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

[Guest]

I never used the words 'hoax' or 'hallucination' in describing any of those reports, so please don't attribute them to me.

You said that reports are dismissible because of 1 of 3 things: the witness didn't see anything, just THOUGHT they did (which would be hallucinating), saw something that is NOT a squatch but thought it was, or was not telling the truth (which would be a hoax)

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?

He made an estimate. So what? Would you be happier if he'd said "wide set" or "close together" about the eyes or "long", "meduim length" or "short" about the hair? Somehow I suspect not. You're looking for nits to pick.

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.

You mean like virtually the entire Skeptical attempt at rebutting these reports?

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

Why shouldn't it be a factor? A person who has a reputation for honesty, intelligence and cool-headedness SHOULD be given a great deal of credibility. If you have any proof these witnesses are in fact NOT credible, etc, please present it.

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?

Nope, just setting before you the same bar you wish to hang proponents from: prove your claim with specific credible evidence.

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.

Been there done that: Tracks with identifiable biometric traits mapping to a normal distribution curve, forensically typed hairs, good clear photos, etc.

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.

And credible until proven otherwise means exactly that. Like it or not, you have not demonstrated the unreliability of the eyewitness accounts, and no amount of speculating about hoaxes, hallucinations or the lack of intelligence of sincere eyewitnesses is going to change that.

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

And I note STILL no rebuttal of either gentleman's work. Are the Skeptics EVER going to pony up some REAL evidence for their dismissal of the findings of these reputable scientists?

[Guest RayG]

Well, I once awoke ~knowing~ I had an effing python on my chest. When I grabbed it and flung it off me, it struck right back. Turns out it was just my arm. It had fallen asleep.

I awoke one other time convinced that the middle of my forearm, about halfway between my elbow and wrist, had a bend in it, and my wrist and hand was pointing at a 90 degree angle away from my elbow. Again, it turned out not to be true, but I did some yelling about it.

So while I might accept one should I see it with my own eyes, I'd also leave open the possibility I may have been mistaken based on perceptual influences. I'd be satisfied with some fresh DNA though.

RayG

[Guest RayG]

You said that reports are dismissible because of 1 of 3 things: the witness didn't see anything, just THOUGHT they did (which would be hallucinating), saw something that is NOT a squatch but thought it was, or was not telling the truth (which would be a hoax)

Are you paraphrasing or quoting something I actually said? I presented my reasoned 'opinion' on some specific reports. I asked in turn, for you to do the same. How long should I hold my breath?

He made an estimate. So what? Would you be happier if he'd said "wide set" or "close together" about the eyes or "long", "meduim length" or "short" about the hair? Somehow I suspect not. You're looking for nits to pick.

So we both seem to agree that it would be reasonable to conclude that he was NOT able to determine the eye-width from a distance of 100 feet. That's not nit-picking, that's establishing facts.

You mean like virtually the entire Skeptical attempt at rebutting these reports?

One way to trump the skeptics would be to dish up a fresh plate of squatch. Hasn't happened in the 40 years I've been following the mystery. Should I hold my breath for that too?

Why shouldn't it be a factor? A person who has a reputation for honesty, intelligence and cool-headedness SHOULD be given a great deal of credibility. If you have any proof these witnesses are in fact NOT credible, etc, please present it.

Why should I take your word on someone's credibility? Why are you so willing to trust these strangers that you don't know? Would you consider someone who was a psychology major, honor student, and well-regarded by his professors, as credible? That's serial killer Ted Bundy. How about someone that's a husband, father, manager of three Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants, and served on the Board of Directors for the Waterloo Jaycees? Think he's honest, intelligent, and credible? That's serial killer John Wayne Gacy. So by what criteria to you judge whether someone is credible or not? You can't, which is exactly why I suspend any judgement on the credibility of a witnesses, and I'd like to see any reference to their credibility removed from the reports. It's using loaded words to try to influence the reader.

Nope, just setting before you the same bar you wish to hang proponents from: prove your claim with specific credible evidence.

We aren't making any claim, we're simply saying, "Prove it".

Been there done that: Tracks with identifiable biometric traits mapping to a normal distribution curve, forensically typed hairs, good clear photos, etc.

"Prove it".

And credible until proven otherwise means exactly that. Like it or not, you have not demonstrated the unreliability of the eyewitness accounts, and no amount of speculating about hoaxes, hallucinations or the lack of intelligence of sincere eyewitnesses is going to change that.

If you'd read some of the literature outside of bigfootery, you'd see that the unreliability of the eyewitness has been generally accepted far and wide as being true. Contrast that to the complete lack of any recent studies or literature showing it to be untrue.

See, that's how skepticism and science work, they continually move ahead, readjusting their worldviews when new evidence comes to light. You however, seem stuck in the dark ages, where eyewitness recollection is infallible, or that someone is credible because they tell us they are.

And I note STILL no rebuttal of either gentleman's work. Are the Skeptics EVER going to pony up some REAL evidence for their dismissal of the findings of these reputable scientists?

This isn't how science progresses. Findings/discoveries/pronouncements cannot be rebutted if they have not been submitted. To what scientific publications did these gentlemen submit their papers? Be specific.

RayG

Edited September 3, 2012 by RayG
Remove political reference, argue the argument

[Guest thermalman]

Hey fella's, this should make the doubter's mouths water............ rip it apart! All in jest of course.

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

Great for her! I hope she gets to name it, for the books. My nephew found some bones, in a creek, of a rare dinosaur a few years back. He turned them in to the local University, which recorded his name, location, etc. They're still examining the bones.

How do you think your daughter would have reacted if she was alone in the forest of, (lets say Oregon at night focused on finding a rare owl), and an 800 lb "unknown" jumped out near her or ran past her for 10 seconds, completely startling her? Do you think she would have been composed enough to capture a pic (assuming she had a night vision camera or sorts)? Or would the unusual sighting have made her lose her composure enough to get nothing in the end (shock and awe)?

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.

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

WHAT! No supporting DNA? And no, you haven't proven a thing yet. You forget to factor in the "SHOCK AND AWE" for those who happen across BF. It would be safe to say, your presentation had none. Calm, cool and collected is totally opposite of what a BF witness experiences.

Edited September 4, 2012 by thermalman

[Drew]

Once an animal is classified, it is not required to get more DNA everytime someone sees it. The body is used to establish a baseline for the species. Then if someone finds another one, and photographs it, and it looks different, then they go about collecting one of those to establish the new species. I think we will have to collect at least a half dozen different sasquatches. Based on the different foot morphology, different sizes, and the barriers preventing different populations from breeding, I have estimated six different sasquatches. Each will need a type specimen.

[Guest]

And no, you haven't proven a thing yet.

I provided the same information for the existence of my chair as I provided for the existence of the Himalayan goral. Do you doubt the existence of those things despite the evidence I provided? If so, and you think that's what skepticism is all about, then you're way off.

You forget to factor in the "SHOCK AND AWE" for those who happen across BF. It would be safe to say, your presentation had none. Calm, cool and collected is totally opposite of what a BF witness experiences.

I'm perfectly happy acknowledging the low probability that a bigfoot witness would be able to obtain a clear photograph of one. People report great shock at seeing bigfoots, they don't always have cameras at the ready, some do take photos but they're unclear, etc. I'll grant you all that. Still, I'd counter that people take split-second photos of rare and/or shocking events every day - the evening news and our friends at YouTube feature this stuff rather often. Birders often get photos of really rare or out of range species under conditions much more shocking and fleeting then the few moments I spent with my White-winged Dove. People report feelings of shock and awe when encountering grizzlies in the wild, and they obtain good, clear photos of those. I would expect that a real animal behind the thousands of bigfoot accounts would result in at least one good, clear photo, but I'm willing to take that expectation off the table for you.

That's why, in the case of the goral, I provided an image from a trail camera. No witness, no shock, no awe - and no bigfoots.

Roadkill - We now have confirmation of a fully adult human being killed while pretending to be a bigfoot on a roadway, but no confirmation of a bigfoot being so dispatched despite 100 years or so of motorized transportation and rather frequent reports of bigfoots near, on, and sometimes in roadways.

Fresh/recent carcass - tantalizing stories of people shooting bigfoots go back at least to Ape Canyon, but no one's ever been able to prove that. Bigfoots must also die of natural causes, yet no one's been able to prove that they (or their dog) ever happened upon a carcass . . .

'Cause bigfoots must bury their dead. Oh, okay. Well that's perfect then. A species with a many thousands of years history in North America that buries its dead is very convenient - that's one of the best ways to ensure that the bones will stick around for a long time, so surely we can look to the fossil and anthropological record of North America - and east Asia - to find evidence for bigfoot. What's that? Nothing? Oh man. . .

Remember, I can never prove to you that bigfoot doesn't exist, but you can prove to me in a heartbeat that it does.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Let's talk about taking pictures of BF for a moment. I know I've talked before about the "surprise" test: have a friend randomly tell you to get a video or picture of someone or something that will be out of sight within 10 seconds and see how fast you can deploy your cell phone camera or regular camera. Most BF sightings last a few seconds.

Let's say you do have an opportunity for a long duration sighting, as many hunters hiding in a tree blind have experienced. What is the average distance of a sighting? Let's say the average distance is 200 feet. Okay, then do the following test. Have a person walk perpendicular to your position at a distance of 200 feet and film them with your video camera, still camera, or cell phone camera. Go ahead and use the best zoom you got.

Now upload the video or image and let's see how crystal clear that image looks.

The truth of it is that at 200 feet the person (or BF) will be very small in the frame, so zooming in or cropping the image to see what you have will result in a blobman (or blobsquatch). Most people don't have a high quality optical zoom lens on their camera, let alone their cell phone camera. They have digital zoom, which means the "zoom" is simply cropping the image and increasing the size of the pixels.

[Guest]

That's fine. As I explained, I would expect a very low probability that a person who encounters a bigfoot would obtain a photo of one. (The example doesn't explain the researchers out there who should be fully prepared to photograph a bigfoot, but whatever.)

Note, however, that we birders regularly obtain diagnostic photos of animals a fraction the size of a bigfoot and often under similarly challenging conditions of lighting, distance, fleetness of encounter, etc. While some of us have awesome cameras with massive telephoto lenses, the great majority of us are using point-n-shoot digitals these days.

[Guest BFSleuth]

I think the 200 foot test is valid if for no other reason than to give us an idea if your particular camera in optimal conditions could differentiate a BF from a hoaxer in a suit. Could you really get details that would confirm that there is no zipper, for example? My guess is that most BF researchers would find that the camera they are carrying won't get that level of detail.

In the case of getting photos of birds, you aren't usually dealing with bird hoaxers that I know of other than those guys in New Zealand who were painting birds to create misidentifications. Can your point-n-shoot identify a bird hoax if you took a picture of it? Let's say someone really wanted to put a hoax out there and did some taxidermy and took a picture with a point-n-shoot of a "new species" of bird. Could you do any real analysis of the picture to confirm whether it was a hoax with that point-n-shoot? How great a distance are you when you get those photos of the birds with a point-n-shoot? 200 feet? Unlikely in my opinion. At 200 feet you would likely need a telephoto lens of 600 mm or better.

[Sunflower]

I hear all sorts of birds around my house and once in a while I actually get a picture of one. They don't normally sit and pose either but at least they make bird noises and that helps a little.

But one day I saw a red headed wood ****** on our redbud tree. I only had my cell phone camera so I started trying to get a pic. That little bugger was watching and every time I lifted my phone up he ducked behind the branch. After about five or six tries I finally decided that was one smart bird.....not one decent pic either.

OK my word is being censored and figured it out. It's a bird that pecks on wood......

Edited September 4, 2012 by Sunflower

[Guest MikeG]

Woodpecker, I presume........

Eliminate the gap and it works just fine.

[Guest]

I think the 200 foot test is valid . . .

Based on what? Even if you could demonstrate that something like 75% percent of the cameras in use today could not differentiate sufficient detail at 200', it would still mean that 25% of the cameras could. It also assumes an artificial detection distance based on your guess about what might be the "average" distance a bigfoot is from a witness. Some people report much closer observations than that.

In the case of getting photos of birds, you aren't usually dealing with bird hoaxers . . .

There are Ivorybill hoaxes and alleged Ivorybill hoaxes . . .

Can your point-n-shoot identify a bird hoax if you took a picture of it?

It depends. If I've got a photo of a Warbling Vireo in flight or hopping about in the trees then that's no hoax - we simply lack the technology to make something like that. (We're probably getting closer to being able to make convincing fakes of large soaring birds.) So a CGI-type hoax for birds is possible, but it'd be apparent with analysis of the original images.

You're putting a lot of pressure on a potential bigfoot photo. Remember, that photo can't prove the existence of the species - especially considering the likelihood of hoaxing which would be comparatively nil for most other species. What that hypothetically great bigfoot photo could do is get someone like me pretty well convinced that there are real bigfoots out there, which I assume most proponents would view as a huge leap in the right direction.

[Guest thermalman]

Note, however, that we birders regularly obtain diagnostic photos of animals a fraction the size of a bigfoot and often under similarly challenging conditions of lighting, distance, fleetness of encounter, etc.

I highly doubt your reasoning. There is absolutely "NO WAY" you can compare bird watching with BF searching. That's apples and oranges my friend.

[Guest RayG]

No, because birds are these little itty-bitty things, while squatches are gigantous 8' half-ton critters that hurl boulders and carry pigs.

RayG

[Guest thermalman]

Sas said, " People report great shock at seeing bigfoots, they don't always have cameras at the ready, some do take photos but they're unclear, etc. I'll grant you all that. Still, I'd counter that people take split-second photos of rare and/or shocking events every day - the evening news and our friends at YouTube feature this stuff rather often. People report feelings of shock and awe when encountering grizzlies in the wild, and they obtain good, clear photos of those. People report feelings of shock and awe when encountering grizzlies in the wild, and they obtain good, clear photos of those."

Shocking news events are evident because of the large numbers of people around at the time. People can also relate to what's happening around them because of past media exposure of similar events or circumstances. We can take safety courses on avoiding bears and how to prepare mentally, but not BF.

Now compare two or three in the bush with no expectations, and the instantaneous suddeness of an "unknown" creature startling them. Apples and oranges in my opinion when comparing known species and unknown encounters.

No, because birds are these little itty-bitty things, while squatches are gigantous 8' half-ton critters that hurl boulders and carry pigs.

RayG

Which would you rather see Ray? Is that a claim you're admitting to?

Edited September 4, 2012 by thermalman