What Evidence Makes You Believe That Bigfoot Exists ?

[Guest DWA]

What gobsmacks me is all the scientists who suddenly think, for some topics, that textbooks are science.  No they aren't.  A scientist cyberbuddy of mine once put it this way:  scientific knowledge is a set of conditional truths, backed by evidence.  The condition?  That the state of the evidence never changes...which it is while you are studying up for the astrophys final.  Think that you'll get a question on that final whether most of the matter in the universe is undetectable?  'Coz that's what they are starting to think now.

 

I don't put any faith in what machines are showing.  At least not quite as much as I put in what large numbers of people are saying they see, particularly when that is consistent on points these people should not reasonably be expected to either copycat or make up.  The world is just way way more complex a place than bigfoot skeptics think it is.  More than most scientists understand, really.

[Guest DWA]

Fundamentally here it is:  bigfoot skeptics place their faith in the dead past.  Proponents use the scientific process, without which we're stuck in the dead past.  I know where I would rather be.

[Oonjerah]

What makes me believe?:

PGF.

Good footprint casts from long trackways in remote areas.

At one time, I'd include the long history of sightings ... the legends and lore.

But not now. Humans love legends and lore enough to have wishful thinking as

evidence. It's not.

Otoh, I believe bigfoot exists and plenty of people have seen him.

Like Jane Goodall, I want to believe Bigfoot exists.

====================

Personal encounter with new neighbor footer:

Almost the 1st thing he told me was, "My wife & I are bigtime squatchers."

While I am strictly armchair in my search, it seemed kismet that another

believer would move in next door to me.

One day I said to him, "You know, if Bob Gimlin hadn't been there that day

riding shotgun, I wonder how Patty would have reacted to Roger."

Neighbor immediately began a "It was a suit!" lecture.

Why was Patty for sure a suit? He explained:

Well, because Roger was a man of poor character and a known hoaxer.

My thought, "Is this a 'what Bob Heironimus said' rant? My BF proponent

neighbor sounds uninformed, unreasoning & surely unobservant, while strongly

attached to a much discussed viewpoint. As a "Bigtime Squatcher," why did he

choose to believe Heironimus over Gimlin? ... I dunno.

Faced with his certainly, I withdrew.

[Guest DWA]

The single most amazing thing about this to me is:  There are lots of laymen who are much more knowledgeable about this topic than the vast majority of the world's scientists with directly relevant expertise.  That shouldn't be happening, but it is.  This is a bona fide Frontier of Science.  Yet all one needs to be right on the bleeding edge is:

 

1.  An ability to read at...well, I'd say college level, but HS graduate, probably;

2.  An ability to think about and analyze what one reads; and

3.  A modicum of curiosity.

 

I might add "significant related life experience which one can apply," because that helps.  Problem is:  too many have that experience... and are not applying it.

 

Maybe the problem is that too many of us don't trust that; we must not know all that is going on, we say, and after all, the bleeding edge of science is all about pages-long equations and expeditions to unknown corners of the world and space probes and test tubes and all that stuff.

 

Not this bleeding edge, not this one.  My opinion may be bolstered just a weetad by the possible evidence I have seen and experienced; but that wasn't necessary.  In fact, were it not for my basic interest and ability, I might not have recognized the evidence I have experienced as evidence.

 

The skeptics show very clearly that they aren't bringing any of those three things; even the ones that have the life experience don't properly apply it.

[Terry]

What makes me think there could be something out there is due to a couple of British Columbia researchers that I admire and respect.  They are serious, they are bush men and they believe they have had sightings.  

 

t.

[Guest DWA]

Personally, if I didn't know anything else about this, it would be very hard to discount the experiences of people I respected for knowing their way around out there.  And there are more than a few of those among sasquatch eyewitnesses.

[BobbyO]

There's no evidence currently in the public domain that can make anyone believe that Sasquatches exist IMO as there's such little out there.

A sighting of course blows absolutely everything out of the water though.

[ShadowBorn]

Every Tuesday I comb their hair and get the tangles out of their hair with a dog comb. Hard work but they like to look good when they roam.

Edited May 12, 2015 by ShadowBorn

[Guest DWA]

Well, actually, I have formulated my opinion on this *entirely* out of information that is in the public domain and available to anyone posting here.

 

Here's the way to say it:  "Don't expect anyone to have the interest or the patience to go over the abundance of evidence easily available - the vast majority of it free of charge but for an Internet connection - that virtually certifies the existence of sasquatch."

[Guest]

There's no evidence currently in the public domain that can make anyone believe that Sasquatches exist IMO as there's such little out there.

 

 

I disagree with that. I personally know a number of people who are now convinced (they weren't before) on further examination of the PGF.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I must disagree. I think Bobby O was more correct. The evidence is lacking . Of course it would be since it is only  fantasy. Now, having said that I can understand the Patterson film providing some hope in the swaying of the popular  and more logical belief.

While, I  am sure the creature does not exist. I am quite impressed with the film and how it maintains its stature in the Sasquatch world   after all the enhancements and discetions.

[Guest]

How can you disagree with my own personal experiences?

[Celtic Raider]

I must disagree. I think Bobby O was more correct. The evidence is lacking . Of course it would be since it is only  fantasy. Now, having said that I can understand the Patterson film providing some hope in the swaying of the popular  and more logical belief.

While, I  am sure the creature does not exist. I am quite impressed with the film and how it maintains its stature in the Sasquatch world   after all the enhancements and discetions.

 

Really.........this is like a kid in a school yard trying to be clever by having the last word!

 

So you don't believe in the existance of the creature, fair enough, no worries. Just strikes me as a bit insecure that you have to reiterate this in this particular topic.

 

I was really enjoying the topic and reading what people thought was good evidence to them and what convinces them. I am skeptical of the existence of this creature but it's good to know what people are putting their beliefs into so that I can look at those things too and maybe learn either way. Bill Munns excellent book has made me a lot less sceptical to be honest and I'm totally open to the possibility at least. Please keep the evidence and thoughts coming!

[BobbyO]

I must disagree. I think Bobby O was more correct. The evidence is lacking . Of course it would be since it is only fantasy. .

No disrespect but you're talking out of your bottom there.

And my last sentence in that post quoted ( but omitted ) is the reason why.

Good shout neanderfoot on the PGF, but even that ( and IMO it's 100% a real Sasquatch ) still gets grilled to this very day and the fact that the best piece of evidence we have is the best part of 50 years old says a lot about current research practices sadly.

Edited May 12, 2015 by BobbyO

[Patterson-Gimlin]

How can you disagree with my own personal experiences?

It is easy really. I was not aware you had any.