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

[Guest thermalman]

I agree. I take those claims with a grain of salt, much the same as I do the skeptics, who have even less to provide.

[ohiobill]

I agree. I take those claims with a grain of salt, much the same as I do the skeptics, who have even less to provide.

Skeptics and the scientific method they followed provided everything you have in life from the food you eat, the clothes you wear, the vehicle you drive to the house where you live. The technology you're using to play on this forum was produced through the scientific method not in spite of it, and it was made by people who were asked to prove it, THEN DID.

[Guest]

What students? What evidence? I've asked repeatedly for examples of the best evidence in the past few pages of this thread alone. The only one to answer me was Thermalman back around post #460 and I gave detailed responses. Just because I don't agree with everything I'm told is true doesn't make me evil and it doesn't prove either side is right. I believe that the skeptics here are the students - we are following the scientific method and searching for answers. The believers are blindly accepting what they are told or what they feel w/no room for questions or dissension.

Apparently you don't understand what arizona said. You can't just demand evidence like that on an open forum and expect it, given the history of the subject. Look at the way EVERYone who has come forward has been treated by the Skeptical community. They're branded either delusional, stupid or untruthful. Every piece of evidence they proffer is summarily dismissed. Why SHOULD they just let you see what they have, given how those who came before have been treated?

And there is plenty of room for questions and dissension, provided it is respectful of the person, and based on logic and evidence itself. SImply saying "that's a hoax" or "the witness was wrong/hallucinating/misidentifying/etc" without showing any evidence to support that claim is neither logical nor respectful.

Nor is stubbornly clinging to fairy tales like Campfire BobH's "confession" that he helped Patterson and Gimlin hoax the Bluff Creek footage. His story has been shot with enough holes to sink a fleet of battleships, but Skeptics still trot out his tall tale as if it proves something about the footage.

Here's a hint fopr them: it doesn't. Stop saying it does.

Another good example of disrespectful and counterproductive conduct by Skeptics is the way the Temagemi photos were treated. Immediately Skeptics rushed in shrieking "hoax! hoax!". Never once offering any evidence. Making lots of speculations they tried to hold forth AS evidence, but never offering any actual evidence.

Don't blame proponents when they hold Skeptics to their own standards and find them wanting badly.

[Guest]

I agree. I take those claims with a grain of salt, much the same as I do the skeptics, who have even less to provide.

Nothing from nothing leaves nothing. It's kind of hard to compare the two unless you want to consider negative integers.

Edited September 11, 2012 by CTfoot

[salubrious]

The believers are blindly accepting what they are told or what they feel w/no room for questions or dissension.

That depends on what you mean by 'beleivers'. Do you mean as opposed to 'knowers'? If you are talking about knowers, they will not allow for dissension for the simple reason that what you say has little weight against the experience they had. Its sort of like going outside, seeing that the sky is blue, and having someone inside who has not been outside tell you its not blue. You know better so there is no dissension. simply one who knows and one who does not.

I offered a challenge to all skeptics on two occasions on this thread; no-one took me up on it in any way so we can conclude that all skeptics here are operating out of belief rather than scientific method, no matter how much they claim otherwise. So it is obvious this idea of 'belief' is a double edged sword

[Guest RayG]

Which challenge was that?

RayG

[ohiobill]

Apparently you don't understand what arizona said. You can't just demand evidence like that on an open forum and expect it, given the history of the subject. Look at the way EVERYone who has come forward has been treated by the Skeptical community. They're branded either delusional, stupid or untruthful. Every piece of evidence they proffer is summarily dismissed. Why SHOULD they just let you see what they have, given how those who came before have been treated?

I'm confident I understood exactly what was said and even what demand means. Why shouldn't they or YOU who was asked to, just point me to what they consider the best evidence on the forum? I asked for direction, got nothing but circular reasoning or reasons why skeptics are wrong.

And there is plenty of room for questions and dissension, provided it is respectful of the person, and based on logic and evidence itself. SImply saying "that's a hoax" or "the witness was wrong/hallucinating/misidentifying/etc" without showing any evidence to support that claim is neither logical nor respectful.

I have asked YOU several direct questions respectfully and have yet to get an actual response. Simply avoiding questions by generalizing them as being "that's a hoax" or "the witness was wrong/hallucinating/misidentifying/etc" statements is neither logical nor respectful.

Nor is stubbornly clinging to fairy tales like Campfire BobH's "confession" that he helped Patterson and Gimlin hoax the Bluff Creek footage. His story has been shot with enough holes to sink a fleet of battleships, but Skeptics still trot out his tall tale as if it proves something about the footage.

I don't know what's true about the PGF as I stated at least twice today. A witness who went on TV - unlike the anonymous reports given to me as "evidence" is less credible than a witness who asserts bigfoots running through downtown streets or being able to produce infrasound?

Here's a hint fopr them: it doesn't. Stop saying it does.

I said there were conflicting experts and a witness who claimed it was a hoax. Both absolutely true!

Another good example of disrespectful and counterproductive conduct by Skeptics is the way the Temagemi photos were treated. Immediately Skeptics rushed in shrieking "hoax! hoax!". Never once offering any evidence. Making lots of speculations they tried to hold forth AS evidence, but never offering any actual evidence.

Trying to lump my direct, respectful questions to YOU in with what someone else did on a subject I never mentioned is still not an answer nor evidence.

Don't blame proponents when they hold Skeptics to their own standards and find them wanting badly.

If YOU want to hold yourself to the standards I hold myself to, YOU could start by answering my direct, respectful questions to YOU and not lecture me about what is wrong with skeptics as a whole in your opinion.

[roguefooter]

So some proponents can rant and rave all they want about tracks and hair and sightings, and sounds, and wood knocks, and nests, and tossed pine cones, and smells... some skeptics are going to call them on it. Me, I'm no longer at the point where I hang my hat on any of that, and certainly not on every pronouncement and report.

I guess after 40 years I'm ready to give up. Got bigfoot? Prove it.

So what exactly were you expecting to see on a "Bigfoot Discussion" forum? No discussion or optimism? A bunch of cranky pessimists sitting around demanding proof? Nobody says that you have to buy into anything that's being brought to the table. That's why we have discussion, and there is definitely a fair amount of skepticism involved. If you're not interested in the discussion anymore then what's the point? I would hope that you're still capable of showing a little respect for those still interested, regardless if you've grown tired and developed an attitude about it over time.

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.

Isn't that what's been happening with all of these DNA studies?

[Guest]

Well yeah, but those studies don't exist. The blood, hair, toenails, and flesh don't exist and have not been submitted. Dr. Ketchum doesn't exist, and Dr. Sykes does not exist. Nothing of significance will come of it because many people have decided that too much time has passed, so it's clear that after all of this, the best evidence anyone can present are ButchyKid videos.

[Guest]

That was a mess,lol

Edited September 11, 2012 by JohnC

[Guest]

Apparently you don't understand what arizona said. You can't just demand evidence like that on an open forum and expect it, given the history of the subject. Look at the way EVERYone who has come forward has been treated by the Skeptical community. They're branded either delusional, stupid or untruthful. Every piece of evidence they proffer is summarily dismissed. Why SHOULD they just let you see what they have, given how those who came before have been treated?

And there is plenty of room for questions and dissension, provided it is respectful of the person, and based on logic and evidence itself. SImply saying "that's a hoax" or "the witness was wrong/hallucinating/misidentifying/etc" without showing any evidence to support that claim is neither logical nor respectful.

Nor is stubbornly clinging to fairy tales like Campfire BobH's "confession" that he helped Patterson and Gimlin hoax the Bluff Creek footage. His story has been shot with enough holes to sink a fleet of battleships, but Skeptics still trot out his tall tale as if it proves something about the footage.

Here's a hint fopr them: it doesn't. Stop saying it does.

Another good example of disrespectful and counterproductive conduct by Skeptics is the way the Temagemi photos were treated. Immediately Skeptics rushed in shrieking "hoax! hoax!". Never once offering any evidence. Making lots of speculations they tried to hold forth AS evidence, but never offering any actual evidence.

Don't blame proponents when they hold Skeptics to their own standards and find them wanting badly.

Good try Mulder. So all those mean skeptics were shooting down the Temagemi photos? How about all those proponents that agree it's a hoax? Why not bring that up? Oh because your sole purpose is to paint skeptics in a bad light...and by the way those pics are an obvious mask.

[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.

But you can't place your standards and *what you would do* on others. Your end objective might be VERY different from theirs.

There are lots of reasons folks do not share their research with Universities or on forums.

They will share it, to a certain group, if they know they can trust you.

That trust is earned and is not freely given.

Unfortunately, that is sort of where we are at given the manner in which those relating eyewitness accounts have been treated in the past.

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.

Probably do agree on most things as I am a firm believer that most things should be first viewed through a skeptical lense. But an open minded one mind you.

Speaking personally I'd say at least 95% of sighting reports are probably mis-ID's. I don't fall prey to the *bumps in the night* and seemingly incredulous attributes being associated with BF.

I also realize that I have seen much more credible info than most. It's been shared privately and never posted on this or any other BF Forum.

I guess I don't understand the easy and seemingly automatic dismissal of eyewitness reports. I've never understood what folks claiming to have witnessed a BF had to gain other than ridicule from coming forward and I shudder to think of all of those who do not come forward due to their fear of ridicule.

Regarding the PGF, all I'll say is that it has always looked like a real creature to me. I think of the time it was filmed and do not really see how 2 rodeo cowboys could have come up with a fake that has withstood over 40 years of scrutiny.

I am aware of some of the attempts to de-bunk the PGF, what is involved in doing so and have an open mind on them.

Were the PGF to be proven a hoax today that would still do little to solve the mystery of BF as the creature is still witnessed today, and while an important cog in some peoples minds of belief, for many of us it isn't the foundation of belief.

Wasn't too long ago that I was solidly on the fence regarding belief and almost to the point of RayG in determining that too much time had passed and as such my belief had waned.

Trust me, I *get* that sort of mindset and the reasoning behind it.

I look forward to you reaching 75 posts and joining us as a Premium Member *ohiobill*. You would be a most welcome addition. At this point, were I in your shoes, and viewing it from your mindset, I'd think the PGF would be the most compelling evidence since you disregard the eyewitness reports.

But there is so much more than the PGF and it is sort of hard for me to view it from your perspective. I do understand it though.

No. No. No.

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

Viewing it from a purely scientific perspective friend I fully understand and respect your stance.

But you've got to also understand that most do not view it from a scientific perspective and many have witnessed the creature themselves.

To you, as a scientist, eyewitness reports are anecdotal. To those who have witnessed BF it is proof. To those of us who have never personally witnessed BF but lean towards belief, they are evidence in the affirmative.

It's sort of like a trial for me and I view witness reports as circumstantial evidence. At some point, enough are compiled, that I deem credible, to tip the scales in favor of belief.

You are sort of hampered because you view things from a purely scientific approach.

The majority of us aren't.

But you see thats a big problem with me. And it might just be my problem, but its always a big discovery that is too big for just anybody and only the inner circle can be privy to this "very real" proof. How many times has this just imploded on the movement in the past?

Well, things have sort of evolved into most of the really credible stuff being shared privately. Not my fault it has become that way. Truth be told, while I appreciate skepticism, and personally feel we should all view things from a somewhat skeptical perspective, some sketics enter the discussion with closed minds and have ridiculed people in the past.

As such, proponents have kind of stopped putting much of their research results out on the General Forum or to the public.

A huge red-flag for me, viewing things from skeptical lenses, are those who tout their research openly and seem to *self-aggrandize* in posts and threads without any evidence of their claims, or really poor videos with non-descript shadows and *blobs* being purported as BF.

We all have differing standards/tipping points for belief that are unique and individual unto us.

[Guest thermalman]

If YOU want to hold yourself to the standards I hold myself to, YOU could start by answering my direct, respectful questions to YOU and not lecture me about what is wrong with skeptics as a whole in your opinion.

Seriously?? You've got to be kidding? Any questions I've directly posted to skeptics have been skirted around and avoided. I guess they can't face the music, because there is "none" for them to supply.........only demand.

[ohiobill]

Seriously?? You've got to be kidding? Any questions I've directly posted to skeptics have been skirted around and avoided. I guess they can't face the music, because there is "none" for them to supply.........only demand.

I have replied to you directly whenever you have addressed me and I have never "demanded" anything of you? If you have a question I will be happy to answer it to the best of my ability. Just understand that it will be from my perspective and you may not agree - like our discussion of the BFRO report you put forward. The quote you are responding to was addressed directly to Mulder's non-answers and shouldn't be considered as being meant for you.

But you can't place your standards and *what you would do* on others. Your end objective might be VERY different from theirs.

There are lots of reasons folks do not share their research with Universities or on forums.

They will share it, to a certain group, if they know they can trust you.

That trust is earned and is not freely given.

Unfortunately, that is sort of where we are at given the manner in which those relating eyewitness accounts have been treated in the past.

Probably do agree on most things as I am a firm believer that most things should be first viewed through a skeptical lense. But an open minded one mind you.

Speaking personally I'd say at least 95% of sighting reports are probably mis-ID's. I don't fall prey to the *bumps in the night* and seemingly incredulous attributes being associated with BF.

I also realize that I have seen much more credible info than most. It's been shared privately and never posted on this or any other BF Forum.

I guess I don't understand the easy and seemingly automatic dismissal of eyewitness reports. I've never understood what folks claiming to have witnessed a BF had to gain other than ridicule from coming forward and I shudder to think of all of those who do not come forward due to their fear of ridicule.

Regarding the PGF, all I'll say is that it has always looked like a real creature to me. I think of the time it was filmed and do not really see how 2 rodeo cowboys could have come up with a fake that has withstood over 40 years of scrutiny.

I am aware of some of the attempts to de-bunk the PGF, what is involved in doing so and have an open mind on them.

Were the PGF to be proven a hoax today that would still do little to solve the mystery of BF as the creature is still witnessed today, and while an important cog in some peoples minds of belief, for many of us it isn't the foundation of belief.

Wasn't too long ago that I was solidly on the fence regarding belief and almost to the point of RayG in determining that too much time had passed and as such my belief had waned.

Trust me, I *get* that sort of mindset and the reasoning behind it.

I look forward to you reaching 75 posts and joining us as a Premium Member *ohiobill*. You would be a most welcome addition. At this point, were I in your shoes, and viewing it from your mindset, I'd think the PGF would be the most compelling evidence since you disregard the eyewitness reports.

But there is so much more than the PGF and it is sort of hard for me to view it from your perspective. I do understand it though.

Thanks HRP, I look forward to looking into Mr. Munn's PGF files. I have been looking into the BFRO sightings as time allows and I have seen a few that intrigued me but not many so far.

[Cotter]

I've said this before, I think the OP has been answered. There IS evidence. But said evidence holds different weight with different people.

I don't think anyone is claiming to have DEFINITIVE evidence (wouldn't that be the doorstep or entryway of proof?) nor proof, so I think the requests for said evidence or proof are being asked of the wrong folks. I don't think you'll EVER find said evidence or proof on an internet website. As indicated above, the 'good stuff' is being held tight to the chest and being shared with only a select few.

I come here for the theoretical discussion of the goods and bads of BF and 'footery. There are assumptions that need to be made and followed in this realm until they are shown to be erroneous. A filter needs to be applied - but what this filters is determined by personal experience and the assumptions made.

Lastly, I think all sides need to be cautious when stating that all 'believers' or 'skeptics' are this or that. I don't think it does anyone justice to stereotype the group based on the radical edges (tho it happens every day in different arenas).

Evidence is gathered in the field, not the internet.

Wow...sorry for the random spattering of thoughts.