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

[Guest thermalman]

^ I understand that Sal is just looking for alternative explanations from the nay sayers, if they choose not to believe the current evidence or witnesses? Malboro, you're simply twisting the words to fit your notional "default explanation will be BF did it." That's not what he's saying and certainly not the truth of all evidence presented.

[Cotter]

I don't think that is 100% accurate Marlboro. I think the argument is that they cannot be dismissed as Non-BF without some sort of method of disproval.

I think PJam summed it up nicely above.

I for one absolutely hate hyper vigilant 'investigators' that chalk everything up under the sun as BF evidence. When I'm in the field, I get zero evidence that can be confidently attributed to BF.

Until I see one, and see it lay tracks, break trees, knock wood, whoop, chatter, etc. There will be no evidence that is 100% certain.

[Guest]

Use the methods that the believers/knowers use to find evidence or encounters.

I guess I still don't understand what you're asking for.

Let's say I'm in the field and I find a 17" human-looking footprint. The print was left by a human or a bigfoot. What exactly would you like me to do with that information?

Other than "track it to a real live bigfoot that I shoot or at least photograph", I don't see anything I can do with that.

[salubrious]

So I don't know what caused those rocks to clack outside your friend's cabin. It could be a bigfoot; it could be a person; it could be a giant bird picking up rocks and dropping them on other rocks; it could be that an animal has learned to imitate the sound of clacking rocks. But unless you have something other than using the process of elimination on just "the stuff we can think of off the top of our heads" to conclude bigfoot, I think "I don't know" is a very plausible and responsible answer.

'I don't know' is fine. Especially if you don't know that BF exists. But it is beside the point. We can rule out giant birds (not a reasoned explanation); this was a 'clack-clack.....clack clack' sound. Clacking rocks is a known primate behavior. Humans do it. So, why would someone walk up to my friend's cabin at 12:30 AM just to do that (when all the lights were out....). Its not the only time that happened. So, if you are skeptical, you have to take the event and come up with a reasonable alternative explanation, IOW one that is convincing. Being suspicious, I investigated the area several times. I have found 17" footprints and trackways in remote parts of the forest in the area. So now we have additionally come up with a reasonable , convincing explanation for that as well. Is someone hoaxing? What would be the point? Why go to such pains? These are questions demanding reasonable answers also, ones that have to be explained as well.

Again, I don't see skeptics going through the motions. They didn't find the tracks, they didn't do the things to cause a wood knock in response. I don't see that they did anything. So I am lead very much to the realization that they base their skepticism on made-up stories. IOW, unknown=does not exist.

[Guest]

Saskeptic, just wondering, what % of species has been classified & catalogued?

Just a follow up for those that are interested. The current estimate is ~15%. This is based on est how many unclassified species are out there, which is just a guess. So who knows? At any rate, the catalogued species list is way smaller than the undiscovered species. That seems a certainty.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Gigantofootecus

[salubrious]

I guess I still don't understand what you're asking for.

Let's say I'm in the field and I find a 17" human-looking footprint. The print was left by a human or a bigfoot. What exactly would you like me to do with that information?

Other than "track it to a real live bigfoot that I shoot or at least photograph", I don't see anything I can do with that.

Seriously?? You find a footprint 17" long, and you don't know what to do with that?? Credulity is strained; are you not a field biologist?

Take pictures at least, from various angles and with various lighting to highlight pressure releases in the track, so an experienced tracker can analyze the print. Include any displaced soil outside the track itself- that is part of the track. Any such displaced dirt will point to the next track- see if you can find it. Pressure releases in the track will indicate where the last track was. See if you can find it.

If the track is lacking such information it is reasonable to conclude a possible hoax. A real foot is flexible, and the motion of the foot and toes to create balance will show in the track, even if its a compression in forest debris.

What you are telling me Sas, is that you don't possess the knowledge to make a reasoned conclusion one way or the other, even if presented with possible hard evidence. Thus if you have a position of non-existence, its must be made up, based on no facts. To be credible, is it not better to be upfront about that, rather than to simply draw a conclusion about something of which you have no knowledge??

People don't have 17" feet. And most people don't walk barefoot in the middle of nowhere. So if you find such an artifact it should be taken seriously and subjected to rigor...

[Guest]

Yeah seriously. I'm interested in proof of bigfoot. If I find a big footprint and I measure it and photograph it and make a nice plaster cast . . . how is that in any way different than alleged evidence for bigfoot we've had for decades? Footprints don't interest me; feet interest me.

Just a follow up for those that are interested. The current estimate is ~15%. This is based on est how many unclassified species are out there, which is just a guess. So who knows? At any rate, the catalogued species list is way smaller than the undiscovered species. That seems a certainty.

Yes, there are many species waiting to be discovered. If we ever find a piece of a bigfoot, then bigfoot can be one of those species.

[salubrious]

^^ I get that you want to see the feet

However they are secretive enough that even people that do see them don't always see the feet

But- if you found a 17" footprint, am I not correct in assuming that you would subject it to rigor? And if it satisfied the rigor, then??

[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.

You nailed that one right on the head Arizona, except the part about Melba and Sykes not existing. We have evidence of their existence. I gave you a plus for that.

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.

There was plenty of evidence offered. You never answered the question put to you about extra knowledge you claim to have about those pics. Care to elaborate on that?

[Guest]

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

So we hear and I hope it isn't just hearsay.

[ohiobill]

Simple. Skeptical?? Then go ahead, disprove the evidence. I like BFSleuth's concept of data points- and there are plenty of them. Use the methods that the believers/knowers use to find evidence or encounters. Once had, find alternate explanations for their existence.

For example, I accidentally was involved with a means of getting BF attention- I was at a fireworks display at a friend's cabin in Wisconsin. I stayed there that night. It was early July and we had the window open in the guest cabin. At about 12:30 AM, there was a rock clacking sound outside. It went on for about 5 minutes. In order to clack rocks, you need hands, so it could only be humans or BF. If human, why would a human hike into such a remote spot to do something like that? We tried clacking rocks from various distances and it turned out that the sound was coming from the yard itself, which is really a brushy hill, dropping off into dense wooded hilly forest. We can use the 'human did it don't know why' explanation for that event, but there are other events and evidence (tracks 17" long) that are making the human explanation really unlikely.

Now that was not that hard to find these data points and anyone can do it. They just have to do the things that the data points have already shown to be effective.

But skeptics don't do that. As far as I can tell, they don't put any effort into such things at all, even though they may be in the forest a lot. Conclusion: if you are unwilling to find the evidence and develop plausible alternative explanations, your skepticism is based on belief rather than anything truthful. Its made up. So in that last sentence is the challenge. I have now issued it three times; the first two times the skeptics avoided the issue altogether.

I'm willing to take a stab if you're serious about considering it could be something other than bigfoot. Could you provide a better description of the sounds? Were they rhythmic? What was the average time between sounds? Was there any wind that night?

Without knowing more I could guess raccoon activity - they are known to use rocks as tools. Crows and Ravens are known to use rocks as tools and have been observed nocturnally. Deer/other animal walking on gravel/concrete/masonery? Nuts/seedpods dropping onto a rock/concrete pad/gravel drive? Loud noises from far away - gunshots, a neighbor banging on some late night project, late night revelers playing bocci ball, etc could carry to the house on a quiet night. A gentle wind can cause barn/shed doors to vibrate causing weird clicking noises. Some people have wind chimes/decorations made of ceramics/stones that could be responsible. Slate roofs/tiles/stonework/foundations can make noise as the temperature decreases/moisture content changes. If a vehicle had been used earlier that night they often make stange noises as they cool down. Do any of these seem like possibilities to you?

[Guest]

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.

I’ve always been a frequent reader, but infrequent poster since I joined this forum in the fall of 2004. I typically only chime in on topics in which I actually know something about or where what seems to me to be ill-formed opinion is being sold as the absolute truth. Your words to me fall into the latter category. There’s nothing convoluted about Marlboro’s logic and what he stated that you quoted is entirely true.

Proponents constantly attempt to burden the skeptics with disproving all the circumstantial proof of bigfoot is all hoaxed or otherwise is less than convincing. If you need proof of that, simply reread this thread. How do you prove a negative? Yet it’s demanded time and again. As Marlboro stated that isn’t where the burden of proof lies.

As far as the cogs of scientific discovery, and what is required to establish proof, what Marlboro stated is also 100% true. It has nothing to do with what forum it is posted on. Nothing shifts in regards to where the burden of proof lies. You can believe that if you want to. You can restate it numerous times. It’s still incorrect.

Respectfully, I’m not seeing where you make a single relevant point.

You might be attempting to amass what you deem to be credible bigfoot sightings, but clearly no volume of sightings is going to get us any closer to establishing existence. We’ve got no shortage of “seemingly†credible sightings. What we have is a complete absence of a single solitary encounter by a credible witness which resulted in definitive, corroborating evidence. Have you totally missed Saskeptic’s repeated commentary that sightings are anecdotal and cannot be proven or disproven?

I’m not a member of JREF nor do I ever even read that forum. But I’m guessing the actual difference between what you’re referring to as “JREF standards†and “BFF2.0 standards†is something that I hope we can agree on can be described as “due diligenceâ€. You can apply whatever standards you want to, as it is your forum. Just don’t expect most of us skeptics to buy what the proponents claim is “due diligence†is remotely close to being that. The level of absolute buffoonery that typically passes off as applied “due diligence†by the collective bigfoot community is comical. Are “your standards†(for acceptance) really standards? I think that is where the real issue lies.

Take for example some recent threads where the bigfoot community applies their “due diligence†based on what they deem to be “credible eyewitness testimonyâ€â€¦â€¦

Bigfoot has more footspeed than Usain Bolt, because multiple credible eyewitnesses have seen it run in excess of 30-40+ mph.

Bigfoot is able to ascend steep cliffs at alarming rates of speed with the grace of a ballerina, because credible eyewitnesses say so.

Bigfoot rides on trains because credible eyewitnesses and a credible bigfoot researcher have seen it doing so.

Bigfoot has the ninja-like ability to hide in plain sight at less a car length away, in broad daylight because a retired USAF officer would never fabricate such a story.

The proponents would have us believe that bigfoot is a lot like Superman. Both are super fast. Both can leap over really big stuff in a single bound. One’s more powerful than a speeding locomotive, while the other rides on speeding locomotives. All based on “credible eyewitness testimonyâ€. There’s no rhyme, no reason, and a complete lack of critical thinking and common sense in arriving at the conclusions that these are indeed credible witnesses who actually experienced what they claimed or whose estimates are correct. Rarely if ever, are more probable explantions provided by anyone other than the nasty skeptics. Never is the testimony of the eyewitnesses ever questioned despite the fact that in some cases what they claimed to have observed defies all rational logic. You’d probably argue that the proponents that place some level of belief in these accounts are simply being “openmindedâ€. I think most of us skeptics conclude that they are simply taking gullibility to all new levels because it supports the proverbial belief system.

As far as the skeptical members of this community “poo-pooing†accounts of what you deem to be credible witnesses….. Isn’t that what you and most other proponents do to eyewitnesses who claim to observe and experience mind melding bigfoots and the such that border on the paranormal/supernatural?

Yet by your own admission, you don’t give ‘em a fair shake. Why not?

I’m sure the fact is that you and most of the flesh and blood proponents simply wish these eyewitnesses didn’t exist. But they do, in abundance. Are these witnesses somehow less credible than the witnesses you deem credible? By your own logic, they couldn’t all be lying or mistaken. Or could they? And as far as ridicule goes, the “paranormal†witnesses accounts aren’t generally accepted by skeptics or flesh and blood proponents. By your own logic, shouldn’t they being the victims of ridicule strengthen their own respective credibility? Do you really consider yourself more “openminded†than us skeptics? Is it me, or is there not a surplus of hypocrisy in your own rationalizations?

It’s pretty obvious that you don’t give two hoots what us skeptics think. Not sure why you felt that needed to be stated nor how you could possibly think that comment is not offensive.

I do think the skeptics play an important role in this forum and that role is not to torment proponents or eyewitnesses as you and most here seem to think it is. I think we’re all here in the hope that just a few more footers will actually learn to apply some critical thinking and common sense to what actually constitutes “credible†in terms of both evidence and eyewitness testimony and actually apply some real due diligence instead of going with the blind acceptance that plagues bigfootdom.

All that said, if I were to “see the monkey†tomorrow or at least definitive sign of it’s passing that had continuity that I could follow for miles, I would believe in bigfoot. I would not however suddenly begin thinking that the large body of anecdotal evidence of bigfoot (a bunch of obviously faked and a few questionable footprints, unidentified screams in the night, a fuzzy 45 year old, low resolution film, etc) would somehow become less crappy than I feel it is today. I also would not expect the entire world to begin sharing my new found opinion that bigfoot was real, nor be offended if they did not believe my story if I could not secure some kind or definitive proof that said encounter actually happened. I would also not feel that hypotheses that bigfoot should not be shot, or bigfoot can detect trail cams by some ingrained, innate of this world ability or that bigfoot can hide in plain sight and the like were anything other than EXCUSES for why bigfoot has not yet been discovered.

Edited September 12, 2012 by willinyc

[salubrious]

^^ cool- here or on another thread? Here for now.

No concrete or masonry. We found the rocks and where they had been struck against each other was obvious. They were about the size of baseballs. We tried knocking them together from as far away as 1/2 mile. There was no ambient signature associated with the sound, and with the ravines and bluffs in the area if you get any distance at all there is an echo. The closest house is about 3 miles to the northwest through dense wooded forest- impassible in places. There are no barns close by- this sound was right outside the window. roof is shingles. The cabin is new and not prone to odd sounds. So the most likely of the above explanations is raccoons, but the size of the rocks is a problem.

The sound was a clack-clack, clack-clack then a pause of a minute or so and it would go again. Went on for about 5-8 minutes. The rocks in this area are not plentiful on the surface- if you want one you have to pry it out of the ground unless you go down the ravine. But I doubt a raccoon would carry a set of rocks that far.

[Incorrigible1]

A deer or ungulate pawing, worrying an embedded rock with its hooves?

[ohiobill]

I have seen deer crossing a farm culvert (covered in gravel) step onto the surface then freeze when there is noise. The deer stay very still for about a minute then move again - make more noise - freeze again. The three I saw bounded away after the 2nd or 3rd step but the timing sounds reasonable and I wonder if this could be it?