Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I don't doubt the existence of Sasquatch and I haven't lost interest in the subject, but I'm saying the evidence isn't good enough to expect the academic world to take Bigfoot seriously. No amount of campfire stories or plaster casts is going to get serious attention, but a monkey on the table certainly would. Even a few good videos would be a step in the right direction, but it doesn't seem to be happening and I really wouldn't expect it to happen anytime soon. Without hoaxes, Bigfootery would be mostly just crickets chirping.

Edited June 7, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest DWA]

Well, that actually isn't true.  There is more than enough to interest scientists.  Anyone who doesn't think so isn't reading up (and should read Meldrum's and Bindernagel's books, at a minimum).

 

The hoaxes are irrelevant, but they get all the attention.  Science is boring.  The human circus is fun...so the human circus gets 99.999999999% of the attention.

[Guest DWA]

It's easy to think what you think; the mainstream feels about it the same way, pretty much, that you do.  They're just misinformed.  if they knew what was up they simply wouldn't say the things they say.

[Cotter]

I don't doubt the existence of Sasquatch and I haven't lost interest in the subject, but I'm saying the evidence isn't good enough to expect the academic world to take Bigfoot seriously. No amount of campfire stories or plaster casts is going to get serious attention, but a monkey on the table certainly would. Even a few good videos would be a step in the right direction, but it doesn't seem to be happening and I really wouldn't expect it to happen anytime soon. Without hoaxes, Bigfootery would be mostly just crickets chirping.

 

So, what I gather from this is that scientists don't really care to prove the existence of it, but would rather wait until it is proven, THEN study it.

 

I agree with that.  And the vast-majority of scientists are doing just that.  Waiting for someone else to make the discovery.

[Guest]

 . . . Or maybe, just maybe, we've considered it and are convinced there's no bigfoot to discover.  Nah, it couldn't be that.  DWA said so.

 

Party on, dudes.

[dmaker]

Now I am puzzled. DWA assured us that if any scientist examined the evidence then they would come to the same conclusion that DWA did. He virtually guaranteed it.

[norseman]

Norseman,

You are my favorite pro-Bigfoot poster. I enjoy your posts and respect you as a person. So, I am concerned --- please do not make proving Bigfoot your life's mission. Disappointment, if not madness, will be your lot. All due respect to you intended.

what makes you say that? and thanks...

[BobbyO]

Because he doesn't know they exist and thinks anyone that does is crazy.

[Guest]

[ ... ]

Yup they went looking for black holes based on the evidence.....seems the evidence hasn't been compelling enough to warranty looking for biggie

Well, not really... Apples/watermelons. They went "looking" for blackholes because of the mathematics, not evidence of them. There is not any direct evidence of blackholes. It took years of looking for some sort of evidence of blackholes to actually "find" some; and it is all indirect, because, by definition, blackholes cannot leave direct evidence: they cannot be observed at all. It is all indirect evidence.

[Guest DWA]

Now I am puzzled. DWA assured us that if any scientist examined the evidence then they would come to the same conclusion that DWA did. He virtually guaranteed it.

The ones that have examined it, agree with me.

 

Most of the ones that haven't, disagree with me...and all of them can be shown to be ignorant of the evidence by any read-up layman, because the evidence directly and dramatically contradicts everything they say.

 

Sorry.  Evidence is like that.

 

[ ... ]

Yup they went looking for black holes based on the evidence.....seems the evidence hasn't been compelling enough to warranty looking for biggie

Well, not really... Apples/watermelons. They went "looking" for blackholes because of the mathematics, not evidence of them. There is not any direct evidence of blackholes. It took years of looking for some sort of evidence of blackholes to actually "find" some; and it is all indirect, because, by definition, blackholes cannot leave direct evidence: they cannot be observed at all. It is all indirect evidence.

 

 

Exactly.  No one has ever seen a black hole, yet they're convinced they exist.  Thousands of sober folks have seen what we are talking about and the tracks it leaves.

 

No math required, except adding two and two.l

 

I could say about our astronomical "knowledge", what if the math is wrong?  Oh, that's never happened.  But  that would just be mean so I won't. 

 . . . Or maybe, just maybe, we've considered it and are convinced there's no bigfoot to discover.  Nah, it couldn't be that.  DWA said so.

 

Party on, dudes.

 I mean, but you haven't considered it.  You demonstrably haven't.

 

"Is this the toe tag on a bigfoot?  No?  Toss."

 

None of the evidence for black holes is attached to a single black hole.

 

That's not an approach, that thing in quotes up there.  That is a refusal to deal.

 

 There are tons of people out there doing the same, stemming from the same passion to be in the bush, but we don't see much BF evidence coming in, regardless of the total coverage we have of the NA back country.

 

Peace

 

 It's been shown so many times in so many ways that we have nowhere near total coverage of the NA backcountry that that can be handily dismissed.

 

I have done most of my backcountry walking in places in which I can assure you we do not have "total coverage."

Edited June 8, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

Norseman  the comment of being able to pull the trigger on a human or anything looking human is very disturbing. Killing anything that has not harmed or threatened you or another and you do not plan to eat is to me murder IMO.

 

Don't equate killing humans (murder) with killing non-humans (hunting). It is not the same thing by anyone's definition. And murder only applies to certain circumstances with humans. Changing the meaning of words is not an effective mechanism of argument, and is not persuasive. Opinion doesn't factor into word definitions.

 

And just because you wouldn't/couldn't kill anything, don't project your feelings on anyone else. No one really cares if something "disturbs" you or not. Not everyone feels the same as you do, and feelings don't factor into the search for evidence. Again, it is not an effective mechanism of argument.

[Guest]

 

Norseman,

You are my favorite pro-Bigfoot poster. I enjoy your posts and respect you as a person. So, I am concerned --- please do not make proving Bigfoot your life's mission. Disappointment, if not madness, will be your lot. All due respect to you intended.

what makes you say that? and thanks...

 

 

Two reasons. First, the Bigfoot phenomenon is treacherous. It seems to be just a wildlife issue and as amenable to a solution as any similar wildlife issue. It tempts one to think the solution is just down the road. In fact, the Bigfoot phenomenon is more like ghost stories, exciting the mind while always inhabiting the zone of no final solution. It is quasi-empirical, not biological, and is bound to disappoint if you are expecting a real solution.

 

Second, we have seen what can happen to folks who are deep in the Bigfoot forest. Dahinden lost his wife and family life and ended up literally living in a shed because of his Bigfoot obsession. I used to follow a pro-Bigfoot blogger who seemed to have his head screwed on straight. Then one day, he wrote some cryptic comments and closed his blog site. A year or two later, he reappeared with a new blog devoted to mystical, metaphysical stuff. He seemed to me to have "crashed" because of his Bigfoot interest. He just could not reconcile his belief that Bigfoot was a flesh and blood animal (a wildlife issue) with what he came to understand was an insoluble issue.    

Because he doesn't know they exist and thinks anyone that does is crazy.

 

Thanks for the 2 cents. And you are mistaken.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

jerrywayne raises a good point. Whether you believe Bigfoot is a biological entity or a psychological phenomenon, the circumstances surrounding Bigfoot are very similar to that of ghosts. People can chase Bigfoot all they want, but there isn't a regular solution to the problem. It's the year of 2013 now and there are more trailcams and hunters out in the woods than ever before, but still no Bigfoot. To me this means that at the very least the majority of the evidence for Bigfoot is fabricated. To less biased individuals it's going to mean that Bigfoot probably isn't real. This goes back to the point I was trying to make earlier about how the evidence isn't very good.

[norseman]

Jerrywayne, thanks for your concern and I mean that.

 

First off I want to say that if I could spend the rest of my life searching for Sasquatch.........I would have died and gone to heaven! Right now working in the oil field..........is a living to be sure, but my heart and mind live in the mountains. And certainly not out here in the flat, muddy, sticky plains. Some days I just lust to see a hunk of granite.......or a evergreen tree, simple things.

 

Anyhow I don't care if somebody paid me to ride my horse everyday in the wilderness searching for pink unicorns..........none of it would be wasted on me. 

 

I suppose many people get caught up in the hype and the objective of finding Sasquatch. And the ultimate disappointment if that objective isn't reached in their lifetime. But I would not feel bad for Renee...........he made his choices, I think without regrets, and people get divorced all the time for a wide variety of things. Renee made his choice to do what he wanted and forget about money......... I made the opposite choice, but there are many days that I think I made the wrong choice.

 

I don't need fancy cars, big houses, and a box seat at Yankee stadium to be happy.

 

My idea of heaven is a small house, barn, a garden, venison in the stew pot and a good mountain horse to ride.  

 

And ultimately? I don't believe in Squatch, but I believe in the possibility that there is something out there........but if it's not out there, it's not going to give me a nervous breakdown. I just count every day I get to spend in the wilderness not punching a time clock, either hunting, fishing, riding my horse, looking for Squatch, looking for old gold mines, cutting firewood, baking biscuits in a dutch oven, etc?

 

A BLESSING. 

[Guest]

 I mean, but you haven't considered it.  You demonstrably haven't.

Yeah, I've only been enjoying the bigfoot phenomenon since about 1973.  Surely I've never given a second thought to the possibility that they might actually be out there.

 

Folks, the only thing DWA "demonstrates" other than abject hubris is a textbook example of the "No True Sctosman" logical fallacy:

 

1) He states that no one could consider the evidence for bigfoot and conclude it to be lacking.

2) I reply that I have considered the evidence and I find it lacking.

 

At this point, a rational reaction from DWA would be "Well I'll be darned.  I guess some folks have looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion than I have.  Oh well, live and learn!"

 

The reaction we instead get from him (over and over again): "Clearly, you haven't considered the evidence."

 

I don't mind if people believe in bigfoot.  I don't mind if people try to convince me to believe in bigfoot (go for it!).  But I do have a problem with someone saying that I have to believe in bigfoot, and you should have a problem with that too.