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

[Guest DWA]

So, you are saying that people who claim to see werewolves are not seeing werewolves because werewolves "don't exist."

On the one hand, you want to claim the consistency and numbers of Bigfoot sightings are stand alone verifiers of Bigfoot. Then, you want to claim that physical traces of said beast are what give validity to the eyewitness reports and distinguish such reports from those made in behalf of werewolves.

Yet, the overwhelming majority of Bigfoot eyewitness accounts are absent such physical traces, which leaves them in same boat as werewolf sightings, i.e., just comments made without evidence.

Well, I admit to being a bit provocative there. But I don't see a Werewolf Database; and I don't see anyone telling me about werewolf tracks; werewolf habitat; werewolf food habits (and the corresponding police reports); etc. I will believe anything - including people flying around without assistance; mummies walking at night; and mystics crossing the ocean on foot - as long as convincing evidence can be presented. Until then? I don't feel constrained to consider them much.

Many bigfoot sightings carry consistent corroborating evidence. I didn't see the tracks of every animal I ever saw; in fact I'd swear I saw no tracks for the vast majority. But each kind of animal I have seen, leaves them. That not every sighting carries that additional evidence can be attributed to a variety of factors (the most obvious being: astounded witness didn't even look). But many have looked, and found it. And as the sightings are consistent in what they describe, it can be safely assumed that had the sighters who didn't look for evidence looked, many of them would have found it.

Do you find the following contradictory?: "Thousands of people report sightings - and this is undoubtedly a mere fraction of actual encounters, as pondering this for a minute will make obvious" and "The sighting reports indicate that one is lucky just to see one; one won't get much more than a glimpse most of the time; and tracking one without any accumulated knowledge of how they move is, well, good luck."

Yes, there are vast areas off road in North America. The problem is: Bigfoot is often an on the road kind of ape. A back yard ape. A bean patch ape. A Hooverville ape. Do you discount many, many of those sightings that place the ape in trailer parks, national parks, right outside a suburb, outside your window, etc., etc?

I discount no sighting for which I could see the same thing happening with a known animal. Period. Those places you mention are frequented at one time or another by practically every wild thing that lives near them.

What criteria do you use in determining which sightings you accept as meaningful?

Good night, amigo.

My criteria:

1) Does the account make me believe it is possible this person saw a sasquatch?

Um, that's it. Can't judge beyond that; I wasn't there. Toss it on the pile of stuff that needs explaining.

Not that simple, of course. WSA puts it considerably better, way back in this blog. I weigh each account against the many (many many) I have read. How many features are consistent with what I have come to expect? Does it read like a person in a suit or a hallucination could be responsible? (I don't believe I have ever read a case of innocent mistaken identity.) Does the description sound more like a sasquatch or a person? (Pacing a car at 35 mph isn't a guy in a suit. Neither is throwing a 50-pound boulder 100 feet.) Does it sound, on the whole, possible that it's what this person saw?

What else can you do, other than push for scientists to get out into the field and find out what these folks are seeing?

And good night to you too, amigo.

[Guest Stan Norton]

The whole werewolf analogy is a duffer. The purported evidence for sasquatch has to be seen in the whole and, as DWA and so many others have stated repeatedly, that evidence, when viewed as a whole body, is extremely compelling and just begs for a serious, sober look. There is no such body of evidence for mythical beasts such as werewolves - there are no tracks, no hairs,etc etc etc etc. It is far from analogous and all rather silly. Can we not put it to bed please?

[dmaker]

Uhm, how many of those precious hairs have proven anything beyond the fact that they came from a bear, a dog, a rug, etc? I don't believe that the evidence for BF on a whole is compelling at all. I think it's rather disappointing.

[Guest DWA]

^^^That's underinformed and sad.

Got that Bindernagel book yet?

[dmaker]

^^ No he was on vacation for three weeks he told me when I ordered it. Should be soonish.

[Guest DWA]

And, it being Monday, good time for this semi-unintentional commentary on the state of the various sciences:

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/home/Mystery-Structure-Surrounds-Black-Hole-194333461.html

One should note that "not all experts are convinced by the two hypotheses." Yet there they are; and a mainstream publication is treating them seriously.

...and over here in paleoanthropology, we have a new hominid, known from a joint of a big toe, which clearly had 5-inch hair, raised young in group "nurseries," and reacted to mango, which it generally didn't like, with a hand signal similar to the ASL gesture for "killin' me." (Hypothetical, like so much in that field. But, you know, look for the article soon.)

And over here, we have something thousands of people are seeing and describing consistently; leaving novel footprints it would take an expert to conceive and still would be almost impossible for a human to place in the situations in which commonly found;....which isn't real.

Go figger. Something has to happen in zoology, the only science, it seems sometimes, that won't even entertain the idea of something new unless it's proven.

[dmaker]

I got my book this weekend. Haven't had too much time to read it as I'm writing a series of Cisco exams right now for work, so that's where most of my "leisure" time goes. I have managed to read the first 20 or so pages. Reading the forward section by Leila Hadj-Chikh was like reading one of your posts. They are identical. You should do yourself a favor and have it stickied or something. You could save yourself some typing. It's certainly not hard to see where your position comes from. I reads like a copy-paste of any one of a thousand posts you've made in this thread.

[Guest DWA]

....and she probably copied from me.

I'd been talking that way time out of mind for as long as I've been posting to these sites online (starting with Cryptomundo back in '06). And, gee, here's a scientist who agrees with me. How 'bout that.

Same thing with Bindernagel; same with Meldrum. They read reports. I read reports. Then I read them...and they agreed with me.

See how that works?

Anyone who disagrees with me, put it up. I just need to see what's behind it.

So far, if you disagree with me...you are, um, losin'.

Edited March 4, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

^^^ Bit confused. You say:

"Same thing with Bindernagel; same with Meldrum.They read reports. I read reports. Then I read them...and they agreed with me."

You say they read reports, then you read reports, then you read them and realized that they agree with you? Haven't they been saying what they've been saying far longer than your auspicious debut on Cryptomundo in 2006? Would it not be accurate to say "Then I read them...and agreed with them"?

Are are you suggesting that the Holy Trinity of Bigfoot Phds all take their lead from you?

[Guest DWA]

^^^Yes. I am only suggesting it, however. I leave it to others to consider it gospel.

I've been coming at it from their angle since well before I read anything they wrote. Krantz - hadn't mentioned him - was out there before I read them. So were the BFRO and TBRC databases.

Now. I knew something about them that is more than you know for the consensus you constantly invoke. I knew they were relevantly degreed; had looked at this; and seemed to be reacting to it the way I did. So that sparked me to read them. Well, I'll be.

Once again, folks. All these reports, with this level of consistency; backed up by tracks, with a similar level of consistency; and other evidence - mainly fine points of great-ape behavior and morphology, generally unknown to anyone other than professionals in the field, unless, of course, you are, you know, interested, and have read up a bit - with, wait for it, a similar level of consistency.

One doesn't have to be a scientist to go, OK, what's up widdat, and it ain't Ray Wallace?

If this were astronomy, or paleoanthropology, this critter would be confirmed by long before now. (If he were a defendant he'd be in San Quentin.)

And all the scientists - let me use that word again, scientists, demonstrably using their degrees, unlike the hallowed consensus all too often invoked by people who don't have a leg to stand on otherwise - are saying is, wait for it:

This is worth a little serious attention, doncha think?

And you don't have to be a scientist to say yes, and know it.

[Guest]

Well, I admit to being a bit provocative there. But I don't see a Werewolf Database; and I don't see anyone telling me about werewolf tracks; werewolf habitat; werewolf food habits (and the corresponding police reports); etc. I will believe anything - including people flying around without assistance; mummies walking at night; and mystics crossing the ocean on foot - as long as convincing evidence can be presented. Until then? I don't feel constrained to consider them much.

Many bigfoot sightings carry consistent corroborating evidence. I didn't see the tracks of every animal I ever saw; in fact I'd swear I saw no tracks for the vast majority. But each kind of animal I have seen, leaves them. That not every sighting carries that additional evidence can be attributed to a variety of factors (the most obvious being: astounded witness didn't even look). But many have looked, and found it. And as the sightings are consistent in what they describe, it can be safely assumed that had the sighters who didn't look for evidence looked, many of them would have found it.

Is the evidence really that consistent, though? Some alleged Bigfoot tracks have three toes, some have five. Some look like the toes are opposable, some like giant human feet. Some look quite a bit like bear tracks. Some witnesses describe Bigfoot as having a human like face, others as having a dog-like face. How can you call that consistent?

I discount no sighting for which I could see the same thing happening with a known animal. Period. Those places you mention are frequented at one time or another by practically every wild thing that lives near them.

My criteria:

1) Does the account make me believe it is possible this person saw a sasquatch?

Um, that's it. Can't judge beyond that; I wasn't there. Toss it on the pile of stuff that needs explaining.

Not that simple, of course. WSA puts it considerably better, way back in this blog. I weigh each account against the many (many many) I have read. How many features are consistent with what I have come to expect? Does it read like a person in a suit or a hallucination could be responsible? (I don't believe I have ever read a case of innocent mistaken identity.) Does the description sound more like a sasquatch or a person? (Pacing a car at 35 mph isn't a guy in a suit. Neither is throwing a 50-pound boulder 100 feet.) Does it sound, on the whole, possible that it's what this person saw?

Given that Loren Coleman has estimated up to 80% of alleged BF sightings are mistaken identity or hoaxes, it's interesting that you've never come across a case of mistaken identity. I'd love to see the source for BF running alongside cars.

[Guest DWA]

Is the evidence really that consistent, though? Some alleged Bigfoot tracks have three toes, some have five. Some look like the toes are opposable, some like giant human feet. Some look quite a bit like bear tracks. Some witnesses describe Bigfoot as having a human like face, others as having a dog-like face. How can you call that consistent?

Well, discuss that with Meldrum - whose degree could not be more relevant - and tell me how you do. One of the main reasons I go with his take on the tracks is that I have never seen it effectively contested.

There can be a number of reasons not all toes show in a track, as well as reasons for the variation in what tracks look like. Summing it up - before you go talk to Meldrum - the sasquatch foot is more like an ape's than it is like ours. That alone explains most if not all the variation observed.

One has to not only read these, but think about them. Witnesses may have naive terminology for things they couldn't make sense out of. I've never been led to believe anything doglike is under discussion here. But I have a feeling I wouldn't be too shocked if I saw a sasquatch's face, and the reason is the many reports I've read that give me a good idea what one would look like.

Given that Loren Coleman has estimated up to 80% of alleged BF sightings are mistaken identity or hoaxes, it's interesting that you've never come across a case of mistaken identity. I'd love to see the source for BF running alongside cars.

Several reports. Go to the BFRO database, and no way Bobo and Co. are making all that up.

Loren's estimate includes reports you will never see, because they were clear pranksters who never got followup calls, or people who were obviously messin' when the followup guy went out there. That is the websites' own estimate of the percentage of bad calls they get.

And that leaves 20%.

Hmmmmmm.

[WSA]

DWA can speak for his-own-personal-self...but me? I have scant ability or standing to subsitute my opinion for that of another if I wasn't there. OTOH, we are all mistaken at times. If you read a few hundered to a couple of thousand of the reports you see published you'll have a much better ability to peg the probabilities. This field is full of people who figure they can cut right to the chase scene without doing that work. You can't and have your opinion mean anything. I've never talked or corresponded with anyone who has put the time in to do that and failed to come away with anything less than a feeling "We" are all missing the forest for the trees.

Thing is too.....the vast, vast majority of the reports don't allow for any such kind of a "mistake" given the circumstances surrounding them. Like one witnesss stated, "It is like seeing a horse in a field. You know it is a horse, in a field." Imagine that.

Instead, we typically get what I refer to it as the Dylan Goes Electric response: "I don't believe you. You are a liar."

And you know what also? "Science" has lied to me, and made more mistakes, than any person in my life up until now. And big lies, and big mistakes too. And I STILL trust Science.

Edited March 4, 2013 by WSA

[Guest DWA]

^^^Well, this is it.

(And no I'm not going on the BFRO database and finding reports for you bigfoot skeptics. I want to see a bigfoot skeptic do his own research, one time. You have no standing if you do no research. Says me. My own personal self.)

Speaking for my own personal self, and as I told somebody on another thread here, my credentials amount to paying attention, and to realizing that, every single bingle gingle zingle time a scientist in that Vast Knowledgeable Consensus bigfoot skeptics lean on says something negative, he fails, utterly, to follow it with anything that isn't directly contradicted by the evidence he didn't think he had to read.

The proponents use their degrees. The VKC hides behind them.

Huge diff.

Edited March 4, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

DWA can speak for his-own-personal-self...but me? I have scant ability or standing to subsitute my opinion for that of another if I wasn't there. OTOH, we are all mistaken at times. If you read a few hundered to a couple of thousand of the reports you see published you'll have a much better ability to peg the probabilities. This field is full of people who figure they can cut right to the chase scene without doing that work. You can't and have your opinion mean anything. I've never talked or corresponded with anyone who has put the time in to do that and failed to come away with anything less than a feeling "We" are all missing the forest for the trees.

I've read several BFRO reports. They are hardly what I would consider a reliable source. Among other things, their field "investigators" seem to lack training in conducting interviews and have a noticeable bias towards belief. For instance, this report has a woman in Kansas hitting a BF with her car. She says she was going 35-40 and it ran in front of her. She also says it was "definitely larger" than her husband, who is 6' and 350 pounds. She didn't have time to break. The only damage to her car was a broken bumper. BF apparently left under his own power, no blood, no hair, no nothing left on the car.

I don't know if you've ever seen what happens when a deer hits a car going that fast, but it does a lot more than just break the bumper. If we believe her, this was a lot bigger than the average deer. So, why wasn't her car totaled? Why wasn't there any blood or hair?

The fact that they give credence to a Bigfoot sighting in Antrim Park (a small park that is bordered by an apartment complex, a busy highway, a high school, and a residential neighborhood) says a lot. Not only is Antrim Park too small for a Bigfoot to go unnoticed by more than one person, but it's a new park - until the 1970s, it was a rock quarry. In other words, a BF would have had to wander through suburbs and either cross a major highway or go through an apartment complex to get there.

That doesn't even get into the issue of why, given Ohio's history, Ohio has so many reports compared to surrounding states; the timber industry virtually deforested Ohio by the early 20th century. It didn't make a comeback until the 1970s. So where'd all these BF in Ohio come from, and why did no one see them passing through on the way?

Thing is too.....the vast, vast majority of the reports don't allow for any such kind of a "mistake" given the circumstances surrounding them. Like one witnesss stated, "It is like seeing a horse in a field. You know it is a horse, in a field." Imagine that.

Eyewitness testimony is overrated and unreliable. We know that it's one of the least reliable forms of evidence out there, no matter how confident the witness may be. Witnesses' memories are influenced by, among other things, the way the questions are asked and what they've heard, seen, or read in the meantime. That's even more true when dealing with people of another race. Why should we think that they suddenly become more accurate when dealing with another species? Especially when those witnesses are interviewed by people who assume BF exists?

Instead, we typically get what I refer to it as the Dylan Goes Electric response: "I don't believe you. You are a liar."

I'm not suggesting that they're lying. I am suggesting that a lot of them are mistaken or have faulty recollections of what they saw.

Edited March 4, 2013 by leisureclass