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

[Guest BFSleuth]

In the case of the owner of the grooming video, as explained by HRP, the main concern is privacy. The land has been in the family for quite a while, and he isn't wanting unwarranted attention or trespassers.

[Guest]

From the Mulder Evening News:

"Tonight, RayG found all four eyewitness reports he investigated "unconvincing" and dismissed them as valid bigfoot evidence...In other news: water is wet and the sky is dark at night..."

[Guest Transformer]

Here's a bit of an experiment that might shed some light on the great divide that is demonstrated above. I suggest RayG give the four reports that he looked over to Mulder and Mulder can give us his personal opinion of why he finds the reports credible and compelling evidence or why he doesn't. When Mulder is finished giving us his opinions the report links can be made available to everybody in this thread to see what they think. Are you up to the challenge Mulder or are you content to just deride anyone's reasoning if it doesn't match your seeming willingness to accept all such reports as legit?

[Guest RayG]

An excellent suggestion Transformer.

Mulder, can you present the reasoning behind why you think the specific reports I reviewed are so compelling? Here are the reports:

1723

31968

33257

Thanks.

RayG

[HOLDMYBEER]

As I understand, the Class A or B or C descriptor of BFRO reports refers to whether or not the reporting party is likely to have had a true encounter (Class A) or only a potential encounter (Classes B or C). The report classification is more a reflection on the potential for misinterpretation by the witness as defined by the circumstances of the event. It stands to reason meatier reports would receive more attention but I don't think the classification system guarantees a vetting standard.

My fault for not reading the thread more closely. I thought you referring to a qualitative figure as defined internally by the SSR.

[Guest RayG]

A Class A report is one that is described like this on the BFRO:

"Class A reports involve clear sightings in circumstances where misinterpretation or misidentification of other animals can be ruled out with greater confidence. For example, there are several footprint cases that are very well documented. These are considered Class A reports, because misidentification of common animals can be confidently ruled out, thus the potential for misinterpretation is very low."

RayG

[Guest MikeG]

I may be wrong, HMB, but I think the BFRO system is A for a visual encounter, B for a non-visual one. It isn't about the quality of the encounter or the report..

Mike

[Guest]

Folks, you can't "debunk" an anecdotal account anymore than you can prove one's veracity. That's the whole point.

There's no analysis Ray or anyone else could present that would prove any one of the thousands, hundreds, or "top 10" stories in any database was inauthentic. All Ray can do is provide his reasoning for why he finds a particular story unconvincing. For some, it'll be easy for him to spot the red flags, for others he might acknowledge only that there are multiple explanations for the event, and for some he might even be stymied: either the story was a complete fabrication or the person actually had an encounter with a bigfoot. But none of these can be proven either way - that's why if you establish a standard for proving the existence of something (like a new species), you don't allow anecdotal information to factor in to that standard.

One thing that always surprises me about these discussions concerning the vast number of reports (plus all those witnesses who must keep their stories quiet!) is that people don't seem to recognize the disconnect between the absence of a physical specimen and the number of reported encounters. It's enormous! To me, every new anecdotal account that's added to some sightings database without a bigfoot body somewhere on a slab makes me LESS confident in the reality of bigfoot, not more.

You want to nudge me toward the acceptance that there might be something to this bigfoot stuff? Then tell me that 10 people have reported seeing one, not 10,000. The former would be worlds more likely than the latter given the absence of a specimen.

[Cotter]

I would like to say that I didn't get brought into the proponent camp by any website, movie, or TV show. I was swayed by personal friends that have had Class A sightings. The web and shows are supplemental info for me to learn about the phenomenon.

Additionally, as a proponent, I have 2 million years of history to support my view.

[indiefoot]

Since there continue to be reports made from otherwise reliable witnesses that can not be proved or disproved, I would think an "on the fence" position for the true skeptic would be the place to be.

Some of the skeptics seem to find an alternative explanation under every rock.

[Guest Darrell]

^ But being on the fence doesnt negate the need for one to apply common sense to evidence and sightings. One argument I have had for years is that many who "believe" will take anything on face value to support their belief. There is some evidence that is very compelling, and some that is just pure bunk. And a lot of grey area in between. But because Im a skeptic it kind of does mean I will go out of my way to be extra critical of things in this phenomina. Shouldnt that be the position of the serious researcher is are all proponents drones who believe everything they are told? Whats next, bigfoot shape shifting in and out of orbs..........

[Guest WesT]

While surfing the web, I randomly stumbling across a very compelling account of a daytime Class A that happened in 1976 very close to where I live. I've been researching the phenomenon ever since. My research partner has seen the creature from about 40 yards and saw some nice detail.

[Drew]

Saskeptic-

That is exactly what I was trying to say with this post

One of the problems with this line of thinking Mulder, is that there are "100s if not 1000s of " Bigfoot sightings, I'm sure one day there will be Millions of sightings. But the one thing that remains constant, is the number of type specimens. How long are Bigfoot sightings going to continue to climb, and by climb I mean they are coming it at a rapidly increasing rate since the early 1970's, wihtout ever finding one? You can't say they are rare and elusive, and have 10,000 sightings in fairly non-remote, and readily accessible areas.

And to add to this for Mulder, who asked;

Plus photos, cast tracks, forensically typed hairs, sound recordings, and more.

You keep leaving that out Drew. Why you do so is obvious: Because you want to paint the case for BF as nothing but hearsay from people you tar with the brush of "unreliability".

Yes Mulder, you can add hundreds of casts, provide dozens of hairs that are 'forensically typed', fifty digital sound recordings, and the only constant is that there is no type specimen. You are helping me to make my point, the MORE anecdotal stories, and trumped up 'evidence' that you provide, the less likely it is that there is a real creature to be found.

I don't have to paint the case for BF as nothing but hearsay, because that is EXACTLY what it is, a bunch of stories that people have told, with the one thing we need to catalog it, never showing up. You can say that I want to paint it that way, but that is not true, I am stating the truth. Bigfoot is a collection of anecdotal evidence with some Bigfoot 'experts' providing additional things that impress Bigfoot believers. The more these things add up in the bucket of Bigfoot evidence, the less likely that a type specimen will ever be located.

Also, I am not painting people with the brush of 'Unreliability', I am painting the evidence as lacking, which most rational people here will agree with.

[Guest]

Marlboro,

What do you make of the thousands of witness reports?

Whoa, that's a loaded question. Almost as bad as answering this loaded question:

[salubrious]

The witness for Class A report #33257 seems to be mistaken about how cold it was in Malta in January 2011. A weather report for the general area show the coldest it got in Malta that month was 33 below, and that was on January 31st. Makes me wonder how much investigation the investigator conducted while researching the report. And it seems rather surprising that the tow-truck driver didn't contact someone on his radio right after his sighting. He does have a radio, right? There should have been footprints galore in all that deep snow, and since the cop wouldn't have been that far away at the time of his sighting, he seems to have missed an opportunity to have the evidence of an elk being dragged away by a muscular biped witnessed by at least two other people. And maybe, just maybe, that copy would have turned his car around and came back to investigate. Maybe he would have seen the sign of something dragging the elk away, and maybe he would have followed a short way and found some hair stuck on some branches. Who knows what he might have found? Instead, we have no police report, no pictures or descriptions of tracks, and no tow receipts to ensure he was correct with his dates. So once again, we have nothing more than an anecdote, quite unsupported by any actual evidence. Verdict: Unconvincing.

Malta is in a nice valley but is surrounded by hills in northern Montana near Canada. Anyone from Montana can tell you that elevation can play a huge role in temperature as can bottlenecks in the landscape. A favorite of mine is in Livingston, MT, where it might be -5 degrees F, but if you drive to Paradise Valley, which is only a few miles south and at the same elevation, the temperature can be in the 30s. Frankly I would find it surprising to find that -33 degrees isn't common there- its been -52 in Miles City, which is considerably further south (Got that from KSTP channel 5 here in Minnesota).

So you might reconsider the temperature as being quite possible- this sighting is supposed to be well out of town. And you might consider what you as a tow truck operator are going to tell the dispatch... if it were me I would have kept quite, at least for a while...

Agree with you on the other records.

^ But being on the fence doesnt negate the need for one to apply common sense to evidence and sightings.

True enough!

Edited August 29, 2012 by salubrious