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

[bipedalist]

I'm saying that a good (probably half or more) of bigfoot sightings are valid sightings of unknown bipedals thought to be a North American primate or hominid/hominoid and that anecdotal reports in that 50% plus that are probably accurate ARE evidence. You probably do not agree, so be it. Same situation that has been keeping this forum stalemated re: so-called pseudoskeptical logic and lack of evidence argumentum ad nauseum since I joined. As a witness, I don't have to agree with absence of evidence as being evidence of absence no matter what the obfuscated definition of the "provers" are; nor do other witnesses or those close to those that have witnessed the beings.

Edited September 12, 2012 by bipedalist

[kbhunter]

Ohiobill, I have a question.....WHAT is your definition of an expert? You say that word many times throughout your last post. Just wondering....

KB

I'm saying that a good (probably half or more) of bigfoot sightings are valid sightings of unknown bipedals thought to be a North American primate or hominid/hominoid and that anecdotal reports in that 50% plus that are probably accurate ARE evidence. You probably do not agree, so be it. Same situation that has been keeping this forum stalemated re: so-called pseudoskeptical logic and lack of evidence argumentum ad nauseum since I joined. As a witness, I don't have to agree with absence of evidence as being evidence of absence no matter what the obfuscated definition of the "provers" are; nor do other witnesses or those close to those that have witnessed the beings.

Bipedalist, I agree that the ones of us that have had true to life sightings and experiences that we know what we know and that is an absolute!

KB

[Guest]

Well yes AZBF, in the context of obtaining proof and presenting it in a clear and appropriate manner to the world, not very good at all.

How many more years will we be waiting on tests already done? Bigfoot is a mythical creature. There is a stigma that should rightfully be corrected. As a person who has had BF encounters I deserve some vindication amongst my doubting peers. Loss of credibility is only one of the things someone who has had an encounter risks by the recounting of their experience. Those with evidence should appreciate this and make haste with proof.

[Guest]

I don't think the evidence is defined as yet and I don't know of any fossil record of bigfoot in NA?

How many times have researchers followed this type of standard? How often is the evidence/findings made available for inspection by experts? I don't think any of what I've said should be earth shattering to any serious researcher so why is it so rarely followed? What would your criterion be?

Have the BFRO and/or Jacobs released the full sequence of those trailcam photos allegedly depicting a junior BF?

[Guest]

I agree with that completely. And as a witness myself, I know how you feel about wanting a little vindication. One of the toughest things to deal with is not being believed, especially when you take pride in being honest. . . and right.

At the same time, I don't expect people to just believe me because I said so. There is a certain way to handle disagreement though.

[ohiobill]

I'm saying that a good (probably half or more) of bigfoot sightings are valid sightings of unknown bipedals thought to be a North American primate or hominid/hominoid and that anecdotal reports in that 50% plus that are probably accurate ARE evidence. You probably do not agree, so be it. Same situation that has been keeping this forum stalemated re: so-called pseudoskeptical logic and lack of evidence argumentum ad nauseum since I joined. As a witness, I don't have to agree with absence of evidence as being evidence of absence no matter what the obfuscated definition of the "provers" are; nor do other witnesses or those close to those that have witnessed the beings.

I don't consider myself an expert (someone w/education/training in a subject who is willing to place their professional credentials on the line) on bigfoot sightings and I don't think anyone else is either. I think your estimate of validity/reliability is high but I am only going on my personal extrapolation of the sightings I've read so far and I can only assume that you are doing the same. Perhaps I have a higher standard than you but I agree that some of the sighting reports are preliminary evidence and should be treated as such - they should be investigated and those found wanting should no longer be considered as evidence.

I don't think the forum is stalemated and I don't think critical objectivity can be accurately portrayed as pseudoskeptical logic. I don't agree that absence of evidence is evidence of absence and neither do most scientific minded people - witness the billions spent on subatomic particle research. I do think that sightings should be held to standards much higher than the anonymous, unverified, encounters they currently are and I think from your color-blind moth/butterfly reference that you do too. I don't have to agree that every report is an accurate depiction of a species new to science and not agreeing with you on every point doesn't make me pseudoskeptical or wrong by any stretch of the imagination.

[Guest]

Sure, how else would you explain all the unicorn evidence over the past 1000 years, but the lack of a body?

Coins, crests, folk tales, sightings by credible people (Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, etc.), tapestries, flags, coat-of-arms, drawings, carvings, statues, paintings, and books?

Unicorns were impossible to capture, hence the lack of definitive evidence (proof).

What, you think that was all fake?

RayG

So Ray, do you actually equate Bigfoot with Unicorns?

[southernyahoo]

I don't think the evidence is defined as yet and I don't know of any fossil record of bigfoot in NA?

We don't know it's not in the fossil record

The standard for determining if tracks/trackways are real should include the automatic exclusion of any tracks that fall into a size range possible in humans as a start

I disagree, if there is a hominid out there that is not born 8 feet tall then the juniors are likely to be the ones who mistakenly leave tracks that are more easily found.

(I wouldn't necessarily exclude human size tracks if accompanied by footprints outside the probable range of human activity).

Me either.

How about sending the rest to an expert like Dr. Meldrum if there is consensus that the possibility of hoaxing is low?

Who doesn't?

Understand that other experts have to have access to his findings/evidence for objectivity to be observed and the results to be taken as more than one person's opinion.

Yeah, but they would have actually talk to him instead of making assumptions on forums.

I think the standard for vocalizations could be as simple as vetting samples here in this forum w/a majority vote by the admins/steering committee/volunteer group prior to sending them to an expert in NA animal vocalizations or human vocal experts. Understand that other experts have to have access to the findings/evidence for objectivity to be observed and the results to be taken as more than one person's opinion.

Too many agendas, everyone here is anonymous , no verfiable credentials, so agreeing who the experts are is tenuous, and this pretty much goes for much of the other evidence.

How many times have researchers followed this type of standard? How often is the evidence/findings made available for inspection by experts? I don't think any of what I've said should be earth shattering to any serious researcher so why is it so rarely followed? What would your criterion be?

I prefer to work with experts who have a name for one, and all they have to do to aquire and review data is to contact the researchers. That would be easier than knocking on doors, only to find disinterested scientists.

I'm sorry but I'm not following your logic here? My point is that the witnesses are more likely misidentifying moths at night and not seeing butterflies which is analogous to witnesses more likely misidentifying known animals rather than having seen bigfoot.

And I'm sorry, but this is only your opinion.

Are you trying to say that applying objectivity to bigfoot sightings is nonsensical?

Nope, if you believe sightings have value, then you are free to spend your time with them and tell us which are "really" true or false. If I think even one is true and within driving distance, I will choose to spend my time exploring where those happen.

[ohiobill]

Ohiobill, I have a question.....WHAT is your definition of an expert? You say that word many times throughout your last post. Just wondering....

KB

Someone w/education/training in a subject who is willing to place their professional credentials on the line. I think laypersons can be every bit as handy in ruling out/in evidence of a bigfoot as a doctorate holder can but professional scientists have skills/reputations that lessen the chance of mistakes. I'd rather have an amish carpenter build my barn if given the choice between him and the mechanical engineer who designs the space station but that doesn't mean NASA should use the amish carpenter to design the space station.

[Guest]

Check out my avatar for the coolest unicorn ever, it's the coat of arms for the town in the Czech Republic where my family came from. People say they don't exist but I have the legacy horn handed down for generations. Here is a pic taken fresh out of cryo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/83943578@N05/7981193794/

[ohiobill]

We don't know it's not in the fossil record

It's not in the known fossil record of NA as currently known to science at large.

I disagree, if there is a hominid out there that is not born 8 feet tall then the juniors are likely to be the ones who mistakenly leave tracks that are more easily found.

Then you set yourself for up unintentional hoaxes that impeach the credentials of anyone involved in the study and confuse the limited evidence available for study. Do you know of any way to definitively determine the two species apart?

Me either

Glad we agree on something!

Who doesn't?

All the people who haven't? I'm not sure if this a rhetorical question or if you think I know where every cast has been sent in the hunt for bigfoot.

Yeah, but they would have actually talk to him instead of making assumptions on forums.

Not sure who you are referring to here? Other experts, me?

Too many agendas, everyone here is anonymous , no verfiable credentials, so agreeing who the experts are is tenuous, and this pretty much goes for much of the other evidence.

I agree that anonymous experts would have little value and would have no more impact on the actual proof of bigfoot's existence than the anonymous sightings reports do. That is what peer review is for and why it is needed.

I prefer to work with experts who have a name for one, and all they have to do to aquire and review data is to contact the researchers. That would be easier than knocking on doors, only to find disinterested scientists.

If you mean anonymous experts I again agree and will again state that anonymous experts will have no more impact on the actual proof of bigfoot's existence than anonymous sightings reports do.

And I'm sorry, but this is only your opinion.

It was part of a discussion I was having w/bipedalist and was never meant to be taken for fact but instead as a logical argument in a hypothetical situation. I'm sorry if I confused you.

Nope, if you believe sightings have value, then you are free to spend your time with them and tell us which are "really" true or false. If I think even one is true and within driving distance, I will choose to spend my time exploring where those happen.

I do believe there is potential for learning something from some sightings but not all of them. No one can tell which ones are true or false which is the main reason they can't be considered as proof that bigfoot is roaming around. I hope you get a chance to see one soon.

[kbhunter]

OK ohiobill, fair enough and thank you for the answer. Now, I must say I am a trained and have over 31 years in investigative work, root cause analysis and problem solving, I work for the corporate office of a large company and I travel the world doing such. I have a friend that is a trained Primatoligist and she has many years in her field of study. I also am an avid outdoorsman, hunter and fisherman. I have spent over 45 years outside doing those things I still do. Hunting and being outdoors, I learned a great deal from the animals I witnessed. I learned to track and read sign from my Dad. I have taught others and have guided hunts to many. I knew the area I hunted like my own home, because I spent more than 20 years on that property. It was gated, far off of the paved road and only 1 way in for miles.

When I first started having experiences a few years ago, I applied logic and collected evidence for a few months. Although I never saw the subject, the evidence from what I collected told me it was an unknown and not an animal that I knew was not common to the area. So, I kept having experiences like BIG ape sounds, bi-pedal footsteps in the area around the edges of our camp. Then I began finding tracks. Big tracks, medium tracks and a few smaller ones. In the winter months it gets pretty cold here in GA, I know that huge barefoot people were not running through creeks making tracks. I heard many whoops, loud gutteral calls that would be so very loud, it hurt my ears at times. So, I started researching online and I heard the same sounds, saw the same tracks and heard stories of what I now know was BF or Sasquatch. At that point, I couldn't make myself believe it because the term mainly because it has for a very long time been linked to cartoons, movies, magazines and books turning the subject into a fairy tale like figure. In my opinion that entire notion is where people have this huge road block in believing it could be real. A subtle brainwashing effect in my opinion.

Now, after a few more months of collecting data or "evidence", I began to be introduced to people to help me understand more of what my mind had a hard time believing. I found my friend that is the primatologist and she was trained for many years in the study of Apes and she had more than a few encounters. She spent many hours talking to me and helping me understand what she had learned. It finally began to really click with me as she was describe something to do from a science perspective to help me in data collection and fitting together things to help me. I began having sightings of glimpses of things moving from time to time through techniques she taught me. I have had some pretty good visuals now.

The next few years up to now has been constant learning from many of the people here and others that are known as BF people by most. I have surrounded myself with people that have been having experiences and showed me how to open my mind to the possibilities. I now am totally amazed at what I know now. I have even took what I have been taught and shared it with my new wife. Not only does she now believe, she had her own sighting with me this year as one looked around a tree at us. She was extremely surprised at the size, but it was an awsome experience.

I do consider myself an "expert" in what I trained and was educated to do for my company. I think my training helped me deduce what I now know after trying to disprove what I couldn't.

So, ohiobill, do I or the Primatologist I know who has been studying these beings fit your definition? Oh, by the way I do stake my reputation and I share what I have learned with my friends and even my boss at work is now very interested. That is because he trusts my "expertise".

KB

[Guest BFSleuth]

DNA race? Really? I just mailed off my hair samples today. The guy I sent them to said it would only be days. I have alot more samples!

To put it in layman's terms it seems like you are getting the quick and dirty genetic "barcode" rather than the complete genome sequence. Good luck with confirming a new species with the Q&D barcode. You get what you pay for.

Really.

[Guest]

Now, I must say I am a trained and have over 31 years in investigative work, root cause analysis and problem solving, I work for the corporate office of a large company and I travel the world doing such.

A trained what ? Post secondary school, post graduate? What industry? Does your friend possess a degree in primatology?

[ohiobill]

KB, In my estimation you can't be an "expert" whose word alone will command enough respect w/o some sort of really good video footage AND a noted sponsor. I would liken your situation to that of Jane Goodall whose work was basically directed by Leakey before she earned her doctorate. Good for the grunt work but unable to publish until she earned her doctorate. The good news is that there are some scientists involved now who actually could act as a sponsor and help if they were inclined to do so.

I don't know enough about your friend to determine her standing as an expert but with a degree in primatology and some good clear footage I would think she would jump right to the top. Understand that even w/o a degree or video both of you are more than qualified to study bigfoot and record your findings, document behavior, and the like which can only help others document the same behaviors.

I understand you are willing to risk your reputation but it's not the same as Dr. Meldrum risking his...from your description you don't have a scientific reputation to risk at this time and in publishing it does make a difference.

Understand that it wouldn't matter if you were a genius firefighter/cop/astronaut (some of the most respected professions in polls) trusted w/million or billion dollar equipment and the lives of the people you served...you wouldn't get the respect from the scientific community at large. I don't know if this helps but that's my opinion.