A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Guest DWA]

and the "no evidence" is drooling-on-bib bad, man.  How many times have you been lectured on that one.

Come on, guys.  You are way way beyond deadline to *make this interesting.*  I at least have something to talk about.

This is plain ol' garden variety science, the way it always happens.  When the proof comes in ...99% of the mainstream doesn't know it.  It happens *all the time.*

[roguefooter]

I want to believe as much as the next guy, but what you're pushing DWA is just fantasy. There is nothing verifiable at all about Bigfoot, and saying so on the internet 1000 times doesn't make it any more credible.

 

If there were substance to any of it then it would already be verified, rather than a bunch of guys sitting on the net blaming science, scientists, skeptics, and everybody else for why Bigfoot isn't accepted as real. There is so much failure in this field that I think people reach a point that they start trying to convince themselves that it all has value.

[Guest]

Science is not unfailing is it?

 

Has science discovered a cure for HIV?

 

Science is failure because of its highly competitive nature and its need to publish or republish others works thereby less thought oriented and motivated more for production. This need to publish works is so demanding some may equate it to a quota system much the same as some believe a police officer practices. Another commonly overlooked explanation for failure in science is special interest groups and its influence on findings. When you publish or state results that are received positively money flows and when you go against the grain it stops and scientist publish something not acceptable or received well by their peers and powers to be they become hungry again, a  process keenly familiar to Pavlov.  Pavolov’s classical stimulation (CS) dog theory demonstrated how dogs or living beings can be taught or conditioned through stimulation to react a certain way through reward as illustrated in science failures.  - Just Saying!

 

Edited July 9, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Faenor]

Holy smokes guy way to throw all the scientists and physicians in aids/hiv research under the bus. Sorry they only turned a certain fatal disease into a chronic one easily managed through medication within a generation. Are you also upset at the sky when it rains?

Scientists gotta eat they work where the moneys at otherwise they don't work. Don't blame scientists for the lack of funded bigfoot research blame your politicians, corporations, voting public, and whoever else is doling money out for research grants.

[Guest]

Sure they have to eat so does every living being, I think. The point being as long as there is human involvement there will always be errors and infallibility – even in science and yes, Bigfootology too! But we don’t stop with failure, we (collectively speaking) push on until we get it right!

 

“Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new." – Albert Einstein

 

 

Edited July 9, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

In the case of bigfoot the method always ends in nothing.  Sure retest that hog hair 10,000 times it'll still be hog hair.

 

Perhaps it's hog hair because it IS hog hair.

 

I know there are factions within the BF community that BF is a hominid or BF is an ape or BF is an ape-human hybrid. What if the reason that BF hair tests out as human is because BF is 'human'? Gigantism and hereditary hirsutism have all be medically documented in humans. There's even that family of "hand walkers".

 

So a serious scientist wouldn't look at the hair DNA analysis and say "nope. Big Foot doesn't exist!" A serious scientist would go back to make sure this was indeed "contamination", especially now when we're able to figure out the racial/ethnic heritage based on DNA (if you want "proof" of that I refer you to the PBS website where you can read how Henry Louis Gates uses that technology.) and compare it to the DNA of the collectors and local inhabitants.

^The non-existent fossil record is really all a scientist would need to counter the Bigfoot claims. We're talking about a creature that is supposed to have existed for the past how many millions of years, and is still in existence today in numbers.

 

How long does it take bone to fossilize? From my understanding of "fossilization", the minerals in the bones are replaced with minerals in the surrounding soil, almost in a process similar to metamorphic rock formation. Which means factors such as the soil (mineral composition, acidity, etc.)  and the environment of the area (temperature, humidity, etc.) have to be taken into account.  If these stars are not aligned properly, bone will degrade into its mineral components and be integrated into the surrounding soil with the end result of no fossil formation.

[Guest DWA]

I want to do science and discuss it with people as much as the next guy, but what you and roguefooter are pushing is just fantasy.

 

Please read up.

This is one of very few topics I am aware of in which one side gets to declare victory by claiming that published evidence, which is publicly available information, doesn't exist.

 

Guys.  The fantasy is that bigfoot is a fantasy.  The evidence says otherwise, and it says it pretty convincingly.

[Old Dog]

Some of you guys are just letting the trolls wind you up.  They come here to get under your skin, and you let them.  The internet has created a whole host of these types of personalities since you can post anything you want with no face to face repercussions.  They can insult and cajole you to their heart content and you can do one of two things.  You can make it mean something and respond to their troll baiting, or you can just ignore them and not feed their narcissistic and dramatic desires.  The choice is yours.  Either play into their schemes or walk away from them.  They can't argue if you refuse to play along.  

 

Two quotes we should always keep in mind when dealing with the trolls.

 

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." ~ Mark Twain

 

"Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ~ George Carlin

 

Then there is always the pigeon chess analogy, which I find particularly appropriate.

 

At any rate, this post has devolved into finger pointing and insults, so it has essentially ran it's predictable course, which should surprise no one.

[Guest DWA]

Naaaaaah, I just bash back because it's fun.  When it comes down to it, one thing bigfoot skeptics don't get is that we're all fools on this bus.

 

Besides which.  I use threads like this one to get it out.  (Plus which, if one reads my posts and wants to know how to think about this, there's a lot of information in there along with the I'm-just-gonna-do this.)

 

I've promised myself that any posts by these folks that show up on threads legitimately discussing evidence get reported, from now on.

 

So gotta get my mindless fun somewhere.  Think of it as a playground.  Think of it as empty calories...that don't count.

[SWWASAS]

You didn't need to read the entire thread. The links and answers to all of your concerns were 1 page before you made the accusation. Is that too much research for you?  How about simply asking me about it before jumping to conclusions of hoaxing? You couldn't even do that. That's how much effort you put into this.

 

 

 

Beerhunter posted the original photoshopped picture as evidence, and he's a proponent. No credits were given for it. Did anybody call him a hoaxer? Nope. We all asked him multiple times about the backstory and source of the photo, even though he never responded. If you had read the thread you would know that.

 

 

 

Research is simple investigating. It's a basic part of debate and making claims. It applies to all areas of this field including this forum.

 

There's no mystery or question to it.

 

 

You might want to look into copyright Fair Use pertaining to educational, research, non-commercial, or scholarly activities. I can post any photo on this forum and not violate any copyright. 

 

You're really stretching here for excuses.

The question of  existence is not going to be found picking apart statements made by proponents.   That seems to be your idea of research.   You can discredit everyone on this forum and the person who gets off his butt and goes into the field is the only one who can ever answer that question.     I hope it is someone here that I know who does the field work that proves you wrong.    I don't need excuses.      I only post pictures that I have taken so I don't have to research the rules about copyright.        But I suppose a skeptic has a quandary trying to find something to photograph to prove something does not exist.    You might try blank white paper.   For heaven sakes don't  take any pictures in the woods.     If you go there you might have an encounter, or accidently take a picture of a BF peeking around a tree at you.

Edited July 9, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest DWA]

^^^That, pretty much.  Bigfoot skeptics are insisting on doing this from an armchair, which has not the most spectacular history in terms of results.

 

What we have here is an animal that is pretty much proven.  I mean, we have more evidence for bigfoot than we do for any dinosaur...and far more than we do for many living species we accept.  As an astute scientist put it:  we rely on fossils, including fossil footprints, which are really the same kind of evidence as the footprints we have for yeti and sasquatch.  The only significant difference is the skeptics' reliance on hoaxing as the blanket explanation...which doesn't explain *any* of the trackways for which any reasonable person, presented with the facts, would rule out hoaxing, or known animals, as reasonable explanations.

 

Then we have thousands of people's sightings, which metronomically repeat guidebook-consistent physical and behavioral characters known to be standard-issue primate signatures only to specialists in the field.  Which skeptics discount because scientists aren't having the sightings - which, um, they are - and ignore, in doing that, that we rely all the time on the things seen by people who aren't scientists.

 

Then there is a film that could not link the footprints and sightings more beautifully than it does.

 

Proven.  Before that, nothing skeptics say amounts to any more than chaff on the wind.  It's just that most people don't understand that science is almost always this way; proof comes long before it's acknowledged.

[LeafTalker]

Some of you guys are just letting the trolls wind you up.  They come here to get under your skin, and you let them.  The internet has created a whole host of these types of personalities since you can post anything you want with no face to face repercussions.  They can insult and cajole you to their heart content and you can do one of two things.  You can make it mean something and respond to their troll baiting, or you can just ignore them and not feed their narcissistic and dramatic desires.  The choice is yours.  Either play into their schemes or walk away from them.  They can't argue if you refuse to play along.  

I have a lot of sympathy with Old Dog’s point of view.

 

I would miss the spirited, intelligent, and funny posts of people like DWA, Gumshoeye, and SWWASP, however, if they stopped responding to the -- how do I say this politely? --  disingenuous people. (And my apologies to any other funny, intelligent people I’ve neglected to mention. I don’t follow these threads very closely, so I’m sure I’m overlooking many very valuable contributors.)

 

So I would suggest a compromise.  Like Old Dog, I would suggest that people not respond to disingenuous people. I would recommend, however, responding to others who show they’re on the same wavelength. Keep the thread going, but talk to people who “get itâ€. Anyone who doesn’t quite get it (yet) will be listening in and strengthening their understanding. And the rest of us will still get to enjoy the delight that DWA and others take in science, learning, and good conversation.  

 

 

(DWA, loved your most recent comment on all this.) (Oops, the one before the most recent one -- although I liked the most recent one, too. You're too quick for me!!!)  

Edited July 9, 2015 by LeafTalker

[Guest DWA]

The only thing a body will do is show us that we were there long ago.

I have a lot of sympathy with Old Dog’s point of view.

 

As do I.  And I think that as I said...that's no fun!  I claim no rational reasoned reason for pounding on people who think they're here to teach the ignorant a lesson...and demonstrate that they don't know who those are.

 

So I would suggest a compromise.  Like Old Dog, I would suggest that people not respond to disingenuous people. I would recommend, however, responding to others who show they’re on the same wavelength. Keep the thread going, but talk to people who “get itâ€. Anyone who doesn’t quite get it will be listening in and strengthening their understanding. And the rest of us will still get to enjoy the delight that DWA and others take in science, learning, and good conversation.  

 

I have actually said here, many times, that I only use the denial-birds as intellectual tackling dummies; the ones I am really addressing are the budding scientists dipping their toes in the field, who need the intellectual fiber to assert what *science* is saying about this, versus what *people not paying attention* are.  But another reasoned voice never hurts, Leaf.     

 

(DWA, loved your most recent comment on all this.) (Oops, the one before the most recent one -- although I liked the most recent one, too. You're too quick for me!!!)  

 

Well, I always appreciate people who are open to learning more.  Because that is, really, *science.*

[LeafTalker]

[SWWASAS]

Leaftalker,  thank for saying that and but strange you would make that comment this morning.    I was just commenting in PM that if I had any sense I would, like so many others have, just leave the forum.     I take no pleasure in arguing or being some sort of skeptic punching bag.    I do enjoy sharing information with other field researchers.    At this point I am holding very little back including locations where I have done field work.   What Old Dog says about trolls makes good sense but there seems to be little member support in dealing with it.