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

[dmaker]

^^ Again, I understand. But there is a big difference between "What made this", and " Looky here, Bigfoot tracks!!" One is making a fantastic claim, the other is not. One could be investigated and possible explanations provided. The other is a point that some people refuse to move from, even when plenty of reasonable, and more likely, scenarios are presented.

And science has no obligation to go and respond to the "Looky here, Bigfoot tracks!!" claim. The person making that claim takes the burden onto themselves the second they utter the phrase. The first one, though, there you have something worthwhile. It's a puzzle asking someone to solve it. Sometimes this, rather obvious, nuance gets lost when discussing Bigfoot and people start to think that just because I said something is evidence of Bigfoot it will remain so until Science proves it otherwise. But that's not how it works. Footers will claim something is a Bigfoot ( blobsquatch), or tracks were made by Bigfoot, and they move forward completely ignoring rational, alternate explanations for the evidence. And then they wonder why Science is not that interested in chasing these down and arguing with them anymore. When you start by claiming something is a Bigfoot, then you started off on the wrong foot in my opinion ( pun sort of intended).

Edited February 21, 2013 by dmaker

[norseman]

^^ Again, I understand. But there is a big difference between "What made this", and " Looky here, Bigfoot tracks!!" One is making a fantastic claim, the other is not. One could be investigated and possible explanations provided. The other is a point that some people refuse to move from, even when plenty of reasonable, and more likely, scenarios are presented.

Sure, a leaping coyote can look like a Squatch track, so can Bear tracks..........but some of these claims are not a fantastic as you may think them to be. Three miles? A three mile track way is plenty of distance to tighten the selection of likely suspects.

And science has no obligation to go and respond to the "Looky here, Bigfoot tracks!!" claim. The person making that claim takes the burden onto themselves the second they utter the phrase. The first one, though, there you have something worthwhile. It's a puzzle asking someone to solve it. Sometimes this, rather obvious, nuance gets lost when discussing Bigfoot and people start to think that just because I said something is evidence of Bigfoot it will remain so until Science proves it otherwise. But that's not how it works. Footers will claim something is a Bigfoot ( blobsquatch), or tracks were made by Bigfoot, and they move forward completely ignoring rational, alternate explanations for the evidence. And then they wonder why Science is not that interested in chasing these down and arguing with them anymore. When you start by claiming something is a Bigfoot, then you started off on the wrong foot in my opinion ( pun sort of intended).

It's a moot point.

It matters little whether Bobo immediately claims it's a Squatch trackway or I carefully deduce that it's not a leaping coyote or deer, nor a bear and it's either a Sasquatch or a giant human with no shoes.

Science doesn't come look any way because they will exclaim that it's a hoax.

But there is a big BIG difference between hoaxing a track way in wet mud and hoaxing a track way in four feet of snow...............and that's why snow trackways are some of our VERY BEST evidence for the existence of an unknown creature known as Sasquatch.

[dmaker]

Until Sasquatch is actually proven to exist, any claim that involves one is fantastic.

[norseman]

Until Sasquatch is actually proven to exist, any claim that involves one is fantastic.

I disagree. Your putting the cart in front of the horse.

If we dismiss any track way we cannot explain as "fantastical" aka a hoax.

THEN WE ARE NEVER GOING TO GET AT WHAT IS AT THE END OF THE TRACKWAY.

And understand.........I'm not trying to ask you to accept the unexplained trackway as proof.

Edited February 21, 2013 by norseman

[dmaker]

^^ You're misunderstanding me, I think. There is nothing wrong with saying here is a strange track, I don't know absolutely what made it. Let's get some minds together and figure it out. That's great. That is NOT putting the cart in front of the horse. What I do have a problem with is here is a strange track, I can't easily explain it therefore it must be a Sasquatch. I have no problem trying to find out what's at the end of the track way. I applaud that effort in fact. But let's wait until we know what it is at the end before we declare it. And if that means waiting until Sasquatch is confirmed or accepting alternative scenarios for the existence of the track, then so be it. But you don't get to point to everything in the woods that is difficult to explain and say it is Sasquatch. That is where my problem lies.

Edited February 21, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Until Sasquatch is actually proven to exist, any claim that involves one is fantastic.

English translation:

"You will never be able to prove this, because nothing will be accepted as evidence."

Not how science works.

If no explanation involving known phenomena seems plausible, but something not yet accepted seems reasonable (and yes that's the word; something not being proven does not make it unreasonable), that something is considered a possibility. And only that, until it's confirmed what it is that caused it to happen.

It is one thing to say that anything moving is a squatch!

It is the exact same thing to say: that's fantastic! And it is because, because, becausebecausebecause...I CANNA BELEEEEEEEEVE IT, RIGHT!

Edited February 21, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

DWA, please stop twisting my words to suit your accusations. There is absolutely examples of definitive evidence that could prove the existence of Sasquatch. Where have I ever said there is not. Not everyone is going to cozy up to the BFRO database like you have. Deal with it. That doesn't mean that if someone got some really clear, really convincing ( and Norseman please, please don't point me to Todd Standing yet again) footage that was irrefutable then absolutely I would sing a different song. Or if someone bagged one and showed a body.

Again, I have no issue with people saying Sasquatch is a possible explanation for something that is hard to identify, especially if that person is an ardent proponent. But it still does not make it true. . But that should not close to the door to other, more reasonable, explanations. But that is what happens in Footery all the time. Sasquatch should, right now, be one of the absolute last explanations for something. Right up there with a unicorn or a leprechaun did it. I'm not saying that there isn't an interesting amount of reports. I'm saying I don't think they lead to an unknown animal. You do, great. Go out and investigate that and fulfill your burden of proof. But until you do that, your explanation will remain on the bottom of the pile of possibilities. But by all means, go, get out there and prove it. Go earn your Bigfoot Hunter badge.

[norseman]

^^ You're misunderstanding me, I think. There is nothing wrong with saying here is a strange track, I don't know absolutely what made it. Let's get some minds together and figure it out. That's great. That is NOT putting the cart in front of the horse. What I do have a problem with is here is a strange track, I can't easily explain it therefore it must be a Sasquatch.

It's not rocket science, if I'm convinced I've found a giant bipedal track way? Then why the squeamishness of applying the "S" word? If there is a chance that it's a Bear or a leaping Coyote? I'll say thus.......

I'm after a type specimen, I'm not here to try and convince you about Sasquatch with a track way. But by the same token I'm not going to waste my time on a leaping coyote either.

I have no problem trying to find out what's at the end of the track way. I applaud that effort in fact. But let's wait until we know what it is at the end before we declare it. And if that means waiting until Sasquatch is confirmed or accepting alternative scenarios for the existence of the track, then so be it. But you don't get to point to everything in the woods that is difficult to explain and say it is Sasquatch. That is where my problem lies.

Your not being logical. It's unknown yes, but there is no waiting............not if your the tip of the spear.

Therefore if it walks like a Squatch, and quacks like a Squatch then I have to apply what is known about the creature if I'm going to bag it. And that includes separating sound reports from fanciful ones.

There is no waiting for Sasquatch to be confirmed in order to call a Squatch track a Squatch track. Wrong. We find a REAL Squatch track so then we can track it down and kill it so that it can be CONFIRMED.

How else are you going to confirm it?

[norseman]

DWA, please stop twisting my words to suit your accusations. There is absolutely examples of definitive evidence that could prove the existence of Sasquatch. Where have I ever said there is not. Not everyone is going to cozy up to the BFRO database like you have. Deal with it. That doesn't mean that if someone got some really clear, really convincing ( and Norseman please, please don't point me to Todd Standing yet again) footage that was irrefutable then absolutely I would sing a different song. Or if someone bagged one and showed a body.

Wrong on the first count...........and dead on on the second account. A dead body first requires a living specimen interacting with it's environment........better known as SIGN.

Again, I have no issue with people saying Sasquatch is a possible explanation for something that is hard to identify, especially if that person is an ardent proponent. But it still does not make it true. . But that should not close to the door to other, more reasonable, explanations. But that is what happens in Footery all the time. Sasquatch should, right now, be one of the absolute last explanations for something. Right up there with a unicorn or a leprechaun did it. I'm not saying that there isn't an interesting amount of reports. I'm saying I don't think they lead to an unknown animal. You do, great. Go out and investigate that and fulfill your burden of proof. But until you do that, your explanation will remain on the bottom of the pile of possibilities. But by all means, go, get out there and prove it. Go earn your Bigfoot Hunter badge.

Let's talk about skeptics for a moment. I get the feeling that they are squemish about getting "too involved" with the subject........as if it taints them some how. Yes some in bigfootdom see everything as a sign of the Squatch. But by the same token some in the skeptics camp are simply nay sayers, and they don't want to get their hands dirty, because their cohorts will some how find that kooky.

[Guest DWA]

Go out and investigate that and fulfill your burden of proof. But until you do that, your explanation will remain on the bottom of the pile of possibilities. But by all means, go, get out there and prove it.

See? Not twisting anything.

It is not "on the bottom of the pile of possibilities." That phrase means - as you said it does - any claim involving sasquatch is fantastic.

No it's not.

Just because something is unproven doesn't make it "fantastic."

A moose, running on its hind legs, hiding its antlers down by its side with a free leg, with its nose and ears sawed off so someone might mistake it for a sasquatch, ranks below sasquatch on the pile of possibilities.

(And he thinks no "mundane" explanation liike that has ever been offered. Oh. OK.)

Edited February 21, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

^^^^^

Paydirt Norseman. The fear of appearing foolish is the enemy of scientific endeavor. 'tis a shame there are not more who are willing to risk what is, after all, so little.

[Guest DWA]

^^ You're misunderstanding me, I think. There is nothing wrong with saying here is a strange track, I don't know absolutely what made it. Let's get some minds together and figure it out. That's great. That is NOT putting the cart in front of the horse. What I do have a problem with is here is a strange track, I can't easily explain it therefore it must be a Sasquatch. I have no problem trying to find out what's at the end of the track way. I applaud that effort in fact. But let's wait until we know what it is at the end before we declare it.

Who is doing anything other than that?

[All right, God. You promised me. You were going to point out the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof' to these people, finally. Do I start doubting Your existence now, or what?]

To say that this unconfirmed animal for which there is a lot of evidence compellingly associated with visual encounters - which evidence, um, looks just like this - might have made this trackway is NOT saying "it must be a Sasquatch."

It is, however, saying "we don't have a better explanation than that for what it is right now. That is not saying it's real; it's just saying that we have a lot of evidence that it might be, and that evidence looks like this, so that might be an explanation."

That's nowhere near saying "we have proof, look here, tracks!"

[adam2323]

^^^^^

Paydirt Norseman. The fear of appearing foolish is the enemy of scientific endeavor. 'tis a shame there are not more who are willing to risk what is, after all, so little.

The risk is minimal ....he who.dares wins...its a mystery and a mystery requires an investigation to solve it. But it is closed mindedness to.dismiss all the thousands of reports that have been made well over the last century. I for one cannot easily put aside that much evidence. There is something out there making tracks giving vocalizations and being seen. I for one want to find out exactly what is behind.all the reports.

[dmaker]

DWA, you keep clinging to this idea that no one knows the difference between evidence and proof. I do know the difference, I just don't feel as convinced by the evidence as you do. BF has yet to be proven to science or the world at large, if you will, beyond the claims of what is relatively speaking the few. And that's the crux. I'm not dismissing your evidence wholesale, I'm just saying it's not enough evidence to constitute proof. Evidence needs to constitute proof, especially if that evidence is conditional or anecdotal. That type of evidence is not scientific evidence. So it needs to be bolstered by more convincing evidence before you have your proof. And until that happens all you have is your non scientific evidence that does not, as yet, support the claim. It has yet to lead to proof. That doesnt mean I deny its existence. It's there. Take it up and follow the trail to proof. But stop accusing me of not knowing the difference because it helps you dismiss my arguments. After awhile it just makes it look like, ironically, you actually don't know the difference between evidence and proof.

[Guest Cervelo]

^^^*

Another outstanding post...can't wait for the rhetorical, borderline incomprehensible retort!

Edited February 21, 2013 by Cervelo