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

[Guest]

If the bigfoot data in your sample come from something like sightings reports in the BFRO database, then it would be impossible to fail to get a correlation. You'd see a similar correlation with rainfall and porcupines, red-backed salamanders, and black-throated gray warblers: rainfall correlates with trees, so species that occur in forests - including mythical species generally associated with forests - will correlate with rainfall.

Point 1: We can cherry pick a species for which the fossil record is poor and try to make the connection that the fossil record for bigfoot would be poorer still. I prefer to think about it more objectively and consider contemporaries of bigfoots in time and space that might have occurred in similar population densities and been about the same size. When I do that, the giant short-faced bear pops out as an excellent proxy. We have fossils of short-faced bears from more than 100 different locations in North America.

Open and shut? No. Damning? Heck yeah.

Point 2. While the fossil record of humans might be small in terms of its total biomass (geo-mass?), the archaeological record of humans is enormous. Bigfoot is supposed to still be here. Thus it's not just its absense from the fossil record that is a serious problem for bigfooters, its also the absence of bigfoot material in more recent strata. For example, there are no bigfoot teeth on some brave's ceremonial regalia, no bigfoot scalp among the vast amount of Native American, First Nations, or any other aboriginal people's artifacts. That alone is an enormous gaping hole in bigfootery.

Might some cultures have had taboos about trading in bigfoot artifacts? Maybe, but I'd bet there's be others for whom such items would've been highly prized and briskly traded.

Remember, the first people to colonize North America seem to have hunted mammoths to extinction using Stone Age technology. Bagging a bigfoot is a walk in the park to people who eat elephants by hunting them at arm's reach.

Excellent points...lack of remains is the PRIMARY factor that *knaws* away at my belief in it's existence. The only thing that keeps that belief alive for me is this>>>>

Although MUCH (MOST?) of the *evidence* (Vids..tracts..recording..personal encounters) out there is probably hoaxed or *other*..it's

hightly unlikely that it ALL is. It only takes ONE. This is very much like the UFO scenario in my mind.

Edited December 9, 2012 by ronn1

[Guest BFSleuth]

Jerry, do you have that link or links to confirmation that all large mammals have been catalogued?

I note in your post 1332 you don't have the wood bison listed. Are you discounting that this is a separate species?

[Guest]

Although MUCH (MOST?) of the *evidence* (Vids..tracts..recording..personal encounters) out there is probably hoaxed or *other*..it's

hightly unlikely that it ALL is. It only takes ONE. This is very much like the UFO scenario in my mind.

True, but this line of reasoning always puzzles me, especially when it comes from the bigfooters themselves. I've had people tell me that 90% or more of the bigfoot data out there is garbage. Of course, that doesn't matter because we only need one report to be authentic for bigfoot to be real. Well, here are some problems with that.

First, we assume that if there are a lot of reports (say 1000) then at least one of them must be true. If there were only a few reports (say 10) then we don't assume that one must be true. Why do we assume that? If 999 of those 1000 reports are unreliable, then the only reason there are a lot of reports is because people are registering a lot of false reports! In other words, there isn't a great number of reports sufficient for our misguided sense of probability to kick in and assure us that at least one must be true. Our sense of how many people make reports is knocked far out of whack by people making those false reports.

Next, if you read those reports you'll find it nigh-on impossible to tell the real ones from the fake ones. So if we toss out as unreliable the great majority of reports, we will invariably be tossing out reports that read just as compelling as those we opt to accept as genuine. Well, if we reject report #39 but "keep" report #46, and the information contained in those reports is comparable, then why don't we just toss out #46 too? The information from the report is not better than that in report #39. It's just one we're arbitrarily deciding must be true because there have to be some true reports if the total number of reports is large. There just have to! Right???

There is nothing about a large number of anecdotal reports that leads invariably to the conclusion that at least one of those reports must be true solely because the number of reports is large.

[Guest]

True, but this line of reasoning always puzzles me, especially when it comes from the bigfooters themselves. I've had people tell me that 90% or more of the bigfoot data out there is garbage. Of course, that doesn't matter because we only need one report to be authentic for bigfoot to be real. Well, here are some problems with that.

First, we assume that if there are a lot of reports (say 1000) then at least one of them must be true. If there were only a few reports (say 10) then we don't assume that one must be true. Why do we assume that? If 999 of those 1000 reports are unreliable, then the only reason there are a lot of reports is because people are registering a lot of false reports! In other words, there isn't a great number of reports sufficient for our misguided sense of probability to kick in and assure us that at least one must be true. Our sense of how many people make reports is knocked far out of whack by people making those false reports.

Next, if you read those reports you'll find it nigh-on impossible to tell the real ones from the fake ones. So if we toss out as unreliable the great majority of reports, we will invariably be tossing out reports that read just as compelling as those we opt to accept as genuine. Well, if we reject report #39 but "keep" report #46, and the information contained in those reports is comparable, then why don't we just toss out #46 too? The information from the report is not better than that in report #39. It's just one we're arbitrarily deciding must be true because there have to be some true reports if the total number of reports is large. There just have to! Right???

There is nothing about a large number of anecdotal reports that leads invariably to the conclusion that at least one of those reports must be true solely because the number of reports is large.

I fully understand that my take is NOT a logical one...as far as inductive/deductive reasoning science. There is NOTHING logical in my opinion. Yes...I'm simply making an assumption here, albeit a reasonable one in my mind. Allow me post this account of just ONE compelling example. This is an account of an EXPERIENCED HUNTER. Is he hoaxing? Is he mistaken? Not from what I see. So...this is just a VERY SMALL sample of what's *out there*. Multiply these types of accounts several hundred fold and you then ask yourself...*Can ALL these accounts be mistaken or hoaxes?*

Here's the vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IFvxDMZsqDs

Edited December 9, 2012 by ronn1

[salubrious]

For example, there are no bigfoot teeth on some brave's ceremonial regalia, no bigfoot scalp among the vast amount of Native American, First Nations, or any other aboriginal people's artifacts. That alone is an enormous gaping hole in bigfootery.

Might some cultures have had taboos about trading in bigfoot artifacts? Maybe, but I'd bet there's be others for whom such items would've been highly prized and briskly traded.

Remember, the first people to colonize North America seem to have hunted mammoths to extinction using Stone Age technology. Bagging a bigfoot is a walk in the park to people who eat elephants by hunting them at arm's reach.

There are some assumptions here that boogle! We may have to take this to the Tar Pit, but in a nutshell you can count on any Native American being appalled by the idea of 'artifacts'.

I doubt the latter statement is true either. For sure there is absolutely no way to know something like that!

[Guest]

Jerry, do you have that link or links to confirmation that all large mammals have been catalogued?

I note in your post 1332 you don't have the wood bison listed. Are you discounting that this is a separate species?

Can you show any large North American mammal that was catalogued very recently? Also, the wood bison is a subspecies of American bison.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest]

There are some assumptions here that boogle! We may have to take this to the Tar Pit, but in a nutshell you can count on any Native American being appalled by the idea of 'artifacts'.

I doubt the latter statement is true either. For sure there is absolutely no way to know something like that!

Actually, I think he made a very good point there. One would think those most intimately in proximity or *contact* would have something..whether tradeable or not. I also have thought that early man..even Native Americans..would be very capable of hunting the SAS. Man is a very efficient hunter, as he hunts in a group. The only thing I can come up with is the cunning and STEALTHY nature of SAS. We also know the SAS can be amazingly quick to evade any potential threats.

[Guest Cervelo]

Sal,

Humans have kept trophies forever NA were no different.

I think that's the point that's boggling your mind.

It would also seem obvious for most people "we won", don't see alot a bigfoots around?

Edited December 9, 2012 by Cervelo

[salubrious]

I can't go into the 'why' of this here without violating forum rules.

Let's just say that the NA outlook on this subject is quite different from what you suggest. To start with, they lived in an environment where they had interaction. That is why any NA language in North America has a word for BF. I am not sure if 'revered' is a good word, but BF got healthy respect, and I suspect for good reason. Collecting artifacts and wearing them would seem 'unneighborly' at the very least, and NA people would know that the BF clan is watching. It is obvious to me that its a stretch to assume that NA people would have collected artifacts.

IOW it is inconclusive that NA people did not keep BF artifacts.

[Guest Cervelo]

They revered brother bear but they had no problem killing them and anything else that "sacrificed itself to them" ....food and shelter, security that's all that matters ever.

Please spare me the romantic notions of the NA and their behavior.

Human nature is pretty consistent thru time and cultures.

[salubrious]

Nothing romantic- just pragmatic.

So you are saying that the NA not using BF artifacts is absolutely conclusive then?

[Guest Cervelo]

What are you talking about Sal I don't have a clue, sorry your just not making sense....

Edited December 10, 2012 by Cervelo

[norseman]

If the bigfoot data in your sample come from something like sightings reports in the BFRO database, then it would be impossible to fail to get a correlation. You'd see a similar correlation with rainfall and porcupines, red-backed salamanders, and black-throated gray warblers: rainfall correlates with trees, so species that occur in forests - including mythical species generally associated with forests - will correlate with rainfall.

If Bigfoot is simply a mass delusion of mankind, then why don't people in say.....Kansas see something rummaging around in their garbage cans at two in the morning? Why would a delusion follow a rain fall chart at all?

Point 1: We can cherry pick a species for which the fossil record is poor and try to make the connection that the fossil record for bigfoot would be poorer still. I prefer to think about it more objectively and consider contemporaries of bigfoots in time and space that might have occurred in similar population densities and been about the same size. When I do that, the giant short-faced bear pops out as an excellent proxy. We have fossils of short-faced bears from more than 100 different locations in North America.

Open and shut? No. Damning? Heck yeah.

Point 2. While the fossil record of humans might be small in terms of its total biomass (geo-mass?), the archaeological record of humans is enormous. Bigfoot is supposed to still be here. Thus it's not just its absense from the fossil record that is a serious problem for bigfooters, its also the absence of bigfoot material in more recent strata. For example, there are no bigfoot teeth on some brave's ceremonial regalia, no bigfoot scalp among the vast amount of Native American, First Nations, or any other aboriginal people's artifacts. That alone is an enormous gaping hole in bigfootery.

Might some cultures have had taboos about trading in bigfoot artifacts? Maybe, but I'd bet there's be others for whom such items would've been highly prized and briskly traded.

Remember, the first people to colonize North America seem to have hunted mammoths to extinction using Stone Age technology. Bagging a bigfoot is a walk in the park to people who eat elephants by hunting them at arm's reach.

Point 1:

In your professional opinion do you think there are any species of bear from the Pleistocene that we have yet not discovered in the fossil record?

Point 2:

Unless you look at the seemingly taboo rules among the native population that makes killing a bigfoot unthinkable. Most tribes that I have read about seem to shy away from killing bigfoot But Cervelo brings up a good point...........Northern European settlers would have not had any qualms about blasting a hole in one. And your both right that lack of physical evidence is the 800 lbs gorilla in the room. And that is something that I have never tried to side step, and it's why I'm very pro kill.

I'm not trying to make excuses.......but I would rather "bigfootdom" be a little more understanding in being proactive at trying to collect a type specimen though.

[Guest SquatchinNY]

Just to add my opinion to the BF in Thermal Surveys discussion from the early pages of this thread:

In an areal survey, especially from higher up, all heat sigs are just blobs. You can't tell much from that high up. Now, lower images, like the ones posted on page 3, that is another story.

[Guest]

I think people still approach BF from a pure animal angle.

Now what happens if you hunt or "keep trophies" for any other human? You have a problem right?

If BF are basically human-hybrid as some suspect, how do you think they would react if someone killed one of theirs and kept the body as a trophy? For all we know they may have the same rule as Army Rangers, Never leave a comrade behind.

I've read somewhere that it was known among NA's that to kill one would result in 10 of your people being killed.