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

[Guest DWA]

"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."

Nope, they should be, and that's it. I know because I am acquainted with it and they are not. I couldn't say that with confidence unless they showed that I was right four times, on average, within the first 30 seconds every time they opened their mouths.

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

Except that...wait for it....you toss reports by people that have seen them. I am curious to understand how something like that gets confirmed. (Oh. Scientists have seen them.)

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.

Nope. First, as I have pointed out, the fossil record is irrelevant to this discussion, and second, it only means nothing has been found yet. (And third, it shows conclusively that you can't use poor-fossilization to defend the point you were making, so it helps my argument.)

(Although of course somebody could have found something conflicting with his worldview, and simply tossed it. That's happened more than once, the Minaret Skull being only the most famous example.)

[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?

No. Why on earth would you think that's what I think?

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......

People can investigate tracks. I don't have a problem with that. Jeff Meldrum's been doing that for some time now (and making a piles of money doing so and getting promoted to full professor while doing so, apparently all without DWA's knowledge). Henner Fahrenbach has invested a lot in footprint analysis too. Before him, Grover Krantz spent a lot of time of "big footprints."

The problem with footprints is that it doesn't matter how cool they look how big they are or in how remote an area they were found, unless you have the foot that made them you can't use them to describe a new species. Meldrum took it as far as one could, with an audacious description of an ichnotaxon based on his analysis that he believes proves such footprints are left by enormous creatures that look like "Patty".

[Guest DWA]

No. Why on earth would you think that's what I think?

Because it's kind of evident that you do. No curiosity, whatever, about that. OK there.

People can investigate tracks. I don't have a problem with that. Jeff Meldrum's been doing that for some time now (and making a piles of money doing so and getting promoted to full professor while doing so, apparently all without DWA's knowledge). Henner Fahrenbach has invested a lot in footprint analysis too. Before him, Grover Krantz spent a lot of time of "big footprints."

None of those guys get paid to do that. They are getting paid to do that when that is all they do. Their entire body of work on this topic is basically pro bono.

The problem with footprints is that it doesn't matter how cool they look how big they are or in how remote an area they were found, unless you have the foot that made them you can't use them to describe a new species. Meldrum took it as far as one could, with an audacious description of an ichnotaxon based on his analysis that he believes proves such footprints are left by enormous creatures that look like "Patty".

Like I said. No curiosity, whatever. My central point remains, and shall, unchallenged: This an utterly taboo topic in the mainstream. Why would that be? Anything with the evidence backing up what's in Meldrum's paper should get the attention of the community in a big way; yet sasquatch research continues to be discouraged. Explain that.

Edited November 29, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

"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."

Nope, they should be, and that's it. I know because I am acquainted with it and they are not. I couldn't say that with confidence unless they showed that I was right four times, on average, within the first 30 seconds every time they opened their mouths.

So declare yourself an expert an bigfoot and assert that your smarter than professional scientists. Aren't you humble.

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

Except that...wait for it....you toss reports by people that have seen them. I am curious to understand how something like that gets confirmed. (Oh. Scientists have seen them.)

I said scientific documation, as in the collection of a speciman by a scientist.

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.

Nope. First, as I have pointed out, the fossil record is irrelevant to this discussion, and second, it only means nothing has been found yet. (And third, it shows conclusively that you can't use poor-fossilization to defend the point you were making, so it helps my argument.)

I can use still poor fossilzation as an argument for gorillas and chimpanzee. It still shows that comparsions with bigfoot are apples and oranges. The lack of bogfoot in the fossil record may not 100% prove it doesn't exist, but it still poses a challenge that you can't ignore.

[Guest DWA]

So declare yourself an expert an bigfoot and assert that your smarter than professional scientists. Aren't you humble.

I just might. But...naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, I'm just gonna let them answer all the "how did you guys miss this?" questions. That'll be more fun.

I said scientific documation, as in the collection of a speciman by a scientist.

OK, share with me how you think we're gonna get there from here. When thousands see it, and no one believes anyone who says it, we...?

I can use still poor fossilzation as an argument for gorillas and chimpanzee. It still shows that comparsions with bigfoot are apples and oranges. The lack of bogfoot in the fossil record may not 100% prove it doesn't exist, but it still poses a challenge that you can't ignore.

Watch, I'm ignoring it. Again: when the evidence says something is real, looking in rocks for [lack of?] evidence that it isn't...well, it's a novel approach to be sure.

[Guest]

OK, share with me how you think we're gonna get there from here. When thousands see it, and no one believes anyone who says it, we...?

Do you know anything about wildife research and documation of new species?

Edited November 29, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

Do you know anything about wildife research and documation of new species?

A lot more than you think. First of all, somebody has to believe that people are seeing them. I said answer me, not question me.

[Guest]

You could learn from these people.

http://www.nature.co...s/363443a0.html

[Guest DWA]

You could learn from these people.

http://www.nature.co...s/363443a0.html

Didn't even have to read it, knew all about it.

They followed up on reports from...wait for it...locals who had seen it.

So now you learned something, at least.

[Guest]

My point is that if scientists can go to exotic lands and document rare animals, how can they can not find an animal that been sighted everywhere and in their own backyards? The forests of North America are being surveyed all the time and so far no large primate has surfaced.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest]

My point is that if scientists can go to exotic lands and document rare animals, how can they can not find an animal that been sighted everywhere and in their own backyards. The forests of North America are being surveyed all the time and so far no large primate has surfaced.

Where did you get the idea that all -or even most- of North America not only has been surveyed at all, but is "surveyed all the time"? Do you really not understand why an animal with a small population living in a very large area is difficult to document? It's not the first time this has been the case... more people see sasquatch than wolverines. It just so happens that "science" has documented one and not the other. It could easily be the case that sasquatch is a documented animal and wolverines are "mythical".

[Guest DWA]

My point is that if scientists can go to exotic lands and document rare animals, how can they can not find an animal that been sighted everywhere and in their own backyards? The forests of North America are being surveyed all the time and so far no large primate has surfaced.

Surveyed by whom? You really think that scientists are combing the continent on a 24-7 basis? And you really think one of them is going to tell his boss he saw a sasquatch?

Oh. OK. Got it. We should have proof by next week.

That ain't how it works. Scientists look for what's known, in places where they know it is. The vast majority of scientific research is plowing the furrow of the known an inch farther and an inch deeper.

[Guest RayG]

When thousands see it, and no one believes anyone who says it, we...?

Need a body (DNA will do).

The same thing Dr. Krantz said 20 years ago, and Dr. Meldrum said more recently.

You have been reading the literature put out by proponents, right?

RayG

[Guest DWA]

Need a body (DNA will do).

The same thing Dr. Krantz said 20 years ago, and Dr. Meldrum said more recently.

You have been reading the literature put out by proponents, right?

RayG

OK, and how do we presume to get that, when nobody will devote time or money to it, or even encourage the next generation of biologists to take up the question?

The only stuff I do read in this field is the serious stuff.

(I suppose I should have added that MK has yet to show me she's serious. But, unlike the scientific community with the sasquatch in general, I'm giving her a chance.)

Edited November 29, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

Surveyed by whom? You really think that scientists are combing the continent on a 24-7 basis? And you really think one of them is going to tell his boss he saw a sasquatch?

So they have to search the continent on a 24-7 basis to document a bigfoot? Wow, its a wonder it gets sighted so often.

By the way, there are hundreds of biologists that make a living exploring NA forests.

That ain't how it works. Scientists look for what's known, in places where they know it is. The vast majority of scientific research is plowing the furrow of the known an inch farther and an inch deeper.

And bigfoot is reported in places that biologists are very familar with.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Jerrymanderer