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

[Guest BFSleuth]

The sun will heat dark objects like rocks, sticks, or rabbit droppings and they will melt down into the snow. I've seen this frequently in the backcountry.

[Cotter]

I thought this article was interesting and speaks to how difficult it is to catch rare animals on game cameras.

http://news.yahoo.com/sneaky-cat-caught-camera-himalayas-182058373.html

[Guest]

But bigfoot certainly isn't "rare". There are sightings all over the US and Canada. We always hear talk of how widespread bigfoot sightings are and yet its as rare as a snow leopard or pallas cat.

[Cotter]

Jerry - do you assume all sighting accounts are legitimate?

I think once the 'filter' is applied, you would indeed find that they are rare and the 'sasquatch are everywhere' statement is indeed not accurate.

[Guest]

No, but I know that claimed sightings are widespread and believers believe some of them to be legitimate.

What "filter" do you apply? That sightings at non-remote places are not legitimate?

Edited October 30, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Cotter]

Exactly, some of the claims are legitimate allegedly, not all.

I have a feeling I think I know the exact number of sightings you believe are legitmate. So, then, by that alone, would qualify BF as rare at best, correct?

As far as a filter to be applied, I think it's obvious that everyone has a different filter ranging from allowing nothing through, to allowing everything through.

Me, I'm somewhere in between, judge reports on a case-by-case basis, and then make a decision in my mind as to the legitimacy of a claim.

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of the same questions you do and am still wrapping my head around the whole deal.

I would also like to point out in the article above, they indicated that this particular cat has not changed much in 5 million years. That's pretty wild if you ask me.

[Guest]

Quite simply, manufacturers of imaging systems have not engineered their systems to BF surveillance requirements. Little wonder we have few good images.

How about a system with advanced artificial intelligence that's capable of mimicking the human psyche.

Unlike the brain, existing cameras do not succumb to obsessive behaviour, paranoia or other neurological phenomenon. An imaging system cannot manifest dark shadows, vague details and indistinct shapes into 800 lbs of bipedal primate. The mind is perfectly suited for this because it can distort visual features into whatever it wants, where as a camera cannot make the same distinction.

Little wonder that all BF pics to date are blobsquatches. A person believes he sees a sasquatch, snaps a photo, but the camera disagrees with the operator. So in the end, we have ourselves yet another blobsquatch to add to the collection, but more importantly, another excuse to help explain away the absence of any unambiguous BF imagery. In this instance, Mankind lacks the intelligence and engineering capability to create technology for this challenge. If you really think about it, a species that has accomplished feats such as splitting the atom and visiting the moon multiple times, is outwitted by a species that most proponents believe have not even discovered fire yet.

On a related note, I imagine this is why so many reports are documented decades after the fact. Details that clearly indicate it was not a sasquatch encounter are permitted to erode way with the sands of time. Meanwhile, the BF infatuation fills in the blanks to convince the eyewitness to contact the BFRO to proclaim he had a sasquatch encounter.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Marlboro

[Guest kampz]

I'm sorry. I didn't read this entire 32 page thread but what's your view on this subject 'marlboro' man. I've only read that evidence suggest it exists does but doesn't at the same time. Your original post doesn't explain this. Do you believe bigfoot exists 24/7 during everyones lives and always has? Or no?

Edited November 24, 2012 by kampz

[Guest DWA]

In other news: crop circles are CRAP!

Does anyone else understand where our antagonist is coming from? Does anyone else care this much about something they don't care about at all? Does anyone else troll the internet to find harmless cranks WHO MUST! BE! STOPPED!

Dude!

First: get a clue to what evidence is.

Second: read up.

Third: come back when you are ready to learn something.

[Guest kampz]

Some crop circles are just like bigfoot DWA. Do you believe every reported crop circle is a lie? Some are created by something unknown. Perhaps government. Just like me and you. We don't know 100%. I forgot to add in my other post, - check out my thread.

[Guest DWA]

^My apologies. However, how can you answer the fact with all this "evidence" there is still no proof? If that video is the proof the world is waiting for, why isnt it everywhere? This time next year you are all still going to be making the same excuses as to why you cant find bigfoot. 5 years from now same story.

That one's easy. The mainstream of science is paying no attention to the evidence. All one has to hear is any one of them talking about it; they make the same errors ignorant laymen do, errors no one who had read up could make.

[Drew]

So do you think science should ignore 400 years plus the fossil record which shows zero evidence of Bigfoot's existence, and rely on a few stories, and footprints of an animal that allegedly lives in all 48 continental states, Alaska, most of Canada, Russia, and China, is up to 10 feet tall, and probably weighing 600 pounds? You think they should ignore the lack of scientific evidence and mount an educational revolution, in which they devote grant monies, expend man-hours of themselves and their staff, to search for this creature, at the expense of all the resources which could be devoted to animals that there IS evidence for? Why not wait for Dr. Meldrum's privately funded BLIMP, to find the beast, then worry about devoting all of those valuable resources to the man-monkey?

[Guest DWA]

So do you think science should ignore 400 years plus the fossil record which shows zero evidence of Bigfoot's existence, and rely on a few stories, and footprints of an animal that allegedly lives in all 48 continental states, Alaska, most of Canada, Russia, and China, is up to 10 feet tall, and probably weighing 600 pounds? You think they should ignore the lack of scientific evidence and mount an educational revolution, in which they devote grant monies, expend man-hours of themselves and their staff, to search for this creature, at the expense of all the resources which could be devoted to animals that there IS evidence for? Why not wait for Dr. Meldrum's privately funded BLIMP, to find the beast, then worry about devoting all of those valuable resources to the man-monkey?

I think you should acquaint yourself with the evidence before showing how little you have read of it.

The fossil record is irrelevant. We accept many species as real for which we have no evidence of fossil antecedents. All we know about the sasquatch lineage is that we don't know what it is, yet. Several fossil primates have been offered as possible progenitors, and of course the main reason it's irrelevant is that the fossil record is not complete. (Estimate by primatologists of the percentage of primates that have ever existed for which we have evidence: 5%.)

Now I've told you this before: stop tossing evidence for assumptions. Scientists with eminent qualifications consider the tracks alone sufficient for proof. It's just that the mainstream doesn't agree with them, mainly because the mainstream considers this a taboo topic.

I'd never wait for a blimp to find this animal. It might, what the hell; but you search on the ground too because to say aerial searches are unreliable is an understatement.

And I know you know the TBRC is making pretty consistent contact. Oh, they're lying. I need to borrow that Ouija board of yours.

[Cotter]

@ Drew - but if one cannot prove a negative, how does science's history of lack of evidence (also looking) qualify that as proof of the creature's non-existence?

It can be drawn that history SUGGESTS that it doesn't exist, but you and I both know that the same argument can be made for other creatures, now shown to exist.

[Drew]

It doesn't qualify as non-existence.

It doesn't qualify as suggesting it doesn't exist.

It qualifies as the majority of research scientists are not going to devote scarce resources to a subject which has not provided any verifiable evidence of it's existence. If someone like the TBRC claims a specimen, then you will see funding be devoted to the field. But until then, the dearth of evidence allows only fringe scientists, relying on television money, and sporadic private funding to broach the idea of researching such a creature.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Drew