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

[Guest DWA]

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.

Actually, that's not true. It happens all the time. When scientists go into a virgin area in which they know they have not catalogued any species, that's the exact situation you're talking about.

And I'm not slamming science for not looking for the sasquatch. I'm slamming science for not reviewing the evidence before pronouncing negatively upon that evidence. That is a scientific mortal sin. Science's reaction has poisoned the well for everyone but amateurs. And that is not only regrettable but a desecration of what science is supposed to be about.

I keep hearing contentions that scientists have reviewed the evidence. In the meantime I have never seen a scientist pronounce negatively on the sasquatch who does not make at least four mistakes, instantly identifiable by me, in the first 30 seconds of his statement. Given that I'm not a scientist, that's not good.

[Guest McGman]

Actually, that's not true. It happens all the time. When scientists go into a virgin area in which they know they have not catalogued any species, that's the exact situation you're talking about.

And I'm not slamming science for not looking for the sasquatch. I'm slamming science for not reviewing the evidence before pronouncing negatively upon that evidence. That is a scientific mortal sin. Science's reaction has poisoned the well for everyone but amateurs. And that is not only regrettable but a desecration of what science is supposed to be about.

I keep hearing contentions that scientists have reviewed the evidence. In the meantime I have never seen a scientist pronounce negatively on the sasquatch who does not make at least four mistakes, instantly identifiable by me, in the first 30 seconds of his statement. Given that I'm not a scientist, that's not good.

What do you personally consider the best evidence of their existence?

[Guest RayG]

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?

If big-game hunter Peter Byrne couldn't bag one, what chance do geeky, lab-dwelling, city-boy scientists have?

RayG

[salubrious]

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?

What I want to know is, how do you know that that 'science' has no such evidence?

I bet that 'science' does have something, but calls it something else. Gigantopithicus?? Neanderthal? The problem you have with the former (thought to be 10 feet tall) is the fossil evidence for it won't fill a shoebox. The latter has been anthropomorphized like mad... And we have a whole race or something called Desinovians that exists because of a finger joint?? What's the chances that some of that stuff is mis-identified? Its certainly happened before! I would not be so confident as to assume that fossil evidence is not in our possession. I've seen too may 'experts' be wrong. Remember T-Rex dragging its tail?? I remember seeing books that had them doing that when I was a kid. Now they think they are warm-blooded and not even a reptile. Stuff like that is changing all the time.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Still no proof, but plenty of excuses to explan why there's no proof

[salubrious]

proof [proof]

noun

1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?

3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.

4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.

5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.

Of the definitions above, 1 and 2 apply. IOW, yes, we have proof.

[Guest thermalman]

Agreed.

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.

And proof of your claims is what? What would you consider proof?

Edited November 27, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

What I want to know is, how do you know that that 'science' has no such evidence?

I bet that 'science' does have something, but calls it something else. Gigantopithicus?? Neanderthal? The problem you have with the former (thought to be 10 feet tall) is the fossil evidence for it won't fill a shoebox.

Have there been any Neanderthals or Gigantopithicus fossils found in North America?

Its certainly happened before! I would not be so confident as to assume that fossil evidence is not in our possession. I've seen too may 'experts' be wrong. Remember T-Rex dragging its tail?? I remember seeing books that had them doing that when I was a kid. Now they think they are warm-blooded and not even a reptile. Stuff like that is changing all the time.

So what? Information changes but the method says the same.

[Guest DWA]

Have there been any Neanderthals or Gigantopithicus fossils found in North America?

Not yet. Which means nothing.

A lesser panda progenitor wasn't found until 2005....in Tennessee.

[Guest]

Actually, they were found earlier than that, in Washingon in 1977.

[Guest DWA]

Which does no less to make my point.

The fossil record says nothing about what is here now. It is estimated that we have evidence of about 5% of the primates that have existed on earth.

[Guest]

Which does no less to make my point.

The fossil record says nothing about what is here now. It is estimated that we have evidence of about 5% of the primates that have existed on earth.

A Skeptic would say that simply means that 95% of primates DON'T EXIST.

[Guest]

Which does no less to make my point.

The fossil record says nothing about what is here now. It is estimated that we have evidence of about 5% of the primates that have existed on earth.

If there there's a primate living in North America, then it would have to have fossil remains or fossil ancestors. This is the case for all other large animals on the continent.

And 5% documated? Where did you get that?

Edited November 29, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

If there there's a primate living in North America, then it would have to have fossil remains or fossil ancestors. This is the case for all other large animals on the continent.

And 5% documated? Where did you get that?

First, it's not true that every large mammal on the continent has undisputed remains of its fossil ancestors. Wait; even if it were, it clearly is not true for the lesser panda....or for the gorilla and chimpanzee. In other words...what I said.

That 5% is a commonly-quoted number. Take it up with the primatologists, not with me. And my point is...it's irrelevant. Most of what has lived on this earth has left no fossil remains.

[Guest]

And 5% documated? Where did you get that?

5% of primates. It's a fact, do your own research!