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

[adam2323]

I wont argue that I happen to agree. alot of class B sighting are misinterpretation. Then there are the ones photo documented and casted by very reputable people. Those just simple cannot be dismissed out of hand. I have personally documented two such trackways. Given the area I found them in and the distance i was able to follow the trackway it could not have been fabricated; different positions of the toes splayed not splayed etc.

Edited February 21, 2013 by adam2323

[Martin]

Define "very reputable"?

Out of the 4000 reports how many can you vouch for?

[dmaker]

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

No, of course not. Quite a few are simply mistaken due to one of very many possible reasons.

And there have not been thousands over many generations. Massive numbers of Bigfoot sightings started only in the mid twentieth century.

[WSA]

Jerrywayne, you slay me man. I'm to concluded werewolves disappeared with the advent of the internet, but BF had a resurgence I guess?

[Guest DWA]

Define "very reputable"?

Out of the 4000 reports how many can you vouch for?

How many can you prove are not what they say they are?

And yes you have to, or else they remain a compelling mystery demanding scientific attention. For the response to "I don't have to prove anything," see GreenQuote below.

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?

Well, I could go for agnostic, another word for "I don't know, until it's proven what is causing all this evidence."

As far as I'm concerned, the facts we have to work with tell me we should be trying to figure out what this is.

I think that the evidence speaks for itself. I don't believe, as someone else has tried to push on this thread, that a sighting report is only evidence that someone filed a sighting report. If I say you shot **** Robin, I'm gonna guaranteed be a witness at your trial, until somebody gets to the bottom of my claim. I see sasquatch reports the same way: until we know why the witnesses are reporting this, science prohibits toss-off guesses. It requires us to pursue the leads and figure it out.

Scientists, of course, don't have to do this. They can do what Mike is geting so upset about in my GreenQuote below.

Edited February 21, 2013 by DWA

[Guest Cervelo]

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.

Bravo!

[Guest DWA]

Um, not, but OK.

The people "saying the same things over and over again" are in fact not doing that...except when the folks who are saying the same things over and over again (noprooofnoproofnoproofnoproofnoprooofnoproofnoproofnoproofnoprooofnoproofnoproofnoproofnoprooofnoproofnoproofnoproof)

...keep doin' that.

Oh. And backing people who demonstrably don't know what they are talking about - all they have to do is open their mouths for proof - isn't as sane, logical, or common sense as it may seem. Rephrase it as: "I agree with these people because they don't spend any more time with it than I do."

See?

Edited February 21, 2013 by DWA

[adam2323]

Um, not, but OK.

The people "saying the same things over and over again" are in fact not doing that...except when the folks who are saying the same things over and over again (noprooofnoproofnoproofnoproofnoprooofnoproofnoproofnoproofnoprooofnoproofnoproofnoproofnoprooofnoproofnoproofnoproof)

...keep doin' that.

Oh. And backing people who demonstrably don't know what they are talking about - all they have to do is open their mouths for proof - isn't as sane, logical, or common sense as it may seem. Rephrase it as: "I agree with these people because they don't spend any more time with it than I do."

See?

Well put DWA.

It is easy to sit in their comfortable houses in there big cities surfing the internet and saying that BF do not exist just pop culture etc..Get out into the wilderness your self look around listen you will be amazed what you might learn. But to dismiss all the reported sightings and collective evidence out of hand is indeed narrow minded.

[dmaker]

I do spend a fair bit of time in the woods. At least 2 - 3 hours per week. I'm not looking for BF, mind you, but just enjoying my hike. But to follow your logic there are more reported sightings of ghosts and space ships than there are Bigfoot, so should I creep around graveyards or stand on my roof staring into the sky at night before I can say I don't believe in either of them? How much time do you think DWA or WSA spend out in the woods away from their comfortable houses and Internet connections?

I would imagine that there are plenty of skeptics on this site that spend an awful lot of time in the woods. Bet they haven't found a BF yet either. So what,exactly, is your point there? You can't say you don't believe in Bigfoot unless you have spent the required amount of time in the woods banging on trees and howling at the moon? Or leaving food on a gifting stump for some raccoon to happily eat that night, but yet proclaim it a squatch?

[Guest DWA]

^^^The point to be made here is that one has a better angle on the evidence when one:

1) spends a lot of time outside;

2) is well read up on this and related topics; and

3) Thinks carefully about both, and stops short of accepting as proven things (like mass psychological phenomena; witness craziness; alcohol-as-hallucinogen; confusing a long-snouted quadruped with a flat-faced biped, etc.) that haven't even been tested.

[Guest]

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.

This^

100%

[Guest DWA]

This^

100%

More like 2% but thanks for playing.

I did forget that last sentence: "They absolutely refuse to accept that Bigfoot is just a pop culture phenomenon with a large number of participants."

Now why the heck should anyone accept anything with zero evidence to back it up?

Precisely, and that's why we don't.

[dmaker]

I would say there is a fair bit of evidence to back that up actually. The outed hoaxers for one. Quite a few names to toss into the ring there. The proven fake tracks, again lots of those. Scientific studies that prove that human memory is not a digital recorder and is very, very often prone to mistakes. Other studies that show that people do not always see what they think they saw, i.e. a bear, a shadow, a porcupine, etc. The people with credentials that do refute BF, though you just dismiss them anyway because they are not acquainted with the evidence like you are. That being, mostly, the fact that you read the BFRO database. But somehow that makes you the greatest armchair Bigfoot authority in the land. Also, let's throw into the ring the numerous times samples that were submitted as Bigfoot come back as dog, carpet, human, bear, etc, etc.

I wouldn't really call that no evidence to support the idea that BF is a pop culture phenomenon.

Edited February 21, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

^^^Nope, not evidence. As I have pointed out repeatedly: hoaxers aren't even in a serious discussion of the evidence. To think that shows a need to read up. People are simply not describing what hoaxers are very visibly doing.

The scientific proponents see no need to even address hoaxes other than to make my point. Which is a much more beefy stance than to say "pop culture phenomenon" - a stance that doesn't even address the evidence.

The example I have used here more than once - two kids in a zebra outfit making you rethink the zebra? - is 100% logically relevant. Because if the sasquatch is real it's as real as the zebra. Not on the day it's confirmed, but right now.

Edited February 21, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

... "pop culture phenomenon" - a stance that doesn't even address the evidence.

It addresses...no wait...explains the eyewitness "evidence".

And all the other proposed evidence for sasquatch has other explanations has well, you may say that they are less likely than bigfoot but as proponents keep coming up empty with a specimen...not so much. Like I said, you can only harp on inconclusive evidence for so long.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Jerrymanderer