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

[Guest RayG]

I was agreeing with your statement about not being able to compare bird watching to sas-squatching.

And no, I've never seen a squatch, but apparently thousands of credible people have.

RayG

[Guest thermalman]

Cool Ray

[Guest]

There is absolutely "NO WAY" you can compare bird watching with BF searching.

I do both, and I'm quite content in my assessment that there are significant similarities.

[Guest BFSleuth]

You've taken pictures of both?

Do share...

[Cotter]

And no, I've never seen a squatch, but apparently thousands of credible people have.

RayG

Absolutely they have Ray. I met another this last weekend that had a clear line of sight at 75 feet.

[Guest RayG]

You've taken pictures of both?

Do share...

How does searching for something equate to taking pictures of it?

Cotter, what evidence did they collect from their encounter? Any tracks? Was this a passing glimpse, or a prolonged observation? Was there a chance to pursue the beast, or were they satisfied with their at-a-distance encounter?

In other words, what will elevate their anecdote to a height above the other anecdotes?

RayG

[Cotter]

Absolutely nothing Ray. (Which is your point exactly).

However, he wasn't looking for one. It was a happenstance encounter where both he and the creature, once they realized they saw each other, turned and ran in opposite directions.

But, by definition, this person was credible and had a sighting. That was all that I was saying.

credible

 

cred·i·ble

   /ˈkrɛdəbəl/ [kred-uh-buhl] uh-buhl] Show IPA[/u]

adjective

1.

capable of being believed; believable: a credible statement.

2.

worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Cotter

[Guest]

And no, I've never seen a squatch, but apparently thousands of credible people have.

RayG

Well, you did make a pretty extraordinary claim on the *old* forum about something paralleling you and a female companion and hinted then it was a BF.

You aren't the crusty ol' dodger you now claim to be or others see you as.

Its part of the *old* files that are included in the Premium Membership Plan.

You once either believed in BF or were at least open to the idea.

I get that time and a lack of proof has changed your mind, but am surprised you find it so incredulous that others believe in BF based on their personal experiences when a few years ago you yourself were in their shoes.

[Guest BFSleuth]

How does searching for something equate to taking pictures of it?

They don't, this is an extension of the discussion of Saskeptic's post regarding how easy it is to get images of birds for the purpose of positive identification. Perhaps I should have used an emoticon with this statement...

To RayG:

Well, you did make a pretty extraordinary claim on the *old* forum about something paralleling you and a female companion and hinted then it was a BF.

I'll have to look up this old account. Ray, did you do a full follow up investigation at the time of this incident or otherwise attempt to confirm your observations?

[Guest thermalman]

I do both, and I'm quite content in my assessment that there are significant similarities.

Which doesn't surprise me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even though it might not be the correct one.

Edited September 5, 2012 by thermalman

[Cotter]

Are we to understand that a person, when not ready, will be able to draw a camera and get a clear focused picture of a flushing bird?

[Guest]

^Yes. We birders do things like that every day. I see no reason why bigfoot researchers couldn't do likewise if there are real bigfoots out there to photograph. It's so odd that so many bigfoot proponents put stock in the PGF but don't seem to make a good, clear bigfoot photo a priority of their field work.

[Guest RayG]

Well, you did make a pretty extraordinary claim on the *old* forum about something paralleling you and a female companion and hinted then it was a BF.

I recounted what I referred to as an "unusual experience", and though I did not see or smell anything, others have suggested/hinted it was indicative of bigfoot behavior. I summed up my feelings on it back in August 2003, by saying, -- Am I convinced it was bigfoot? No. I'm also not convinced it wasn't. --

This IS a bigfoot forum after all, but I had posted my 'unusual experience' as just that, not as some sort of confirmation for bigfoot.

Isn't that how skepticism works? You suspend any definitive conclusion when you don't know?

You aren't the crusty ol' dodger you now claim to be or others see you as.

Its part of the *old* files that are included in the Premium Membership Plan.

You once either believed in BF or were at least open to the idea.

I've made no secret of the fact that once upon a time I was an avid believer. I met with John Green, created a bigfoot website based on his book, and accepted pretty much everything anyone said about bigfoot. Still, that doesn't mean that my experience that night should be attributed to bigfoot. I'm no more convinced or unconvinced than I was back in 2003, when I wrote about it.

I get that time and a lack of proof has changed your mind, but am surprised you find it so incredulous that others believe in BF based on their personal experiences when a few years ago you yourself were in their shoes.

My belief in bigfoot was never based upon my 'personal experience', it was a belief molded by the writings of folks like Green, Dahinden, Krantz, and Byrne. Whatever they dished out, I lapped up. And yes, as the years have turned into decades, I've found myself much more skeptical.

I'll have to look up this old account. Ray, did you do a full follow up investigation at the time of this incident or otherwise attempt to confirm your observations?

To check out my 'encounter', just do a search for the keyword Masset and the username of RayG.

Did I go back looking for footprints, or other physical signs? No. Even though it happened near Masset BC, and I was already aware of the bigfoot mystery, I chalked it up to either bear or hippy cow. I didn't think bigfoot then, nor do I now. I did ask some of the locals what they thought it might be. None of them mentioned sasquatch, but they seemed to think it would be odd behavior for a bear.

RayG

[Guest thermalman]

Sas said, "Yes. We birders do things like that every day. I see no reason why bigfoot researchers couldn't do likewise if there are real bigfoots out there to photograph. It's so odd that so many bigfoot proponents put stock in the PGF but don't seem to make a good, clear bigfoot photo a priority of their field work."

Here's an idea Sas:

Next time you're driving down the road, with your camera beside you of course, and an unseen known animal charges out of the ditch in front of you, causing you to slam the brakes on; all the while cranking your steering wheel to avoid a collision with the animal and any oncoming traffic,.........still maintaining control of your vehicle to avoid a rollover or hitting either a tree or pole,..........pick up your camera off the vehicle floor, taking the lens cover off and snap us a clear picture of the animal just before your near miss, before he darts off into the distance. That my friend, is SHOCK AND AWE! But, just remember, there are many skeptics out there who will not buy your story with or without the picture and further proof.

Just a tiny bit different than capturing a picture of tweety singing in the tree...

Edited September 5, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

^Your ignorance of what real biologists do all the time does not help your case in the least.