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

[dmaker]

I live in Canada. It's cold here in the winter, I can attest to that. How does a squatch survive the cold and what does it eat? By all reports it must have a caloric daily requirement of 10k at least. Probably more in colder weather.

You know what? Please disregard my question. Since I am tired of making the same arguments and asking the same questions over and over again. I'm content to say that my position right now is that there is not enough evidence to support the claim that an 8ft bipedal creature is running amok in North America. It's simply not very tenable. Until that position is proven to be wrong, I'm uninterested in debates about what it eats, what its' musculature is like, whether it needs salt to survive, or what it's favourite brand of ribs happens to be. For me, right now, those arguments are like wrestling an imaginary animal to the mat. You can never win, and it's ultimately pointless.

I am sure there are vast unexplored forests. I don't think that they are hiding previously undiscovered large mammals. Do you know how rare it is to find an undiscovered mammal, much less an 8ft carnivorous primate that, by reports, wanders through our own suburbs and greenspaces? It just doesn't happen.

I get what you are saying about hobbits. Or homo floresiensis. But no one is suggesting that HF is an extant species, are they? That's a pretty key difference. If someone were saying that there used to be a BF type creature that lived in this hemisphere on this continent 10's of thousands of years ago AND had at least ONE piece of fossil evidence to support it, then I would have no problem at all believing that. But that's not what we are talking about it, is it? So what is the point in bringing HF into the debate?

[ohiobill]

The middle ground I'm describing is objectivity. If you truly don't believe it's possible that bigfoot could exist you can have no objectivity in assessing any evidence brought forward. I don't believe but I can't preclude is my personal opinion and I would describe it as objective rather than moderate. I don't think highly of the evidence brought forward to date and I have no belief in those who claim to in all honesty. I have no expectation that Ketchum's study will produce anything and without any confirmation from Sykes I will probably quit following the subject -not because it would no longer be possible but because the probability would be so low. YMMV

[Guest DWA]

[yawn] Surprise ohiobill, I'm an amateur! But my opinions on this field mirror those of the pros. (No, I only count pros who demonstrate acquaintance with the evidence. The others repeatedly and amateurishly fail to acquaint themselves with it.) Ketchum and Sykes are sideshows. (As is 99% of this field.) To dump this topic because of them is not to be paying proper attention. YMMV...but it may be because you aren't paying attention. But your second sentence at least is correct.

Edited March 17, 2013 by DWA

[norseman]

@dmaker

again i dont take seattle dumpster diving squatch seriously and neither should you. remember the discernment i was talking about? but the main point of what i was trying to say there was that if people simply turn a cold shoulder to the subject we could very well be killing them with ignorance simply by eradicating there habitat for our own use. building dams that destroy fisheries etc etc

i know you didnt want me to respond but ill say my short piece and be done. large omnivores do exist and thrive in north america. both man and bear found plenty to eat snd dealt with winter in their own way. and when you look at homo erectus expansion out of africa into cold regions before the mastery of fire? i dont think its a really hard leap to understand that primates are pretty adaptable.

which dove tails nicely in with the hobbit. just like native american folklore the natives in the region around flores told stories about little people trading with them. so yes according to natives they still exist. science i think believes that they went extinct 15k years ago based on there cave digs they found.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

[yawn] Surprise ohiobill, I'm an amateur! But my opinions on this field mirror those of the pros. (No, I only count pros who demonstrate acquaintance with the evidence. The others repeatedly and amateurishly fail to acquaint themselves with it.) Ketchum and Sykes are sideshows. (As is 99% of this field.) To dump this topic because of them is not to be paying proper attention. YMMV...but it may be because you aren't paying attention. But your second sentence at least is correct.

Agreed.

You're an amateur.

[Guest DWA]

And your quals amount to, well, what? James Randi? [snicker]

Edited March 18, 2013 by DWA
To remove quoted post directly above

[Guest]

Perhaps James Randi is a noble exposer of things that appear magical but in fact are creatively mundane, DWA. Please point me to your video's online that have your real name and history and reputation as a person where I can peruse them and compare James Randi's published logical record against your own?

How long should I wait? You know, to see your face on "TV" or your face on YT, or your face anywhere? What about instead your own website, like Randi has? Please, what's the URL?

Snicker indeed.

[Guest DWA]

Randi's a joke. He plays to the peanut gallery . That fools' names are seen in public places doesn't make them wise. Ignoring evidence is no way to win my interest or my respect. (Or my real name, or anything else about me....peanut gallery.)

Edited March 18, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

**** MOD ACTION ****

Come on guys! Things are getting too close to crossing the line of personal attack! Consider this a verbal warning and adjust your posting accordingly. If things progress action will come with penalty.

Ginger

[Guest]

Noted, Ginger.

I didn't "snicker" first. I only passed it on.

DWA, please PM me something that I can view from you that has, not even the same publicity as Randi, but ANYTHING exposing your stance.

I'm just trying to be objective. You deride Randi yet don't expose yourself the same as he does publically.

I am simply and politely asking you to do the same or explain why you won't.

Sincerely WTB1

[Guest DWA]

Randi does not consider the evidence the way a scientist should. Meldrum and Krantz and Bindernagel do. Show me what Randi says about this and I'll show you how he's wrong. Otherwise his arguments aren't worth my time. The guys I just listed over all-purpose scoffing, every time. Is WTB1 your real name? Then the same challenge is up for you, isn't it?

Edited March 18, 2013 by DWA

[Guest Primate]

I'll believe in James Randi when I have my own sighting...

[Guest DWA]

^^^I don't believe that anyone who has that little fun exists.

[Guest]

Yeah, because truth and reason and logic are not and cannot be fun. Poor, poor Randi.

[Guest DWA]

If he were using them on this question, cool. But ignoring evidence isn't about truth and reason. it's about believing in the world you want rather than the one that is.

I can't help but note that many hard-core bigfoot scoffers were once "believers." This is the inevitable result of not letting evidence be one's guide: one gets frustrated by hope after hope dashed, and one has nothing to fall back on but there-IS-no-Santa Claus.

I've never had to worry about hope. The evidence speaks for itself.