Skeptic finds 4 year Bigfoot project "intriguing"

[Bells]

You have nothing to remind me about a field you know nothing about. And if bears is all ya got, then you got nothin. Bears don't throw rocks at a cabin over a 4 year period night and day, or knock with sticks on trees, or vocalize like what has been recorded of bigfoot. And as usual you just repeat shit you make up about people you have no knowledge of, slandering them as some sort of profiteers who are only out to make a buck. Slandering people isn't an argument btw. It's a pathetically weak attempt to discredit evidence you obviously have no answer to. Just like your claims of the 6 rescuers who heard that woman's voice, and the photo of that grandmother with her dead husband, you have nothing to offer but groundless and paranoid accusations of fraud and hoaxery. You should probably just quit while you're ahead and admit you have no explanation for any of this. Trained bears, hoaxing farmers, and non-primate Bigfoot species not withstanding. lol!

They have no proof that it was bigfoot. Just a personal belief that it has to be because they believe in bigfoot.

Then of course comes the fact that the people leasing those cabins to them are probably keen to have them return constantly. After all, it is a steady income stream and these people are adding improvements to these cabins.

It has every sign of being a hoax and frankly, of people taking advantage of others.

You have not provided anything that is even remotely close to being conclusive. You have failed completely to show that it could not be something or someone else.

For example, they keep saying they have found blood and hair samples, yet these do not show that it is bigfoot?

What about poo analysis? They haven't found poo samples anywhere where they are camping? What are these showing? Or have they failed to hand those over as well?

It's all well and good to show some tufts of fur and some blood on a rock and claim it is bigfoot, it is something else altogether to provide those samples to real scientific labs for analysis. Museums are often great for these sorts of things, since they will have samples on record with which to compare them to. They are yet to find a single sample to show it is bigfoot.

When you provide links to blogs where the author cannot even get the years of when a so called government conspiracy started, ranging from 31 years to 43 years back, then this is a clear indication that something is amiss and such links you are providing only show a clear sign of absolute paranoia. You are better than to believe in stuff like this.

Scientists would love love love to find a new species of primate. Especially one that could function as a link to our ancestors. That would, in every sense of the word, be the mother of all discoveries of our time in regards to the evolution of primates. However, there is no actual evidence that these exist.

There is also another issue with bigfoot that raises eyebrows. Bigfoot stories exist all over the world. If such a group of hominids or primates existed, one would expect that it would be in a pocket or two in the wilds of one continent or region. Thus far, bigfoot sightings occur all over the world and they all look the same. Which does not make sense. Because the drift that would have occurred if they were spread out around Europe, Asia and up to the Arctic circle, North and South America, Australia, they would look different. Yet they do not. If chimpanzee species existing on the same continent have very obvious differences from their looks, size, mannerisms, societal groupings, then it does not make sense that bigfoot would have remained the same everywhere.

 

[Magical Realist]

Backing off the rock-throwing bear thesis now? Ofcourse you are. Because it was ridiculous. Just more accusations of fraud which you have no evidence for. The evidence I've cited here remains compelling and unrefuted. As for Bigfoot looking the same the world over, no it doesn't. A Bigfoot looks different from a Yeti. A Yeti looks different from a Yowie. A Yowie looks different from a Skunk Ape. And so on. Here, acquaint yourself with the types of these creatures that are sighted the world over.

http://cryptid.hubpages.com/hub/Names-for-Bigfoot-Around-the-World

 

[Kittamaru]

Backing off the rock-throwing bear thesis now? Ofcourse you are. Because it was ridiculous. Just more accusations of fraud which you have no evidence for. The I've cited here evidence remains compelling and unrefuted. As for Bigfoot looking the same the world over, no it doesn't. A Bigfoot looks different from a Yeti. A Yeti looks different from a Yowie. A Yowie looks different from a Skunk Ape. And so on. Here, acquaint yourself with the types of these creatures that are sited the world over.

http://cryptid.hubpages.com/hub/Names-for-Bigfoot-Around-the-World

The idea of a bear throwing rocks is less ridiculous than the idea of a hulking primate-style hominid whos remains mysteriously vanish whenever they die...

 

[Kristoffer]

The idea of a bear throwing rocks is less ridiculous than the idea of a hulking primate-style hominid whos remains mysteriously vanish whenever they die...

Spontaneous Bigfoot Combustion...

 

[GeoffP]

The Bigfoot/etc phenomenon falls into a classical biological hypothesis. Demonstration thereof should be simple and achievable: if it exists or existed, fossil remains are probable, somewhere. DNA would be collectable.

The central issue appears to fall back on eyewitness testimony. This is a difficult one. It is hard, or perhaps for me particularly, to believe that all these eyewitnesses are lying, including groups of them. If that's the case, how can we possibly prosecute cases of murder, and rape, and assault, and robbery? Much of that is eyewitness, depending on category. Yet, humans lie and it is that feature that statistically seems to argue against the eyewitnesses. Much bigger issues have turned on eyewitness collusion and conspiracy.

Other examples of this cryptozoological process start with eyewitnesses also: the gorilla, the okapi. But North America is well-traversed and well-known. Frankly, at given sample size, I expect a well competent ecological theorist could derive a blanket probability for the existence of Bigfoot, by region. I don't think it could possibly be anything but nominal except at very small n - and yet, it could then be argued that that tiny n is the reason they haven't been collected yet. It is biologically conceivable... just not terribly likely. And any scenario would almost certainly have to incorporate something to the effect of "well, they just died out" going by the tiny n that would be necessary to avoid detection.

Back to that eyewitness testimony: this is the possible solution. There are many such eyewitness reports, but in each case, no physical evidence has been returned. No hairs, DNA or corpses. It suggests to my mind that conspiracy of witnesses: that which was not, and for which no evidence could therefore be collected. It seems pretty damning, on that basis.

 

[Bells]

Backing off the rock-throwing bear thesis now?

No.

You still do not understand the process of elimination? You cannot eliminate bears from throwing rocks. Just as you cannot eliminate humans from throwing them. And you certainly cannot eliminate that the people who go out and look for these things are making things up.

Ofcourse you are. Because it was ridiculous.

And a mythical creature that is out of kids stories is less ridiculous to you?

Bears do throw rocks, and even very large ones at that and yes, they have been filmed throwing them at humans. Humans can also throw rocks. And people do lie for money, attention and a variety of other reasons.

Those are plausible and reasonable explanations. You are still to explain how and why it is not bear or man or lies.

Just more accusations of fraud which you have no evidence for.

Just as you are yet to provide actual evidence that bigfoot exists.

The evidence I've cited here remains compelling and unrefuted.

What evidence have you cited?

You have not shown any evidence that bigfoot exists. At all.

I provided you with evidence of bears throwing rocks. Instead of addressing and refuting it, you try to avoid doing so.

The only evidence you have shown is that it is most probably bears or humans.

As for Bigfoot looking the same the world over, no it doesn't. A Bigfoot looks different from a Yeti. A Yeti looks different from a Yowie. A Yowie looks different from a Skunk Ape. And so on. Here, acquaint yourself with the types of these creatures that are sighted the world over.

http://cryptid.hubpages.com/hub/Names-for-Bigfoot-Around-the-World

Yep. That is why the site you linked views them as different names for bigfoot. The point is that the running theme is the same. Large hairy and ape like creature that lives and hides in the woods.

This is the running theme.

When a report of a sighting starts off with 'it must have been a bear because it was on all fours' and ends with 'well, it's back didn't have a hump, so it must have been bigfoot walking on all fours', it should tell you what you are dealing with in regards to the report itself. Bears on all fours do have a flat and straight back. When everything and anything becomes 'it must be from bigfoot', then it is absolutely impossible for the people doing that research to remain objective.

The absolute lack of hair/fur, blood, sweat samples and the lack of any bones is a huge indication that they do not exist. The lack of poo samples even more so.

 

[GeoffP]

Clarifications:

The lack of biological samples is not a indication that they do not exist. It is no support for the hypothesis that they exist. Hence, as defined, they do not exist.

First principles: MR, what throwing distances are we talking here? Is there any evidence of anything thrown at all? Do they have the rocks, even? Bears do not really 'throw' rocks - they can drop them, use them clumsily or play with them, and even perform short-range 'tosses' (a few feet, maybe ten at the most). I'm wondering if perhaps a loose chimp or ape might have learned to pitch things. Other primates could probably learn to rifle a rock across a clearing, which I expect is the kind of encounter range that the 'witnesses' are reporting. This presumes, again, that these sightings, or some of them, are reported genuinely and honestly. Against the 'human deception rate', one wonders: but it's possible. Reeves' muntjac and Chinese water deer seem to have reproducing populations in Britain now, for instance. Maybe Clyde just went for a walk.

 

[Magical Realist]

Clarifications:

The lack of biological samples is not a indication that they do not exist. It is no support for the hypothesis that they exist. Hence, as defined, they do not exist.

First principles: MR, what throwing distances are we talking here? Is there any evidence of anything thrown at all? Do they have the rocks, even? Bears do not really 'throw' rocks - they can drop them, use them clumsily or play with them, and even perform short-range 'tosses' (a few feet, maybe ten at the most). I'm wondering if perhaps a loose chimp or ape might have learned to pitch things. Other primates could probably learn to rifle a rock across a clearing, which I expect is the kind of encounter range that the 'witnesses' are reporting. This presumes, again, that these sightings, or some of them, are reported genuinely and honestly. Against the 'human deception rate', one wonders: but it's possible. Reeves' muntjac and Chinese water deer seem to have reproducing populations in Britain now, for instance. Maybe Clyde just went for a walk.

The whole report was cited in the OP. There were about a 1000 incidents of rock-throwing, and pics of some of the samples. The rock throwing was described as occurring as far away as 40-50 yards. The rocks are described as small ones, about the size of coins and tennis balls, and as large ones about the size of basketballs. Also there is a pic of a rock on another flat rock that was used to smash nuts. Lot's of interesting data there.. Peruse at your leisure...

 

[Magical Realist]

You still do not understand the process of elimination? You cannot eliminate bears from throwing rocks. Just as you cannot eliminate humans from throwing them. And you certainly cannot eliminate that the people who go out and look for these things are making things up.

No..that doesn't make sense. A research team doesn't spend a period of 4 years meticulously recording details indicating the presence of Bigfoot just to fake their own results. That's not a credible explanation, and neither are the magical rock-throwing bears you keep making up. To allege fakery you have to show how it is at least plausible in this case. You don't. You just wildly slander people as hoaxers because you have no other explanation for the events reported.

 

[spidergoat]

Every naturalistic explanation is better than bigfoot, since there is no evidence of bigfoot.

 

[Magical Realist]

Every naturalistic explanation is better than bigfoot, since there is no evidence of bigfoot.

So all these footprint casts that are collected, along with audio vocalizations, howls, and wood knocks, and video and photo evidence, as well as eyewitness accounts numbering in the thousands, is somehow NOT evidence of bigfoot? What is it then?

 

[spidergoat]

So all these footprint casts that are collected, along with audio vocalizations, howls, and wood knocks, and video and photo evidence, as well as eyewitness accounts numbering in the thousands, is somehow NOT evidence of bigfoot? What is it then?

They are casts, sounds, and blurry photos. They need no explanation.

 

[Kittamaru]

The whole report was cited in the OP. There were about a 1000 incidents of rock-throwing, and pics of some of the samples. The rock throwing was described as occurring as far away as 40-50 yards. The rocks are described as small ones, about the size of coins and tennis balls, and as large ones about the size of basketballs. Also there is a pic of a rock on another flat rock that was used to smash nuts. Lot's of interesting data there.. Peruse at your leisure...

Just as a small sample of animals that use rocks...

 

[Bells]

No..that doesn't make sense. A research team doesn't spend a period of 4 years meticulously recording details indicating the presence of Bigfoot just to fake their own results. That's not a credible explanation, and neither are the magical rock-throwing bears you keep making up. To allege fakery you have to show how it is at least plausible in this case. You don't. You just wildly slander people as hoaxers because you have no other explanation for the events reported.

I'm not making up that bears throw rocks. I even provided you with videos to show that they actually do it.

You are yet to provide a single video showing bigfoot throwing a rock.

Instead, you provided a report with vague reports, where even the researches are squatting in the woods and believe they saw a bear and then manage to convince themselves that it was bigfoot walking on all fours, because it didn't have a hump on its back - because apparently bears have humps on their back (which they do not, as I clearly pointed out). This is the level of research you presented. And it was terrible.

One of the links you provided had a blog spot where they question the author of the report and at one point, even declares it mustn't have been people doing it, because 'why would someone do that?'.. All the while declaring how they were paying rent to the land owners who owned the land and the cabin they were camping on and how they (the researchers) had spent some money upgrading the cabins and maintaining them. Well gee, because that wouldn't spur the land owner to do it, would it? The risk of that level of deception is certainly there. Just as the risk of their having faked what they supposedly recorded (yet failed to provide any recording of it - imagine that) is quite real.

Then of course the other link you provided which declared it was all a Government conspiracy, and in the same blog post discussing this so called conspiracy, couldn't even remain consistent of when it supposedly started. Again, no recordings of the so called events in that blog post.

So all these footprint casts that are collected, along with audio vocalizations, howls, and wood knocks, and video and photo evidence, as well as eyewitness accounts numbering in the thousands, is somehow NOT evidence of bigfoot? What is it then?

Someone taking others for a very big ride and getting them to donate to help with the "research".

Even the footprint casts that people try to pass off as bigfoot look fake.

The vocalisations even sound fake, because they are literally someone making noises to try to make them sound like a chimpanzee.

Wood knocks.. Lots of animals knock on wood and frankly the ones where you claim are bigfoot knocking on them with wooden sticks is probably just people doing it. There is no evidence it is anything but.

The video and photo evidence.. I have seen gorilla-grams look more realistic. And frankly, it is astounding how in this day and age, with go-pro cameras that can be strapped onto people's heads, with mobile phones taking very clear and good photos, we are yet to see a single clear photo of bigfoot, zoomed in. Isn't it always amazing that the camera is always pointed in a different direction when bigfoot is spotted?

 

[Daecon]

So all these footprint casts that are collected, along with audio vocalizations, howls, and wood knocks, and video and photo evidence, as well as eyewitness accounts numbering in the thousands, is somehow NOT evidence of bigfoot? What is it then?

If it WAS evidence of Bigfoot, then Bigfoot would be an accepted fact among zoologists, biologists, palentologists, and even people such as chemists, physicists, engineers, they would also all accept that Bigfoot is real and accept it as fact.

Can you guess what Bigfoot *isn't*? Accepted fact.

Know why? Because that so-called "evidence" isn't good enough.

ALL that stuff is ONLY evidence that there were noises and stuff. NOT that "Bigfoot" ever made those noises.

This is exactly the same problem you have with understanding why people think that they heard the voice of a ghost is only evidence that they heard what they thought was a voice, not what made it.

 

[Magical Realist]

If it WAS evidence of Bigfoot, then Bigfoot would be an accepted fact among zoologists, biologists, palentologists, and even people such as chemists, physicists, engineers, they would also all accept that Bigfoot is real and accept it as fact.

Can you guess what Bigfoot *isn't*? Accepted fact.

Know why? Because that so-called "evidence" isn't good enough.

ALL that stuff is ONLY evidence that there were noises and stuff. NOT that "Bigfoot" ever made those noises.

This is exactly the same problem you have with understanding why people think that they heard the voice of a ghost is only evidence that they heard what they thought was a voice, not what made it.

Actually there's many scientists who concur about the existence of Bigfoot, Jane Goodall for one. So the claim that no biologists or field experts believe in it is BS. The only ones who don't believe in it are the ones who don't do the research themselves. Once again, a skeptical scientific elite who are too afraid to come forward and affirm Bigfoot. Same old pattern we see with the paranormal and ufos. More concern with how they will be viewed by their peers rather than really wanting to know the truth.

 

[Magical Realist]

I'm not making up that bears throw rocks. I even provided you with videos to show that they actually do it.

You are yet to provide a single video showing bigfoot throwing a rock.

Instead, you provided a report with vague reports, where even the researches are squatting in the woods and believe they saw a bear and then manage to convince themselves that it was bigfoot walking on all fours, because it didn't have a hump on its back - because apparently bears have humps on their back (which they do not, as I clearly pointed out). This is the level of research you presented. And it was terrible.

One of the links you provided had a blog spot where they question the author of the report and at one point, even declares it mustn't have been people doing it, because 'why would someone do that?'.. All the while declaring how they were paying rent to the land owners who owned the land and the cabin they were camping on and how they (the researchers) had spent some money upgrading the cabins and maintaining them. Well gee, because that wouldn't spur the land owner to do it, would it? The risk of that level of deception is certainly there. Just as the risk of their having faked what they supposedly recorded (yet failed to provide any recording of it - imagine that) is quite real.

Then of course the other link you provided which declared it was all a Government conspiracy, and in the same blog post discussing this so called conspiracy, couldn't even remain consistent of when it supposedly started. Again, no recordings of the so called events in that blog post.


Someone taking others for a very big ride and getting them to donate to help with the "research".

Even the footprint casts that people try to pass off as bigfoot look fake.

The vocalisations even sound fake, because they are literally someone making noises to try to make them sound like a chimpanzee.

Wood knocks.. Lots of animals knock on wood and frankly the ones where you claim are bigfoot knocking on them with wooden sticks is probably just people doing it. There is no evidence it is anything but.

The video and photo evidence.. I have seen gorilla-grams look more realistic. And frankly, it is astounding how in this day and age, with go-pro cameras that can be strapped onto people's heads, with mobile phones taking very clear and good photos, we are yet to see a single clear photo of bigfoot, zoomed in. Isn't it always amazing that the camera is always pointed in a different direction when bigfoot is spotted?

More lying BS about rock-throwing bears, conspiracies to hoax, and now animals that knock on trees with sticks. lol! This would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetically tedious. Tip: repeating the same claim over and over doesn't make it true.

 

[Magical Realist]

Just as a small sample of animals that use rocks...

Yep..must've been those wild monkeys and sea otters in the mountains of Oklahoma! lol!

 

[Bells]

Actually there's many scientists who concur about the existence of Bigfoot, Jane Goodall for one.

You mean the same Jane Goodall who says that she would love for them to exist, but the absolute lack of evidence and proof indicates that maybe they don't exist? That Jane Goodall?

"Of course, it's strange that there has never been a single authentic hide or hair of the Bigfoot, but I've read all the accounts."

Goodall is perhaps the most famous natural scientist to at least entertain the notion that the creatures exist. In 2002, she said during an interview with NPR that she was sure of it.

"I've talked to so many native Americans who all describe the same sounds, two who have seen them. I've probably got about, oh, 30 books that have come from different parts of the world, from China from, from all over the place, and there was a little tiny snippet in the newspaper just last week which says that British scientists have found what they believed to be a yeti hair and that the scientists in the Natural History Museum in London couldn't identify it as any known animal," she told interviewer Ira Flatow.

Goodall conceded there hasn't been the smoking gun that proves the existence of Sasquatch, and told Flatow, "of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, 'Where is the body?' You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to."​

Note the argument that she makes is the same that all of us are making in this thread.

There is no evidence of bigfoot.

So the claim that no biologists or field experts believe in it is BS.

There are also scientists who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that Noah put all animals of the world into an ark, two by two. Your point being?

Since it appears you have never actually listened to the interviews where Jane Goodall discusses this, it is clear you are taking her comments out of context. Sure, she believes in them, but only because she wants them to exist and the lack of evidence means they probably do not exist.

The only ones who don't believe in it are the ones who don't do the research themselves.

Not at all.

The lack of evidence, as Jane Goodall admits, is an indication that they do not exist.

Once again, a skeptical scientific elite who are too afraid to come forward and affirm Bigfoot.

How can anyone affirm the existence of something that there is no physical evidence they even exist?

No hair or fur samples point to bigfoot. No blood, urine, poo, bone or skin samples have been provided to prove their existence.

If I went down to the back corner of my backyard and sprinkled glitter and told you it was evidence of fairies, would you believe it? How about if I showed you white footprints in my garden, that look like a giant rabbit had been jumping and dropping easter eggs, would you believe it was the easter bunny? I can even make a cast of a giant rabbit's foot and claim it was evidence of the easter bunny, and by your reckoning, this would be "evidence" of its existence, because this has been the crux of the so called researchers who have gone out to find it - with cameras in tow, but never seem to be able to film a clear shot of it.

Same old pattern we see with the paranormal and ufos. More concern with how they will be viewed by their peers rather than really wanting to know the truth.

The truth is out there...........



No, really MR. I find it difficult to understand that an intelligent man like you could fall for so many of these tricks. You must have absolute freakouts at the Ripley's Believe it or Not Museums.

 

[Bells]

More lying BS about rock-throwing bears, conspiracies to hoax, and now animals that knock on trees with sticks. lol! This would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetically tedious. Tip: repeating the same claim over and over doesn't make it true.

You are absolutely incapable of proving that it wasn't bears or a hoax.

Hence these flippant remarks and the repeated use of "LOL" that you fall back on when you are incapable of answering for your claims.