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

[Guest DWA]

^But what does "following up on the evidence" mean if it doesn't lead to proof that the danged things exist at all? No one who's been following up on the evidence - whether you're talking about professionals like Meldrum or amateur folks like some of our personalities here on the BFF - has produced the physical evidence necessary to prove the existence of bigfoot. Thus if you consider both "approaches", neither has worked.

As I frequently say about this: these things (if they're real) don't live in labs. They're out there, where it's kind of hard to run into a deer, if one doesn't want you to. (And in the suburbs, for obvious reasons, many deer either want you to or don't particularly care.) And people keep on seeing them. Unless we just want to dismiss them all; and the reports give me no reason to do that. and I've read virtually all of them.

How much time is being spent out there? Virtually none, and virtually all of it by non-scientists. Most of the scientists' time is spent writing, lecturing, or examining evidence from an already-departed animal, not doing the Jane Goodall-type work that is what the field needs now. (Other than the TBRC, that is, who once again are gonna have to take a huuuuuuge break, due to Real Life.)

People with no experience with primates are describing fine points of primate anatomy. People that haven't had any exposure to sasquatch are describing the same animal that people who have seen the Patterson-Gimlin film ("like that film, but a bit thinner, and slightly longer arms") are seeing. People are volunteering detail that makes it pretty obvious to me they aren't seeing bears, cattle or horses; and they sure are not seeing people in suits. Virtually every shade of experience, all five senses, in a wild-animal encounter - of which I've had more than my share - is being reported, consistently. It's not thousands of people just pointing to Frame 352 and saying, there, that's it.

(I said I'd stop doing this. Sheesh.)

No one can dismiss this and call himself a scientist, to me.

The very least scientists can do is stop pronouncing sentence on a creature of the evidence for which they aren't even aware. Is it so hard to say, "I don't know, but I wish the searchers luck and hope to have some hard evidence to look at soon?"

Is it so hard to encourage them, and maybe even provide a tip or two, in the hopes of accelerating that?

Is it so hard to just keep your mouth shut rather than loudly broadcasting that you don't really pay attention?

Easier, I'd think than "I'm looking at the lack of fossils, and not finding an animal that exists now." Certainly more credible, if one is interested in sounding like a scientist. Which I'd think one would be, were one actually a scientist.

Edited December 5, 2012 by DWA

[Guest Cervelo]

Aren't we on Mars right now looking for life?

It seems when there's a good reason to go look for something we do

[Guest DWA]

Aren't we on Mars right now looking for life?

It seems when there's a good reason to go look for something we do

Ferpetesake, they are sending SPACECRAFT WITH INFO ABOUT US into the cosmos FOR FOLKS TO FIND THEM AND GET BACK TO US.

There is so much exponentially more evidence for sasquatch than for either of the above possibilities that...don't make me laugh, people.

[Guest Cervelo]

Don't worry there's already plenty of laughing...

[Drew]

The cosmos has not been explored, and catalogued.

North America has been explored, catalogued.

There is exactly the same amount of verifiable evidence that Bigfoot lives in North America, as there is that Bigfoot lives on Centurus 5 star system.

If I had to choose Earth or Centurus 5, to send my Bigfoot research team to. I would send it to Centurus 5.

[Guest DWA]

The cosmos has not been explored, and catalogued.

North America has been explored, catalogued.

There is exactly the same amount of verifiable evidence that Bigfoot lives in North America, as there is that Bigfoot lives on Centurus 5 star system.

If I had to choose Earth or Centurus 5, to send my Bigfoot research team to. I would send it to Centurus 5.

...and there's tons of evidence that, as we seem to find out pretty much every single day, whoops, we missed something.

[Guest Cervelo]

The cosmos has not been explored, and catalogued.

North America has been explored, catalogued.

There is exactly the same amount of verifiable evidence that Bigfoot lives in North America, as there is that Bigfoot lives on Centurus 5 star system.

If I had to choose Earth or Centurus 5, to send my Bigfoot research team to. I would send it to Centurus 5.

Now your talking...

[Guest BFSleuth]

The cosmos has not been explored, and catalogued.

North America has been explored, catalogued.

****! I guess we know everything there is to know. When exactly did this moment occur?

[Guest DWA]

****! I guess we know everything there is to know. When exactly did this moment occur?

I have 1:42 p.m., Eastern. Drew's post was the very last thing I didn't know. Done here?

Hey, site's fun. Keep it going anyway? Now sasquatch can be whatever we want!

Edited December 5, 2012 by DWA

[Guest BFSleuth]

Kinda reminds me of that high speed internet provider commercial on TV, where the guy "finishes" the internet..... :D

I had to chuckle at the hubris that the "cosmos has been catalogued".... that's a good one...

[Guest DWA]

Just hit me. The attitude of BF skeptics toward evidence.

You know all the police shows, where just about every episode is the guy/gal getting nailed for the crime that everybody knows couldn't have done it?

None of them sees the inside of a jail cell if all we have on the case are BF skeptics.

[Drew]

Oh, you mean the police shows where all those suspects are Innocent until proven guilty? Durn all that silly evidence! durn it to heck.

[Guest DWA]

Oh, you mean the police shows where all those suspects are Innocent until proven guilty? Durn all that silly evidence! durn it to heck.

They wouldn't even make trial if one did not look for and follow up very - VERY - inconclusive evidence that is nonetheless compelling.

Sorta like bigfoot that way.

One of the things scientists are most adamant on is how much cataloguing we still have to do, right here on earth and frequently in our back yards.

Edited December 5, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

"I don't know, but I wish the searchers luck and hope to have some hard evidence to look at soon?"

For someone who's so well versed on all things bigfooty and hasn't hesitated an instant to proclaim me devoid of curiosity, not a scientist, etc., I find it more than amusing that you're apparently unaware of the many times I've expressed that sentiment - practically verbatim - to people right here at the BFF.

[Guest DWA]

For someone who's so well versed on all things bigfooty and hasn't hesitated an instant to proclaim me devoid of curiosity, not a scientist, etc., I find it more than amusing that you're apparently unaware of the many times I've expressed that sentiment - practically verbatim - to people right here at the BFF.

Then why all the carping on no-body? It' s like you never heard the word yet.

The history of biology says, loud and clear, that not enough field time has been spent in toto to expect one, so why expect one?

Pattterson and Gimlin would have had one had they not decided that only in self-defense would either of them shoot. And they are basically being blamed for that. (No evidence in 45 years that it's anything other than what they say it was.)

You're going to have to excuse the frustration from somebody who has been hearing this from mainstream science and skeptics, for years:

No proof, so there will never be any. Stop already.

(I read it up there; I don't need to drag it down here, do i?)

What, exactly, would you call that?

If no one had ever found a print, the encounter literature would be compelling.

If no one had ever reported seeing one, the track evidence would be compelling.

And yet, there's both of those, and more. "Alleged" makes it just as likely that it did happen as that it didn't.

(Actually, no. The breadth and depth of the evidence is almost overwhelmingly in favor of: it's real.)

The response from the mainstream (I won't even include the non-scientific 'skeptics') is...to call it "lacking from a scientific perspective" is damning with faint praise.

When you say what you say, gotta expect what you get.

Edited December 5, 2012 by DWA