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

[norseman]

@dmaker

if someone is taking an honest stab at trying to provide you with a slab monkey? they cannot wave a magic wand and make it so. they are going to have to sort through evidence and pick the most compelling peices implement a plan and execute it. i do not have the luxury of simply calling everything a hoax until it is proven. do u see the distinction? im not asking u to believe based simply on a good trackway. but i cannot simply wave my hand call it a hoax and walk away either. there is some gray area here, but we cannot hone a search only after one is discovered....we have to hone the search in order to find it and that is the gerbil cage.

fyi i do not hate science there is protocol involved and that is why iam firmly pro kill. science has spoken as to what it needs to take issue seriously. and its up to believers to get it to them unfortunately most bury there head in the sand cry foul and ask science to make an exception. this is why i refused to sign the ketchum protection petition. it just makes us look like fools.

[Guest DWA]

Meanwhile, John Napier, former director of the Smithsonian's primate center, says it's a hoax. Why is he unable to make an educated approach? CSICop has done a pretty good job of arguing why the tracks associated with Patty are fake. Why should we discount their opinion?

Wrong. Neither of those opinions hold any soap. Napier's took me seconds: by his argument the duckbilled platypus isn't real. And CSIcop isn't worth talking about. Same old skeptic glossover: cherrypicking cranks and refusing to address the scientific proponents on their ground. I can tell if you had your science hat on when you said something. Neither of them did. (Now when Napier said that sasquatch was real, then he did.)

Edited March 16, 2013 by DWA

[norseman]

btw video evidence is simply to open to conjecture and besides its not what science has asked for

[Guest DWA]

Logic and science are one on this one: if there is not a shred in 45 years of evidence that there's a person on that film, there is a reason for that: there isn't.

btw video evidence is simply to open to conjecture and besides its not what science has asked for

Well I differentiate between what science asks for and what scientists - the very imperfect and sometimes comical executors of science - ask for. Science asks for mysteries to be resolved and for evidence to be followed to conclusions. Scientists on the other hand ask amateurs to do their work for them and then laugh at them.

[Guest]

Wrong. Neither of those opinions hold any soap. Napier's took me seconds: by his argument the duckbilled platypus isn't real.

Errr, what? You lost me at "duckbilled platypus."

And CSIcop isn't worth talking about. Same old skeptic glossover: cherrypicking cranks and refusing to address the scientific proponents on their ground. I can tell if you had your science hat on when you said something. Neither of them did. (Now when Napier said that sasquatch was real, then he did.)

So, if someone agrees with you, they've got their science hat on, but if they disagree with you, they're cranks or being unscientific? Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Guest DWA]

When you cite opinions here it would be good to read them. Anyone who actually had would know my precise meaning. What did I say again? I said, again: I know if you had your scientist hat on when you said something. A degree - ten of them - doesn't constitute a scientist hat, which must be on all the time. I don't listen to your degrees; I listen to your opinions. The two you cite are wrong and I said why . But you apparently didn't read them. Tell you what: post them here in their entirety. I'll take them apart for you.

Edited March 17, 2013 by DWA
To remove quoted post directly above

[norseman]

Meanwhile, John Napier, former director of the Smithsonian's primate center, says it's a hoax. Why is he unable to make an educated approach? CSICop has done a pretty good job of arguing why the tracks associated with Patty are fake. Why should we discount their opinion?

that article states that the tracks are fake because they are too deep to be real. but the first question that comes to mind is how do u hoax tracks like that? if a guy with stompers on had a grand piano strapped to his back.... ok. or maybe a helicopter dropping weighted stompers with a rope?

the problem quickly becomes that they explanations are as bizarre as the question.

if its a hoax id sure like to know how they did it for sure!

[Guest]

When you cite opinions here it would be good to read them. Anyone who actually had would know my precise meaning. What did I say again? I said, again: I know if you had your scientist hat on when you said something. A degree - ten of them - doesn't constitute a scientist hat, which must be on all the time. I don't listen to your degrees; I listen to your opinions. The two you cite are wrong and I said why . But you apparently didn't read them.

I notice that you continue to evade actually justifying your claims.

that article states that the tracks are fake because they are too deep to be real. but the first question that comes to mind is how do u hoax tracks like that? if a guy with stompers on had a grand piano strapped to his back.... ok. or maybe a helicopter dropping weighted stompers with a rope?

the problem quickly becomes that they explanations are as bizarre as the question.

if its a hoax id sure like to know how they did it for sure!

If you'll note from the CSICop post:

John Green viewed a second film reportedly showing the making of the casts. In his 1978 book Green notes that “There was also some film taken later when they were making casts of the tracks. It seems to have shown that when the men walked beside the tracks their feet did not sink appreciably into the packed sand. The prints of the creature on the other hand, sank about an inch deep, indicating tremendous weight. Its feet measured fourteen inches in length, five inches in width at the ball, and four inches at the heel. The prints were flat¹⁰ [emphasis added], and there were five toes of fairly human pattern, except that there was less difference in size from largest to smallest. The men [Patterson and Gimlin] made beautiful casts of both left and right feet.â€

No helicopter needed, they could have just walked along and pounded whatever they used to make the tracks down with a hammer or something.

[Guest DWA]

Right, um hum, sure. Your evidence? While we're on evasion. The entire "bigfoot skeptic" position amounts to evasion. You, right now, show me where Meldrum's wrong. See, I don't have to convince or even reply to you. The science is on my side (because the guys with their scientist hats on are), until you show me that it isn't. All this refusing to confront the science that roundly disputes you gets, you know, old.

"A hammer or something." Hold. My. Sides. If Jeff ever made a comment like that you would be all over it. Show me how they did it in October 1967 without ever getting found out. How this works. You didn't read those opinions, did you? Or think about them much? It is very typically bigfoot skeptic to not think about any opinion squaring with what one wants to think. (OK, kill the part after "opinion.")

Edited March 16, 2013 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

And no, I don't care that the scientific mainstream isn't on board. As long as I can beat them in an argument on this topic they ain't showing me anything. Getting to the bottom of sasquatch is their job; immaterial to me that they don't get that. (Just predicting your response.)

No helicopter needed, they could have just walked along and pounded whatever they used to make the tracks down with a hammer or something.

And I did have to note here the utter correctness of norseman's "the problem quickly becomes that the explanations are as bizarre as the question." Edited March 16, 2013 by DWA

[norseman]

@leisureclass

yes but what about their tracks?

if two men walked along wet sand one carrying a left and right stomper and the other a sledge hammer to beat them into the ground? what do u think that track way would look like? there would be more tracks to carry out the enterprise than what the enterprise produced.

they would have to reclaim the ground around all of the tracks to make it look natural and then come back in on foot and with horses to sell the script of the encounter

not very plausible in my mind. even if you raked it it would not look natural to the people who followed up on the scene

[Guest DWA]

But remember: bigfoot skeptics can put up any cockamamie thing they wish. It's the proponents that have to, you know, be serious and think.

[dmaker]

If it's "a handy little ship" you can't sink, it hasn't occurred to you that you can't think of a way to do it? Because, well, you don't think enough? Don't feel insulted or nothin'. What WSA and I have been saying for, what 180 pages now, is that "bigfoot skeptics" aren't skeptical; don't think about this enough; and have almost no understanding of how science is supposed to work. And the evidence keeps pouring in that we are right, and I just responded to the latest piece of it.

Noproofnoproofnoproofnoproofnoproof

Noproofnoproofnoproofnoproofnoproof

Noproofnoproofnoproofnoproofnoproof

Noproofnoproofnoproofnoproofnoproof

...speaking of saying the same thing over and over and over. At least we're having fun. (No. You are NOT.)

Oh. Bill Munns - the only person, maybe, in the world other than Patterson and Gimlin and Meldrum and maybe a few others who would be able to make an educated approach to this - says Patty is real. If you doubt him, you not only are having no fun but may never have any.

So believing in Bigfoot is fun, and somehow involves hats. Cool, I'm on board.

[Guest DWA]

Got it. That is as serious as you want to get. If that floats your boat, well, some of us actually have a reason to be here. Which is, among other things, to take careful note of the intellectual seriousness of our opponents in this discussion.

Edited March 17, 2013 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

When you cite opinions here it would be good to read them. Anyone who actually had would know my precise meaning. What did I say again? I said, again: I know if you had your scientist hat on when you said something. A degree - ten of them - doesn't constitute a scientist hat, which must be on all the time. I don't listen to your degrees; I listen to your opinions. The two you cite are wrong and I said why . But you apparently didn't read them. Tell you what: post them here in their entirety. I'll take them apart for you.

....aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand....[crickets]......