Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[Guest guillaume]

That's not a scientific attitude. A little investigation would show one that science - in the persons of a select few actually practicing it on this topic - is engaged in precisely that activity. That the proof isn't happening on one's required timetable, science cares not a fig about.

Are you talking to me? I know that you accept Meldrum as the ultimate authority of science, but I need something more beefy and reality-based, sorry. You love Meldrum because he shares your biases. Be honest.

Otherwise, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Objectively, there is no evidence for bigfoot. I am in fact pro-Meldrum insofar as I think it's okay and desirable to investigate the possibiltity of bigfoot within an evidence-based framework. But there is at this point still no unambiguous, objective evidence to support the existence of bigfoot.

Edited April 3, 2013 by guillaume
To bring into compliance.

[Guest DWA]

I don't feel it's necessary to pick a timeframe until the search starts. It starts when - just as with the ivorybill woodpecker - mainstream scientific institutions are devoting the time and money with no snickers to the long-term field work that will be needed to confirm. (Wish I knew what all the rush is about with this.) Three bigfoot expeditions in history has been enough for a compelling film and what looks like will be proof before too long. But when that's all there's ever been, well, where we are now is not surprising. If I told a bunch of people who had never hunted to bring me a grizzly skin, freshly pulled off the bear they shot, I'd be a fool to expect it soon.

That's not a scientific attitude. A little investigation would show one that science - in the persons of a select few actually practicing it on this topic - is engaged in precisely that activity. That the proof isn't happening on one's required timetable, science cares not a fig about.

Are you talking to me? I know that you accept Meldrum as the ultimate authority of science, but I need something more beefy and reality-based, sorry. You love Meldrum because he shares your biases. Be honest.

Otherwise, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Objectively, there is no evidence for bigfoot. I am in fact pro-Meldrum insofar as I think it's okay and desirable to investigate the possibiltity of bigfoot within an evidence-based framework. But there is at this point still no unambiguous, objective evidence to support the existence of bigfoot.

Um, no. He demonstrates that he's using science. You show me one scientist who shares your biases (I have none, but you most surely do) and I'll show you how you are both wrong. Go. Money at mouth location. Scramble. Stat.

But - and as usual it is to laugh - you sorta egregiously miss that your second-to-last sentence is kinda, necessary, wot? to bring about your last sentence. Reverse cart, horse forward. There, now you're good.

Edited April 3, 2013 by DWA
To bring quote into compliance.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Everything with the evidence we have for sasquatch is proven...except sasquatch.

Lmao I noticed this nugget of wisdom this morning and wanted to comment on it. Unfortunately I have a business to run, and it looks like I missed out on a five page party. Believe me guys, reading through these last five pages was more physically exhausting than the 12 hours I just spent clearing the barn and getting the yard ready for the season.

At the risk of opening up another can of worms, DWA would you simply explain what you mean by the words quoted at the top of this post? They are your words from back on page3.

It would be extra helpful if you could give that explanation without going off on tangents about "no proof", Meldrum, read up on it, or whatever your current interpretation of the scientific method is.

Please answer my question directly and concisely so that I may better understand you.

I would expect nothing less from an Educator.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Squatchy McSquatch

[Sunflower]

Who's basing belief on anything? I want to know what's causing the evidence. And no one here can compete with what Meldrum, NAWAC and the rest of the scientific proponents are doing confronting the evidence. So, my bet's on them, because they are the only ones making a bettable proposition.

Sorry, I honestly don't believe you. You do not want to know what's causing the evidence, because if you did, you'd find the answer in seconds. People are making the evidence. They always have been. It's really that simple. It's not at all complicated. People manufacture the myth of bigfoot, while others buy into that product and service with their suspended disbelief.

Dr. Meldrum has bought into it as well, hook, line and sinker. The fact that he maintains that a known set of hoaxed tracks are authentic, and even sells them, seems to me to be clear evidence that he has suspended a good deal of critical thinking to continue the myth. And with all these supposed scientific proponents, what are they coming up with? Noting tangible at all. More field trips, research, new ways to play with new toys in the woods, and still no bigfoot evidence that is reasonable. It's a hobby, a fun time. Like the SCA folks role playing medieval world on their weekends. It's fun, harmless, and a kind of fantasy escape. Such is bigfoot research. Researching something that will never be found. A good time in the woods is worth it. But is it real science? Of course not, since the research is built upon a foundation of an animal that does not exist. so coming up with new tools to look for something that has never existed is just fun and games.

Tontar,

When it comes to who is doing all these things that knowers have seen, I much prefer to believe my brother, my sister, my neighbors, my friends and not you. You can't be everywhere making fake footprints and screaming your lungs out that shakes my ribcage. You can't push over huge trees, you can't howl, you can't run faster than a deer, you can't make your eyes glow bright red, and on and on. So if you know who is doing this then why are you here?????

[dmaker]

Do you mean reflecting red, or glowing? As in emitting their own light, not reflecting it?

[Guest Tontar]

I don't feel it's necessary to pick a timeframe until the search starts. It starts when - just as with the ivorybill woodpecker - mainstream scientific institutions are devoting the time and money with no snickers to the long-term field work that will be needed to confirm. (Wish I knew what all the rush is about with this.) Three bigfoot expeditions in history has been enough for a compelling film and what looks like will be proof before too long. But when that's all there's ever been, well, where we are now is not surprising. If I told a bunch of people who had never hunted to bring me a grizzly skin, freshly pulled off the bear they shot, I'd be a fool to expect it soon.

First of all, the Ivory Billed woodpecker exists. It existed previously, was known to exist, was documented, and became so scarce that it was felt to be extinct. Kinda like the Borneo rhino, wouldn't you say? Known animals becoming scarce due to human encroachment into their habitat?

Now, bigfoot has never been documented. It's very hard to draw some sort of parallel between the two (or three) cases. It's not hard to draw parallels between the woodpecker and rhino, but once again, bigfoot doesn't fit with the group. It never fits with any established biological group, or entity.

Secondly, you conveniently punt the whole issue of "no evidence, no proof" by saying that the search for bigfoot hasn't started yet, and that you seem to have the right to determine when the search actually starts, which in effect means that you can forego the lack of sasquatch evidence until far enough in the future that the pressure is off. Sorry, you don't have that ability. The search, in direct conflict with your opinion, has been going on for a very long time, and continues to go on as unsuccessfully as ever. Just because you don't want to start the clock running, doesn't mean it hasn't been running all along. Fact is, each day that goes by without a bigfoot in evidence, is one more day past reasonable. You avoid the question completely. How many years, decades or centuries need to go by before the existence of bigfoot becomes a moot point? There haven't been any bits before our time, and there won't be long after we're gone. Unfortunately, I think that's a fairly good call.

Let's say I told my 12 year old kid that he needs to get a grizzly skin. He's never hunted. $100 bucks says he can deliver, some how, some way. At the very least he could make me drive him to the zoo to see one. Or the museum to see a preserved one. Or convince me to buy a real grizzly skull online. Or pull up a video on Youtube. There are endless ways for anyone to produce proof that grizzlies exist, without resorting to photos or plaster casts of footprints, or one film made 46 years ago that is questionable at best. They even exist in Genbank, right?

Unfortunately, I suspect that your count of only three bigfoot expeditions in history is kind of way off the mark. There are bigfoot expeditions going on all the time, constantly. Pick a weekend, search the web, and you'll find plenty of expeditions going on all over the place. Heck, you don't even have to get up off the couch for that one, just flip on Animal Planet a couple times a week and you'll see the BFRO crew foisting expeditions all over the place.

Yet still nothing.

Um, no. He demonstrates that he's using science. You show me one scientist who shares your biases (I have none, but you most surely do) and I'll show you how you are both wrong. Go. Money at mouth location. Scramble. Stat.

But - and as usual it is to laugh - you sorta egregiously miss that your second-to-last sentence is kinda, necessary, wot? to bring about your last sentence. Reverse cart, horse forward. There, now you're good.

Yuck, yuck, yuck. Speaking of putting ones money where their mouth is. Where is the bigfoot? Let's go see it. Let's go find one and grab a bit of hair off its arm, have it analyzed, see if it comes back bear, or as polyester.

[dmaker]

Oh, SquatchyMcSquatch, good luck with your question. I asked DWA four times today to do precisely what you have asked...not a lot of luck on that one. But maybe he will take more kindly to you asking than me. You never know.

[Guest Tontar]

When it comes to who is doing all these things that knowers have seen, I much prefer to believe my brother, my sister, my neighbors, my friends and not you. You can't be everywhere making fake footprints and screaming your lungs out that shakes my ribcage. You can't push over huge trees, you can't howl, you can't run faster than a deer, you can't make your eyes glow bright red, and on and on. So if you know who is doing this then why are you here?????

LOL, I'm not asking you to believe me. Frankly, I am not all that into "beliefs". I tend to lean more towards tangible things, things made of atoms and molecules that fit into real space and time. So I'm not trying to talk you out of believing what you choose to believe. Sounds like a fun system to me, and really it's not your problem, it's my problem for not allowing myself the luxury of seeing the world that way. That's probably why I never have those kinds of sightings and experiences, I don't believe, so my mind doesn't allow me to see what others seem to see.

Instead, I live in a part of the country where science is a major industry, so I'm surrounded by friends and peers that hold me to a higher standard of reasoning. They don't usually allow me to get far from the molecular world.

I don't claim to be everywhere making footprints and screaming my lungs out. In fact, I doubt that you will find me making that claim anywhere at all. However, I have said that I believe that bigfoot is a totally contrived social construct, a myth perpetrated and propagated solely by humans. No animal is involved. No hairy people, no hairy giant, no hairy ape. Just people messin' with other people. "Messin' with Sasquatch" is a popular ad campaign for Jack Links jerky. Fun stuff, but the reality is better said as "messin' with people". That's what's at the root of the bigfoot legend.

I find huge trees that have fallen over all the time. I find stick structures in the forest all the time. I also find the same things in my own private forest, and I know that bigfoot is not doing it. Why would a bigfoot push over trees anyway? More displays of power to scare people? Ever see "The Village"? Cool movie. There's a lesson in there, which is not hidden at all. BOO! People need certain myths, certain guidance, certain beliefs. The boogieman is just one. Santa is another. The list goes on. Myths keep us in line, on the right social path.

You know, you're absolutely right. I can't run faster than a deer. You have me there, I concede that point. But I can see deer, and have taken a ton of photos of deer. I've also found dead deer remains. My friends and relatives hunt and kill deer. I've even run one over accidentally when it ran out in front of the truck! It survived, and escaped. So, I don't feel so bad that I can't run as fast as a deer. But then again, I don't see why it has any relevance that I run a bit slower. Where's the bigfoot in all of this?

And true, I can't make my eyes glow bright red. Can't say that I have ever seen any land based animal that has that ability. I've seen a lot of animals, by the way, and none of them impressed me with bright red glowing eyes. I think that we are without a doubt getting squarely back into boogieman territory right now. A beast that can do things that nothing else on earth can do. Miracle animals, beasts, creatures of the night, things that come and go without leaving a trace, a chimera that has chameleon-like tissue that can mask its true identity, cloaking it with confusing DNA signatures that mimic other animals. Superstitions running amok in modern times.

I'm not here to throw a wet blanket on your party, but at the same time, I have every right to be here and discuss or debate whether bigfoot is a reality or a myth. I happen to like the subject of bigfoot, regardless of where I stand on its true nature. Is that a problem? I also happen to have a thing for old horror and sci-fi films. I have some posters of the Creature From The Black Lagoon. Am I allowed to have that as a hobby too, even if I believe that they were nothing more than men in monster suits?

[Guest DWA]

Books, man. Books. To prove what? A negative? Oh, OK. Jeff? Listen. There's this guy called Tontar and he's just ripped all your work to shreds. I have to believe him now. Oh, OK. (Never fear, dmaker. I sussed McSquatchykins long ago. He can beg in a bikini if he wants, not happ'nin'.) Listen, when you guys ever get serious, gimme a call.

Mummies walk at night? Oh, you don't say. Hey, call me when you have the proof. (I don't post this; waste of good nails.) [Alt-Tab to CNN] That's how I treat stuff I don't take seriously.

[Sunflower]

If you like the subject of bigfoot so much then why be so block headed about it? Hobbies are cool, it allows us to relax and chill, you know away from stressful acitvities like maybe your job. You're telling people they are imagining a huge, well muscled, intelligent, capable of who knows what, very tall hairy guy is just ridiculous because you keep trying to set traps for those posters, and they aren't budging from their stance. But, you aren't helping prove them so what is your point of being here.

If you were out looking and could bring something here like pictures, videos, recordings, etc., most of the knowers wouldn't mind that at all, I think.

You could never throw a wet blanket on my party....I've got pictures to prove it which I share only with a very small group of knowers. Superstitions also don't roar or trade gifts in places so well hidden that people haven't been to some spots for decades.

[Guest DWA]

Well, right. See, what people unacquainted with science think is that they can toss any crap at a wall they want, but the other guys have to prove everything they say. Well, not so fast. In a scientific discussion, if you are not advancing your theorem it is a flat waste of bandwidth, and to do that one must address the evidence. Saying "bigfoot ain't real" and not giving a single good reason to think that is, well, it's embarrassing when you're wrong, and these denier types don't understand they are gonna be wearing lampshades when they're proven wrong. But imperviousness to facts will do that to one.

(Watch 'em misunderstand my last sentence. It's the most predictable trap I lay. A tiger every time, guaranteed.)

If you like the subject of bigfoot so much then why be so block headed about it? Hobbies are cool, it allows us to relax and chill, you know away from stressful acitvities like maybe your job. You're telling people they are imagining a huge, well muscled, intelligent, capable of who knows what, very tall hairy guy is just ridiculous because you keep trying to set traps for those posters, and they aren't budging from their stance. But, you aren't helping prove them so what is your point of being here.

If you were out looking and could bring something here like pictures, videos, recordings, etc., most of the knowers wouldn't mind that at all, I think.

You could never throw a wet blanket on my party....I've got pictures to prove it which I share only with a very small group of knowers. Superstitions also don't roar or trade gifts in places so well hidden that people haven't been to some spots for decades.

[Guest Tontar]

I've got pictures to prove it which I share only with a very small group of knowers.

Of course you do. That's always the case. And I know why that's always the case, I've seen it many, many times before. The only people that the photos have to stand up to scrutiny with are those who also have their own photos of similarly shielded subjects.

I think we saw how well the real deal was received when Mathilda was finally revealed for non-knowers to view.

Superstitions also don't roar or trade gifts in places so well hidden that people haven't been to some spots for decades.

Roar? Trade gifts? Bright red glowing eyes? Braiding horse manes maybe? Speaking broken english? Running on two legs, or running on four just as easily? Asking for garlic to keep the bugs away? Is that where we're going with this? Ape, or human? Telepathic perhaps?

Saying "bigfoot ain't real" and not giving a single good reason to think that is, well, it's embarrassing when you're wrong, and these denier types don't understand they are gonna be wearing lampshades when they're proven wrong.

Here's a single good reason; because there is not one single piece of organic, biological, physical evidence that would suggest that they do in fact exist. I think that's a pretty good reason. Maybe you don't? Maybe you think hooting is plenty of evidence to prove they are real?

[Guest DWA]

Nope, I just have heard tell of this condition known as "unresolved." Unless you have proof that there ain't none, and you don't, minimizing long-term damage to your ego and world view favor "unresolved."

Edited April 3, 2013 by DWA

[ohiobill]

Not so much of a problem for a discerning reader who wants to approach it in a deliberate way OhioBill. Way up in this tread somewhere is my handy-dandy guide to assessing the veracity of written narratives....honed over decades by me examining people under oath and testing their testimony with experience and other evidence. Surprise too... I learned a lot of it by reading/talking about the experiences of others before me.

No different thing here, but it is hard and requires lots of time and attention to what is there, or isn't there. We're not now (or trending that way fast) a society that embraces those kinds of tasks though. Way too much screen time at tender ages and the default setting of hyper-empiricism working its cynicism. We've had a very good run of culture through learning and sharing information in narrative form, but the very idea seems to be foreign to many younger folks and I wonder what this trend holds in store for us. This pose of not ever appearing too gullible is pretty corrosive to good learning skills and I think it is an ego driven posture. You can see it on any discussion board you want to name, the smugness and lack of humility when orthodoxy is challenged with legitimately debatable evidence. The exhiliration of pointing out what fools all the others are is an easy and gratifying stance, and I'm always wary of my own behavior in that sense. It is antithetical for getting at a greater knowledge or understanding. If you've got specific objections to particular sighting reports, we can certainly discuss those, and I'd try to give you my take on them. Got any you'd care to bat around?

I remember your guide but I was unable to reconcile my inability to verify even after weighing the evidence. Perhaps I'm too result oriented due to my education and training but it's worked so far in my life. I enjoy the perspective on how your mind works and I think our careers may have a lot to do with how we proceed in bigfootery. I've had to proceed without the benefit of your ability to accurately differentiate when folks are lying, honest, or making a mistake in anonymous reports. I think your abilities are perfect for your field but may not be so great in say medicine or engineering. I think hard sciences involving numbers and verifiable facts are a good fit for me but I don't think law would be a career I would enjoy. Fortunately there is a place for both of us in bigfootery.

I appreciate your concern about hyper-empiricism but I wonder if it’s just that you choose a career where empirical facts are less valued? I'm not sure I understand your thoughts about screen time vs. narratives - would the information contained in a legal text online be less correct than that found in a law school classroom lesson on Roe vs. Wade? Would you prefer the attention of a board certified MD or a tribal medicine man educated on narratives if you were having a medical crisis? I think the printed word has many benefits over traditional narratives in reliability and accessibility but I believe narratives to be a more engaging medium - especially when delivered by a natural storyteller around a campfire. Who doesn't love a scary tale with smores? Again, I agree with you about the pitfalls of ego in this field. Many who claim to know the most about the subject prove extremely gullible and it leaves one hoping they learn from their mistakes. I'm hopeful that soon we'll have evidence that leaves no room for debate. If not, perhaps you can warn me of some of the boards you frequent so I can avoid the smugness you mention when looking for another hobby? I understand your wariness but I don't think you have much to worry about here judging from your posts. I appreciate your offer to review sighting reports but I feel your ability in determining the truth of a report without investigation would leave my need to verify facts a poor counterpart without any facts to verify.

Edited April 3, 2013 by ohiobill

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Oh, SquatchyMcSquatch, good luck with your question. I asked DWA four times today to do precisely what you have asked...not a lot of luck on that one. But maybe he will take more kindly to you asking than me. You never know.

Yes, some people have a really hard time saying the words, "I don't know."