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

[norseman]

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.

We are also not going to convince any skeptic by giving them more foot casts or grainy film either.........

[Guest DWA]

We are also not going to convince any skeptic by giving them more foot casts or grainy film either.........

No. They should have been convinced that a full-time search was warranted by the spring of 1968.

Not my problem. I'm not going to be the one fielding questions from every media outlet about how you guys couldn't find an eight-foot bipedal ape.

[Guest]

If the evidence for bigfoot is sooo overwhelming for bigfoot why have there been little of it published in reputable peer reviewed journals? I could only find one by Meldrum.

And yes, we do dismiss eyewitness reports. Bigfoot is a cultural icon and as such most people will interpet strange things in the woods as a bigfoot. Also a animal that is "sighted" as often and as widespread as bigfoot can't hide his long.

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

And that proves your point how?

[Guest]

How can one conclusively say it's all hoaxed/misinterpreted any more than another can conclusively say it's bigfoot?

Bolded words need to be qualified to avoid a strawman argument.

Note, however, that we have abundant evidence that items passed off as bigfoot evidence do get misinterpreted (e.g., "yeti" hair from Nepal was horse - see Milinkovitch et al. 2004) or have been produced by hoaxes (e.g., Elbe trackway). So far, we've got no confirmed bigfoot.

Speaking of rehashing old ideas, the evidence vs proof thing has been beaten to death here -even well before the BFF 2.0 re-boot. Purported bigfoot evidence is just that - purported. It might be bigfoot evidence, but we'll never know if bigfoot is never proven to exist. If bigfoot doesn't exist, then it never was bigfoot evidence to begin with.

The type of evidence required to establish the existence of a new species is the same for every other species - there is no double-standard for bigfoot. Physical evidence - "proof" in the vernacular - is what's needed. Nothing anyone writes here on the BFF can change that.

No. They should have been convinced that a full-time search was warranted by the spring of 1968.

If you ask him very nicely, RayG can supply you with a list of mainstream scientists who have actively engaged in bigfoot research. Be forewarned, however, that their number is greater than zero.

[Guest DWA]

Speaking of rehashing old ideas, the evidence vs proof thing has been beaten to death here -even well before the BFF 2.0 re-boot. Purported bigfoot evidence is just that - purported. It might be bigfoot evidence, but we'll never know if bigfoot is never proven to exist. If bigfoot doesn't exist, then it never was bigfoot evidence to begin with.

The type of evidence required to establish the existence of a new species is the same for every other species - there is no double-standard for bigfoot. Physical evidence - "proof" in the vernacular - is what's needed. Nothing anyone writes here on the BFF can change that.

If you ask him very nicely, RayG can supply you with a list of mainstream scientists who have actively engaged in bigfoot research. Be forewarned, however, that their number is greater than zero.

The interpretation of the first passage is: it is on the scientific establishment to follow up on the evidence. Instead, they ridicule and ignore it. Would you actually argue that if the mainstream - with the monopoly on time, resources and unwarranted credibility - stonewalls forever, it's the proponents' fault for wasting their time?

The interpretation of the second passage is: it is on the scientific establishment to follow up on the evidence. Instead, they ridicule and ignore it. That's not a double standard. It's worse. It's an absolute and thoroughgoing dereliction of scientific duty.

(And no, it is not on the proponents. They are required to marshal the evidence; they admirably have. Simple test: who wasn't doing their jobs when this animal is confirmed? Right.)

The interpretation of the third passage is: Meldrum is, without serious dispute, the foremost scientist among bigfoot proponents. He has been challenged for his tenure - by his scientific colleagues - and can not be charitably said to spend part time on this, as it does not pay his bills. And he is the one spending the most time. No one in the world does this on a full-time basis.

(OK, maybe John Bindernagel can challenge Meldrum. But the same is true of his commitment; it doesn't keep his heat on in the winter. If it doesn't, then you can't claim it - or even significantly do it - as your job.)

Edited November 29, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

Bigfooters haven't given evidence. They keep their evidence to themselves and no other researcher can check and see. Would haven't they published a paper on the Skookum cast?

[Guest DWA]

Bigfooters haven't given evidence. They keep their evidence to themselves and no other researcher can check and see. Would haven't they published a paper on the Skookum cast?

Scientific papers have to be peer reviewed. The mainstream won't do it. Ask John Bindernagel (why do they keep arguing with me)? Every cast Meldrum has is available for any interested scientist.

You are just flat wrong. Know how I know?

I'm not even a scientist and I can out-argue any scientist on this topic.

How, he asks?

The evidence. The evidence is public knowledge. Only I look at it, and they don't.

Edited November 29, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

Saskeptic, if something walks through the snow, and rifles through your shed, then walks away again, then because you never saw the something that left the tracks, it never was never there? And because you don't know exactly what left the tracks, then its a waste of time to investigate? Just trying to get where your heads at here......

[Guest DWA]

If the evidence for bigfoot is sooo overwhelming for bigfoot why have there been little of it published in reputable peer reviewed journals? I could only find one by Meldrum.

The mainstream won't do peer review. Meldrum got that one paper published - which you will note gives the mainstream room to say 'it's not necessarily bigfoot,' even if that makes them look stupid.

And yes, we do dismiss eyewitness reports. Bigfoot is a cultural icon and as such most people will interpet strange things in the woods as a bigfoot. Also a animal that is "sighted" as often and as widespread as bigfoot can't hide his long.

You don't see what's wrong with what you wrote? YOU DON'T? If you dismiss sighting reports, they don't need to hide. [holds head]

And that proves your point how?

[snigger] dinosaur [chiuckle] fossils [LAUGHS]

[holds head] Fish. Barrel.

Edited November 29, 2012 by DWA

[Guest RayG]

But how can mainstream science do the peer-review if the bigfoot scientists don't submit? The Skookum cast, discovered a dozen years ago is a good example. Dr. Meldrum examined the cast, along with other scientists. If this was such compelling evidence for bigfoot, why no paper?

The Fahrenbach track size distribution analysis is another example. His work was submitted and published in the publication Cryptozoology, but not in any peer-reviewed journal. Why not? Was it even submitted to a scientific journal? If not, why not?

RayG

[Guest DWA]

But how can mainstream science do the peer-review if the bigfoot scientists don't submit? The Skookum cast, discovered a dozen years ago is a good example. Dr. Meldrum examined the cast, along with other scientists. If this was such compelling evidence for bigfoot, why no paper?

The Fahrenbach track size distribution analysis is another example. His work was submitted and published in the publication Cryptozoology, but not in any peer-reviewed journal. Why not? Was it even submitted to a scientific journal? If not, why not?

RayG

You will have to ask the scientists involved that. And I have a hunch they will have some interesting answers for you.

Like I say, it's all public information. The mainstream cannot claim no access.

[Guest RayG]

And what of the evidence that has been examined and found to have more mundane explanations? Should that evidence still be held up as valid bigfoot evidence?

And what specific evidence is it that mainstream science has refused to look at?

RayG

[Guest DWA]

And what of the evidence that has been examined and found to have more mundane explanations? Should that evidence still be held up as valid bigfoot evidence?

And what specific evidence is it that mainstream science has refused to look at?

RayG

The debunked evidence - all of that has been done by the proponents - is nothing against what is in play.

Specific? All of it. Eyewitnesses aren't evidence (they are); the footprints could be faked (a tiny fragment of them have); Meldrum's casts ...drop in! (they haven't); the Skookum cast...what are you waiting for? (Daris Swindler, one of the minds of our time in this field, became a proponent on that alone. And the problem with anyone else even asking, um, Daris, um...could you share...?)

I could go on, but why?

The sheer incuriosity level of the mainstream community on this question just boggles. Not my problem.

And because I'm just getting tired here, let's refer back to the title of this thread:

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

Wow.

Sounds like an excuse, to me.

Edited November 29, 2012 by DWA

[Guest RayG]

As someone who's followed this mystery for the past 40+ years, I've seen lots of hype and excitement over things which never produce a bigfoot. Things once pronounced as compelling evidence for bigfoot become near-forgotten references, gigantic leaps forward in technology seem ineffective against bigfoot, and he continues to elude us like some shadow in the night.

Studies show eyewitnesses can be mistaken, footprints and trackways have fooled people, and the Skookum cast seems like something grandma would shake the cobwebs and moth balls off when she brings it out. I guess we pin all our hopes on DNA analysis, that I doubt will ever be published in a reputable North American science journal.

RayG

[Guest]

The mainstream won't do peer review.

If bigfooters can't put together a paper good enough to pass peer review its not the fault of the "mainstream". I would think journal editors they would be better at detecting what is good evidence than you or I. Just because you are impressed by the "evidence" doesn't main others should.

You don't see what's wrong with what you wrote? YOU DON'T? If you dismiss sighting reports, they don't need to hide. [holds head]

I should have said that an animal sighted as often s bigfoot has should not escape scientific documation.

[snigger] dinosaur [chiuckle] fossils [LAUGHS]

The fact that dinosaur fossils have been found in areas of poor fossilization does not explain why we don't find giant ape fossil in areas with good fossilization. It actually hurts your argument.