Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[MIB]

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.

 

I'd disagree.   The evidence I've seen so far is fine.   What is flawed are the theories offered to account for it.  Individuals have too much ego invested in their pet theories and, unlike real scientists, are unable to set them aside and revise the theory when it proves inadequate so instead they attack each other and the data. 

 

MIB

[Guest]

"The evidence I've seen so far is fine." - I'd like to see the definition for "fine".  The only evidence that most proponents can agree on is from over 45 years ago.  Where is all this "fine" evidence?

[Guest DWA]

 

 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.

 

I'm not telling you you have to do anything.  Where did I say that?  Such a bully I am. 

 

What you do have to do for me to take your position seriously is  

 

1) stop talking past my points and

 

2) show me why a scientist should not take the evidence seriously.

 

No, "no piece of evidence is the toe tag for a bigfoot" is not a serious reason.  Anyone who thinks it is...well, may be a reasonably good technician in a restricted area of science.  But when it comes to this, he sure isn't thinking like a scientist.

 

Sorry.  Evidence is like that.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

If I may intervene...

 

You've talked yourself past any point you ever tried to make here.

 

The 'evidence' you buy at the flea market is not worth the scientific effort. that you wish it held.

 

Sightings? Footprints? Anyone with an imagination, poor eyesight or lighting  and third grade art class can fake those.

 

You want poor evidence to be accepted as your opinion because you want it that way.

 

What other evidence do you have?

Edited June 9, 2013 by Squatchy McSquatch

[Guest DWA]

^^^^And yawn.

 

Come back when you can show me you're ready to discuss this.

 

You want me to accept as real the most unlikely concatenation of false positives either you or I has ever heard of, something on which you wouldn't bet a penny?

 

If you don't know what I'm talking about...I can wait until you know more about the topic.

[Guest]

"The evidence I've seen so far is fine." - I'd like to see the definition for "fine". The only evidence that most proponents can agree on is from over 45 years ago. Where is all this "fine" evidence?

You're going to make yourself insane trying to convince true believers that they have nothing to believe in. To a true believer testimonials are sufficient and science is a "nice to have". You may want to spend your energy elsewhere because to some trying to "disprove" the existence of Bigfoot is like trying to disprove the existence of a supreme being. It's impossible to do.

The comedy is that proving the existence of either would be simple, the being would just have to present itself for study.

Edited June 9, 2013 by slappy

[Guest DWA]

The comedy is that so many come here to do negative ranting and raving when educating themselves on the breadth and depth of the evidence would be one heck of a lot more fun, not to say educational.

[Guest]

DWA, proponents present evidence, the scientifc community and people on the fence, like me, read it and form an opinion. It just happens that the evidence does not impress me and a lot of other people and the majority of the scientific community. You can cry conspiracy, or maybe you can find some irrefutable proof, like you know, a body?

Edited June 9, 2013 by zoala

[Guest]

There's a mountain of evidence claimed for bigfoot.  I've never written that there wasn't.

 

I've considered historical accounts from the Colonial Period to today.  I've read probably hundreds of bigfoot encounter stories from more modern times (say 1950 to 2013), and I continue to do so.  I've considered footprint evidence, dermals, handprints, buttprints, the PGF, the Sierra Sounds, DNA evidence, photos, thermals, video, audio, trailcams, etc.  I've spent an inordinate amount of time inventing ecological scenarios in which a species like bigfoot could have evolved, dispersed to the New World, come to assume a continent-wide range, and find food in disparate habitats.

 

Now some people might consider all that putative bigfoot evidence to be actual evidence of real bigfoots.  Fine.  But what have I not considered?  What is the singularity of bigfooty evidence that I've missed from not signing up for my John Bindernagel Fan Club Decoder Ring?

 

According to DWA, if I had that ring, it would convince me to take bigfoot seriously.  That's the other side of this coin, and he's never been able to intimate clearly what he thinks us open-minded, bigfoot-converted sceintists should be doing once we figure out that there's a lot of interesting bigfooty stuff in the world.

 

Ding-dong!  It's the real world at your door.  If you think the only thing that separates discovering bigfoot from not discovering bigfoot is a months-long field expedition to someplace squatchy (I hear Rhode Island is "squatchy as hell"), then the scientists with the decoder rings are going to need to apply for funding so such an expedition can happen.  To apply for the funding, our elected representatives in Washington need to apply pressure to the NSF to budget some line items to the search for bigfoot.  So if people like DWA really took bigfoot seriously, they'd be putting pressure on their elected officials to start doing their jobs and turn the screws on the NSF to free up some coin for some high-level squatchin'.

[Guest DWA]

^^^This is 'that piece of evidence isn't the toe tag for a bigfoot' expressed in I believe the 5,848,584th different way.

 

I take the possibility seriously.  If you are a wildlife biologist and took that seriously,  you'd feel different about the evidence but you let incredulity get in the way.  Flaw, that.

 

But if you think I am going to government bureaucracies to preach the gospel of bigfoot, you haven't been around enough of those lately.

 

I got time; no train to catch; and I know which way the evidence points.  There are good books to read to get up on this, and a couple of good websites.  Or one might rethink the approach 'is this piece of evidence the toe tag for a bigfoot?  No?  [toss]...'

[BobbyO]

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.

A definite blessing..

Plussed Norse..

[Guest]

The comedy is that so many come here to do negative ranting and raving when educating themselves on the breadth and depth of the evidence would be one heck of a lot more fun, not to say educational.

I've been following the "evidence" since the 70s. It's not very wide and it's not very deep. This has caused my interest to switch from the actual search for a big hairy creature to pretty much observing people talking themselves into believing that nothing is something.

I doubt that there is something that I have not read, watched, squinted at, or listened to on this topic. Frankly the more I see the less impressive it all is.

Why does it still hold my interest? Well I guess that something feel down inside that scared or fascinated me as a kid still tickles my interest. Mostly though it all just looks like a pile of junk. I'll keep tabs on all of this but every time I see another wave of the newest, latest awesome "evidence," I just end up feeling bad for those who buy into it.

[Guest DWA]

Well, whenever I read or hear of somebody saying that, I ask him what he's paying attention to. 

 

And the answer is always:

 

The junk.

 

Gotta have a good BS detector in this game.  Most don't.

[Guest]

^Mine's working just fine, I assure you.

 

So when you make your little "no toe tag, toss" comments, can you enlighten us on what the alternative to "toss" is? 

 

Perhaps you're incapable of accessing the subtlety of my position on anecdotal accounts, but you can select the absolute best one in your eyes, divorced from the 99% "junk" that you're also banging on about, and I'm going to have one of three reactions to this creme de la creme of the bigfoot world:

 

1) "This report is complete bunk and here's why . . . "

2) "While I'll be a monkey's uncle (perhaps literally), this account proves to me that bigfoot is real!"

3) "I don't know what to make of this account; I cannot explain it.  Accounts like this have kept me interested in the phenomenon of bigfoot for decades."

 

I have read several accounts that were #3s for me.  If that's what "toss" means to you, then you're way off the mark.

[gigantor]

It's so boring watching people argue in circles over and over again...

 

The truth should be our common goal, but people seem more interested in advancing their own point of view instead. I think this is what holds the field back. Realizing that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that circumstantial evidence is not proof of existence by everyone involved would go a long way towards advancing the ball forward.

 

But I won't hold my breath, I don't think it'll ever happen, so I hope for a slab monkey one of these days.