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

[Guest]

The ones that haven't been captured yet. You are in the precarious position of proving a negative.

[Guest]

Bigfoot has been captured on camera, you just haven't been able to see it. Or do you not believe the Chief Administrator of this forum?

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Ray, I don't buy many of the excuses either, but I don't let weak excuses detract from other possibilities. I don't know definitively either way.

My gut says it's smarter than a Sumatran rhino. Compared to the wolverine, It's larger brain allows for it to overcome intense curiosity and extreme boldness which are used against it, in order to trap.

As far as avoidance of humans, it may of had tens of thousands of years of a head start compared to these other animals. A near wipe out of a species through hunting could leave survivors that are strong at avoidance of the thing that was trying to kill it, available to reproduce. Evolution suggests an animal with this much experience under it's belt, would be quite good at such things. By the time we hear of it, it is well schooled and way ahead of us. In it's back pocket is the fact that not many look for it because they don't believe it's real.

Bottom line, evolution of avoidance, coupled with a larger brain, tells me there is no other animal to compare it with in your example. None that are even close. Not even other humans.

So what are the answers to your questions? I have no clue.

Can you rule out coincidence? I don't think that can be done until someone has a formula for random happenstance.

[Crittergetter]

No, given the tremendous advances in technology, I'm asking why, if other rare and elusive animals have been captured on game-cams or cameras, hasn't bf been captured on a game cam by now?

That is a good question. The answer is, I don't know. Whenever the question is posed, we always come up with an escape clause because thats what we do. We're busy trying to figure out how its possible, not how it isn't. A few of us are operating from the position of knowing that Bigfoot exists, and are merely offering up their best guesses. Most of us are operating from the assumption that Bigfoot exists and are just doing our best to explain it.

However, I've always found that particular question rather unscientific and a bit arrogant. We can travel at hypersonic speeds, we can split an atom, heck we can even put a man on the moon. If our technology is that great, then surely we would have been able to use it to catalogue most, if not all creatures that exist on this Earth. If there are any left, they are either exceptionally small or exceptionally remote. There is no way there could be ever be an 8-foot tall, 800 pound species of ape living in one of the richest and technologically friendly nations in the world! That is just preposterous!!

To clarify my point, the question is unscientific because it is based on an assumption, and that assumption is arrogant because it is based in the egotistical idea that we will soon know all there is to know about the planet on which we live.

Scientifically speaking, we can only state two things.

1.) That the existence of an 8-foot tall and 800 pound species of ape living in North America is currently unconfirmed.

2.) We have been unable to obtain clear and unquestionable video or photographic evidence with this creature as an subject.

Any assumptions as to why, whether they be in the positive(for the creature's existence) or in the negative(against the creature's existence) is merely speculation and is not permissible in a scientific debate because they can neither be confirmed nor denied.

I'm not trying to say that we should put a stop to speculation on the Bigfoot Forums. If we did that, there wouldn't be hardly anything left to talk about. However, let us not make the mistake of thinking that our speculation is an indication of the existence or non-existence of Bigfoot as a whole.

[Guest]

That's a plus 1 from me, Crittergetter.

Q: Why are there no good photos of bigfoot?

A: Bigfoots are rare and elusive.

Q: Other rare and elusive animals have been photographed, why not bigfoot?

A: Bigfoots are rarer and elusiver.

Q: Are these the same bigfoots that wood-knock, make really loud noises, throw rocks and pine cones at people, approach houses and campsites, cross roads in sight of oncoming traffic, and have a distribution in North America ranging from Florida to Alaska?

A: Yes, those bigfoots. They know when you have a camera because they're smart, mmkay?

Q: Why are there no good photos of bigfoot?

A: Bigfoots have been photographed, but you skeptics deny that.

Q: The photographs I've seen are laughable or inconclusive. How long do you expect me to wait for a good photograph when other species at least as rare as bigfoot have been clearly photographed?

A: You Skeptics will never accept any photo, no matter how clear!!!

Q: Why are there no good photos of bigfoot?

A: I don't know. Given their range, habitat, behavior, I really can't explain why we don't have good photographic evidence.

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

[Guest]

All the photos are good they just haven't been proven ; *

[Guest]

Kerry, I agree, there a lot of good photo's, its a matter of perspective on what you consider a good photo. Science may need more than a good photo to solidly confirm a species, but that is a guideline that does not mean there is no good photo's, or that something does not exist. The better the photo, the quicker its labeled as a hoax.

Its always important to remember, the voice of the scientific community is not well represented on internet forums. This is why we see people like Dr. Bindernagel, Dr. Meldrum, Dr. Ketchum, Sykes, and so on, not posting on such sites. They do not answer to, or see any recognizable authority to answer to, on such sites.

Even if the day comes there is unquestionable proof, you are still not going to see any of these people on here, saying, I told you so.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Even with crystal clear photos of Bigfoot, hardcore skeptics will probably claim it could be a suit.

Edited September 9, 2012 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest]

Its always important to remember, the voice of the scientific community is not well represented on internet forums.

So I should recruit more of my colleagues to come share their views here? I don't think many folks here would enjoy that.

Even with crystal clear photos of Bigfoot, hardcore skeptics will probably claim it could be a suit.

So you're doubling down on the second example of excuses I illustrated?

[Guest thermalman]

Even with crystal clear photos of Bigfoot, hardcore skeptics will probably claim it could be a suit.

+1 OS. exactly right. Yet, most wouldn't budge an inch off their own chairs into the woods, to prove their comments.

That is a good question. The answer is, I don't know. Whenever the question is posed, we always come up with an escape clause because thats what we do. We're busy trying to figure out how its possible, not how it isn't. A few of us are operating from the position of knowing that Bigfoot exists, and are merely offering up their best guesses. Most of us are operating from the assumption that Bigfoot exists and are just doing our best to explain it.

However, I've always found that particular question rather unscientific and a bit arrogant. We can travel at hypersonic speeds, we can split an atom, heck we can even put a man on the moon. If our technology is that great, then surely we would have been able to use it to catalogue most, if not all creatures that exist on this Earth. If there are any left, they are either exceptionally small or exceptionally remote. There is no way there could be ever be an 8-foot tall, 800 pound species of ape living in one of the richest and technologically friendly nations in the world! That is just preposterous!!

To clarify my point, the question is unscientific because it is based on an assumption, and that assumption is arrogant because it is based in the egotistical idea that we will soon know all there is to know about the planet on which we live.

Scientifically speaking, we can only state two things.

1.) That the existence of an 8-foot tall and 800 pound species of ape living in North America is currently unconfirmed.

2.) We have been unable to obtain clear and unquestionable video or photographic evidence with this creature as an subject.

Any assumptions as to why, whether they be in the positive(for the creature's existence) or in the negative(against the creature's existence) is merely speculation and is not permissible in a scientific debate because they can neither be confirmed nor denied.

I'm not trying to say that we should put a stop to speculation on the Bigfoot Forums. If we did that, there wouldn't be hardly anything left to talk about. However, let us not make the mistake of thinking that our speculation is an indication of the existence or non-existence of Bigfoot as a whole.

Have you spoken with anyone you know who has had a sighting they can relate to you? What about footprint casts? If some print evidence is scientifically good enough to convict a person in court, why are BF prints not good enough proof for the scientific community?

Edited September 9, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

Yes Saskeptic, do that, recruit your colleges, but accredited, real colleges, not pseudo colleges from other internet forums. I have some colleges of my own, and although many are not "believers", they certainly don't have the contempt or disdain for people like Dr Meldrum,etc, that I have seen here, as a matter of fact I cannot recall even one of them ever referring to him as incompetent, or Dr. Meldum.

I think anyone with any real education at all, would have to concede there is a genuine mystery here, thousands of witness's, many of them credible, foot prints, audio,etc, and etc. I would hope your colleges take the time to review it all properly, and investigate some of it first hand of course, before they jump in with an uneducated, unqualified opinion.

Science never makes that mistake, does it Saskeptic? I mean its not like science is an ever changing, learning, adapting, rewriting body of knowledge is it?

Oh wait.........

As a matter of fact, since we are using the word excuse, what is science's excuse for ignoring the eye witness's, foot prints, audio, etc? Its very easy to use the words like hoaxer, mental illness, drugs,etc, but really, are these not excuses for ignorance? Science has never made that mistake either,right?

Try not to misinterpret these statements as not being a fan of science, but more of a reflection of a more realistic view of the humanity of science, and arrogance. But spin it if you must, if it will make you feel better about your position.

Oh, and please, make sure their expertise is relative, at least related some how to the issues at hand.

Edited September 9, 2012 by JohnC

[Guest]

Good one JohnC, and it is funny how the better the photo the more it is considered a hoax. I believe the skeptical community gives more credit to blobsquatches.

[Guest]

Even with crystal clear photos of Bigfoot, hardcore skeptics will probably claim it could be a suit.

Only until a body is found.

[Guest thermalman]

Only until a body is found.

Edited September 9, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest Darrell]

+1 OS. exactly right. Yet, most wouldn't budge an inch off their own chairs into the woods, to prove their comments.

Maybe so. I spent a great Saturday afternoon on an almost 9 mile hike with a great lady. The view was great and we had a great time. We stopped at the halfway point and I took some pics with my old Sony Cybershot camera:

We found this small pile of stacked rocks where we stopped for a snack, is this bigfoot sign?

My hiking buddy did the whole 9 miles barefoot! She is 1/4 Native American and is a machine on the trail:

And here is one of me, not as good looking as either the surroundings or my lady:

So Im a skeptic and got at least and inch off my chair. Do I think everything strange I saw on the trail yesterday was bigfoot sign, nope.