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

[Guest]

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

Who then? You seem to have swallowed hook, line, and sinker the hackneyed argument that the reason we have no proof of bigfoot is that those closed-minded, ivory-tower scientists won't touch bigfootery with a ten-foot pole. This notion is demonstrably - easily demonstrably - wrong, yet it is perpetuated by the unscrupulous and the non-critical thinkers. In which of those categories would you like to be considered?

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.

Well, one reason could be that the "mountain" is made up of evidence that we scientists don't find compelling. Until the day that someone is able to track a bigfoot to its hiding place, or sift a tooth out of the sediment, or demonstrate a unique species' genetic signature on a hominin cladogram, the kind of evidence that makes up that mountain is qualitatively no different than what we had in 1967. I agree that we have a lot more purported bigfoot evidence; I disagree that it points to the inevitable conclusion that there must be real bigfoots leaving it.

[Guest DWA]

Who then? You seem to have swallowed hook, line, and sinker the hackneyed argument that the reason we have no proof of bigfoot is that those closed-minded, ivory-tower scientists won't touch bigfootery with a ten-foot pole. This notion is demonstrably - easily demonstrably - wrong, yet it is perpetuated by the unscrupulous and the non-critical thinkers. In which of those categories would you like to be considered?

I'd like to be considered in the category of people who wonder why, when it is the mainstream's job to move science forward, we're still here when we could have had confirmation the year after the P/G film, never mind in every year since. I'd like to be considered in the category of people who wonder why science has, and they have, abandoned this field to amateurs. (Why isn't there a board for this at National Geographic or the American Museum of Natural History? Why do we have to hide out here, and use names like saskeptic? You know why.) I'd like to be considered in the category of people who do critical thinking, and have heard too much who, me? from skeptics and the mainstream, while meanwhile the anonymity and ridicule and amateur circuses continue, things that the mainstream could stop, and you know how they could, and I hope I don't have to instruct you there too. Last of all, I'd like to be considered in the category of people who don't throw labels around until they know people. You are dealing with one of the more critical thinkers you have met here, and if you don't know that by now, well I don't toss labels around like some people but...

Well, one reason could be that the "mountain" is made up of evidence that we scientists don't find compelling. Until the day that someone is able to track a bigfoot to its hiding place, or sift a tooth out of the sediment, or demonstrate a unique species' genetic signature on a hominin cladogram, the kind of evidence that makes up that mountain is qualitatively no different than what we had in 1967. I agree that we have a lot more purported bigfoot evidence; I disagree that it points to the inevitable conclusion that there must be real bigfoots leaving it.

If you don't find it compelling, as in proof, you do know that it's the mainstream of science that is responsible for proof, right? And don't tell me that a body of eyewitness testimony and track evidence that has grown exponentially - and ever more consistent - since 1967 isn't a qualitative improvement. 5,000 variations on "it's not proven" don't cut it. That is science failing at its job...particularly when some of its best-qualified members are, as you yourself noted, with me on this.

...and I close with a buddy of mine, who is just a lawyer, but at least, unlike by my count one heck of a lot of scientists, he uses his training:

Cumulative evidence, in compelling amounts, must always be grouped and considered with all other similar correlated evidence. Failing to do this is the inherent error in logic applied by those skeptical of Sasquatch. This is not just a set of purported tracks in some bog in Texas. These tracks are just one of the more recent manifestations of evidence that includes all other tracks ever discovered and documented, and all other evidence associated with similar tracks which are, in turn, consistent with all other evidence that includes: Sound recordings, photo, video and film images, DNA analysis, olfactory and other sense impressions, anecdotal accounts, and the oral history of indigenous peoples.

But, for those so inclined, each set of footprints reported (or any other type of evidence for that matter) are the only ones ever found, and have no association with, or to, any other evidence. For the life of me… what is up with that?

Time for some critical thinking there, pardner. And "it's not proven" ain't it.

And getting emotional and calling names isn't either.

Edited November 30, 2012 by DWA

[Guest toejam]

Who then? You seem to have swallowed hook, line, and sinker the hackneyed argument that the reason we have no proof of bigfoot is that those closed-minded, ivory-tower scientists won't touch bigfootery with a ten-foot pole. This notion is demonstrably - easily demonstrably - wrong, yet it is perpetuated by the unscrupulous and the non-critical thinkers. In which of those categories would you like to be considered?

Well, one reason could be that the "mountain" is made up of evidence that we scientists don't find compelling. Until the day that someone is able to track a bigfoot to its hiding place, or sift a tooth out of the sediment, or demonstrate a unique species' genetic signature on a hominin cladogram, the kind of evidence that makes up that mountain is qualitatively no different than what we had in 1967. I agree that we have a lot more purported bigfoot evidence; I disagree that it points to the inevitable conclusion that there must be real bigfoots leaving it.

Tell me it's not a fact that science for the most part has refused to step anywhere near the subject for fear of ridicule and the bottom line, money.

Once they open their mouths about a subject of such controversy, there goes their prospects at funded projects or a nice regular paycheck that pays the bills.

Fact of the matter is as soon as they even mention the word BIGFOOT to any of their peers, they're looked at in an entirely different light, shunned by their scientific peers.

Hundreds of years of sightings, a data base of prints and casts that sit for the most part gathering dust instead of being scrutinized because of one thing, FEAR.

Science hasn't delved into the database of casts (except for people like Meldrum or Bindernagel) strictly for fear of ridicule. It's entirely true that they don't want to touch them with a ten foot pole.

You'd rather sit and wait until one is delivered on a silver platter.

Maybe expressing that there's been so much on this subject, documentation dating hundreds of years prior and continuing to this day with sighting reports, trackways and casts, that a few scientists who've stepped over that ridicule boundary to step up to the plate and say hey, I think we have something going on here, maybe we should take a serious look at it.

Instead it's the same old same old. Science keeps the blinders on and waits for the silver platter delivery instead of being diligent and making it happen themselves.

We all know what happens then. The little guy researcher finds the truth and is swept under the carpet as the elite scientist steps in. It's a farce.

Edited November 30, 2012 by toejam

[Guest DWA]

^^^^Bingo, and love your signature.

[Guest]

Instead it's the same old same old. Science keeps the blinders on and waits for the silver platter delivery instead of being diligent and making it happen themselves.

What is this "science" that you speak of that just sits back and does nothing. How can you arbitrary label the people making discoveries not a part of science?

Edited November 30, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

What is this "science" that you speak of that just sits back and does nothing. How can you arbitrary label the people making discoveries not a part of science.

Who did that?

[Guest toejam]

^^^^Bingo, and love your signature.

Cheers

What is this "science" that you speak of that just sits back and does nothing. How can you arbitrary label the people making discoveries not a part of science?

Making THIS discovery. I'm not talking about anything else.

[Guest DWA]

Just given the visibility of the topic; just given that no one has come up with a fragment of evidence against the P-G film; just given that we are STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS...scientists can't even mention Bigfoot at work?

Discover away, guys. But the longer the delay on this the worse you are gonna look.

[Guest]

Who did that?

toejam stated that "Science keeps the blinders on and waits for the silver platter delivery instead of being diligent and making it happen themselves." Obviously he/she doesn't consider the people making "silver platter deliveries" a part of science that that would mean that science is "making it happen themselves".

[Guest DWA]

But I think toejam is talking about this particular topic, on which they are waiting for...Bobo Fay?!?!?!

[Guest]

Just given the visibility of the topic; just given that no one has come up with a fragment of evidence against the P-G film; just given that we are STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS...scientists can't even mention Bigfoot at work?

Discover away, guys. But the longer the delay on this the worse you are gonna look.

And the longer people keep surveying more sqaure inches of forest and not find a bigfoot. The worse you look.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

^What do some of you mean by "find bigfoot"? Are we talking film, video, an ordinary sighting? We have all those.

Edited November 30, 2012 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest DWA]

No, not how it works. People continue to see them and to submit compelling reports. Many of them I'd trust as much as any biologist handed to me at random.

And once again the presumption that People Scan The Entire Wilderness 24/7. There isn't a full-time, or serious part-time, bigfooter.

In the world.

[Guest toejam]

And the longer people keep surveying more sqaure inches of forest and not find a bigfoot. The worse you look.

When science starts to realize how this species can run circles around the stupid humans and gain an insight into something much smarter than us in their domain, maybe we'll move forward.

Until then, let's keep thinking there's no way they could outsmart us.

toejam stated that "Science keeps the blinders on and waits for the silver platter delivery instead of being diligent and making it happen themselves." Obviously he/she doesn't consider the people making "silver platter deliveries" a part of science that that would mean that science is "making it happen themselves".

Just twisting my words making it something it's not.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Skeptics don't seem to understand the reality of the situation. Lets say someone goes out into the woods and find s a Sasquatch staring at them from a couple hundred feet away. What good will that do? Getting video of it won't prove their existence.