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

[Guest]

It seems like we've been down this road many times before. From Merriam-Webster.com:

Definition of EVIDENCE. 1. a : an outward sign : indication.

Anyone interested in this subject might want to grasp the difference between Evidence and Definitive Proof (or, not.) In my experience, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot and there are more 'excuses' as to why the evidence is 'all bad' than anything else.

Plussed one. Quote of the year!

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Someone needs to explain that over on the JREF!

Edited December 12, 2012 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest thermalman]

[Guest DWA]

So you're not just intellectually lazy, you're admitting to being just plain ol' lazy?

No. Intellectually lazy, that would be you. DEFINITELY too lazy to respond to people who prefer making their minds up before they are polluted by information?

That would be me.

See, you and I are not conducting this discussion on equal terms. Read up. You really need to; it would make your life more interesting. ("The world is more than wondrous enough without this sasquatch crap" is one of my prime indicators of someone whose world needs an enema.) You've given me no source for anything you say, which leads me to conclude it's not influenced by facts. (As evidence your posts, which have an alarming tendency not to address the points I have made, but to quibble about font and call kettles black.)

You aren't one of the people I'm worried about convincing. Actually, I'm not worried about convincing anybody. But you might want to know why you think you know what you think you know.

You know...?

That, people, is "you win, DWA," in Skeptic.

It seems like we've been down this road many times before. From Merriam-Webster.com:

Definition of EVIDENCE. 1. a : an outward sign : indication.

Anyone interested in this subject might want to grasp the difference between Evidence and Definitive Proof (or, not.) In my experience, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot and there are more 'excuses' as to why the evidence is 'all bad' than anything else.

Plussed two. The skeptics will acknowledge Bigfoot the Extrasensory Shapeshifter before they understand that simple distinction. Quite astonishing, really.

Edited December 12, 2012 by DWA

[Guest BFSleuth]

It seems like we've been down this road many times before. From Merriam-Webster.com:

Definition of EVIDENCE. 1. a : an outward sign : indication.

Anyone interested in this subject might want to grasp the difference between Evidence and Definitive Proof (or, not.) In my experience, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot and there are more 'excuses' as to why the evidence is 'all bad' than anything else.

+1 and a request for permission to consider this for use on my signature line...

Someone needs to explain that over on the JREF!

Good luck with that.

I've spent a fair amount of time perusing the threads on the JREF, and I've come away with a healthy appreciation for "critical thinking" "JREF style" (... and why do I feel like breaking out in the horse dance right now?)...

... it seems to me that the vast majority of posts on the JREF are about belittling, pejoratives, and character assassination. I think this is what they are calling "critical thinking" if I understand how their whole skeptical cult thing works. It seems to be a rare and frightening occurrence for them to address actual evidence without first pummeling it with pejoratives like an arachnophobe with a spider. I'm not sure they are willing to allow any evidence to get under the door for fear it might start building webs and start making sense.

Edited December 12, 2012 by BFSleuth

[Guest]

That, people, is "you win, DWA," in Skeptic.

That means you killed the conversation with a childish comment.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest]

In my experience, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot and there are more 'excuses' as to why the evidence is 'all bad' than anything else.

There are also boat loads of excuses as to why nobody ever gets a decent photo or why no decent footage has surfaced since the 1960s. No end to the excuses for no body, no physical evidence and on and on.

[norseman]

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.

So if I'm understanding you correctly? Most people see nothing and simply lie about their experience to get noticed? And the only way to get noticed is if they "conform" to Bigfoot mythology? If this is your hypothesis then I see one glaring problem with it. People report seeing all sorts of strange things, such as werewolves, thunderbirds, mothmen, the Jersey devil, etc. Why would seeing a large hairy monster with a tail and pointy ears lessen their exposure?

And why is it that places like North Dakota have five sightings and places like Washington and Oregon have thousands? If people are simply participating in mythology surely a couple of thousand acres of woodland will suffice. They don't need the whole western wilderness to participate correct? I mean Finding Bigfoot and Jack's links commercials are beamed into every household in America. So this must mean then that people in Oregon and Washington are more prolific liars than people in the mid west.

I'm not convinced in the least that most reports are simply people spinning a yarn.

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.

I agree with that, most species discovered are very small and certainly represented by closely related species we do know about. But I could be wrong but I see the fossil record as much more of a crap shoot. Many species from the fossil record are represented simply by teeth or small bone fragments. Hopefully there are still many creatures from the Pleistocene yet waiting to be discovered. (Whether or not Sasquatch is real or ever was real)

[xspider1]

Thanks for the +'s! anytime, BFS

There are also boat loads of excuses as to why nobody ever gets a decent photo or why no decent footage has surfaced since the 1960s.

I get the premise of the topic, summitwalker. Not sure what you consider decent evidence but, 'the excuses' for definitive proof of Bigfoot make more sense than the skeptical reasons (or, 'excuses') that try to explain away the evidence. For instance, we have thousands of detailed siting reports from thousands of reliable witnesses .vs. the notion that all of those witnesses were either hoaxed, lying, or delusional. It's true that there is no universally accepted evidence of Bigfoot but that has also been true of many other animals which were, for a time, cryptic.

Good post, norseman. One disconnect I see with Bigfoot detraction is the prevailing mind-set among skeptics that all of the reports would need to be true for any of them to be true. It's weird but, some people see Bigfoot and some people claim to see Bigfoot when they really didn't.

Edited December 12, 2012 by xspider1

[Guest]

See, you and I are not conducting this discussion on equal terms.

I certainly agree with you about that.

Read up. You really need to; it would make your life more interesting.

You have seen my post count, haven't you? I've been at this for a long time. I've seen claims come and I've seen claims go. There is simply nothing qualitatively new out there in 2012 that wasn't already there when I got seriously into this phenomenon in 1975. Lots of people claim to see bigfoot; no one has yet produced a bigfoot.

I've read Byrne, Napier, Krantz, Meldrum, Fahrenbach and, yes, even some Bindernagel. I've read probably hundreds of anecdotal accounts in the BFRO sightings databases and other sources. Read my posts in the Ketchum thread: I probably posted as much in that thread to defend her alleged process as potentially able to prove the existence of a new species as I did to express my doubts that the work was going on at all. I've been a champion here at the BFF, again for years, that quality photographic evidence - not even a body - would be a major breakthrough for me personally and for the scientific community at large.

But please do continue with your arrogant assumptions that people who disagree with you must not be knowledgeable about the topic, as you are. Unless you know of a bigfoot body on a slab somewhere, then we know the same stuff.

In my experience, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot . . .

I agree, but why can't we ever qualify that statement with "alleged" evidence?

To illustrate, let's take one piece of purported evidence for bigfoot: the Skookum Cast. Not only was this one of the most significant pieces of modern-era bigfootery, many people consider it one of the best pieces of bigfoot evidence. You would, I assume, include this artifact in your "plenty of evidence".

Suppose, however, that someone could really show, conclusively, that an elk made that impression. Imagine, I don't know, someone had thought to focus a video camera on the spot and a tape was released that showed an elk walk to the side of the road, nibble some apples, lie down for a while, get up and leave, etc., and it was crystal clear from the video and its provenance that what we call the Skookum Cast was made by that elk. Reluctantly, all those folks who had declared it a bigfoot butt print - even Meldrum - recant and admit, publicly, that it was an elk that made that impression.

Here's the question: Given the hindsight in my hypothetical example, was the Skookum Cast ever bigfoot evidence? I say no, and that's why the evidence/proof debates are meaningless. We could have a mountain of bigfoot evidence (as many folks here would claim) or we could have no evidence (as folks at the JREF might claim). I prefer to simply qualify our statements to say that we've got a great deal of alleged/purported/putative evidence for bigfoot. What's wrong with just being a bit more precise in our wording to more accurately reflect what we know?

[Guest toejam]

I certainly agree with you about that.

You have seen my post count, haven't you? I've been at this for a long time. I've seen claims come and I've seen claims go. There is simply nothing qualitatively new out there in 2012 that wasn't already there when I got seriously into this phenomenon in 1975. Lots of people claim to see bigfoot; no one has yet produced a bigfoot.

I've read Byrne, Napier, Krantz, Meldrum, Fahrenbach and, yes, even some Bindernagel. I've read probably hundreds of anecdotal accounts in the BFRO sightings databases and other sources. Read my posts in the Ketchum thread: I probably posted as much in that thread to defend her alleged process as potentially able to prove the existence of a new species as I did to express my doubts that the work was going on at all. I've been a champion here at the BFF, again for years, that quality photographic evidence - not even a body - would be a major breakthrough for me personally and for the scientific community at large.

But please do continue with your arrogant assumptions that people who disagree with you must not be knowledgeable about the topic, as you are. Unless you know of a bigfoot body on a slab somewhere, then we know the same stuff.

Regarding your last line Sas.

Know we don't know the same stuff.

Those who are in the midst of habituation or first hand experiences know much more.

No amount of reading or understanding will give you that first hand knowledge and experience.

[Guest DWA]

Saskeptic.

Mind-blowing.

How. In. The.

HECK could you read all that stuff and conclude, nothing to see here until a body?

HOW do you think we're going to get the body? Sitting on our hands waiting for amateurs with no time and less money?

OK, fine. And I'm OK with it too, because the evidence says: it's out there. I know it, because I know how evidence works. I'd like to see one before I die, and it's great how the peanut gallery is helping put that off, but I don't yearn and pine for some Dr. Ketchup to do something that won't solve anything. The evidence tells me that maybe I'll see one, and it tells me where to go to have a good chance. Lies hoaxes and misidentifications don't behave like that, right?

Right.

"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."

True in other areas as well (like the small smattering of reports in places like West TX or the CA desert). So, all these liars are wildlife biologists? Or is it true, as John Green put it, that people's imaginations dry up in areas with less than 17 in. annual rainfall?

I simply cannot equate the alleged level of reading with the displayed level of interest in the topic.

I CAN'T.

Number of posts doesn't say anything to me. Why I put those quotes up there on my signature. "Bigfoot skeptics" always goes in quotes because what they do is, to me, utterly unfathomable. To say nothing of not skeptical. I mean, I don't search the web for places to go to criticize naive interpretations of crop circles do I? 'course not. No interest.

(Oh. If Skookum is an elk, then it must be a levitating elk. No prints where they would have to be when the animal stood up.)

That means you killed the conversation with a childish comment.

It's not a conversation. That's how I kill those. No, a video of a hyena laughing isn't childish at all. That's how all the adults you know converse? OK. We're done. My comments tend to reflect what I'm getting, and I'm not getting serious discussion from you.

There are also boat loads of excuses as to why nobody ever gets a decent photo or why no decent footage has surfaced since the 1960s. No end to the excuses for no body, no physical evidence and on and on.

It's the 'bigfoot skeptics' that are making ALL the excuses! You know that, right? They're all nuts. You were there, I wasn't...so you're nuts. You've seen one, so you're nuts. You've seen THREE so you're TRIPLE nuts. The footprints are being laid in remote areas by rich people with endless time flown in by helicopter to make it look more authentic. Of COURSE Patty is a fake! One of a kind suit, with breasts! Don't you see that makes it look BETTER...?

And I haven't even started.

It must be painful in there. Let yourself out, man.

Edited December 12, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

So if I'm understanding you correctly? Most people see nothing and simply lie about their experience to get noticed?

I don't know about most, but I suspect it's a much higher proportion that we're generally comfortable acknowledging here at the BFF. Other explanations include misidentification, hallucination, victim of hoax, and, indeed, seeing a real bigfoot.

And the only way to get noticed is if they "conform" to Bigfoot mythology? If this is your hypothesis then I see one glaring problem with it. People report seeing all sorts of strange things, such as werewolves, thunderbirds, mothmen, the Jersey devil, etc. Why would seeing a large hairy monster with a tail and pointy ears lessen their exposure?

First, there are differences in the popularity of folkloric characters just as in other things. If you ask a random person on the street to name an NBA team, I bet most of the responses would be the Lakers or the Celtics, and you'd get very few mentions of the Hornets or the Bobcats. Why? The Lakers and Celtics have had more national media exposure; the Hornets and Bobcats are known in their own regional areas and to NBA fans, but an average person on the street in say Bakersfield or St. Paul would be unlikely to be familiar with those teams.

Second, and more relevant in your example, if someone reports a Jersey Devil or a mothman sighting, those accounts will not be included in a database of bigfoot sightings. Only creatures that sound like they might have been bigfoots are going to be included in a bigfoot sightings database.

And why is it that places like North Dakota have five sightings and places like Washington and Oregon have thousands?

More people in Washington and Oregon than in North Dakota.

Longer history of bigfoot folklore in WA and OR than in ND. (We've still got people on the BFF who refuse to believe in a bigfoot anywhere other than the Pacific Northwest.)

A LOT more of what folks consider "bigfoot habitat" in WA and OR than in ND . . . take your pick.

Regarding your last line Sas.

Know we don't know the same stuff.

Sure we do. I know that you are claiming to have interacted in a very meaningful way with bigfoots. Lots of people have made similar claims, going back to Albert Ostman, Muchalat Harry, and in aboriginal peoples' stories about "bigfoots" before that. I see nothing qualitatively different about your claims: they are fantastic and unsubstantiated, like those before.

Mind-blowing.

How. In. The.

HECK could you read all that stuff and conclude, nothing to see here until a body?

Easy. I'm not a slave to the logical fallacy of argument from personal incredulity.

The ratio of sightings (many) to actual bigfoots (zero) does not make sense. You seem to be inappropriately influenced by the former and not influenced at all by the latter, and because doing so fits your world view.

[Guest DWA]

Nope. I just know the outdoors and animals well, and these reports not only conform to what one would expect from a large omnivorous primate in the temperate zone, but they led me, Meldrum and Bindernagel to the same conclusions independently (I'd done most of my sightings reading before I'd read either of them; drawing on different sets of reports from what I was reading, they'd gotten to the same place).

You're confused who's the slave to the logical fallacy of personal incredulity. You think the simple idea that the notoriously-nearsighted mainstream of the natural sciences missed an animal that seems utterly plausible from the evidence so wacked-out kwaaaaaaaaaaayzy that you are ready to believe, out of hand, almost-ludicrous coincidences like the above - with all three of us being wrong - are more likely than that simple ol' critter.

The ratio of sightings to actual bigfoots first, makes a complete assumption unbacked by evidence and second, makes utter, total sense, much more than what 'bigfoot skeptics' are posing as the alternatives (which are you'd-never-bet-a-penny crazy).

Oh wait. I forgot. 'Bigfoot skeptics' don't have to propose ANYTHING. They don't have to think about how out-of-this-world ludicrous the no-bigfoot scenarios would be.

And if you really had read what you say you have YOU WOULD KNOW ALL THIS.

Which is why I don't believe you've read it. This isn't personal incredulity. IT'S EVIDENCE. Once again, no one could even get to my level of reading and come to your conclusion. They would never have started reading the reports, because no-body means the reports aren't real!

Right? Right.

And YOU SAID THAT.

Edited December 12, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

I'm not sure what else I can share with you, DWA. If the only way you can make sense of my position is to assume that I'm somehow ignorant of the real evidence for bigfoot, then I'm not the one with the problem.

If you can intimate specific questions you'd like me to address I'll do that, as I have for others in the thread. I cannot make out anything specific like that in post 1409, however.