Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[WSA]

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.

Good points to ponder yes....you do tend to lean on what works for you, and it does take all kinds. As I tell my clients, that is why we have 12 jurors and not just one!

There is plenty of empiricism in the law, but it is a much more common focus for newbie lawyers. Andy yeah, me too at one time before I got my "corners sanded off." You learn to understand the world of people and natural outcomes operate on a very mysterious and nuanced level. You don't discard the empirical, but yet you realize it is only one piece of the puzzle. Does that make sense? Don't know if I can explain it any better. Over time you learn the best argument is the one that has the most attractive greater truth, even though the lesser truths get steamrolled. I once had a very successful plaintiffs' lawyer grin and tell me how good he felt when the defense wanted to tell the jury all about the facts! You also mature as a person and the more places you go, the more people you interact with, the more you realize that fundamental decency, common sense, generosity and truthfulness are the rule, not the exception. Believe me too, I've seen plenty of the other kind, but they may as well have a sign around their neck annoucing it to the world. Subtle they ain't! The number of truly talented charlatans I've had the misfortune of running into are very few, and incidentally, they were extremely fascinating people....damaged, but very interesting to have a drink with!

Which leads me back to the subject of the BFRO report database. Those who adopt the "you can't trust people" ovelay to that are merely telegraphing to me that they are not very well traveled, socialized and haven't had a very wide range of experience outside a pretty small circle. Understand, I'm not pointing fingers or taking a stab at anyone...but I have had interactions all my life with those who view the world through that lens, and it is completely contradicted by my experience. To be well educated on human tendencies you have to, well, talk with many humans, from all walks of life and circumstances. Then you've got "walk around in their shoes" as Atticus said. I don't believe there are any shortcuts for getting there. I MIGHT get to a somewhat proficient level before I croak...here's hoping!

[dmaker]

Ok, Cotter. I'll try to answer some of your questions. What evidence have I evaluated? Eye witness reports. Either via online databases, or reports that are recorded in documentaries. But mostly reports found online. Bear in mind, I don't have to personally evaluate a piece of evidence to become aware of the outcome of analysis by others. For example, I don't need to go and prove to myself somehow that Daisy in a Box was a hoax. I trust that it was. Just like I would trust if some ground breaking piece of evidence were to really advance the claim for Bigfoot. That hasn't happened yet. So I am mostly an outside observer when it comes to evidence. I don't live in a particularly squatchy area ( though it does have trees and as far as I can tell that is the only qualification), nor do I believe BF to be wandering the woods. So the last thing I am going to do is go out and bang on trees at night howl at the moon. Nor am I going to pick up pieces of deer poop or dog hair and mail them off to some poor lab somewhere for analysis.

The reason that I say it must have been a bear or an hallucination or something else in relation to eye witness reports is obvious. I don't believe they saw a Bigfoot. They are either lying, or mistaken. It's hard for me to say, yeah you saw a squatch when I don't believe there to be such a beast.

Yes, we have transplanted species. Look at the growing Burmese python issue in Florida. And yes escaped primates also live and survive in Florida. I doubt you could find an example of an escaped monkey surviving in the winter in Alberta, or Wisconsin, or Minnesota, or Alaska. Good luck with that. It's the extreme cold weather areas that I have the hardest time convincing myself that giant apes could live there. They are very hostile environments and are not in any way suited to support a population of large apes during the winter.

I don't often trot out the fringe claims when it comes to BF. It does nothing to advance the discussion ( quite the opposite really) and I think anyone who is half serious about this topic dismisses them out of hand. There is another thread on this board dedicated to them and I stay far, far away from it.

I do not believe that the truth lies somewhere in between the skeptic and the proponent. Bigfoot exists or it doesn't. There is no in between. To date there is not enough evidence of the right type to prove that existence. And I don't really see that changing anytime soon. A lot of promises, oh boy are there a lot of promises. But they never, ever, pan out. I am just sick and tired of the boy who cried big, hairy ape.

Edited April 3, 2013 by dmaker

[dmaker]

WSA, there is no doubt that some reports in the BFRO are the result of flat out lying. But I don't understand why I keep having to point out that I am not saying all of them are. I never once said every report is false because " you just can't trust people". I am sure quite a few of them actually believe they saw a BF. There are lots of studies out there that prove that people see things that are not there all the time. The human mind is not a digital recorder. It is subject to all kinds of interference. And I am not talking about dishonesty. I don't know why I have to keep pointing that out. It's a far cry from saying you all are liars to saying someone was mistaken. But, hey, thanks for calling me an anti-social shut-in with virtually no friends. Much appreciated.

Edited April 3, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

I think that when somebody sees a sasquatch, they suddenly aren't subject to all those little distractions that might cloud whether that minivan was blue or blue-green. They are now looking at pretty much the only distraction available. I think most of us would agree that if we saw one, that would be the case.

No, I think that when lots of people are reporting this, and filling in the biology of a species in the bargain, 'theorizing' that they're all batso, or lying, or 'interfered with' is about as scientific as saying that sasquatch shape-shift, orb, or bury their dead.

It does no good to blanket (or partially blanket-, or quasi-blanket-) 'theorize' something that (1) is highly unlikely and (2) can't be proven to boot.

We need to find out what they're seeing. When the evidence says where and when to go and what to look for, the scientific thing to do is to go there, and do that.

Edited April 3, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

^^ Agreed for the most part. But when all those follow ups and investigations come up empty handed, then I don't think it's a mistake to look for alternative explanations.

And yes, I get it that for YOU the clock has not started yet. But as mentioned by someone else, I don't think that is your call to make. There are plenty of amateur, or non Phds out looking all the time. They don't return with anything sufficient enough to resolve this issue. At least not yet. And you can say they are not capable all you want, but I don't wholly buy that. I mean amateurs, if you believe the reports, are capable of stumbling across these things all the time so they certainly are not somehow invisible to amateurs. Amateurs might not have all the same equipment to bear that a fully funded expedition would have, but I bet some of them are not that far off. So not really quite sure why you think the clock has not even started yet. Other than, well, it helps your argument spin its wheels indefinitely.

Edited April 3, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

It doesn't matter whose call it is to make, but what is required. Science isn't a person or a body of people. It's a practice, that has been inadequately applied to this issue.

The investigations will continue to come up empty handed until

1. Someone gets incredibly lucky; or

2. We get a sasquatch Jane Goodall, or groups of them, into the field for the requisite time. Period.

I 'stumble' across fox dens; two white pelicans, hundreds of miles out of normal range, in October; three loons, hundreds of miles out of normal range, in April; a phalarope, a thousand or so miles out of range, in shoot it doesn't matter what month. Etc.

The proof l have for those things? I saw them.

Which doesn't equal scientific confirmation. And all these amateurs can say just the same.

My argument isn't spinning a single tire. It is coiled, engine humming, ready to spring.

And it starts when the mainstream gets serious. Or when amateurs figure out how to stay out there for the requisite time to come back with what will interest the mainstream.

(NAWAC is almost there. Almost.)

(Unless somebody gets luckier than history tells us anyone is likely to get. You don't find if you don't look.)

[dmaker]

So, let's imagine, just for fun, that a full fledged effort has begun. There are phds out there with more equipment than you ever hoped for. Full time, looking for Bigfoot. In the right places, etc. How much time must elapse before you begin to think, hmm...maybe there is no Bigfoot after all? When does that start looking like the more likely scenario? And if that happened, then what would YOU offer as an explanation for all of the reports? And please don't brush this off with zany rhetoric and nonsensical statements. I'm asking a legitimate question.

Edited April 3, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

It's zany and nonsensical to ask questions like that.

What? A Checkered Flag Will Fall on the day science has to stop looking?

Anyone who knows anything about wildlife biology will know that the constraints involve resources available, not "a date that we will Call This Not Real." Unless you are talking about extinction watches...which end the moment somebody finds a piece of evidence that looks like that species (e.g., the ivory-billed woodpecker).

There are tons upon metric tons of variables in your scenario. So let me say this:

As long as BFRO and NAWAC and anyone out there continue to receive reports, it's live.

At least.

As long as something is producing evidence, the question of what is producing it remains open until it is resolved.

Edited April 3, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

I'm not asking for a checkered flag date. I asked for you to estimate at what point does the other hypothesis begin to start seeming like the more likely one? At some point that has to happen if the claim for Bigfoot is not resolved after X amount of time. Surely even you must admit that? I'm just curious about roughly how long you would imagine it would take before a paradigm shift even started to happen. Not a black and white, ok we're done here type of event.

Ok, I think we posted at the same time maybe. So as long as reports are coming in, the search is not over? Oki doki. So as long as people think they saw a Bigfoot, then the idea will never go away. So the resolution for you is a body or there is no resolution. Because I can almost guarantee you that with a myth like this that has had legs for this long is not going to just go away. People are going to continue to report this and you are going to continue to believe them despite anything else.

[Guest DWA]

Considering that there is not an explanation other than the putative source that I don't consider nonsensical on its face, there won't ever be one I consider remotely likely until it is proven.

Really, the only thing I worry about is whether anybody will get out there in the first place. Because - let's take this question the way I think it should be taken - I am convinced that, if a person or group with mainstream clout and a commitment to report without bias on whether or not they thought this a crock went out with, say, NAWAC, within, at most, a week or so they'd be convinced that something was going on that required mainstream attention because they couldn't explain it.

In other words:

Get Schaller, or Goodall, or somebody like that on a Persistence/Endurance-type gig with NAWAC, and sasquatch confirmation, likely within the year and almost certainly within two, is virtually inevitable.

And any variable tossing that timetable off wouldn't matter much in the end, because the mainstream would stay at it until they had proof.

[dmaker]

^^ So you won't humor me with the hypothetical? Ok fine,didn't really expect that you would.

[Guest Tontar]

You know Tontar, I think we once had a discussion very similar to this. If you need a refresher about the facts at hand:

http://bigfootforums...80#entry591565

Thanks for refreshing my memory, I do remember that post. You're a very thoughtful, and articulate person, and pose extremely well organized debate points. But even so, the matter of bigfoot's existence is not a matter that debating will resolve. The winner of the debate, the one who is the most articulate and savvy in his presentation cannot either make bigfoot exist, nor cause it to vanish out of existence. So regardless of how well one argues his point doesn't change the basic facts of the matter. Whether or not bigfoot does exist.

In the end, any discussion that goes on here isn't really about the facts of the situation. It seems to be more about removing intellectual dishonesty.

I have to confess, I have never in my life heard the term "intellectual dishonesty" until I came to the world of bigfoot debate on forums like this one. Perhaps I'm sheltered, or ignorant, or both, but that term seems to be used quite often as a weapon in debating bigfoot topics.

This is the discussion, as I see it.

Skeptics maintain that we have no proof. This is true.

Proponents maintain that the evidence suggests that we are missing something, specifically a 7-10 foot tall bipedal ape. This is true.

True, there is no proof that bigfoot exists. We agree on that point.

Mmm, I think that proponents maintain an awful lot more than that. They maintain that an incredible amount of knowledge is already "known" about these mysterious primates, their biology, their habitat, their behavior, and an incredibly long list of other non-proven ideas and theories that would help shoehorn bigfoot into the realm of possibly existing. Proponents maintain that there is far more "evidence" than actually exists. It's true that there is some compelling, or perhaps interesting things that have been considered as evidence of bigfoot, but I suspect that what is considered as evidence by proponents would have to be boiled down to a very small percentage to be considered as actual legitimate evidence by skeptics. For example, an unfamiliar sound in the woods at night is not evidence of bigfoot, yet it is frequently used as such. Knocking sounds, or sounds thought to be knocking sounds, is not evidence of bigfoot, although it is frequently used as evidence by proponents. An acorn falling nearby is not evidence of a bigfoot throwing rocks.

In order to really determine what the evidence suggests, the evidence needs to be properly and responsibly sifted, and my guess is that if you objectively sifted all the current evidence, it could be narrowed down to a very few reasonable conclusions that would not necessitate bigfoot as the culprit.

Skeptics maintain that you can't say that without proof. This is not true. As far as I know there are no restrictions on the hypothesis chosen in the scientific method, except that it must make sense based upon what has been observed. As far as what has been observed, I make a pretty good accounting of that in the link above, and it seems to me that a 7-10 foot tall bipedal ape is an acceptable guess based on that evidence.

Certainly, any hypothesis can be made, as long as it is reasonable. But a hypothesis does not make reality. Any of us can hypothesize just about anything, and craft that hypothesis such that it appears incredibly sound and reasonable. But again, that is simply an exercise in mental gymnastics, and had very little to do with reality, or establishing the reality of a hypothesis.

Using the Santa example once again, it is possible to hypothesize that Santa Claus exists, and draft a very compelling argument in favor of it. Why use Santa as an example when we have numerous religious figures which have been hypothesized into existence, where there is absolutely no historical evidence to support those notions. The History Channel constantly produces programs attempting to find historical references that might suggest some degree of reality to those figures, but regardless of how thorough the History Channel might be, their hypotheses and conclusions do not change whether those individuals ever existed or not, even though they may convince some people they did.

So it comes back to what constitutes "evidence", and if there truly is enough evidence to support your hypothesis. I think that the bar has been set pretty low for vetting the evidence, because proponents want bigfoot to exist, so they allow vast amounts of non-evidence to join the true evidence because it makes the ant hill into a mountain (of evidence).

If you believe I am incorrect in saying that 'Bigfoot' is an acceptable hypothesis, please tell me why. And no, "There isn't any proof" or a variation thereof is not an acceptable answer, as stated above.

Bigfoot is an acceptable hypothesis, I agree. I have always maintained that it was a possibility. But I have come to believe that the plausibility has been crushed to zero.

I don't agree with the notion that a lack of proof is not a valid argument. I realize that there is some logical hula hoop involved, but lack of proof actually is a very acceptable answer. Proponents always hate when people give absurd examples to prove the absurdity of the belief in bigfoot, but if you are to be "intellectually honest", the arguments are as valid as the ones for bigfoot existing. Lack of proof of existence is not proof of non-existence is the standard mantra. Which can also be used for fairies, mermaids, aliens, ghosts, leprechauns and so on. Just because there is no proof that the do exist doesn't mean that they don't exist, right? At some point, reasonable people will concede that a lack of proof does end up being a confirmation that something does not really exist. That the likelihood dwindles to very close to zero, enough to make a practical determination.

And along those lines, how many years, decades or centuries have to pass before a reasonable determination can be made that bigfoot does not exist? How many believers and researchers will be born, live and die without confirmation before bigfoot can be declared what it is, a myth?

I'm not sure how they convinced themselves that it made sense to say that we cannot attribute evidence to a conclusion before the conclusion has been proven true. Putting the cart before the horse, don't you think? Without assuming a conclusion, we cannot properly make steps towards proving if that conclusion is actually accurate or not.

I think that is probably your failing in this subject. I think that you romantically wish bigfoot to be, and so you see things with far too little objectivity. As in, the more people that believe in bigfoot, the more likely it is to be true. The more credentials a person has, the more likely their belief is to be true. It really doesn't matter how many letters fall before and after a person's name, if they are mistaken, they are mistaken. It's that simple. People want something to believe in, and it's not always their rational choice what they end up believing. I realize that you put a lot of stock into Dr. Meldrum's belief in bigfoot. That's your choice. But you also choose to value his belief over many, many other people who have even better credentials than he does, who take an opposing view. That's your bias. You choose to believe in the subject, and then put extra stock into those who share your belief. Why not go with the opinions of all those who declare bigfoot a flat out impossibility? Is their logic, their education, their position, any less valuable or intelligent or well thought out than Dr. Meldrum's? Of course not. But you choose him as the authority because he believes the same as you, or close enough at least.

And correct me if I am wrong, again, but isn't his collection of evidence pretty much in the form of casts of footprints? Along with whatever eyewitness reports he may have gathered on his own, apart from the BFRO database. There's that screw board that might have been stepped on by something, but what appeared to be sasquatch blood turns out to be rust, and who knows what, but it was not determined to be sasquatch in origin. I would take that screw board off the mountain of evidence, since it only serves as bigfoot evidence to those looking to find bigfoot evidence. Otherwise, it means very little in terms of bigfoot evidence.

If one does not want to consider the possibility of that conclusion being true, then one is not being scientific. Which, in the end, is no problem, as long as you are not trying to make other people believe that you are being scientific. Perhaps you'd be interested in maintaining another hypothesis, maybe that all Bigfoot evidence thus far has either been a hoax or misinterpreted.

If you wish to maintain that hypothesis, you have a lot of work ahead of you and I wish you luck in your endeavor.

I realize we're just playing word games here, trying to debate bigfoot into existence, rather than actually sorting through what evidence there is to actually support the notion, and I'm not the best quarry for such games. If you really want to mentally wrestle with things to paint a reality where bigfoot actually does exist, that's your business. I'm not smart enough to win such a debate, so I always have to fall back on the fact that there is no body, no parts of a body, no blood, no bones, no bits or pieces of a bigfoot anywhere, at any time, to support the notion that bigfoot exists. I'm simple minded that way.

You mentioned in the Ketchum thread numerous items that you felt padded the argument in favor of bigfoot existing. Impressive ammunition if words like that can prove anything. However, let's take them one at a time. Like the Ketchum study, which is one you used as a kind of reinforcement for the idea bigfoot lives. Well, that was last year, and before the report was released. Do you still feel that the Ketchum study lends weight to bigfoot existing? The Erickson videos were similarly linked to the Ketchum study to lend credibility to it, so together there was a strong feeling that once and for all bigfoot would be proven real. Now, in retrospect, realizing how the DNA study has fallen into shambles, and the supporting videos were of someone in a Chewbacca suit, did that added muscle really have any strength to it? That evidence, as it was being used, ends up as garbage. Is it evidence that should be still used as an argument that bigfoot exists, or should it be used by skeptics to forward the hypothesis that bigfoot evidence is made by people?

Sykes is still an unknown. Will he produce a study? he's extremely late based on his projected timeframe, but who knows. Will he remain objective, or will he drink the Koolaid and go the way of Ketchum? Will he even complete a study? What doe she have? Anything? Does anyone know? Yet, his supposed DNA study is still being used as some sort of evidence that bigfoot might exist. Is it? Or is it nothing more than non-evidence yet again? Ketchum's study was used as evidence bigfoot existed. But she came up with zip. So I suggest that regardless of who starts an investigation, or a study, or says they have an interest, that all of that does not make evidence, and should not be used as such. If you want to use it as evidence, then let's use everything that has been proven as fake evidence as evidence against the existence of bigfoot.

Erickson's videos, prior to being viewed, were used as evidence that bigfoot exists. Now they have been shown to be fakes, let's use them as evidence that bigfoot is a human construct, a hoax. Fair enough? Dr. Meldrum has casts in his collection that were once believed to be real, and later exposed as fakes. So let's use those as evidence that bigfoot is faked.

None of the actual evidence in hand has been shown to come from a real bigfoot. None of the tracks, the prints, the casts, not one of them. Not one video has been shown to be of a real bigfoot, in fact the vast majority have been fake, so why think that some might be real? What is there to support the notion any would be real, in light of so many that are not real?

Whichever hypothesis or conclusion you support, you cannot avoid the truth of the matter. That this entire Bigfoot issue is, as DWA says, unresolved. Statements to the otherwise are a misrepresentation of the issue, whether purposeful or made out of ignorance.

Resolution is in the eyes of the beholder. While you might formulate a well crafted logical argument that bigfoot has not been proven not to exist, as in not being able to prove or disprove a negative, what is an unmitigated fact is that bigfoot has not been proven in even a small way to exist, in hundreds of years of occupation in his country, and many thousands of years of human occupation of the entire world. No bigfoot, no bigfoot cousins captured and documented anywhere in the world. Ever. Only unsubstantiated myths and stories.

In other words, feel free to tell yourself that the matter of bigfoot is unresolved. I, on the other hand, have come to the conclusion that the matter is resolved. Resolution is a matter of perspective, and I base mine of the complete lack of bigfoot facts and unarguable evidence. We can argue semantics again, like the difference between circumstantial evidence and so on, but seriously, it always comes down to the bigfoot creature itself. Not the shadow it casts, the prints it leaves, the stink in the air, the sound in the forest, the shivers up one's spine. None of that means bigfoot exists, and none of it means bigfoot is anything other than a psychological manifestation, or a human construct of some sort. There is nothing to suggest bigfoot is anything other than man made.

It would be foolish of me to think that people will see the truth of this post and change the direction of the discussion. Instead of going back and forth about the validity of Bigfoot, something which cannot be proven over an internet forum, they might begin to discuss how better we could go about collecting evidence and, eventually, proof. Then, at least, progress might be made to that eventual goal.

If we keep on like this, the Bigfoot issue is still likely to be unresolved another fifty or sixty years from now.

The truth of this post? Which is? Like how we choose to debate the evidence or lack thereof?

How better can we collect evidence? And really, is that what bigfoot actually is, evidence? I think I finally get it. The whole deal with bigfoot is not at all about a real animal, it's all about the evidence, the easter eggs the easter bunny leaves behind. he coind left under the pillow by the tooth fairy. The presents under the tree left by Santa. The prints, the tracks, the blobs people manage to catch on film, the mysterious hair samples, the sounds that go bump in the night. Reminds me of Finding Bigfoot, where in every single show they say, "what was that!" Evidence is what bigfoot is all about, finding ways to collect more of it, different types of evidence, how to change it up so it looks new and innovative. I've said this more than once, and I end up getting haunted by saying it, but evolving evidence is where the future of bigfooting lies. Old school evidence is boring and hard to flaunt as cool these days. People who produce bigfoot evidence have to keep coming up with new ideas, like the thermal imagers. That's the short term future of evidence, getting thermal images of sasquatches. Not only is it new and techno, it doesn't require a high degree of sophistication to produce. No fancy fur suits, no masks, no nothing. Blobsquatch of the future, with an excuse for being a blob.

But the bottom line will always be, bigfoot is an endless hobby, without an end in sight. There will never be a bigfoot found, captured, killed, brought to a table for examination. They don't exist. It's all about the evidence. It's all about brainstorming new ways to produce new evidence. Build that mountain of evidence as tall as the skies, but no matter how tall it gets, it still isn't the real deal. That's my hypothesis. :-)

[WSA]

Dmaker, "trust" in people, as I've delineated it, not only describes the idea that individuals in general are not prone to lie. By that I also mean: Having the ability to make the leap in confidence to know that other people have the same ability to make reasonable judgments and take in information through their senses. Like I said, I was not making any pointed accusation at anyone in my reply to Ohiobill....but if you routinely consider the general world at large to lack the same abilities as you possess, you might want to pause a minute and ask yourself why. I've seen a very interesting view of the world play out here in reference to the sighting reports, and I'm pretty amazed at the lack of social empathy that evidences. It is as if many of us can no longer put ourselves in the place of another to be able to draw the same rational conclusions they would make under the same or similar circumstances. I'm pretty certain that is a crucial skill for the successful accumulation of knowledge. Your incredulity, I think, might spring from this inability, just sayin', and I don't mean that in any accusatory way. We all have our blind spots, and I'm as guilty of that as anyone.

[Guest Tontar]

^^ So you won't humor me with the hypothetical? Ok fine,didn't really expect that you would.

I didn't expect it either. The problem is that if you accept a hypothetical scenario like that, then one has to entertain the inevitable, that the search goes on and on and on, and eventually nothing is found, and the search comes to an end with the search teams declaring there was nothing there to be found. In that case, an admission would have to be made, or yet another pun where one would argue that they just didn't look in the right place at the right time, or that the bigfoots were on a walkabout somewhere else and were missed.

Creating a hypothetical scenario where the world is a place where bigfoots don't exist is not a scenario that a lot of proponents seem willing to toy with. It's like heresy, it just can't or won't be done. "Imagine a situation where bigfoot doesn't exist? Persih the thought. No way are you going to rope me into conceding bigfoot doesn't exist, even if it's just a mental exercise!!!"

[WSA]

I'm not asking for a checkered flag date. I asked for you to estimate at what point does the other hypothesis begin to start seeming like the more likely one? At some point that has to happen if the claim for Bigfoot is not resolved after X amount of time. Surely even you must admit that? I'm just curious about roughly how long you would imagine it would take before a paradigm shift even started to happen. Not a black and white, ok we're done here type of event.

Ok, I think we posted at the same time maybe. So as long as reports are coming in, the search is not over? Oki doki. So as long as people think they saw a Bigfoot, then the idea will never go away. So the resolution for you is a body or there is no resolution. Because I can almost guarantee you that with a myth like this that has had legs for this long is not going to just go away. People are going to continue to report this and you are going to continue to believe them despite anything else.

Just to be a buttinsky here....I'd just say it is up to the individual when they feel that the evidence leads have been reasonably exhausted,and what the pace of the investigation turns out to be in the long run. As I've said many times here, and others have as well, me-my-own-personal-selff feels we're a loooooooooong way from that point. Making progress maybe, getting closer today than yesterday perhaps. Research doesn't spin out in a measured way. My sense is we are living through a period of accelerated pace, but then again it might just coincide with a period of peak interest for me. It could tail off quickly, or it could speed up considerably. If I knew the answer I wouldn't be here, I'd be at the track laying bets on the next race.