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

[Guest WesT]

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.

Key word being verifiable. Without a specimen to examine and catalogue ALL evidence is unverified and will remain so until such time a specimen is obtained.

The high ground is yours, for now.

[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."

There. Dragged it down. No body yet; so we're done here.

You may not like how I'm characterizing some of your views, but it's justified. Were I you, I would be all over myself with excitement over what's happening in this field. The Animal Too Smart For Its Own Good is actually looking like it will, maybe, even sometime before we all die, although it should have happened 44 years ago, confirm the sasquatch in spite of itself, yet you're talking about unsuccessful shootings; no body; no body; Iove to see a Carolina Parakeet too; no body; every bigfoot hunter gets support up the yingyang; no body; no body....

Edited December 5, 2012 by DWA

[Guest Stan Norton]

Welcome, lawyer-friend. (I hopes that's going to be your handle.)

Just some thoughts: Obstinancy has a funny way of vanishing when there's a bigfoot on a slab to be examined.

Why do you think that those of us who see no credibility in a flesh and blood bigfoot have lost our sense of wonder or curiosity about the natural world? I don't see that at all. We scientists are thrilled by new discoveries and delighted when we get to be the one to blaze the trail to some new understanding. If anything, it's my sense of wonder about the natural world that frustrates me sometimes when I interact with bigfooters. From my perspective, we've got folks who wax poetic about the life history of a mythological creature but who are grossly ignorant of the fascinating and wonderful life histories of hundreds of other species that share the woods with their myth-monster.

As for following the evidence, that's what I've been doing since about 1975, and it's never led to a real bigfoot. Why assume that people who are skeptical of bigfoot haven't followed the evidence? Many of us are very familiar with the putative evidence, but we've found it lacking. That's some of the hubris I referenced in DWA's comments a few posts ago. Folks like me actually find it rather insulting to be told that if we cared to follow the evidence we'd be convinced. A lot of us do follow that evidence and we aren't convinced.

Well I don't know what an "all-out push" would look like. Surely the folks who've provided Ketchum with all of her bigfoot tissue samples didn't need to do that to confirm bigfoots, right?

More to the point, you might check out the Operation Persistence thread where it's alleged that bigfoots have been fired upon several times now. Despite their claims that the training of the people involved and the ballistics evidence of one specific incident illustrate that no one is in danger from that field effort, the fact remains that one of their people emptied his gun at what he thought was a bigfoot, and he did that without knowing that there was a couple (of humans!) nearby - close enough that the shooter heard the car door slam and the couple go tearing down the mountain because they thought some nutcase was shooting at them. This kind of thing doesn't make me think that there's no risk to hard-core bigfooting, it makes me think that's it's inevitable that someone really is going to get hurt.

Still, if folks want to go squatching, what do I care? It's way less annoying to me than people who use leaf blowers.

Quote problems - these are from Stan Norton:

"So therefore if it is convention to assume that there are millions (?) of as-yet-unknown species, then I don't see why a decent field biologist (and many others) can't take the liberty of assuming (based on purported evidence) that this animals is real."

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the discovery of some new ant in a Peruvian cloud forest or a taxonomic revision of newly considered DNA evidence that splits one species into three does not mean that there's a population of horse-sized man-apes howling at the moon in mildly rural areas of the United States. Just because there are many more species to be discovered does not mean that any one species we might want to exist necessarily does. If that was the case, I would've already seen Carolina Parakeets.

Ah yes, but again we reach the threshold of what is considered 'evidence' by mainstream publications such as Nature. Are they going to go anywhere near a paper (whoever by) without already-confirmed evidence of a body/body part? No...

But what would be the point of a paper that didn't describe a confirmed body/body part? That's the only thing that would be publishable for Nature, and rightly so. I can't publish my bird/habitat studies there, but if I discover a new bird then I can publish it there (if I do a good job with the manuscript, that is).

Well, as a fellow bird man you should know that parrots are not the most inconspicuous of organisms (Night parrot being a notable exception! - and there's another challenge: we have fairly recent physical evidence of that species and yet concerted efforts over 20 odd years have failed to locate it) and so it can be stated with some confidence that Carolina parakeets are certainly extinct: I think people would notice a gaudy, noisy, flocking diurnal bird species flapping around. I agree that the Sasquatch may seem entirely improbable (anyone on here should admit that at least), but that alone is not sufficient to assume that it does not exist - again, we have to challenge all the many types of purported evidence rather than have an abstract debate as to whether scientific norms are being adhered to in a very narrow way.

In terms of papers, would it not be true to the scientific method to accept for publication a paper by a recognised academic authority (e.g. Meldrum) on what he considers the most substantial evidence for this animal? His recent paper on footprints even proposes a scientific name for the species based upon some of this evidence. Again, as a bird man you should know that any old Tom, **** or Harry can propose a new generic, specific or subspecific name (yes, admittedly for existing taxa) - I have several family monographs containing different scientific names for common bird species! - so the system of biological nomenclature is not some static edifice at which the noble scientists queue patiently for acceptance, but is available for anyone to have a go provided they put it in print somewhere.

[Guest DWA]

Key word being verifiable. Without a specimen to examine and catalogue ALL evidence is unverified and will remain so until such time a specimen is obtained.

The high ground is yours, for now.

I don't cede the high ground to anyone who says, what evidence? in a case like this.

[Guest McGman]

Right. And this species has been found. Just not acknowledged. There is a huge difference!

Am I suggesting conspiracy? No. But look at it this way. What would happen if you, personally, told everyone that you knew BF existed? Would they think you were nuts? Would you get to keep your job? Think about it.

For those of us who have had encounters, especially those that have had close up encounters. this thread is pretty ridiculous.

I was not aware of that.

Where is it?

[Guest WesT]

I don't cede the high ground to anyone who says, what evidence? in a case like this.

What? are ya too poor to pay attention? (just kidding) I was quoting and answering Drew's post.

[Guest DWA]

What? are ya too poor to pay attention? (just kidding) I was quoting and answering Drew's post.

Oh I know. But I have a real problem with people saying it isn't confirmed when they've been sitting on their hands as evidence has piled up, placed before them by people who are doing all the research on their own time and in spite of their real jobs. And then complaining about the quality of the work that's being done because they aren't doing what they are paid to do.

[Guest WesT]

And that was my point actually. When I came across evidence that was compelling I knew a scientist wouldn't come and check it out. To them it's a waste of thier time. Which is fine, I learned some interesting things about the creature, they didn't.

[Guest]

Then why all the carping on no-body?

'Cause that's what's needed to prove that a new species exists. No amount of eyewitness anecdotes or plaster casts can do that without a radical departure from the biosystematic standard.

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?

Because my history of biology and my knowledge of what bigfoot's supposed to be suggests that a real bigfoot specimen would have been collected by the early 19th Century. To me, bigfoot hasn't been on borrowed time since the 1960s, it's been on borrowed time since the 1690s. With each passing day, I would be incrementally more blown away to learn that bigfoots were really out there.

[salubrious]

I was not aware of that.

Where is it?

Most forests in the North American continent.

[Guest]

I think people would notice a gaudy, noisy, flocking diurnal bird species flapping around.

I think people would notice a horse-sized man-ape that approaches homes, campers, and cars, and spends its evenings banging on trees and screaming louder than any creature known to man - and they do notice them, according to databases such as the BFRO's. That's what makes it so incongruous that these creatures have never been collected or even clearly photographed.

In terms of papers, would it not be true to the scientific method to accept for publication a paper by a recognised academic authority (e.g. Meldrum) on what he considers the most substantial evidence for this animal?

Sure, and Meldrum did that once. That's another fallacious old chestnut of bigfootery - journals won't consider our bigfoot papers. In truth, it doesn't look as though the bigfoot researchers have actually tried to publish their best stuff. Why did Meldrum publish his ichnotaxon paper in an occasional proceedings from a New Mexico museum? Did he first submit it to Ichnos?

Again, as a bird man you should know that any old Tom, **** or Harry can propose a new generic, specific or subspecific name . . .

Sure, so long as they base their paper on examination of specimens. See the difference?

[Guest]

["Then why all the carping on no-body?"]

- 'Cause that's what's needed to prove that a new species exists. No amount of eyewitness anecdotes or plaster casts can do that without a radical departure from the biosystematic standard.

What about quality DNA evidence (assuming there is any)? The Denisovans are now universally recognized as a species based only on a found fingertip.

[Guest Cervelo]

Gotta Bigfoot finger tip?

[Guest]

The fact is, there are biologists, both professional and ametuar (by which I mean students pursuing biology careers not hoppyists), combing the North American forests and haven been able to document a 700lb bipedal primate.

I before you come back with "well, they filter out something they don't believe exists" check this out.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120120184235.htm

Simon Fraser University PhD student Brent Loken was hoping to capture images of the elusive Bornean clouded leopard when he set up a camera trap in the rainforest. Instead, he made the re-discovery of a lifetime. Reviewing time-lapse photos taken at a mineral lick in the Wehea Forest of East Kalimantan last June, he and his fellow researchers were stunned to see an animal they didn't recognize. The pictures showed Miller's grizzled langur, one of the rarest and least-known primates on the island of Borneo, and also a species many suggested was extinct or on the verge of extinction.

...........

Loken's work is featured in a paper being published online this week in the American Journal of Primatology (print version, March 2012).

............

"Finding Miller's grizzled langur in a forest outside of its known geographic range highlights how much we don't know about even the basic ecology of this monkey," says Loken. "We need more scientists doing research in Borneo to help us learn about understudied species such as Miller's grizzled langur and clouded leopards. The rapid degradation of Borneo's forests makes it difficult to learn about and adopt conservation strategies in time to protect species."

[Guest McGman]

Most forests in the North American continent.

So they have found a body?

Not footprints, unidentified hairs,DNA, etc but a body?

Where?