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

[Guest MikeG]

Sorry, John, but "looked at by scientists" does not equal "subjected to scientific scrutiny". There is a process, as everyone knows, before anything is accepted as science.

Frankly, I don't know why there is such a defensive tone to this thread. Everyone knows where everyone stands on these issues. What on earth is to be gained from asking Ray and Saskeptic (and others) to repeat their perfectly clear position ad infinitum?

Does anyone think that they will change their minds by arguing with them or denouncing them? The way to change their minds, and millions of others like them, is to put some incontrovertible evidence under their noses. For the lack of that, I would have thought the ultra-proponents should be, at the very least, just a little bit humble.

Mike

[southernyahoo]

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?

If there is the lingering suspicion that all evidence is hoaxed, then by what standard would any of the evidence be verifiable?

[ohiobill]

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.

My use of the term believer was used purposely to highlight the lack of scientific thinking involved in many of the claims put forward. I agree that some sightings/evidence are more convincing than others and that there are certainly some smart folks on this fourm who deserve the title proponent.

Edited September 12, 2012 by ohiobill

[indiefoot]

Frankly, I don't know why there is such a defensive tone to this thread. Everyone knows where everyone stands on these issues. What on earth is to be gained from asking Ray and Saskeptic (and others) to repeat their perfectly clear position ad infinitum?

Mike

The statement made in the title of the thread is false. That could be part of the reason for some defensiveness.

[bipedalist]

Word. It's called hyperbole.

I watched an interesting NBC news report on non-native butterfly's increasingly showing up in Massachusetts from parts south last night. One of the interesting observations by the professor interviewed about the journalling/logging of this in-migration was that common enthusiasts, yes I said it, could make valid anecdotal observations that essentially sufficed as a scientific record or sufficient evidence to document patterns. Did he say the butterfly's had been misidentified......NO!

Edited September 12, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest]

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.

I have to be honest, I hardly ever see anyone on here directly saying, "YOU SAW A BIGFOOT?! YOU'RE STUPID AND ON DRUGS!!!" To me, you're either in different threads than I am and see this more often (totally possible, I'm just a sometimes-lurker); or you're translating the statement, "I don't believe in bigfoot", to "I don't believe in bigfoot so everyone who sees one is mentally ill, on drugs, incompetent, or a liar." SOME skeptics may think this way, but I have never seen someone outright say that on these boards -- and I will say again, I don't understand why people get so insulted when their PERSONAL sasquatch experience doesn't convince someone else.

And you know what? Point those skeptics out who you do find insulting. My guess is they're not trying to hurt your feelings, or if they are, at least you'll shut up us other skeptics who say, "I don't see anyone being mean!" To be honest, I think certain people (*cough*Mulder*cough*) do way more harm than good by constantly touting their own "S"keptic straw man arguments -- It's the sign of a good politician to blindly accuse the opposition of what you so blatantly do yourself -- "Classic Skeptic fallacious reasoning! They don't believe in bigfoot, so if you do, you must be lying, crazy, or stupid!" [Note: not a direct quote, though very likely could be one.] I see this argument made by skeptics so, so rarely, and I'll be disappointed if this quote isn't used by Mulder later as an example of Skeptic lies and propaganda.

Let me frame it this way:

When I say to someone, "I'm sorry, your experience does not convince me, I still don't think bigfoot exists," those of you who have seen bigfoot and therefore know bigfoot exists -- what do you think of me? Do you think I'm stupid, a jerk, or crazy? You might. But my guess is you're more likely thinking, "Hey, PJam doesn't seem like such a bad guy. But I know bigfoot exists, so he's clearly overlooked something, or not thinking critically enough. He's not stupid, crazy, or a jerk. He's just wrong." We can be wrong about stuff without being inferior. And this whole discussion (and this thread in particular) is really boiling down to two sides telling the other they're wrong, and trying to explain why.

Just because someone says they think you're wrong doesn't mean they think you're wrong because you're stupid, on drugs, or a liar.

Edited September 12, 2012 by PJam

[ohiobill]

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.

I don't agree that there has been "plenty" of evidence scrutinized by science. For me personally, Dr. Meldrum's analysis is compelling but his premise is possibly flawed. His reasoning is based on the need that due to greater weight a bigfoot would need to have different anatomy from humans. I'm not a physical anthropologist, but I have seen 400+ lb to 500 lb folks on the biggest loser run/jog/workout. I know weightlifters routinely carry loads much greater than those estimated for bigfoot in strong man "farmer's walk" competitions. I can easily turn on any NFL game and see guys weighing up to 400 lbs run down running backs and get ahead of receivers and block. I don't expect my observations to be considered proof that exclude any possibility of bigfoot existing but anyone w/an open mind has to consider that if the premise is flawed the analysis may also be flawed. In any case, Dr. Meldrum is one scientist w/a theory - an uproven hypothesis that should be considered just that w/o skeletal remains. I agree there is some sort of mystery here and welcome scientific investigation. Can you agree that most of what is currently being considered evidence is anecdotal, unverified by any sort of science, and subject only to the standards put forth by the presenter w/little to no investigation?

I don't think there is or should be any one judge of what constitutes "evidence" but w/o some sort of standard you certainly don't have quality evidence and you certainly can't study what you don't have. A reasonable solution would be to have a diverse group of proponents/skeptics agree on submission guidelines. I don't think it's nearly as hard as you make it out to be and I think it would be a huge step forward in getting scientists to consider the evidence more seriously. I have brought this up before w/Gigantor & MikeG in this thread.

I do not think that 99% of the believers on here give a hoot one way or another about the importance of science, it's existence, or it's use in getting to the bottom of the mystery. All they want to do is play word games. Its unfortunate, because I do believe there are both proponents and skeptics that come here seeking answers.

Obviously there has to be some room for disagreement and arguments but the sheer lack of critical objectivity in not scrutinizing the evidence put forward would indicate there is something else going on besides wanting to find answers.You can be a proponent, and be critical and skeptical - you can be a skeptic, and be critical and skeptical but to be a believer all you have to do is assert your knowledge as fact.

[Guest Cervelo]

"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?

Yes I am quick, assumptive and dismissive!

What's your point?

[Guest Particle Noun]

Fortunately, the forum rules prevent many of the more slanderous or over the top type of attacks that many proponents like to attribute to 'skeptics' in general. So, the statement that those over the top attacks are few and far between here on the BFF are spot on. Most skeptics, in my experience, here on the BFF, stay above board, and attempt to remain reasonable and state their positions clearly, with a minimum of hyperbole.

I wonder though, if some of the ire of proponents (or believers if you prefer) stems from their experience off of these boards. For the first time ever last night I popped over to the infamous JREF, and what I saw there was a wholesale denigration of any and all evidence and proponents of that evidence in precisely the way that the proponents are complaining about, if not worse. It would see that without the rules and guidelines of the BFF, when the gloves are off, so to speak, there is little to no restraint in calling most if not all proponents crazy, lunatic, drug using fairy tale believers.

The JREF is not the BFF. I know there are some skeptics who frequent both sites. Some of them may even remain reasonable on both sites, I don't know, as I haven't done that research and don't care to. Don't even get me started about such cesspools as the comments on Bigfootevidence.

But I think it is important to note two things: One: the skeptics on this site *by and large* try and remain respectful, and for the most part don't outright denigrate proponents and witnesses in the ways ascribed to them by many, and Two: This is not the only place on the web where Bigfoot is discussed, and therefore in the larger community, I think there is ample evidence that just such claims of hyperbolic attacks on proponents or anyone willing to entertain the idea of Bigfoot are certainly verifiable.

[ohiobill]

If there is the lingering suspicion that all evidence is hoaxed, then by what standard would any of the evidence be verifiable?

The first step would be defining evidence and the very next thing would be to have standards to sort the evidence. To verify evidence it has to be repeatable within reasonable limits.

[Guest]

This is not the only place on the web where Bigfoot is discussed, and therefore in the larger community, I think there is ample evidence that just such claims of hyperbolic attacks on proponents or anyone willing to entertain the idea of Bigfoot are certainly verifiable.

You are absolutely right, but JohnC specifically said:

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.

I just don't see any evidence supporting his statement that 90% of skeptics on here tell witnesses they are mentally ill, on drugs, incompetent, or liars. In fact, I think it's incredibly off-base.

[Guest Particle Noun]

I agree. I also don't see that on there to that degree. I suspect people let their feelings and impressions of the skeptical community in other places color their perceptions of them here sometimes.

[ohiobill]

Word. It's called hyperbole.

I watched an interesting NBC news report on non-native butterfly's increasingly showing up in Massachusetts from parts south last night. One of the interesting observations by the professor interviewed about the journalling/logging of this in-migration was that common enthusiasts, yes I said it, could make valid anecdotal observations that essentially sufficed as a scientific record or sufficient evidence to document patterns. Did he say the butterfly's had been misidentified......NO!

Did they witnesses make claims that the butterflies were flying at 40 mph, went invisible, were psychic, or were plentiful but impossible to photograph? Did the witnesses claim fleeting glimpses of butterflies through thick forest at night? Do you think the scientist's opinion about the sightings might have been different if they had?

[Guest BFSleuth]

Frankly, I don't know why there is such a defensive tone to this thread. Everyone knows where everyone stands on these issues. What on earth is to be gained from asking Ray and Saskeptic (and others) to repeat their perfectly clear position ad infinitum?

The statement made in the title of the thread is false. That could be part of the reason for some defensiveness.

I agree that the title of the thread should read: "Bigfoot Research - Plenty of Evidence But Still No Proof?" - or something along those lines. The actual title and OP started from the assumption that "evidence" = "proof", and that isn't true. Speaking as a proponent I look at "evidence" (videos, trackways, sighting reports, PM conversations, etc.) and decide for myself whether it is worthy to put into my "Likely True" bin or one of the other bins. Based on the amalgam of evidence I have at my disposal I've decided that it is highly likely that BF exists as more than one species in North America. Do I think it has been "proven" that BF exists? Absolutely not. Do I think we are getting closer to being able to publish proof? Absolutely yes.

I have to be honest, I hardly ever see anyone on here directly saying, "YOU SAW A BIGFOOT?! YOU'RE STUPID AND ON DRUGS!!!" To me, you're either in different threads than I am and see this more often (totally possible, I'm just a sometimes-lurker); or you're translating the statement, "I don't believe in bigfoot", to "I don't believe in bigfoot so everyone who sees one is mentally ill, on drugs, incompetent, or a liar." SOME skeptics may think this way, but I have never seen someone outright say that on these boards --

To be honest, as a moderator of the forum, I can say that such posts don't remain visible very long. They happen... and they happen from all sides of the debate.

As noted by HRP and Particle Noun and others, this isn't the JREF and this certainly isn't BFF 1.0. I was a long time lurker on BFF 1.0 and never bothered to join and start posting until BFF 2.0 until months into the transition when it became apparent that the bash fest was over.

[Guest]

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.

BF advocates are also guilty of this, but not for the same reasons. They have no qualms with using aboriginal accounts dating back centuries to further the Sasquatch phenomena. In fact, it's a corner stone of the BF doctrine. BUT, they reserve the right to ignore certain aspects that may compromise their position. Characteristics such as shape shifting, dimensional travel and other paranormal related traits are never mentioned.

So if you think about it, Unicorns, Dragons and Sasquatches do really have something in common. They all share colorful stories, they're all depicted in paintings and they have all been made into statue form. The only difference is, the pro-BF folks have the discretion to manipulate these characteristics so BF no longer resides in the same realm as our Unicorns and Dragons.