Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[dmaker]

If I follow your gist correctly you are suggesting a hoax or a Sasquatch? But the second assumption, in my opinion, pushed the putative into reality, which I find to be premature.

So in your opinion, there are no other possibities?

Edited June 28, 2013 by dmaker

[norseman]

It's not real until science says so, but one is never going to get to the bottom of it until you put the dental resin down and pursue it with extreme prejudice.... As some would say.

Nothing premature about it......got monkey?

I can spot a overlapping bear track, the toes also are wrong on a bear, pinkie toes are opposite of us and squatch. So no I've got nothing....

Edited June 28, 2013 by norseman

[dmaker]

I hear you, but I think that, for some, there just isn't enough to bite down on to warrant the effort. And if something truly substantive were to come along that attention that you and others currently think it deserves would arrive in spades.

[norseman]

The possibility of a hoax, nobody wants to look stupid, especially scientists. That's why few will bite down, along with the fact that its not in the fossil record and modern apes live in mostly warm places now. It's simply not on their radar as a possibility.

Sure if somebody drags one in they are going to be all over it.......but again somebody has to be willing to put down the dental resin. They have to abandon the mindset that more plaster casts are going to convince science to lower the net.

That's the problem there is a disconnect between what science wants and what amateur researchers are willing to give.

How does one do vetting on a trackway? If your a hunter it's brutally simple either you fill the freezer or you go hungry. If its a hoax it will become apparent quickly..... Animals don't hitch hike. The track will eventually lead to something tangible, a nest, bedding area, a cave, another source of feed whatever.

The longer that track stays on the ground and can be followed the faster the possibility of that track being a hoax diminishes.

And yet very few want to sign up for a tracking class....

It's odd I think many researchers do not really want to find it. They would rather take the easy route, pet their plaster cast and come up with fanciful traits of the monster to explain away their own shortcomings.....

Edited June 28, 2013 by norseman

[dmaker]

I think there is more willing and less capable in your assessment. It's convenient to say no amateurs are willing to pull the trigger, but there are some that are. Just look at NAWAC. Look at others, like that Timothy whatever his name is guy from the Elmira Bigfoot something or other club. He was the focus of that movie, Hunting Sasquatch: Still Searching or something like that. He goes out loaded for bear all the time. I can't believe that there are not more like him out there. Just because they are not active members of this board does not mean their numbers might not be greater than you think. But to chalk up failure to date to a lack of willingness creates a built in reason for the lack of Monkey to date.

[Guest]

Norseman,

Been meaning to ask: did your father offer an explanation for the trackway that you two found, or was he perplexed as well?

DWA,

In your self-admitted incuriosity concerning skeptical explanations, are you saying that skeptics are saying most Bigfoot sightings are misidentified bear sightings? Could you point out a source for that belief?

[Guest DWA]

I am incurious about any "explanation" that is backed by no evidence.

 

The single most prevalent skeptical take on sightings is misidentified bears.  It is so in practically every source I have read.  It is also irrelevant.  Just as with the other skeptical takes, no evidence backs that it's actually happening.  People will see sasquatch and think bear; they won't go the other way.  Psych 101.  Until someone proves to me that it's wrong, which is unlikely.

 

Contrary to popular belief, every entrant in a scientific discussion must present evidence.   I simply pay no attention to the ones that don't.  They don't excite my curiosity.

 

Clouds are Holy Exhaust From God's Personal Jet.  Excite your curiosity?

 

Same thing.

[dmaker]

So, Dee-Dub, you are suggesting that there is no evidence, nigh proof, that human recall is fraught with error? Surely you are not saying that? So why can, what is a proven phenomenon, not be applied to Bigfoot sightings?

In fact, why cannot the frailty of human recall be the more plausible explanation for the majority of sightings? How can you simply dsimiss it out of hand?

Edited June 28, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

I am incurious about any "explanation" that is backed by no evidence.

 

The single most prevalent skeptical take on sightings is misidentified bears.  It is so in practically every source I have read.  It is also irrelevant.  Just as with the other skeptical takes, no evidence backs that it's actually happening.  People will see sasquatch and think bear; they won't go the other way.  Psych 101.  Until someone proves to me that it's wrong, which is unlikely.

 

Contrary to popular belief, every entrant in a scientific discussion must present evidence.   I simply pay no attention to the ones that don't.  They don't excite my curiosity.

 

Clouds are Holy Exhaust From God's Personal Jet.  Excite your curiosity?

 

Same thing.

Then you are reading skeptical sources. Maybe you are curious after all. Apparently you have read many skeptical sources that say most Bigfoot sightings are of bears. Yes? Sources, please?

Also, I think your take on skeptical explanations is muddy. For instance, if the skeptic uncovers roadside sightings that turn out to be humans in costumes, we can certainly conclude that such things do happen and are possible explanations for other similar sightings. This is common sense, as well as generalizing from the particular, which is not faulty methodology.

By contrast, in your view, we would have to know that every particular roadside sighting was proven to be a human in costume for us to credibly argue that roadside sightings are inconclusive (because any one of them may be of humans in costumes.) No generalization is permissible. Never mind that you have set conditions for the skeptic that cannot be met, in principle.

You will probably want to fall back on the assertion that not all roadside sightings can be attributed to humans in costume. You would be correct, probably, but irrelevant to the point I'm making.

Edited June 28, 2013 by jerrywayne

[norseman]

I think there is more willing and less capable in your assessment. It's convenient to say no amateurs are willing to pull the trigger, but there are some that are. Just look at NAWAC. Look at others, like that Timothy whatever his name is guy from the Elmira Bigfoot something or other club. He was the focus of that movie, Hunting Sasquatch: Still Searching or something like that. He goes out loaded for bear all the time. I can't believe that there are not more like him out there. Just because they are not active members of this board does not mean their numbers might not be greater than you think. But to chalk up failure to date to a lack of willingness creates a built in reason for the lack of Monkey to date.

NAWAC's scope is a few states and I'm guessing mainly area x.

What's his name I have no idea....but this is proving my point.

Willing trigger puller pro kill guys are few and far between. I know.....iam in the market and shopping. Add exceptional tracking skills to the resume and the field gets even smaller.

But what's more important is that the guys you CAN name off the top of your head? The guys in the limelight, money and resources? Nada.....not even interested. It's dental resin for them.

Also you could show the best tracker in the world a Sasquatch track but if he believes it to be a hoax? He isn't going to get out of bed over it. There also lies a problem, somehow melding conviction with skill.

I say the best way is to take proponents and give them the skillset.....if I can change there mind about a type specimen.

Much harder to change the mind of a skeptic and non community member who may have the skillset you seek.

I wish you were right and there was gobs of us out there but I've not kicked over that rock and found them yet unfortunately.

But I have a website now maybe they will find me!?

Norseman,

Been meaning to ask: did your father offer an explanation for the trackway that you two found, or was he perplexed as well?

DWA,

In your self-admitted incuriosity concerning skeptical explanations, are you saying that skeptics are saying most Bigfoot sightings are misidentified bear sightings? Could you point out a source for that belief?

Not only perplexed but he pulled off the track....not hysterical but abrupt and forceful. Like a light bulb came on. We talked about what we saw later together but he has been gone now since 95.

Norseman,

Been meaning to ask: did your father offer an explanation for the trackway that you two found, or was he perplexed as well?

DWA,

In your self-admitted incuriosity concerning skeptical explanations, are you saying that skeptics are saying most Bigfoot sightings are misidentified bear sightings? Could you point out a source for that belief?

Not only perplexed but he pulled off the track....not hysterical but abrupt and forceful. Like a light bulb came on. We talked about what we saw later together but he has been gone now since 95.

[Guest DWA]

So, Dee-Dub, you are suggesting that there is no evidence, nigh proof, that human recall is fraught with error? Surely you are not saying that? So why can, what is a proven phenomenon, not be applied to Bigfoot sightings?

In fact, why cannot the frailty of human recall be the more plausible explanation for the majority of sightings? How can you simply dsimiss it out of hand?

I don't think there is anything more proven in human history than that human recall is fraught with...well, whatever makes it fraught.  Like:  money; not wanting to be associated with a drug kingpin; wanting to remain married; wanting to never relive that night again; wanting to keep your job; wanting to get paid off by people who are more interested in you lying than Lady Justice is in you telling the truth; money; sex; moolah; silver; girlfriend; boyfriend; argent; dinero; etc.

 

But I have never heard of a reason for misrecalling something that involves the desire to be ridiculed.  Not yet.  It may be just me.

 

If you are expecting me to Just Believe that people turn their recollections into apes: Tall order.  I mean, never happened to me.  To ask me to just accept that that explains it away is...well, like I said, I don't 'believe in' stuff.  You have to show me your evidence.  Meanwhile, the proponents keep shoveling evidence at me. 

 

I have never seen the frailty of human recall be the total explanation for anything.  This would be the first instance.  I'm not betting on it.

 

I suspect that suddenly seeing an eight-foot bipedal ape would do much to the frailty of one's recall.  I think for me, it would considerably un-frail it.  Don't tell ME I didn't see that ape.

 

Somebody could at least give me one good reason that this is the only phenomenon like it I have ever heard of:   thousands of laymen painting an ecologically-correct picture of a large temperate-zone omnivorous primate with two significantly-plausible fossil ancestors. On purpose, except when it's by accident, and in both cases, the same.   I don't even have that yet.

[dmaker]

I think your average 8th grader could paint your picture. It is really not that complicated.

[Guest DWA]

 Then you are reading skeptical sources. Maybe you are curious after all. Apparently you have read many skeptical sources that say most Bigfoot sightings are of bears. Yes? Sources, please?ap

Well, the inimitable Ben Radford.  JREF.  Bindernagel and Meldrum run into it so much that they devote chapters to it.  But again:  that this explains even one of the reports I've read is something that I just highly doubt.  They simply aren't describing bears is all.  I just can't devote much time to assertions not backed by evidence.

Also, I think your take on skeptical explanations is muddy. For instance, if the skeptic uncovers roadside sightings that turn out to be humans in costumes, we can certainly conclude that such things do happen and are possible explanations for other similar sightings. This is common sense, as well as generalizing from the particular, which is not faulty methodology.

Well, it is if I can't find a report in which I think it is likely that the person filing it saw a human in costume.  What people describe is so very clearly different from what every man-in-suit I have ever seen looks like to me that I simply don't think the generalization works.  It's like seeing two kids in a zebra costume and suddenly doubting the zebra.

By contrast, in your view, we would have to know that every particular roadside sighting was proven to be a human in costume for us to credibly argue that roadside sightings are inconclusive (because any one of them may be of humans in costumes.) No generalization is permissible. Never mind that you have set conditions for the skeptic that cannot be met, in principle.

 

No, I would like to see so many of the reports I have read proven to be a human in costume that I seriously doubt the rest are authentic.  But you are seeing the point:  when I am getting evidence from the proponents, it isn't derailed by suppositions but only by debunking the evidence - showing me that it isn't x but in fact y.  Until that happens the evidence remains unassailed, particularly when to me it appears far more likely than the alternative hypothesis:  that all these people were that badly wrong.  I simply cannot believe a man in a suit would make most of us do anything but chuckle after no more than a moment's consternation.  I'm not filing a bigfoot report over that.  I suspect most wouldn't.

 

I have always said:  if the skeptic cannot prove his case, he must wait for the proponent to prove his.  After all:  I can wait.  Belief isn't what this is about.  Until the evidence is proven or debunked, it stands unaddressed.  I can't accept the skeptics' invitation to just assume they are right.  That's not skeptical.

 

You will probably want to fall back on the assertion that not all roadside sightings can be attributed to humans in costume. You would be correct, probably, but irrelevant to the point I'm making.

 

Well, they can't be.  Witnesses are describing something more athletic, by a lot, than humans in track suits much less ape suits.  Never mind one heck of a lot bigger.  If the point you're making doesn't debunk the evidence that has me leaning to the proponents, then it's irrelevant to what I want to know, for sure:

 

what is causing this.

[dmaker]

Witnesses can be wrong

[Guest DWA]

They can be right too.

 

When saying what they saw risks ridicule, I'm curious.  I'm not going to Believe In something because it might be true of people who are motivated to report what they do.  This includes people who say things that aren't true for all the reasons I put up there.  It also includes people who misidentify something innocently because they think it will help out. 

 

The "lost panda in England" anecdote, frequently put up on bigfoot boards to show how wrong witnesses can be, in fact involves an animal - the red panda - which can be innocently confused in a fleeting glimpse with several animals found there:  red fox; polecat; house cat.  People having a fleeting not-sure glimpse of something called in because they thought it might be a red panda.  They thought their info might help out, even though they weren't sure.  Don't think that applies to most bigfoot sightings, made by people who didn't know it was real before they saw it.  I'm just not thinking you are filing 'bigfoot' over cow or bear or horse if those are what you saw.  (Person?  Forget it.)

 

The "clincher," for skeptics, on the panda incident is that calls continued to come in after the animal was found.  No clincher at all.  Many people didn't know that new information, and called in a misidentification because they thought it might be helpful even though they weren't sure.

 

The similarity with bigfoot sightings is the motivation to report.  Which I don't think applies in the latter case unless you know you saw one.  I wouldn't expect most people to go:  oh, you know, that bison butt might be a bigfoot, so let's go for the ridicule.