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

[Guest DWA]

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.

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

Uh huh. And now you are going to tell me why biolgists report their sightings to the BFRO - anonymously - rather than to their bosses and research institutions. Go.

[Guest RayG]

Read Krantz & Meldrum.

We already have people claiming habituation without definitive proof, maybe Operation Persistence is close to bagging one, or the much-anticipated DNA results will be published any hour day week month year now.

Besides, even if someone did have the money and time, where would they look? How many BFRO expeditions have there been? They seem to have no trouble raising the money to get people out in the field. Where they fail is bringing back any evidence that can be connected to an actual bigfoot.

RayG

[Guest]

Uh huh. And now you are going to tell me why biolgists report their sightings to the BFRO - anonymously - rather than to their bosses and research institutions. Go.

Anonymously? How do we know that they are biologists?

[Guest DWA]

Anonymously? How do we know that they are biologists?

They say they are. Sure, they're lying. I'd think the average person would be more curious than that, to wit, my next post.

I'm backing off the discussion and going on a different tack. I've been in these too many times and it just gets old.

I have (as you might be able to tell) gotten way beyond whether the sasquatch is real or not. Nothing else with this volume of evidence has failed to be confirmed by science. I consider confirmation a formality.

My question is: why this absolute refusal to even consider the possibility from the scientific mainstream? If it is indeed being considered, this is not the way normal human beings go about considering something.

I'd like all three of my kids to be sasquatch researchers. But I don't want one of them to be Jeff Meldrum. Poor guy. I don't want my kids to be in a field you can't talk about at work.

Edited November 30, 2012 by DWA

[Guest azguy]

Come on guys, do you know how many people hunt every year...? I think it's virtually impossible that some hunter has not shot one, either on purpose, or by mistake and brought it forward to authorities. Or, had one hit by a car. No creature is so elusive that they can be around for the last 50 years without so much of a shadowy picture a few times a year and that's it.

Plus, you can not discount people that are messed in the head and get off on just fooling people, running through the woods with foot casks and fury suits. Some people are just plain disturbed.

There are way to many law abiding people that would call the proper authorities and report the kill.

In the 50 years since PG film someone would have discovered something.

[Guest]

Come on guys, do you know how many people hunt every year...? I think it's virtually impossible that some hunter has not shot one, either on purpose, or by mistake and brought it forward to authorities. Or, had one hit by a car. No creature is so elusive that they can be around for the last 50 years without so much of a shadowy picture a few times a year and that's it.

Plus, you can not discount people that are messed in the head and get off on just fooling people, running through the woods with foot casks and fury suits. Some people are just plain disturbed.

There are way to many law abiding people that would call the proper authorities and report the kill.

In the 50 years since PG film someone would have discovered something.

First of all, if they've been here, they've been here for a lot longer than 50 years. Secondly, you matter-of-factly say that "hunters would have shot one by now", but do you have any idea how much unexplored wooded areas there are in North America? There are some areas where we have barely scratched the periphery... you can fly for HOURS over nothing but forest in the PNW. Just like a small percentage of us has ever seen a BF, I'm sure the percentage of BF that know we exist is probably just as small. The fact is that our habitats simply don't align. We only encounter a human and a BF both travel to the very edge of their respective habitats.

[Cotter]

According to reports, hunters HAVE shot them. They HAVE been hit by cars. Of course, there are explanations given as to why they didn't 'drag it in'.

Coupled with the notion that, if this creature exists, the gov't already knows about it, there could be a certain campaign to keep the masses unaware of the existence.

Additionally, there are allegedly DNA studies done on a sample taken from a hunter shot BF.

This phenom isn't as clear cut as some folks feel it ought to be.......it's the world of 'footery after all.

[Guest DWA]

Come on guys, do you know how many people hunt every year...? I think it's virtually impossible that some hunter has not shot one, either on purpose, or by mistake and brought it forward to authorities. Or, had one hit by a car. No creature is so elusive that they can be around for the last 50 years without so much of a shadowy picture a few times a year and that's it.

Plus, you can not discount people that are messed in the head and get off on just fooling people, running through the woods with foot casks and fury suits. Some people are just plain disturbed.

There are way to many law abiding people that would call the proper authorities and report the kill.

In the 50 years since PG film someone would have discovered something.

Many many people hunt every year. They are one of the largest groups represented in the sasquatch encounter literature. By and large, for perfectly understandable reasons, they don't shoot.

You are just making a bunch of assumptions that encounter reports show are very unsafe to make.

And discounting that, if no one believes anybody who saw one, every other American could have one in his basement and we wouldn't know.

Never mind that, if you watch the videos on Youtube and then read encounter reports, it's pretty obvious that people aren't encountering guys in suits, and that guys in suits or otherwise are not making all those tracks.

Total denial, though, is a very plausible explanation of the scientific attitude toward this topic.

Edited November 30, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

First of all, if they've been here, they've been here for a lot longer than 50 years. Secondly, you matter-of-factly say that "hunters would have shot one by now", but do you have any idea how much unexplored wooded areas there are in North America? There are some areas where we have barely scratched the periphery... you can fly for HOURS over nothing but forest in the PNW. Just like a small percentage of us has ever seen a BF, I'm sure the percentage of BF that know we exist is probably just as small. The fact is that our habitats simply don't align. We only encounter a human and a BF both travel to the very edge of their respective habitats.

Take a look at the sightings map. Does this look like a rare animal to you?

http://www.tumblr.co.../tableau-public

The majority of susposed bigfoot sightings are not in remote pristine places. So talk about "unexplored" forests is nothing more than a red herring. If you guys really believe that a 700lb bidpedal primate would be able to avoid scientific documation in a part of the world were Western scientists live or believe that the discovery of a novel ape won't be welcomed, then I can't help you.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

Take a look at the sightings map. Does this look like a rare animal to you?

http://www.tumblr.co.../tableau-public

The majority of susposed bigfoot sightings are not in remote pristine places. So talk about "unexplored" forests is nothing more than a red herring. If you guys really believe that a 700lb bidpedal primate would be able to avoid scientific documation in a part of the world were Western scientists live or believe that the discovery of a novel ape won't be welcomed, then I can't help you.

I don't think it's a rare animal, and I think that most sightings are pretty explainable as being in, or on the margins of, relatively large areas of suitable habitat.

If you don't get the pretty obvious reasons an animal like this hasn't been documented (most particularly the totally UNWELCOME notion that North America harbors one), you have a lot to learn about scientists. And we can't help you there.

Edited November 30, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

I don't think it's a rare animal, and I think that most sightings are pretty explainable as being in, or on the margins of, relatively large areas of suitable habitat.

If you don't get the pretty obvious reasons an animal like this hasn't been documented (most particularly the totally UNWELCOME notion that North America harbors one), you have a lot to learn about scientists. And we can't help you there.

Yes because you know so much. Your bigfoot is so special that scientists have to hide its existance.

[Guest DWA]

When you can demonstrate that you know something about this topic, we can have a discussion. I know that's happening soon, right.

(This happens over and over again. You run rings around them, bombard them with logic, and sooner or later they go ad hom on you.)

[Guest]

My question is: why this absolute refusal to even consider the possibility from the scientific mainstream?

What is an "absolute refusal to consider the possibility"?

Here are some mainstream scientists who have been quite public about their interest in the possibility of bigfoot and similar creatures: Jeff Meldrum, Grover Krantz, John Bindernagel, Henner Fahrenbach, Daris Swindler, George Schaller, Henry Gee, and Jane Goodall. In addition, we have folks who might not be considered scientists, but are otherwise very well respected for their knowledge of wildlife. This group includes people like Sir Edmund Hillary, Marlin Perkins, and Les Stroud. In addition, there are numerous scientists who might express a skeptical viewpoint but who very much have engaged in the analysis of purported bigfoot evidence. This group includes Sykes, Lozier, Milinkovitch, Coltman, etc. and all their colleagues in all their labs who contributed to the analyses. Finally, I'll include people like myself. I'm a scientist, and a wildlife biologist. I've been considering the possibility of bigfoot for decades. None of the evidence presented for it has been sufficient to convince me that such creatures exist. Now what?

When the science editor for Nature (Henry Gee) says he's willing to consider submissions providing evidence for bigfoot, how much more mainstream can you get?

[indiefoot]

Now what? Maybe just wait a few days.... if I'm right, there will be plenty of new questions to ask, if I'm wrong then you are correct, there isn't enough evidence at this point to tip the scales.

[Guest DWA]

What is an "absolute refusal to consider the possibility"?

Here are some mainstream scientists who have been quite public about their interest in the possibility of bigfoot and similar creatures: Jeff Meldrum, Grover Krantz, John Bindernagel, Henner Fahrenbach, Daris Swindler, George Schaller, Henry Gee, and Jane Goodall. In addition, we have folks who might not be considered scientists, but are otherwise very well respected for their knowledge of wildlife. This group includes people like Sir Edmund Hillary, Marlin Perkins, and Les Stroud. In addition, there are numerous scientists who might express a skeptical viewpoint but who very much have engaged in the analysis of purported bigfoot evidence. This group includes Sykes, Lozier, Milinkovitch, Coltman, etc. and all their colleagues in all their labs who contributed to the analyses. Finally, I'll include people like myself. I'm a scientist, and a wildlife biologist. I've been considering the possibility of bigfoot for decades. None of the evidence presented for it has been sufficient to convince me that such creatures exist. Now what?

When the science editor for Nature (Henry Gee) says he's willing to consider submissions providing evidence for bigfoot, how much more mainstream can you get?

Well, maybe I'm not talking about them, or you.

What I'm talking about is why this topic has gained this little ground, in this long a time, despite them and an ever-increasing mountain of evidence.

One can sit on this site all day, responding to posts.

For something that's not real...?

There's more than enough evidence for a consortium of mainstream institutions to pool resources for a major ground search. Why isn't that happening, particularly when I have read more than one mainstream scientist say that this would be a biological Everest...if it were real [rimshot]...?