Leaderboard

Yes, but you don't get to change the rules of evidence to suit bigfoot. It is a correct statement to say that there is a ton of anecdotal evidence claimed for bigfoot. It is also correct to point out that anecdotal evidence is not testable using the scientific method and is a very unreliable form of evidence. It is also correct to point out that an anecdote is not actually evidence of bigfoot. It is evidence of a person claiming to have seen something that they believe might be bigfoot. Big difference. If that nuance escapes you, then that is too bad. It still remains a fact. That is why anecdotes are pretty useless. You can call them bigfoot evidence until you and DWA are blue in the face, but it will not change the facts. Anecdotes are not evidence of bigfoot. Plain and simple. Even if bigfoot was bagged, tagged and classified tomorrow, the anecdotes still remain untestable. Don't expect an environment where you get to say things that are factually incorrect and to challenge it equals a warning point. You can hold to your mistaken perceptions about facts, but you don't have a grant to spread them around here unchallenged. Pay close attention to the fact that I am not saying that bigfoot does not exist in the above. I am not saying that anecdotes are not evidence of bigfoot because bigfoot does not exist, therefore they cannot be. I am pointing out that an anecdote is evidence of a person claiming a story. Not direct evidence of the thing they are claiming. That is what you wish to be true, but it is not. Pointing this out should not be a punishable offence. From what I understand of the conversations, it is the " X cannot be evidence of bigfoot because bigfoot does not exist" position that is your problem. Correctly classifying evidence as what it properly is, is not the same thing.

Right, because it takes so much expertise to fake a bigfoot report. Please. The hallmarks are simple enough to recognize. Bipedal, stinky, conical head, tree peeking, rock throwing, bluff charging, huffing, etc. Gee, that was hard. Besides, we all saw how great your " non-technical" skills were in separating fact from fiction back around April 1st, didn't we? :)

"The question of whether the [Patterson] film is in fact a hoax or not is still open, but the claim that the film could not have been faked is demonstrably false." Here we have a failure to stay current and read what is available. In point of fact, Bill Munns' recent book, "When Roger Met Patty", effectively makes a for-now un-rebutted case of just the opposite conclusion: The film could not have been faked according to the sole person to weigh in with the specialized knowledge or experience in the field of film and costuming, after analyzing the images to a degree heretofore never attempted. (For good measure, Munns also throws in some subjective opinions about the nature of a hoaxer and the contradictions he sees for the conclusion the film was hoaxed..but that is beside my point). So, unless and until you are prepared to take Bill's conclusions on by rebutting them one by one...and he is on the record as stating he would welcome that...any who would advance this kind of rhetoric need to just take it off the table. It stands, at the present, to be a demonstrably false assertion. And where does that leave those who would dismiss this footage? In an uncomfortable crack, I would say.

"I don't believe that bigfoot exists given the current state of evidence." I would add something like "released to the public" to the end of that. Totally agree that existence cannot be shown with current evidence that is available. But I think that the current evidence availalbe (however anecdotal) suggests additional thought and effort should be put into the investigation.

I share BobbyO's skepticism of the OP's motives for asking the question. I'll even go so far as to question the OP's **integrity** regarding the question. Looks like Lucy is putting up another football to yank away from Charlie Brown. Oh well ... Honestly, anyone who could ask this question or consider seriously that there's nowhere to hide is pretty uneducated regarding what cover is needed and what cover is available. In absolute terms, there are no US states or Canadian provinces I'd rule out entirely other than Hawaii. Step away from the stereotypes. Spend some time on the ground ... drive through them, hike, hunt, fish, go birding. Get out there. Learn. MIB

I don't believe that bigfoot exists given the current state of evidence. I don't believe that monkey stories equal monkey exists. The world is filled with stories, some of them very, very long standing, of things that do not exist. Some of these stories are even supported by witnesses and long oral traditions. Without supporting, objective physical evidence to support the stories, they remain stories. Stories are useless in scientific testing. They are neither repeatable or testable and are, therefore, not falsifiable. That is a simple fact. Some here may, nay will, argue otherwise in an effort to get people to believe that anecdotes represent strong evidence. The motive for this is obvious, but the fact remains that to proclaim anecdotes to be scientific evidence is simply incorrect. Any high school science student could tell you that much. It's not just the rather dubious state of current evidence that feeds my disbelief. There is a glaring absence of evidence that needs to be addressed. No body, no fossil record, no scat, no hair. None that has ever passed scientific scrutiny when tested. The results are always a common animal, synthetic, human or too degraded for positive result. And before someone chimes in with absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, let me ask you this. Do you think there are T-Rexes running around anywhere in the world right now? Your answer will undoubtedly be that no one is reporting t-rexes. Again, placing too much emphasis on anecdotes that lack supporting evidence. Focus on the testable evidence. That is what scientists do. They don't keep pointing to a mountain of untestable evidence to distract you from the truth. That is what conmen do, and charlatans, or people who are not confident in the physical evidence. I could go on, and most certainly probably will in the due course of this thread. I should add, that if any decent evidence ( physical, testable, objective) were to be produced and tested and yielded a result that supported the bigfoot claim, I would happily adjust my position. But right now, the way the evidence stands--the lack of evidence--and the ridiculous reported range and population of bigfoot, leads me to conclude that is nothing more than a popular, modern myth.

Just as a rough estimate, how much time would you guess you have spent attempting to obtain "the testable evidence" of the existence of Sasquatch/Bigfoot relative to that time you spent on your other hobbies? Is the listing of your hobbies in any particular order, or was it just coincidental that your interest in Sasquatch/Bigfoot was listed as last place after "Crossfit, hiking, biking, kayaking, books, comics and computer games". Surely you don't expect to find any "testable evidence" of the creatures on this forum. So how do you intend to focus on the testable evidence.?

Guessing on the motivation behind reports and assigning percentages probably is not very useful given that anecdotes themselves are not useful as evidence. My opinion is that there is more dishonesty involved in the reports than some others may believe. Does not mean that I am right, does not mean that I am wrong, either. Given the nature of anecdotes, we'll never able to know. So, yes, focusing on the testable evidence is the only way to remove ambiguity and guesswork. DNA does not lie, a corpse does not stretch the truth or succumb to bias.

FarArcher: While I'm as staunchly no-kill as anyone, I'll politely ask you to tone down the rhetoric. The potential is there for all those things, but I'm not convinced their disposition predisposes them towards violent retaliation. What I'd suggest is if you are no-kill, then don't. If your no-kill position is based on avoiding consequences rather than an inherent sense of right and wrong, then the first chance you get with no consequences, you'll kill. That's how it works. Personally, I'd rather do it based on ethics, not avoiding payback. I have a lot more respect here for a few people (like Norseman) who are pro-kill but engage in the discussion in a reasonable, respectful manner than people I fundamentally agree with more but express it in irrational, abusive ways. IMHO there's no place for hype and hyperbole. If the truth won't carry the day on its own, it's probably not so true after all. MIB

Off Topic

Hey WSA, I generally have you on mute but I'd like to remind you of your stated purpose on this site, please read the first quote above. You aren't here for serious discourse, you are here to stir up animus when the mood strikes you. We are apparently here to amuse you, I'll let the other members contemplate that. I wanted to let you know that when you bait someone so you can stir things up to amuse yourself, I'm 100% certain your old post will be in hands of the moderators along with your bait post. Serious discourse can be had between believers and skeptics but only if both parties are honest brokers. When a person's STATED purpose for being here is to cause friction that person probably should be on "ignore".

To DWA/WSA: I understand you have no wish to debate existence in this thread and that you will be most vigilant in your reporting of thread derails. You should know that flows both ways. This thread is not a muzzle to all skeptics like you seem to want to make it into. DWA, if you go wading into a thread with your anti-skeptic crusade and it is off-topic, then reporting should follow. The same goes for posting clearly incorrect information. Just because there is a thread for debating existence does not mean that the rest of the forum is an echo chamber where nothing gets challenged. The key is to remain on topic. One can be skeptical, and remain on topic. This thread is not a skeptic dungeon. This thread, and an increased attention to remaining on topic, will restrict proponents just as much skeptics. If someone says something like anecdotes are scientific evidence and they prove bigfoot, then that should be freely challenged outside of this thread as long as it is on topic. The blade very much cuts both ways in this case.

Dang, can't edit my post. What I was going to add was this: 1: I think anywhere on dry land that a human can get lost and require search and rescue to find them, there's sufficient and suitable habitat for a bigfoot to survive. 2: Even Hawaii ... depends on what you believe about paranormal. I'm neither on nor off that bandwagon, I'm still investigating rather than letting my possibly incorrect assumptions mislead me. If you spend the time to study the reports, talk to people, and get your feet on the ground rather than doing all your "investigation" from your chair in front of your computer, you will find a pretty solid trail of stuff that doesn't make sense but, auto-scoff aside, is not logically easy to just dismiss. Put it this way: I'm a science guy. The "stuff" makes me uncomfortable, but dismissing it without real investigation offends me as a scientist .. I have a reputation for integrity and impartiality to maintain which can only be done by following evidence, even evidence I don't really like. MIB

<^^^Cold compresses help with that.> Helps with what, easing an aching head after reading one of your posts?

The premise demonstrates a fundamental lack of appreciation for how scientific research works. Until you rule out the possibility a phenomenon can't exist at all (and boy are we a long way from that point) you don't discount it occurring anywhere. Do you gauge probabilities as you do that? Obviously you do. Screening signal from noise is a basic scientific skill. Most of the posted mischief around here (this OP included) comes directly from a failure to do that. If I thought Kit had a genuine interest in discerning one from the other (trust us now...he most decidedly does not) I would be inclined to take this on. I should live so long though.

It never does... argumentum ad numerum argumentum ad numerum Looks like we have another one line wonder. Nothing to support their view but one line quips, very original and thought provoking. I can write in that language to and my comment to you would be Ad Nauseam. David, I'm quite sorry I haven't lived up to your expectations. What do you expect this thread to be? I'm guessing it's going to be/devolve into the same back and forth and re-re-re-re-rehashing of the same old evidence and the same old opinions. Sasquatch may exist but if it does it doesn't display the characteristics of corporal animals. For that reason I find the PROBABILITY to be very nearly zero. The fallacy of looking at a large number of anecdotal reports and deciding that a large number of anecdotal equals real is happens here constantly and is just...fallacious. Same with those who just say that they cannot believe that all those who have reported could all be wrong. If this animal exists then it started arriving 35,000 years ago with the first land bridge and since that time has been spreading across the continent. In those 35,000 years not one bone of a dead animal has been located. Not even in places like the La Brea Tar Pits. No den site has ever been documented. No blood, hair,fur, teeth, dna, etc... has been documented. In addition no corporeal animal exhibits the collection of behaviors attributed to sasquatch, no animal has the range that is attributed to sasquatch. The fact that investigators report conflicting behaviors is a problem as are the conflicting claims regarding range. Some claim that sasquatch eschews man and prefers the wilderness but most claims are within 2 miles of a major road, with many directly next to a road or near human habitation. The idea of sasquatch would be more compelling if the range were less all encompassing, if the reported behaviors were consistent and not contradictory and if a single bone, hair or coprolite had been found at this point. To me, 35,000 years is a long time and the absence of any piece of those tangible, testable items is damning. The POSSIBILITY that the animal is real, in the sense that it reproduces, eats, voids, dies, exists to be sure but the PROBABILITY is very, very low for the reasons I've stated. This is my opinion. Again, I'm sorry my other posts didn't live up to your expectations. Please put me on ignore as I have done with you.

No the topic isn't invalid at all, and I think they're decent questions. I just personally have an issue with you specifically asking them as you don't believe Sasquatches exist anywhere at all so I struggle to see a positive purpose for you personally asking these questions. What I do see is you asking them so that you and other of your ilk can rip apart certain members responses if/when they come, which make the entire thread another social experiment for skeptics that ultimately, in the end, will just end in a tonne of sarcastic replies to the answers of your questions. I will always, always fail to see how loaded questions like this, in this sense, will be a positive for the forum and it's this type of thing, by people like you, that will see people like me frequenting the forum less and less in time. It's boring me with how predictable and tiresome the skeptics on this forum are getting and I can assure whoever is reading this, it's taking it's toll on the membership. I think so, as well. My point entirely.

Kit, would it not stand to reason a human population map would correlate with Sasquatch sightings because a human being present is 50% of the equation of a sighting, with the other 50% of the equation being a Sasquatch there to see? Have you seen the overlay map of the rainfall in the United States. The map showed an increase in reports proportionally with rainfall above 35 inches of rain a year. This is what you would expect from an omnivorous animal. The areas with more than 35 inches of rain would support more plant life both for the prey and for the omnivore to eat.

Does anyone here remember Eric Beckjord....... BONK!!!!

The more people involved, the less realistic any "plan" gets IMO.