Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[Cotter]

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.

dmaker - you read online accounts - some of the weakest forms of evidence, and the ridiculousness of them make you less apt to concede the possibility. Are all online accounts ridiculous? Or just some? Are MOST ridiculous? I see in a previous post you had a lot of questions that answers have been offered, but you don't accept those as possible answers. (the question that comes to mind is the fossils). I understand your skepticism, but it just feels that you've got your mind made up and no matter what you don't even entertain the possibility, regardless of the evidence (however weak) that is showing consistency among a very broad spectrum.

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.

I see I got the answer to my inference in this section. But if you don't believe there to be such a beast, how can you objectively evaluate ANY evidence?

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.

Well, perhaps they can't support the large apes of which you are referring (I'm assuming that you mean chimps, mountain gorillas, etc), but history has shown that, at times, hominids have indeed inhabited those areas. Perhaps we're not dealing with a modern ape here, or an ape at all?

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.

No, but you use words like 'ridiculous'. How is a report that a group of folks saw a BF walk across the road and into the forest 'ridiculous' (besides the fact you feel they don't exist)? I personally don't buy into a lot of the fringe stuff either, but there are other areas that I find much more possible.

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.

Sure, bigfoot exists or it doesn't, but if it does exist, it doesn't have to have all of these supernatural abilities that some folks claim. I'm a firm believer in that the 'paranormal' stuff that people claim to have experienced can be explained with an understanding of the physical world, what is paranormal will become normal with knowledge. I wholeheartedly agree that there isn't enough evidence to prove BF exists. But unfortunately, we're dealing with folks here that don't need any more proof themselves, they've seen one and are trying either prove they exist, or try to figure out WHY they aren't proven and assigning traits that explain that in their mind. I chalk those up as guesses, and not even that educated of ones. And, I am like you, VERY sick and tired of the boy that cried ape. Nearly every week that goes by another charlatan gets exposed, alterier motives reviealed, etc etc....But I also know folks that are very trustworthy and are NOT in it for the money, but for knowledge. Heck, when I go out, I don't even bother bringing a camera anymore, my goal is not proof, it's an experience. Have I had one? Nope. But it doesn't mean I won't keep trying.

I don't want this to sound like an attack on you personally at all, so please don't take it that way. I just wanted to attempt to point out some areas where you could perhaps put some add'l thought into.

Thx.

[Guest Cervelo]

Here's one of the biggest issues the evidence is subject to interpretation that in the majority of cases is ignorant at best and delusional at worst.

Here's a great example from this weekend!

Is it bigfoot blocking another trail or the result of some recent weather?

[norseman]

Trees falling in the forest are an every day occurance to be sure......

But is there any mitigating circumstances?

Recent wind storm?

Is it spring?

Signs of being cut?

Healthy tree or snag?

Tracks? Human or otherwise?

So on and so forth.

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.

The paradigm shift has been pointing towards crazy person for a long time now......but whatever.

I would think that a couple of year study would put a huge dent in it, but in the case of USAF project blue book? It ran almost 20 years. But I do realize that chasing around a ape in a large boreal forest is infinitely easier than chasing aliens in hyper warp speed space craft.

[dmaker]

Cotter, it does not mean that I am not objective because I do not accept weak evidence as proof of the existence of Bigfoot. If someone showed me something convincing, then I would happily change my mind. But I'm not going to read a report, or watch someone give a report on a documentary and think "yeah, that was a squatch!" just so that you will think I have objectivity. Until Bigfoot is proven to exist, I will not believe any of the evidence put forward unless it is extremely compelling. And the evidence to date is not very compelling at all. I am so tired of the weak crap that gets trotted out as evidence of Bigfoot. I am sick to death of the fake evidence. The unfulfilled promises. Show me a **** Monkey or a piece of a Monkey or count me out. I have never seen so many people happily chase a dangling carrot in all my life.

And yes hominids have,in the past, inhabited very cold regions. We also had fire and rudimentary clothing during those periods.

Sorry that I don't have time to respond to all of your points, but Survivor is starting

[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.

The question still stands. Unanswered.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Squatchy McSquatch

[dmaker]

^^^ Hey Squatchy, to be fair, I think I now understand what he meant. I didn't understand at first since the sentence structure was a bit awkward, but I think I do now. I'm not aiming to speak for him, but he's not likely to respond, but he may if I misinterpret him. I think what he meant was that this amount of evidence has been good enough to prove lots of other things, but for whatever reason it's not good enough to prove Sasquatch. Of course, I don't agree with this. If DWA could point to an animal that has been classified by science without a fossil record or specimen ( or possibly DNA), then maybe he might be on to something.

At least that's what I now think he meant. DWA is, of course, welcome , indeed encouraged, to correct me if I'm wrong. At first I thought he meant that Sasquatch evidence has been proven to come from a Sasquatch, despite not having an actual Sasquatch. But that was just my misreading of an awkwardly written sentence. No to imply I'm a perfect writer either. I still don't agree with his comment, but being fair it's not as outrageous as I had originally thought.

Edited April 4, 2013 by dmaker

[Crittergetter]

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.

Thank you for the kindness you give me in the above post. I appreciate it very much. Also, I agree with you. Skill with an argument will never get us closer to the truth, whichever truth that is. My point was not to argue, but merely to present my position and the way I see the Bigfoot forums in a clear and concise fashion, so that maybe we'd put such pointless bickering behind us and put more effort into truly learning what exactly is behind all this evidence, whether it be a combination of hoaxing, misinterpretations, and some sort of hallucinatory phenomenon. That was what I considered to be the truth in my post. That continuing to discuss validity is about as useful to actually confirming validity as a biological heart is to a tank.

I know your position, and I know that you will stick by it. As such I see little point in engaging you in a back and forth on the issue. If perhaps you could be convinced, then maybe it might be worth it. As it stands, I think it would probably just be a waste of both our time.

Though, there are a few things I would like to speak on, looking over your post again.

Rationally, my position on Bigfoot is one which is undecided. I would not claim one way or another, and if I have in the past, then it was a betrayal of my rational thought due to passion, and I was incorrect in doing so.

Romantically, as you put it, I do wish Bigfoot to be a real, factual animal. I find the world to be far too well known for my tastes. The idea of Bigfoot injects a bit of mystery into the world. It is still a blank spot on the map, and as such I am instinctively attracted to it. I think this is also the attraction for a great many people.

As far as putting stock in Meldrum and the others, I understand that it matters not how many letters follow before their name. They could be as wrong as anyone else could be. I try to keep that in mind, and would not be overly surprised if they were incorrect.

In short, I may hope that Bigfoot is real, but I try and keep myself separated enough that I would be able to quickly accept that I was wrong.

I am sorry about being unable to cover your whole post in response, but it was fairly large and it is fairly late for me at the moment. If you wish me to address any particular part that I did not, let me know and I'll do my best.

[dmaker]

Wow, we're all being so civil and accommodating this evening. We should go to the Tar Pit immediately and curse the crap out of each other just so I can sleep better tonight.

[kbhunter]

I hope it stays this way for a while too. I was really afraid this thread was going to be locked earlier today. It is refreshing to see respect and well thought out posts that debate the evidence.

KB

[Guest DWA]

I think what he meant was that this amount of evidence has been good enough to prove lots of other things, but for whatever reason it's not good enough to prove Sasquatch.

What I meant was: no one can find any other phenomenon for which there is the volume and consistency of evidence we have for sasquatch that is unproven. (I'm right, if the number of takers means anything. The next will be the first.)

If DWA could point to an animal that has been classified by science without a fossil record or specimen ( or possibly DNA), then maybe he might be on to something.]

Gorilla; chimpanzee; lesser panda; saola; kouprey; gibbon; I mean I could keep going but my fingers would get tired. Legion. Thousands and thousands. The vast majority in fact.

[Guest Tontar]

Crittergetter, I plussed you for writing such a wonderful post. Somehow, I think we may have more in common than not.

DWA, did you not understand dmaker's message? Apparently you did not, because you mention a whole host of animals that have been classified by science according to his criteria, namely "specimens". Maybe you missed that part of his note.

He was asking for animals classified by science that had no such "proof of existence". Now, given that a specimen was part of his note, do you still believe that there are thousands and thousands of animals that have been classified without a specimen of some sort?

Wow, we're all being so civil and accommodating this evening. We should go to the Tar Pit immediately and curse the crap out of each other just so I can sleep better tonight.

LOL! I'd prefer a glass of wine, or maybe something harder, like a shot of Fireball! :-)

[Guest DWA]

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.

Well, see, it's like WSA says. You just presume you are above all this, and all these people are tetched. The evidence says otherwise. And people are generally much better sussers than you seem able or willing to give credit. Believe them? I want to know what is causing this to happen. You know? Praytell how?

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

What hypothetical? The hypothetical that thousands of people, the vast majority nowhere near scientists, are independently channeling their inner wildlife biologist? That all manner of stuff - innocent mistakes, bad liquor, good drugs, hoaxes, lies and migraines etc. are generating what looks like biodata? That the masses can theorize in their deranged heads what a large primate would need to do to hack it in the temperate zone? Some things are way too hypothetical. I'd rather look for unicorns than act that crazy.

Crittergetter, I plussed you for writing such a wonderful post. Somehow, I think we may have more in common than not.

DWA, did you not understand dmaker's message? Apparently you did not, because you mention a whole host of animals that have been classified by science according to his criteria, namely "specimens". Maybe you missed that part of his note.

He was asking for animals classified by science that had no such "proof of existence". Now, given that a specimen was part of his note, do you still believe that there are thousands and thousands of animals that have been classified without a specimen of some sort?

Maybe I couldn't believe anyone could ask such a question. I thought he meant "without evidence of fossil progeniture," because one doesn't have to be either a scientist or to think anywhere near like one to know it is flat impossible to classify something without a specimen. Unless you are drinking far better beer than me, and much more of it. And you are still writing books, aren't you? Tontar: "no proof" is two words. Edited April 4, 2013 by DWA

[xspider1]

I too appreciate the civility, thanks folks. 8 ) I just try to be careful 'knowing' what something isn't when I don't know what it is. But, that's not for everyone and mileages will, of course, vary. 'No Evidence for Bigfoot but, plenty of Excuses...', that's kind of funny considering that there is a lot more evidence than excuses. To quote the 'Monsters and Mysteries' show from the other night in regard to Bigfoot: 'While Biology can't provide any answers, eye-witnesses have plenty to say.'

[Drew]

'While Biology can't provide any answers, eye-witnesses have plenty to say.'

The Red Panda Effect.

[Guest DWA]

^^^...is bogus. I've debunked that one so many times I will not do it again here. Totally irrelevant. Apples and Ganymede.