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

[Guest]

Me outraged? Really? I promise if I'm ever outraged there will be no room for any measure of ambiguity as it will be clear.

I'm not outraged at all.

You don't know kb from Adam's housecat and said....

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.

KB has credibility here as do many others.

You are speaking from a scientific perspective and fail to realize that most people here do not place scientific standards on their level of belief or experiences.

I think you are affording that realm too much credence for your audience. Probably play well on JREF though.

That's all I'm saying.

I'm certainly not outraged.

I promise, you and everyone else will be keenly aware if I reach that stage.

I have to take some deep breaths at times but I try not to allow myself to get to that level.

[ohiobill]

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.

I agree it is much more likely that the wind, falling leaf/branch/seed/nut/pod, or known animal is the culprit which is why I went with a creature that is NOT known to science to exist in NA at this time. Is the fact that there's fossil evidence of T. Rex in NA and none for bigfoot what qualifies this for ridicule in your opinion? I'm not following your logic?

[ohiobill]

Me outraged? Really? I promise if I'm ever outraged there will be no room for any measure of ambiguity as it will be clear.

I'm not outraged at all.

You don't know kb from Adam's housecat and said....

KB has credibility here as do many others.

You are speaking from a scientific perspective and fail to realize that most people here do not place scientific standards on their level of belief or experiences.

I think you are affording that realm too much credence for your audience. Probably play well on JREF though.

That's all I'm saying.

I'm certainly not outraged.

I promise, you and everyone else will be keenly aware if I reach that stage.

I have to take some deep breaths at times but I try not to allow myself to get to that level.

Again I'm confused by your response. Do you believe that all it takes to get a new species recognized by science is for someone to say it is so? His character isn't the problem, it's the lack of evidence. If he had a Leakey and some good video his observations would have some scientific weight even if all of what he was claiming wasn't on video. Since this thread is about evidence and since the ultimate evidence of bigfoot's existence is scientific recognition/inclusion you will eventually need an expert who is capable of getting the species recognized.

Again I'm asking you if you feel it is denigrating to liken someone to Jane Goodall? Again I'm asking you who the expert is in the scenario I presented above? I feel I'm asking respectfully asked questions that shouldn't compell you to assume I consider everyone on this forum a liar. Take a few more deep breaths and decide if anything that I said equates to calling KB a druggie or hallucinatory liar.

[southernyahoo]

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?

Not yet, if we were to discover bigfoot was an extant relative of Neanderthal you wouldn't need another unearthed fossil.

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 there is potential to distinguish human sized squatch tracks from the human tracks. But we should let the experts decide right?

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?

We can't find out if it is the experts opinion that the tracks are indistinguishable from human tracks, unless we bring such things forth. Do you think Neanderthal tracks are distinguishable from modern human tracks?They are two different species of genus homo. I'll see if I can post some interesting pics of that later.

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.

Well you might have to think on that a while. Is bigfoot portrayed as a hairy brute in human form? Do some putative tracks have human and non-human characteristics? Do some vocalizations have human and non-human elements at the same time? Are the hairs reported to have human and non-human morphology? Does the circumstances of surrounding evidence collection suggest Non-modern human behavior? The DNA.........?

[salubrious]

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.

You are missing the point or engaging in a strawman. Its not about proving the creature exists, its about disproving the idea that it could be a BF that made the track (or other evidence that you find). Its all about data points. But I am rapidly getting the impression that you have no interest in anything like this- if that is so then rest content in the knowledge that your skepticism is based entirely on a made-up story, rather than anything factual.

Edited September 13, 2012 by salubrious

[kbhunter]

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.

I think that using your definition of an "expert" here settles it for me. So, the Scientists are experts on BF? They have trained for researching BF? You say your choice between NASA scientists building your barn and the Amish , who you say your choice would be the Amish. Is that because the scientists education is far too complex to do the same thing? Or, maybe the Amish even though they have no formal training but YEARS of proven experience would do a better job for you? Hmmm....seems to be I an saying kind of the same thing.

What about this; Many of us BF people that have plenty of experience at collecting evidence take our evidence to a group of scientists to PROVE it as a real being. I think that could be a better approach.

I say to you that is and has been happening for the last few years and those results will be announced soon. Yea, this too is the subject of another thread here, but that is being riducled for "taking too long". BUT, if that is what it takes for the scientists to definitely prove, then so be it! I for one wonder why so many have decided since that document hasn't been finalized don't exisit? I think it maybe because MOST has no idea what it takes to do this, TRUE science must not be rushed, agree?

KB

[Guest MikeG]

Salubrius,

I'm wondering if that is a deliberate mis-reading of Saskeptic's position? You have to understand that for a scientist, this conundrum is binary. Yes it exists, or no, it doesn't. No half-way house. However, whichever of the options a scientist backs, they will be prepared to jump to the polar opposite one immediately there is proof that they were wrong.

Proof doesn't mean anecdotes or footprints or fuzzy films. Proof means incontrovertible proof. Put a corpse, are a part of a corpse, under Saskeptic's nose, and I guarantee he'll be as excited as you, and his position will be immediately reversed.

Frankly, I can't understand why this really straightforward and honourable position isn't good enough for some.

Mike

[salubrious]

^^ the problem is that the evidence is out there, whether or not you are skeptical. Anyone can find it if they follow the data points. So if a skeptic were to find such evidence, what do they do with it? Make up a story or really subject it to rigor?? In fact so far I have seen Sas and other skeptics engaging in logical fallacy rather than actually address my 'challenge'.

In Sas's case, he seems to be suggesting that he would make up a story rather than actually try to explain the existance of an artifact that he might find himself.

My position, which I have now stated at least three times, is that if you don't examine the evidence, you can't very well expect to be considered scientific. Especially if you are the one finding the evidence.

As I said before, what I see skeptics doing is being skeptical, but beyond that doing nothing. They don't follow the data points to find evidence, they don't seem to do anything. They make up stories about how I was on drugs or sleep deprived when I had my experience; I can't honestly say Sas's postion is straightforward and honourable if his position obviously rests on a made up story.

I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative- there is no need for that. The evidence is much easier to find than that. Given that is the case, why would a skeptic not leap at the chance to examine evidence first hand? If it seems like too much effort or the like, then rest easy in the knowledge that the skeptical position rests on a made-up story rather than science.

[Guest]

So if a skeptic were to find such evidence, what do they do with it? Make up a story or really subject it to rigor??

I told you what I'd do with it: I'd probably photograph it, make a plaster cast, and measure it. Okay, then what? You still haven't defined "rigor" and, more important, you haven't illustrated the objective of that rigor. What's this "made up story" thing you're on about now?

Here's the objective I see as relevant to bigfootery, and right now it's the only one: Obtain some kind of physical specimen of one of these creatures and use that to publish a paper describing the species. This will prove its existence. Result? Everybody wins!

A footprint is not a specimen, a foot is a specimen. Show me a foot and I'm interested. Show me a footprint and Grover Krantz is yawning in his grave (or more technically, in his display case at the Smithsonian).

I don't care what you do to a footprint in terms of "rigor," if it doesn't reveal a physical specimen from which a new species can be described then it's not advancing the case for bigfoot.

[Guest]

Salubrius,

I'm wondering if that is a deliberate mis-reading of Saskeptic's position? You have to understand that for a scientist, this conundrum is binary. Yes it exists, or no, it doesn't. No half-way house. However, whichever of the options a scientist backs, they will be prepared to jump to the polar opposite one immediately there is proof that they were wrong.

Proof doesn't mean anecdotes or footprints or fuzzy films. Proof means incontrovertible proof. Put a corpse, are a part of a corpse, under Saskeptic's nose, and I guarantee he'll be as excited as you, and his position will be immediately reversed.

Frankly, I can't understand why this really straightforward and honourable position isn't good enough for some.

Mike

I disagree with your premise only. Why must it be binary for a scientist? Why can't it be "Yes it exists", or "We don't know"? Does declaring that an animal is extinct make is so? These are only safe bets and shoulder shrugs. Scientists can't prove a negative and there is no default position in science in lieu of proof. Scientists can use their expertise to try and weigh the likelihood that they may or may not exist. But their opinions don't prove anything any more than the excuses prove they exist. The burden of proof is on the claimant. If you claim they don't exist, then you have to prove it. And just because BF witnesses can't prove their stories are true, the default position isn't that they are false. I'm not sure how any scientist can be an expert on whether BF exists, but they need to be a statistician on top of it all. And even then it's still guesswork.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Gigantofootecus

[Guest]

KB, In my estimation you can't be an "expert" whose word alone will command enough respect

The term “expert†is used far too often in the field of Squatchology. Being an avid outdoorsman, loving to fish or being a camping enthusiast regardless of how long you've been enjoying these activities, does not make you an expert regardless of what the subject is, let alone 8 ft tall primates.

How many times have we seen BF television programs impersonating "scientific documentaries" where statements like "that's not a human in a suit", "a man cannot run that fast" or "today's special effects industry can't create a suit like that" from these experts.

A good litmus test to evaluate the credentials and validity of an expert is if his/her testimony would be accepted in a court of law.

[Guest]

Scientific credentials are meaningless for discovering BF. Expertise in documenting evidence and tracking your quarry rules the day. You take the body to a scientist to catalogue the beast. That's what they are for. They usually aren't any better suited for discovering BF than say a tracker schooled in forensics. At any rate, you don't need to be a scientist to discover BF.

[Cotter]

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.

"Why would you expect an extant species to have a fossil record? And even if there is one, it would be remarkable if they could narrow down the fossil to matching the exact species.

Rainforests can be pretty poor places for fossils to form, given how quickly remains get broken down."

^^Above is indeed a quote that has been paraphrased, wasn't sure how to acknowledge it properly, but I felt the question was good enough I didn't want to retype it.

[Guest]

I appreciate your comments Giganto, and I agree that the binary should be exists vs. don't know it exists. Practically applied, however, biologists do need to make decisions based on the lack of evidence sometimes. The best example to my mind concerns species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. If a species is thought to be extinct - because people keep looking for it and can't find it anymore - then there is a lot of pressure to move such a species from "endangered" status to "extinct" status. It usually takes decades for committees to decide on a species' official designation, but ultimately we do rule that species are extinct based on the absence of data indicating that they are extant.

[Guest]

I agree that scientists need proof to get involved. They don't have the luxury of allocating money to finding something that hasn't been proven to exist. That's just the way it is. It's up to the layman to bring in a body.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Gigantofootecus