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

[southernyahoo]

1) I've ALWAYS said that it will take a physical specimen to convince me that there's a real bigfoot, as it would to convince me of the reality of any species.

2) I see nothing demeaning in stating that an anecdotal account cannot be reliably evaluated. That's also been my position since my very first post on the BFF 1.0.

3) If I'm no longer welcome here at the BFF because of these opinions then that's your prerogative to decree so.

Why don't you just say that you think hairs can prove bigfoot exists, and that you don't know that all witnesses are mistaken, or dishonest? Would'nt that sum it up as well?

Edited September 7, 2012 by southernyahoo

[Guest]

Why don't you just say that you think hairs can prove bigfoot exists,

I have said that. A specimen need not be a whole body. It just needs to be a big enough piece to demonstrate that it is something unique.

and that you don't know that all witnesses are mistaken, or dishonest? Would'nt that sum it up as well?

I have said that, too.

Sas, I remember you including quality video recently, no?

Yeah, but it's kind of a Pandora's box. I could potentially be fully convinced by photos and/or video, but the circumstances of what type of images might do that are hard to pin down, e.g., "I know pornography when I see it." So unless I'm crystal clear on what it would take to convince me, it just opens the door for "anti-skeptics" to come at me with insinuations that I'm just playing some kind of rhetorical game and that no photography would ever satisfy me 'cause I'm not actually a skeptic, or some such nonsense. What I can say for certain is that some good, clear still or video images could definitely get my attention in a way that no previous images (e.g., PGF, blobsquatches) ever have.

The quality needn't be something unattainable. Imagine if the Jacobs photos, instead of a bear (or at least something morphologically indistinguishable from a bear), clearly depicted an 8' tall ape-man. That might not prove to me that there's a bigfoot, but it might get me most of the way there.

Where in the world would you get the notion that you may no longer be welcome here on The BFF Saskeptic?

Sorry if I overreacted or read your post the wrong way. It was addressed to me, and I saw it as a shot over the bow expressing polar opposite views to the kinds of things I post all the time. For example, I haven't counted, but I think at least FOUR times in this thread I've expressed my opinion that eyewitness accounts cannot be proven wrong. The problem is that they are anecdotal and cannot be reliably evaluated. If the simple illustration that the truth of anecdotal accounts is by their nature unknowable is seen as insulting or demeaning, then there isn't much room at all for healthy discussion.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I think some eyewitness accounts can be proven wrong and some of them already have...

Edited September 7, 2012 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest]

Going by reports it seems bigfoots have a massive range, they live in every state and in most of Canada. You would think that if that was true then there would be some great evidence by now, or at least some more PGF quality footage.

[Guest Darrell]

^ there are even some from large US cities. So bigfoot is everywhere, and nowhere at the same time.

[Guest]

Geez Darrell, someone should coin that one? Or have they already?

Bigfoot has turned viral to be sure. So if you believe that 100% sightings are bogus for some reason or another, then why is it a stretch to think that 99.9% of sightings are fake? If BF does exist, then surely it has got lost in a sea of BF hysteria. The question is, what is the lowest possible sustainable population of BF that can exist to keep the species going? And if the numbers are small enough, then that explains no pics, video, fossils, etc. They are the proverbial needle in a haystack. IMO, that's the ONLY way they could exist. I think we have to forget about the dumpster diving BF. They have not been classified for a reason. They must be rarer than any other species in NA as well as the stealthiest of animals to have avoided detection.

Game cams don't have a chance of capturing them if their numbers are really low. Game cams cover such a small total area that it's a joke. Any survey of the land whether RADAR or FLIR or aerial/satellite photos is only a snapshot of the land at that millisecond in time. How is that anywhere near comprehensive?

Most skeptics don't have an appreciation of the total land mass that could represent a BF's habitat. I turn aerial photos into maps and each project usually deals with less than 150 sq kilometers. Do you realize how small an area that is relative to the millions of sq kms that cover the land mass over NA? Many people have the same problem grasping the magnitude of space. The distances involved are unfathomable. This is a big planet and if an intelligent animal with an extremely low population relied on not being found, then it's a safe bet they wouldn't be. And what's a 100 years in the history of the Earth? Peanuts!

[Guest thermalman]

Point I was attempting to make was that you can't blame the lack of BF photos on the fact that it's difficult to operate a camera while operating a motor vehicle. The sheer majority of alleged reports are from people on foot. Which brings us to the next excuse proponents use to explain the absense of BF photos. People are in shock when they claim to see a bigfoot and for one reason or another, it takes them forever to prepare their camera for a shot. And like always, BF has made his exit into the bushes.

Agreed. That's the point I had been trying to get across to some of the others. But, unfortunately some of those had boxed-in mindsets with attitudes of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions. A total disrespect of the credibility and honesty of witnesses who were there.

Edited September 8, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest RayG]

And if the numbers are small enough, then that explains no pics, video, fossils, etc. They are the proverbial needle in a haystack.

If this animal is so rare that we don't have pics, videos, fossils, specimens, etc., then how is it they are plentiful enough that thousands of reports fill the database?

They have not been classified for a reason. They must be rarer than any other species in NA as well as the stealthiest of animals to have avoided detection.

So is it possible the vast majority of the database submissions are simply incorrect for one reason or another?

Game cams don't have a chance of capturing them if their numbers are really low. Game cams cover such a small total area that it's a joke.

Here's the punchline: An animal so incredibly rare that only ONE is estimated to exist in all of California, was caught in just such a manner, and later confirmed by a photo taken by a hiker. This animal is no hulking giant, and is so shy and elusive that in the past few years there have only been THREE instances of it being captured on game-cam. No hundreds of reported sightings by people in cars, loggers, hunters, hikers, wildlife biologists, surveyors, or park employees. ONE hiker spots one and promptly captures an image of one on his cell phone camera. Watch the video. He even mentions bigfoot.

Any survey of the land whether RADAR or FLIR or aerial/satellite photos is only a snapshot of the land at that millisecond in time. How is that anywhere near comprehensive?

It isn't, but surely if bigfoot exists in areas like Pennsylvania, Eastern Kentucky, or the southwestern United States, these night-time fly-overs should increase the possibility of nabbing an unsuspecting bigfoot, not decrease it.

Most skeptics don't have an appreciation of the total land mass that could represent a BF's habitat.

You mean like the area that represents white-tailed deer, black bear, or moose?

And what's a 100 years in the history of the Earth? Peanuts!

One-hundred years? Whaaaa? You're not going to include the exploration by the English, French, Spanish, and Russians over the past four centuries? Where are the sasquatch pelts, teeth, skulls, and other accoutrements these intrepid explorers should have been dangling in front of their fellow explorers to demonstrate their badassery? Where are the written accounts of these explorers encountering and driving off rock-hurling monster beasts of the forest?

Like it or not, until the day someone drags in a dead squatch (or part of one), all we have is an ever growing list of excuses for why we can't produce that body.

RayG

[Guest Darrell]

Geez Darrell, someone should coin that one? Or have they already?

Most skeptics don't have an appreciation of the total land mass that could represent a BF's habitat. I turn aerial photos into maps and each project usually deals with less than 150 sq kilometers. Do you realize how small an area that is relative to the millions of sq kms that cover the land mass over NA? Many people have the same problem grasping the magnitude of space. The distances involved are unfathomable. This is a big planet and if an intelligent animal with an extremely low population relied on not being found, then it's a safe bet they wouldn't be. And what's a 100 years in the history of the Earth? Peanuts!

And yet when operating in Iraq, in a huge area, using witness accounts and fly overs, verifying with thermal and NV, we were still able to find and hit insurgent strongholds. Funny how that works out. But then we were hunting real living things and not a legend. oh wait, wasnt that Osama Bin Laden? thats right we did find and wack him, even if it took 11 years.

[Guest]

Agreed. That's the point I had been trying to get across to some of the others. But, unfortunately some of those had boxed-in mindsets with attitudes of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions. A total disrespect of the credibility and honesty of witnesses who were there.

I think you misunderstood my statement, I was actually questioning why every BF eyewitness equipped with a camera has always failed to obtain an image.Persistently using excuses such as shock , excitement or a number of other reasons for not getting a photo is just becoming stale. The next problem I see are automated recording devices do not succumb to these emotions and yet they too have failed in this endeavor.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Marlboro

[Guest]

If this animal is so rare that we don't have pics, videos, fossils, specimens, etc., then how is it they are plentiful enough that thousands of reports fill the database?

The same way thousands of people have won the lottery.

[Guest RayG]

Curious they don't seem to win that lottery when it comes to the wolverine either, yet they managed to get game-gam pics of the only one that lives in California.

You mean like the area that represents white-tailed deer, black bear, or moose?

Silly me, how could I neglect the total land mass that represents the habitat of the rare and elusive wolverine?

RayG

Edited September 8, 2012 by RayG

[Guest toejam]

This species from personal experience has a healthy population.

There must be people in multiple locations at just the right time when I visit, waiting to answer my wood knocks.

I guess it must have been a hunter that pushed the tree over, visited camp twice last year breaking tree limbs and banging on the vehicle.

This year it must have been maybe the same hunter who approached our remote camp spot (no other camp spots in the area) banging on a tree interacting with us.

You'd think he'd want to keep a low profile. Guess he must have been bored.

It must have been a giant human who changed my life after giving me 3 whoops at close range. As human as it sounded, it was all animal. It couldn't have been though.

I don't know why it's mate would be approaching us from the other side thumping its chest and breaking a tree limb, again at close range. Two of them? Really? Don't they have better things to do?

Funny that it happened again with the chest thumper a week later. Why the hell would s human would be hiding in amongst the foliage close by thumping its chest seems rather odd.

Can't understand why I got a signature wood knock after exiting my car one day, the same one I always give to let those people know I'm visiting them.

Don't those people have better things to do than sit in a forest all day waiting to answer or acknowledge me? They must be bored.

The timing on that massive return wood knock in Ohio must have been another giant person just waiting to answer me. Can't understand why these people sit in the forests in multiple locations I visit, waiting so they can answer my wood knocks. That one in Ohio made my wood knock sound like child's play. Guess he must be swinging a much bigger stick.

Later that night they were really messing with us giving me wood knocks from multiple locations. Don't they have better things to do with their time, like kick back and have a pint or two instead of sitting in a forest banging on trees?

I've heard a piercing whistle immediately after a wood knock earlier this year near the end of winter. Stupid human sitting in a cold damp forest.

I've heard wood knocks from multiple sources when I enter an area. Seems like they're warning each other that I'm in the area but I can't understand why if they seem to be so apt to letting me know they're there. Stupid humans.

It must be 4 years of delusional incidents that just won't stop. Maybe I should see someone about these things I'm hearing and experiencing. I'll tell the other guy he should get himself checked out as well.

I'm concerned that we're both experiencing the same symptoms. He's had it for 45 years and now I have it. Must be contagious.

[Guest RayG]

Must be awesome to know they're so afraid of you. Gorillas, the little brother of sasquatch if you will, beat their chest, whoop, bare their teeth, and will actually make bluff charges. Sasquatch, on the other hand, seems content to beat his chest and hide in the bushes. (afraid of cameras you know). Knock wood.

Do you get a different reaction if you chamber a round?

RayG

Edited September 8, 2012 by RayG

[Guest toejam]

I guess being an expert on what their reactions mean tells me you're holding back pertinent info and just playing with us.

I respect them. I'm not out to kill them.

Maybe if you quit arguing about it and went and found out for yourself, you might be surprised. They're not that rare.

Edited September 8, 2012 by toejam