. It was the discovery of the BFRO sighting database that really charged me up again. These reports are the perfect cure for the malaise that comes from being exposed to FB or Mssr. Dyer's hoax du jour. These folks filing these reports have no axe to grind, nothing much to gain, and lots to lose, despite the world-weary protestations of some to the contrary. These are real people, reporting real events in their lives. That we would ascribe sinister motives or incompetence to ALL of them, a priori, is really an indictment of us and how far we've fallen out of community. You know us Americans, God forbid we should appear to anyone as less than 100% confident and in the know....a nation of wise guys, that's us. Double-God forbid we should ever look foolish either. But, if you've hit the mark already, you'll know that somewhere north of 40 y.o. your "Give-O-Crap" meter starts to function not so good. Very liberating that.

[dmaker]

I don't think all of the eye witnesses are lying or incompetent. I think they are mistaken.

And until someone introduces the world to an actual Bigfoot, nothing much that I can see on the horizon is going to change that.

[WSA]

All I can say to that Dmaker is your life experiences seem as different to mine as night is to day. Viva la difference.

[Guest DWA]

Just because I am curious, what types of evidence are in scope here? Only physical, i.e. tracks, hair, scat, etc? Or reports? You seem to rely most heavily on reports. So your above statement, if it must be reports that are debunked, really does not commit to anything. No one can go prove that some one back in 1994 really saw a bear, not a Bigfoot. That is impossible, and you know that. Not exactly fair, now is it?

Reports; tracks; the Patterson/Gimlin film, the subject and tracks of which conform closely with the former. Physical evidence - from hair and feces to bones and blood to sounds and smells - consistently reported in compelling association with encounters.

You can't prove a report wrong? You, sir, then have nothing - NOTHING - to say about it, other than: wish mainstream science would get involved, and figure out what these people are seeing.

Instead, you choose to tell these people they are mistaken, with nothing lending anything to that 'judgment.'

Not exactly fair....now is it....?

dmaker, keep the fire burning man! There ain't no other as crucial cryptozoological mystery out there as this. It only gets more probable the more "me too" confessions you see. This thing Al Gore invented (forgive the American view) has changed data collection for good. I had not advanced much in my thinking since P/G was published when I was 9. It was the discovery of the BFRO sighting database that really charged me up again. These reports are the perfect cure for the malaise that comes from being exposed to FB or Mssr. Dyer's hoax du jour.

Plussed. I do a better job as you than I do as me, man!

Mr. Gore's Brainstorm has led to what may be a unique situation in science: 30% of the American population believes something is real that the mainstream steadfastly denies. You will doubt this but don't: you will not find Thing One in our culture, other than this, about which that is true.

(Count on it: about one-third to one half of the "no ways" are lying.)

The Internet may only have begun standing science on its ear. Like WSA, he...I mean, I....I actually, OK, mean me, when he's posing as me pretending to be him...hadn't gone much of anywhere post-P/G, until I found those tracks in the Siskiyou Wilderness in 1986. Around that time I had also seen: sasquatch reported from all continental states. I went: sheesh. This is like UFOs, right? Everybody's seeing them everywhere.

Well, no. Those tracks steered me back in the other direction....then I began reading, yes, I know, actually testing my disbelief against the actual real evidence, something only nuts and scientists do, I know, pie me, man. I actually crawled out of my cocoon, did a Rapunzel rappel from the prison of my made-up mind, and started to see that people weren't doing what they do with ghosts and UFOs and that stuff. They were building a bell curve. They were constructing a species, that behaved according to biogeographical rules, that exhibited common characters and common appearance and common physical structures right down to fine detail, with the only differences those one associates with individuals in a - wait for it - species.

Yep, weeze all cwazy wildlife biologists in the good ol' USA! (Canada too.)

I didn't let yahoos steer my plane. I stayed at the controls, evidence my guide. What crushes your 'belief' (which always gets crushed), I chuckle at. Eyes on the prize.

And in science, it's all about evidence. The truth will set you free.

It's just an ape. This is what we choose to make the greatest fake of all time about? An ape...? Suuuuuuure.

We have access to mo' bettah info than most scientists did when P/G was shot. And some of us have chosen to use it, and to think about it. That is the fun, and you should try it.

Edited February 12, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

Yes, but since we cannot prove a report to be wrong, be it me, you, or "science", then all we have to debunk the reports is the physical evidence. That same evidence that is to be held up in support of those reports. And that physical evidence has been debunked on numerous occasions. How many samples that were sworn up and down to be BF came back as bear, or human, or dog, etc? We've been on this merry go round before. So don't say science hasn't debunked any of the physical evidence. It happens. It's happening right now with the Sykes study. I am pretty sure if some one dragged in a BF alive or dead, science would be happy to investigate that as well. What science is not acting on, to your satisfaction, is the BFRO database of eye witness reports.

"Mr. Gore's Brainstorm has led to what may be a unique situation in science: 30% of the American population believes something is real that the mainstream steadfastly denies. You will doubt this but don't: you will not find Thing One in our culture, other than this, about which that is true"

You're not serious? I posted in this very thread the number of Americans that believe in ghosts, aliens, flying saucers, vampires and Nessie. Some of those numbers are higher than 30% and some of them are higher even than the belief in Bigfoot. Do yourself a favour and read--as you're so fond of saying to others.

LOL, I'm sorry, but you have plum lost me. Are you acting out a play, with yourself? Or are you saying you and WSA share logons? Isn't that kind of against the forum rules or something? You really lost me halfway through that post, I'm sorry...it's just kind of whacky. I think you and WSA might be passing a bit more than logons around

Edited February 13, 2013 by dmaker

[dmaker]

Reading material update:

I did some more digging and found that you can order books directly from Dr.Bindernagel himself at bigfootbiologist.org. So I plunked down $56 last night for a copy of The Discovery of the Sasquatch (2010). I hope it's a good read.

[Guest DWA]

That book - although do not get me wrong is very about the sasquatch - may be one of the best reads for the layman on the theory and practice of science that's out there. If that isn't money well spent, you may just not be interested in this topic. I find myself going back to it all the time.

Bindernagel makes frequent reference to this book that I'm also considering, as it sounds very relevant to evaluation of this topic, particularly eyewitness reports.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Think-About-Weird-Things/dp/007353577X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1360764247&sr=8-2&keywords=schick+and+vaughn

Yes, but since we cannot prove a report to be wrong, be it me, you, or "science", then all we have to debunk the reports is the physical evidence. That same evidence that is to be held up in support of those reports. And that physical evidence has been debunked on numerous occasions. How many samples that were sworn up and down to be BF came back as bear, or human, or dog, etc? We've been on this merry go round before. So don't say science hasn't debunked any of the physical evidence. It happens. It's happening right now with the Sykes study. I am pretty sure if some one dragged in a BF alive or dead, science would be happy to investigate that as well. What science is not acting on, to your satisfaction, is the BFRO database of eye witness reports.

Debunking individual samples completely unrelated to the mass of reports is no stronger sauce for dismissing the reports in toto than is using unfounded assumptions. Sorry.

"Mr. Gore's Brainstorm has led to what may be a unique situation in science: 30% of the American population believes something is real that the mainstream steadfastly denies. You will doubt this but don't: you will not find Thing One in our culture, other than this, about which that is true"

You're not serious? I posted in this very thread the number of Americans that believe in ghosts, aliens, flying saucers, vampires and Nessie. Some of those numbers are higher than 30% and some of them are higher even than the belief in Bigfoot. Do yourself a favour and read--as you're so fond of saying to others.

BIG difference - shoot you might as well toss God in up there - is that sasquatch is something for which evidence exists and in which scientists are actively interested. "Believing in" is weak sauce. Evidence isn't.

LOL, I'm sorry, but you have plum lost me. Are you acting out a play, with yourself? Or are you saying you and WSA share logons? Isn't that kind of against the forum rules or something? You really lost me halfway through that post, I'm sorry...it's just kind of whacky. I think you and WSA might be passing a bit more than logons around

WSA and I are different people. But we agree on a lot of stuff, so much that we have used this meme before.

(I think. Check me on that, WSA. I mean, if you're me today, you know. But, well, you know.)