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

[dmaker]

@Norse,

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."

That is where I have an issue. How can you talk about the behaviour of an animal that is, as of yet, not even confirmed to exist?

[Guest VioletX]

RD is at the airport, on his way home from Minneapolis, that was a very brief trip!

Either he sold his gun or met with Fb guys, where do they live?

[norseman]

That is where I have an issue. How can you talk about the behaviour of an animal that is, as of yet, not even confirmed to exist?

Well if I ever hope to prove it exists then I'm going to figure out what is bull**** and what is logical. Obviously I cannot go ask a biologist..........so all I have left are eye witness accounts, tribal lore and what we do know about primates currently. And then from there it becomes a trial and error affair.

You see my problem? Many believers are convinced that if I track down a Bigfoot and shoot it? Then I'm going to be ripped to shreds by Bigfoot Army. Even if I have a team of Navy SEALs with me my chances are extremely low.

I need to separate people's fanciful imaginations from what I could expect from a biological ape.

[Guest]

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

Yes.

You have a criteria in which to judge the credibility of werewolf sightings compared to Bigfoot sightings. That is part of what I am getting at.

If you simply say werewolf sightings are bogus and Bigfoot sightings are not, you must have a reason for stating that. You have to have a criteria that is fulfilled in the case of Bigfoot, and not in the case of werewolves. WSA's reasoning is not to the point. The number of sightings is immaterial to this point (for my purpose, I argued that we could just as well say werewolves are very, very rare and thus are not expected to match the quantity of Bigfoot sightings, although they do match the quality.)

Now that you have decided on a criteria (canines are not bipedal), what then can you say about werewolf sightings? Are they the product of deceit, overt imagination at play, or misunderstanding of mundane events?

If you adopt such explanations for werewolf sightings (and I assume you will), then you are only a few steps removed from the skeptic position on Bigfoot.

Most people posting here are so acclimated to the Bigfoot storyline that they do not realise what a far-fetched idea Bigfoot really is.

There has never been hard evidence of apes living in the Western Hemisphere, ever. Period. This is akin to the canines are not bipedal argument against werewolves.

Of coarse, Bigfoot proponents will do what the OP says: rationalize their beliefs.

As would werewolf proponents, when confronted with the argument werewolves do not exist because no canine is bipedal.

[Guest]

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

Actually, there have been more "real" werewolf sighting in recent years. Even those backed by lie detectors. Guess you're out of touch.

Anyway, I won't let you off the hook. Read the werewolf sightings, please, and prove they are bogus. It's a challenge.

Are werewolf witnesses lying, mistaken, or crazy? Prove each and every sighting account is bogus. If you will not, or cannot, then werewolves are real.

Sound familiar?

[norseman]

Yes.

You have a criteria in which to judge the credibility of werewolf sightings compared to Bigfoot sightings. That is part of what I am getting at.

If you simply say werewolf sightings are bogus and Bigfoot sightings are not, you must have a reason for stating that. You have to have a criteria that is fulfilled in the case of Bigfoot, and not in the case of werewolves. WSA's reasoning is not to the point. The number of sightings is immaterial to this point (for my purpose, I argued that we could just as well say werewolves are very, very rare and thus are not expected to match the quantity of Bigfoot sightings, although they do match the quality.)

Now that you have decided on a criteria (canines are not bipedal), what then can you say about werewolf sightings? Are they the product of deceit, overt imagination at play, or misunderstanding of mundane events?

If you adopt such explanations for werewolf sightings (and I assume you will), then you are only a few steps removed from the skeptic position on Bigfoot.

Most people posting here are so acclimated to the Bigfoot storyline that they do not realise what a far-fetched idea Bigfoot really is.

There has never been hard evidence of apes living in the Western Hemisphere, ever. Period. This is akin to the canines are not bipedal argument against werewolves.

Of coarse, Bigfoot proponents will do what the OP says: rationalize their beliefs.

As would werewolf proponents, when confronted with the argument werewolves do not exist because no canine is bipedal.

I understand your line of reasoning here. But you forget that I had my own personal experience, and for the life of me, I have never been able to find a logical explanation for it. You can watch the video I posted above, as it is a very similar experience to mine.

I propose that Bigfoot is a living biological entity........things that are shape shifters or inter dimensional being or whatever a werewolf is? That sort of mystery is outside of my pay grade.

[Guest]

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?

Not much to say. Very interesting video.

I would be careful with orientation. For instance, when the commentator makes mention of the step from ground to fallen tree, it could just as well be from tree to ground.

Anyway, why not forward the video to Halfpenny? http://www.halfpenny.me/

[norseman]

Not much to say. Very interesting video.

I would be careful with orientation. For instance, when the commentator makes mention of the step from ground to fallen tree, it could just as well be from tree to ground.

Anyway, why not forward the video to Halfpenny? http://www.halfpenny.me/

That's not even what I find compelling......

Simply look at the supposed Squatch tracks walking cleanly step to step and look at the men wading through the snow beside them.....this is EXACTLY what I experienced.

And if it is a hoax? I would really really like to know how it was perpetrated.

And why would this Mr. Halfpenny take interest in the video? Scratch that......

Edited February 22, 2013 by norseman

[Guest]

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

Do I have to bring that map up again? Once again, you don't need a "well funded effort" to look for a giant ape with a continental distribution.

[Guest DWA]

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.

Cling, nothin'. You make it very clear. This post is just the latest example.

Tell me what I think about this topic. Go ahead.

You'll be wrong. (After all these pages!)

And that will be why.

EVIDENCE DOES NOT NEED TO CONSTITUTE PROOF! 99.9999999999999999999999999% of all the evidence in scientific history has proven nothing. But it pointed the way to something. THIS - this that you don't (still!) understand - is the difference between evidence and proof.

^^^*

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

Now if you ain't gonna pay attention, not my fault.

Do I have to bring that map up again? Once again, you don't need a "well funded effort" to look for a giant ape with a continental distribution.

We burned that map dozens of pages ago. Irrelevant.

@Norse,

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."

That is where I have an issue. How can you talk about the behaviour of an animal that is, as of yet, not even confirmed to exist?

He pays attention to the evidence.

(see?)

Edited February 22, 2013 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

That's not even what I find compelling......

Simply look at the supposed Squatch tracks walking cleanly step to step and look at the men wading through the snow beside them.....this is EXACTLY what I experienced.

And if it is a hoax? I would really really like to know how it was perpetrated.

And why would this Mr. Halfpenny take interest in the video? Scratch that......

There is simply no way a reasonable human could postulate how a human could have made that trackway.

Sure a guy could just make wide tracks with that wide track stomper while being towed by a helichopper.

And flap your arms hard enough and you can go to the moon.

But bigfoot skeptics don't have to prove ANYTHING. They're like three-year-olds; they can say anything they want! The adults won't care.

[adam2323]

Actually, there have been more "real" werewolf sighting in recent years. Even those backed by lie detectors. Guess you're out of touch.

Anyway, I won't let you off the hook. Read the werewolf sightings, please, and prove they are bogus. It's a challenge.

Are werewolf witnesses lying, mistaken, or crazy? Prove each and every sighting account is bogus. If you will not, or cannot, then werewolves are real.

Sound familiar?

Its a point well taken ...BUT we dont have track cast hair samples and videos of werewolfs...we do of BF

[Guest]

Are we sure ? What about bizarre tracks with three toes or some of the aberrant ones we dont have an explanation for ? Are they all fakes? I dont know. Or are they Sasquatch tracks with problems ? Such as a recessive character that would mess the look of the foot up ? Nice to get imput on that from others who see weird tracks.

[Guest]

APOLOGIES....

I ACCIDENTLY MERGED THIS THREAD, AND THE "RICK DYER AGAIN-CONTINUED" THREAD THIS MORNING...

THIS RESULTED IN HAVING TO FIND THE OPENING POST FROM THE RICK DYER THREAD, SPLIT IT OFF AND THEN MOVE ABOUT 25 PAGES OF POSTS OVER TO IT.

THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME POSTS FROM THIS THREAD MISTAKENLY MOVED OVER TO THE RICK DYER THREAD...

I'M IN THE PROCESS OF GOING BACK THROUGH THEM NOW, AND WILL BE MOVING POSTS BACK THAT I THINK WERE MOVED BY MISTAKE..

SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION...

ART

[Guest DWA]

Are we sure ? What about bizarre tracks with three toes or some of the aberrant ones we dont have an explanation for ? Are they all fakes? I dont know. Or are they Sasquatch tracks with problems ? Such as a recessive character that would mess the look of the foot up ? Nice to get imput on that from others who see weird tracks.

Not speaking as someone who has seen a lot of tracks (the one set I've seen were so old I couldn't make out toe impressions).

But many tracks have fewer than five toes. This can be a congenital or accidental deformity, or a simple failure of a toe - usually the 'pinky' or equivalent - to register in a print.

Here's an interesting discussion of the Shipton yeti track with Meldrum's hint - backed well by his analysis of another trackway - that it might result from a deformity.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/meldrum-yeti/

If we see lots of tracks of something that goes around barefoot, it's not that unusual to find deviations from the norm.

And anyone who has googled "macrodactyly" can tell you that if that's what caused the Shipton track it's a rather mild case.