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

[Incorrigible1]

And then complaining about the quality of the work that's being done because they aren't doing what they are paid to do.

(Notice how I don't quote your entire posting, but only the pertinent portion?)

Complaining? Or pointing out the fact the evidence is great, but not conclusive? Nor is the complaining I've noticed necessarily coming from the skeptics, or skeptical proponents, as I classify myself.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Incorrigible1

[ohiobill]

Just so I am clear on this confusing subject - Science is setup in such a way that just because someone claims to have ongoing encounters w/numerous creatures at their friend's Mom's gazebo that it is actually not proof unless they can provide a body? It's not proof even if their friend vouches for them or a lawyer friend thinks it's a good idea? It's not proof if they have read sighting reports that convince them? Surely science recognizes a species once it is known that someone claims to have read anonymous sighting reports? What if they can provide photos of human footprints - shouldn't that count as proof of existence of bigfoot?

[Incorrigible1]

Why is every person blessed with a habituation ongoing event not a researcher willing to divulge to the world their conclusive evidence?

[bipedalist]

Ah, the old evidence, conclusive evidence, undeniable evidence, untainted evidence, ironclad evidence, can't be anecdotal evidence until it becomes proof thread. Right, now I remember how these arguments make up the central tenet of disbelief. Just checking in as a member that's not missing.

Carry-on.

[Incorrigible1]

We have evidence, some of it excellent. Proof? Conclusive evidence? Not so much. Hell, we've got folks sharing gifts and enjoying braided horse manes, but still, only excellent evidence. Wheel goes round 'n round.

[salubrious]

So they have found a body?

Whoever 'they' are. I nearly ran into one. It was blocking the road.

Where? Colorado, Dallas Divide.

Why is every person blessed with a habituation ongoing event not a researcher willing to divulge to the world their conclusive evidence?

That's easy! Because they don't want a bunch of yahoos showing up and messing around, especially if the landowner situation is tenuous. Look at it this way. If you knew of a place that someone was having consistent contact/experiences, do you think you might want to go there??

[Incorrigible1]

And if they owned the land the habituation was occurring upon? No doubt some other objection would arise. Yeah, I've been around the forum and habituation claims/experiences a time or two.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Incorrigible1

[salubrious]

Well I know that if it was my land I would not want people traipsing around, BF or no.

[Incorrigible1]

And you'd probably not wish to reveal the most remarkable biological discovery of the past couple centuries, either.

[Guest thermalman]

And you'd probably not wish to reveal the most remarkable biological discovery of the past couple centuries, either.

I'd likely keep it mum, but document and collect samples for a long time, until a body showed up. Only then, would I reveal to what I had.

[Incorrigible1]

Ah, but would you speak of the activity?

Edit: oops, you mentioned you'd keep it mum. A far cry from some. More power to them, but....but....ah, hell. Let's just tell everybody about them on the appropriate forum, but never actually produce anything.

I appreciate that you'd keep it mum.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Incorrigible1

[Guest]

I'd train them to do the yard work. No rides for free, as dad use to say

[Guest Stan Norton]

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.

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?

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

Well, as you say, many folks have been seeing these things for well-over 150 years. There are some rather famous moving images of one particular animal I believe, alongside numerous other images, prints etc. Again, can we not agree that there is evidence, just not the kind of evidence that one would ideally hope for. Just because we do not (yet) have a confirmed body/body part does not infer, unequivocally, that there is no such thing as a sasquatch. I agree, it is incongruous but that does not make it untrue.

I have no idea who Meldrum approached for publication. Maybe he did approach Ichnos and other seemingly more relevant journals. If they refused his paper would that not reinforce the argument that 'science' refuses to take this matter seriously? And do we know how many papers are submitted to notable journals refuting Sasquatch? I don't, but I bet it ain't many! It would be interesting to note how many sasquatch sceptics have had papers refused on the basis that 'it's not the kind of thing we do'. And we must note that Meldrum's paper is based on specimens - prints specimens for sure, but specimens none the less. It is perfectly valid to base scientific papers and ecological reports based upon field signs rather than actual observations - I do this all the time in my work: most sites I visit result in no sightings of protected species and so I base my assessments on field signs. It just so happens that the species I study are already documented!

[Drew]

I have no idea who Meldrum approached for publication. Maybe he did approach Ichnos and other seemingly more relevant journals. If they refused his paper would that not reinforce the argument that 'science' refuses to take this matter seriously? And do we know how many papers are submitted to notable journals refuting Sasquatch? I don't, but I bet it ain't many! It would be interesting to note how many sasquatch sceptics have had papers refused on the basis that 'it's not the kind of thing we do'. And we must note that Meldrum's paper is based on specimens - prints specimens for sure, but specimens none the less. It is perfectly valid to base scientific papers and ecological reports based upon field signs rather than actual observations - I do this all the time in my work: most sites I visit result in no sightings of protected species and so I base my assessments on field signs. It just so happens that the species I study are already documented!

Did you read the paper? He wouldn't submit that to ICHNOS. All of his conclusions were based on a movie of questionable provenance. I promise that Dr. Meldrum DID NOT submit that paper to ICHNOS.

[Guest DWA]

The more I've thought about this, the more I've thought that habituators might feel about this the way I will when I see a sasquatch:

Screw all the cynics. I got mine.

Cynicism does kind of bring this down on itself.

Did you read the paper? He wouldn't submit that to ICHNOS. All of his conclusions were based on a movie of questionable provenance. I promise that Dr. Meldrum DID NOT submit that paper to ICHNOS.

If you really believe your third sentence, you either did not read the paper or took what you wanted to take out of it.

(Notice how I don't quote your entire posting, but only the pertinent portion?)

Complaining? Or pointing out the fact the evidence is great, but not conclusive? Nor is the complaining I've noticed necessarily coming from the skeptics, or skeptical proponents, as I classify myself.

No, I classify it as complaining. That's what it is, because it is the direct result of science's abandoning the field to amateurs.

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.

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?

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

Are you familiar with gorillas and chimpanzees, at all?

Were our research of those animals restricted to the blue-moon, dueling-philosophies, scattergun amateur approach that is going on with sasquatch, we still would not have confirmed either animal.