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

[Guest DWA]

"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."

No I wouldn't.

Those things are reported in many encounters, and not reported in many encounters.

I wouldn't expect that any more than I would expect every chimpanzee I saw to be named Bonzo, wearing a diaper and eating a banana.

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

^{There is no logical basis for that statement.}

^{If everyone in my neighborhood says they saw a red fox that morning it at least subjectively INCREASES the chance that one of those claims is correct, particularly when other evidence indicates fox presence. Lots of reports, consistently rendered, objectively INCREASE the probability that the thing alleged to be seen is not being made up. The more reports, the more consistency, the GREATER, not less, the likelihood. To think otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand how the world works.}

^{That statement presumes that everyone's purpose and prime requirement in life is satisfying the curious with proof. For most of us, it isn't.}

Edited December 11, 2012 by DWA

[Guest Cervelo]

Yep and I can go out today and produce a fox,

let me see you go fetch a Bigfoot!

How's that for logic

Edited December 11, 2012 by Cervelo

[Guest]

Does that mean there really is a leprechaun in Alabama?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM7CL-Vyo1U

[Guest DWA]

Yep and I can go out today and produce a fox,

let me see you go fetch a Bigfoot!

How's that for logic

If everyone in my neighborhood told me they saw a sasquatch this morning, I'm not sure my response would be to go back to bed.

[Guest thermalman]

You're safe with me guys, I never saw one....

[Cotter]

I'd like to see Cerv produce a fox.

If it's so easy, he should be able to have a pic of himself next to one he harvested say, within 1 week?

[Drew]

If everyone in my neighborhood told me they saw a sasquatch this morning, I'm not sure my response would be to go back to bed.

Really? You wouldn't think they were hackin on you?

I would say "nice try" and go back to bed.

[Guest]

^{If everyone in my neighborhood says they saw a red fox that morning it at least subjectively INCREASES the chance that one of those claims is correct, particularly when other evidence indicates fox presence. Lots of reports, consistently rendered, objectively INCREASE the probability that the thing alleged to be seen is not being made up. The more reports, the more consistency, the GREATER, not less, the likelihood. To think otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand how the world works.}

^{That statement presumes that everyone's purpose and prime requirement in life is satisfying the curious with proof. For most of us, it isn't.}

Again, you keep taking BF's folklore and cultural status out of the equation.

[Cotter]

Hi Jerry - Are you aware of any scientific studies that tries to draw a correllation between lore and sightings?

For example, are people still spotting fire breathing dragons in England/Europe?

Are we still getting reports of mermaids from sailors?

I would think that if lore played a major factor, we should see similarities in the number of sightings for other 'mythological' creatures (per capita), correct?

[Guest DWA]

Again, you keep taking BF's folklore and cultural status out of the equation.

Anyone who has read the encounter literature knows that folklore and cultural status aren't the question.

Many close (too close?) to this topic think everyone knows about those things. Fact is, most do not. Most eyewitnesses didn't know the first thing about sasquatch.

Hi Jerry - Are you aware of any scientific studies that tries to draw a correllation between lore and sightings?

For example, are people still spotting fire breathing dragons in England/Europe?

Are we still getting reports of mermaids from sailors?

I would think that if lore played a major factor, we should see similarities in the number of sightings for other 'mythological' creatures (per capita), correct?

Right.

There is no other "mythical" creature with anything like the evidence we have for sasquatch.

[Guest]

I would think that if lore played a major factor, we should see similarities in the number of sightings for other 'mythological' creatures (per capita), correct?

Why should that be?

Edited December 11, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest thermalman]

Why not? Aren't they all in the same category?

[Guest]

Anyone who has read the encounter literature knows that folklore and cultural status aren't the question.

I've read that literature and find it to be the entirety of the question.

Many close (too close?) to this topic think everyone knows about those things. Fact is, most do not. Most eyewitnesses didn't know the first thing about sasquatch.

So the people making up stories of their sasquatch encounters also claim not to have known anything about sasquatch prior to the encounter. I wonder how that information might affect the degree to which their stories would be considered authentic by the people who collect such stories and post them on public websites . . .

There is no other "mythical" creature with anything like the evidence we have for sasquatch.

We have no evidence for sasquatch. We have only items that some people who believe in sasquatch believe are evidence of sasquatch. I can grant you that we probably have more people who claim to have encountered bigfoot than who would claim to have encountered a unicorn, but I see no qualitative difference in what we can actually confirm to be evidence of either creature, which is zero.

[Guest]

Many close (too close?) to this topic think everyone knows about those things. Fact is, most do not. Most eyewitnesses didn't know the first thing about sasquatch.

So you claim.

[Cotter]

Thing is. If one SEES a sasquatch, then studies it's tracks, or perhaps had observed behavior, that IS indeed evidence.

For those that have not seen a sasquatch, and investigated whatever evidence was provided, then they themselves dismiss others' claims of evidence.

It doesn't mean that the evidence is bad, just unproven to everyone except the witness.

@Jerry - correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you ascribing sightings to the history of folklore in the area and drawing a comparison.

Maybe a better question would be is why then is BF 'special' in the sense that the folklore relationship you are offering only applies to BF? It's not a phenomenon associated with North America after all, this is a global phenom.