Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[Guest LarryP]

It's amazing what you can "learn" in threads that have no association whatsoever with evidence of any kind beyond he said, she said, and I saw...

There's plenty of evidence.

But if you've already made up your mind to dismiss any and all evidence because of your preconcieved beliefs of what is and is not "reality", then what's the use of having the discussion.

[dmaker]

^^ There is plenty of evidence of trans-dimensional travel, and mind speaking, etc? Really? Plenty of it? Because it was those types of claims that I was referring to, not the ones made generally in this thread.

[norseman]

If Squatch ends up being a shapeshifting ghost...........I'm gonna be pissed!

[Guest thermalman]

Neanderthal extinction? http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112802425/extinction-neanderthals-due-to-large-eyes-031313/

[Guest David37]

I apologize if I missed a post on this subject, the thread is long and my dial up is slow. I appreciate Norseman's frustration with any proof short of a body is pointless to the scentific community, but assuming a BF can be hunted (they do seem elusive) and the government isn't trying to hide their existence (everything has a conspiracy theory these days) what are the logisitics of removing a large body from the woods and loading it into a truck (and presuming other BF's are not interfering with the process).

[dmaker]

I think some fossils would serve fairly well as proof, but so far that has not happened yet. The logistics would be no different, I would think, than loading a large sedated bear or moose.

Oh forgot to add, you have my sympathies with the slow dial up. It's been many a moon since I had to deal with that, but I do remember how frustrating and limiting that can be.

[Guest DWA]

Well "he said she said and I saw" is what we have from mainstream science if one thinks about it some (which is more than most do).

I'm going to think that thousands of sober people who say that they saw something must be crazy or mistaken about it, when no one who says that can give me a good reason why? You can go with that but sure seems gullible and trusting to me.

[Guest David37]

I found Norsemans "kill" thread, and he plans to collect certain body parts so that answers my curosity on that detail.

[norseman]

I found Norsemans "kill" thread, and he plans to collect certain body parts so that answers my curosity on that detail.

Science doesnt need a complete body, so for the sake of logistics and time savings I think this is the best route to take.

[Guest]

Even a decent picture or sequence of video would go a long way. Considering there's been nothing decent since the PGF, and that was almost 50 years ago, it makes one (me especially) both question the validity of that footage, and lean towards the conclusion that the creature doesn't even exist. There are more cameras out in the world than ever before, and more people with more access to the woods. Throw in the fact that there is no way BF could even exist, while eating year round and remaining hidden, anywhere but in the remotest forested areas of the PNW. Yet you have people all over NA claiming it lives in the woods behind their houses. If BF is everywhere then it is nowhere! If some guy can convince himself that he has BF wandering around in Pennsylvania then anyone can convince themselves BF is local, even when it is not possible! Think about all the hunters out there on opening day of hunting season, there is no way BF could avoid that invasion into the woods after all these years.

The fact that mainstream science doesn't take BF even remotely seriously should be enough to convince most intelligent people that there's no bipedal primate living on the fringes of NA civilization. BF is not even on the radar of most wildlife biologists. My friend has been studying wolves and grizzlies in western Canada for over twenty years. He lives in the bush. He follows the wolves on skies and snowshoes all winter. He hikes from valley to valley all summer. He knows every bear in the National Parks by name, he mingles with every serious biologist in his field. He has not a shred of interest in the fact that BF could be real. When I was seriously looking (years back when I was not a skeptic), he let me lay out the case in great detail, yet after everything I tried to convince him of, using many of the same arguments put forth here on a daily basis, he simply would not budge. He knew no biologist that considered BF a real animal. "And what are these BF supposed to be eating and surviving on?" he'd ask. There is a reason grizzlies in the mountains are a lot smaller than their coastal cousins. Food!

My cousin was a hunting guide in BC. He worked all over BC but mainly in the Kootenays and the Bella Coola. He thinks he saw something years ago (near Hedley BC) so he is what I consider a believer in BF. However, because of this interest he has in BF, he would always ask other guides and clients about BF, wherever he went to work in BC. Not once did any of these other guides have anything to add that would lead to the credibility of BF. My cousin is disappointed to this day, that other than some vague stories they had heard second and third hand, not once did any of these guides...people working and living in supposed BF 'habitat, travelling on horseback and blending in, glassing valleys for days on end...see even a sign of BF or take BF seriously.

Sure neither of these examples are going to convince the believer, but it speaks volumes to me. I live on Vancouver Island, I would like nothing more than to know BF could be out there, not more than an hour from my house. But it isn't. Wish that it were, but it is not. I came to this conclusion the hard way, I was all in. But like I said before...if it is everywhere then it is nowhere.

Edited May 24, 2013 by summitwalker

[Cotter]

^But you ignore the hunters/guides/people in the area that DO claim to see them?

 

You've got what, 50 data points at most to base your conclusion on. 

 

I would bet that there are many more data points that refute those.

 

(Data points being observational claims)

 

If you put no validity to those that claim to see one, how can you put validity on those that claim NOT to have seen one?

Edited May 24, 2013 by Cotter

[Guest DWA]

OK.

 

That P/G has never had anything close to either (1) a persuasive explanation of how it could have been faked or (2) a persuasive effort to duplicate it, in over 45 years, speaks volumes to me.

 

That many trackways exist for which there is nowhere close to a persuasive explanation of how they could have been hoaxed speaks volumes to me.

 

That thousands of sober individuals claim sightings of an animal for which the tracks cross-index almost to a T speaks volumes to me.

 

That specialists in scientific and technical fields that could not be more relevant vouch for all of the above speaks volumes to me.

 

That you were once a "believer" (never a good idea to believe in anything) speaks volumes to me.  Lots of former "believers" are over at the opposite deep end because proof didn't happen on their schedule and they aren't bothering to parse the evidence.  Belief can be like that.

 

That there isn't a state that doesn't have considerable excellent habitat for a large, intelligent omnivore like this speaks volumes to me.

 

That is metric tonnes more speaking volumes to me than is speaking volumes to you.  Just tossing that in there.

 

All the rest can be handily explained by:

 

Nobody believes anybody who says they saw one.

 

How does proof happen that way?

[norseman]

Even a decent picture or sequence of video would go a long way. Considering there's been nothing decent since the PGF, and that was almost 50 years ago, it makes one (me especially) both question the validity of that footage, and lean towards the conclusion that the creature doesn't even exist. There are more cameras out in the world than ever before, and more people with more access to the woods. Throw in the fact that there is no way BF could even exist, while eating year round and remaining hidden, anywhere but in the remotest forested areas of the PNW. Yet you have people all over NA claiming it lives in the woods behind their houses. If BF is everywhere then it is nowhere! If some guy can convince himself that he has BF wandering around in Pennsylvania then anyone can convince themselves BF is local, even when it is not possible! Think about all the hunters out there on opening day of hunting season, there is no way BF could avoid that invasion into the woods after all these years.

 

 

First of all I want to say this is a pretty well layed out post, but I have some problems with it.

 

First of all there has been plenty of "good" video footage since the PGF. Good in the fact that it's not a stump, a Bear or a rock. It's obviously a bipedal apeish creature seen in the footage. The problem of course is the same question that haunts the PGF.............is it a hoax? This is why I do not put much hope in film footage solving anything. Humans have two arms and two legs and so does a squatch, it comes down to size proportions and they generally are not demonstratable in the field. And then we get into camera lens mathematics and so on. Skeptics often claim that if they saw good footage they would be swayed.....but opinions are subjective and I really do not think such a photo or video clip truly exists. Nor should it. Science requires a body or a portion thereof and I do not think this is unfair. It's how we document every other known species on the planet.

 

The fact that mainstream science doesn't take BF even remotely seriously should be enough to convince most intelligent people that there's no bipedal primate living on the fringes of NA civilization. BF is not even on the radar of most wildlife biologists. My friend has been studying wolves and grizzlies in western Canada for over twenty years. He lives in the bush. He follows the wolves on skies and snowshoes all winter. He hikes from valley to valley all summer. He knows every bear in the National Parks by name, he mingles with every serious biologist in his field. He has not a shred of interest in the fact that BF could be real. When I was seriously looking (years back when I was not a skeptic), he let me lay out the case in great detail, yet after everything I tried to convince him of, using many of the same arguments put forth here on a daily basis, he simply would not budge. He knew no biologist that considered BF a real animal. "And what are these BF supposed to be eating and surviving on?" he'd ask. There is a reason grizzlies in the mountains are a lot smaller than their coastal cousins. Food!

 

Yes but my rebuttal to him would be that while Rocky mountain Grizzlies are smaller than their coastal cousins? They do exist! So it's certainly plausible that a omnivore North American Ape could be utilizing the same resources as they are. 

 

My cousin was a hunting guide in BC. He worked all over BC but mainly in the Kootenays and the Bella Coola. He thinks he saw something years ago (near Hedley BC) so he is what I consider a believer in BF. However, because of this interest he has in BF, he would always ask other guides and clients about BF, wherever he went to work in BC. Not once did any of these other guides have anything to add that would lead to the credibility of BF. My cousin is disappointed to this day, that other than some vague stories they had heard second and third hand, not once did any of these guides...people working and living in supposed BF 'habitat, travelling on horseback and blending in, glassing valleys for days on end...see even a sign of BF or take BF seriously.

 

Ok, I completely understand that it's a rare event to see one of these creatures. But as a hunting guide I would say your cousin is pretty credible witness. I understand he wants to validate his sighting with his peers. But we already know we are bucking the odds here. Most people have not seen nor heard anything, but some have. And in the case of your cousin who should know what he is looking at? Do we dismiss his experience because he is in the minority? Is he lying? Mistaken? What is it? Or did he see what he said he say?

 

Sure neither of these examples are going to convince the believer, but it speaks volumes to me. I live on Vancouver Island, I would like nothing more than to know BF could be out there, not more than an hour from my house. But it isn't. Wish that it were, but it is not. I came to this conclusion the hard way, I was all in. But like I said before...if it is everywhere then it is nowhere.

 

 

For me the best evidence we have is foot prints/trackways........many are bogus. But some are quite compelling. I like this one for example:

 

 

I also do not believe it's everywhere. It's a rare, shy, nocturnal creature that has a very low population density. 

[Guest]

Norseman- you say it is rare, noictornal and shy. Would you agree that it is also not listed as a game animal in Washington. The US Fish and Wildlife Service says that all Flora and fuana is property of the federal or state governmaents. It also says that shooting and killing a non-game animal (?) that does not have a hunting season is illegal, peroid...  have you contacted the Wildlife officals in Washington and asked them if they recognize and/or adhere to the federal standard regarding non-game animals? As far as a type specimen needed a peer-reviewed DNA report is all that nessesary to verify the exsistance of undiscovered aniamals. You may want to call your state officials and get some sort of clearence before rushing into things on assumption.  

[norseman]

Norseman- you say it is rare, noictornal and shy. Would you agree that it is also not listed as a game animal in Washington. The US Fish and Wildlife Service says that all Flora and fuana is property of the federal or state governmaents. It also says that shooting and killing a non-game animal (?) that does not have a hunting season is illegal, peroid...  have you contacted the Wildlife officals in Washington and asked them if they recognize and/or adhere to the federal standard regarding non-game animals? As far as a type specimen needed a peer-reviewed DNA report is all that nessesary to verify the exsistance of undiscovered aniamals. You may want to call your state officials and get some sort of clearence before rushing into things on assumption.  

 

I just lost a big long response to this somehow.........

 

Anyway, I know what I'm doing. It's not an endangered species therefore no federal big stick. Each state has their own way of managing wildlife........and none of it is going to matter for the guy that drags a Squatch in by a foot.