Jump to content

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

Guest

By Guest
in General Bigfoot Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

They have been offered advice and equipment from forum members, but have always outright refused the offers for various reasons.

Now that is simply Tickle Me Elmo interesting. I could let my mind run rampant on the many theories as to the why not’s.

Edited by treadstone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest toejam

Guest toejam

Posted
Posted

They have been offered advice and equipment from forum members, but have always outright refused for various reasoning.

If you're talking about refusing your entry onto private land, yes you're correct. It's actually ridiculous that you would try to invite yourself there in the first place.

You're a stranger, You've had no encounters. You have no experience with sasquatch whatsoever, except for what you've read. The real truth is snubbed by most because of the high strangeness that occurs anyways.

If you had a habituation site with this much activity going on, the last thing you would want is other people (especially strangers) invading your space and quite possibly screwing up an incredible opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

There are a couple of BFF posters, supposedly living amongst a family or tribe of BF, and they are claiming the intelligence of the BF is what is preventing the posters from getting pictures or concrete evidence. Lots of circumstantial evidence and game playing, but no actual proof. :)

There was this one lady on the now non-existent MonsterQuest forum on the History Channel website who insisted a family of BF's continually visited her suburban home. In fact, she claimed that as she was typing a reply on the forum, a BF was tapping on her window.to say hi and often had the juveniles play in her basement. She made 3 or 4 posts, but stopped visiting the forum when people asked her to upload a photo or provide hair samples of one of them. Someone asked if she owned more than 20 cats, but she declined to answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
salubrious Yeti

salubrious

Posted
Moderator
Posted

And they actually are hunted, so unlike, bigfoot, they've got a real reason to not want us to notice them.

You're kind of missing the point here. I mentioned dormouse not that I was trying to equate dormouse discovery to a potential bigfoot discovery, but to address Stan's contention that it should be appropriate to conduct ecological studies of bigfoot without really being sure that they exist at all. To paraphrase Stan, why is it okay for him to publish a dormouse study without having to prove that it was a dormouse he was studying but not okay to publish a bigfoot study without having to prove that it was a bigfoot he was studying? My predictable answer of course is that it would NOT be okay to publish that dormouse study if we had no proof that dormouses exist.

As for the great intelligence of bigfoot . . . I don't assume humans are the smartest thing in the woods. I assume we're the dumbest, with the exception of aboriginal peoples living off the land in different parts of the world and the fraternity of highly experienced hunters and trackers. So if bigfoots are real, I have no doubt that they're smart, and probably at least as smart as we are. But . . .

I don't see how intelligence, knowing the woods really well, quickness, etc. can keep the entire evolutionary history of an entire continental population of a species from ever being collected. You can invent as talented a bigfoot as you want, but its Ninja-smarts skills will be at odds with patterns of behavior in the sightings reports that often display anything but stealth. Also, no amount of intelligence or stealth can keep your molars from eroding out of a stream bed 8,000 years after you die.

I see- you are right- I misunderstood. However, not everyone has to worry about whether they exist. Some people already know. So they are the ones that can study...

I suspect that we may already have fossil evidence of BF's ancestor(s)... - fwiw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

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.)

Science doesn't just rely on theories being debunked but also for theories being confirmed. I we guess should accept the study on bigfoot and black bears being truth since no other PR has debunked it, right?

Science is about data and analysis from muliple sources in PR. It's not about hero-worship.

Edited by Jerrymanderer
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

Guest DWA

Posted
Posted

Science doesn't just rely on theories being debunked but also for theories being confirmed. I we guess should accept the study on bigfoot and black bears being truth since no other PR has debunked it, right?

Science is about data and analysis from muliple sources in PR. It's not about hero-worship.

Who's talking hero worship?

The skeptical community worships something, but I'm not sure what it is. It's not skepticism. They swallow anything that confirms what they want to think, hook line and sinker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest McGman

Guest McGman

Posted
Posted

Who's talking hero worship?

The skeptical community worships something, but I'm not sure what it is. It's not skepticism. They swallow anything that confirms what they want to think, hook line and sinker.

Let me get this straight.

You pretty much blame the enitre scientific community for not producing a bigfoot that has only been seen, and purported tracks left and skeptics swallow what they want to think, hook line and sinker?

Just wow.

I should clarify.

Reportedly seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
norseman Sasquatch

norseman

Posted
Posted

And they actually are hunted, so unlike, bigfoot, they've got a real reason to not want us to notice them.

You're kind of missing the point here. I mentioned dormouse not that I was trying to equate dormouse discovery to a potential bigfoot discovery, but to address Stan's contention that it should be appropriate to conduct ecological studies of bigfoot without really being sure that they exist at all. To paraphrase Stan, why is it okay for him to publish a dormouse study without having to prove that it was a dormouse he was studying but not okay to publish a bigfoot study without having to prove that it was a bigfoot he was studying? My predictable answer of course is that it would NOT be okay to publish that dormouse study if we had no proof that dormouses exist.

As for the great intelligence of bigfoot . . . I don't assume humans are the smartest thing in the woods. I assume we're the dumbest, with the exception of aboriginal peoples living off the land in different parts of the world and the fraternity of highly experienced hunters and trackers. So if bigfoots are real, I have no doubt that they're smart, and probably at least as smart as we are. But . . .

I don't see how intelligence, knowing the woods really well, quickness, etc. can keep the entire evolutionary history of an entire continental population of a species from ever being collected. You can invent as talented a bigfoot as you want, but its Ninja-smarts skills will be at odds with patterns of behavior in the sightings reports that often display anything but stealth. Also, no amount of intelligence or stealth can keep your molars from eroding out of a stream bed 8,000 years after you die.

A couple of thoughts,

1) I've seen a sighting pattern that correlated with rain fall.........the higher the average rainfall the more sighting that were reported. So one would think that because more sightings are reported in a heavy fauna area it would actually be easier to see them. But of course if you saw one in North Dakota you would keep seeing him for miles and miles because it's flat with little vegetation.

2) The whole fossil evidence collection for human ancestors wouldn't take up the back of a pickup truck. In other words considering that there are six billion humans on the earth, we have a rather sparse fossil record of our own evolution.

I'm throwing darts at a wall here, but if your current population is low such as 2000, it wouldn't be real surprising if not much was known through the fossil record about your species or it's evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

Those Germans that shot the mountain gorillas, how many Virunganese (Virunganians? - whatever) did they collect and send back with the gorillas?

I would say if we had an army of folks stomping through the PNW shooting everything that was not immediately identified, we may get one of these creatures.

Unfortunately, we are not in the early 1900's where we can blindly go blasting in foreign or domestic wildernesses, we have no army with guns, rather the army we have actually HAS no guns, save one small splinter group in Texas........

But similar things were being done in the US during the frontier days and not one sasqautch skeleton was sent to a scientist.

But the assumption is also made that, when bones and teeth of these things are uncovered, they are identified as BF and not "large native americans".

There are indeed stories of graves being exhumed with 'giant' remains in them. If they were categorically shipped away to a 'museum', or simply disposed of on-site, or sent to the First Nations People, we (modern white man) would have no remains at this time to examine.

I think he's talking about fossils, not bones in Indian burial grounds.

2) The whole fossil evidence collection for human ancestors wouldn't take up the back of a pickup truck. In other words considering that there are six billion humans on the earth, we have a rather sparse fossil record of our own evolution.

We actually have a fairly good fossil record of our evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Edited by Jerrymanderer
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...