Leaderboard

The place that I think Sasquatch does not and will never exist is in a closed mind.

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.?

Absolutely NOT off-topic! You can't make claims, then ignore follow-up the follow up questions pertaining to your claim. Below you posted: You claim there are no sasquatches b/c in 47 years you've lived there you have not seen a BF, but have indeed seen all sorts of hairy humans. I simply inquired if you saw any Sierra Nevada Red Foxes, a rare creature of the Nevadas as well. Thus, I was challenging your logic on why you think BF doesn't exist b/c you haven't seen one. We're trying to limit the potential area of BF's livable range. I don't necessarily want to throw Nevada out b/c 1 person has lived there almost 50 years and hasn't seen one. So I say we keep Nevada on the table!

My interest in bigfoot is strong, perhaps even as strong as some enthusiasts who believe the creature may be real. It's just that my interest is focused on the psychology and the myth. More specifically how the myth, or participants in the myth, resist challenges. I find that stuff to be pretty fascinating. That does not mean that I am here to shout down the conversation with bigfoot does not exist every chance I get. I will, however, challenge incorrect assertions. But if someone wants to observe the a modern myth like this functions, this is the place to be. This is where you can see, first hand, how enthusiasts protect the myth. Also, if I am wrong and bigfoot were ever to be discovered, then this would also be a great place to be. It is fascinating to watch a modern myth and to be able to participate in it and observe its workings. I'd love for bigfoot to be real. I know proponents will scoff at that, they almost always do. But it's true. There is something about the wildman of the woods that I think spooks and intrigues like almost no other myth. I'm not sure why, and maybe the answer to that question might lie somewhere in this topic. Who knows? I am not here to be antagonistic. I am not here to ruin the fun. I do want to participate respectfully, and objectively. No doubt, I have a different opinion than most here in this forum. That should not be a crime, if handled properly. At the end of the day, we're all just footers of a different type.

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.

I would not say absolute zero chance anywhere. I think the probability might be vanishingly small, but not zero. I think your approach of eliminating places to look is invalid. Since it only takes one to prove existence, every single place has to be checked ... simultaneously ... because that's the only way to absolutely eliminate the possibility it was there, just not while you were there looking. I would say instead the productive approach is to start with the most probable locations. You can look at report history, look at weather, topography, everything you think might modify the probabilities. Look at those with an eye towards proximity to your location so you're not wasting any more time than necessary traveling. Finally, look at your resources and don't take on what would be an otherwise likely seeming spot but your limited resources turn your search into a needle in a haystack approach. Start at the top of your "value list" and work your way down. There is no end. There is no proof of no bigfoot. There may be a point where you've reached a personal limit in your search. That's fine. But that's not an answer, it's just an end of your search. MIB

And just to be clear, since this is the existence thread, I am not saying that bigfoot does not exist. I am saying that given the current evidence, I do not accept the claim that bigfoot exists. Bigfoot exists is a positive claim. With a positive claim comes a burden of proof. That burden has not been met. Not accepting the claim, absent the required burden of proof, is not a claim in itself. Nor is it a denial of anything. I am simply saying that without meeting the burden of proof, I am not going to accept the claim that bigfoot exists based on the current evidence. If compelling evidence came along that met the burden of proof, then obviously I would accept the original claim. In the meantime, I don't believe that bigfoot does, in fact, exist. If bigfoot does not exist, then the evidence, as it were, must be explained by social construct. That bigfoot is a social construct is my provisional explanation based on the current evidence. One could call this a negative claim, I suppose. Negative claims do not carry a burden of proof.

I know one place that bigfoot does not exist: http://iczn.org/content/about-zoobank

That does it, I'm reporting everyone.

^^^ ..."The men I would take are very disciplined - skilled outdoorsmen not given to emotion, and have proven themselves to focus on the task first, with everything else taking a back seat. And every man if called to, can shoot the eyes out of a blackbird at 300 meters. But most important - everyone works together like fingers on a hand - every many gets along well with every other team member, even when conditions are harsh and restrictive. Even temperaments are a must."... IMO, probably one of the most, if not #1, profound statements regarding endeavours in this field. 99.9% of all groups and organizations involved in sasquatchery lack these qualities and account for the endemic dysfunctionality which prevents any hope of success. IIRC, this was one of the problems with the Project Falcon participants.

I dont think there is such a thing as considering something not of the human race your "enemy". If you chose to go out into nature as the owner of a body made up of meat and bone? Then you must accept that you are now apart of the food chain, and other creatures you may encounter may see you as prey. Its nothing personal, they must make a living the same as any living organism on earth. Although if a recipeint of such an attack? Its easy to understand how a human could percieve it very personal. But that is just our perception, as we accept that Owls hunt and kill mice or Polar bears hunt and kill Seals. We must accept the fact that things still hunt and kill humans. Concerning Bigfoot, we certainly have evidence that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals practiced cannibalism in the past. Nicks on fossilized bone of their same species tells the tale quite clearly. So its very plausible that a hominid would prey on another hominid. Just follow the boy scout motto to avoid being a denim wrapped snack for whatever is out there.

Does Bigfoot poop? Have you seen Bigfoot poop? Where's the poop?!