Lake County Bigfooot

Why Sasquatch should Exist,,,

157 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

While I must agree with Dmaker in that scant evidence is left behind by this creature, that does not however preclude it's existence. I might say that scant evidence exists for many creatures existence, we do however know they exist. The evidence that does remain for this creature is ample enough to suppose it's existence, that being the legitimate foot prints that defy any hoaxing. I know many will undertake to disprove those examples, but I find them fairly certain to have been made by an living creature with such anatomy. This is what moved Meldrum, Bindernagel, Krantz, and many other scientific minds into the camp of acceptance of the possibility of this creature. I think that story speaks for itself for the most part, and that arguing with people not willing to be objective about certain articles of evidence, well that is futile. What is really of interest to me is how they are making such an existence work in our present age and times. Though contrary to some I might conclude that is getting easier as we retreat further into a digital existence and away from a natural one. The void between man and nature has never been greater, and keeps increasing. We have so little time to sit in the silence of nature, or to begin to unravel it's mysteries. If this creature exists? Well it must be very highly adapted to remaining undiscovered and discreet. If that is your M.O. for survival then you over time become better and better at that. Perhaps humans competed with them at some point, but now they are the king of the forest, and we the internet.

Edited by Lake County Bigfooot
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are just like other creatures who have managed to remained hidden with out a trace of there presence. What happens is that they have chosen to stay that way and the odd thing is that they do not even have to be intelligent to do so. But these creatures are different from the norm and have gained knowledge and learned to adapt. They have adapted to our world and learned to avoid it at all cost except for those few times of being caught. They are not like most primate where we can predict where they will be next to be able to observe them again and again. That's is what makes them so in-predictable and why it make it easy for skeptics to be skeptic since the proof is so hard to find of them. Believe me as a proponent it make us mad since the only way to actually prove these darn things would be a body. And this task is not so easy like one would think and how often does one actually get to see these creature over and over in the wild? The odds are not exactly in the proponents favor nor is it in the favor of those who are or have been actively been searching for these creatures.

How Many researchers have passed away hoping for just one sight of one of these creatures? Hoping to have that one sighting that would prove to themselves how real they are while searching all those years. That takes a lot of work and money plus hope to live up to this game. I give them a lot of respect and feel very fortunate to be able to have my own sighting. This is why I cannot deny the efforts of those who disbelieve that they just do not exist. In them they actually believe they truly do not exist and condemn those who believe. So I have learned to deal with it and I hope that others who have had sighting have too. Every thing in life is a learning experience.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Second of all I’m not appealing to authority to prove the existence of a cryptid. Far from it. I’m simply pointing out that well known primatologist and scientists give this subject a fair shake.

 

It was a counter-argument to Squatchy’s claim that this field of research doesn’t have “credibility”, i.e., enough reason to suspect that Bigfoot exists to justify researching it. 

 

It’s the same error except worded differently: “because these individuals have credentials and a good history, this field of research has credibility” (paraphrased)

 

 

Quote

And third, your simply using a “Texas sharpshooting” fallacy to break the link between real fossil evidence and Bigfoot. Presumably so you can then insert your own Alien-Bigfoot clone theory into the void.

 

That’s true, but it doesn’t address the issue that I pointed out, which is that the fossils support the existence of bipedal primates from around that time, not the modern-day existence of Bigfoot.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OntarioSquatch,

 

The fossil record may not support the modern-day existence of sasquatch, but the fossil record didn't support the existence of chimpanzees until 2004 either(if I recall the year correctly), an we know they exist.

 

Pat...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

OntarioSquatch,

 

The fossil record may not support the modern-day existence of sasquatch, but the fossil record didn't support the existence of chimpanzees until 2004 either(if I recall the year correctly), an we know they exist.

 

Pat...

 

I think we need to step back and realize that the fossil record we have accessed may be very thin. It consists of snapshots in time and space; what creatures lived and died at this place during such and such a time frame. Certainly there are similar finds in similar strata from different locations, but how much of the record is simply missing completely because the conditions for fossilization were absent and/or the strata are subducted, possibly even metamorphosed and rendered undecipherable, etc. The La Brea Tar Pits are probably the most complete record for the area and time they cover, assuming they give up all of their secrets. Classical paleontology is limited by the extant record and its accessibility.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2018 at 1:08 PM, dmaker said:

I agree with most everything you said. What I don't get is why people cling to the idea that they "might" exist. There is literally no good reason to think they do. There are many, many reasons to think they do not. It's not about scofftic vs skeptic, that is pure nonsense.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_Skepticism.html

 

"We know that we know nothing," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge -- "There are no absolutes," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute -- "You cannot prove that you exist or that you're conscious," they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, or a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved. 
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

 

I think skeptics cannot know anything, locked in circular doubt, certainty is a sin, because your senses cannot be trusted. They are destined to never know.....

 

The scofftic thinks he knows, but is sadly mistaken.:lol:

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m aware of the difficulties in finding fossil evidence, which is largely why I haven’t used the lack of modern-day fossilizations to try to falsify anything. Of course, circumstances can differ depending on geographical history; one may be able to rule out certain things depending on the location, but it’s not something that I’ve personally focused on.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PBeaton said:

OntarioSquatch,

 

The fossil record may not support the modern-day existence of sasquatch, but the fossil record didn't support the existence of chimpanzees until 2004 either(if I recall the year correctly), an we know they exist.

 

Pat...

 

When they discovered the hobbit fossils and dated them? Nobody was laughing at little hairy wild man stories anymore in SE Asia.

 

A large Hominid fossil find in North America? Would have a similar result.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heaven forbid...our resident scoftics might fall silent...then again...I doubt it haha ! 

:drinks:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No no! They would rejoice remember? -_-

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2018 at 4:36 PM, Rockape said:

 

Um, wait a minute, we don't even know if BF exists, much less that it does and therefore how rare it is.

 

Should it? No.

 

Does it? That's a different matter.

I agree . The rare I speak of is documented much smaller species. That is one of the reasons I have a hard time accepting the existence of man apes in the here and now. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, norseman said:

 

When they discovered the hobbit fossils and dated them? Nobody was laughing at little hairy wild man stories anymore in SE Asia.

 

A large Hominid fossil find in North America? Would have a similar result.

They or a skeleton are out there.   It is just a matter of finding one and keeping it out of the hands of the Smithsonian.   

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

They or a skeleton are out there.   It is just a matter of finding one and keeping it out of the hands of the Smithsonian.   

 

If that’s true? We some day will sip champagne and slap each other’s backs! Because sooner or later something is going to pop up.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2018 at 7:08 PM, southernyahoo said:

I think skeptics cannot know anything, locked in circular doubt, certainty is a sin, because your senses cannot be trusted. They are destined to never know.....

 

That's utter nonsense. For example, I have no doubt dogs exist because there are three in the room with me right now.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 2018-04-13 at 8:08 PM, southernyahoo said:

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_Skepticism.html

 

"We know that we know nothing," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge -- "There are no absolutes," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute -- "You cannot prove that you exist or that you're conscious," they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, or a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved. 
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

 

I think skeptics cannot know anything, locked in circular doubt, certainty is a sin, because your senses cannot be trusted. They are destined to never know.....

 

That’s a discussion on philosophical skepticism (the assertion that we can’t justify our certainty in anything). Skeptics of bigfoot’s existence or non-existence generally believe that they can be justifiably certain about either theory under certain conditions.

 

Edited by OntarioSquatch
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites