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

[Guest DWA]

Well, Bindernagel is, and he says this, done with the "is it real?" He wants to start crafting management plans and thinks the evidence is sufficient to do that.

His first book may have been a bit naive on his part. Those of us who have read lots of reports - but not from the Green database - found the ones he cited instantly compelling. We also got his references to known apes to explain sasquatch behavior and morphology; most Americans don't know that much about apes.

It got good reviews, from mainstreamers...and went dud.

This second book is the result of that.

[WSA]

dmaker....If Bindernagel makes that claim, I would expect him to set out in detail the basis for that conclusion, wouldn't you?

[norseman]

many many reports are junk.....yes. but just like trace evidence sometimes they are much more compelling than normal and sometimes the two can be combined.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Both Bindernagel and Meldrum are ploughing a different furrow now (i.e. leaving behind the 'is it real debate') and using this as a tool to move things on a bit. For example, I think B is on the record as stating that the PGF should be 'put to one side' for now because it just seems to muddy the waters and attracts loons. I for one think this tack is a sound one - 'OK, let's take the stance that we have actually discovered this animal and synthesise what evidence we do have into a form used for classified organisms' - hence we have M's footprint paper, and B and M's books. Seems like a perfectly natural way of proceeding to me. At the very least it is setting out the purported evidence on a scientific platform.

But then to some folks it won't matter because nothing they say or do will be anything but crank science...

[dmaker]

Perhaps what one man calls a stance, another calls an assumption.

[Guest DWA]

It does appear to be a way of sliding the query under the locked door, and a bit ingenious at that.

Fine, forget the ape, but there are all these footprints that, here, I'll show you, behave like footprints, and they run to a type that should be classified. And, oh by the way, the consistency of reportage with what we understand to be true of known apes - indeed, the actual presaging of ape characteristics in sasquatch reports before the known apes were that well 'known' - plus the archived evidence of tracks, may be sufficient to consider this a 'discovery' we have already made, for which a specimen will simply be further confirmation.

Perhaps what one man calls a stance, another calls an assumption.

Well, in this case the "assumption" is backed up by a hell of a lot of evidence.

The assumption that we know how all these people are hallucinating, not so much.

[dmaker]

^^ At least you recognize that it is an assumption.

I would say it more accurate to state that a specimen will be final confirmation, not further confirmation. Until that specimen, you have neither ape, monkey, relict human, nor wookie.

Edited March 5, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest Stan Norton]

^^ At least you recognize that it is an assumption.

I would say it more accurate to state that a specimen will be final confirmation, not further confirmation. Until that specimen, you have neither ape, monkey, relict human, nor wookie.

Quite. And this same statement has been made time and time and time again by Messrs Meldrum,Krantz, Bindernagel et al. Thus is nothing new. We get it, we really do: Sasquatch does not exist until the body is dragged in. This does not however stop those folks who think there is one hell of a lot of evidence for it from discussing that evidence in any way they see fit. In the case of Professor Meldrum, Professor Krantz etc etc, this means that they are (and were) perfectly within their rights to write books and papers setting out the evidence for their 'assumptions'. Would you not at least admit that this assumption is based upon some evidence (however unconvincing you personally find it)? Otherwise I really can't see why you would bother spending so much of your valuable time trying to show that everyone else is wrong...why not just move on and let the loons carry on thinking there's a squatch in these woods?

[dmaker]

Well loons are entertaining. Reality TV pretty much cemented that fact for the world.

But, yes I do concede that the assumptions are based on some evidence. Pretty shaky evidence. All of it conditional or anecdotal. I think people leap to conclusions far too often with this subject. In fact look at Meldrum et al, leaping to conclusions in the absence of a specimen.

[Guest DWA]

He's not leaping to conclusions. He's helping people confirm what evidence says is out there. Big diff.

You know, while we're on this, if somebody thinks King Tut is President of the U.S. and he has the proof, i'll ask him to send me the exec summary. No harm done, and boy what if he was right? I'm sure not going to be on the phone to him - or exchanging blog messages with him, I mean, at all, saying "no he's not!"

See, this all stems from 'you can't prove a negative.' Then why spend any time denying? You can't prove it.

I'm trying to get it, I really am. But I don't. If all these people really want bigfoot to be real, then just go do something else until it's confirmed rather than tuttutt all the time about 'shame it isn't.' I mean how the HECK do you know...? What conceivable purpose does the 'nuh-uh' chorus serve? (None. I like open-book tests.)

The evidence says you're wrong. So go...I don't know, go challenge David Copperfield to bend bigfoot femurs with his mind. That might at least engender some kind of interesting result.

Edited March 5, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

You mean why do I pee in your sandbox? I dunno, it's fun. Seriously, though? I find BF interesting and this is a good place to see what's happening in the world of BF. It's just hard to sit on my hands when I see people saying things that are just not true. It's hard for me not to engage. It just so happens on I'm the other side of this whole thing right now. The evidence does not say that I'm wrong, just as much as it doesn't say that you're right--yet. It's statements like that from people like you that irritate the beejebus out of me. You make mighty assumptions about the evidence and then lord them over people. The evidence says that I could be wrong or I could be right, which is precisely what it says about you as well. Stop stretching it past the breaking point. I think I'm going to take a break from this thread for a while. Enjoy your group snipe hunt.

Edited March 6, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Dude! When you are having the time we are nobody can pee in your sandbox. But you sound like you're drinking it. Why? Downer. To say nothing of giving yourself zero out when that proof comes in. And yep I said when. That's what the evidence says.

(Snipe. REAL.)

Edited March 6, 2013 by DWA

[norseman]

i think ultimately its silly for us to beat on each other over lack of proof. its a fact that proponents lack proof. evidence on the other hand is a different matter and subject to interpretation. but i wouldnt suspect that something was out there if i had not saw with my own eyes some compelling evidence. and i understand what was compelling for me may not be compelling to some one else.

[Guest DWA]

Oh. Folks who say things directly contradicted by evidence would annoy the bejeebers out of me...if i cared.

[Guest DWA]

i think ultimately its silly for us to beat on each other over lack of proof. its a fact that proponents lack proof. evidence on the other hand is a different matter and subject to interpretation. but i wouldnt suspect that something was out there if i had not saw with my own eyes some compelling evidence. and i understand what was compelling for me may not be compelling to some one else.

I would agree it is silly. Which makes it hard to understand why they bother. You try to educate but what can you do?