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

[Incorrigible1]

One word: scalps. Both Europeans and NA collected and displayed them. I'm fascinated with the question of where are the sasquatch artifacts? And agree with Norse, in that a body needs to be put onto a biologist's table.

[Doc Holliday]

interesting point inc, i hadn't considered scalps.

if the NA & BF ever clashed it stands to reason there might be scalps,unless they rotted away,or, of course, if the NA always lost those supposed confrontations.

might be worth a look into tribal customs of PNW NA,or other areas with higher suspected BF activity.

if those groups were known to scalp it could be interesting.

[Guest thermalman]

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?

A site where to find a catalogue of all the known NA mammals.

[Guest]

interesting point inc, i hadn't considered scalps.

if the NA & BF ever clashed it stands to reason there might be scalps,unless they rotted away,or, of course, if the NA always lost those supposed confrontations.

might be worth a look into tribal customs of PNW NA,or other areas with higher suspected BF activity.

if those groups were known to scalp it could be interesting.

That's what haunts me as far as believing Squatch is real. NA's were supreme hunters...no doubt in my mind that they *could*>>>*should*>>*would* >>>bag a Squatch and we don't have evidence of that. Even if they couldn't..they would have taken remains...and we don't see those either. This is a real problem for me.

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

It's amazing how Bigfoot guru’s and proponents have custom tailored BF’s behavior and intelligence over the years. Customized so these characteristics can be utilized as an excuse to explain why they can never come out with concrete evidence. Shy, elusive, nocturnal and secretive come to mind. We can't find him because he only comes out at night. Sasquatch is extremely shy and avoids humans at all cost and that's why we can't find him. And overshadowing all these traits is his ability to be elusive. This makes perfect sense. He's elusive and that's why we can't find him. We can't find him therefore he's elusive.

What’s even more remarkable is that Sasquatch advocates reserve the right to change it anytime they please to perpetuate this phenomenon particularly when new technology emerges. New technology that should have already proved Sasquatch’s existence years ago. Let’s use the trail-cam to illustrate this. Arguably, there are hundreds of thousands of these devices (if not millions) globally, some of which were specifically acquired for BF research. But the majority of were set up in wilderness areas by avid sportsmen that are surely in the realm of Bigfoot. Not originally setup to search for Sasquatch, but still available nonetheless for this task because of the financial gains of turning in a squatch picture. Despite all these reconnaissance tools, the closest anyone has come to catching a mug shot of our hairy friend is still the all too familiar blobsquatch. Of course, I’m making reference to the Jacob photos.

So to explain the ineffectiveness of these cameras, our experts will need to generate yet more excuses. In this case, they have no choice but to say Bigfoot is smarter than they originally thought. He can recognize that trail cams are manmade and are something that should be avoided. Reading the latest "Why There's No BF Photos Thread", this is already being used as an argument. And as these cameras evolve, so does Bigfoot. These cameras have shrunk in size and more easily concealed. So to counter this, our panel of experts will have no choice but to declare that BF has exceptional eyesight. They can identify the concealed camera at a distance of 100m, well beyond the trigger mechanism’s range. And in the rare event that a game-cam actually snaps an image, the device is immediately destroyed because Bigfoot knows of the dire consequences if the media gets a hold of an image. It's just a matter time until someone puts forth a belief that all electronic devices emit a high pitched noise that no other animal on Earth can’t detect but Bigfoot. Hence, the reason why no one has ever successfully taken a BF photo and why no one ever will.

Similarly, BF’s will be given credit for understanding how FLIR operates. He knows that standing several meters inside thick brush will mask his signature. That’s why his massive amount of body heat never betrays his presence. Unknown to many BF believers, wildlife agencies both governmental and commercial have conducted hundreds of aerial FLIR surveys on a variety of species as a means to obtain numbers and migration patterns. Moreover, these overflights can cover several thousand square km's in a single night. If BF distribution is as numerous and widespread as researchers claim, how is it that these surveys have never detected 800 lbs. of upright walking primate flesh? Of course, our panel of BF enthusiasts here will insist that's why all BF's choose to dwell under the thickest of canopies like the Pacific North West, because they know the limitations of FLIR technology. And if a BF has the misfortune of being caught without dense cover, we can simply declare all BF's immediately drop down on all four limbs when they hear aircraft overhead so they can mimic the appearance of a large overweight bear. To counter infrared night vision scopes/cameras, BF's have learned that closing his eyes prevents the infrared light from reflecting back to the scope. Creating similar excuses requires only your imagination because regardless of how outrageous and farfetched they sound, they never have to be proven. The only guideline that must be observed is the excuse should reduce, and if possible, completely remove the obligation of obtaining physical evidence.

Let us apply this strategy to the absence of BF remains. One can insist that all BF's are a highly environmentally conscious species and let nothing to go to waste. They not only eat their dead, they grind the bones for a recipe similar to Jell-O. They even go as far as burning fecal matter as an alternative fuel source. It's no wonder a body has never been found. To reinforce this concept, I've read not just here at BFF, but other forums that BF's only dwell in areas of highly acidic soil. If we combine these two explanations, BF researchers are no longer burdened with the need of finding body. Just like why a BF photo will never be obtained if squatchers choose to implement the high pitched electronics explanation mentioned earlier. Ideally, all BF excuses should follow this standard.

Now keep in mind that usage of this indispensable "excuse" tool is not just limited to amateur researchers. Scientists such as Dr. Meldrum have used it many times in the past. I'm sure folks here remember MonsterQuest’s Sasquatch Attack part one. Meldrum went to great lengths to show that it was perfectly feasible that BF trashed the cabin. Part of his argument was proving our 800 lbs primate had more than enough forage to sustain itself by showing how easy it was to hunt grouse. If he could approach a flock of grouse without them fleeing as he demonstrated during that episode, then so could BF. Now fast forwarding to Sasquatch attack part deux, when BF failed to make an appearance. Our good doctor insisted that because blueberries were not in season, it was only logical that BF would not be in the area. I guess he ignored the fact that BF originally trashed the cabin in late fall well after blueberry season. Not a very good excuse by Bigfoot BF standards.

On a side note, I'm surprised that Meldrum failed to conclude that BF's are capable of levitating. I mean how else could BF vandalize the cabin without leaving a single footprint after destroying the woodstove. Remember, the cabin owner stated soot was everywhere. Surely if he came across a BF print, he'd find a way to capitalize on it. I also wondered why Meldrum didn't deduce that BF's have the dexterity and intelligence of operating locks and door knobs. Footage of the insurance video that the cabin owner created clearly shows that someone had tore off the exterior door screen, broke the window and punched in the bug screen to unlock the door from the outside. When the hardcore believers read my post, they’ll scream BLOODY FOUL !!!! Who else but BF could have done this if the nearest town is over 100 miles away and no other means but aircraft to visit the cabin? Sadly, the cabin owner neglected to mention there's a native settlement a few miles away.

Is it no wonder that scientists who choose to participate in BF research are frowned upon by the scientific community?

When our BF fanatics have only straws to grasp, they'll insist we haven't looked in the right places yet to delay the inevitable. Eventually, there will be a point in the near future where civilian based platforms in orbit will have optical and thermal resolution to scan, track and identify even the most minuscule of creatures through body heat analysis. This will surely spawn from the increasing number of research satellites needed for monitoring our planets health. When this occurs, I can't wait to see what excuse hardcore squatchers use for the absence of our giant primate. As one esteemed skeptic pointed out in another forum, if the entire Pacific Northwest was reduced to cinders and several million people created a human wall walking shoulder to shoulder inspecting every square inch, BF will have earned a diploma from the University of Matter Teleportation when his bones are not found.

This a great post..really.

I often ask myself why do I have a hunch this creature exists when>>there is absolutley NO EVIDENCE? By that I mean bones...body parts.

Yes..I have seen very compelling accounts and VIDS...but in the final analysis>>>ZIP.

Why, then do I believe? I don't know why....and I bet All those on this board are pretty much in the same boat.

Edited December 10, 2012 by ronn1

[Doc Holliday]

Well ronn, the NA were supreme hunters,but just suppose the BF themselves were supreme NA...

The old NA stories usually refer to them as a people/tribe, so who knows..for now.

[Drew]

Saskeptic is on to something when he says sasquatch is on borrowed time. Here are the classification credits and dates for the other large NA animals since the Linnean classification system was etablished.

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Zimmermann, 1780.

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Rafinesque, 1817.

American bison (Bison bison) Linnaeus, 1758.

Muskox (Ovibos moschatus) Zimmermann, 1780

Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) Shaw, 1804.

Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) Ord, 1815.

Mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) Blainville, 1816.

Dall's sheep (Ovis dalli) Nelson, 1884

Bobcat (Lynx rufus) Schreber, 1777

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Kerr, 1792

Cougar (Puma concolor), Linnaeus, 1771

American black bear (Ursus americanus) Pallas, 1780

Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758.

Ursus arctos Linnaeus, 1758

Zalophus californianus Lesson, 1828

Where I differ with many footers, is on this note:

Ronn1 said:

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.

The more unsupported claims you get, the LESS LIKELY it is that one of those claims is real. You desperately are hoping that JUST ONE of those stories is real, to support the belief in Bigfoot, but as we add more and more claims, which are unsupported, the idea that just one of them will end up being real is reduced.

It would be better to have 5 reports of Bigfoot, than 500,000 reports of Bigfoot, if my goal was to show it was real.

I wonder how many Mr. Helpers called in IBW reports AFTER the IBW saga started showing up on the News?

Edited December 10, 2012 by Drew

[Guest]

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?

Actually, people do report bigfoots in Kansas, Oklahoma, and in other less forested states, but almost always the alleged encounter location is near some wooded area, like a riparian forest running through a grassland.

The bigger issue though is that you're confounding "delusion" and "folklore." You're assuming that people who report bigfoots (that I say were never there) are suffering from delusions, i.e., they really thought they saw a bigfoot, but they really didn't. Yes, some who've reported bigfoots have been deluded, but many (most?) who've reported bigfoots have simply been participating in the beloved bigfoot folklore. You spin a yarn around a campfire or report it to an online sightings database. If you want your report to have maximum effect - say to help convince someone based on your info that they had seen a bigfoot too in a nearby area - then you make the bigfoot in your story generally conform to what folklore says bigfoots are and what they do.

The bigfoot of folklore is a creature of the forests: so says Albert Ostman, William Roe, Roger Patterson, Paul Freeman, Boggy Creek, Harry and the Hendersons, Jack Links Jerky - forest bigfoots one and all. While everyone would put their own spin on their bigfoot, if it deviates too much from the folklore (like, if "yours" had a tail) then it's not going to be considered a bigfoot and it won't end up in the BFRO database. So, to me, the "bigfoot correlates with rainfall" stuff is about as compelling as lake monsters correlating with the distribution of lakes.

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?

From a purely intellectual standpoint we can't know that. It is entirely possible that a distinct species of bear evolved, survived for a time, and faded to extinction without its remains yet having been found and described. Note, however, that you're talking about species. Paleontologists are great at examing a wide range of fossil material, finding some obscure character that differs from the norm in a small sample of that material, and making the case that there is a "new" species that has been discovered. With bigfoot, we'd be talking about a very different creature than anything for which we have the remains from North America right now. The "just so" questions about "giant Indian" teeth, misdentified and lost in a museum drawer somewhere are fun to consider, but I don't know of any such material that can actually be confirmed to exist.

When folks quote big numbers from biologists about the vast number of species that have gone extinct or the vast number still waiting to be discovered, we need to remember that these species are generally smaller than your thumb. Even if we allowed some enormous and ridiculous estimate like there are 30 million undescribed species on earth right now, that estimate predicts nothing about the likelihood that bigfoots are really tromping around state parks in Ohio as you're reading this.

[Guest]

Actually, people do report bigfoots in Kansas, Oklahoma, and in other less forested states, but almost always the alleged encounter location is near some wooded area, like a riparian forest running through a grassland.

The bigger issue though is that you're confounding "delusion" and "folklore." You're assuming that people who report bigfoots (that I say were never there) are suffering from delusions, i.e., they really thought they saw a bigfoot, but they really didn't. Yes, some who've reported bigfoots have been deluded, but many (most?) who've reported bigfoots have simply been participating in the beloved bigfoot folklore. You spin a yarn around a campfire or report it to an online sightings database. If you want your report to have maximum effect - say to help convince someone based on your info that they had seen a bigfoot too in a nearby area - then you make the bigfoot in your story generally conform to what folklore says bigfoots are and what they do.

The bigfoot of folklore is a creature of the forests: so says Albert Ostman, William Roe, Roger Patterson, Paul Freeman, Boggy Creek, Harry and the Hendersons, Jack Links Jerky - forest bigfoots one and all. While everyone would put their own spin on their bigfoot, if it deviates too much from the folklore (like, if "yours" had a tail) then it's not going to be considered a bigfoot and it won't end up in the BFRO database. So, to me, the "bigfoot correlates with rainfall" stuff is about as compelling as lake monsters correlating with the distribution of lakes.

This is what I think of when people mention rock throwing and tree knocking. Like smell, it seems to be a characteristic that catches on and then becomes part of the 'stories'. Back in the day, when I considered myself up on the published literature on BF, I don't remember reading too much about tree knocking at all, yet now I hear about it a lot more. The same applies to 'rock' throwing, though I do remember some mention of this in the literature (Ape Canyon), it doesn't seem like it was mentioned nearly as often as it is now. The opposite seems to be true for the stench thing, I would also say that the smell thing has seemingly tapered off as a common reported characteristic. But heh, I don't devour all the report info like I used to - when I was a believer.

Edited December 10, 2012 by summitwalker

[Guest]

^Right, these things ebb and flow. You'd think ol' Roger and Bob would've smelled a constant stench, had pine cones thrown at them every night, and heard wood-knocking pretty much continually before they filmed "Patty" strolling across the streambed, but I've never heard any of these things associated with their story.

[Guest]

You can say the same about the UFO/Alien abducion phenomenon.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[salubrious]

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

My post had a bottom line: its inconclusive that NA didn't have BF artifacts.

You did not seem to agree. So I posted your apparent position for clarity.

[Guest]

Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758.

Ursus arctos Linnaeus, 1758

Zalophus californianus Lesson, 1828

Where I differ with many footers, is on this note:

The more unsupported claims you get, the LESS LIKELY it is that one of those claims is real.

I don't think that follows LOGICALLY speaking. You can't infer ANYTHING on the likelyhood of a given siting being real simply based on A PRIORI evidence that is independent of the claim in question. Also...*Unsupported* means simply that.... evidence that can't be used to conclusively make a determination. Given that...it can't be used in conjunction with any other independent siting to infer it's likelyhood one way or another.

^Right, these things ebb and flow. You'd think ol' Roger and Bob would've smelled a constant stench, had pine cones thrown at them every night, and heard wood-knocking pretty much continually before they filmed "Patty" strolling across the streambed, but I've never heard any of these things associated with their story.

I see an *assumption* there..shame shame..

Edited December 11, 2012 by ronn1

[Guest thermalman]

I don't think that follows LOGICALLY speaking. You can't infer ANYTHING on the likelyhood of a given siting being real simply based on A PRIORI evidence that is independent of the claim in question. Also...*Unsupported* means simply that.... evidence that can't be used to conclusively make a determination. Given that...it can't be used in conjunction with any other independent siting to infer it's likelyhood one way or another.

I see an *assumption* there..shame shame..

Well.....isn't that the pot calling the kettle black! Because everything you've stated has been 100% proven fact!!!.........NOT

Edited December 11, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

Well.....isn't that the pot calling the kettle black! Because everything you've stated has been 100% proven fact!!!.........NOT

Only claimed one fact..

There is NO KNOWN HOMINID other than US.... 15K years ago.... that was capable of successfully mating with US. Hobbit? Come on.

[Guest]

ronn1 quoting Saskeptic with ronn1's emphasis in red:

^Right, these things ebb and flow. You'd think ol' Roger and Bob would've smelled a constant stench, had pine cones thrown at them every night, and heard wood-knocking pretty much continually before they filmed "Patty" strolling across the streambed, but I've never heard any of these things associated with their story.

I see an *assumption* there..shame shame..

I see a cherry-picked quote there - shamebackatcha. (Hint: why didn't you also reproduce "You'd think" in bold and red?)