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

[Guest RayG]

Do the witnesses sound "credible" because obviously, if they do, everyone on the internet should believe them without hesitation right?

Yes, because you can't put anything on the internet that isn't true.

RayG

[Guest thermalman]

The squatchers are constantly trying to shift the burden of proof, or to be more accurate, the burden of "dis-prove" to the skeptics and the scientific community. We demand that you prove all the BF tracks are hoaxes, we insist that you demonstrate to us that wood knocks are not produced by Sasquatches or confirm for us that all the unidentified hairs did not come from BF. Like it or not, scientific discovery does not function in this manner and skeptics have no obligation to help in this quest. The responsibility falls on those who believe, and unfortunately, this includes all the financial burden as well.

As for much of the evidence that's constantly being regurgitated here, you can't call it evidence when no one else is given access except the most animate of BF proponents. Scientific discovery does not operate in this manner either.

The only ones regurgitating the evidence are the skeptics who are demanding answers and proof. My mother would liken it to a broken record. Others on this forum have directed you in ways to do a little digging of your own, eg: ask Meldrum or Bindernagel directly; go out and experiment on you own with a track maker; find and present the proven costume Patty wore; go on your hikes in BF country with a camera or thermal camera; etc. But, instead, all the skeptics sit around and call out "prove it", "I demand", "show me", etc., for reasons unkown to me, because, there are some on here who have physically witnessed BF up close, so the opportunity is out there.

[Guest toejam]

I've been waiting to interview a family who are experiencing activity at their cottage in northern ontario.

I'm hoping sometime this week we finally get together for a discussion on the subject and what they've experienced.

They've been experiencing strange activity for years but didn't know what was going on until the father had a sighting in the winter months.

From what I was told, it stood roughly 10ft tall. They've found prints, what looks to be a bedding area, a strange smell, odd vocalizations, rocks on their roof, etc.

I was told the father is a very credible witness. I'm looking forward to hearing their story as well as hopefully gaining access to their property in the very near future and looking for evidence.

Who knows, maybe we'll experience some activity as well. If it's been there for years, chance is it's still there.

[Guest RayG]

The only ones regurgitating the evidence are the skeptics who are demanding answers and proof. My mother would liken it to a broken record. Others on this forum have directed you in ways to do a little digging of your own, eg: ask Meldrum or Bindernagel directly; go out and experiment on you own with a track maker; find and present the proven costume Patty wore; go on your hikes in BF country with a camera or thermal camera; etc. But, instead, all the skeptics sit around and call out "prove it", "I demand", "show me", etc., for reasons unkown to me, because, there are some on here who have physically witnessed BF up close, so the opportunity is out there.

I can only speak for myself, but for at least the first quarter-of-a-century that I followed this mystery, I did so as an avid believer. The last 15 years, not so much.

The breaking news that isn't, evidence that never leads to bigfoot, and claims that remain unsupported, have all pushed me down the skeptical path.

At this point when I hear yet another claim regarding bigfoot, I think it's reasonable for me to just stand back and say 'prove it'. Never mind talking about it, prove it.

Not sure why that's so hard for some folks to figure out.

Following bigfoot is like sitting on a roller coaster. There's a slow build up, followed by an exhilarating thrill, but you eventually end up back at the beginning, at a dead stop.

Part of me would like to just bow out and let everyone continue on their way, pursuing bigfoot, but never finding him. Finding him, but never really finding him. Part of me still holds out hope that one day, maybe one day, someone will be able to back up their claim by producing an actual bigfoot. I somehow doubt that, but I can always hope.

RayG

[Guest thermalman]

I've been waiting to interview a family who are experiencing activity at their cottage in northern ontario.

I'm hoping sometime this week we finally get together for a discussion on the subject and what they've experienced.

They've been experiencing strange activity for years but didn't know what was going on until the father had a sighting in the winter months.

From what I was told, it stood roughly 10ft tall. They've found prints, what looks to be a bedding area, a strange smell, odd vocalizations, rocks on their roof, etc.

I was told the father is a very credible witness. I'm looking forward to hearing their story as well as hopefully gaining access to their property in the very near future and looking for evidence.

Who knows, maybe we'll experience some activity as well. If it's been there for years, chance is it's still there.

Would love to be there. Cameras and all.

[Guest]

The squatchers are constantly trying to shift the burden of proof, or to be more accurate, the burden of "dis-prove" to the skeptics and the scientific community. We demand that you prove all the BF tracks are hoaxes, we insist that you demonstrate to us that wood knocks are not produced by Sasquatches or confirm for us that all the unidentified hairs did not come from BF. Like it or not, scientific discovery does not function in this manner and skeptics have no obligation to help in this quest. The responsibility falls on those who believe, and unfortunately, this includes all the financial burden as well.

As for much of the evidence that's constantly being regurgitated here, you can't call it evidence when no one else is given access except the most animate of BF proponents. Scientific discovery does not operate in this manner either.

Dunno, but this seems to be a tad bit of convoluted logic considering the forum it is posted on.

This is The Bigfoot Forum's. It is not the anti-Bigfoot Forums.

So, as such the burden of proof sort of shifts doesn't it?

We're trying to amass BF sightings and content and you skeptics sit back and shoot it down.

I dunno, were I posting in the affirmative on the JREF I might agree with you.

I'm not.

While certainly welcome here, I really struggle with reasoning why some of the skeptics are here if their mind is closed.

It defies both logic and our rules.

To poke fun and deny legitimate sightings by credible witnesses?

Save that crap for the JREF.

If one of us ventures there then you can apply your standards.

But here we will apply ours.

Really growing tired of seeing folks with closed minds poo-poo accounts of others. Doing so only discourages witnesses from coming forth.

Most of them do not ask for or seek their encounter, and are just innocent victims of an experience they can't explain or understand.

They come here to talk with folks that may have enjoyed a similar experience in an effort to understand their encounter.

There is simply too much there for there not to be something there. Both in historical accounts and current ones.

The witnesses, for the most part, are credible people.

Plenty of evidence for BF IMHO. No *proof* as yet but it is coming and we are closer now than we have ever been to proving the existence of BF.

The mystery is solved for me as it is those who have witnessed them themselves.

And, I was a tough nut to crack on the issue.

I'd like for it to be proven to *science* in an effort to document the species and force the provision of supportive protective measures and habitat to insure their future existence.

Outside of that, I couldn't give two hoots in hades what *science* or *skeptics* think.

I'll cast my *personal* lot with those credible folks who have experienced them.

[roguefooter]

At this point when I hear yet another claim regarding bigfoot, I think it's reasonable for me to just stand back and say 'prove it'. Never mind talking about it, prove it.

Some people are just here to discuss things. If there was "proof" then it probably wouldn't still be labeled a mystery.

If you can't tolerate the discussion and just want the proof, then I think it's reasonable to take a break and we'll let you know when that proof gets here.

[Guest]

We're trying to amass BF sightings and content and you skeptics sit back and shoot it down.

But sightings don't get us any further along. Do you understand why something can't be proven from an anecdote?

There is simply too much there for there not to be something there. Both in historical accounts and current ones.

Sure, but that something could be us.

The witnesses, for the most part, are credible people.

Just because I'm skeptical of the veracity of a person's claim does not mean that I have a problem with the character, demeanor, health, or intelligence of the person making the claim. By all accounts I am an extremely credible witness, yet you think I am dead wrong about bigfoot. See how that works? In your eyes, I'm an intelligent, rational, honest human being who just happens to be completely wrong about something.

Plenty of evidence for BF IMHO. No *proof* as yet but it is coming and we are closer now than we have ever been to proving the existence of BF.

How are we getting "closer"? If we are getting closer, it wouldn't be because more people report seeing bigfoots, it would be because we have some physical evidence that can be tied to bigfoot, which is all Ray has been asking.

[Guest]

Well, there has been physical evidence submitted and I've seen some of the preliminary results of it.

It hasn't been released yet but it is coming.

It's being kept pretty quiet but there is much more than the Ketchum Report in the works. And no, I can't speak any more of it. But it is there and VERY real.

Where's the *us* factor of sightings? You skeptics just poo-poo them and shoot them down. Claim paredoila, drugs, hoaxes and other excuses to support your stance that the witness did not see what they claim to have seen.

I *get* the *scientific* mindset. But I don't really care about it that much. It plays no factor in my personal belief or disbelief.

At some point, the cumulative evidence tips the scales for most who enter with open minds.

The problem is that we are apparently dealing with a lot of closed minds that give 0 credence to eyewitness reports or other evidence.

I understand your perspective as a scientist and what it will take to prove it to you.

Now, you've got to understand that for myself and others the standards for belief are different.

Most of us could care less what most scientists think.

I know a lot of folks who have witnessed BF personally and they are not of the character to make it up.

As such, I'll cast my lot with them.

[ohiobill]

There is plenty of historical evidence of dinosaurs, wooly mammoths, tigers and the like in NA. If I state that my tarp moved last night is that evidence that a T. Rex visited my camp? If I can't explain a bump in the night is it necessarily an unknown cryptid? Belief in something should not mean that all noises are "evidence" which proves what I believe in...but that is what we are being asked to do.

What evidence are we shooting down? Tarp movement? Wood knocking? Psychic time travel? Just because someone doesn't agree to believe in an undocumented animal because someone else claims to be interacting daily w/a group of bigfoot that can sense cameras but are apparently easily approachable otherwise doesn't make us intractable in our beliefs. It means we are waiting for actual evidence which you apparently have access to but can't share.

Blind acceptence for every story told will include Enoch, Mary Green, GA Bigfoot hoaxers and the like... Where should we draw the line? Where do you draw the line?

[Guest]

Well, you (collective term and non-specific) seem to take delight in coming on to a BF Forum and shooting down any and all evidence.

You guys place no credence in eyewitness reports or other evidence.

Do you really think all of those who have witnessed BF are suffering from paredoila, on drugs, have psychological problems or are hoaxing?

Seems fairly incredulous to me if you are as the witnesses come from all walks of life, the majority are clearly credible, and most were not looking to see a BF.

Have you read my posts here?

I do not buy into any paranormal or extraordinary attributes to BF.

A lot of people do though.

For me, based on what I've reviewed from private member submissions and what I read here, it is just an undocumented/flesh and blood animal. Rare, but VERY real.

You really think *all* of those who have witnessed them are lying?

Granted, I find some of what I see incredulous and don't believe it.

It's really up to the individual to decide for themselves what they will believe isn't it?

Blind acceptance is a really troubled road as implementing such will surely get you hoaxed.

Blind denial is also a troubled road as well.

Personally I draw the line with the paranormal claims. I just can't bring myself to believe them.

And I think the majority of other claims are mis-Id's.

But there is no way all of them are.

[Guest]

Could you explain to me why these people who have evidence aren't running to the nearest University to show it to the anthropology department? It is what I would do if I had evidence.

[ohiobill]

HRPuffnStuff - It sounds like we agree more than we disagree. Like you, I believe most sightings are misidentifications. I also don't believe bigfoot is paranormal. I know there have been hoaxes and dishonest "witnesses". I don't put much stock in the "I didn't see anything but there was a noise at night which had to be bigfoot" stories. Obviously I don't have access to the private info you do so what am I to base my belief on? Eyewitness accounts? I have read many of your posts and understand that you feel that not all of the eyewitness accounts are true. What percentage of the reports do you consider to be true and reliable? What do you think of the sighting I covered in post #486? Thermalman finds it to be proof positive but I find it to be inconsistent, unreliable, and poorly investigated. I don't question the reporter's sincerity but I do question the veracity.

I am unsure how to take PGF - it looks natural to me, it's been examined by experts w/differing conclusions, and there are credible claims of hoaxing...so inconclusive at best. Most everything else I've seen is too blurry or too obvious a hoax to consider. Dermal ridges on footprints sounded promising but the drying plaster experiments have made them inadmissable as evidence in my eyes. Dr. Meldrum's analysis seems compelling but his basic premise (that the midtarsal break would be necessary to support the heavier weight) hasn't been proven and I've seen 400+ lb humans on "The Biggest Loser" run and jog without their feet breaking.

Looking at it from my perspective, what do you find to be the most compelling evidence of bigfoot available to me at this time? I will join the PMP when my post count gets there but until then where should I look? I am asking in all sincerity and with an open mind.

Edited September 10, 2012 by ohiobill

[Guest]

You guys place no credence in eyewitness reports or other evidence.

No. No. No.

When considering anecdotal evidence, the problem is not that it lacks credibility, but that its credibility cannot be properly evaluated.

"Real, live bigfoot" remains one of several competing probabilities to explain a witness encounter. Please understand this. Just because I might indicate that I cannot be convinced that bigfoot exists based on someone's claim of having seen one does NOT mean that the person did not see one.

Again (and again and again), a person's apparent "credibility" does not directly correlate to something they claim to have witnessed. Why? Because some people who appear credible are not and because some people who are credible are mistaken. "Mistaken" does not mean foolish, druggie, mentally ill, etc. (although I'm often surprised how the millions of people who are foolish, mentally ill, or impaired by drugs or alcohol are never acknowledged by bigfoot proponents), it just means mistaken.

[indiefoot]

I'm here to discuss BF, not to prove that they exist. Do the skeptics insist that proof comes before discussion?