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

[Guest thermalman]

Allowing people to report anonymously is a double edged sword. Folks who would not otherwise share their stories would come forward. But at the same time, you get those, who for whatever reason, get their jollies by fabricating sightings. They know by adding details like "avid outdoorsman", "hunter", "worked as a cop . . ." will make their story all that more compelling.

You certainly would get a range from the most compelling and truthful reports.........to the fabricated cons. That's the problem with an invitation to report. Add to that, a lack of a physically detailed investigation, and you will get some prevaricated reports slipping through the verification process.

[Guest]

^^^^ I understand your frustration,but unfortunately ther is no wittness besides your self. It sucks but it is what it is

[Guest thermalman]

Hey Ray, which three reports do you find most compelling? And why? What makes them different from all the others?

thanks

Edited September 2, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

So, as much as I respect and admire RayG, his opinion on the reports is too jaded from the on-set to provide an unbiased opinion.

It would be like placing me as the person who personally vetted the *paranormal* claims.

I don't personally believe or accept that such *extraordinary* claims are at all associated with BF.

As such, I could not force myself to give an honest and open interpretation to the claims.

Placing me in a position to review and critique the paranormal claims, or RayG to review or critique the reports, since we both approach it from a pre-set , biased and initially un-believing standpoint, would be akin to putting a fox in charge of making sure the hens in the henhouse are safe.

A proponent of either, could review the same content and reach an entirely different opinion.

And, since they are *proponents* of such, their view is probably also a bit biased.

I personally afford a wide berth of consideration for witnesses. While there are some *attention seeking grabbers* who hoax, I don't think that moniker falls for the majority.

Takes some measure of courage to come forward with eyewitness reports and/or information. I always try and respect those who do so unless there are red flags elsewhere.

Guess what I am saying is that RayG, while a fine and upstanding member, is almost convinced that those who have witnessed or had an experience with BF are either lying, mis-identified something, or something else, (nefarious or not), meaning to him that they did not see what they claim they saw.

As such, we shouldn't expect him to give an un-biased opinion, or place too much weight in the opinions.

In reviewing reports he is a *fox*, just like I am with paranormal claims being associated with BF.

[Guest]

Looks to me like all Ray is doing is trying to nail down corroborating details associated with the reports, e.g., location, date, etc., plus the age of the reports and circumstances of the interview. If that approach is riddled with biases, then so is pretty much every criminal investigation.

Y'all can keep riding this carousel with anecdotal accounts, but you'll end up in the same place. There's no way Ray can find some significant investigative shortcoming in every last report, and as every bigfooter knows, it only takes one to be true . . .

The one thing that would be unambiguous in its interpretation (even to us "S"keptics)? A bigfoot body. Every other species has had a specimen procured before it was described. "Bigfoot" should be no different.

[Guest Darrell]

^Thats absolutely correct. Produce a specimen of the animal and it shuts everybody up by either proving or disproving all this mess. The paranormal camp knows if they were correct, the primitive human camp knows if they are correct, the wood ape crowd knows if they were right, ect. All the speculation and skeptisism goes away. Im sure your will still have the lunatic fringe who will still think bigfoot talks to them in dreams and shape shifts out of orbs but for the most part we will be able to put actual fact ahead of speculation.

[Guest RayG]

Hey Ray, which three reports do you find most compelling? And why? What makes them different from all the others?

thanks

Not sure about the top three, but I've always thought the Roe report was one of the most detailed and descriptive.

To be honest, after reading literally hundreds of reports the first 30 years I followed this mystery, I've not been reading very many the last 10. Over the course of the last week I've read more BFRO reports than I have for the past year, and I've only read about a dozen. I don't listen to podcasts, don't keep up with blogs, and don't even watch bigfoot shows when I have the chance. In the old days I would have been glued to each and every word. I guess I figure it's been 40 years (for me) and we're really not any closer to proving bigfoot exists today than when I started this journey. If bigfoot is proven to exist, I'll hear about it on the news, it won't be because four idiots running around in the woods trying to 'find' bigfoot made any difference.

We've had all these examples of 'exciting bigfoot news', none of which has produced an actual bigfoot, whether it's...

Pine Ridge, South Dakota; Norway House, Manitoba; Honobia, Oklahoma; Malaysia; Bossburg, Washington; Bluff Creek, California; Cave Junction, Oregon; Teslen, Yukon; Skookum Meadow, Washington; Chopaka Mountain, Washington (Memorial Day footage); 50 Years With Bigfoot, Tennessee; New York Baby Bigfoot Footage; every BFRO expedition; Little Eagle; Kentucky pancake video; Snelgrove Lake; Bindernagel's sighting; Sierra Sounds; Bigfoot in a freezer; The 'Russian Expedition' of 2011; bigfoot handprint on a truck; Ivan Marx footage; Johor Bigfoot; Mary Green/Janice Coy farce; Japanese Yeti expedition; Myakka Skunk Ape pictures; Mike Green's Thermal Zagnut Bigfoot; Jacob's photo; Minnesota Iceman; Bobby Clarke's Manitoba bigfoot video; Bigfoot toenail; Prince Edward Island footage; bigfoot shot and killed; Fahrenbach's track size distribution paper; Glickman's NASI report; Bigfoot hand in a jar; analysis by Bill Munns/Sweaty Yeti; Hairy Man Pictographs; Freeman trackway; Tom Slick's Pacific Northwest Expedition; Six Rivers Expedition; Monsterquest; Finding Bigfoot; Kirlin's vocal analysis; Michigan Recording Project; Nelson's linguistics; Ketchum's unpublished DNA report; Dr. Sykes and the Bigfoot/Yeti DNA Study; or Operation Persistence.

Can you blame me for becoming skeptical? This isn't just fool me once, fool me twice. No, this is fool me again, and again, and again, and again, over and over, until I finally began to realize I shouldn't be getting so optimistic and hopeful every time some bigfoot pronouncement is made. Now I'm more like a bigfoot Scrooge, bah-humbugging recent whispers of bigfoot news, or that crusty old uncle nobody wants to invite to Thanksgiving because he's got such a negative attitude.

Well, I still think bigfootery needs more Rene Dahindens and fewer Mary Greens, and if anyone doesn't recognize both those names, then you my friend, are a bigfoot noob.

And HR, it ain't so much that I'm biased about bigfoot reports, it's that I find it hard to tolerate the shoddy investigation associated with most of 'em. Just how does one determine which reports are 'credible' and which ones aren't? I don't think there is any such measuring stick. If the witness sounds credible, but their story would make Swiss cheese seem airtight, do we accept it as a valid report anyway? When the location is described as 'remote', but a city subdivision sits less than two blocks away, should we accept the report anyway? Isn't it better to have a handful of high quality, accurately detailed reports, rather than thousands of wishy-washy ones?

Makes me think of the very real subway shooting in London a few years ago. I'm sure many of the people giving eyewitness testimony about that incident were 'credible', but their testimony was flat out wrong. They weren't lying or trying to be deceitful, they were just mistaken in their perception, even though it was only a few minutes or hours after the incident took place. You remember that incident? London police shot the guy to death on the subway because they thought he was a terrorist. The eyewitnesses disagreed on the details. How is that possible? How could these witnesses not ~know~ what they saw with their own eyes?

So when I see a Class A report written up in 2012, but based on memories from 1970, I'm automatically going to have doubts about the accuracy of the testimony.

RayG

[bipedalist]

Gotta agree on the Roe report as some fine naturalistic observations came from that one and also a stellar sketch by William Roe's daughter, Myrtle.

Edited September 2, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest RayG]

1 compelling report and 4433 that aren't sounds about right.

RayG

[Guest SquatchinNY]

I am just going to make a catchy post. Although it seems like it, this post is NOT meant to say there is no bigfoot.

"If there is no such thing as bigfoot, what have thousands of people seen. If there is such thing as bigfoot, what have millions of people not seen"

Edited September 2, 2012 by SquatchinNY

[Guest RayG]

UFOs, sea serpents, and mermaids?

Nobody's not seen those either.

RayG

[Guest thermalman]

1 compelling report and 4433 that aren't sounds about right.

RayG

What's the number of the report Ray? I'd like to read it for myself. About being fooled again and again. Unless you can unequivocally prove that the reports are false, you haven't been fooled at all.

[kbhunter]

OK, I have read posts for several days on this thread. I think I can prove the OP's original statement is absolutely wrong. Please see the below sighted reference;

http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+evidence&qpvt=evidence&FORM=DTPDIA

DICTIONARY

evidence

Definition

ev·i·dence

[ évvid'nss ]

NOUN

1.

sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion

"There is no evidence that the disease is related to diet."

2.

proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime

"The police have no evidence."

3.

statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry

If you read the true definition of the word, there is PLENTY of evidence. There are many statements of witnesses, both written and oral. There is also proof or sign that supports AS evidence in pictures, videos, tracks and other sign that can help prove the existence. So, The fact is there has been much evidence going back centuries from Native American stories, paintings, etc.

So, the REAL statement should be is there irrefutable proof that Sas or BF is real? I think it would be VERY interesting to have a mock trial to prove the existence of SAS or BF. I think the evidence would be overwhelming in favor of. However, I can also see the ABSOLUTE proof to the public might take a body, but could also be swayed by a good presentation of DNA.

There are many people I know including myself that has the proof we need because we have experienced or know very reputable, honest people that have. I also know a few here that have had very good visuals and experiences. Furthermore, some of the ones here, me included really don't care if others don't believe us. That's cool, those folks don't know us. The only thing that sticks in my crawl is to be called a liar, kook or other adjectives from some of those people. I think respect of comments by all should be adhered to. There are a few posts on this forum that come critically close to that. Thanks to the good work of the mods and admin for there work in not letting that happen.

KB

[Guest RayG]

That Roe report can be found here. Being fooled again and again was in reference to the list of 'exciting bigfoot news' that I itemized. Go through that list, one by one, and tell me which ones have confirmed bigfoot.

As for proving all the reports false, I need do no such thing. It's not up to me or any other skeptic to disprove all the reports. For one thing, how exactly do you disprove something that hasn't been proven to begin with? Secondly, with all these thousands of reports, surely we have definitive proof by now, right? If not, what's the point? When do we step beyond the story-telling and demand an actual specimen, or at least a piece of one?

Not sure how long you've been a bigfoot enthusiast, but if I'm still around after you've listened to stories for 40 years, drop me a line.

RayG

[Sunflower]

Ray,

This is an honest question, do you spend time in the woods? Have you been to areas of known activity?