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

[southernyahoo]

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

We'll find out either with a specimen or DNA.

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?

That's why we send them to experts.

All the people who haven't?

Who are they?

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.

If you don't, then you should not assume.

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

Whoever wants to be the expert.

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.

Very good then.

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.

If you want contact info for people who report sightings then you would need to join a research group. There is a reason why that isn't available to Joe public.

[Guest RayG]

So Ray, do you actually equate Bigfoot with Unicorns?

Well, there do seem to be similarities, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to equate them entirely.

There are a lot of similarities between bigfootery and ufology too.

Whatever is the most offensive thing possible, that's what he's trying to say.

What I"m trying to say is that there are similarities. (which can easily be pointed out).

How is that offensive?

RayG

[ohiobill]

We'll find out either with a specimen or DNA.

The only way one will be placed in the fossil record of NA is for fossilized remains to be found. Freshly obtained specimens or DNA will have no bearing on the fossil record.

That's why we send them to experts.

Whose job becomes even harder and whose credentials come under that much more scrutiny. Feel free to send all yours in if you believe it will help.

Who are they?

The anonymous ones? Again your question is unclear to me.

If you don't, then you should not assume.

Whoever wants to be the expert.

Very good then.

If you want contact info for people who report sightings then you would need to join a research group. There is a reason why that isn't available to Joe public.

Thanks for the info!

[southernyahoo]

The only way one will be placed in the fossil record of NA is for fossilized remains to be found. Freshly obtained specimens or DNA will have no bearing on the fossil record.

Depends on what DNA we can get from fossils, and what morphology we see in a specimen.

Whose job becomes even harder and whose credentials come under that much more scrutiny. Feel free to send all yours in if you believe it will help.

If the job becomes difficult, then maybe thats not entirely due to humans misidentifying evidence of humans.

The anonymous ones? Again your question is unclear to me.

You offered the criticism that researchers were not seeking peer review on their evidence. I asked who they were. You don't seem to have an answer. I think that is clear.

BTW, my best criteria for describing suspect evidence of a non-HSS member of the genus homo would be "human and Non-human at the same time". If you know your stuff where analysis of evidence is concerned, you can find this.

[Guest]

If you are a scientist, these things would already be known to you.

It is because I am a scientist that I understand why things you describe would be dubious as evidence of a bigfoot prowling around, and would in no way provide proof of the existence of such a creature.

[Guest]

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.

I think those of you clamoring for respect from the scientific community are really mis-judging the weight those who have seen or believe in BF place on it.

They don't care as they know what they have seen and experienced.

Would it be better if a type specimen were brought forth? I guess it would as it would certrainly tie up loose ends and document the species.

But I know kbhunter personally and will vouch he isn't on drug's or subject to hallucinations.

He's VERY woods-wise and is an avid outdoorsman.

Not apt to get fooled like the *Little Lord Fauntleroy* types into any mis-id or jump to wild conclusions.

Part of the Premium Membership Plan includes a diary he kept. That info alone is worth the $20.00 for Premium Membership.

kb might not be a scientist, but he is a VERY experienced and *expert* outdoorsman that isn't prone to hallucinations or any of the other skeptical excuses.

He is also a person of the utmost moral and ethical integrity.

If he says he witnessed something, he witnessed exactly what he relates.

What I"m trying to say is that there are similarities. (which can easily be pointed out).

How is that offensive?

RayG

Get and respect that you are skeptical, but don't you see how relating BF eyewitness reports, on a BF forum, to *unicorns*, might be offensive to those who witnessed BF and know what they saw?

If I had witnessed a BF I would find such comparisons as demeaning and bordering on trollish.

[Guest]

Well they mean it with all due respect. Although they have contended that they do not see any type of ridicule witnesses are claiming, this week alone I have seen unicorns, werewolves, T-Rex, and Medusa brought up on this forum as things that exist or have existed that may have caused bigfoot witnesses some confusion.

[ohiobill]

SoutherYahoo - I agree with you that the only way that a bigfoot specimen will be placed in the fossil record of North America will be to find fossilized remains in NA since there currently is no known fossil evidence of bigfoot in NA known to science at large to my knowledge. If you know of documentation that states otherwise I would be interested in reading it. Can you point me to such documentation?

If bigfoot (or a relic hominid if you prefer) are leaving footprints that are indistuingishable from human prints then the value of such footprints as evidence of the bigfoot/relic hominid species existing essentially becomes zero unless accompanied by video footage and any value in collecting/studying the footpints is lost. From your earlier posts it is clear that you believe footprints/trackways are valuable evidence so I am unclear as to your point. Do you think that bigfoot leaves tracks that can't be distinguished from human tracks?

I think ANY researcher who brings forth evidence w/o applying screening to rule out known species is doing a disservice to the cause of "proving" the existence of bigfoot. Do you disagree? Is there a certain researcher/specific evidence you want to discuss in specific relating to this?

I am not clear about your point regarding "suspect evidence of a non-HSS member of the genus homo would be "human and Non-human at the same time". If you would like a response from me about this topic you will have to ask a direct question which I will gladly try to answer.

[Guest]

RayG has clearly described where he sees overlap in "unicorn" and "bigfoot" phenomena. If folks read the word "unicorn" and get offended, then I suggest that they take the time to read the other words in Ray's posts as well. They're the important ones because they explain what's similar between unicorns and bigfoot and what is not.

[Cotter]

I'd like to take a moment to share an experience I've had in the past 2 weeks.

There was a local that had a sighting. He called the Sheriff's Dept. The newspaper followed up with a story. Here's a quote from the Sheriff himself.

"While all calls are taken seriously", [sheriff] said "the Sasquatch sighting has led to a few giggles around the department."

I removed the Sheriff's name from the newspaper article.

So then I requested the police report from the Sheriff's dept via e-mail. Once I received the report, here is the e-mail I got back from the dept's record keeper.

"Does this go into your Sasquatch files now? “History of Bigfoot in the Upper Midwest.†Or “Geologists link Ocooch Mountain Range and Saskatchewan Mountain Range through obscure evidence.â€

Have a good week!"

This witness had an experience that compelled him to call the Sheriff's dept. He's a 57 year old farmer.

I wanted to share this to show exactly how 'serious' law enforcement take these things and the instance ridicule people face when reporting or investigating such things. It is a very tenuous uphill battle.

[ohiobill]

Well they mean it with all due respect. Although they have contended that they do not see any type of ridicule witnesses are claiming, this week alone I have seen unicorns, werewolves, T-Rex, and Medusa brought up on this forum as things that exist or have existed that may have caused bigfoot witnesses some confusion.

Arizona, that's a spurious argument you're making in regards to the T-Rex at least. I brought up T-Rex in regard to a moving tarp being evidence of bigfoot. The point was that mundane everyday occurences like tarps moving should not be put forward as evidence of cryptids w/o ruling out the much more likely explanations that are likely responsible. Since the witness in this case states they DIDN'T see bigfoot move the tarp (in fact they were asleep) and the only other evidence pointing to bigfoot moving the tarp was that the tarp DIDN'T move throughout the rest of their trip I'm not sure your logic follows.

If you are unable to differentiate a logical argument from witness ridicule please ask me to explain myself. Thanks.

[Guest]

Of all things that could have possibly moved the tarp (elk, moose, bear, human), you went with T-Rex? You explained yourself perfectly, and I have no problem following.

[indiefoot]

I'll hold up the BFF as evidence that there is little similarity between BF and other cryptids.

[Guest]

Well, there do seem to be similarities [unicorns & bigfoot], but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to equate them entirely.

Not very similar if you axe me. Surely we can evaluate which of the 2 is more plausible. Is there any evidence for unicorns besides a handful of sightings? They started out as mythical creatures, not the other way round as for bigfoot. Same deal for the Jackalope.

There are a lot of similarities between bigfootery and ufology too.

I agree, there are more similarities between bigfootery and ufology. But what you probably meant was Alien Abductions, not UFOs. We have plenty of confirmed UFOs caught on film. They are real non-paranormal, unidentified objects. And even so, they are no more resovled than bigfoot. Or are you claiming that UFOs are also just a myth?

Edited September 13, 2012 by Gigantofootecus

[ohiobill]

I think those of you clamoring for respect from the scientific community are really mis-judging the weight those who have seen or believe in BF place on it.

They don't care as they know what they have seen and experienced.

Would it be better if a type specimen were brought forth? I guess it would as it would certrainly tie up loose ends and document the species.

But I know kbhunter personally and will vouch he isn't on drug's or subject to hallucinations.

He's VERY woods-wise and is an avid outdoorsman.

Not apt to get fooled like the *Little Lord Fauntleroy* types into any mis-id or jump to wild conclusions.

Part of the Premium Membership Plan includes a diary he kept. That info alone is worth the $20.00 for Premium Membership.

kb might not be a scientist, but he is a VERY experienced and *expert* outdoorsman that isn't prone to hallucinations or any of the other skeptical excuses.

He is also a person of the utmost moral and ethical integrity.

If he says he witnessed something, he witnessed exactly what he relates.

HRP - I am confused by your response and apparent outrage. I'm not sure what your argument is here? KB asked me if I thought he could be an expert under my definition and I likened his situation to that of Jane Goodall before she received her doctorate. Is it denigrating to liken someone to a famed scientist in your opinion? Does comparing someone to a famed scientist equal claims of drug use or hallucination?

Understand that Goodall was working with Leakey on a species already known to science and not an unknown species. Of course it would be best to have an example of the species for study.

If a scientist and a hunting guide bag an unknown species of mountain goat who publishes the paper? Who defends the paper? Who do other scientists talk to about the paper? The hunting guide knew the area, had the knowledge to find the animal, was a savvy woodsman but will still not be the "expert" as far as getting the species recognized. Do you disagree?