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

[salubrious]

There are plenty of deer in the area but no culvert, in fact no rock surfaces of any sort. Its mostly just dirt. This was not the sound of hooves on rock, it was two rock banged together. We found the rocks- they were side by side about 20 feet from the window. Pretty obvious as the ground is otherwise grasses.

[Guest]

willinyc, it is a standard move for the skeptics to cling to the few fantastical claims that come in the mix of eyewitness accounts. The vast majority of accounts I have read, or been shown, do not involve super speed, or many of the things you make reference to. These kind of references are not critical thinking, there are a tactic used by people seeking to win an argument. In my opinion, most of the so called skeptics on here really are not trying to get to the bottom of the mystery of Bigfoot, but rather are more interested in practicing there argument skills, and that is unfortunate for those of us, who believe there is a core to this mystery that warrants attention, and continuing investigation.

Don't feel I am just down on the skeptics though, there are plenty of proponents on here that have some sort of unrealistic claim of knowledge or understanding, that is just as harmful to the subject as the scofftics, debaters, etc.

For me its simple, something is leaving consistent tracks all over North America. There is an abundance of mysterious, and strange audio being captured. There are thousands of eyewitness reports, and the majority are simple reports, something big and hairy on two legs, or something similarly simple.

I think dismissing 95% of the sightings as mistaken is arrogantly high, and falls into the" special knowledge" category, and is a fine example of proponent professing to know more than they do.

There is plenty of evidence of a mystery out there, far more than the standard run of the mill myth, or urban legend. Perhaps the skeptics would feel better if we did not label it as Bigfoot?

But there is evidence, lots of it. There is no question of that, the question is, what is it?

[Guest poignant]

Well said JohnC. I think it would be intellectually dishonest to simply dismiss all the footprints and sightings as hoax and or mistaken identity. Nothing short of a holotype will solve this mystery, and well, since eyewitness accounts lacking footage/audio are unfalsifiable, we just have to take them for what they are, at face value. Something IS out there, and I'm hoping it gets recognized soon so that all those who have witnessed one would be appropriately exonerated.

[Guest RayG]

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...

...We found the rocks- they were side by side about 20 feet from the window.

But you didn't actually see a sasquatch clacking rocks together, right? What then, convinced you it was a sasquatch, and what prevented you from investigating the noise as it happened?

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.

Yet in your rock-clacking example you apparently made no attempt to investigate what was making the noise while it was happening only 20 feet away. There was no sighting, no horrible smell, no chest-beating, tooth-popping, grunts, or anything else at 12:30am that suggested it was a bigfoot, so what led you to believe it was bigfoot? And might we say then, that your belief was based on an assumption it was bigfoot, rather than any immediate evidence? That since it doesn't seem likely that other humans would be near the cabin, and there seemed to be no other plausible alternative explanations, therefore bigfoot did it?

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.

If I understand correctly, instead of claimants proving that their bits of evidence match up to an actual bigfoot, you want skeptics to disprove their claims? Am I on Candid Camera? You're engaging in a fallacy, and you seem to have no understanding of the burden of proof. When skeptics fail, which they undoubtedly will, does that make the claim valid? No, of course not. If I claim I have a werewolf living in my neighborhood, can you disprove it? No, of course not. (and there's no way you can possibly prove there isn't) Does that make my claim true?

RayG

[Guest]

Yes, I think you're on Candid Camera.

[Guest RayG]

Thought so.

Well then...

RayG

[Guest thermalman]

There are plenty of deer in the area but no culvert, in fact no rock surfaces of any sort. Its mostly just dirt. This was not the sound of hooves on rock, it was two rock banged together. We found the rocks- they were side by side about 20 feet from the window. Pretty obvious as the ground is otherwise grasses.

Hey Sal, was there any other indiction that something might have been there? Prints? Matted down grass or path?

[Guest]

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.

I'm assuming you realize that this is The Bigfoot Forums and not the anti-Bigfoot Forums?

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.

And skeptics sit back and shoot down eyewitness reports, on a BF Forum, as anecdotal and fail to take into account the sheer number of reports while denying all historical data as well.

Ever follow tirademan's historical newspaper accounts and look at some of the dates? If so you would have to acknowledge that folks have been witnessing BF here in the US for hundreds of years.

I'm not sure how you prove a negative. But the skeptics effort to do so all of the time.

There is a forum devoted to skepticism in which they can gather and do what they wish.

This isn't the place to do so and the following rule comes into play....

Skeptics welcome! Assuming you don't come in with preconceived and immovable notions regarding Bigfoot and those who discuss the phenomenon, you'll find a spirited and thought-provoking debate waiting for you here. But keep in mind, this is a Bigfoot forum. You must accept the proponents point of view if you expect yours to be considered. This is by nature a “Bigfoot House†and is intended to foster intelligent discussion of the subject. This is not “The Anti-Bigfoot Forumâ€.

Don't want a rah-rah forum at all and respect skeptical opposition so long as the above rule is adhered with.

There are only a couple of skeptics here who seem to be able to follow that rule.

Have you totally missed Saskeptic’s repeated commentary that sightings are anecdotal and cannot be proven or disproven?

I'm assuming you can read and thus seen my responses to his position. What is anecdotal to those purporting a scientific approach is evidence to those of us who could frankly care less about sciences involvement.

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.

Have you actually read my posts here? I don't think BF rides trains, has their hair in ponytails, wears overalls, jumps between dimensions, can gallop along at 40-45 mph, or any other extraordinary attribute that has been attributed to them.

I view BF as a purely flesh and blood animal. Elusive, but not extraordinary.

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?

Well, while I do not buy into the extraordinary claims too much I do try and not poo-poo them as quite a few members I know who are conducting active research believe there is validity to the theory.

I'm not the see all and be all of bigfootery.

I think I give them a fair shake since I was involved in writing the rules that allows their theories to be posted.

Doesn't mean I have to agree with them though.

I enter those conversations with much more of an open mind than skeptics who admit they feel there is a 0% possibility of BF's existence do.

We all have differing standards of belief. Personally I draw the line at paranormal or *extraordinary* claims.

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.

Well, most of those eyewitnesses fall into the same standard you say you would place on yourself.

At some point, the continued sightings and cumulative evidence tips the scales for most of those who enter the discussion with an open mind into some level of belief.

Me, I just enforce the rules here like the one quoted above.

No way in heck I'm going to allow the BFF 2.0 to fail and follow the path of the BFF 1.0.

Not going to allow skeptics to run off all of the proponents here as took place there.

Skeptics are welcome so long as they are respectful and adhere to the above quoted rule.

While the forum itself takes no *official* stance, this is a BF Forum.

[Guest]

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??

I might photograph it, make a plaster cast, measure it - so? What do you mean by "subject it to rigor?" You do realize that people have been subjecting big footprints to rigor since the 1950s, right? What could I possibly learn from the footprint that would "satisfy" me?

Re: rock clacking: Are you positive that you found the rocks that were clacked together? Black Bears will sometime clack their teeth together to make a sound similar to what you described. I was also surprised not long ago by a pair of opossums making a loud, almost metallic clacking sound in a tree in my backyard. Animals - even common ones - can make sounds that are unfamiliar to even the most seasoned outdoorspeople. The due diligence that willinyc referenced means we must be very careful about a rush to judgment when trying to explain an odd occurrence. "Hoax" and "bigfoot" aren't the only potential explanations that could be explored.

[Guest Cervelo]

Sas,

Great point on the know/unknown animal sounds, another example of "if we haven't heard it before it must be Bigfoot making that sound".

Very erroneous assumption that all sounds that are made by animals have heard and documented.

[Cotter]

When developing and proving a theory, aren't there times data points are used that are 'assumed' data points? Only then to be removed when other tests show that they were not valid. Theory redefined, then tested, until it is proven?

[ohiobill]

willinyc, it is a standard move for the skeptics to cling to the few fantastical claims that come in the mix of eyewitness accounts. The vast majority of accounts I have read, or been shown, do not involve super speed, or many of the things you make reference to. These kind of references are not critical thinking, there are a tactic used by people seeking to win an argument. In my opinion, most of the so called skeptics on here really are not trying to get to the bottom of the mystery of Bigfoot, but rather are more interested in practicing there argument skills, and that is unfortunate for those of us, who believe there is a core to this mystery that warrants attention, and continuing investigation.

Don't feel I am just down on the skeptics though, there are plenty of proponents on here that have some sort of unrealistic claim of knowledge or understanding, that is just as harmful to the subject as the scofftics, debaters, etc.

For me its simple, something is leaving consistent tracks all over North America. There is an abundance of mysterious, and strange audio being captured. There are thousands of eyewitness reports, and the majority are simple reports, something big and hairy on two legs, or something similarly simple.

I think dismissing 95% of the sightings as mistaken is arrogantly high, and falls into the" special knowledge" category, and is a fine example of proponent professing to know more than they do.

There is plenty of evidence of a mystery out there, far more than the standard run of the mill myth, or urban legend. Perhaps the skeptics would feel better if we did not label it as Bigfoot?

But there is evidence, lots of it. There is no question of that, the question is, what is it?

John C, it appears to be a standard move for believers to cling to the fallacy that skeptics focus only on the fantastical claims and not the more mundane. Skeptics routinely question why an animal that is being seen by so many people can't be captured on camera? Skeptics routinely question why footprints which clearly fall into the length range found in humans are automatically labeled as being made by bigfoot? Skeptics routinely question why sightings made in poor light, heavy brush, extreme distance, etc. should be considered as "evidence" when there is a likely possibility of mistaken identity? Skeptics routinely question why sounds which can be made by many other animals or possibilities are automatically classified as proof of a bigfoot encounter? Skeptics routinely question why sounds recorded and touted as evidence of bigfoot aren't placed under scientific scrutiny prior to being brought forward? Skeptics routinely question whether "investigations" consisting of a long distance phone call are thorough enough to determine the validity of a sighting? Skeptics may think it is arrogant for someone to jump to conclusions of bigfoot w/o any thought given to other more likely explanations being ruled out? In my opinion, most of the so called believers on here really are not trying to get to the bottom of the mystery of Bigfoot, but rather are more interested in practicing their argument skills, and that is unfortunate for those of us, who believe there is a core to this mystery that warrants attention, and continuing investigation with some semblance of scientific scrutiny rather than using blind assertions as arguments.

For me it’s simple, something is leaving consistently inconsistent tracks all over North America. The tracks range in size from 4" to 27" in length and many clearly fall in the size range of being made by humans but are routinely brought forward as evidence of bigfoot. There is an abundance of mysterious, and strange audio being captured that is similar to audio captured by biologists when studying known animals which isn't routinely compared to known animals or screened in any way. There are thousands of eyewitness reports, most poorly investigated if at all, mostly made by people who wish to remain anonymous. Most are of short encounters, in poor conditions, in areas with large mammals/known human use which could easily lend them to mistaken identity.

I think dismissing 95% of the sightings as mistaken is a possibility that needs to be carefully considered and should be dependent upon some simple guidelines that would be considered standard in any other field. I don't believe it would be hard and certainly doesn't fall into the "special knowledge" category, and would be a fine example of believers seriously considering the evidence in a scientific manner rather than professing to "know" more than they do.

There are plenty of claims of evidence of a mystery out there, but very little of it can be verified and only a few pieces have been put through any type of scientific scrutiny. Perhaps the believers would feel better if they stopped claiming to have evidence w/o some sort of standards? There is evidence, but sadly the believers themselves confuse the issue by withholding evidence from review and by failing to apply any sort of scrutiny before they trumpet new claims. There is no question of that; the question is what are they going to do about it?

Edited September 12, 2012 by ohiobill

[Guest thermalman]

Sas,

Great point on the know/unknown animal sounds, another example of "if we haven't heard it before it must be Bigfoot making that sound".

Very erroneous assumption that all sounds that are made by animals have heard and documented.

"Very erroneous assumption that all sounds that are made by animals have heard and documented."

Cerv, you seem rather quick to assume, and you weren't even there?

[Cotter]

Skeptics routinely question why an animal that is being seen by so many people can't be captured on camera? Skeptics routinely question why footprints which clearly fall into the length range found in humans are automatically labeled as being made by bigfoot? Skeptics routinely question why sightings made in poor light, heavy brush, extreme distance, etc. should be considered as "evidence" when there is a likely possibility of mistaken identity? Skeptics routinely question why sounds which can be made by many other animals or possibilities are automatically classified as proof of a bigfoot encounter? Skeptics routinely question why sounds recorded and touted as evidence of bigfoot aren't placed under scientific scrutiny prior to being brought forward? Skeptics routinely question whether "investigations" consisting of a long distance phone call are thorough enough to determine the validity of a sighting? Skeptics may think it is arrogant for someone to jump to conclusions of bigfoot w/o any thought given to other more likely explanations being ruled out? In my opinion, most of the so called believers on here really are not trying to get to the bottom of the mystery of Bigfoot, but rather are more interested in practicing their argument skills, and that is unfortunate for those of us, who believe there is a core to this mystery that warrants attention, and continuing investigation with some semblance of scientific scrutiny rather than using blind assertions as arguments.

I can't disagree with any point you've made above. However, I will comment that many proponents do just what you describe and feel the same way (line of questioning). Though I think the term 'believer' has a certain definition pinned to it. Kind of like a scoftic vs skeptic, y'know? And I couldn't agree more that some believers are doing disservices to the community by touting evidence prior to evaulation, assigning anything and everything as 'bigfoot' related, etc. But not all are doing this. And those that do use some sort of method to evaluate, eliminate, and assign a high chance of the activity, creature, or sign they find as BF related, they are lumped into the group above, and their evidence dismissed. (There comes a point when a human-related cause can be more outlandish than a BF phenomenon related cause.)

I think there are some on this board that can be deemed a skeptical proponent. They have evaluated evidence, rated the likeliness of human vs BF phenom, and made a decision based on a theory that is was more likely a BF phenom related event.

[Guest]

There is plenty of evidence that has been subjected to scientific scrutiny, and continues to be. Dr Meldrum has a large amount of evidence, and certainly agree's there is enough evidence to warrant serious investigation. There are other scientist as well who review, and feel there is some sort of mystery going on. What is the "skeptics" response? ( I do not even like to use the term skeptic, because it is not applied correctly, I see more scofftics, than I see skeptics, particularly on here), The response of the "skeptic" is to attack the scientist that are taking a serious look. Suddenly Dr Ketchum, Dr Krantz, Dr Bindernagel, Dr Meldrum are not only incompetent, but their character is subject to the ridicule and contempt that comes with these so called "skeptics"

Who exactly do you think should it be given to for review Ohiobill? You? The Jreff forum? This forum?

Do you think that this forum, or any other internet forum is something that any accredited scientist even gives a passing thought to?

I do not think that 90% of the skeptic on here give a hoot one way or another about Bigfoot, or its existence, all they want to do is play word games. Its unfortunate, because I do believe there are witness's that come here seeking answers, and comfort. Looking to share their experience, and see that there are others with experiences, and try to find some answers to the genuine mystery that it is, and instead, run into a group of internet argument seekers, who want to play word games, and tell them they are mentally ill, on drugs, or incompetent. Or better, yet, simply told they are liars.

Obviously there is some room for some of these arguments, and some truth to some,but the shear number would indicate there is something to the core of the mystery.You can be a proponent, and be critical and skeptical, you can be a skeptic, and be critical, and skeptical, but there really is no excuse for the "tone" we see here everyday.

As soon as I see a "skeptic" refer to Meldrum as Meldum, or comment on Dr Ketchum's love life, or any other number of immature unprofessional uneducated references, then at least we get some clarity, that is not a skeptic, that is a scofftic.

BTW, you can apply most of that to many "believers" as well.

Edited September 12, 2012 by JohnC