Guest Lesmore

What Evidence Makes You Believe That Bigfoot Exists ?

280 posts in this topic

You mean the one that says, " There is no evidence for the existence of bigfoot"? :haha:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a firm beliver in "Seeing is Believing". When I see one all the science that says bigfoot can't exist will be thrown out the window.

 

If I do see one all I ask is that I get three steps to the Ford before my water hits the floor. :wild:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a firm beliver in "Seeing is Believing". When I see one all the science that says bigfoot can't exist will be thrown out the window.

 

If I do see one all I ask is that I get three steps to the Ford before my water hits the floor. :wild:

That is what is so madly frustrating about entering a thread and seeing Crowlogic throwing out the same mantra and trying to derail or prevent individuals who want to participate in the thread from continuing the thread on topic.      People who have witnessed BF must be really tired of him telling them they are mistaken.    No one can prove they saw BF but you know darn well most of them know the difference between BF and a bear. 

 

Also from my experience try not let them see you water the ground.     They don't seem to like that.  

Edited by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Anyway, after reading your answer to my question and your subsequent posts, I totally get where you're coming from. You need to watch Big Foot shows, read Big Foot material, take part in Big Foot discussions in order to reassure  and convince yourself that Big Foot is an imaginary creature. If you were more secure in your beliefs about Big Foot, you wouldn't need to devote this much time to convincing yourself it does not exist.

What seems to be misunderstood about my position  is that bigfoot existing is the more desirable solution because it reinforces mystery with unknown which gives a more satisfying sense of possibilities and surprise.  I don't consider the proponent an inferior intelligence.  I consider it one side of a yin yang situation.  I don't know how much effort the general skeptic has invested in their skepticism but my position developed over a long period of time where information was assessed and given thought and credence.  I can't describe what it feels like internally when the proponent mind changes polarity and becomes the opposite.   In my case it was a type of dispassionate release.  I'll never tell anyone to stop looking and I fully understand and appreciate many of the proponents who proceed and articulate their proceedings well.  A proponent can't know what it feels like to abandon belief until it happens.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may not be able to see all of the million pluses I gave this.

 

We keep asking bigfoot skeptics why they're here.  Actually, we know, and it's only one of the reasons I am glad I am not one of them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What seems to be misunderstood about my position  is that bigfoot existing is the more desirable solution because it reinforces mystery with unknown which gives a more satisfying sense of possibilities and surprise.  

 

I don't even live in a country where bigfoot is even possible, never mind likely so why on earth would I 'want' to believe? It's no skin off my nose. I'm never going to see one. It's not about wanting or wishing to believe something due to some romantic notion with me. Nope it's just the evidence that convinces me. Plain and simple evidence. No wishing or wanting about it as far as I'm concerned.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may not be able to see all of the million pluses I gave this.

 

We keep asking bigfoot skeptics why they're here.  Actually, we know, and it's only one of the reasons I am glad I am not one of them.

 

i think some of them are trolls who want to cause trouble (which is due to another set of problems for which they should seek professional help) and some of them are people who have reaction formation problems (for which they should seek professional help).

 

I don't know if Big Foot exists or not. I've never seen, heard, nor smelled one. But I keep an open mind about it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may not be able to see all of the million pluses I gave this.

 

We keep asking bigfoot skeptics why they're here.  Actually, we know, and it's only one of the reasons I am glad I am not one of them.

 

I've been saying it for years, they use others ( Sasquatch proponents ) as guinea pigs in their own personal social studies.

 

It's for their own self interest, self desire, self satisfaction.

 

I've never understood and i never will, how that can be a positive to a public forum with such tight rules and guidelines personally.

 

All they ever do is belittle, undervalue and dismiss other members.

 

BIG, HUGE, character flaws but you have to get past it and pity them as they are wrong.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, if one chooses not to learn more or engage on an intellectual level, sure.  But of course I could have just answered: Um, like I said...

Oh, he can disagree with them all he wants.  But when his answer is "I didn't know you had them," and that's the reason he can discount them, well, no analysis of the intellectual depth of the stance is really needed, is it.

Actually, I misunderstood . I thought he was speaking of his encounters with a Sasquatch. I am guilty of not reading all of his posts.

My sincere apoligies for misspeaking.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a firm beliver in "Seeing is Believing". When I see one all the science that says bigfoot can't exist will be thrown out the window.

 

If I do see one all I ask is that I get three steps to the Ford before my water hits the floor. :wild:

 

 

You'll have time to get those three steps in so to get to the Ford.  :)    In 2003, I saw one of these things ..... until that time - I felt I needed to see one as well so to be totally convinced despite my having seen some really fresh tracks some 20 miles up Lake Harrison in September of 2000 that far exceeded the depth of my own footprints. The first reaction you will most likely have upon seeing one will be total surprise because as much as one thinks they may possibly see a Sasquatch while in the bush - they won't expect it to really happen. There certainly is no preparing one's self for the moment it happens. For that moment you will feel like you are frozen in time as you look at it in awe. Then, if like I did, you all of a sudden feel very small in the bigger picture of things as you start letting fear come into play. I was about 40 to 50 feet from my Jeep and while the subject was a distance away and even though I do not believe it ever saw me, my mind all of a sudden asked me what in the heck am I doing standing there and how I should get myself back into my vehicle. Then once in my vehicle - I sat there looking in the direction of what I had just witnessed and then fear told me to roll my window up. I soon reached a point that I locked my door and soon after that my mind told me to start my Jeep and get the heck out of there! Maybe I would have felt differently had someone of been with me, but we can't pick and choose when such an event may happen. And any prior thoughts of what I would do upon ever seeing one had flown out the window. I reacted and what I experienced came in short lived stages that I can still vividly recall.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't know you'd seen one.  But you did for the reason Patterson did and the reason any reasonable person would expect:  you were looking for them.

 

The scientific proponents who haven't seen one - including me - are where we are for one reason and one reason alone:  the pattern of the evidence, and the quality of the arguments presented by the proponents, against which the skeptics provide, really, nothing but an insistence that the burden of proof isn't on them.

 

Which in science is wrong, of course.  It's always which side is doing the better job of presenting its position.  Here, the proponents are the only ones doing it, and they have actually done a superb job.  I agree with Bindernagel:  sasquatch is proven.  It's just that the skeptics don't know that yet.

 

It's never where the crowd is in science.  It's where the evidence is.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites