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

[bipedalist]

Of the four you mention Inc1, you might as well become comfortable with the mimicry because above all, it is the one thing that you CAN figure out doing your own investigation with an audio recorder and a modicum of effort.

Personally not seen the 4x4 but often wondered how they could negotiate such difficult terrain without the D-9 Bulldozer sounds. Both belly crawling and 4x4 would explain that.

I have seen "stick art" and "stick crafts" more than stick structures, but they are both visible in a hot spot for the trained eye to discern. Just my experiences and I don't want another stick structure thread because it is obvious no proof will come out of it unless Ketchum has sequenced the blood, skin and hair bulbs from one of them.

Edited December 1, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest toejam]

This is an excerpt from a response I just received back from John Bindernagel.

I met the Dr. and his wife this summer. They stopped by my place and we spent the day together in one of my areas.

He's well aware of what I'm experiencing now and has gone through the photos I submitted to him shortly after our incredible track find.

I'll reiterate. Incredible track find, because that's exactly what it is. An incredible find of young sasquatch tracks that were discovered in an area of ongoing activity.

Dr.Bindernagel was kind enough to evaluate the find and also has an understanding of my character and disposition. This is what I was told.

Edit: I spent 45 minutes on the phone with him yesterday discussing the prints, activity etc. His help in the matter is extremely appreciated and I'm fortunate to have him in my corner.

5533--appears to show the linearity so oftern observed in a sasquatch trail or trackway . Good photo.

5567 appears to show this even better if that is a 3rd track I see in the distence.

119-103= 16 inch stride (rear edge ofone foot to rear edge of next foot) not particularly long --ie well within human range)

5546 I like this track because it conforms to the proportions I usually see in sasquatch tracks-ie broad (too bad no scale in this photo)

5645

Good track photo with scale--8 in long.

So yes these are very small sasqautch tracks--Unfortunately the size and propoprtions (ie, their narrowness) are well within human range. --which make other forms of evidence important (ie to corroborate the tracks as those of sasquaches.)

5725 Amazing casts long and narrow with very small toes (The base of the toes may be webbed and appear as the anterior part of the foot (?)

5719 excellent cast on the left. Appears to show arched toes as in Heryford cast (the best cast ever) (Knowing the width of that piece of OSB (Oriented Strand Board) would provide scale --quite important in examining the photo--altho since you have the cast you can just add the cast length and width .)

5549-good track photo and good scale (I now have a bic disposable lighter).

5716 great collection of casts (scale see --see above)

Edited December 1, 2012 by toejam

[ohiobill]

The bottom line is this: not every sighting report is true. The founder of this forum estimates that 95% of the reports are false - whether mistaken identity or outright falsehood. How do we know which reports are true? The lack of actual investigation and reliance on phone interviews long after the fact with witnesses who remain anonymous leaves us with "proof" like "the witness sounded believeable". Constant bombardment of claims from habituators who are unable and/or unwillling to back up their claims coupled with outright hoaxes by researchers further illustrates how unreliable eyewitness testimony is in this field. While DWA may feel that unsubstantiated anonymous reports should galvanize the whole of science to recognize and respond to this mystery, most reasonable folks understand that is not how the world works. Numerous scientists HAVE and/or ARE working on this and may even have proof. So far at least it hasn't been enough to convince their peers. YMMV

[Guest DWA]

Nice, toejam.

To the mainstream: that's science in action. Note that Bindernagel isn't wringing his hands over fakery; he's comparing what he sees with what he has seen. Scientists work that way.

(I'm copying my favorite signatures on this forum to archive great thought. Yours is going in there.)

Edited December 1, 2012 by DWA

[Guest toejam]

The bottom line is this: not every sighting report is true. The founder of this forum estimates that 95% of the reports are false - whether mistaken identity or outright falsehood. How do we know which reports are true? The lack of actual investigation and reliance on phone interviews long after the fact with witnesses who remain anonymous leaves us with "proof" like "the witness sounded believeable". Constant bombardment of claims from habituators who are unable and/or unwillling to back up their claims coupled with outright hoaxes by researchers further illustrates how unreliable eyewitness testimony is in this field. While DWA may feel that unsubstantiated anonymous reports should galvanize the whole of science to recognize and respond to this mystery, most reasonable folks understand that is not how the world works. Numerous scientists HAVE and/or ARE working on this and may even have proof. So far at least it hasn't been enough to convince their peers. YMMV

That 95% estimate is some hearsay number pulled out of a hat. There's absolutely no way to substantiate that with any backup whatsoever.

Nice, toejam.

To the mainstream: ^^^^science in action.

(I'm copying my favorite signatures on this forum to archive great thought. Yours is going in there.)

Thanks DWA. Cheers

[Guest DWA]

The bottom line is this: not every sighting report is true. The founder of this forum estimates that 95% of the reports are false - whether mistaken identity or outright falsehood. How do we know which reports are true? The lack of actual investigation and reliance on phone interviews long after the fact with witnesses who remain anonymous leaves us with "proof" like "the witness sounded believeable". Constant bombardment of claims from habituators who are unable and/or unwillling to back up their claims coupled with outright hoaxes by researchers further illustrates how unreliable eyewitness testimony is in this field. While DWA may feel that unsubstantiated anonymous reports should galvanize the whole of science to recognize and respond to this mystery, most reasonable folks understand that is not how the world works. Numerous scientists HAVE and/or ARE working on this and may even have proof. So far at least it hasn't been enough to convince their peers. YMMV

Not the way a scientist thinks about this. This is the way a scientist thinks about this:

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?

He's a lawyer, but he nailed it.

Bigfooters play right into the skeptics' hands by worrying about every report: is it fake? Wrong move. Above tells you how to evaluate reports. Your thinking perpetuates a critical proponent error: presuming that each new piece of evidence is either proof or junk.

Not the way a reasonable person thinks. A reasonable person thinks:

What is the evidence that this person is lying or mistaken?

If none can be discerned, my lawyer bud tells you how to handle the report.

And that is how the proponent scientists are handling it. And I'm betting with them against the layman, every time.

And I need to add this:

The mainstream's approach - as you have said - is essentially: we will remain on this spot until a bigfoot lands on us and crushes us.

Not how science works. Science takes leads, and pursues them to proof.

Your approach to evidence is why, 45 years after the Patterson-Gimlin film: nada. Science needs to be prodded into doing the right thing.

"The founder of this forum estimates that 95% of the reports are false - whether mistaken identity or outright falsehood. How do we know which reports are true?"

Easy man! The ones that aren't obvious, ham-handed fakes.

There has never been a fake in this field that isn't obvious, and ham-handed. (You need to show me otherwise.) Why do bigfooters continue to insist that The Omnipotent Hoaxer, he who knows all and does all (and may be the richest person ever to be doing this full time), is out there looking to trip bigfoooters up at every turn?

The live evidence is right HERE. The fakes are OVER THERE. Never the twain meet.

To continue wringing hands over this will ensure we recognize the sasquatch from the skeleton of the very last one.

Edited December 1, 2012 by DWA

[ohiobill]

It's obvious your friend is not a scientist and if he truly believes what he is saying he isn't much of a lawyer. Does he cross examine witnesses or just take their word for what took place? Does he expect discovery documents to be given to him so he can vet the information or does he rely on witness statements? Does he tell clients to skip drawing up a contract because their word will be enough? If he had a client charged w/murder supposedly seen by a bus full of people would he investigate the possibility of mistaken identity or would he just take the witnesses word for it and go for a plea deal? I understand you WANT to believe, don't expect everyone else to throw away reason to follow you.

[Incorrigible1]

Hoping for the best from the various studies ongoing, but the evidence proffered to date has not amounted to proof. There's the rub.

[Guest DWA]

It's obvious your friend is not a scientist and if he truly believes what he is saying he isn't much of a lawyer. Does he cross examine witnesses or just take their word for what took place? Does he expect discovery documents to be given to him so he can vet the information or does he rely on witness statements? Does he tell clients to skip drawing up a contract because their word will be enough? If he had a client charged w/murder supposedly seen by a bus full of people would he investigate the possibility of mistaken identity or would he just take the witnesses word for it and go for a plea deal? I understand you WANT to believe, don't expect everyone else to throw away reason to follow you.

What do you think he does?

What do you think Bindernagel is doing?

Do reports, or do reports not, get followup? (that would be yes)

Re-read my post. You OK with the very last skeleton of the very last sasquatch as your type specimen?

Bindernagel over you. Every time.

There is conservative. Then there is the fetal position. Not too good with the latter. But oh, the skeptics are. Cater to them and let's write the sasquatch off, right now.

Hoping for the best from the various studies ongoing, but the evidence proffered to date has not amounted to proof. There's the rub.

No rub at all. It's why we are here.

You hear "no proof." I hear: GET OUT AND CONFIRM. Science has to be prodded continually to do the right thing. We can do that. We're the public. We pay scientists' salaries.

Edited December 1, 2012 by DWA

[Guest toejam]

I'll just quote that last line from you DWA. " We pay scientists' salaries."

If they step into the realm of sasquatch, they now have fear of ridicule by their peers and fear of their salaries being taken away.

Fear is what stands in the way of science.

Thanks to a very few who step into that realm and delve into the subject with authority and professionalism. Not afraid to stand and face their peers.

It takes special people to go against all that we're taught and speak the truth.

[Guest DWA]

Plussed, toejam. Twice.

You can sit on this forum all day posting and responding.

Over something that's not real?

Uh huh. Go find me the Unicorn Forums, and report back.

Edited December 1, 2012 by DWA

[ohiobill]

If your friend the lawyer agrees w/me and skeptically investigates eyewitness claims why won't you? Do you want your Dr to base his treatment of you on repeatable science or anonymous eyewitness reports? Science is working on this, some results will be in shortly. Untill then, take eyewitness & researcher's reports for what they are -not what you want them to be. Understand that proof of bigfoot won't validate every eyewitness report. Understand that footprints that are within normal human range were most likely made by humans. Understand that claims of constant contact are just claims until backed by proof and that the longer the claims go on w/o proof the less likely they are true.

[Guest DWA]

If your friend the lawyer agrees w/me and skeptically investigates eyewitness claims why won't you? Do you want your Dr to base his treatment of you on repeatable science or anonymous eyewitness reports? Science is working on this, some results will be in shortly. Untill then, take eyewitness & researcher's reports for what they are -not what you want them to be. Understand that proof of bigfoot won't validate every eyewitness report. Understand that footprints that are within normal human range were most likely made by humans. Understand that claims of constant contact are just claims until backed by proof and that the longer the claims go on w/o proof the less likely they are true.

I skeptically evaluate everything, in just the way my lawyer friend does. And that is precisely why I say what I say.

Why would I put his approach up, word for word, were it not precisely what I thought? What repeatable science do you have for this?

My lawyer friend will tell you. Look at the evidence. It's my lawyer friend and I who agree, not him and you.

Waiting for science is doing no good here. A NY Times editorial from 1870 - no typo, eighteen and seventy - asks: when is science going to investigate these reports? And you see my second signature, from eighteen hundred and eighty-five.

And here we still are.

Like I said: conservative is one thing. My lawyer friend's approach - and mine - is that. Then, there is fetal position.

History says: if we wait until science gets involved on its own, let's go with extinct for sasquatch right now. 1870. And here we still are.

Science needs to be prodded to do the right thing.

And the evidence says: the right thing is to get into the field, full time, for confirmation.

One hundred and forty-two years, no typo, says: good luck, amateur 'footers! And you aren't going to get it.

How many times do I have to say this? If you disagree, stop taking it up with me! Take it up with the scientists who agree with me.

Edited December 1, 2012 by DWA

[Guest McGman]

The amount of sightings is a huge red flag to me.

If there was only a few sightings per year I think it'd be more credible.

However there are numerous sightings all over the US.

With that many sightings the law of averages dictates that somewhere,somehow a body would have shown up.

Whether they died by being hit by car,struck by lightning,killed in a forest fire,shot,natural causes,etc.

The odds just dont add up.

[Guest DWA]

The amount of sightings is a huge red flag to me.

If there was only a few sightings per year I think it'd be more credible.

However there are numerous sightings all over the US.

With that many sightings the law of averages dictates that somewhere,somehow a body would have shown up.

Whether they died by being hit by car,struck by lightning,killed in a forest fire,shot,natural causes,etc.

The odds just dont add up.

They add up fine.

You can't dismiss the evidence because it doesn't look the way you want it to look.

Presuming that this is so rare that no one ever sees it is a presumption contradicted by the evidence.

How many of these have you read? Me, practically everything. And I know you can't dismiss it like that.

We play into the 'skeptics'' hands when we start practicing the same it-can't-be pseudoscience that they do.

Science says: the evidence is the evidence, whatever you think.

Edited December 1, 2012 by DWA