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

[Guest DWA]

^^^Not weird. Opportune. The sign of the scientific mind at work.

Whatever one might say about Bobo and Co., one thing has happened on the BFRO database, which of course couldn't have been made up by those guys. The great majority of the reports one gets now reflect encounters in the current or previous calendar year, which before "FB" wasn't the case. The attentive note that nothing but that has changed about what is being submitted. The attentive, truly skeptical mind, which of course has not come down onto The Final Explanation (and thus interprets everything according to that) knows that this is just what one would expect: people who have had encounters now know where to report them.

I'd want to help those folks out too, were I an interested scientist. It's the plain thing to do.

(How does one confirm an undiscovered animal? This is the enema zoology needs. Other sciences don't seem to let this hamper them.)

Edited March 5, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

So do you really not see a connection between the popularity of a pop culture phenomenon rising and an increase in the number of reported sightings? Or do you think somehow that BF eye witnesses suddenly feel liberated by Matt et al doing their Town Halls and can finally come forward? Is that the reason for the increase in sightings? I think you vastly underestimate the power of suggestion to the human mind and the need for some people to see their mugs on TV or for attention in general.

One confirms an undiscovered animal by establishing its existence beyond a doubt. You know, with irrefutable physical evidence--not the BFRO reports.

[Guest DWA]

No. You can ONLY see the pop culture phenomenon and not the wholly understandable real-world explanation. That's what I was taking pains to point out there.

If we waited to talk about something until it was confirmed we'd never have gotten out of caves. Into them, for that matter.

That's what I mean by open vs. closed mind. This is all you can see: what suits your case. Alternatives don't have a possibility with you. Bigfoot is either The Biggest Pop Phenomenon Ever, or a field that dies year by hear. Just depends on what shutter you need to close this time.

Edited March 5, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

I can't wait to see what sort of impression this field guide will make on the scientific community. Me thinks about as much as Melba and her lemur theory. A field guide for Bigfoot..what a ridiculous notion. It stinks of opportunity alright, just not the one that you're talking about. It seems even your revered Dr.Meldrum is not above Bigfoot for Profit chicanery.

Edited March 5, 2013 by dmaker

[WSA]

Ya know DWA, it never ceases to amaze. Where else in the realm of scientific inquiry can an individual loudly (and proudly, it seems)proclaim a disinclination to read the evidence available, posit an opinion and expect to be taken seriously? Nowhere else, that's where. But on this topic? All day, every day. Oh, and then go on about a failure of those who HAVE read it to engage them? Beats all I've ever seen.

[Guest DWA]

dmaker my man! That's the closed mind again. So many shutters!

(So much bitterness too. Dude, try our life! WSA and I may be having more fun than a barrel o' Bobos.)

Ya know DWA, it never ceases to amaze. Where else in the realm of scientific inquiry can an individual loudly (and proudly, it seems)proclaim a disinclination to read the evidence available, posit an opinion and expect to be taken seriously? Nowhere else, that's where. But on this topic? All day, every day. Oh, and then go on about a failure of those who HAVE read it to engage them? Beats all I've ever seen.

Is it or is it not?

Go on a physics website with a video: I AM NOT MADE OF NO PARTICLES! LOOK! SOLID! See how long they take you seriously. But here? OMG.

(WSA and I have already predicted the response. Go 'head.)

Edited March 5, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

So do you really not see a connection between the popularity of a pop culture phenomenon rising and an increase in the number of reported sightings? Or do you think somehow that BF eye witnesses suddenly feel liberated by Matt et al doing their Town Halls and can finally come forward? Is that the reason for the increase in sightings? I think you vastly underestimate the power of suggestion to the human mind and the need for some people to see their mugs on TV or for attention in general.

One confirms an undiscovered animal by establishing its existence beyond a doubt. You know, with irrefutable physical evidence--not the BFRO reports.

Human experience tells us there will be some of both. Until mainstream science takes up the challenge, the gatekeepers of the evidence will be amateurs, and that is where we are to date. My research tells me they are doing a passable job of it, given the resources available. It could be oh so much better.

[Martin]

I can't wait to see what sort of impression this field guide will make on the scientific community. .........

Most likely it will assemble past data from reports, tracks and various studies. This data will be used as a reference to validate future sightings and studies legitimacy.

That's how it always has worked.

[Guest DWA]

I can't wait to see what sort of impression this field guide will make on the scientific community. Me thinks about as much as Melba and her lemur theory. A field guide for Bigfoot..what a ridiculous notion. It stinks of opportunity alright, just not the one that you're talking about. It seems even your revered Dr.Meldrum is not above Bigfoot for Profit chicanery.

I should have noted: this is just more consensus science.

That the mainstream would equate those two things says all one needs to say about the degree to which they are paying attention.

When a non-scientist says that, and the science is on his side, well, that's an indictment.

[Guest DWA]

And for an example of a bigfoot skeptic who has lucid moments read this. I'll buy it.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4011

Edited March 5, 2013 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

Most likely it will assemble past data from reports, tracks and various studies. This data will be used as a reference to validate future sightings and studies legitimacy.

That's how it always has worked.

Right.

"Here is what people have been seeing in the past. So if you see this, no you are not crazy. Record and report."

How tomorrow moves, as CSX might say.

[dmaker]

Thank-you for the link DWA, that was an interesting read. And I completely agree with the author. Especially this part:

"You're making an extraordinary claim. Show me extraordinary evidence, and I'll believe it. Until then, I'm not convinced."

That's pretty much my stance. I have always said that I allow for the possibility of Bigfoot. I just am not convinced or compelled by the existing evidence. You can probably find those exact words paraphrased by me in a least a half dozen posts in this thread alone. Maybe you'll accept it easier if I quote it directly from something you provided.

And you're probably right. I should not poke fun at Dr.Meldrum and his Bigfoot Field Guide. Does it come with a secret decoder ring? Ok, couldn't resist that one, that's the last time. I am sure his field guide to Bigfoot is pure science and has nothing to do with cashing in on the current Bigfoot popularity.

I retract all mud slung at your hero.

Edited March 5, 2013 by dmaker

[WSA]

And for an example of a bigfoot skeptic who has lucid moments read this. I'll buy it.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4011

Completely rational approach. More of this, and less of the "Bigfoot Stole My Baby!" school of reporting/commentary, please. Less throwing crap at the wall, please. Much, much less of ANY reference to BF ESP, extraterrestrial origins and other characteristics not supported by the great weight of the evidence.

Edited March 5, 2013 by WSA

[Guest DWA]

Thank-you for the link DWA, that was an interesting read. And I completely agree with the author. Especially this part:

"You're making an extraordinary claim. Show me extraordinary evidence, and I'll believe it. Until then, I'm not convinced."

That's pretty much my stance. I have always said that I allow for the possibility of Bigfoot. I just am not convinced or compelled by the existing evidence. You can probably find those exact words paraphrased by me in a least a half dozen posts in this thread alone. Maybe you'll accept it easier if I quote it directly from something you provided.

And you're probably right. I should not poke fun at Dr.Meldrum and his Bigfoot Field Guide. Does it come with a secret decoder ring? Ok, couldn't resist that one, that's the last time. I am sure his field guide to Bigfoot is pure science and has nothing to do with cashing in on the current Bigfoot popularity.

I retract all mud slung at your hero.

Not my hero, just a dude doing a job, whose science I happen to agree with.

This field is over 95% sideshow (conservative estimate). When somebody like this - noted that course and research load right? - deals daily with the kind of frustration that must entail, keeps at it, and puts tools out there to help the amateurs, who are all there pretty much is thanks to the mainstream, well, that is the purest science.

It's easy to plow the furrow of the known. That's over 95 % of the science being done in the world.

This? That ain't easy. And if you are a scientist, or know a bit about that, you know it ain't.

[dmaker]

And for the record, I'm reading Bindernagels book right now. I can't spend too much time with it as I have other stuff I need to do for the next week or so with my leisure time, but do get moments here and there. It's interesting and clearly show where you are coming from. But it is, so far, full of the type of stuff that drives me nuts in BF. There is a picture of him standing in a hole in the ground with a caption ( paraphrasing here, the book is at home and I am at the office right now) "Here is Dr.Bindernagel standing in a depression dug out by a Bigfoot to retrieve hibernating squirrels." That makes a lot of assumptions. How would Dr.B know it was a squatch that dug that hole? Statements like that are not too far removed from Bobo and his squatches like bacon/donuts/rave lights, etc. I'll keep reading it because it is a good book, and it helps me to see your ( the group your, not just you) side of things, but it does niggle at my sensitivities sometimes with captions like that one.