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

[Guest]

Supposedly Meldrum has been invited as well...not confirmed yet.

[Guest DWA]

If Meldrum is invited, Dyer better stock up on the burn ointment. Could get ugly.

[Guest]

Here's a pretty detailed sighting report to chew on...

http://www.bfro.net/...rt.asp?id=38873

I'm familiar with this area...the Chief Ladiga/Silver Comet trail runs through the middled of this area, and I've been across it many times. I have no trouble believing a putative animal such as the one described could make a tolerable living there and remain undetected most of the time.

Now, aside from substituting my opinion as to what this was in place of the witness', what else are we left with? Hoaxer? Crazy person?

I'm also very intrigued by number and detail of reports coming out of the river valleys and piedmont of Central GA, and the mountains of N. Georgia. I hike frequently in Rabun Cty, at the headwaters of the Tallulah river, on the TN divide where the AT crosses from GA. to NC. A couple of weeks ago I encountered a local man I had never met on a trail, and, unbidden, he brought up the subject of BF. There are accounts of witnesses (him included) circulating in the valley. He gave me no outward indication he was either a lunatic or liar and the facts of his encounter did not lend themselves to being second-guessed. He was not familiar with the BFRO website, and I referred him to it. He was either the victim of an elaborate hoax, or...

Interesting. How would you compare the above sighting to this?: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=223703

Or, more generally to these?: http://www.prairieghosts.com/brayrd.html

Hi guys..if you haven't heard>> Derekfoot has been invited to see Dyer's BF..very soon. He just posted this on the Dyer thread.

Good news. Derekfoot is several steps up from the last guy Dyer invited. Still looks to be a carnival exhibit to me. But, who knows.

[Guest]

A crime was committed: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what evidence do we have?

We have the suspect's

hair,

footprints, hand prints, incl. dermal ridge prints, a big butt print,

slobber,

architectural constructions,

photos and witness assisted drawings,

eye witness accounts in the thousands,

DNA analysis-- concluded,

DNA analysis-- underway,

videos,

an older yet detailed movie film of some length, and

recorded calls, talk, and other sounds.

The reasonable man standard--we must conclude, yes, the suspect is guilty.

Absent our cultural biases about bigfoot, I am sure a court of law would conclude that bf is a real kind of large primate or human, though hard to get our hands on. It's the cultural bias that keeps this from being the conventional and accepted wisdom.

Only our cultural bias --that it's a myth--keeps this from being more than enough. We have this evidence, yet we just CAN'T believe it. It CAN'T be real.

It CAN'T be real. It just can't. Thus, we attempt to rationalize this away.

Those who made it past this bend of the road and accept the facts know it is real.

Those who can't get past this twist keep arguing the proof is faulty. It's a hard place to get around. But if you try to objectively analyze the evidence, if you push the bias aside, you conclude it's real.

How can YOU get past the part of you that keeps saying, "Nah, it can't be....." Try this: "I guess it must be real. It is real. Wow." Rinse and repeat until it sinks in.

[Guest]

norseman,

Here is a bear and her cub track found not too far from the TBRC cabin Bigfoot adventures. I could see how, at first glance, it could be taken as human or sasquatch. Not trying to make a point, just an observation.

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/38655123

Edited February 17, 2013 by jerrywayne

[norseman]

norseman,

Here is a bear and her cub track found not too far from the TBRC cabin Bigfoot adventures. I could see how, at first glance, it could be taken as human or sasquatch. Not trying to make a point, just an observation.

http://www.panoramio.../photo/38655123

Thanks for sharing!

Yes I could see how somebody just taking that picture within it's own context could think that is a Squatch track.

If you had a string of tracks like that, another indicator of a bear track is that the inside toe is the small toe not the big toe like a humans.

[Guest]

A crime was committed: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what evidence do we have?

We have the suspect's

hair,

footprints, hand prints, incl. dermal ridge prints, a big butt print,

slobber,

architectural constructions,

photos and witness assisted drawings,

eye witness accounts in the thousands,

DNA analysis-- concluded,

DNA analysis-- underway,

videos,

an older yet detailed movie film of some length, and

recorded calls, talk, and other sounds.

The reasonable man standard--we must conclude, yes, the suspect is guilty.

Absent our cultural biases about bigfoot, I am sure a court of law would conclude that bf is a real kind of large primate or human, though hard to get our hands on. It's the cultural bias that keeps this from being the conventional and accepted wisdom.

Only our cultural bias --that it's a myth--keeps this from being more than enough. We have this evidence, yet we just CAN'T believe it. It CAN'T be real.

It CAN'T be real. It just can't. Thus, we attempt to rationalize this away.

Those who made it past this bend of the road and accept the facts know it is real.

Those who can't get past this twist keep arguing the proof is faulty. It's a hard place to get around. But if you try to objectively analyze the evidence, if you push the bias aside, you conclude it's real.

How can YOU get past the part of you that keeps saying, "Nah, it can't be....." Try this: "I guess it must be real. It is real. Wow." Rinse and repeat until it sinks in.

OK, let's use the court of law analogy.

Footer - Your honor, we have a load of forensic related material from bigfoot. We won't grant access to the opposing scientists, but you have to trust us that it's from BF.

Judge - I'm sorry, but this material must be made available for scientific scrutiny

Footer - OK, but can we get someone like Meldrum or Ketchum to verify? We've always had bad luck when the scientist does not possess an unhealthy obsession with BF.

Footer - We have in our possession a 47 year old grainy film of BF, our expert says it's real

Judge - we just heard testimony from Dr. Schmitt and Daegling who's combined disciplines encompasses everything from anthropology to analyzing animal locomotion on film. Their assessment indicates the film cannot yield the visual details you claim and the motion of the subject in the film is totally reproducible by a human. Moreover, Dr. Grieves, an expert in human gait has offered testimony that the PGF gait is that of a human. So what makes your expert worthy to contradict these assessments?

Footer - uh - he glues fur to fabric for a living

Footer - we also have a statistical report that indicates the probability of the PGF of being faked to be 1:20000

Judge - who performed this analysis because I don't seem to see much in the form of numerical calculations in this document ? Looks more like creative writing.

Footer - uh - he glues fur to fabric for a living

[adam2323]

OK, let's use the court of law analogy.

Footer - Your honor, we have a load of forensic related material from bigfoot. We won't grant access to the opposing scientists, but you have to trust us that it's from BF.

Judge - I'm sorry, but this material must be made available for scientific scrutiny

Footer - OK, but can we get someone like Meldrum or Ketchum to verify? We've always had bad luck when the scientist does not possess an unhealthy obses

Footer - We have in our possession a 47 year old grainy film of BF, our expert says it's real

Judge - we just heard testimony from Dr. Schmitt and Daegling who's combined disciplines encompasses everything from anthropology to analyzing animal locomotion on film. Their assessment indicates the film cannot yield the visual details you claim and the motion of the subject in the film is totally reproducible by a human. Moreover, Dr. Grieves, an expert in human gait has offered testimony that the PGF gait is that of a human. So what makes your expert worthy to contradict these assessments?

Footer - uh - he glues fur to fabric for a living

Footer - we also have a statistical report that indicates the probability of the PGF of being faked to be 1:20000

Judge - who performed this analysis because I don't seem to see much in the form of numerical calculations in this document ? Looks more like creative writing.

Footer - uh - he glues fur to fabric for a living

Whats your point?

DNA no good

PGF fake?

or just being humorous?

[Guest]

The PGF is a fake, there is no such thing as BF, it is a mythical creature! It is more amazing that people still believe BF exists than the idea of BF itself. No new PGF like footage in almost fifty years, yet there are more people in NA, less remote areas to remain hidden, more people actually looking for BF than ever, better technology, and even though almost everyone has a camera on them these days (in the form of a cell phone), not a decent photo or sequence of footage has been presented since 1967? That is because BF is not real, it doesn't exist. There is no way a population of BF is living on the edges of NA populations centers and science hasn't catologued it...or taken it seriously.

If BF were real...one would get blasted on opening day of hunting season, a day when millions and millions of the dudes in camo put down their remotes and pick up their rifles and wander into the woods of NA to kill something. What? BF circles that day on his calendar and stays in? Moves the family into the cave? It is not real?

Doesn't the fact that people claim BF is everywhere in NA bother footers, or at least set off some red flag in their minds? What? Any State that has a few trees has BF? BF everywhere means BF is nowhere! If some dude in Kansas, or far more fantastical PEI, can be convinced he saw BF....then anyone can be convinced they have BF in their hood. But they don't, because it is a mythical creature.

I used to believe in this stuff, did for years, talked to tons of folks about it, including some of the big names, a few I've even seen post on here, but after all these years, they're still looking, they're no closer to finding the truth...because you cannot find what is not there.

All BF is now is a good story to tell the lady friend when we're huddled in a tent in the back country, and rightfully so, in the light of day she will say...'I can't believe you scared me with that silliness ...'did some dude really claim he was hauled off in his sleeping bag and wake up with a family of BF?'. At which point we laugh, and I have to admit that I used to believe in these fables too. But if we can't laugh at ourselves....well, you know how the story goes.

Anyway, carry on believing, getting out in the bush beats watching TV, but don't be too disappointed if you never ever find proof of BF. If that is what you're after, you're destined for failure because BF does not exist. Better to head out and enjoy the wilderness with BF as a secondary goal and the possibility (though futile in reality) you will see something while you're there.

My opinion is thus...just sayn'.

Edited February 18, 2013 by summitwalker

[Drew]

Summitwalker, This is the best post I have read here.

[WSA]

The PGF is a fake, there is no such thing as BF, it is a mythical creature! It is more amazing that people still believe BF exists than the idea of BF itself. No new PGF like footage in almost fifty years, yet there are more people in NA, less remote areas to remain hidden, more people actually looking for BF than ever, better technology, and even though almost everyone has a camera on them these days (in the form of a cell phone), not a decent photo or sequence of footage has been presented since 1967? That is because BF is not real, it doesn't exist. There is no way a population of BF is living on the edges of NA populations centers and science hasn't catologued it...or taken it seriously.

If BF were real...one would get blasted on opening day of hunting season, a day when millions and millions of the dudes in camo put down their remotes and pick up their rifles and wander into the woods of NA to kill something. What? BF circles that day on his calendar and stays in? Moves the family into the cave? It is not real?

Doesn't the fact that people claim BF is everywhere in NA bother footers, or at least set off some red flag in their minds? What? Any State that has a few trees has BF? BF everywhere means BF is nowhere! If some dude in Kansas, or far more fantastical PEI, can be convinced he saw BF....then anyone can be convinced they have BF in their hood. But they don't, because it is a mythical creature.

I used to believe in this stuff, did for years, talked to tons of folks about it, including some of the big names, a few I've even seen post on here, but after all these years, they're still looking, they're no closer to finding the truth...because you cannot find what is not there.

All BF is now is a good story to tell the lady friend when we're huddled in a tent in the back country, and rightfully so, in the light of day she will say...'I can't believe you scared me with that silliness ...'did some dude really claim he was hauled off in his sleeping bag and wake up with a family of BF?'. At which point we laugh, and I have to admit that I used to believe in these fables too. But if we can't laugh at ourselves....well, you know how the story goes.

Anyway, carry on believing, getting out in the bush beats watching TV, but don't be too disappointed if you never ever find proof of BF. If that is what you're after, you're destined for failure because BF does not exist. Better to head out and enjoy the wilderness with BF as a secondary goal and the possibility (though futile in reality) you will see something while you're there.

My opinion is thus...just sayn'.

Oh...and asbestos is the miracle insulator! Just sayin'

[WSA]

BTW, if you're truly interested in engaging on the issue of the P/G film and supporting your thesis of fraud, you'd find no better place to do this than over on Bill Munns' thread on that topic. He's spent more time looking at and analyzing the original frames, including surveys of the film's location, than anyone you'd care to mention. As well, I'm sure Bipto might also be glad to share some of his team's observations in TX's "Area X" Good luck.

[Guest]

BTW, if you're truly interested in engaging on the issue of the P/G film and supporting your thesis of fraud, you'd find no better place to do this than over on Bill Munns' thread on that topic. He's spent more time looking at and analyzing the original frames, including surveys of the film's location, than anyone you'd care to mention. As well, I'm sure Bipto might also be glad to share some of his team's observations in TX's "Area X" Good luck.

"Area X" is in Oklahoma. Speaking of which, what if 5 years pass and the TBRC has nothing concrete to show for its efforts, no hard evidence, no dead or captured Wood Ape. Would you then conclude they never really had any experiences with Wood Apes? Or would you conclude they did experience Wood Apes, but the apes moved on? Or would you not have a conclusion about it at all?

I ask the same questions, but 10 years have passed and nothing definitive from "Area X."

I ask again, but for the sake of argument, 30 years haved passed and nothing definitive. 40 years? 50?

[Guest]

Good questions JW. I would contend that measuring time relative to a human lifespan is a drop in the time bucket. 50 years? Really? How long have we been in a position to capture an image of a BF with a camera? And why would some BF bones find their way into a museum? What's the hoax/real BF ratio? What about the vast expanse of land that is virtually unoccupied and unexplored? What if the quarry was adept at not being detected? Technology shmechology. My job is to process remote sensing data and there is no way we have the time nor inclination to look for BF. BF is not on anyone's radar, so why would anyone look for it, or be ready to snap a pic with their smartphones (which are < 10 years old at decent resolution) ? I'm sorry, but the "we would have found one by now" argument just doesn't hold water from a scientific standpoint.

ETA: Sorry to take a huge wind out of the skeptic's sails.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Gigantofootecus

[Guest]

Good questions JW. I would contend that measuring time relative to a human lifespan is a drop in the time bucket. 50 years? Really? How long have we been in a position to capture an image of a BF with a camera? And why would some BF bones find their way into a museum? What's the hoax/real BF ratio? What about the vast expanse of land that is virtually unoccupied and unexplored? What if the quarry was adept at not being detected? Technology shmechology. My job is to process remote sensing data and there is no way we have the time nor inclination to look for BF. BF is not on anyone's radar, so why would anyone look for it, or be ready to snap a pic with their smartphones (which are < 10 years old at decent resolution) ? I'm sorry, but the "we would have found one by now" argument just doesn't hold water from a scientific standpoint.

ETA: Sorry to take a huge wind out of the skeptic's sails.

Actually, I was making reference specifically to the "Valley of the Apes" located in Oklahoma by the TBRC. The TBRC accounts sound exciting. Many people here believe what they've heard about the TBRC investigations. But what if this "hot spot" goes cold? What if nothing changes, meaning -- what if all we are left with are the testimonies (and inconclusive evidence such as recordings)?

Will those accepting the TBRC "Valley of the Ape" investigation still think there is something to it, even if nothing more, or just more of the same, happens? In other words, if the TBRC eventually gives up on the Valley, will it's story live on as secondary evidence for Bigfoot forever, mentioned in future books and on future documentaries? Or will doubt prevail. doubt that the TBRC adventure in Oklahoma was what it was cracked up to be.

Thanks for you're reply, though. I guess you made an argument to your satisfaction.