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

[slabdog]

Keep it civil folks.

We have one post under review....

...let's not make it two.

[ohiobill]

Are we getting caught up in semantics here? Both sides have evidence - just like the prosecution & defense bring to a trial. What we are lacking is proof. The real difference is that most of the "evidence" that "believers" bring to the table wouldn't persuade a judge or jury. Eyeshine is not going to convince anyone - raccoons & owls (who have large relective eyes are usually found in trees which can trick our minds into extrapolating a tall monster) & deer (again reflective eyes) are common and found in the same areas as sightings. Branches break on trees - (even when it's not windy) and sound carries farther at night in the woods when daytime sounds are absent. Woodpeckers make a distinctive wood knocking sound. We have large fur covered mammals living throughout the US that could easily be mistaken for something else - we even have large hairless mammals wearing bright safety orange camo that get mistakenly shot & killed every year by people who hunt the very areas sightings take place (maybe hunters shouldn't be considered the most "credible" of witnesses?).

There are some neat reports out there, I'll be the first to admit it. But sadly, upon investigation the stories aren't quite as compelling. The "investigation" usually consists of a telephone interview not a forensic recreation. Little or no effort is put into corraborating the witness statements. Few of the reports include details that can't be duplicated or hoaxed by an average human in a ghillie suit. The ones that do are normally the ones that happened to "my cousin's brother's nephew around 1988 in Thisorthat County".

[gigantor]

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.

The SSR does have a date range filter. When I use it for this year only and Class A reports, I get 24 of them.

Edited September 3, 2012 by gigantor

[kbhunter]

OK RayG.....here is the deal; Medusa became the wife of a BF, then a unicorn killed her, That pissed off Daddy Biggy and he made it a quest to get rid of ALL of the unicorns. After that happened, the snakes from Medusa's hair began to slither off to all continents except Ireland, where there are no snakes either! Hopefully that will answer your question once and for all.

KB

[ohiobill]

kbhunter, I think RayG has a fair argument going here. If you are going to consider oral history of native americans as "evidence" then why would you not consider the oral history of other peoples as equally compelling? To go further I could make the analogy that Gigantopithicus is to Bigfoot as H. floresiensis

is to Leprachauns.

[Guest thermalman]

My most compelling report http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=22434

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Minus the people who go missing for some reason, the Klamath river and Sierra's seem like great places to go looking for Bigfoot!

[Guest RayG]

The SSR does have a date range filter. When I use it for this year only and Class A reports, I get 24 of them.

Very good. Hopefully the cream rises to the top. I shall endeavor to check them out.

kbhunter: I assure you my queries regarding the comparison of evidence between ancient and modern creatures was a serious one. You stated there is PLENTY of evidence [for bigfoot]. I have countered that there is PLENTY of evidence for Medusa/unicorns. Reasoned responses from you are preferred to the ridicule you have presently on the plate before me.

Can we try again? How is there a marked difference between the evidence for Medusa/unicorns and bigfoot? How can anyone be certain that the evidence being presented for the existence of bigfoot, actually came from a bigfoot?

RayG

[kbhunter]

ohiobill, my last post was intended as my subtle attempt at humor. I like RayG, I have no issues at all with his skepticism. My point somehow seems to be eluding some people. The OP's post is saying there is no evidence but plenty of excuses why there is no evidence. I simply used the definition of the word to point out there is PLENTY of evidence to prove there is indeed BF. HOWEVER there is some evidence, (again the defined word) there is not.The PROOF there is one using the evidence prvided ALONG with a proof positive submission of that evidence is what is missing.

There are many pics, tracks, witness reports and so on. For example, if there was a mock trial as I said earlier, how much of the presented evidence would be needed to provie it? I would say there is a pretty darn good chance a JURY from that mock trial after hearing thousands of reports from the mock trial may agree. If there comes forth DNA evidence along with very detailed pics or video, that may clinch it form the jury. AS would a camera recording someone in the act of committing the crime.

KB

(edited here to ask RayG)....Does this make more sense to you as to my point of what I am say regarding the word evidence??

Edited September 3, 2012 by kbhunter

[Guest RayG]

I apologize if I misinterpreted your intent at humor kbhunter. Can we continue our discussion? I find it very interesting.

RayG

[kbhunter]

RayG, certainly but looking at the typos in my last post, my old age and deprevation of sleep is catching up with me. I may have to continue tomorrow! I am in the Eastern Time Zone.....1:10 AM is past my bedtime!!

KB

[Guest BFSleuth]

kb, another way to put what you are saying is that evidence is to proof...

... as bricks are to a house.

I agree that we have a lot of evidence of BF (bricks), but don't yet have proof (a house). I speak of proof in the irrefutable body on a slab, slam dunk video and DNA, or similar.

[kbhunter]

BFS.......You hit it out of the park! That is exactly correct! Maybe I drove from Atlanta to New York then to California just to go to the beach! The more direct route is better indeed!!

KB

[Guest BFSleuth]

Thank you sir! But sometimes the scenic route is nice...

... but it does seem to me that the OP and onward has at times been trying to look at the half finished walls and saying "that's not a house!" They are correct, it's under construction. I guess this might tie in with my other thought earlier in this thread that each piece of evidence is something I consider a "data point" (a brick). Some bricks are worse than others and need to be discarded, some reports or other evidence don't meet my personal test of veracity and I discard them. I'm still getting a nice pile of bricks together and piecing them together and the shape or form is taking place for me.

Okay, so let's move away from the bricks build a house metaphor for a moment and look at it simply as data points. What patterns emerge? This is a representation of the blogosphere from data mining:

In a similar way the distribution of sighting clusters can be represented by maps. The BFF database is now capable of pulling other information from the reports we have entered into it, things like correlation of elevation and time of year of sightings. Whether or not we eliminate X percentage of the data points, the overall shape of the structure (like the picture above) will remain relatively the same.

[ohiobill]

Thank you sir! But sometimes the scenic route is nice...

... but it does seem to me that the OP and onward has at times been trying to look at the half finished walls and saying "that's not a house!" They are correct, it's under construction. I guess this might tie in with my other thought earlier in this thread that each piece of evidence is something I consider a "data point" (a brick). Some bricks are worse than others and need to be discarded, some reports or other evidence don't meet my personal test of veracity and I discard them. I'm still getting a nice pile of bricks together and piecing them together and the shape or form is taking place for me.

Okay, so let's move away from the bricks build a house metaphor for a moment and look at it simply as data points. What patterns emerge? This is a representation of the blogosphere from data mining:

In a similar way the distribution of sighting clusters can be represented by maps. The BFF database is now capable of pulling other information from the reports we have entered into it, things like correlation of elevation and time of year of sightings. Whether or not we eliminate X percentage of the data points, the overall shape of the structure (like the picture above) will remain relatively the same.

Hmmm, my professor told me "bad data in, bad data out". Wouldn't it be simpler, more productive, and provide a more reasonable expectation of accuracy to use only good data and dismiss the rest prior to making your calculations? If you are building a house for me I would have to insist on it.