Jump to content


Photo

Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)


  • Please log in to reply
975 replies to this topic

#21 Drew

Drew

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,379 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 01:52 PM

The only things that will change what you think are scienitifc confirmation or a personal experience.


We have a winner.
  • 0

#22 LarryP

LarryP

    Yowie

  • Sésquac
  • 1,563 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 02:16 PM

BF is an outrageous claim. Having a desk is not.


That is your personal opinion shaped by your perception. Which is based upon your own personal learning, experience and the memory thereof, which forms a learned expectation.

So if anything, BF is an anomaly to you, not an "outrageous claim", stated by me.



Supporting evidence for the claim that BF is a living, breathing creature exists. In fact, there are tons of it. The problem is that none of it, not a single iota yet, has been ultimately confirmed.



Define ultimately confirmed?
  • 0
"If I saw someone on the street standing on a soapbox spreading, what I perceive to be nonsense and made up stories as facts, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would go over and share my opinion. To do less is to do a disservice to critically thinking people everywhere." - dmaker

"Being skeptical requires one to question everything, correct?" -Cotter

"Yes, Cotter, but we are also forced to say on topic in a forum. This makes it hard to question "everything" sadly." - dmaker

#23 DWA

DWA

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 6,333 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 02:19 PM

Define ultimately confirmed?


If I see one it's ultimately confirmed for me. So I'd have to presume it's been ultimately confirmed by thousands of people, if only for themselves individually.

Given that most of us sail through most of our days on almost infallible perception of what's going on around us, I'd think that would mean something. But to some folks, guess it doesn't.
  • 0

 

 Let’s get this business about belief straight. The believers are the scientists, they’re the ones who are clinging to a belief. The people who think that there are Sasquatches are the ones who are investigating – the ones who have become convinced on evidence. The scientists are the ones going on pure faith and don’t actually know much about it and make darn sure they don’t know anything about it.  – John Green

 

 


#24 dmaker

dmaker

    Bigfoot

  • Sésquac
  • 4,284 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 02:23 PM

Meaning all of the evidence to date supporting the claim of Bigfoot is conditional. It's conditional on BF being an actual animal. If there is no BF, then there are no BF tracks, photos, sightings, hair, etc. You see what I'm saying? Until BF is actually proven to exist, not just thought to exist, but a specimen has been retrieved and classified by science, then all the supporting evidence is still conditional evidence.

It's too bad the world doesn't work that way, huh DWA? A weird statement to come from someone who professes to love science and the scientific method so much. Now you're saying we should all just go by what we can see and hear and tailor our own perceptions around that? So it that a giant ball of gas up in the sky right now for you, or is it Apollo and his chariot? Sometimes investigation is required to explain what our eyes cannot.
  • 0

#25 norseman

norseman

    Bigfoot

  • Steering Committee
  • 4,327 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 04:15 PM

dmaker like i said earlier its going to take some compelling personal experience for u to possible soften your position or make u a flat out believer depending on what u experiece.

i would guess iam somewhere in the 60% range of proponent per my experience. and i have been attacked by both skeptics and believers so there fore i feel iam some where in the middle.

some one like drew would not become a believer if he came face to face with one per his words. his logic would force him to the conclusion what he saw was a hoax.

i would guess that u are somewhere between me and him.

i cannot be 100 percent sure they exist until i have my own sighting. and science cannot be 100% sure until they have a body.

i would like to kill two birds with one stone:)
  • 1
www.projectgrendel.com

#26 DWA

DWA

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 6,333 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 05:43 PM

Meaning all of the evidence to date supporting the claim of Bigfoot is conditional. It's conditional on BF being an actual animal. If there is no BF, then there are no BF tracks, photos, sightings, hair, etc. You see what I'm saying? Until BF is actually proven to exist, not just thought to exist, but a specimen has been retrieved and classified by science, then all the supporting evidence is still conditional evidence.

It's too bad the world doesn't work that way, huh DWA? A weird statement to come from someone who professes to love science and the scientific method so much. Now you're saying we should all just go by what we can see and hear and tailor our own perceptions around that? So it that a giant ball of gas up in the sky right now for you, or is it Apollo and his chariot? Sometimes investigation is required to explain what our eyes cannot.

OK, then. The first paragraph not only shows ...I mean, like, wow, 186 pages give or take...it's supposed to be violently disagreeing with me, yet I could have written it (and probably did. Check out pages 8...16...25....45...54...um, 67...) The second paragraph claims that acting based on what you see is not a logical way to go about life. Cool story, bro. Um, er....who wants to test that one? You first. Tailor...our own...perceptions...around...what we see....and....hear....Um, yep, cool widdat. Better than driving to work with my eyes closed. But could just be me.

Edited by DWA, 20 March 2013 - 05:49 PM.

  • 0

 

 Let’s get this business about belief straight. The believers are the scientists, they’re the ones who are clinging to a belief. The people who think that there are Sasquatches are the ones who are investigating – the ones who have become convinced on evidence. The scientists are the ones going on pure faith and don’t actually know much about it and make darn sure they don’t know anything about it.  – John Green

 

 


#27 Drew

Drew

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,379 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 05:33 AM

some one like drew would not become a believer if he came face to face with one per his words. his logic would force him to the conclusion what he saw was a hoax.


I said "i would not shoot one", please don't put words in my mouth.
If I saw one hit by a car, or hit one with mine, I would totally become a believer. If one attacked me, and I stuck it with my Kbar between the ribs, I'd become a believer.

If I saw one running up on a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, I would not become a believer.
If I saw one running up on a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, and it had a heart attack, or broke it's leg, I would totally become a believer.
If I saw one running up a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, I would not tell anyone that I saw a Bigfoot.
If I saw one running up a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, and it collapsed, I would totally tell everyone I saw a Bigfoot.
  • 0

#28 norseman

norseman

    Bigfoot

  • Steering Committee
  • 4,327 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 06:13 AM

^^^^
and the reason u wouldnt shoot one if u had a face to face encounter?

i didnt think i was putting words in your mouth drew but thanks for clarifying

i personally feel like i could tell the difference between a guy in a suit and a squatch at fifty feet just by looking at it

Edited by BigGinger, 25 March 2013 - 07:36 AM.
To Remove Quoted Text Directly Above

  • 0
www.projectgrendel.com

#29 DWA

DWA

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 6,333 posts

Posted 21 March 2013 - 07:49 AM

"i personally feel like i could tell the difference between a guy in a suit and a squatch at fifty feet just by looking at it"

You could. Probably much farther. One instant disqualifier of a "bigfoot video": It looks anything like a person. Other than upright, two arms, two legs.
  • 0

 

 Let’s get this business about belief straight. The believers are the scientists, they’re the ones who are clinging to a belief. The people who think that there are Sasquatches are the ones who are investigating – the ones who have become convinced on evidence. The scientists are the ones going on pure faith and don’t actually know much about it and make darn sure they don’t know anything about it.  – John Green

 

 


#30 DWA

DWA

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 6,333 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 06:27 AM

So it that a giant ball of gas up in the sky right now for you, or is it Apollo and his chariot? Sometimes investigation is required to explain what our eyes cannot.


Oh. While we are on barrels, and fish.

Giant ball of gas in the sky? The sun looks like THAT to you? You're something, you are. When did you confirm that whopper...? How many beers did that one take? You fly the wrong way on the redeye to Tampa and get Permanent Burn confirming your little tale?

Or....could it be...you are taking someone else's word for what the sun is?

Uh huh.

When it is pick 'em, with the following choices:

1) the person who saw it;
2) the scientist who has pronounced authentic, through cogent analysis the scientist walks you through, copious evidence that the thing that person saw was real; or

3) The scientists who say, no, we weren't there, and no, we haven't examined the evidence, but 1) didn't see that because it isn't real and no, we can't tell you a good reason we are saying that

Which one are you taking?

The kookoo one, sounds like it.

"Sometimes investigation is required to explain what our eyes cannot?"

Uh huh.

And sometimes unbeknownst to some people that investigation is actually going on, and they don't know it, and it points to the reality of something they aren't comfortable acknowledging.

Edited by DWA, 22 March 2013 - 06:51 AM.

  • 0

 

 Let’s get this business about belief straight. The believers are the scientists, they’re the ones who are clinging to a belief. The people who think that there are Sasquatches are the ones who are investigating – the ones who have become convinced on evidence. The scientists are the ones going on pure faith and don’t actually know much about it and make darn sure they don’t know anything about it.  – John Green

 

 


#31 dmaker

dmaker

    Bigfoot

  • Sésquac
  • 4,284 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 07:10 AM

Although it would be bad for my eyes, I can stand and stare at the sun all day and make a personal assessment of what I have been told regarding its nature. I can then choose to accept those findings or not.

Now where can I go to get even a fleeting glimpse of a BF? Is there one in captivity? Nope. Is there a stuffed one in a prestigious museum somewhere? Nope. Well that makes it troublesome. Until something other than reports and tracks and bear hair is available for scrutiny, I'm going to remain steadfast in my opinion that the current evidence points to something else, not a Bigfoot. You are, of course, free to feel otherwise. And who knows, maybe this unbeknownst effort will show the skeptics to be wrong. That would be great. I'm pretty sure I could handle the reality of the knowledge just fine my friend.
  • 0

#32 DWA

DWA

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 6,333 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 07:22 AM

And we've been here before; and all I can say is: oh, OK.
  • 0

 

 Let’s get this business about belief straight. The believers are the scientists, they’re the ones who are clinging to a belief. The people who think that there are Sasquatches are the ones who are investigating – the ones who have become convinced on evidence. The scientists are the ones going on pure faith and don’t actually know much about it and make darn sure they don’t know anything about it.  – John Green

 

 


#33 Drew

Drew

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,379 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 07:56 AM


I said "i would not shoot one", please don't put words in my mouth.
If I saw one hit by a car, or hit one with mine, I would totally become a believer. If one attacked me, and I stuck it with my Kbar between the ribs, I'd become a believer.

If I saw one running up on a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, I would not become a believer.
If I saw one running up on a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, and it had a heart attack, or broke it's leg, I would totally become a believer.
If I saw one running up a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, I would not tell anyone that I saw a Bigfoot.
If I saw one running up a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, and it collapsed, I would totally tell everyone I saw a Bigfoot.


and the reason u wouldnt shoot one if u had a face to face encounter?

i didnt think i was putting words in your mouth drew but thanks for clarifying

i personally feel like i could tell the difference between a guy in a suit and a squatch at fifty feet just by looking at it

If I was being attacked by something I would shoot it. But that would be irrelevant whether it was a Bigfoot or a Man, or a man in a suit.
I was saying, if I saw a 'Bigfoot' I would not shoot it, because I would be afraid it was a guy in a suit. If I was being attacked I would plug it, but like I said, at that point, it wouldn't matter if it was a man in a suit, it's self - defense. Your scenario did not offer self-defense shooting as the method.
  • 0

#34 norseman

norseman

    Bigfoot

  • Steering Committee
  • 4,327 posts

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:13 AM



I said "i would not shoot one", please don't put words in my mouth.
If I saw one hit by a car, or hit one with mine, I would totally become a believer. If one attacked me, and I stuck it with my Kbar between the ribs, I'd become a believer.

If I saw one running up on a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, I would not become a believer.
If I saw one running up on a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, and it had a heart attack, or broke it's leg, I would totally become a believer.
If I saw one running up a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, I would not tell anyone that I saw a Bigfoot.
If I saw one running up a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, and it collapsed, I would totally tell everyone I saw a Bigfoot.


and the reason u wouldnt shoot one if u had a face to face encounter?

i didnt think i was putting words in your mouth drew but thanks for clarifying

i personally feel like i could tell the difference between a guy in a suit and a squatch at fifty feet just by looking at it

If I was being attacked by something I would shoot it. But that would be irrelevant whether it was a Bigfoot or a Man, or a man in a suit.
I was saying, if I saw a 'Bigfoot' I would not shoot it, because I would be afraid it was a guy in a suit. If I was being attacked I would plug it, but like I said, at that point, it wouldn't matter if it was a man in a suit, it's self - defense. Your scenario did not offer self-defense shooting as the method.


correct , the point iam making is that you dont feel comfortable shootin one because you are not capable of discerning a hoax at close range. you feel comfortable defending ur life because obviously it doesnt matter whats attacking u man or beast......your justified in ur actions at that point......hopefully.

i find your honest assessment of this hypothetical situation interesting because the vast majority of proponents feel that we just need better video evidence to push this mystery over the top of the hill into reality.

i would counter that if a person is not willing to trust their own eyes in a close encounter? bfro hd super duper film footage is just like spitting in the wind.

again though drew i do not blame you for your feelings..... one can never bring a bullet back. and its a issue i have thought of often.
  • 1
www.projectgrendel.com

#35 BobbyO

BobbyO

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 5,419 posts

Posted 24 March 2013 - 05:25 AM

i personally feel like i could tell the difference between a guy in a suit and a squatch at fifty feet just by looking at it


You can, of course you can.

It's why I devote so much of my time to this damn subject..;)
  • 0
It's one thing being obsessed by something, it's another thing entirely and bordering on lunacy to spend big portions of time obsessing over trying to disprove that same something to people who have seen that something, on a Website deidcated to that something. - Bobbyo

Keep the Forum alive, register as a premium member to ensure that by clicking here.

#36 Guitarman

Guitarman

    Booger

  • Banned
  • 77 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 12:36 PM

This is a real powder keg topic. Everyone want to be right or loud or both, but we all know that mainstream science won't accept anything less than a specimen or a good size piece of a specimen. In Grover Krantz's book Big Foot Prints, he said, "Once I discovered dermal ridges in some footprint casts I thought well that's it, it's over. But it wasn't" Their is more physical and circumstantial evidence for the existence of this creature than there is holding many men in prison. Not good enough though. A live one or a dead one is all that will suffice.
  • 0

#37 DWA

DWA

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 6,333 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 01:18 PM

^^^Afraid you're right.

Science has accepted a photo as proof; we have a movie of this one, nothing contradicting its provenance in over 45 years. Plus copious footprint evidence and encounter literature that supports the film.

But given the mainstream's attitude, nope, Grover, dermals aren't cutting it. Maybe this is what they mean by "extraordinary evidence."
  • 0

 

 Let’s get this business about belief straight. The believers are the scientists, they’re the ones who are clinging to a belief. The people who think that there are Sasquatches are the ones who are investigating – the ones who have become convinced on evidence. The scientists are the ones going on pure faith and don’t actually know much about it and make darn sure they don’t know anything about it.  – John Green

 

 


#38 dmaker

dmaker

    Bigfoot

  • Sésquac
  • 4,284 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 01:29 PM

You have a movie claiming to show one. Don't act like it's a proven, uncontested fact. It is clearly not.
  • 0

#39 DWA

DWA

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 6,333 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 01:38 PM

Um hum, yep, got it, been here before, got it, yadayada....

I mean, if you need to hold on to that fading hope that something for which not a jot of evidence has been found in almost five decades somehow is true, nothing I can really do about that, is there...?
  • 0

 

 Let’s get this business about belief straight. The believers are the scientists, they’re the ones who are clinging to a belief. The people who think that there are Sasquatches are the ones who are investigating – the ones who have become convinced on evidence. The scientists are the ones going on pure faith and don’t actually know much about it and make darn sure they don’t know anything about it.  – John Green

 

 


#40 Cervelo

Cervelo

    Bigfoot

  • Banned
  • 4,793 posts

Posted 29 March 2013 - 07:43 AM

Your talking about proof that Bigfoot exists right...wow glad to see ya come around DWA!
  • 0