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

Drew Bigfoot

Drew

Posted
Posted

Someone SAYS they have. We all know how that works with regards to Bigfoot.

Scientists got a picture of the ONE wolverine in California. Then they mobilized and got DNA from the ONE wolverine in California. Then they put out a website showing the ONE wolverine in California. And they weren't even looking for wolverines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
While the OP does make a point that as yet we don't have proof, the fact is we have substantial evidence that ought to be of interest to open minded scientists to put some serious research effort into conclusively establishing the new species.

Problem is, you have scientists like Curt Nelson and Jeff Meldrum on the pro BF side. Why or how Nelson extracted non-human primate DNA from fungi is still up for debate. And as for Meldrum, he bent over backwards to make bigfoot the cabin vandal without even considering the possiblity that it was teens from the nearby native settlement. Selling BF cast replicas at $50 a pop doesn't help the cause either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

We have all seen pretty clear footage of a sasquatch. Why should anyone believe any new "clear" footage be received any differently?

Problem is, you have scientists like Curt Nelson and Jeff Meldrum on the pro BF side. Why or how Nelson extracted non-human primate DNA from fungi is still up for debate. And as for Meldrum, he bent over backwards to make bigfoot the cabin vandal without even considering the possiblity that it was teens from the nearby native settlement. Selling BF cast replicas at $50 a pop doesn't help the cause either.

The problem is that some scientists are pro bigfoot after examining the available evidence? That's the "problem" with bigfoot research? LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest RayG

Guest RayG

Posted
Posted

From what I understand, there has been plenty of solid tangible evidence submitted as well, but what scientist is willing to risk their career by saying that they have proof BG exists??

What is this 'plenty of solid tangible evidence' you speak of? Is it possible you are mistaken in your understanding?

This is why we all have monikers on this site.

Speak for yourself. I've been using my real name on bigfoot forums since the mid-late 90's. So far back, it was before I was skeptical.

RayG

Link to comment
Share on other sites
salubrious Yeti

salubrious

Posted
Moderator
Posted

^^ there are a good number of reports where a BF was shot and the body turned over to authorities, never to be seen again. Plus we have the Sierra shootings, which sounds like may have resulted in DNA turned over to a study. But those are the ones we know about...

Its the social stigma that is the problem. No-one wants their career ruined and who can blame them??

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest thermalman

Guest thermalman

Posted
Posted (edited)

Someone SAYS they have. We all know how that works with regards to Bigfoot.

And suits! And evidence to contradict, which they cannot produce. And wannabes, who will say anything to the contrary to get notice. And many more.

Then why did the initial western reports of the gorilla get so universally ridiculed, Sas? Known since Hanno the Navigator, but poo-poohed by the Skeptics of the day in Europe.

You still can't get away from the "experientialism" of Western Science. Until Western Science sees a phenominon in person, it rejects it. Which is belief over true science.

Up until Galileo discovered the earth was round in 1609, the Roman church still proclaimed it was flat and locked him up. It wasn't until 1991 that the church exonerated him, thereby admitting the earth was round. Skeptics reach far back into history and are usually governed by religion, politics, or money, all the while putting truth aside.

Edited by thermalman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Darrell

Guest Darrell

Posted
Posted (edited)

Well, all argument aside, maybe someday there may be something conclusive either way.

Edited by Darrell
to remove content that violates forum rules....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest FuriousGeorge

Guest FuriousGeorge

Posted
Posted

Why do you need all that stuff?

My guess (and it is a guess), if this animal exists and has not been found, it's due to being elusive. Current gear and methods are not really doing so well. More and of higher quality is a rational response if you wish to search for something you believe existed.

It's not that much of stretch to say that if it did exist in larger numbers a couple hundred thousand years ago, the rise of modern humans would have obliterated them. I don't want to lecture Saskeptic on evolution, but I'm sure you guys can guess what the current bf gene pool would look like (again, if it existed) if a small few were able to elude skillful hunters way back then. Keywords being "a small few", opposed to many that would dilute those genes. The current would have received their genes from past survivors. The ones that were able to elude hunters passed on their genes. This process happened to every species that I can think of.

Going further, and taking a guess that bf is a little more intelligent the than average hunted game, stepping up the gear couldn't hurt. I think BFSleuths post touches on the fact that there is nothing out there that is close to a small percentage of the resources put into the Large Hadron Collider. In fact no research of any kind has reached that scale. A small percentage would be nice.

"Because we haven't found them" is not a concrete conclusion towards non-existence. I don't believe in the "you can't prove a negative" phrase here. If we could step up the process for searching for an answer, however that answer may turn out, what scientist would be opposed to that basic premise? As long as it isn't your dough of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

The alleged footage from 1967 ?

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. If sasquatch is real, then that is undoubtedly real footage of one. If it is real, then that is actually VERY GOOD footage of one. I believe it's real, and you don't; I get that. My point is that even if we really are looking at excellent footage of an actual animal, it is still pretty much dismissed by skeptics, so in reality no footage will do the trick.

It's not like the next great footage that comes along will prompt you to close the case and declare it real lol...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

Guest OntarioSquatch

Posted
Posted

Maybe once Bigfoot is scientifically proven, people will look more at the film more carefully. Because they will be wondering if there is any video documentation of one if they live in North America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Surely it's like any other high profile debate, be it the JFK assassination or anything else, there will always be people who fall on different sides of the proverbial fence. Some people will be firm believers, and will be unshakable in their views. Others will be unashamed sceptics. Personally, I think it is likely that unknown hominids exist in North America.

I'm incredibly interested in the subject for a variety of reasons, but one of the main ones is the plethora of eyewitness reports from around the continent. Of course, some of these people will be making it all up, but putting them aside for one moment, the genuine witnesses are: 1) either seeing a sasquatch, bigfoot, whatever you want to call it, or 2) misidentifying something (and yet their brain makes them believe it was one of the afore mentioned creatures.

This in itself is incredibly interesting in my mind, but maybe I'm just a little odd haha.

Why is there "no evidence"? Personally, I'd argue there is rather a lot of evidence, but presuming the whole point of this thread refers to "concrete evidence", be it a body, or undeniable film footage, I'd speculate evidence has probably been seen by humans at some stage only to be misidentified, and I doubt even the best footage would be truly undeniable in everyone's eyes, especially in the days of modern technology.

Anyway, this is only my second post, and having recently had my interest in the subject ignited, I hope to learn and discuss a lot with you all in the future. Scotland's got at least one person interested in all this stuff :)

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