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

[salubrious]

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

Answer:

When "Prospector Joe" suddenly goes quiet, and stops discussing his prospecting ventures....well....usually means he's hit it.

I can only attempt to grasp the understanding of what one goes through when the reality of a group of BF living near you, and interacting with and trusting you sinks in and realization hits.

At that point, a sense of responsibility for the protection of the troop MUST be instantly instilled.

Bingo.

[Guest DWA]

On thinking about this more, I have a couple of thoughts to toss in.

1. The Internet has for some time now allowed much of the sasquatch literature to be easily accessible online. What you can't get online, Amazon takes care of. I have been talking about "the mainstream" a lot on this topic. It could well be that on this topic, the mainstream may be, not quite so much. A recent poll says nearly 30% of Americans think the sasquatch is either "definitely" or 'probably" real.

While I might not be interested in - nor want to hear - why they think that way, it's probably reasonable to assume that there are some scientists or potential scientists (or guys/gals like me, with two potential daughter-scientists to influence) in that total, and that the public pressure for a scientific referee will only increase over time. The information - which the instigator of this nice little thread might want to avail himself of one fine day - is easy to get, and it points clearly to an unlisted animal. Public curiosity may be the key catalyst to final recognition. It may be that we here won't need to petition at all. This will just happen the way it frequently does in science: everybody just gradually switching sides, generally trying to make sure no one notices the side they were on. As Alley says: it is all, in the end, rather comical.

2. So...well, do we want this recognition? I have said that I do, and it would be neat to see something that I am 100% sure (sorry, Patty, that's only 99% sure with you) is what a sasquatch looks like. (Yeah, the conservation angle would be cool, if I trusted our species that much. Other than Bhutan, not sure; and Bhutan is entering the 21st century faster than I expected.) Problem, of course, is that it may be about as hard to get footage of these as it would be a wolverine, if not harder. We won't know until the species is recognized. Then....

I'm not one of those people who hopes and pines and hangs on every piece of news. (Melba who? Sideshow. Fun to talk about but I hang nothing on it.) The evidence has long since all but convinced me; and I wander the woods and drive the roads comfortable in the assurance that if one wants me to see it, I will, sooner or later.

Science may give me the 100% real deal assurance that I will see one before I die. Who would NOT want to see one? I don't believe anyone who says they do, and posits negatively on this topic. Or, maybe I just wonder how the heck they think it will happen when we encourage that attitude among scientists, which make no mistake, we do. They listen to the public.

But isn't it maybe more fun to look at a FLIR of something, or an intriguing trackway or handprint, and go, hmmmmm....?

Not sure. I'm really not sure.

But? It may be.

Edited December 7, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

Who would NOT want to see one? I don't believe anyone who says they do, and posits negatively on this topic.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? I would love to see an Ivory-billed Woodpecker, but the evidence suggests very strongly that they are extinct, and I never will. How is that any different that saying that I would love to see a bigfoot, but the evidence suggests to me that they do not exist, and I never will.

Why do you think that when someone like me says "there is no bigfoot" it prevents bigfoot from being discovered? Ask toejam if my pronouncements about bigfoot encourage him to do more or less field work. (I'm guessing "more", but I'll let him speak for himself.) Seems to me that, if anything, a mainstream science opinion about something just makes some people more interested in demonstrating that opinion to be unfounded. Of course, this is only relevant for people trying to find bigfoot. No matter what anyone says or does regarding bigfoot, one of the big, hairy lugs could be collected tomorrow on the grill of some logging truck, quite by accident, so the opinion of mainstream science matters not a tinker's dam. If bigfoots are real, we'll eventually have one either by accident or by plan.

[Guest DWA]

It's very easy for me to understand why, 45 years after the Patterson-Gimlin film, we are where we are, given all the evidence that existed then, and has only increased exponentially since. And the attitude, "I'd love to...but forget it" is a primary reason.

As I said and it sounds like you agree, though: Slowing it down substantially isn't necessarily stopping it. It's just slowing it down...substantially.

[Guest]

My point was that the existing evidence may not currently meet the very specific criteria demanded by 'Science', but this is not sufficient justification in itself to dismiss all the presented evidence as lie/hoax/mistake/delusion/hallucination. The history of science is littered with the shattered remains of all-conquering theories and facts.

There's no "theory of no bigfoot", there's just no body of a bigfoot that proves that there's a bigfoot. "Dismissal" is also a loaded term. A lot of people accuse me of dismissing anecdotal evidence. I don't dismiss it, I just don't accept it as proof of an otherwise undescribed species. I can't write out a specimen tag and attach it to a BFRO alleged eyewitness account.

Indirect evidence in field ecology is fine. Just imagine, however, what your dormouse studies would be like if no one had ever collected or described a dormouse. Imagine that we had only footprints, grainy photos, eyewitness stories, etc., but no actual dormouse had ever been collected, examined, curated, or described. That'd be pretty weird, don't you think?

That's why I would rather listen to folks such as Bindernagel rather than assume that he is a fraud or deluded.

I listened to Bindernagel, Byrne, Green, Krantz, Meldrum, etc. make the same claim for decades that science won't address bigfoot. Then I looked at the evidence to support those claims. It's lacking. The evidence points very strongly to the opposite: Science has been extremely accommodating in its consideration of bigfoot despite the lack of a single scrap of physical remains of a bigfoot.

As I said and it sounds like you agree, though: Slowing it down substantially isn't necessarily stopping it. It's just slowing it down...substantially.

Slowing what down? Bigfoot is bigger than ever! We've got the Losing Bigfoot folks on TV almost nightly, Melba Ketchum announcing to the world that she's sequenced the sasquatch genome, Bryan Sykes also in the middle of a bigfoot DNA study, Jeff Meldrum getting funding for his blimp project, Operation Persistence ready to pump a bigfoot full of lead, Bill Munns apparently getting funding for a PGF study . . .

Again, your rhetoric is completely at odds with what's actually happening.

[Guest DWA]

I don't accept "accommodating" unless evidence is accommodated. "Extremely" is, well, not a proper characterization.

Evidence is evidence, regardless what science has in its possession. That we don't have proof yet is, to paraphrase, more a vexing problem with the scientific community than it is anything else.

Reading one report I can understand. If a scientist read every one, and afterward, had your point of view, I'd simply stop talking to him about it. The evidence is simply un-dissmissable, and that's not my opinion. It's science's opinion. Unfortunately, humans are responsible for practicing science, so the practice is what you expect when humans do stuff.

"It's not proven" is the only response I get. Science drives to prove when the evidence looks like this.

But I'm really arguing from an academic standpoint. I don't need a body to convince me. But scientists actually addressing the evidence would be nice. That they have not - and they have not, and again, "no body" isn't addressing the evidence - is what it is.

Slowing what down? Bigfoot is bigger than ever! We've got the Losing Bigfoot folks on TV almost nightly, Melba Ketchum announcing to the world that she's sequenced the sasquatch genome, Bryan Sykes also in the middle of a bigfoot DNA study, Jeff Meldrum getting funding for his blimp project, Operation Persistence ready to pump a bigfoot full of lead, Bill Munns apparently getting funding for a PGF study . . .

Again, your rhetoric is completely at odds with what's actually happening.

Um, and once again I only need you to show I'm right. Listen to what you're saying about it! Bigger than ever! Kooks out the yingyang!

As I said: No need to try to change my mind. Why not just act like you really are interested?

I don't frequent any place or group that I feel the way about that you seem to feel about this. I leave them alone and wish them luck. Actually, I don't get to the point of even knowing about them, because I don't, well, care.

Edited December 7, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

But scientists actually addressing the evidence would be nice. That they have not - and they have not, and again, "no body" isn't addressing the evidence - is what it is.

Do you not see that I've demonstrated many times over that scientists have addressed that evidence? You can keep saying that science has not addressed bigfoot evidence, but you'll be wrong and increasingly intransigent each time you do.

[Cotter]

I'd just like to pop in and say that I agree with points made by both Sas and DWA.

I think both are correct to an extent.

There is a middle ground here I think you both can agree on.

SO, random plusses to both of you.

[Guest DWA]

Do you not see that I've demonstrated many times over that scientists have addressed that evidence? You can keep saying that science has not addressed bigfoot evidence, but you'll be wrong and increasingly intransigent each time you do.

No you haven't, and are wrong and increasingly etc.

What do scientists say about the encounter literature? What do they say about the trackways?

"They're not proof" or "they're not evidence" are not acceptable answers.

If I thought what you profess to think about this, you would never hear a discouraging word from me. Never. What the heck good would it do me?

Edited December 7, 2012 by DWA

[indiefoot]

What science has done is to discard any evidence that does not rise to the level of proof. There is a body of evidence that suggests that there is a uncataloged species behind the stories. This thread continues to blur the lines between evidence and proof.

What I hope for is evidence strong enough to get an honest answer from the US government as to what they know about the phenomenon.

[Guest]

What do scientists say about the encounter literature? What do they say about the trackways?

For someone who claims to know more about bigfoot than anyone else, you seem puzzlingly ignorant of the work of some of the scientists who've worked on bigfoot.

Your man Bindernagel is quite taken with the encounter literature, for example. Krantz, Fahrenbach, and Meldrum have had quite a bit to say about the trackways, don't you think? I mean, surely you've heard of Anthropoidipes ameriborealis? Meldrum got a peer-reviewed publication out of what he had to say about bigfoot trackways, and that publication helped him to receive his promotion to Full Professor rank at Idaho State.

Wait lemme guess - these four scientists don't count because people like me disagree with their findings and it hurts their feelings and keeps them from doing even more bigfoot research?

[Guest DWA]

For someone who claims to know more about bigfoot than anyone else, you seem puzzlingly ignorant of the work of some of the scientists who've worked on bigfoot.

Your man Bindernagel is quite taken with the encounter literature, for example. Krantz, Fahrenbach, and Meldrum have had quite a bit to say about the trackways, don't you think? I mean, surely you've heard of Anthropoidipes ameriborealis? Meldrum got a peer-reviewed publication out of what he had to say about bigfoot trackways, and that publication helped him to receive his promotion to Full Professor rank at Idaho State.

Wait lemme guess - these four scientists don't count because people like me disagree with their findings and it hurts their feelings and keeps them from doing even more bigfoot research?

Nice try. We know their takes; and we know their takes are what a scientist should think with his scientist hat on.

What is peculiar is your continuing to consider them mainstreamers on this topic, which they very clearly are not.

When Idaho State University pitches itself to the country as The School That Is Going To Find Bigfoot, or when Scientific American publishes its "Kids, You Have To Find Bigfoot" issue, get back to me.

I want to know why the people who disagree with those four don't know they are wrong; that they have no thesis; and that they are obstructing a scientific investigation. But as I've said, those four are right. My purpose here is strictly educational.

(And yes, that Voice of the Mainstream, Bindernagel, is "my man." Nice. Make my points for me, whydoncha.)

Edited December 7, 2012 by DWA

[Drew]

Dear Saskeptic,

From my private land, I have several plaster casts of footprints, a list of stories of people who have seen the creatures here.

Would you please drop whatever it is that you are doing, and come to my private Bigfoot land, and study these creatures? Just a heads-up, the creatures are averse to getting their photos taken, and don't like guns.

Sincerely,

Drew

[Guest DWA]

Dear Saskeptic,

From my private land, I have several plaster casts of footprints, a list of stories of people who have seen the creatures here.

Would you please drop whatever it is that you are doing, and come to my private Bigfoot land, and study these creatures? Just a heads-up, the creatures are averse to getting their photos taken, and don't like guns.

Sincerely,

Drew

Now we're talking. Set up some game cams. HELP OUT, for once.

[salubrious]

Indirect evidence in field ecology is fine. Just imagine, however, what your dormouse studies would be like if no one had ever collected or described a dormouse. Imagine that we had only footprints, grainy photos, eyewitness stories, etc., but no actual dormouse had ever been collected, examined, curated, or described. That'd be pretty weird, don't you think?

It would. But one thing about a dormouse. They aren't particularly smart. BF seems to be a 'nuther thing- not only is is smart, but unlike us its well-adapted to its environment, and can completely outmanoeuvre us in the woods both on a physical and mental level. We are used to thinking about ourselves as the smartest thing out there- it is part of our arrogance in the field. But what if BF is a lot smarter?? As you know, humans have been getting dumber for the last 10-15,000 years; this is not that much of a stretch (we are talking about BF after all, where darn near anything is a stretch, even if you have already had an encounter). In this context its not weird at all that no body has shown up. In fact in this context it might be weirder if it did.

We've got the Losing Bigfoot folks on TV almost nightly