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

[Guest DWA]

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

Skeptics don't do that. That's how they can afford to be 'skeptical'.

True skeptics - which would be Jeff Meldrum and me, not 'bigfoot skeptics' - think, and do research. Have a little.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=study-suggests-primates-a

We know everything based on the fossil record. Ever'thang, including what's in Donald Trump's pockets now. Ever' single THANG.

Do I have that right?

Apparently not.

[Guest]

Skeptics don't do that. That's how they can afford to be 'skeptical'.

True skeptics - which would be Jeff Meldrum and me, not 'bigfoot skeptics' - think, and do research. Have a little.

https://www.scientif...ests-primates-a

We know everything based on the fossil record. Ever'thang, including what's in Donald Trump's pockets now. Ever' single THANG.

Do I have that right?

Apparently not.

I don't know if Dr. Meldrum qualifies as a "skeptic" though, does he?

[Guest DWA]

I don't know if Dr. Meldrum qualifies as a "skeptic" though, does he?

Oh yes he does, in the best sense of that word.

I don't call someone a skeptic who keeps firing off the same un-thought pseudo-arguments, over and over, unburdened by the evidence.

A skeptic is someone who uses the evidence to question every assumption...including the lazy assumption that this isn't real.

The sasquatch issue has given skepticism a bad name. What we see from skeptics isn't.

[Guest]

Oh yes he does, in the best sense of that word.

I don't call someone a skeptic who keeps firing off the same un-thought pseudo-arguments, over and over, unburdened by the evidence.

A skeptic is someone who uses the evidence to question every assumption...including the lazy assumption that this isn't real.

The sasquatch issue has given skepticism a bad name. What we see from skeptics isn't.

I'm with you there, but I don't think he's skeptical, I think he believes in the existence of this animal based on the evidence he has personally examined. Am I missing something?

[Guest]

The difference, friends, is that we lack fossil evidence of something we can say is "bigfoot" AND we lack recent physical evidence of something we can say is bigfoot. (Perhaps Dr. Ketchum or "Operation Persistence" or one of Bobo's midnight forest raves is about to change that but, for now, we don't have that.) Scientists and skeptics know full well the shortcomings of the fossil record. It is a mistake, however, to write off the fossil record as irrelevant just because it is incomplete.

Personally, I find the lack of a clear "bigfoot" in the North American fossil record as one of the most damning knocks against the creature's existence. Why? Because this creature is alleged to be large-bodied, continent-wide in distribution, and to occur in habitats that have revealed rich fossil deposits. The lack of bigfoot in the fossil record doesn't mean that bigfoots don't exist, but it really - really - doesn't help build the case that it does.

[Guest DWA]

I'm with you there, but I don't think he's skeptical, I think he believes in the existence of this animal based on the evidence he has personally examined. Am I missing something?

That's what I mean about skepticism having been given a bad name by bigfoot 'skeptics'.

You said he used the evidence. Do bigfoot 'skeptics' use the evidence?

Because what they do is not skepticism! They decide what they want to think, then they never change it. And they don't really think much at all. They just scoff, and toss stuff at the wall to see what sticks. They make 'mundane' claims that are far-out weird (Hieronymous was in the suit. Patty made tracks deeper than the horses did, 'which is impossible.' And...what...HIERONYMOUS made them...???? PATTERSON did...???

Meldrum subjects every claim, proponent or bigfoot 'skeptic,' to scientific scrutiny.

To use ridicule and rigidity instead? That's not skepticism.

Edited November 29, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

The difference, friends, is that we lack fossil evidence of something we can say is "bigfoot" AND we lack recent physical evidence of something we can say is bigfoot.

Yes, but footprints and hair IS physical evidence, it's just not PROOF. Why can't skeptics bring themselves to at least admit that? That's what phyisical evidence is, it just doesn't constitute proof.

[Guest DWA]

The difference, friends, is that we lack fossil evidence of something we can say is "bigfoot" AND we lack recent physical evidence of something we can say is bigfoot. (Perhaps Dr. Ketchum or "Operation Persistence" or one of Bobo's midnight forest raves is about to change that but, for now, we don't have that.) Scientists and skeptics know full well the shortcomings of the fossil record. It is a mistake, however, to write off the fossil record as irrelevant just because it is incomplete.

Personally, I find the lack of a clear "bigfoot" in the North American fossil record as one of the most damning knocks against the creature's existence. Why? Because this creature is alleged to be large-bodied, continent-wide in distribution, and to occur in habitats that have revealed rich fossil deposits. The lack of bigfoot in the fossil record doesn't mean that bigfoots don't exist, but it really - really - doesn't help build the case that it does.

No, it doesn't build the case. It's irrelevant. Again, no one can make a case for what is now based on the fossil record.

You are going to have a far harder time convincing me that all of this extremely consistent evidence is made up - more evidence than anything else has going for it that science hasn't proven - than you are going to have convincing me that no one will ever find a sasquatch progenitor. Because I won't care if anyone ever does. What is is what counts, and the evidence points overwhelmingly to the current existence of this animal. To hang one's hat on the fossil record and discount that evidence is, to me, simply not what a scientist does. And it doesn't help that they are doing it.

Yes, but footprints and hair IS physical evidence, it's just not PROOF. Why can't skeptics bring themselves to at least admit that? That's what phyisical evidence is, it just doesn't constitute proof.

Not only that, but eyewitness testimony is extremely compelling evidence, which has helped to confirm most of what we know.

If you dismiss the eyewitness testimony, you have not read it. And footprints are forensic evidence, that clearly shows things that hoaxers don't think of, mainly because they aren't anthropologists with a career specialty in locomotor adaptations.

I should point out here that "recent physical evidence of something we can say is bigfoot" is also called PROOF.

Translation:

Science needs to get into the field and settle this question. Why in the name of DNA bagels do the 'skeptics' not want that?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=study-suggests-primates-a

I think I just need to keep seeding that little link through the discussion.

Edited November 29, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

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.

I said every large mammal of North America. Fossil remains of chimpanzees and gorillas are irrelevent since the areas where they live are not suitable for fossilization. Bigfoot has been "sighted" in areas with a rich fossil record. Pointing out that "Most of what has lived on this earth has left no fossil remains" makes a nice talking point but it doesn't hand-wave the troubling fact that we should find at least some fossil remains of a bigfoot or bigfoot ancestor. This is the case for other North American animal.

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

Nope, they would say that those missing primates are likely tropical monkeys and lemurs.

[Guest DWA]

Many of the areas where dinosaurs lived are 'not suitable for fossilization.'

And the link again:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=study-suggests-primates-a

Once again: to fold one's arms and refuse to consider the evidence on the basis of the fossil record is not much more scientific than assuming a flat earth (which, to an individual walking on the ground, is a thesis that has much to recommend it).

[Guest]

Yes, but footprints and hair IS physical evidence, it's just not PROOF. Why can't skeptics bring themselves to at least admit that? That's what phyisical evidence is, it just doesn't constitute proof.

I know of not a single hair, saliva stain, footprint, etc. that has been conclusively determined to have come from a bigfoot. These items are evidence of something, but it is at best premature to consider them to be evidence of bigfoot. If I have a plaster cast of a bigfoot print that is ultimately revealed to have been made by a hoaxer, would you agree that it never really was bigfoot evidence?

[Guest DWA]

I know of not a single hair, saliva stain, footprint, etc. that has been conclusively determined to have come from a bigfoot. These items are evidence of something, but it is at best premature to consider them to be evidence of bigfoot. If I have a plaster cast of a bigfoot print that is ultimately revealed to have been made by a hoaxer, would you agree that it never really was bigfoot evidence?

Once again:

That something is not proof does not constitute an excuse to sit on one's hands until a body falls on one and kills one.

Evidence is followed to proof. The footprint evidence - if one knows about it - is so unlikely to have been faked that the possibility is one of the safest things in science to dismiss.

[Guest]

No, it doesn't build the case. It's irrelevant.

That's nice, but I'm the skeptic here and I'm telling you what does and does not resonate with me. Your say so does not affect my expectation that bigfoot - if real - should be very well represented among Quaternary fossils in North America.

As for the remainder of your statements, I've addressed them many times on the BFF 1.0 and 2.0. No need to re-hash them now.

That something is not proof does not constitute an excuse to sit on one's hands until a body falls on one and kills one.

If you think this is what scientists do, then I suspect your well has been poisoned.

[Guest DWA]

I said every large mammal of North America. Fossil remains of chimpanzees and gorillas are irrelevent since the areas where they live are not suitable for fossilization. Bigfoot has been "sighted" in areas with a rich fossil record. Pointing out that "Most of what has lived on this earth has left no fossil remains" makes a nice talking point but it doesn't hand-wave the troubling fact that we should find at least some fossil remains of a bigfoot or bigfoot ancestor. This is the case for other North American animal.

Nope, they would say that those missing primates are likely tropical monkeys and lemurs.

Should have added: oh, the evidence hand-waves that non-troubling fossil fact, handily. This is one of the many advantages of comprehending the breadth and depth of the overall evidence for sasquatch. The fossil record is irrelevant. (As is the fact that Beringia would likely have provided fossils. Whoops.)

Read the link! Scientists make no presumptions about what those missing animals are. That is their problem; they can't.

RESEARCH, guys, kinda important. Reading too.

That's nice, but I'm the skeptic here and I'm telling you what does and does not resonate with me. Your say so does not affect my expectation that bigfoot - if real - should be very well represented among Quaternary fossils in North America.

As for the remainder of your statements, I've addressed them many times on the BFF 1.0 and 2.0. No need to re-hash them now.

If you think this is what scientists do, then I suspect your well has been poisoned.

It is - demonstrably - what they are doing. How many mainstream research institutions have followed up on the sasquatch evidence? Thanks.

When the sasquatch is confirmed, who will we say was not doing their job? Certainly not the proponents.

And as to the remainder of my statements: your re-hash would get hashed. Count on it. Better not to bother. Oh. Your expectations - as are the rest of the mainstream's - are irrelevant, if they don't even address the evidence.

Edited November 29, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

I know of not a single hair, saliva stain, footprint, etc. that has been conclusively determined to have come from a bigfoot. These items are evidence of something, but it is at best premature to consider them to be evidence of bigfoot. If I have a plaster cast of a bigfoot print that is ultimately revealed to have been made by a hoaxer, would you agree that it never really was bigfoot evidence?

Of course it has not conclusively been determined to have come from a bigfoot, because bigfoot has not been proven to exist yet. However, all the hair, saliva, footprints, etc. as a whole, viewed as a body of evidence, points to the possibility to SOMETHING being out there. It's not PROOF, but it points to the POSSIBILITY. How can one conclusively say it's all hoaxed/misinterpreted any more than another can conclusively say it's bigfoot?