Show Your Best Evidence If You Please.

[Guest DWA]

Having done science  and professionally too I might add I understand valid and invalid lecturing on how science is supposed to work.

You think you do.  Problem is, scientific training is all about adherence to canon.  You demonstrably do not know how science works when it comes to stuff like this.  See, this is the problem with people like me:  the argument from authority doesn't work with us.  We don't care where you've done it if you aren't doing it on the subject we are discussing, and by no means are you doing it here.  That is all.  You are not being argued with; you are being lectured at.  "Nothing on my schedule = nothing" could not be further away from how science works.

No the scientist does not believe the unicorn is real.  Who is filling you with the idea that scientists are willing to believe anything that crosses their path?  Part of developing a scientific mind is to be able to make the educated guess as to whether or not that which is put forth is a valid path of exploration.  The scientist will take an inventory of what is known about the topic/object in question and whether there is anything to it.  Scientists are far from being automatic believers.

See what I mean?  The "scientist" is NOT A SCIENTIST! if he responds that way!  He is, in fact, an irrational man.  As we have pointed out many's the time here:  one cannot use the "prove a negative" defense and then boldly assert that the thing isn't real!  If you cannot PROVE it is not...you cannot make the statement.  All the scientist can say about unicorns is:  When you find one, let me know.

 

A scientist would get what I am saying.  Believing the person does not mean asserting that unicorns are real.  It means:  I won't deny your experience.  Just I can't do anything with it unless you give me more than one (note:  ONE) report.

 

(A scientist would also get that thousands of reports, consistent on information otherwise known generally only to primate experts, unequivocally suggests:  primate.  The mainstream attitude toward sasquatch is Exhibit A in the docket against the crippling weaknesses of scientific training.)

Edited June 9, 2015 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

(Forgot Exhibit B:  "the best evidence" has long been on display and is tantamount to proof for anyone paying attention.)

[Cotter]

Negative and here's why.  All one needs to do is look at a few wildlife photos and videos to know that it is indeed possible to have photo evidence that is for all intents and purposes beyond reproach.  There are tens of millions of such photos and each and every day more and more are added.  Bigfoot evidence is nearly 100% questionable and the usual suspects making the usual excuses won't change the state of the art as it stands.  But just as an example here's a photo of a very rare animal.  There are likely less of these in the world than there are bigfoot.  Yet there is nothing ambiguous about this photo it is by all reasonable measure a photo of a real animal.  This is what is so blatantly missing from every single bigfoot research person or group from day one to now.  I can furnish the bigfoot community with fantastic photos of rare animals all day long but what does the bigfoot community offer the as it's evidence?  We know what it offers and at the very best it's fair to midling but the overwhelming bulk of it is embarrassingly poor across the board.  So indeed when the bigfoot community can stand and deliver the caliber of evidence universally seen and done in the documenting of the natural world maybe they will have a case but I'm not holding my breath.

 

 

Hi Crow - no doubt this was taken by a professional photographer after many hours/days/weeks/months in the field, no?  (Open to correction here).

 

Who, within the BF world is doing this?

No the scientist does not believe the unicorn is real.  Who is filling you with the idea that scientists are willing to believe anything that crosses their path?  Part of developing a scientific mind is to be able to make the educated guess as to whether or not that which is put forth is a valid path of exploration.  The scientist will take an inventory of what is known about the topic/object in question and whether there is anything to it.  Scientists are far from being automatic believers.

I would agree, but what the scientist 'knows' and what is disseminated to the public through publications can widely vary depending on political and financial influences.  (I'll cite DDT, Asbestos, Tobacco)

[Guest DWA]

There's an obvious reason we get photos of wild snow leopards:  people are funded to do full-time research into the animal, by numerous institutions on several continents, because everybody is in agreement that the animal exists, and they all share tricks of the trade.  

 

Snow leopard would be more elusive than sasquatch, were the only people doing research doing it on their vacation time with their personal funds.

 

Crow will no doubt inveigh against this "excuse."  Bigfoot skeptics use that fact=excuse dodge waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy too much for me.

[BobbyO]

The skeptics/non believer community is accused of being narrow minded and unwilling to grasp or appreciate the evidence for bigfoot's existence.  There are reams and reams of older evidence such as the PGF but consider this a request for up to date evidence.  Many claim to possess excellent recent evidence and that is the thrust of this post.  Excellent evidence of the past five years.  Photos and videos with explanations.  Simple reportage can be saved for the reports threads.

Crow, I think you're missing the point in this whole thing big time.

I don't know where you get the impression that "many" claim to possess excellent recent evidence on this subject, I haven't personally read anyone saying that and I'd bet I read more about this subject than you.

But also, this evidence business and the lack of it is what I believe you're missing.

Sightings are generally, more often than not, fleeting glimpses of these things.

I don't know why anyone would think that unqualified, self funded people would gather evidence on an animal that even your own government publicly declare knows nothing about.

You're not being fair.

[Guest DWA]

Bigfoot skepticism is not about fair.  It is about smugness until proven wrong...and knowing the whole time after they're proven wrong.  Or, actually, more likely:  I was right before, so stop dancing on my head!  As if the animal didn't exist before it was proven.  Watch.  Oh, we'll get to see it, I guarantee.

Edited June 9, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

There's an obvious reason we get photos of wild snow leopards:  people are funded to do full-time research into the animal, by numerous institutions on several continents, because everybody is in agreement that the animal exists, and they all share tricks of the trade.  

 

Snow leopard would be more elusive than sasquatch, were the only people doing research doing it on their vacation time with their personal funds.

 

Crow will no doubt inveigh against this "excuse."  Bigfoot skeptics use that fact=excuse dodge waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy too much for me.

So far a great many places where bigfoot is reported is not all that far out in no man's land.  You don't have to travel to a foreign country to find bigfoot either.  I see researchers using some expensive cameras and gear not having funding is a poor excuse.  I can furnish you with 10,000 great photos of wildlife taken by people from all walks of life and income.  The whole thing is taking photos of real subjects clearly and not having to fudge photos to death so the obvious fakeness won't immediately show.  Of course the almost stylized formula bigfoot photos are shot with is no cause for questioning the reality of the shot.

Bigfoot skepticism is not about fair.  It is about smugness until proven wrong...and knowing the whole time after they're proven wrong.  Or, actually, more likely:  I was right before, so stop dancing on my head!  As if the animal didn't exist before it was proven.  Watch.  Oh, we'll get to see it, I guarantee.

Of course the fact that bigfootism is laced with hoaxes,  riddled with charlatans and real science won't go near it has nothing to do with how some skeptics might come across?  

[Guest DWA]

"Real science" is getting near it.  Meldrum.  Krantz.  Bindernagel.  Mionczynski.  Schaller.  Goodall.  What is staying away from it are people who aren't paying attention.

 

You're still not addressing why we have photos of accepted species.  But that's OK.  Refer back to my post.  

 

If an animal is not habituated to humans:  forget ever getting a clear photo of it unless you are a professional spending most of your time in the field.  Period.

(I should add:  spending *all* that time looking *specifically for that animal.*)

[Guest Crowlogic]

Hi Crow - no doubt this was taken by a professional photographer after many hours/days/weeks/months in the field, no?  (Open to correction here).

 

Who, within the BF world is doing this?

I would agree, but what the scientist 'knows' and what is disseminated to the public through publications can widely vary depending on political and financial influences.  (I'll cite DDT, Asbestos, Tobacco)

The Rocky Mountain Sasquatch Organization could.

[Guest Crowlogic]

"Real science" is getting near it.  Meldrum.  Krantz.  Bindernagel.  Mionczynski.  Schaller.  Goodall.  What is staying away from it are people who aren't paying attention.

 

You're still not addressing why we have photos of accepted species.  But that's OK.  Refer back to my post.  

 

If an animal is not habituated to humans:  forget ever getting a clear photo of it unless you are a professional spending most of your time in the field.  Period.

(I should add:  spending *all* that time looking *specifically for that animal.*)

As I understand it some groups are doing extended field observations.  I don't care what it is being hunted.  Any person or group that has made a specific study of a specific location is better than able to come up with the goods.  The idea that bigfoot is so haphazard in it's behavior that it defies all rational by the smartest brain on the planet is nonsensical.  Every living thing has a pattern to it's life and the bigfoot game is over half a century old.  So nothing has been figured out?  Not a time a season or a food stuff?  What are you guys doing out there playing poker?  Sure bigfoot is to smart, too stealthy, too quiet too wary and too unpredictable for humans to actually understand and corner.  

"Real science" is getting near it.  Meldrum.  Krantz.  Bindernagel.  Mionczynski.  Schaller.  Goodall.  What is staying away from it are people who aren't paying attention.

 

You're still not addressing why we have photos of accepted species.  But that's OK.  Refer back to my post.  

 

If an animal is not habituated to humans:  forget ever getting a clear photo of it unless you are a professional spending most of your time in the field.  Period.

(I should add:  spending *all* that time looking *specifically for that animal.*)

Real animals will yield real photos.  Not real animals will yield faked photos.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

There's no time to turn on a camera when sightings last only a few seconds, but to put things in perspective, it took the NAWAC years of research to finally get a visual sighting of one and they're in a location where there's likely a good population of these things. This idea that you can just walk into the woods and get pictures of these animals is laughable. If only it were that easy.

 

 

[MarkGlasgow]

So remind us again Crow....

Folks that believe in BF are wasting their time NOT because this creature NEVER existed but in fact became extinct very recently.

This is your own theory right? You tend not to dwell on this aspect much these days. Far too busy telling us all how stupid we are...

[Guest Crowlogic]

So remind us again Crow....

Folks that believe in BF are wasting their time NOT because this creature NEVER existed but in fact became extinct very recently.

This is your own theory right? You tend not to dwell on this aspect much these days. Far too busy telling us all how stupid we are...

Extinction post PGF is the only way the PGF can be held up as real.  It is one film in half a century with nothing coming close after it.  It is a genuine enigma.  But as time has passed and the diminishing return of credible evidence set the stage for my rethinking of the issue.  Perhaps the PGF was real but it's not exactly in good company.  T Rex was real and it's not here now.  Bigfoot could have been real but it's not here now so does the reason for it's absence matter?  Folks that believe in bigfoot are not wasting their time assuming the belief is giving them some sort of gratification.  I don't feel any worse for abandoning belief, feel and believe however you like it;'s you belief system not mine.

There's no time to turn on a camera when sightings last only a few seconds, but to put things in perspective, it took the NAWAC years of research to finally get a visual sighting of one and they're in a location where there's likely a good population of these things. This idea that you can just walk into the woods and get pictures of these animals is laughable. If only it were that easy.

Well it seems then that Roger Patterson is the hoaxer since his film is not a fleeting glimpse.  Who is kidding who?

[Squatchy McSquatch]

There's no time to turn on a camera when sightings last only a few seconds, but to put things in perspective, it took the NAWAC years of research to finally get a visual sighting of one and they're in a location where there's likely a good population of these things. This idea that you can just walk into the woods and get pictures of these animals is laughable. If only it were that easy.

 

Patterson and Gimlin walked into the woods  and got film.

 

Laughable, I agree.

[MIB]

Extinction post PGF is the only way the PGF can be held up as real. 

 

Patently untrue. 

 

I hold it up as real.  I do not accept extinction since I saw one as recently as 2013.

 

You simply do not know what you are talking about and continue to blindly assert falsehoods.

 

MIB