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

[dmaker]

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.

Hey, you're the one that brought fun into it,not me. I think someone else mentioned the hats...but still, hard to pass up on fun and hats.

And honestly, yes I took a light turn there in my tone. I'm just tired of having the same argument with you over and over again. You may not tire of repeating your position ad naseum, but I do. But I have finished my exam yesterday, so I actually have some leisure time now, so I'm going to get around to reading that Bindernagel book that I spent 50 dollars on. I am sure I will have more to offer at that point, but for right now, I hate repeating myself.

[dmaker]

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.

You know, that irks me a little bit. You dismiss me for taking a moment to inject a bit of brevity into the discussion rather than repeat myself yet again. Unlike you, I am not as fond of the sound of my own voice as you are. I don't care how many times my opinions land in this thread, nor could I care less about how many "plusses" I get from my comrades who suspiciously post almost immediately after me and always prop up anything I say. If your "noble" reasons for being here include pouncing at any opportunity to undermine someone else's intentions then let me ask you something. What are you doing that is so serious in its' reasoning? You read the BFRO reports while dispensing armchair wisdom and scientific direction or criticism to anyone who will listen to you. You condemn the scientific community of a crime that I suspect you are guilty of yourself. How much time, exactly, do you spend in the woods looking for Bigfoot? You read reports and take potshots from your keyboard at scientists, but you contribute what to the effort exactly? I'm curious. How many hours do you log every week in the woods?

So yeah, pardon me for going off track for a second. I guess I must not be very serious. Maybe I just don't care to have 200 posts in a single thread all saying the same thing. I thought something different would have been nice for a change.

[Guest DWA]

I never repeat myself. You gotta start reading 'em man! You really gotta try this field from the other side of the fence. Science is fun. If Bindernagel doesn't help I'm at a loss. And here I thought all that buddy-plussing was a bigfoot skeptic thing. I'll be. WSA and I should be way beyond irked, as we are demonstrating serious chops here. But maybe being right just helps with that irked thing. (Yawn) off to bed.

Edited March 17, 2013 by DWA

[norseman]

^^

dmaker will probably not be impressed until he has a experience of his own thats how skeptical minds work. i would not expect him to read a book and have a epiffany.

and i must agree he has a point the dwa/wsa tag team in this thread is odd but whatever.

this whole thread is one giant repeat of itself. one side off handedly dismissing all evidence while the other side defends every scrap to the hilt.

not much room in the middle here.....

Edited March 17, 2013 by AaronD
to remove quote of post directly above

[dmaker]

^^ That's a good post Norse. And you are probably right. I doubt I would do a 180 based on a book. A personal experience,sure, or even some decent video or photographic evidence. Why I am interested enough to spend $50 of my own cash on a book on the subject that I know up front is going to be contrary to what I believe at this point is so that I can be versed in some of the things that make proponents tick. And by this I mean the reasonable proponents. I have no interest in what makes the fringe tick. Whatever makes one think that a family of Bigfoots is living in their backyard, knocking on their door and asking for garlic in English, is well...their own issue and has no bearing on this current discussion. But I am interested enough to spend some dollars on some books and read them. They won't make a believer out of me, but maybe I'll be more understanding of those that do.

But I am in most agreement with your comment about the middle ground. This thread has very much polarized with a list of usual suspects saying the same things over and over again. Mea culpa here too. I'm not exempt from that one. That's why I've tried to sort of stay out of it lately. I should probably try harder. There is no point in swiping at shadows after all.

Edited March 17, 2013 by dmaker

[ohiobill]

Norseman, are you saying that you feel there's no middle ground or no objectivity? I, and many others, tire quickly of the lack of objectivity in blindly pointing to anonymous sighting reports as proof. A reasonable and open-minded person can admit that a compelling report begs to be investigated further but stops well short of proof. The founder of this forum feels that approximately 90% of sightings are mistaken id's, hoaxes, or flat-out lies. We've all seen Moneymaker on Finding Bigfoot not find bigfoot and not use much effort in his investigations. Remember who founded the BFRO and is involved in the sighting database. I don't think DWA is correct when he repeatedly and amateurishly tries to place the blame on "science" for not investigating every sighting. Take a look around this forum - we have folks who claim to have every type of interaction possible but can't provide a single piece of proof. We have investigators who can't identify hoaxed footprints but folks still look up to them even though Dr. Meldrum and Dr. Fahrenbach have both published studies of exactly what to look for which are freely available on the internet. We have obvious hoofed trackways which can't be ruled out by investigators and we have known hoaxers who can claim anything and get plenty of followers. I feel there is plenty of middle ground but you have to look pretty hard to find objectivity in bigfootery, especially among those who claim to know the most about the subject.

[Djj]

I suspect that the middle ground gets shrunk everytime there is a hoax, or a polarizing event (thinking Ketchum). But I think the thing we need to do is to go to brass tacks sometimes and do field research, go into the woods. set a camera trap or two. is bigfoot important? But we need to find the common ground. Which is really hard.

The other part in this whole equation is the emotional end of it. I think many here WANT bigfoot to be real. But we need to harness the wanting bigfoot to be real to the hard work of proving it and using our will to be logical about this (put on our Spock ears) to do it.

Science is a tool, not an enemy. Faith in bigfoot is a tool too, not an enemy. Sometimes science needs to take a leap of faith. But sometimes faith needs to take a leap of science or objectivity. Working together can work. It might even be fun.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Djj

[ohiobill]

I'm not sure the middle ground gets shrunk but I think that the number of objective folks who I'm willing to seriously consider declines every time they blindly defend each other without having investigated or even considered the evidence or the source. I agree that the emotional aspect of this is more of a problem than it should be, although I know many passionate researchers who are able to objectively perform their work.

[norseman]

Norseman, are you saying that you feel there's no middle ground or no objectivity? I, and many others, tire quickly of the lack of objectivity in blindly pointing to anonymous sighting reports as proof. A reasonable and open-minded person can admit that a compelling report begs to be investigated further but stops well short of proof. The founder of this forum feels that approximately 90% of sightings are mistaken id's, hoaxes, or flat-out lies. We've all seen Moneymaker on Finding Bigfoot not find bigfoot and not use much effort in his investigations. Remember who founded the BFRO and is involved in the sighting database. I don't think DWA is correct when he repeatedly and amateurishly tries to place the blame on "science" for not investigating every sighting. Take a look around this forum - we have folks who claim to have every type of interaction possible but can't provide a single piece of proof. We have investigators who can't identify hoaxed footprints but folks still look up to them even though Dr. Meldrum and Dr. Fahrenbach have both published studies of exactly what to look for which are freely available on the internet. We have obvious hoofed trackways which can't be ruled out by investigators and we have known hoaxers who can claim anything and get plenty of followers. I feel there is plenty of middle ground but you have to look pretty hard to find objectivity in bigfootery, especially among those who claim to know the most about the subject.

there is no middle ground within the context of this thread. it results from the law of physics " for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". it really is that simple, the harder the skeptic or believer pushes their case? the harder the other side pushes back.

outside of this thread there is no war......no middle ground. there is simply a lofty goal that science mandates and its up to those that choose to take up the endeavor to strive to reach it for the betterment of a species, conservation, biology and mankind.

its not an easy path and there will be critics and rude behavior not only from the skeptics but from fellow proponents as well. but if you go about your work with honesty and integrity keeping that lofty goal in mind and not getting lost in the greed, hatred and egotism of it all? then at least no matter the outcome when or lose you can leave the arena with your head held high.

[ohiobill]

I still don't agree with you about the available middle ground but I do agree that honesty and integrity are traits that help in this (or any other) search. FWIW, I like your focus and agree with your approach - if I lived closer I'd be out hunting with you.

[dmaker]

I'm not even sure what middle ground means in relation to BF. BF either exists or it doesn't. It's that simple. There is no state where the animal quasi-exists, but quasi-doesn't. At least not in the biological sense. That sort of accurately describes the current state of opinion on BF, at least based on the current body of evidence. But the existence of BF has nothing to do with opinion. I have an opinion on it, but my opinion is of zero concern to the animal if it actually exists. It will happily go about it's day without or without the support of my personal convictions. BF is either a collective myth, or it's not. If it is a myth, which happens to be my personal opinion, then no matter how strongly the proponents want to believe they will never be able to will it into existence. No amount of blobsquatches and grainy video or tracks in the snow will ever be able to conjure up a real live animal if that animal lives only in myth. And of course, conversely, if this animal does exist than my opinion poses it zero danger. 10,000 people like me cannot link hands and disbelieve an animal out of existence. There is a quote, by Leila Hadj-Chikh in the preface of The Discovery of the Sasquatch ( Bindernagel, 2010) that is applicable " Scientists theorize, Nature laughs". I highlighted this passage because it's does a pretty good job of summarizing this entire thread. For both sides of the fence. People can believe, pro or con for Sasquatch, but all that really matters at the end of the day is the simple nature of the situation. The animal exists or it doesn't. Personally, I am not impressed by the current body of evidence, so I'm going with the opinion that the animal does not exist. For all I know there is a Squatch somewhere giggling in a bush while it happily goes about its' business completely unaffected by my opinion.

No matter what happens, it's interesting. And it's easy to get polarized sometimes and think one side is right or one side is wrong and to get behind those positions strongly and passionately. I'm very guilty of that myself of course. But no matter how strongly we "believe" one way or the other, it does not matter. It's not about belief. I find myself parroting my strongest opponent in this discussion, but that is a very simple truth. Bigfoot exists, or doesn't. This thread could go on for 50 years and 100,000 pages and nothing will change that simple fact. What this is all about is evidence. Right now there is not enough evidence to validate the claim that a large, undiscovered primate is running around all of North America. There is enough evidence to suggest that there might be one, but that is, as of yet, to be proven. I just happen to be of the opinion that there is not enough credible evidence to really indicate that when weighed against the improbability of such a creature existing. I look forward to the day that I might be proven wrong. Until then, I think the prudent thing to do, for me, is assume that I'm right. Or in other words, the evidence is lacking. I think a creature that is described by the reports is extremely unlikely to exist. There is not enough food for it, there are few explanations that adequately explain how it would deal with extreme winter in both terms of shelter and nourishment. The breeding population that would be required is estimated at 6,000 - 10,000. I find it not very credible to think that many 8 ft carnivorous primates are running around and barely brush up against us or leave ANY remains behind other than some pretty dubious tracks. But hey,that's just my opinion.

Edited March 17, 2013 by dmaker

[WRabbit]

^^ +1

Great post, dmaker.

[ohiobill]

Of course there's a middle ground -it's possible that bigfoot exists. It's the reason we are all here and it encompasses all the evidence brought forth to date. Since bigfoot can't be disproven and there's no proof it's all we have to currently discuss.

[dmaker]

The point I was trying to make was that the middle ground is really just a degree of belief, one way or the other. Some believe BF is real, some don't, and some are open to the idea, perhaps even those that don't believe. But in the absence of absolute proof, these are just talking points. The middle ground you describe is really just a more moderate opinion. Or an opinion with more compromise. All that really matters is what the evidence can prove beyond a doubt. And right now, that is not much.

[norseman]

dmaker,

i disagree very strongly on one point, which is why im very much pro kill and its a heated topic among proponents.

you basically said that you and ten thousand others cannot link hands and wish it out of existence. while a collective thought cannot produce results alone.......every day on this planet undiscovered species go extinct right under our noses. sadly most of these species demise are a direct result of human actions.

i see this as a race against time, i do not believe they are abundant and thriving nor do i believe they thrive in a suburban environment. i can understand to the skeptic there is tons and tons of rubbish out there. but i personal think there is a kernal of truth there as well that deserves a closer look. some of the evidence is very very compelling and while its easy to say that the whole idea of a bipedal creature still alive in the wilds of america is beyond comprehension there for that compelling evidence has to have a logicsl explanation? what is it? its tortured me for years......

i will concede the point that its a very implausible idea. but so was hobbit like peoples living in jungle areas of asia.

we humans like to think in our supremacy over the earth that we have mapped it all, know all, been there, done that.

i can assure u that living in a forest that runs from california to alaska and hunting and treking through it my entire life? we may not know as much as we think we know its vast many parts of it are untamed and most people do not get out into it until sadly anither peice of it is bulldozed into a strip mall or country club. i know it sounds cliche......but ive been 50 miles from my pickup with just me, three mules and a dog and not see anybody for very long periods of time. in canada above me u could probably do 500 miles for a season and see no one. 90 percent of the canadian population hugs within 100 miles of the us border. vast vast stands of bireal forest only challenged by siberia

its slowly being chipped away and we may not have a grasp on what is being chipped away with it