Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[norseman]

@kb

i think i know the answer already but i have to ask. is it possible that the snag broke off and as it fell grabbed the green tree and pinned it underneath?

[Guest Tontar]

Biodata. Oh yeah. I saw it; directly relevant scientists have seen it; no one who demurs has a demurrer that makes sense.

Care to provide details on that biodata that you have seen, and that relevant scientists have seen? Is it secret biodata, not worthy of sharing with other scientists that you don't consider relevant?

Because as far as I or anyone else can tell, there is no biodata at all. There is no scat, no hair, no skin, no teeth or bones, nothing biological at all to consider as far as bigfoot evidence.

(Mothman? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?)

It has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. But it has everything to do with bigfoot. And mermaids. And ghosts. It is yet another example of how humans have imaginations that can fabricate realistic seeming creatures, forming them into some sort of template already formed in their mind.

[Guest DWA]

Human beings certainly have that broad of variation.

You've seen humans that have a nose exactly like a gorilla and like a dog, complete with the pebble finished "leather" at the tip? That have coned heads as tall as Harry's, and as flat as a chimp's? I seriously doubt that you have.

There's a bar I go to where three of them show every night.

Edited April 4, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

Human beings certainly have that broad of variation.

You've seen humans that have a nose exactly like a gorilla and like a dog, complete with the pebble finished "leather" at the tip? That have coned heads as tall as Harry's, and as flat as a chimp's? I seriously doubt that you have.

Tontar, leave my ex-wife out of this.

[Guest Tontar]

(I don't argue. I educate.)

Actually, I have yet to be schooled by anything you've been saying. At least in terms of valid evidence of bigfoot. Rather, I have been amused at how you try so hard to evade direct questions, and bend people's statements to fit your own agenda. I see that more as comedic filler than bigfoot education.

100% of the science being done on this subject points to one possibility.

Yes, that's correct. And the science being done on this subject points squarely to a long lasting, continually propagated, folkloric hobby. If you want to talk about pseudo-science, well sure, that can be used to point towards an ape that has no physical presence capable of being documented or analyzed.

(He still makes no effort to contradict this. One scientist that goes with him, and how it's an effective stance. ONE. All he has to produce. And nothing.)

Now here's a interesting prospect. One that I have seen in these forums many times before. You ask for one, just one, only one example, and suggest that you will somehow concede something if that one is produced. And then, once the bait is taken, and that one example is produced, the target moves, the bar is raised, the bait is jerked just a little bit farther along the path. The goal is not to find that one example, it is to prolong the argument. the goal is not knowledge, it is to mud wrestle.

But to test my hypothesis, I will give you just one, as you requested.

"There is no such thing as Bigfoot. No data other than material that's clearly been fabricated has ever been presented"

- John Crane.

I believe nothing, until the proof is obtained.

Perhaps you can fool yourself by saying that, but you do not fool me at all. Everything that you say is based on one thing, belief. Since there is a complete lack of proof, and the huge mountain of evidence you speak of consists of mostly hoaxes, mistakes, and folklore, all you really have to go on is belief. call it what you want, it certainly is not some sort of safe bet! LOL!

Disingenuous, in the extreme. You do see, right, that your entire stance constitutes an insult to them?

I want them to get the help they need (how much field time again? You don't know that, do you?) so we can see you are wrong and they are right.

But you'd rather dignify their noble quest while snickering at their results. It's a, er, mindset, is all I can say about that, really.

I don't think you even know what "help they need" to get started on their searches. That you don't even consider the vast majority of researchers as researchers, and likely can't even recite what it is that they are doing as far as their research, lends very little impact to your argument. The only weight you have behind what you claim is that nobody has ever come up with a bigfoot, so therefore nobody must be trying hard enough, or in the right way, or in any legitimate fashion. You put the lack of proof before your ideas. No bigfoot means nobody's looking for them properly. Rather than even faintly considering the alternatives, the primary one being that no bigfoot has been found because there are no bigfoot to be found, regardless of who is doing what to find them.

You're right about it all being a mindset. You fabricate a mindset that allows bigfoot to exist absolutely, and eliminate all reasons that would suggest it doesn't. even the fact that there has never been a physical specimen ever in existence anywhere, at any time. I suppose that would qualify as a mindset.

Since you like to twist and spin people's words, I can play along for a minute. Yes, I would dignify some researchers' noble quest to find the truth to a mystery that they believe in. Those of whom I speak spend significant amounts of time, money, and various other resources trying to find out for themselves, and for the rest of the world, what the truth is behind the bigfoot story. They get out, they explore, they use various different means in their quest, and they actually do far more than sit at a keyboard claiming they know bigfoot exists. They go looking for evidence and proof of it. I can respect that, as I have said. I may think that their quest will always come up without a bigfoot at the end, but even so, they have spent a good time in the woods, quality time in the woods, experiencing and appreciating the world around us. Even though their destination might prove futile, their journey is a fun one. I respect people who actually do things as opposed to only talking about them.

My entire stance does not constitute an insult to them, it constitutes a difference of opinion. If you think that a difference of opinion constitutes an insult, you must be a real downer at social gatherings. Betty likes broccoli, you don't like broccoli, so you two must insult one another's tastes. I see.

Tontar, leave my ex-wife out of this.

Ah, that's sweet! Thanks!

[WSA]

You know DWA, the scope of the education required just might be way too great to administer here. I resented know-it-all Old Farts like us too, whose life experiences seemed to always trump my own opinions. It annoyed the crap out of me too! (Funny how that has worked out though).

We'll see what we shall see as time is always the revelator. I've enjoyed the time I've spent on this site of late, and the great discussion, but I've got to keep a movin'.... I'll be back on occasion if anything game-changing happens in BF land. My curent event horizon is the release of the Sykes study, which should be of great interest to all here. Ta-ta.

[kbhunter]

@kb

i think i know the answer already but i have to ask. is it possible that the snag broke off and as it fell grabbed the green tree and pinned it underneath?

No, because the dead one had been laying there for a very long time prior. There was grass grown around it.

KB

[Guest DWA]

You know DWA, the scope of the education required just might be way too great to administer here. I resented know-it-all Old Farts like us too, whose life experiences seemed to always trump my own opinions. It annoyed the crap out of me too! (Funny how that has worked out though).

We'll see what we shall see as time is always the revelator. I've enjoyed the time I've spent on this site of late, and the great discussion, but I've got to keep a movin'.... I'll be back on occasion if anything game-changing happens in BF land. My curent event horizon is the release of the Sykes study, which should be of great interest to all here. Ta-ta.

Me too. I think minds are made up here. Us? We remain open to possibilities. It's just that we sorta favor the ones to which evidence points.

(Tontar just followed up his epic "Warts and Peach" with "Grime and Pumpernickel." I think I'm still reading "no proof," though. The highways one travels, to go in circles.)

[dmaker]

^^ Uhm, you're "open" to possibilities? You only "sorta" favor one over the other? You're joking, right? You wouldn't even admit to a hypothetical single percent possibility that the evidence does not lead to BF. Yet you think you get to claim that you are open and only sorta favor one over the other? No evidence of that in this thread my friend, none at all.

(I don't argue. I educate.)

Actually, I have yet to be schooled by anything you've been saying. At least in terms of valid evidence of bigfoot. Rather, I have been amused at how you try so hard to evade direct questions, and bend people's statements to fit your own agenda. I see that more as comedic filler than bigfoot education.

100% of the science being done on this subject points to one possibility.

Yes, that's correct. And the science being done on this subject points squarely to a long lasting, continually propagated, folkloric hobby. If you want to talk about pseudo-science, well sure, that can be used to point towards an ape that has no physical presence capable of being documented or analyzed.

(He still makes no effort to contradict this. One scientist that goes with him, and how it's an effective stance. ONE. All he has to produce. And nothing.)

Now here's a interesting prospect. One that I have seen in these forums many times before. You ask for one, just one, only one example, and suggest that you will somehow concede something if that one is produced. And then, once the bait is taken, and that one example is produced, the target moves, the bar is raised, the bait is jerked just a little bit farther along the path. The goal is not to find that one example, it is to prolong the argument. the goal is not knowledge, it is to mud wrestle.

But to test my hypothesis, I will give you just one, as you requested.

"There is no such thing as Bigfoot. No data other than material that's clearly been fabricated has ever been presented"

- John Crane.

I believe nothing, until the proof is obtained.

Perhaps you can fool yourself by saying that, but you do not fool me at all. Everything that you say is based on one thing, belief. Since there is a complete lack of proof, and the huge mountain of evidence you speak of consists of mostly hoaxes, mistakes, and folklore, all you really have to go on is belief. call it what you want, it certainly is not some sort of safe bet! LOL!

Disingenuous, in the extreme. You do see, right, that your entire stance constitutes an insult to them?

I want them to get the help they need (how much field time again? You don't know that, do you?) so we can see you are wrong and they are right.

But you'd rather dignify their noble quest while snickering at their results. It's a, er, mindset, is all I can say about that, really.

I don't think you even know what "help they need" to get started on their searches. That you don't even consider the vast majority of researchers as researchers, and likely can't even recite what it is that they are doing as far as their research, lends very little impact to your argument. The only weight you have behind what you claim is that nobody has ever come up with a bigfoot, so therefore nobody must be trying hard enough, or in the right way, or in any legitimate fashion. You put the lack of proof before your ideas. No bigfoot means nobody's looking for them properly. Rather than even faintly considering the alternatives, the primary one being that no bigfoot has been found because there are no bigfoot to be found, regardless of who is doing what to find them.

You're right about it all being a mindset. You fabricate a mindset that allows bigfoot to exist absolutely, and eliminate all reasons that would suggest it doesn't. even the fact that there has never been a physical specimen ever in existence anywhere, at any time. I suppose that would qualify as a mindset.

Since you like to twist and spin people's words, I can play along for a minute. Yes, I would dignify some researchers' noble quest to find the truth to a mystery that they believe in. Those of whom I speak spend significant amounts of time, money, and various other resources trying to find out for themselves, and for the rest of the world, what the truth is behind the bigfoot story. They get out, they explore, they use various different means in their quest, and they actually do far more than sit at a keyboard claiming they know bigfoot exists. They go looking for evidence and proof of it. I can respect that, as I have said. I may think that their quest will always come up without a bigfoot at the end, but even so, they have spent a good time in the woods, quality time in the woods, experiencing and appreciating the world around us. Even though their destination might prove futile, their journey is a fun one. I respect people who actually do things as opposed to only talking about them.

My entire stance does not constitute an insult to them, it constitutes a difference of opinion. If you think that a difference of opinion constitutes an insult, you must be a real downer at social gatherings. Betty likes broccoli, you don't like broccoli, so you two must insult one another's tastes. I see.

Tontar, leave my ex-wife out of this.

Ah, that's sweet! Thanks!

Excellent post Tontar! Plussed!

Edited April 4, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Whoa! More novels!

And around and around and around it goes. And where it stops....I'm gonna help with that.

I know you guys think you are better than Jeff Meldrum and thousands of sober witnesses, and amateur researchers you insult under the guise of praise.

But it just gets old when some of us realize you'll do it until a body falls on your heads. And stinks. And is hairy. And huge.

Oh. John Crane's statement is utterly wrong. On its face. You have to give me someone serious, with a serious argument. This underscores that you can't; but of course you will claim it as verifying that "you can't win," 'coz that's your modus o.

AND the plus club! Pot, meet kettle! Toodles.

[dmaker]

" But it just gets old when some of us realize you'll do it until a body falls on your heads. And stinks. And is hairy. And huge."

Sounds like my undergraduate years

[Guest LarryP]

Human beings certainly have that broad of variation.

You've seen humans that have a nose exactly like a gorilla and like a dog, complete with the pebble finished "leather" at the tip? That have coned heads as tall as Harry's, and as flat as a chimp's? I seriously doubt that you have.

That's a false analogy.

You wrote; "No other primate species has that broad of variation".

In reply, I wrote that humans "certainly have that broad of variation".

I did not write that human beings had the exact same variations as Sasquatch.

In actuality there are far more variations of humans than there are of BF.

Edited April 4, 2013 by LarryP

[Guest Tontar]

Oh. John Crane's statement is utterly wrong. On its face. You have to give me someone serious, with a serious argument. This underscores that you can't; but of course you will claim it as verifying that "you can't win," 'coz that's your modus o.

Deja vu! You asked for one, only one, and I predicted this exact response prior to me posting that one.

But just to give you some more names to punt on, how about these:

Dr. David Daegling

Dr. Esteban Sarmiento

Dr. David Begun

Dr. Nina Jablonski

Each one of these scientists have very serious arguments. They are respected within their fields, and you would be a fool to dismiss their arguments the same way you dismiss every other argument that opposes your belief system. Science versus faith is what we have here. Science versus belief.

Now I have given not one, but five scientists that have considered the subject and concluded that bigfoot does not, and pretty much could not exist, given not only the existing collection of evidence, but also far more considerations such as environmental conditions, habitat, biology, food, evolution, various physical reasons, and not excluding the fact that the evidence that everyone speaks so highly of has very little scientific merit.

I honestly don't expect you to respond in any reasonable manner to this new list of people, based on everything previous. Your best argument about John Crane was that he was just "utterly wrong". I gave you only one simple, condensed statement, and you dismiss every possible consideration he might have given it, or any other explanation he may have had that might have been much longer. You don't care. He says bigfoot doesn't exist, so your knee-jerk reaction is simply to say he's utterly wrong. I see how your scientific mind processes problems when they are presented. If a problem is unfavorable, instead of considering it, you react, you dismiss, you turn a blind eye. yet you falsely claim that you are open minded, even while you refuse to consider alternate points of views that might conflict with yours.

I think that every skeptic that ever comes to this forum would be more than happy to be presented with a bigfoot specimen. I am positive that each one would revel in the discovery, in something new, something unique, something thought provoking. They have nothing against bigfoot, are not afraid of bigfoot existing, and have no secret anti-bigfoot agenda they have to stick to. The one thing that is the problem is that there is no reason for them to "believe" that bigfoot exists based on the very sketchy evidence, the mountain of folkloric hoaxes that have gone on for all time, and the complete lack of any biological evidence. Those are very good reasons not to believe. science is not about belief, it's about being able to document things, and expressions of folklore concocted by people is simply not something that sits well under scientific scrutiny.

Bigfoot exists only in the minds of people at this point. It has never been shown to exist outside the creative process of people. If it ever does, great! But until now, it's all subject to human fabrication. Every bit of it.

But it just gets old when some of us realize you'll do it until a body falls on your heads. And stinks. And is hairy. And huge.

Sorry, but that's kind of how it works when a species is categorized, or acknowledged to actually exist in the real world. If we're talking about bigfoot as a real, live, physical creature, some sort of mammal, that eats, drinks, eliminates, reproduces, lives, dies, just like every other animal on this planet, then it must have a body, and that body must have some sort of physical presence, from the macro sense with a breeding population, all the way down to the cellular and molecular level. And to date, there has been nothing to analyze on either end of that spectrum. No breeding populations, and not a single molecule have ever been documented.

And sorry if you consider an actual specimen to be an outrageous expectation, but if anyone is expected to accept the notion that an animal species exists, a specimen of some sort has always been an expectation. Otherwise it is nothing more than fantasy and unfulfilled dreams. If it exists, there should be a specimen. Never has one been presented. I find it amazing that you or anyone else could accept an animal exists without a specimen ever coming to light. Absolutely amazing.

[dmaker]

I would like to echo the above statements and point out that I, also, would welcome any event that proves the existence of Bigfoot. It just hasn't happened yet. And it does not seem very likely to happen in my estimation. But I am not threatened by the idea, nor do I hate the very notion of Bigfoot, or anything even remotely like that. I watch all the documentaries, I read reports, I read books, I look out for anything ground breaking that may come along on a daily basis ( in fact that is one of the reasons I use this forum. It's a great ground zero for what is going on in the BF world. If something truly revolutionary were to happen, it would hit here pretty fast.) The problem with keeping your ear to the ground in the BF world is that you also get exposed to the deluge of broken promises and charlatans that infest the Bigfoot world. But in the end they are just ugly distractions.

So just because I am firmly skeptical about the possibility of BF existing, it does not mean I am intensely against the idea. I think it would be great. But let's celebrate once we have enough decent evidence to prove that existence. Quite a few people here have popped the champagne corks ages ago based on very little scientific evidence.

Edited April 4, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest Tontar]

Human beings certainly have that broad of variation.

You've seen humans that have a nose exactly like a gorilla and like a dog, complete with the pebble finished "leather" at the tip? That have coned heads as tall as Harry's, and as flat as a chimp's? I seriously doubt that you have.

That's a false analogy.

You wrote; "No other primate species has that broad of variation".

In reply, I wrote that humans "certainly have that broad of variation".

I did not write that human beings had the exact same variations as Sasquatch.

In actuality there are far more variations of humans than there are of BF.

Please provide examples.

My contention was that bigfoots have a basic general shape and form, while it is the more specific details that show the wide variations. Eyes, noses, mouths, teeth, ears, and so on. When the general physical form is fairly consistent, and the specific details such as those listed show all the variation, then explain to me how humans seem to have more variation than that.

Explain to me how a species can have a nose like a gorilla on one individual, and a nose like a human on another individual. That's a massive variation. As if the two examples were popped out of completely different molds, created with completely dissimilar DNA, representing completely different species identifiers.

Whether you accept it or not, those kinds of details are very important to consider while analyzing reports. How often has a chimp been found that had a human nose? Or a head shaped like a gorilla, slanted and peaked? How many monkeys have shown up with a gorilla nose? These are features that tend to define a species and remain reasonably consistent from individual to individual.

Suggesting that variations in height in humans is somehow comparable to completely different head and facial morphology is not a good comparison of variation, for example. And so, either there are quite a few different species or sub species of bigfoot running around, or bigfoot is fully customizable from person to person. When there is no consistency to a species features, one might consider whether the species has really been seen, or constructed on an individual basis by people who envision this legendary beast in their own, personal way.