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

[xspider1]

Trying to drag werewolves, dracula and unicorns into the fray doesn't help the skeptical arguments, imo. It's like the old 'how can they be everywhere and nowhere at the same time' argument. No matter how many extraordinary things are reported, and even when those things actually exist, some of the reports will not be true.

Edited February 25, 2013 by xspider1

[Guest]

I'll add my take on this tomorrow. It's much too long and needs a good grammar and spelling overview.

[Guest]

Were-wolf human hybrids or bipdel wolves are genetically impossible

There is at the very least a possibility of the existence of an unknown hominid or hominin. Hominids exist and so do hominins....including extinct hominins

[Guest Stan Norton]

There is a nascent interest in werewolves, thanks in part to the Bray Rd. beast story and the journalist who is publicising it and other werewolf stories (the John Green of lycanthropy, if you will.)

You need to compare werewolf phenomena to the early days of Bigfoot advocacy, back in the 1950s, to draw a better comparison.

And most American werewolf sightings are as consistent as Bigfoot sightings.

So, no one is yet willing to state overtly that werewolf sightings consist of lying, craziness, or mistaken perception.

Why?

Because, for those who look at this with some degree of seriousness, the possibility of a large, bipedal ape is not biologically far-fetched (there are at least five extant large apes, one of which is habitually bipedal and a very bushy tree of extinct species) whereas (as far as I know) there are no bipedal canids on earth and never have been. The parallel is attractive as a means of 'attack' but ultimately irrelevant.

The reason why I personally am open-minded in respect to Sasquatch is that to me the idea seems biologically plausible (we're not talking about a purple and green fire-breathing duck but a quite run-of-the-mill but rather large ape by all accounts), unlike werewolves, were-rabbits or the Leberou et al.

[Guest]

Stan put it far more eloquently than i did!

[Guest Stan Norton]

Stan put it far more eloquently than i did!

That would be the large glass of French red that I have been sipping! Cheers...

[Guest DWA]

Stan put it far more eloquently than i did!

Well you both made the point, which is that there's stuff in the fossil record that if you saw one today you'd say you saw Bigfoot. I doubt there's anything that if I saw one today I'd think I saw Lon Chaney in costume.

Skeptical scientists say as much: if there were relevant fossils in NA, they'd acknowledge the plausibility of sasquatch. Now, what we haven't found is - and is always - what we haven't found YET. (Never mind that most of Beringa's underwater now.) But there is reason, no matter what skeptics say, to consider sasquatch possible.

Bipedal shapeshifting canids...not so much.

[WSA]

When I was a newbie trial lawyer, I always tried out my evaluations of my cases with a neutral party, before I put my client's butt on the line at trial. It is always possible to be so close to an issue that you become enthralled with your own point of view. Very, very risky thing to do with a jury. So, I'd find somebody (to the women in my life who suffered me long enough to allow this...my heartfelt thanks) to give a nutshell description to, and get their initial gut response to it.

I do the same thing with my acquaintances, on this subject. Usually, I'm responding to a, "You don't believe that nonsense, do you?" reaction when I declare my interest in the plausibility of BF, which I accept with all good humor. Almost all have a skeptic's approach to the subject, despite professing to know absolutely zilch regarding the evidence. (I've long since stopped expecting people to have actual knowledge of the subject they are opining on, it being a God given right to each American to not do so..)Then, I either lay out the information in as neutral a manner as possible, or refer them to some internet sites, or both. After that, their secondary reactions have been virtually the same, no matter who I'm talking to.

The fact is, most people have never had to actually think about what is going on in this field and certainly don't stay current on developments. When somebody is able to walk them through the evidence, they respond quite predictably. While they are unlikely to go from uninformed skeptic to a Squatch hunter in a blink, it is always gratifying to see reasonable people, making reasonable conclusions after examining plausible evidence. Their numbers increase daily.

[Guest DWA]

We do hash over and over here about things that have, from a scientific viewpoint, long been settled. At least, from the scientific viewpoint of "reasonable people, making reasonable conclusions after examining plausible evidence." (The opinions of the rest I care not a fig for, degrees be hanged.)

I keep trying to explain that science, not scientists, makes the true rules of science. Sure, scientists write their own rules, and by those rules schoolyard ridicule, assumptions unbacked by evidence, and The Sanctity Of What We Think Now hold sway. But the practice that scientists are ostensibly learning about in school forbids such things. Assumptions are forbidden, unless they can be backed up reasonably (e.g., we accept proxies to tell us about the sun and other heavenly bodies, because first we haven't visited them yet and may never and second, we'd get burned to nothing if we visited a star and squashed unimaginably if we visited a black hole). What we think now is not privileged over new thinking; it must hold its own in the court of ideas. (In other words, yes, you must defend your proposition that bigfoot isn't what the proponents think it is.) And, finally, a lot of people describing a suite of features, behaviors and associated sign consistently is, so, EVIDENCE, and following it to proof is science's job. To think otherwise is to broad-brush multitudes of whom one knows nothing as deluded, liars, or worse.

In other words, WSA, you're right.

[Drew]

Bigfoot is Chewbaccas! It's CHEWBACCAS!!

-Charleton Heston

[WSA]

You know DWA I like to be right as much as the next guy...and we all do. But being wrong on this subject won't mean diddly-squat to me, if that happens, and I know you feel the same way. THE point is to pursue knowledge and evidence where it leads. I'm going to always carry the water for the team that is brave enough to endure ridicule for this greater objective.

In the field of natural science, here's just a short list of things that have gone from the "highly improbable/impossible" to "probable/confirmed" in my short life:

-Punctuated evolution of planetary life via extra-terrestrial body

-Reptilian ancestry of extant avian species

-Global climate warming (Though I should add...this was covered in my Earth Science class c. 1977)

-Gastric ulcers caused by bacterial agency

-Pete Townshend and Neil Young retaining ANY of their hearing.

If a list like that is possible (and I could add a dozen more entries, without much effort), what can we possibly say for certain? Only that we don't know half as much as we tell ourselves we do.

[norseman]

Bigfoot is Chewbaccas! It's CHEWBACCAS!!

-Charleton Heston

As a proponent of Sasquatch all I can say is that I'm sorry...........

I've seen something I cannot explain, and while my world wouldn't implode if I was wrong in my conclusion as to what I saw? There is no excuse for what is taking place in Bigfootdom right now. I feel helpless. This string of zero's that have been produced of late is unexcusible, and more importantly it's unethical. I really do not blame skeptics for believing as they do, we as a community do not offer ANYTHING to skeptics........and that is shameful.

All I can do is what I've been doing, and I would never try to deceive you or anybody else.

A slab monkey is the only answer to this debate, and I challenge any proponent of Sasquatch to prove otherwise. I have already made a point of contact with one of the skeptics on this forum and I would never do anything to damage that relationship.

I'm not a lone rambo uber killing machine, just a regular joe that wants to get to the bottom of this, The chances of me scoring "the shot" is very slim, and I suppose this makes some skeptics snicker, and that's cool. I understand more now that ever. But I do go out there PREPARED and if the situation presented itself, I wouldn't hesitate for a second, and I honestly promise no goat rodeo circus acts after the fact.

Honesty and transparency is the most honorable route to take, but it's either an end to a mystery or a missing hunter report for me.

[norseman]

With the recent findings in the Elbe tracks?

Where do skeptics stand on the subject?

[dmaker]

^^ What are the recent findings in the Elbe tracks?

I did a quick google and I don't see anything new in that regard.

From what I remember it has pretty much been dismissed as a hoax, no?

[dmaker]

I saw the thread started today, so I guess that's what you mean? The allegation that Tontar faked them? Not really sure where a stance is required or how it would be significant. If it he did, the fine he did it. Not sure what bearing that has on this discussion other than to show that BF tracks are hoaxed some times, maybe even more than some times along with being mistaken for other animal tracks.

Am I missing something else?