Merged Bigfoot follies

[erikbeckjord]

lu-woo again

It's possible I'm not very objective at times; I just think I am. I've accepted these animals as real for so long it doesn't always occur to me there might be some doubt. I find it remarkable not everyone knows they exist!

Reply: I know they exist, but not the way you normal folks (mundane) folks think. If Lu-Woo did any real field work for long, she would see the para side. But she is not a researcher. Just a biased observer of what others do and write.

 

[erikbeckjord]

for odd emp.

I don’t think there’s any direct evidence for racial or “species memories.” That’s more of a feeling of mine, it’s not scientific or objective.



I don’t think anyone *knows* they exist. At least no one of any consequence in the scientific community. People should reserve judgment until the facts are in, I do but that’s why I’m the Odd Emperor.

I’m sure many Bigfoot researchers believe the things are animals (as apposed to hoaxes or Mr. B’s weird phantoms.) A biologist or someone like Goodall can say that the issue needs more study but I have problems believing people can reach conclusions based on such weak evidence, even mounds of weak evidence.



I hear you. It’s often not possible to have a rational discussion with people regarding things they have a deep emotional attachment. Even my stance which is essentially “wait-wait, don’t jump to conclusions” is thought of as heretical. Most people would rather give up a limb than part with a deep conviction.



You may have had an experience that has convinced you. It’s as unfair for you to think someone else is going to be swayed by your experiences as it would be unfair for me to tell you it was all your imagination.

I really *don’t* think it can all be explained as a hoax, some of it surely but not all.

reply: really no point in discussing this at all with non-researchers. And skeptix who are butt-stupid.

 

[The Odd Emperor]

Odd Emperor -- most people lead boring lives, and "productive" means getting money and watching twatching tv, and eating many meals and getting fired before retirement and then more tv, and drinking beer, and then having kids who do the same and then dying. NO BIG DEAL, MOST PEOPLE;S LIVES.... DO NOTHING, ACCOMPLISH NOTHING, ACT AS CONSUMERS AND OCCUPY SPACE.


Life's a bitch, then you die. SO DO SOMETHING INTEReSTING, like me.

Mr. Erikbeckjord; I have done interesting things. Many of which you cannot imagine. I’ve already lived a very full and satisfying life. I like what I do, I enjoy the company I keep. I have been many places around the world and have met thousands of fascinating people.

What I have not done is systematically deceive others into believing I’m someone that I’m not. Another thing I have not done is engaged in a form of self deception, believing that *I’m* someone that I am not.

Can you say the same? The evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[The Odd Emperor]

Re: for odd emp.

reply: really no point in discussing this at all with non-researchers. And skeptix who are butt-stupid.

Mr. Erikbeckjord Sir! I find it easy to discuss things with (as you say in your eminently quaint manner “the butt stupid.”) Discussions with knowledgeable—intelligent people? That can be a challenging at times, I can understand your reluctance.

Since you have seen fit to challenge the people on this board regarding their opinions verses your, er…. whatever it is you base your convictions on, I ask you this.

As a “researcher” (Meaning apparently “one who camps in the woods.”) Do you have any evidence that might sway a “non researcher?” (I.E. “one who thinks camping in the woods does not automatically make one a researcher.”)

Do you have anything at all or are you just going to continue to shout at people here?

 

[LAL]

I don’t think anyone *knows* they exist. At least no one of any consequence in the scientific community. People should reserve judgment until the facts are in, I do but that’s why I’m the Odd Emperor.

Swindler's stature was huge.

I’m sure many Bigfoot researchers believe the things are animals (as apposed to hoaxes or Mr. B’s weird phantoms.) A biologist or someone like Goodall can say that the issue needs more study but I have problems believing people can reach conclusions based on such weak evidence, even mounds of weak evidence.

And that's where we differ. I don't think it's weak. There was enough evidence to warrant a full-scale scientific investigation in 1958, IMO.

Still waiting.

I hear you. It’s often not possible to have a rational discussion with people regarding things they have a deep emotional attachment. Even my stance which is essentially “wait-wait, don’t jump to conclusions” is thought of as heretical. Most people would rather give up a limb than part with a deep conviction.

I'm a little tired of waiting, frankly, but then I jumped to my conclusion 37 years ago.

You may have had an experience that has convinced you. It’s as unfair for you to think someone else is going to be swayed by your experiences as it would be unfair for me to tell you it was all your imagination.

I really *don’t* think it can all be explained as a hoax, some of it surely but not all.

There have been hoaxes, but they don't explain any of the best evidence.

I didn't need convincing really. I read Green, it made sense, especially the part about the parasites found in scat that were only known from people and pigs in SE china. I know nothing more about this.
On the heels of the little reading I was able to do came the story in the Columbian on the Cox sighting a few miles from our land. It could have been on the land. Wow! I saw the double trackway in a movie years later, with Ed. Wow again! I knew Ed.

That's as close as I've been to an experience. If I'd seen one I would have been subjected to ridicule and would quickly have learned not to tell anyone about it rather than try to sway them.

When there was nothing more (that I heard about) for many years, I had some doubts, but then I met Peter Bryne and found out much had gone on. I just didn't know about it.

I think that's part of the problem. The information is there, but it takes some digging to find it. Not that many people are willing to dig.

A recent incident in the town I live in made national news. Meetings were held, action taken, preacher resigned.

The Manitoba sighting made the Winnipeg News. And A Current Affair.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You keep dropping names that have respect in the scientific community, yet keep ignoring the scientific process..


What's up with that ?

 

[The Odd Emperor]

And that's where we differ. I don't think it's weak. There was enough evidence to warrant a full-scale scientific investigation in 1958, IMO.

Eh? We differ there?

I think there should be an investigation too. But be mindful that an investigation which finds nothing conclusive resets the affair to it’s default position, that of a sociological phenomena or a myth. Where we seem to differ is my conviction that we should allow the evidence to drive the investigation, and yours that we already know the conclusion—we merely need to find evidence to support it. That my friend is a very big difference indeed.

I'm a little tired of waiting, frankly, but then I jumped to my conclusion 37 years ago.

I’m rather sorry to hear that. You see, when one reaches a conclusion before examining all relevant date they tend to filter information in favor of the conclusion. That’s why I feel it’s important to have an open mind in such matters.

There have been hoaxes, but they don't explain any of the best evidence.

I didn't need convincing really. I read Green, it made sense, especially the part about the parasites found in scat that were only known from people and pigs in SE china. I know nothing more about this.
On the heels of the little reading I was able to do came the story in the Columbian on the Cox sighting a few miles from our land. It could have been on the land. Wow! I saw the double trackway in a movie years later, with Ed. Wow again! I knew Ed.

That's as close as I've been to an experience. If I'd seen one I would have been subjected to ridicule and would quickly have learned not to tell anyone about it rather than try to sway them.

When there was nothing more (that I heard about) for many years, I had some doubts, but then I met Peter Bryne and found out much had gone on. I just didn't know about it.

I think that's part of the problem. The information is there, but it takes some digging to find it. Not that many people are willing to dig.

A recent incident in the town I live in made national news. Meetings were held, action taken, preacher resigned.

The Manitoba sighting made the Winnipeg News. And A Current Affair.

Seems like an opportunity. If mega-fauna such as Bigfoot really roams the US Northwest it will be found. It’s not possible to hide the many thousands it would take to sustain a breeding population. Animals do not have magic powers. Human imagination; that is where the magic resides.

 

[LAL]

You keep dropping names that have respect in the scientific community, yet keep ignoring the scientific process..


What's up with that ?

I'm not sure I know what you mean by that.

I'm dropping opinions of some well-respected scientists who found some of the evidence to be compelling and think further investigation is warranted. Am I in a position to head up such an investigation? No.

Do I think it's long overdue? Oh, yeah.

 

[LAL]

Eh? We differ there?

I think there should be an investigation too. But be mindful that an investigation which finds nothing conclusive resets the affair to it’s default position, that of a sociological phenomena or a myth. Where we seem to differ is my conviction that we should allow the evidence to drive the investigation, and yours that we already know the conclusion—we merely need to find evidence to support it. That my friend is a very big difference indeed.

I don't think the default position should be that it's a myth. There's been hard evidence for decades. Of course the evidence should drive the conclusion, and if it can be proved all that evidence has been faked, I'll retract in a heartbeat.

But we're looking at a lot of different incidents here. If an investigation shows the tracks photographed in California in April were faked, e.g., that doesn't mean events in Manitoba were faked as well. Little girls see one but a scientist wouldn't be able to?

There were tracks of three individuals in the Bluff Creek area prior to Patterson and Gimlin getting the film. Noll observed tracks of an adult and two juveniles in the area where the Skookum Cast was obtained. Bobby Clarke saw tracks before he got the video at Nelson Creek.

Now, how difficult is this?

Finding nothing wouldn't prove they don't exist; only that the expedition didn't find anything. But if amateurs can bring in casts and film, why wouldn't a team of scientists be able to do the same in a *hot* area?

Heck, the government had Project Bluebook, why not Project Bigfoot? I know, I know, they wanted to avert a national panic over UFO sightings, but it shouldn't be hard to convince this administration Sasquatches are a threat to national security and need to be rounded up and given cards. (I'm being facetious, of course.)

I’m rather sorry to hear that. You see, when one reaches a conclusion before examining all relevant date they tend to filter information in favor of the conclusion. That’s why I feel it’s important to have an open mind in such matters.

I reached my conclusion based on evidence available at the time. No one's come up with any proof any of that was faked, to my knowlege. There's been a mountain added since.

I've read the sceptical side, too, and find those arguments about as compelling as the ICR's. I'm reading Long now and am wondering why anyone would put any stock in DeAtley's opinion. There's a couple of pages of DeAtley not remembering much followed by DeAtley saying he never believed in Bigfoot, but he did believe in God. He says the "big-shot scientists" at Yerkes bought it "hook, line and sinker", and DeAtley (Roger's brother-in-law) decided to "quit believing again" (he didn't mind making money off the film). Roger was "artistic", so he could have built a suit.
Therefore, the PGF was a hoax. Geez.

I think Long did a marvelous job of illustrating your point above.

Seems like an opportunity. If mega-fauna such as Bigfoot really roams the US Northwest it will be found. It’s not possible to hide the many thousands it would take to sustain a breeding population. Animals do not have magic powers. Human imagination; that is where the magic resides.

They have been found, just not in a scientific sort of way. Evidently they're not confined to the PNW. The evidence is best from the Northwest, though.
The estimated 2000-6000 in North America is more than enough for a breeding population.

So, with some scientific interest and thousands of people wanting answers, why are we still waiting?

 

[The Odd Emperor]

I don't think the default position should be that it's a myth. There's been hard evidence for decades. Of course the evidence should drive the conclusion, and if it can be proved all that evidence has been faked, I'll retract in a heartbeat.

It must be the default position. You have to prove that such a fantastic thing as Bigfoot exists, not prove that it doesn’t exist. Why is it fantastic? Because we don’t have one in a zoo, no one has ever done a behavioral study or even taken a good photo of one. Ergo—Bigfoot probably does not exist.

That needs to be a starting point or (I truly hate to say this,) one will be approaching the problem unscientifically, with pre-conceived notions of the thing's existence when the evidence suggests that it does not exist.

And BTW, you can *never* prove that *all* the evidence was faked--you know that!. This to my way of thinking is an absurd argument. Just as absurd as if I said “Bigfoot is just a lot of bigbunk.” Note that I never say that. I do think it’s *probably* a myth but that also makes it *possibly real.*

But we're looking at a lot of different incidents here. If an investigation shows the tracks photographed in California in April were faked, e.g., that doesn't mean events in Manitoba were faked as well. Little girls see one but a scientist wouldn't be able to?

Happens all the time. Little girls, little boys imagine things. Using science a person can filter the noise out of the data but, once again; eye witness data is probably the worst kind of “evidence.”

There were tracks of three individuals in the Bluff Creek area prior to Patterson and Gimlin getting the film. Noll observed tracks of an adult and two juveniles in the area where the Skookum Cast was obtained. Bobby Clarke saw tracks before he got the video at Nelson Creek.

So? One mistake in dealing with this stuff is continually presenting one incident after another in rapid succession which somehow lends credence to the core argument. That of “I believe Bigfoot is a real—living creature.”

Once again, I don’t care if Mr. Green knocks on my door and shouts “you must believe in Bigfoot.” I don’t care if Carl Sagan sends me an email from the great beyond (I would be amazed though.)

Zoology is a very well established science, it has specific rules for the classification of a new animal. Can you tell me how Bigfoot fulfills the criteria? RE http://www.answers.com/topic/international-code-of-zoological-nomenclature

Now, how difficult is this?

Finding nothing wouldn't prove they don't exist; only that the expedition didn't find anything. But if amateurs can bring in casts and film, why wouldn't a team of scientists be able to do the same in a *hot* area

Apparently it’s very difficult because, according to the expedition write-ups they brought in little hard data and a lot of unsubstantial stuff. What film? There seem to be about three films and *all* of them are questionable.

Heck, the government had Project Bluebook, why not Project Bigfoot? I know, I know, they wanted to avert a national panic over UFO sightings, but it shouldn't be hard to convince this administration Sasquatches are a threat to national security and need to be rounded up and given cards. (I'm being facetious, of course.)

...really?

Project Bluebook was never about studying UFOs. It was about quashing news reports. The USAF has a vested interest in keeping the public believing that the skies belong to them. In reality it’s impossible to own even a small section of the sky, they didn’t want the public to think that strange alien craft were flying around with impunity so they allegedly created a PR office to go around and tell people they saw Venus.

As a matter of fact most UFO sightings *are* of Venus, some are not. And some, very few seem to have external sources. Like Bigfoot, UFOs are one those sticky, irritating problems that keeps cropping up but can seemingly never be defined.

I reached my conclusion based on evidence available at the time. No one's come up with any proof any of that was faked, to my knowlege. There's been a mountain added since.

Doesn’t make it real and a mountain of poor evidence is no better than a smidgen of poor evidence. One piece of good evidence is much better than any amount of poor evidence.

I have good evidence that Bigfoot is a myth, go to your local Zoo, see any Bigfoots? Browse your local public library, see Bigfoot classified in a conventional zoological text? See any papers on long term studies (re, Goodall’s chimp studies.) See any good photographs?

Absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence. The thing does not exist by default, it is non-existent by default. I’m sorry it must be so or you will find yourself literally chasing ghosts.

I've read the sceptical side, too, and find those arguments about as compelling as the ICR's. I'm reading Long now and am wondering why anyone would put any stock in DeAtley's opinion. There's a couple of pages of DeAtley not remembering much followed by DeAtley saying he never believed in Bigfoot, but he did believe in God. He says the "big-shot scientists" at Yerkes bought it "hook, line and sinker", and DeAtley (Roger's brother-in-law) decided to "quit believing again" (he didn't mind making money off the film). Roger was "artistic", so he could have built a suit.
Therefore, the PGF was a hoax. Geez.

I think Long did a marvelous job of illustrating your point above.

Just a question and I don’t mean to be snooty sounding but; do you have an opinion or do you simply base a belief system on what you read?

I really think it’s essential to stop believing and start looking for real. Believing is easy, you don’t have to look for evidence, just arguments to support the belief. What fun is that?

I too have read lots of books on this subject. My opinion is based partly on that, partly on my own fascination with the sociological ramifications of the issue and partly from my own experences. (it seems related to lots of other “fortean” stuff.) Also, I have a conviction that there is something to it but I think it’s not possible to reach a conclusion at this time.

I’m also interested in belief systems and why people so readily buy into such things, fascinating stuff!

They have been found, just not in a scientific sort of way. Evidently they're not confined to the PNW. The evidence is best from the Northwest, though.
The estimated 2000-6000 in North America is more than enough for a breeding population.

So, with some scientific interest and thousands of people wanting answers, why are we still waiting?

Because (in order of probability.)
1) It’s a combination myth, hoax, some odd sociological phenomena and mistaken identity.
2) It has an external—non human cause using a process unknown to science (BF not an animal but an illusion.) Re- geological or other exotic triggers for the UFO phenomena up to an including *non-human intelligent sources* however that possibility is at the bottom of the sub-list. The illusions tend to have strong emotional components and run the gamut of human senses (RE, they can smell bad.)
3) It’s an unknown corporeal animal that has somehow managed to elude capture or being shot after over 100 years of US/European encroachment of its territory. It has the ability to hide itself so exquisitely that it exists along side humanity, seldom noticed. When it is noticed it reveals itself to be huge creature, like the size of a moose with a very notable stench.

Note that according to this list (which is simply my opinion, take it or leave it.) the most probable cause is the most difficult to quantify. That’s why I think bringing in some good data, photographic or a physical specimen is the only evidence that can be compelling. Even scat or hair samples, what good are they without the creature that produced them?

 

[LAL]

It must be the default position. You have to prove that such a fantastic thing as Bigfoot exists, not prove that it doesn’t exist. Why is it fantastic? Because we don’t have one in a zoo, no one has ever done a behavioral study or even taken a good photo of one. Ergo—Bigfoot probably does not exist.

Dr. John Bindernagle in effect has done a behavioral study on them based on interviews, reports and physical evidence. He got interested when he discovered a trackway himself. He's a wildlife biologist. They seem to take this more seriously in Canada, with the possible exception of the RCMP.

I think the Patterson film is good. It is certainly is good enough to show that's no man in a suit, except for those who believe they cannot exist, therefore they don't exist, therefore it must be a man in a suit.

Ergo, they do exist, but the photos taken of them so far have not been as good as we'd like.

That needs to be a starting point or (I truly hate to say this,) one will be approaching the problem unscientifically, with pre-conceived notions of the thing's existence when the evidence suggests that it does not exist.

What evidence suggests they do not exist?
The starting point has been physical evidence. Some has been taken to scientists for evaluation. Some scientists have paid attention, some have dismissed it. A few have gone on to further investigation. One was a sceptic for thirty years and changed his mind.
I don't know of any that were convinced they exist before they examined the evidence.

And BTW, you can *never* prove that *all* the evidence was faked--you know that!. This to my way of thinking is an absurd argument. Just as absurd as if I said “Bigfoot is just a lot of bigbunk.” Note that I never say that. I do think it’s *probably* a myth but that also makes it *possibly real.*

The incidents that convinced me in the first place should have been easy to debunk. They weren't. And you won't find them in the books. If even one piece of evidence is real, they exist. Therefore, you'd have to debunk it all to convince me, and there are at least a couple of pieces of evidence that have withstood nearly forty years of attempted debunking quite well, thank you.

Most of these incidents get investigated, by law enforcement officers, by newpaper men, occasionally by someone with a PhD and now, members of the BFRO or other organization receiving reports. Why wouldn't it be easy to prove each and every one was a hoax? Some of the older ones were thoroughly investigated and the PGF continues to be scrutinized. Where's the evidence of hoaxing in all these incidents?
Where there have been incidents of hoaxing and claims of hoaxing where there was none, investigation has revealed that. As Meldrum has noted, that's part of the effort.

Happens all the time. Little girls, little boys imagine things. Using science a person can filter the noise out of the data but, once again; eye witness data is probably the worst kind of “evidence.”

They saw a creature like the one on the video and tracks have been found, as well as evidence of feeding. It's always nice when the sighting is backed up by physical evidence. I saw things when I was a little girl. They were always real, although I tried hard to see leprechauns.
I was making a point there.

So? One mistake in dealing with this stuff is continually presenting one incident after another in rapid succession which somehow lends credence to the core argument. That of “I believe Bigfoot is a real—living creature.”

Oh? Why is that a mistake? Many people have heard about the PGF and that's about it. They have no idea of the sheer volume of evidence, therefore they can believe somebody hoaxed something in California because somebody said so and that explains it all.

Once again, I don’t care if Mr. Green knocks on my door and shouts “you must believe in Bigfoot.” I don’t care if Carl Sagan sends me an email from the great beyond (I would be amazed though.)

Zoology is a very well established science, it has specific rules for the classification of a new animal. Can you tell me how Bigfoot fulfills the criteria? RE http://www.answers.com/topic/international-code-of-zoological-nomenclature

Where does it say you have to have a body? And can't you do better than Wikpedia?
They're a hominid by definition, and that's good enough for right now.

Apparently it’s very difficult because, according to the expedition write-ups they brought in little hard data and a lot of unsubstantial stuff. What film? There seem to be about three films and *all* of them are questionable.

You mean Nelson Creek? They did pretty well for a producer, a mad scientist and a chainsaw artist. Where was National Geographic?

There are more than three films. The PGF, MD and Freeman 1994 footage (Freeman was following tracks when he got it) are considered the best.

>snip<

I'm not into anything paranormal and I think delusions always have a physical cause. There may even be a gene responsible for susceptibility to spiritual beliefs.

...It’s an unknown corporeal animal that has somehow managed to elude capture or being shot after over 100 years of US/European encroachment of its territory. It has the ability to hide itself so exquisitely that it exists along side humanity, seldom noticed. When it is noticed it reveals itself to be huge creature, like the size of a moose with a very notable stench.

Note that according to this list (which is simply my opinion, take it or leave it.) the most probable cause is the most difficult to quantify. That’s why I think bringing in some good data, photographic or a physical specimen is the only evidence that can be compelling. Even scat or hair samples, what good are they without the creature that produced them?

That's the only thing on your list that makes any sense, IMO. They're not as large as a moose. Have you seen the size of the trees in the Northwest (at least where the loggers haven't got 'em)? It would be quite easy for them to conceal themselves behind trees. Being bipedal they're automatically camoflaged. In one case what was thought to be a tree crossed the road. In another, the "blobquatch" turned out to be a snag. They're largely noctural and few humans roam the woods at night.

Green has five reports of them being shot. They die just like any other animal. A capture is possible given the right circumstances.

 

[LAL]

Also, you can't see 10' into the brush.

Isn't my opinion clear? The reading reinforces it, but living in Sasquatch country was what really got me into this. A friend of mine from Oregon says it's accepted around Corvallis that they're real.

Now, please present the evidence that they don't exist.

 

[RayG]

Now, please present the evidence that they don't exist.

Not sure how one would go about doing that. (present evidence for something NOT existing, I mean). Show you empty fields? Beaches with no footprints? Photos with nothing in them? Actually, now that I think about it, there are LOTS of ways to show they DON'T exist. (pulls out hairbrush with NO HAIRS).

Stay on track LAL, yer doing ok as long as yer arguments are sound.

RayG

 

[Hitch]

Dr. John Bindernagle in effect has done a behavioral study on them based on interviews, reports and physical evidence. He got interested when he discovered a trackway himself. He's a wildlife biologist. They seem to take this more seriously in Canada, with the possible exception of the RCMP.

Okay, that's a bad way to start. A behavioral study of Bigfoots is like a behavioral study of Martians. As soon as you start making statements like that and using someone who's done such a "study" as your expert, you lose me.

You're still a lot more rational, but you've strayed to close to erikbeckjord territory for me to take seriously.

Think about it. Even being as generous as possible, how much Bigfoot behavior has actually been observed? not hypothesized about, but actually observed? Not enough for any scientist worth his doctorate to base a study on.

 

[UrsulaV]

A friend of mine from Oregon says it's accepted around Corvallis that they're real.

Err...I grew up in Oregon, around Salem, and my husband grew up near Corvallis, and I don't think either one of us ever encountered widespread acceptance that Bigfoot was definitely real. Possibly we missed the memo on this one, I'll grant you, but insomuch as the topic came up, I generally recall something along the lines of "I dunno, I suppose it's possible, but I sorta think somebody'd've hit one with their car before now. Still, more things in heaven and earth, right?" which strikes me as a rather lukewarm "acceptance,"

Of course, there's the classic "There's weird stuff back in those hills!" which was in no way a specific endorsement of Bigfoot, but a general set up for any story from Indian burial grounds to crazed hermits with chainsaws to a secret monastery training ninjas* to our belovedly tacky Oregon Vortex. (Oddly enough, I don't remember any of those stories having Bigfoot in them.) If there was a general acceptance of the existence of Bigfoot in specific, nobody ever talked about it in my hearing.

This does not really constitute weighing in on the Bigfoot debate one way or the other, I'm just saying that I'd treat a blanket statement that these Oregonians accept something as real with...well...skepticism!



*Sadly, I've actually heard this one, in several variations. I'd scoff, but some day someone will come forward with a shaky video of ninjas drinking at a stream, and then will my face be red.

 

[LAL]

Not sure how one would go about doing that. (present evidence for something NOT existing, I mean). Show you empty fields? Beaches with no footprints? Photos with nothing in them? Actually, now that I think about it, there are LOTS of ways to show they DON'T exist. (pulls out hairbrush with NO HAIRS).

Stay on track LAL, yer doing ok as long as yer arguments are sound.

RayG

From Odd Emperor:

"That needs to be a starting point or (I truly hate to say this,) one will be approaching the problem unscientifically, with pre-conceived notions of the thing's existence when the evidence suggests that it does not exist ."

I'm just asking him to present the evidence that suggests they do not exist, that's all.

BTW, it is possible to prove a negative:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html


And here's this on "Sagan's Law":

" Extraordinary Claim? Move the Goal Posts!

A Commentary by Patrick Huyghe
Reprinted from The Anomalist 3


If you've heard it once, no doubt you've heard it a million times. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." That old saw has become the skeptic's number one attack against claims that threaten to overturn their cherished applecarts. And it's a good one, for one simple reason: they're right.

But behind this squabbling over the would-be extraordinary, some rather startling back-room maneuvering may take place. As the arguments fly over what exactly constitutes the necessary proof, there's often some hasty rewriting of the rules of the game. For the would-be extraordinary, for the unorthodox claim on the verge of scientific success, the ground rules are gratefully changed. This practice, often referred to as "Moving the Goal Posts," is an extraordinary phenomenon in itself and deserves recognition.

The phrase evokes an image of the goal posts in, say the endzone of a football game, that are slowly moved to the back of the endzone, or beyond, as one team threatens to score. The other team resorts to cheating by changing the rules of the game in an all out effort to prevent a loss."

http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/claim.html

I'm getting tired. Want to take over for awhile?

 

[LAL]

Err...I grew up in Oregon, around Salem, and my husband grew up near Corvallis, and I don't think either one of us ever encountered widespread acceptance that Bigfoot was definitely real. Possibly we missed the memo on this one, I'll grant you, but insomuch as the topic came up, I generally recall something along the lines of "I dunno, I suppose it's possible, but I sorta think somebody'd've hit one with their car before now. Still, more things in heaven and earth, right?" which strikes me as a rather lukewarm "acceptance,"

I doubt my friend knows everyone in Corvallis.
I was on my way to making a point, but I left before I made it. I should have deleted more. There wasn't "general acceptance" in Stevenson, Washington, either, but then there wasn't agreement all around on who should be President, either.

On this board I'm a minority, usually of one, but on BigfootForums.com (which see) I'm the newbie among the people who have extensive files on this and do their own enhancements.
Some have had sightings. Some are serious researchers. Sceptics (of the scoffing variety) don't seem to last very long over there; their arguments don't hold up.

So the point I was going to make...........seems to have escaped me for the moment. Something about POV, I guess.

 

[LAL]

Okay, that's a bad way to start. A behavioral study of Bigfoots is like a behavioral study of Martians. As soon as you start making statements like that and using someone who's done such a "study" as your expert, you lose me.

You're still a lot more rational, but you've strayed to close to erikbeckjord territory for me to take seriously.

Think about it. Even being as generous as possible, how much Bigfoot behavior has actually been observed? not hypothesized about, but actually observed? Not enough for any scientist worth his doctorate to base a study on.

Have you read the book? You might what to see what he has to say before you make such a statement. Many of the reports mention feeding, so it may be safe to assume they eat what they are seen eating. And there's the throwing behavior; very ape-like, very un-bearlike.

As far as I know, no one has observed the feeding behavior of Martians (or course, if there's a kind of bacteria life on Mars that could happen), but a family of Sasquatches was observed eating "hibernating rodents", which were most likely golden mantled ground squirrels.

From another professional wildlife biologist:

"The author's part-time Sasquatch investigations in the field started in 1973. These were conducted in an unpublicized, low-key manner. More than 200 trips were taken into remote mountain areas, mostly on the western slope of the Oregon Cascades; some time was also expended in the Coast Ranges, Siskiyous and British Columbia. Most Pacific Northwest areas where Sasquatch has been reported have been visited, primarily to determine if here is a discernible pattern of evidence. I have concluded that Sasquatch is a wilderness animal associated with remote, rugged areas, and I have selected evidence that may have value in eventually developing a realistic description of this animal. This paper includes observations of rock piles and pits, examination of torn up stumps and logs, the finding of footprints, and interviews with witnesses."


http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/hewkin.html

How many scientists have actually been out there in the field gathering evidence? If funding were available for a couple of full-time researchers to do the observations, they might be able to do such a study. And publish!

Please don't compare me to Beckjord. The man is seriously mentally ill. Seriously.

 

[LAL]

Oh, don't worry.. The worst 'flame' you will get is something to the effect of "You're not a researcher! You're a child! Have mommy change your dipers!" or some other such witty retort.

He's still suspended. You can have some of the flaming he gave me if you want. I'll be happy to share.

 

[varwoche]

From another professional wildlife biologist: (snip)
http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/hewkin.html

Am I correct to assume that you are not intentionally implying that Thomas is a professional wildlife biologist? From his about page:

My name is Roger Thomas. I'm the subpostmaster at Llanbedr Post Office where I live with my mother and our cat, Felix.

I take it from your post that Thomas references a wildlife biologist? Can you provide a direct link, or a credible click-path to an article? Life is too short and time too precious for me to conduct a scientific inquiry -- any inquiry actually -- via the web site of a random, anonymous bozo.

I will consider Thomas' site, however, for any debates concerning the postal system in Wales.