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

[gigantor]

Since it is impossible to ascertain whether any footprints, hair, smell, sounds, tree-breaks, stick formations, rock piles, are, in fact and without a doubt, from a unrecognized by science legendary creature called sasquatch or Bigfoot; it is then erroneous to offer any of it as good circumstantial evidence.

:lol:

You left out the eyewitness accounts there Transformer.

[Guest Darrell]

But Mulder, Is'nt the opposite often the case when a proponent offers what they believe to be "proof"? As in the following:

1. Make claim this evidence is proof, ask for contridictions

2. Dismiss all provided contridictions as frivolous and biased against bigfoot ("it's always the same old tired skeptical arguments")

3. Repeat claim this is proof despite the contrary

I would also offer that this is often follwed up with lot of buzz and dicussion on this forum until the next big thing comes along.

Anyway I'm off to spend the day in the mountains with a very attractive lady who is also a seasoned wildlife observer and photographer. Maybe I will get lucky today. Oh, and maybe I'll see a squatch too.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Darrell

[Guest]

It is entirely self-serving to piously request "proof" when you make it quite clear with the rest of this paragraph that you are going to dismiss every proffered bit of evidence out of hand ("unsatisfying", "likely hoaxed", etc).

So you stopped there and didn't bother to read the next paragraph in that post?

[Guest MikeG]

LOL ...too funny. Pretty hard to produce evidence of a transient, biological, biodegradable subject .............

No it's not! It's easy. It's done all the time. My daughter may just have done it with a possible new species of scorpion in Guyana just a few weeks ago. Find it.....photograph it.....record its activities, location etc.......kill it.........analyse it.......compare it with known species......name it. Simple.

Mike

[Guest]

LOL ...too funny. Pretty hard to produce evidence of a transient, biological, biodegradable subject as opposed to a plastic/metal chair, and not that the chair is your's and real anyhow? Your claim holds no more validity than those claiming to have witnessed BF.

Poppycock - you asked for evidence of the reality of my chair and I produced two clear and unambiguous photos. As Mike indicated, people do things like that all the time to produce evidence of organisms encountered in the field.

A few years ago, a White-winged Dove showed up in my yard. I live way outside the range of this species, but they occasionally wander all the way to the Atlantic Coast and up to New England. The birders in my state probably would have believed that I had seen it based just on my say-so, but the state records committee would never have accepted the record without a photo. So I took one. The bird was only there for a couple of minutes; I've not seen one since.

What about the photo of the goral I linked? It's sufficient to convince me that there are such things as gorals. If I still wasn't satisfied, I could go see the specimen for myself. That's all I'm asking about bigfoot. Show me a specimen; at the very least, show me a nice, clear photo.

If your integrity feels like it's being attacked,

It doesn't. You asked me to prove a claim - one you made for me, incidentally - and I did. Ain't no big thang.

[Guest RayG]

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this.

I reviewed the three reports in Ray's challenge. Nothing in those reports says to me "hoax" or "hallucination" or other. 33257 in particular is filed by a person of excellent character, according to the followup investigation.

I never used the words 'hoax' or 'hallucination' in describing any of those reports, so please don't attribute them to me. I asked for your reasoning in accepting them as convincing reports. Apparently if it doesn't scream hoax or hallucination, that's good enough for you. Do you have a reasonable explanation for how he was able to determine the distance between the eyes from 100 feet away in report #33257?

Are they good supporting evidence for the case?

If you're satisfied with anecdotes, then #33257 is a keeper. If you're actually interested in investigating with a purpose of solving the mystery, then #33257 is just another unconfirmed story lacking any supportive evidence.

At least one of the reporting witnesses has (as stated above) an excellent reputation.

That seems to be the clincher for some folks, the witness seems to be credible, of good character, excellent reputation, etc.

My challenge to Ray (which he utterly failed to meet) was: show me POSITIVE evidence that those reports are the result of the reporter not being smart enough to know what they are looking at, hallucinating, or not telling the truth. Until such time as Ray (or any other Skeptic) can produce said documentation (convictions for perjury, mental health records, etc), then the reports are entirely admissible as evidence, and MUST be considered a valid part of the case for BF.

Short of submitting the witness to a bunch of medical/psychological tests, how would we know the state of their mental health? I'm not at all sure how I would be expected to gain access to their private medical records anyway. Might you be setting an unrealistic goal for me? All I'm asking for is definitive evidence for a single sasquatch. A body, piece of a body, DNA, something directly associated with a bigfoot, and not just a story.

"Not proven true must be considered false" is a logic fallacy, not evidence for rebutting the reports.

Not proven means exactly that. Like it or not bigfoot is not proven, and no amount of flinging mud at skeptics or scientists by you is going to change that.

RayG

[Guest MikeG]

It's worth saying that there is a different standard of evidence required for recognising a new species as compared with noting a known species outside of its normal or previously known range.

That photo of Sas' of the dove is fine for the latter, but wouldn't be enough on its own to be evidence for a new species if it had never been seen before.

Even a good observation with contemporaneous notes and record of location, environment, weather etc can be good enough for a known species outside its previous range, even from a layman. I observed an African black-footed cat in the Kafue in Zambia 2 or 3 years ago, at very close range for at least 5 minutes. I took good notes, GPS location etc, and went back the following day to note the terrain, vegetation, etc. I couldn't get a photo. I sent my observation to the scholars researching the cat, based in South Africa, and they told me that it was the first good record in existence for the cat being seen north of the Zambezi, and was some 400 miles outside its previously known range. After questioning me at length, my observation is now in the record, and the cats presumed range has been extended.

Now, if that was a sasquatch, or any other uncatalogued creature, I'd have had to have shot it.

Mike

[Guest RayG]

What about the photo of the goral I linked?

Sas, proponents will just say you photoshopped a fake goral. You can tell by the shiny glass eye.

RayG

[Guest]

Ad infinitum?

........or just until someone produces something irrefutable, maybe?

Mike

It goes without saying that dispositive proof ends all debate. We aren't there though, and I'm sick of the Skeptics saying "the glass is empty" when it clearly is not.

[Rockape]

What about the photo of the goral I linked? .

It's a bear.

[Guest RayG]

Classic Skepticism 101:

1) Make claim of "no proof", call for evidence.

2) Dismiss all proffered evidence.

3) Repeat claim of "no proof", call for evidence.

ad infinitum

Judging by your comments and writings, you don't seem to be at all familiar with skepticism.

This is how most of bigfootdom seems to work:

• Make unsupported claim backed by unconfirmed evidence.
  
• Dismiss all other possible explanations.
  
• Repeat the mantra that you have evidence of bigfoot.
  

In a nutshell, Skepticism 101 can be reduced to two words:

"Show me"

Or, if you're not in close proximity,

"Prove it"

That's it. That's skepticism.

RayG

[Guest]

Since it is impossible to ascertain whether any footprints, hair, smell, sounds, tree-breaks, stick formations, rock piles, are, in fact and without a doubt, from a unrecognized by science legendary creature called sasquatch or Bigfoot; it is then erroneous to offer any of it as good circumstantial evidence.

100% wrong. You are using the textbook example of "not proven true must be false" argumentation. You would fail even high school speech and debate making that argument.

But Mulder, Is'nt the opposite often the case when a proponent offers what they believe to be "proof"? As in the following:

1. Make claim this evidence is proof, ask for contridictions

2. Dismiss all provided contridictions as frivolous and biased against bigfoot ("it's always the same old tired skeptical arguments")

3. Repeat claim this is proof despite the contrary

No, it isn't. The only time I have ever seen a Skeptic around here even attempt such an actual documentation debunking evidence is Kita and his PGF debunking. And it isn't going well for him at all as he's getting his rhetorical posterior handed to him all over the place because everything he proffers is shot through with REAL problems.

Ray doesn't even bother. Neither does Saskeptic, Drew, or any of the other usual suspects. They simply say "I believe it's not valid" and expect us to accept that as somehow debunking the evidence. They say it COULD be hoaxed. The witness COULD be not telling the truth. And so forth.

But they never offer any solid EVIDENCE that they ARE hoaxed, or the witnesses lying, etc. It's all speculation and theorizing and mud-slinging on their part.

On the other side, we have solid scientific evidence from Drs Meldrum, Fahrenbach, et al that goes utterly dismissed by the "consensus", without even a token attempt at scientific rebuttal.

[Guest RayG]

Oh my, you're back on the Meldrum-Fahrenbach train? The one that filled with passengers and never left the station? Dr. Meldrum made his pronouncements on the Skookum cast twelve YEARS ago. When is he going to publish his findings somewhere other than bigfoot books?

And speaking of publish, where did you say Fahrenbach submitted his track distribution curve?

Don't blame us skeptics for their lack of publication. You have their reject notices, right?

RayG

[Guest]

. . . I'm sick of the Skeptics saying "the glass is empty" when it clearly is not.

The glass is overflowing, Mulder. The problem I have with its contents is that there is no "dispositive proof" that any of it actually came from an actual bigfoot. If bigfoots are real, then it's very likely that most of what's in that glass is bigfoot evidence. If bigfoots aren't real, then none of it is actually bigfoot evidence, it's evidence of other things.

I know that's frustrating for you as a knower, but I'd just ask that you try to see it from the perspective of someone like myself who's been following this thing for decades without that proof forthcoming. I must have been about 8 years old the first time I read something about the proof of bigfoot being just around the corner. I'm quite a bit north of 8 these days, and I need an actual dead bigfoot to be convinced that there are live ones.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Nobody should accept these creatures exist without actually seeing one for themselves. (Then after you see one, be sure to have your mental health evaluated as per Ray above.) Chris B.