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

[Guest]

For fun. Don't you like debates? It would be boring if everyone argeed on everything.

[Guest DWA]

I like the people I'm debating with to be as informed as me, that's all.

If you aren't really interested in reading about the topic, the fun I can get out of it is kind of limited.

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

It's amazing how Bigfoot guru’s and proponents have custom tailored BF’s behavior and intelligence over the years. Customized so these characteristics can be utilized as an excuse to explain why they can never come out with concrete evidence. Shy, elusive, nocturnal and secretive come to mind. We can't find him because he only comes out at night. Sasquatch is extremely shy and avoids humans at all cost and that's why we can't find him. And overshadowing all these traits is his ability to be elusive. This makes perfect sense. He's elusive and that's why we can't find him. We can't find him therefore he's elusive.

What’s even more remarkable is that Sasquatch advocates reserve the right to change it anytime they please to perpetuate this phenomenon particularly when new technology emerges. New technology that should have already proved Sasquatch’s existence years ago. Let’s use the trail-cam to illustrate this. Arguably, there are hundreds of thousands of these devices (if not millions) globally, some of which were specifically acquired for BF research. But the majority of were set up in wilderness areas by avid sportsmen that are surely in the realm of Bigfoot. Not originally setup to search for Sasquatch, but still available nonetheless for this task because of the financial gains of turning in a squatch picture. Despite all these reconnaissance tools, the closest anyone has come to catching a mug shot of our hairy friend is still the all too familiar blobsquatch. Of course, I’m making reference to the Jacob photos.

So to explain the ineffectiveness of these cameras, our experts will need to generate yet more excuses. In this case, they have no choice but to say Bigfoot is smarter than they originally thought. He can recognize that trail cams are manmade and are something that should be avoided. Reading the latest "Why There's No BF Photos Thread", this is already being used as an argument. And as these cameras evolve, so does Bigfoot. These cameras have shrunk in size and more easily concealed. So to counter this, our panel of experts will have no choice but to declare that BF has exceptional eyesight. They can identify the concealed camera at a distance of 100m, well beyond the trigger mechanism’s range. And in the rare event that a game-cam actually snaps an image, the device is immediately destroyed because Bigfoot knows of the dire consequences if the media gets a hold of an image. It's just a matter time until someone puts forth a belief that all electronic devices emit a high pitched noise that no other animal on Earth can’t detect but Bigfoot. Hence, the reason why no one has ever successfully taken a BF photo and why no one ever will.

Similarly, BF’s will be given credit for understanding how FLIR operates. He knows that standing several meters inside thick brush will mask his signature. That’s why his massive amount of body heat never betrays his presence. Unknown to many BF believers, wildlife agencies both governmental and commercial have conducted hundreds of aerial FLIR surveys on a variety of species as a means to obtain numbers and migration patterns. Moreover, these overflights can cover several thousand square km's in a single night. If BF distribution is as numerous and widespread as researchers claim, how is it that these surveys have never detected 800 lbs. of upright walking primate flesh? Of course, our panel of BF enthusiasts here will insist that's why all BF's choose to dwell under the thickest of canopies like the Pacific North West, because they know the limitations of FLIR technology. And if a BF has the misfortune of being caught without dense cover, we can simply declare all BF's immediately drop down on all four limbs when they hear aircraft overhead so they can mimic the appearance of a large overweight bear. To counter infrared night vision scopes/cameras, BF's have learned that closing his eyes prevents the infrared light from reflecting back to the scope. Creating similar excuses requires only your imagination because regardless of how outrageous and farfetched they sound, they never have to be proven. The only guideline that must be observed is the excuse should reduce, and if possible, completely remove the obligation of obtaining physical evidence.

Let us apply this strategy to the absence of BF remains. One can insist that all BF's are a highly environmentally conscious species and let nothing to go to waste. They not only eat their dead, they grind the bones for a recipe similar to Jell-O. They even go as far as burning fecal matter as an alternative fuel source. It's no wonder a body has never been found. To reinforce this concept, I've read not just here at BFF, but other forums that BF's only dwell in areas of highly acidic soil. If we combine these two explanations, BF researchers are no longer burdened with the need of finding body. Just like why a BF photo will never be obtained if squatchers choose to implement the high pitched electronics explanation mentioned earlier. Ideally, all BF excuses should follow this standard.

Now keep in mind that usage of this indispensable "excuse" tool is not just limited to amateur researchers. Scientists such as Dr. Meldrum have used it many times in the past. I'm sure folks here remember MonsterQuest’s Sasquatch Attack part one. Meldrum went to great lengths to show that it was perfectly feasible that BF trashed the cabin. Part of his argument was proving our 800 lbs primate had more than enough forage to sustain itself by showing how easy it was to hunt grouse. If he could approach a flock of grouse without them fleeing as he demonstrated during that episode, then so could BF. Now fast forwarding to Sasquatch attack part deux, when BF failed to make an appearance. Our good doctor insisted that because blueberries were not in season, it was only logical that BF would not be in the area. I guess he ignored the fact that BF originally trashed the cabin in late fall well after blueberry season. Not a very good excuse by Bigfoot BF standards.

On a side note, I'm surprised that Meldrum failed to conclude that BF's are capable of levitating. I mean how else could BF vandalize the cabin without leaving a single footprint after destroying the woodstove. Remember, the cabin owner stated soot was everywhere. Surely if he came across a BF print, he'd find a way to capitalize on it. I also wondered why Meldrum didn't deduce that BF's have the dexterity and intelligence of operating locks and door knobs. Footage of the insurance video that the cabin owner created clearly shows that someone had tore off the exterior door screen, broke the window and punched in the bug screen to unlock the door from the outside. When the hardcore believers read my post, they’ll scream BLOODY FOUL !!!! Who else but BF could have done this if the nearest town is over 100 miles away and no other means but aircraft to visit the cabin? Sadly, the cabin owner neglected to mention there's a native settlement a few miles away.

Is it no wonder that scientists who choose to participate in BF research are frowned upon by the scientific community?

When our BF fanatics have only straws to grasp, they'll insist we haven't looked in the right places yet to delay the inevitable. Eventually, there will be a point in the near future where civilian based platforms in orbit will have optical and thermal resolution to scan, track and identify even the most minuscule of creatures through body heat analysis. This will surely spawn from the increasing number of research satellites needed for monitoring our planets health. When this occurs, I can't wait to see what excuse hardcore squatchers use for the absence of our giant primate. As one esteemed skeptic pointed out in another forum, if the entire Pacific Northwest was reduced to cinders and several million people created a human wall walking shoulder to shoulder inspecting every square inch, BF will have earned a diploma from the University of Matter Teleportation when his bones are not found.

When people like this have an encounter, their electric bills go way up.

Know why?

It's ten years after the encounter before they turn a single light out in the house is why. Shoot, they rig lights to go under the beds. After all, a bigfoot could be under there.

Just one of the many benefits of becoming acquainted with the encounter literature.

Edited November 30, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

In post #1018 I listed 15 names of scientists and prominent wildlife/outdoorspeople who've addressed bigfoot. There are many more. Some, like Krantz and Meldrum, are/have devoted a significant proportion of their careers to bigfoot research. Again, how does this fact support the idea that no scientist will touch bigfootery? It doesn't. It is, in fact, proof of just the opposite.

An enormous amount of attention has been heaped upon the notion of bigfoot/yeti-type creatures all over the world. This includes media attention, amateur research, field expeditions, and real investment by real scientists, among them some of the heaviest hitters in their fields. There is way more interest and attention devoted to bigfoot than there is to, for example, southern bog lemmings, smokey shrews, or worm-eating warblers. If bigfoot is ever proven to be real, I don't see any reason for scientists to feel dismayed that we "missed" it. We'd be as excited and pleasantly surprised as anyone else.

I'll just add that the intentional obfuscation of ideas and outright hubris displayed in the last few pages of this thread is rather shocking - some of the worst I've ever seen at the BFF. Congratulations.

[Guest DWA]

Really? You'll have to point out where.

And show why (they never do) what you say about what's going on in mainstream science on this topic is so diametrically opposed from what is pretty obviously going on.

Oh. And questioning! a! scientist! is not "hubris." ESPECIALLY not when this is the topic.

Edited November 30, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

Seems pretty hubris-y to me:

"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."

[Cotter]

I don't think Meldrum can be considered a mainstream scientist. I would contend those at his university that attempted to have his tenure revoked would be more representative of mainstream scientists.

[Guest DWA]

Seems pretty hubris-y to me:

"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 only say that because of my actual experience in doing it. They say things that no one acquainted with the evidence could say and leave it at that. They say things the evidence flat contradicts.

[Guest RayG]

Do you have some examples of these things they say, and how does the evidence contradict those things?

I guess I'm asking what evidence it it you are aware of that the rest of us have somehow ignored or over-looked?

RayG

[Guest DWA]

They say the exact same things ignorant laymen do, the old litany "no one has ever" and then all the things no one has ever done or seen that the encounter literature says people, um, have.

They totally dismiss trackways, which tells me they know nothing about that.

They use the incompleteness of the fossil record, which everyone knows will never be complete. (We have evidence of maybe 5% of the primates estimated to have lived on earth.) Who the hell is looking at rocks - for things that aren't in them - to get information about things living now?

They never address the scientists who disagree with them. That one sentence, right there.

If you have read the reports and think there is nothing serious there, I have to think you are kidding me. The encounter literature is very clear on this:

Every single type of interaction it is conceivable to have with a wild animal, someone - and usually more than one - has had with a bigfoot.

We have a significant head start on the biology of the species from those reports - food, behavior, physical features, ecology, locomotor adaptations, whole thing.

Lies, hoaxes, misidentifications and hallucinations randomly thrown together don't come anywhere close to looking like those last two sentences.

And everybody who thinks the mainstream is so bigfoot friendly should read Bindernagel's two books. That is what's really going on in the mainstream.

I had read none of the reports Bindernagel cites - and they were instantly compelling because they squared with everything else I have read. I have come - independently - to Bindernagel's conclusions even though he cites nothing I have read. Lies, hoaxes, misidentifications and hallucinations randomly thrown together don't come anywhere close to doing that.

Any scientist who does not take this seriously is way behind me on reading and has loads of catching up to do. Period.

All of the BFRO’S and TBRC’S reports; John Green’s database; Meldrum’s book; Alley’s Raincoast Sasquatch; both of Bindernagel’s books; and Myra Shackley’s Still Living? Are Bigfoot 001.

Edited December 1, 2012 by DWA

[Guest RayG]

Personally, I came to my skepticism bit by bit, encounter by encounter. In the early days (70's) I accepted everything, because, well, why not, it sounded so plausible. John Green was pumping out bigfoot books, the Patterson film had already made the rounds... I was hooked.

I read all of Green's works, met him, started a bigfoot website based on his book, read Byrne, Dahinden, Krantz, Bindernagle, and many, many more. I got involved online in the 90's, interacted with a number of colorful bigfoot characters, past and present. I began to notice we weren't getting any closer to the day of discovery. Then I started to question a few reports & sightings, then a few more. I noticed how misinformation was being regurgitated, reports were being sanitized, and speculation was being turned into fact. I started to wonder why there wasn't any evidence that had been matched to an actual bigfoot. Why, with this mountain of evidence (hair, tracks/trackways, thousands of sightings & reports, etc.) has bigfoot remained undiscovered? Why was there so much 'breaking news' that never panned out, didn't lead to anything definitive, or just fizzled? The digital age has exploded with all sorts of social media, webcams, GPS, hand-held cameras smaller than a can of coke, and computer storage devices smaller than our thumbs. Yet nobody can get a clear picture of bigfoot. Not even the people that make habituation claims.

So, given the lack of any definitive evidence, what exactly are the scientists supposed to take seriously?

RayG

[PBeaton]

RayG,

Over the years, the decades, you've become familiar with the reported sightin's, the descriptions, the details etc in sightin's an track finds. Do you think mis identification or hoax is a credible excuse to account for everything? Not some of, or most of, but all of it ? Do you feel comfortable sayin' you can dismiss it all ?

Pat...

[Guest RayG]

Good question PB. Not sure 'dismiss' is an appropriate term for the way I approach a report though. In the old days, prior to contracting the skeptical virus, I'd just accept an encounter as reported. I just assumed people were accurate, honest, and factually reporting what they had witnessed. These days I look to see if there's a more mundane explanation. Eliminate all the other possibilities if you will. Is the story logical, consistent, and contain facts that can be confirmed apart from the story-teller? Our perception can be mistaken for a variety of reasons. Were any of these at play?

Obviously there are some reports that are not mere glimpses of something, but contain sustained viewing periods. The William Roe account, for example, where he not only claimed to clearly see a female squatch, he observed her for long enough to give a head-to-toe description, complete with curling lips and clean white teeth. Do I 'dismiss' his report? Not exactly, but I can't point to it and proclaim that it's proof of bigfoot either. Unfortunately, it's another anecdote to add to the growing pile. Similarly, habituation claims without any confirmatory evidence, are quite meaningless.

At this point I'm still stuck on the fence. Do I think it's possible bigfoot exists? Sure, I've always left that door open. How many other primate species are there anyway? The problem I run into, is how many primate species, other than us humans, have been proven to live in North America?

If someone were to present a body or confirm some DNA samples, I'd be on board in a heartbeat, but for now the roller coaster ride continues.

RayG

[Guest DWA]

Bottom line: until the mainstream engages, forget it. There is no bigfoot hunting that could charitably be called part-time.

You know those biotic surveys that are supposed to capture anything from black and grizzly bears down to water bears and blue-green algae? I would be very unwilling to bet that nobody has seen a large hairy hominoid, or some unusual footprints, on one of those.

Biotic surveyors should be tasked to report everything they see. Including large hairy hominoids. Biologists have reported bigfoot sightings. But not on those. When that is happening and only then can anyone give me happy horse[poop] about how bigfoot-friendly the mainstream is. Otherwise, read Bindernagel. He'll tell you how the mainstream is.

Edited December 1, 2012 by DWA

[Incorrigible1]

.....I began to notice we weren't getting any closer to the day of discovery. Then I started to question a few reports & sightings, then a few more. I noticed how misinformation was being regurgitated, reports were being sanitized, and speculation was being turned into fact. I started to wonder why there wasn't any evidence that had been matched to an actual bigfoot. Why, with this mountain of evidence (hair, tracks/trackways, thousands of sightings & reports, etc.) has bigfoot remained undiscovered? Why was there so much 'breaking news' that never panned out, didn't lead to anything definitive, or just fizzled? The digital age has exploded with all sorts of social media, webcams, GPS, hand-held cameras smaller than a can of coke, and computer storage devices smaller than our thumbs. Yet nobody can get a clear picture of bigfoot. Not even the people that make habituation claims........

Well put, Ray. I've noticed how a once reported behavior leads to a remarkable retelling of said behavior, until it becomes common and frequently told. I've also noticed how a theorized supposition gets taken up and soon becomes mainstream in the bigfoot "community."

Examples of the former are four x four locomotion, diva-like mimicry skills, gifting, and structure building. Examples of the latter are telepathy and the dire warning of harming one creature resulting in the band tearing the hapless human asunder.

The evolution of the continuing story becomes nearly predictable. Many's the time I wish for those days before I started questioning things.

[Guest DWA]

Well put, Ray. I've noticed how a once reported behavior leads to a remarkable retelling of said behavior, until it becomes common and frequently told. I've also noticed how a theorized supposition gets taken up and soon becomes mainstream in the bigfoot "community."

Examples of the former are four x four locomotion, diva-like mimicry skills, gifting, and structure building. Examples of the latter are telepathy and the dire warning of harming one creature resulting in the band tearing the hapless human asunder.

The evolution of the continuing story becomes nearly predictable. Many's the time I wish for those days before I started questioning things.

OK, but virtually none of that alleged woowoo stuff is in the encounter literature.

Oh wait, some is. if by "four x four" you mean quadrupedal locomotion, well, all the great apes do it, and numerous encounter reports report it. I'm not willing to discount it out of hand. Especially if it turns out there is more than one wild hominoid in NA, which isn't impossible. There's two or more of virtually everything else, from bears and canids and cats to deer to weasels to shrews to mice. And everywhere there is one known wild hominoid, there is another.

Structures? Chimps do it; gorillas do it; and there are accounts of structures found that no known animal is known to make...but look something like the structures known to be made by the known great apes. I'm not looking at every X sticks in the woods as bigfoot. But bonobos mark their trails.

Question, fine. But a critical read of the encounter literature - and comparing what is found with what we know from the apes we know - is essential. Bindernagel's books are excellent primer for that, as is Alley's Raincoast Sasquatch.