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

[norseman]

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?

Yes but when you leave food on a stump and then film a creature (that's NOT a freakin ****) sneaking up to it with a thermal imager and taking it off of the stump?

Then the skeptics scream HOAX!

So what gives?

Anyhow to your original question? The answer is YES. If your going to blatantly dismiss things as bunk? I think you need to make a concerted effort to probe the mystery properly. Otherwise your dismissing something on faith which is the same thing as accepting something on faith.

[dmaker]

^^^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.

If I ever find myself victim of a random Zebra hoaxing, I will just go to my local zoo to remind me what a real Zebra looks like. Where is the zoo that has a Saquatch?

[Guest DWA]

tut tut! remember what we said about weak sauce!

no proof = so, Science, when you gonna do something about this?

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.

Wrong.

Science, not me, but Science, says one thing and one thing only:

You can harp on inconclusive evidence until there is a conclusion.

Anything else is [read GreenQuote below].

I should add that, as Norseman says, to accept something as a conclusion without evidence is relying on faith. That's the same strut holding up the Easter Bunny and the Great Pumpkin.

Edited February 21, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

Yes but when you leave food on a stump and then film a creature (that's NOT a freakin ****) sneaking up to it with a thermal imager and taking it off of the stump?

Then the skeptics scream HOAX!

So what gives?

Anyhow to your original question? The answer is YES. If your going to blatantly dismiss things as bunk? I think you need to make a concerted effort to probe the mystery properly. Otherwise your dismissing something on faith which is the same thing as accepting something on faith.

You don't accept anything on faith in life? I find that notion laughable. Have you scoured every square inch of the planet to confirm everything? I accept on faith that the wreck of the Titanic lies exactly where I am told it lies. I am not diving down to the bottom of the North Atlantic to confirm that. I have seen convincing video and photographic evidence to spare me that frigid dip. Show me CONVINCING photo or video evidence of Sasquatch and we can talk. My point being that when you start to unravel statements like yours you realize quite quickly how ridiculous it is. Thousands of things have to be taken on faith. It's simply part of the burden of existence. To say otherwise to try and force skeptics out into the woods to earn their Bigfoot Hunter Badge is allowing a ludicrous notion only a very small and narrow application.

Edited February 21, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

_{^^^^No. Not at all.}

_{I accept things because evidence tells me it's the thing to do. Faith is too weak a strut.}

Edited February 21, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

^^ Yes, and if there was convincing evidence for Bigfoot, then I'd be on board. But to date there is not.

[Guest]

tut tut! remember what we said about weak sauce!

no proof = so, Science, when you gonna do something about this?

Wrong.

Science, not me, but Science, says one thing and one thing only:

You can harp on inconclusive evidence until there is a conclusion.

And the longer we don't find bigfoot, the less likely bigfoot will be the conclusion.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[norseman]

You don't accept anything on faith in life? I find that notion laughable. Have you scoured every square inch of the planet to confirm everything? I accept on faith that the wreck of the Titanic lies exactly where I am told it lies. I am not diving down to the bottom of the North Atlantic to confirm that. I have seen convincing video and photographic evidence to spare me that frigid dip. Show me CONVINCING photo or video evidence of Sasquatch and we can talk. Religion is out of bounds for this forum I think otherwise your statement could be easily refuted me thinks. My point being that when you start to unravel statements like yours you realize quite quickly how ridiculous it is. Thousands of things have to be taken on faith. It's simply part of the burden of existence. To say otherwise to try and force skeptics out into the woods to earn their Bigfoot Hunter Badge is allowing a ludicrous notion only a very small and narrow application. So BF should not be taken or refused on faith, but thousands of other things should? Convenient.

Your putting words into my mouth. I'm not asking you to take religion or any other mystery as faith.

But if your going to attack a mystery as false, then I would expect a person to do their homework. If your simply waiting to be spoon fed a photo that is "convincing" to you while eating ho ho's on the couch? Then I don't have a lot of respect for that kind of behavior.

[norseman]

As for convincing? I find stuff like this much more convincing than any blob squatch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqZn9tpG4Ug

This is what I myself experienced and I find this type of evidence VERY VERY compelling. Something made those tracks.......what was it? And if it's a hoax? How was it perpetrated?

[norseman]

How about this one?

http://www.bfro.net/...rack_season.asp

As a hunter tracks tell a story........just like the titanic sitting at the bottom of the ocean these tracks exist, something made them, and they exhibit qualities that are not mundane. We don't have to take this on faith.

Edited February 21, 2013 by norseman

[Guest DWA]

And the longer we don't find bigfoot, the less likely bigfoot will be the conclusion.

That's only true after "we" (by which I mean a well-funded effort going on for sufficient time) start looking.

I can't even consider the TBRC an adequate effort. Nobody whose opinion the scientific community as a whole will take on this has been in Area X with those guys. I bet if somebody like that had been, there might be a whole lot more interest in that area right now than there is.

[adam2323]

^^^^^ plusses. Years ago I followed a similar trackway in the snow. Tracked with my twin brother and my Dad. Something bipedal and big those tracks no other explination

[dmaker]

Your putting words into my mouth. I'm not asking you to take religion or any other mystery as faith.

But if your going to attack a mystery as false, then I would expect a person to do their homework. If your simply waiting to be spoon fed a photo that is "convincing" to you while eating ho ho's on the couch? Then I don't have a lot of respect for that kind of behavior.

I understand what you are saying. The problem I have with the approach of Footers is to replace the explanations that involve known animals and known phenomenon ( like it or not, people do see things that are not there all the time) with unknown animals. Until Bigfoot is conclusively proven, I'm going to gravitate towards explanations that include the known, not the unknown. And since the BF community has, so far, been unable to prove their claim, then why should it be incumbent upon me in any way to go out and assist? I am not a claimant. You are, you and the BF community are. The way it works is that YOU, the claimant, have the burden of proof. I'll wish you the best of luck while I stick with the known. Since you are claiming the unknown to be true, it's your burden to prove it. Not mine.

[Guest DWA]

As for convincing? I find stuff like this much more convincing than any blob squatch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqZn9tpG4Ug

This is what I myself experienced and I find this type of evidence VERY VERY compelling. Something made those tracks.......what was it? And if it's a hoax? How was it perpetrated?

Three miles, huh? And you saw the depth of the snow.

You gotta explain how that one was done, or else no conclusion. And no conclusion means: scientists have to get on the case and come up with a conclusion.

I can see Joe Scientist saying I'm busy right now. Fine. But I can't see anyone sneering at the topic or ridiculing it. The only acceptable attitude is: I wonder what that is, and would be very interested in finding out.

(And there are many reported trackways like that one.)

[norseman]

I understand what you are saying. The problem I have with the approach of Footers is to replace the explanations that involve known animals and known phenomenon ( like it or not, people do see things that are not there all the time) with unknown animals. Until Bigfoot is conclusively proven, I'm going to gravitate towards explanations that include the known, not the unknown.

You have no idea how many times I slap my forehead while watching "finding bigfoot". But believe me, (or not, investigate it yourself) not everything in the form of evidence is the grand delusions of bobo.

And since the BF community has, so far, been unable to prove their claim, then why should it be incumbent upon me in any way to go out and assist? I am not a claimant. You are, you and the BF community are. The way it works is that YOU, the claimant, have the burden of proof. I'll wish you the best of luck while I stick with the known. Since you are claiming the unknown to be true, it's your burden to prove it. Not mine.

Yes, it is absolutely the burden of the proponent to prove the existence of an unknown creature.

But your not Joe Schmo that reads the morning paper to keep up on the subject of Bigfoot. Your a member of a BIGFOOT FORUM.......your challenging Bigfooters on all sorts of particular evidence as a skeptic!

For me? That means you have thrown your hat into the ring, and that would mean that your being held to a higher standard than Joe Schmo.