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

[BobbyO]

As of 2/17, there are 4,302 encounter reports listed on the BFRO website. (For the purpose of this answer, I'm not ranking the degree/quality of the purported encounter) Of these, the top 7 states reporting account for close to 50% (2,080) of the total.

In order of total reports submitted, greatest to smallest, the states are:

WA

CA

OR

OH

TX

IL

FL

Note: I've also not compared the land mass of these 7 states (considerable) to the remaining continental U.S., ditto for total human population, which might also be useful if any are inclined to tackle it.

I have looked at this kind of stuff for WA and I can tell you that my findings were that 38% of BFRO sightings in that state were in areas ( designated wilderness areas ) that make up under 10% of the land mass of the state.

I know that that figure of 38% has increased since I found out the data in December 2011 as I have been keeping tabs but not actually updating my findings, but I will.

The remaining 62% of sightings are still clustered however with 138 sightings combined on the east and west side of the I-5 from Tacoma down to the Columbia River.

The remaining 35% are from the far east of the State and the Okanogan and Colville areas, where national forest is abundant.

PM if you're generally interested in more of this kind of stuff.

A few of us on here even made a pretty cool correlation into a possible pattern of movement too.

[Martin]

...^^^and yes, some scientists have actually used that reasoning.

And clarifying for those who may be unsure: go to everybody you know and ask this question:

If 4,000-odd people saying yes, he did it, is enough to make the case that hey, he possibly did, would you say that is also enough people to make the case that that big monkey they say they saw is possibly real?

If any answer: fry the murderer but the monkey's fake, tell him his reasoner needs to go back to the shop.

It's more like 4000 witness claiming that he was murdered by Marvin the Martian using Illudium P-u 36 nebulizer

Edited February 20, 2013 by Martin

[Guest DWA]

Um, no, but acquaintance with the evidence will fix that right up.

I'll take the scientific proponents, every time.

(The mainstream? See GreenQuote below.)

I have looked at this kind of stuff for WA and I can tell you that my findings were that 38% of BFRO sightings in that state were in areas ( designated wilderness areas ) that make up under 10% of the land mass of the state.

I know that that figure of 38% has increased since I found out the data in December 2011 as I have been keeping tabs but not actually updating my findings, but I will.

The remaining 62% of sightings are still clustered however with 138 sightings combined on the east and west side of the I-5 from Tacoma down to the Columbia River.

The remaining 35% are from the far east of the State and the Okanogan and Colville areas, where national forest is abundant.

PM if you're generally interested in more of this kind of stuff.

A few of us on here even made a pretty cool correlation into a possible pattern of movement too.

English translation:

Either people's imaginations get really rich in areas of high-potential habitat, or there might be, you know, something else going on.

[Guest DWA]

It's more like 4000 witness claiming that he was murdered by Marvin the Martian using Illudium P-u 36 nebulizer

Oh, and I wanted to say this.

If FOUR THOUSAND FREAKIN' PEOPLE all claim that they were murdered (!?!?) by Marvin Etc. ....you would not want to figure out what the heck could possibly be up with that...???

[xspider1]

There are some REALLY good comments above (from the proponents), from the detractors?? not so much... Bigfoot certainly doesn't have to be everywhere to be anywhere, that's pure bunk.

[Guest]

^^ Yes, but the proponents are going to argue that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot, you're just not acquainted with it. Even using the wiki link you provided makes this an easy argument to push aside for anyone that believes in Bigfoot. There is ( they will argue) sign of Bigfoots' presence i.e. tracks,etc that you would have to refute conclusively each and every one of them in order for the absence of evidence argument to adhere. And even then they will hold up the eye witness reports as something else you must exhaust yourself proving wrong. And how can you tell some person who hallucinated back 30 years ago when they were 12 that they were wrong and prove it? You simply cannot. Therefore it's not even worth bringing up this line of thinking. The Footers will conveniently transfer the burden of proof off of the claimant ( them) onto you and think they are being all scientific. It's a joke, save your breath.

Dmaker

If you are talking about circumstantial or secondary evidence, I agree. If you are talking about primary or conclusive evidence, absence of evidence is in a stronger position.

Consider this fable. I own several hundred acres of land in Texas, in the country with meadows and forests. I allow hunting during hunting season, and hiking the rest of the time. Hundreds of people visit my property every year, and over the years there are thousands of visitors on my land.

They tell me about the deer and turkeys they shot, or about a brief bobcat sighting, or about some feral pigs they saw, etc. Every year I am told of the various wildlife spied on my property. One summer, a hiker tells me he saw an okapi. I am surprised. There are no okapis in Texas, unless imported from Africa. But the fellow was sure he saw it; he knows what an okapi looks like.

So, I go take a look in the area he had his sighting. No sign of an okapi. I tell future hunters and hikers about the hiker’s story and ask them to keep and eye out for an okapi. No one reports it again. No one ever sees an okapi on my property except once, that one hiker.

So, what are we to think? Should we think there is an okapi on my property, unknown as to origin? Should we think the hiker saw something else, a deer in deep shade, for instance, and imagined an okapi? Which?

I guess I would say that when there is an explanation that holds water for what all this evidence represents, then we're done. (Unless the explanation is a species new to science, at which point we've only started. Or a peculiar mass psychosis which may be unexplainable.)

What I don't feel comfortable with is the "toss" option when we don't even know (key word, not "guess") what is causing all this evidence to happen.

DWA,

Short of a confession or a dead or captured Wood Ape, we could never “know.†Should we be agnostic, then? Or make a determination based on the facts we do have to work with.

When you wonder “what is causing all this evidence to happen,†aren’t you assuming too much: that evidence did happen?

And, for any who would like me to consider reports of werewolves/ghosts/unicorns/leprechauns/shapeshifters/Ted Nugent eating vegan, in parity with BF reports....bring me 4k similar reports collected within the timespan of this database's existence, and I'll be glad to do it.

WSA,

Walk it back a little, please. You posted a single Bigfoot sighting, and assumed it was meaningful. I countered with a werewolf sighting. You apparently disallowed the werewolf sighting because there are not as many werewolf sightings, by a lot, as there are Bigfoot sightings.

1. Perhaps werewolves are extremely, extremely rare, much more so than Bigfoot. So it stands to reason there would not be as many people seeing werewolves as seeing Bigfoot.

2. How many contemporaneously documented Bigfoot sightings exist between 1940 and 1950? Probably as few as werewolves sightings are today. Or maybe fewer.

3. Are you calling the fellow who saw the werewolf a liar? How about others who have seen werewolves? Are you calling them liars too? Or are you saying they are crazy? Or are you saying they are mistaking other things for werewolves? Are you a werewolf scoftic?

4. Do you have any criteria, besides numbers, to distinguish between the credibility of werewolf and Bigfoot sightings?

[norseman]

Dmaker

If you are talking about circumstantial or secondary evidence, I agree. If you are talking about primary or conclusive evidence, absence of evidence is in a stronger position.

Consider this fable. I own several hundred acres of land in Texas, in the country with meadows and forests. I allow hunting during hunting season, and hiking the rest of the time. Hundreds of people visit my property every year, and over the years there are thousands of visitors on my land.

They tell me about the deer and turkeys they shot, or about a brief bobcat sighting, or about some feral pigs they saw, etc. Every year I am told of the various wildlife spied on my property. One summer, a hiker tells me he saw an okapi. I am surprised. There are no okapis in Texas, unless imported from Africa. But the fellow was sure he saw it; he knows what an okapi looks like.

So, I go take a look in the area he had his sighting. No sign of an okapi. I tell future hunters and hikers about the hiker’s story and ask them to keep and eye out for an okapi. No one reports it again. No one ever sees an okapi on my property except once, that one hiker.

So, what are we to think? Should we think there is an okapi on my property, unknown as to origin? Should we think the hiker saw something else, a deer in deep shade, for instance, and imagined an okapi? Which?

DWA,

Short of a confession or a dead or captured Wood Ape, we could never “know.†Should we be agnostic, then? Or make a determination based on the facts we do have to work with.

When you wonder “what is causing all this evidence to happen,†aren’t you assuming too much: that evidence did happen?

WSA,

Walk it back a little, please. You posted a single Bigfoot sighting, and assumed it was meaningful. I countered with a werewolf sighting. You apparently disallowed the werewolf sighting because there are not as many werewolf sightings, by a lot, as there are Bigfoot sightings.

1. Perhaps werewolves are extremely, extremely rare, much more so than Bigfoot. So it stands to reason there would not be as many people seeing werewolves as seeing Bigfoot.

2. How many contemporaneously documented Bigfoot sightings exist between 1940 and 1950? Probably as few as werewolves sightings are today. Or maybe fewer.

3. Are you calling the fellow who saw the werewolf a liar? How about others who have seen werewolves? Are you calling them liars too? Or are you saying they are crazy? Or are you saying they are mistaking other things for werewolves? Are you a werewolf scoftic?

4. Do you have any criteria, besides numbers, to distinguish between the credibility of werewolf and Bigfoot sightings?

Well for starters? Primates have a go on two legs, canids? Not so much.

[dmaker]

Jerrywayne, I'm behind you %100. I was just arguing the proponents position because I can predict what a response will be by now with uncanny accuracy. This thread has settled into the same people saying the same things over and over again. Every now and then someone puts a slightly new and interesting tint to the same argument, but otherwise it just boils down to the same thing, all the time: DWA and WSA saying Bigfoot is real because so many people ( and 3 phds) say so. And they never budge an inch. No matter how sane, logical and common sense your refutation, they throw the same smoke bomb your way and declare themselves the victor. They absolutely refuse to accept that Bigfoot is just a pop culture phenomenon with a large number of participants.

[BobbyO]

English translation:

Either people's imaginations get really rich in areas of high-potential habitat, or there might be, you know, something else going on.

Add to the fact that for all of the sightings in the four main " zones ", the North Cascades, The Olympic Peninsula, Mt Rainier NP and the Gifford Pinchott have the same correlation where sightings > elevations > seasons are concerned ( 134 reports ) and I'd even go as far as saying this is clearly all one big hoax with this kind of thing clearly strategically planned with military style precision, in case someone like me stumbles upon it like I did..

[adam2323]

Its easier to accept that there is an undiscovered species of upright primate than to believe that over the last 400 years people have conspired over several generations with to perpetuate a hoax maintaining consistency in track design and I witness accounts.

the Guerrilla was not discovered until the early 1900's yet most PNW first nations people have documented guerrilla type creatures prior to the discovery of the guerrilla...How do you explain this.

[Guest]

[Martin]

It's not the skeptics who are proving there is no bigfoot...... It's the bigfooters..... Moneymaker, Ketchum, whoever keeps enhancing the PGF, all of the people who interact with bigfoot "frequently", people who keep promoting pathetic evidence & sightings and the list goes on.

^^Adam 2323 people have conspired over many generations top perpetuate hoaxes. See: boogieman, trolls, don't look under the bed, the sandman plus many many more. Why do you think that darkness scares so many people? Old wives tales are a somewhat benign example.......

Edited February 21, 2013 by Martin

[dmaker]

Its easier to accept that there is an undiscovered species of upright primate than to believe that over the last 400 years people have conspired over several generations with to perpetuate a hoax maintaining consistency in track design and I witness accounts.

the Guerrilla was not discovered until the early 1900's yet most PNW first nations people have documented guerrilla type creatures prior to the discovery of the guerrilla...How do you explain this.

I've seen the the NA art that is supposedly a gorilla. It looks like mostly any other primitive art that is humanoid. It is not conclusively an ape. Especially that Hairy Man one. But hey, it fits the sasquatch is real notion, so let's say it's absolutely an ape. Oh, and what if the Ketchum camp is right, and BF is not an ape? What then? There are tribes of undiscovered feral humans AND a nation wide population of undiscovered great apes running around out there? Puhleeeeeeeeze....

[adam2323]

Your right of course thousands of people over many generations have conspired to fabricate every piece of evidence....sure

[Martin]

There is no conspiracy. It's not that complex. Just like there is no conspiracy for the mermaid or the troll.

Evidence is so prolific. Look at the BFRO reports. All it takes is an impression in the mud/dirt/leaves and you have a class B sighting.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Martin