Leaderboard

Bigfoot is described as an actual creature by many contemporary Native Americans who have encounters to this day. That is hardly myth or folklore. What this comes down to is that your stance as a non-believer is no more based on fact than that of a believer, and neither position is as valid as that of someone who has stood face to face with a bigfoot. Yet you act as is your position has greater moral foundation than that of a believer, when it does not. You cannot prove any of your assertions regarding the non-existence of bigfoot, you refuse to objectively consider the mass of consistent forensic evidence and eyewitness accounts that describe the same characteristics of the same creature across multiple cultures and continents, and you have even stated that you would not trust your own direct close up sighting of a bigfoot. But worst of all, with no more than a belief to back up your claims, you keep insisting that other's positions are nothing more than beliefs and that your beliefs are the only valid beliefs on the subject.

Are you denying that bigfoot is found in Native myth? Allow me to rephrase, then: Why should bigfoot, lacking any proof of existence, be treated any differently than any other creature also described in Native myths? Bigfoot was found in Native lore (according to enthusiasts) long before modern day reports. This is hardly dismissive or prejudiced. In fact, footers love to point this fact out quite often. "Unless, of course, you can PROVE that it is a fantastic creature of Native myth." There is no proof that it exists at all. The burden is on you to prove that bigfoot is not a myth. Relying on the pseudoscientific prove a negative challenge? I would have expected better of you.

Well, it's a fact that there is not one piece of physical evidence that, when analyzed, has supported the bigfoot claim. None. That is a fact. If you don't think my position as a non-believer has anything to do with that fact, then you are mistaken. I believe you mean to say that not one piece of physical evidence that, when analyzed, has supported the bigfoot claim as of yet. I'd like to point out another fact - Science has misinterpreted physical evidence in the past. Anthropologists may well have evidence of Sasquatch in the form of ancient hominid remains. However, they, in an attempt to keep their consensus viewpoint of human evolution tidy, they've determined that the remains of the creatures found are "human ancestors." After all, I know that they've claimed that the remains of the coelacanth was presented by the scientific community as being extinct some 65 million years ago, and that it had evolved, its bony fins changing into limbs, and the creature developing lungs. Someone forgot to tell the fishermen off of the coast of Madagascar those "facts" because they'd been catching and eating them for years! Ooopsie! With this said, I'd be careful touting scientific fact, especially when you seem to enjoy handling this scientific fact like an 8 year old playing with a loaded firearm. Your intent isn't with keeping our rules insofar as this being a Bigfoot forum, and that for your viewpoint to be considered you must also be considerate of the viewpoint of those that believe that the creature can, might, or does exist. While you're welcome to your opinion, it's not the standard that our forum members ascribe to, nor is it anymore factual that those you appear to hold a hard line against regarding their claims, as well as the belief they've formed based on these claims. You weren't there, and for you to appoint yourself as qualified to evaluate claims, evidence, and facts is the height of closed-mindedness. Anecdotes are simply stories. Talk about them all you want, they have extremely limited value as scientific evidence. Consistent forensics? Not really. Some of those consistent forensics have been proven to be fabrications. Consistent tracks have fooled some of the "best in the business". Again, these are facts. Since, you know, you want to focus on facts. For this statement to be accurate, you must also concede that science, as in the example of the coelacanth above, was proven to be wrong, and that those "facts" were the result of some of the "best in the business" not only being fooled, but presenting their incorrect evaluation of "forensic evidence" as fact. If bigfoot proponents and their "best" can be fooled, and therefore wrong, then so can you and those you consider to be experts in the factual evaluation of forensic evidence. If anecdotes are simply stories, what would you call the incorrect analysis, evaluation and presentation of incorrect interpretation of the forensic evidence regarding the coelacanth? A fabrication? It appears that they fabricated, and presented, a story completely lacking in facts, wouldn't you say? You can tout science all you want, but their interpretation of evidence has been wrong before. What's to say that ample forensic evidence won't be found to support the existence of the creature? Just because you find the evidence lacking doesn't mean that it's non-existent, nor does it mean evidence presented already has been interpreted correctly. I don't believe that you have ever laid eyes on a bigfoot. That's your right. However, I don't believe that he didn't. After all, I wasn't present when he claimed to see what he saw, and neither were you. Personally, I'm betting that he did see what he saw. There are no experts regarding the phenomenon. Admittedly, it's a huge climb to prove the existence of the creature. However, that's not to say that it won't happen, or that it doesn't exist. Your opinion, based on your facts, is beginning to wax old. Anyone can claim to have facts while waiting for others to prove them wrong. What I wonder is if you can respect the opinions and claims of others without wielding the air of superiority based on science. Put your claim out as it is above, but with "coelacanth" in the place of "bigfoot" and read it to yourself. Maybe you'll see what I mean. I doubt it, but just maybe you will.

Well, it's a fact that there is not one piece of physical evidence that, when analyzed, has supported the bigfoot claim. None. That is a fact. If you don't think my position as a non-believer has anything to do with that fact, then you are mistaken. Anecdotes are simply stories. Talk about them all you want, they have extremely limited value as scientific evidence. Consistent forensics? Not really. Some of those consistent forensics have been proven to be fabrications. Consistent tracks have fooled some of the "best in the business". Again, these are facts. Since, you know, you want to focus on facts. I don't believe that you have ever laid eyes on a bigfoot. You overstate your case. There is evidence that supports the existence of bigfoot, but it is not considered conclusive. Time will tell with regard to the rest of your contentions. I'm confident of the final outcome. I still don't understand what drives you to participate in this forum. You've said that you have an interest in the group psychology. I, in turn, do not believe this. Were it as you say, you would be more of an objective observer, perhaps asking probing questions, but all you seem to do is bait those who want to have a serious discussion on the topic.

Bodhi, if I were simply operating on belief my interest level wouldn't be high enough to participate in any bigfoot forum at all. And I honestly can't tell you whether I'd lean toward your beliefs, or those of proponents. I'm confident in the existence of bigfoot, and in those behaviors of bigfoot that I have personally witnessed. When I discuss a reported characteristic of bigfoot that I have not personally observed, I identify my position as opinion. And there are plenty of aspects people claim regarding bigfoot that go beyond the realm of what I consider possible. I can be as harsh a critic as you can in this respect. But I've had experiences which have established a boundary condition when I consider evidence of any sort. It's not a question of existence to me, it's all the other questions that arise once one is forced to accept that they exist that interest me.

Please take existence arguments to the appropriate thread. Thanks!

" If you're going to argue from the position that Bigfoot cannot possibly exist, you'll be banned from the topic. " But I don't, and never have. I believe that bigfoot does not exist, not that it cannot possibly exist. No one has been able to bring evidence to establish existence as a fact or to even give reasonable cause to think that bigfoot exists. Therefore I believe bigfoot does not now, or ever at any point the past, exist in North America. I do not believe evidence will ever be forthcoming to establish the existence of bigfoot as a fact. Bigfoot is not an overlooked species of fish. Bigfoot is a 9ft ape that roams around peoples backyards of semi-rural Chicago. It bangs on trailers and wanders around farms to twist branches. This is no fish. The coelacanth comparison is very weak. How many amateur research organizations were donning scuba gear and scouring the ocean for the coelacanth? How many amateur research orgs exist today for the sole purpose of finding bigfoot? In the U.S alone, I would wager at least 65. How you can compare this to the coelacanth is beyond me. I'm not claiming to know what someone saw. I believe that many people here that claim sightings did not see anything at all. Dishonesty is rampant within this subject and I'm sure this forum is no different. Why would it be? If a belief in bigfoot is required to participate in threads here, then you might as well ban me now. I simply cannot with a straight face, and maintaining any kind of intellectual integrity, say that I can accept the premise that bigfoot just might be real. Sorry, can't do it.

I'm here to share information with other folks who take this topic seriously. To examine and analyze the available information.

" There may be no obligation to accept the precepts of another culture at face value, but it is bad form to dismiss them out of hand based on your own prejudicial and subjective opinions." Hogwash. You are intentionally trying to vilify me to suit your own purposes. Why should bigfoot, lacking any real proof of existence, be treated any differently than other fantastic creature of Native myth? Now please explain where I am dismissing bigfoot due to prejudice and subjective opinion.

Of course, I am not kidding. I would have appreciated a response that spoke directly to my comment rather than some pseudo spiritual smoke blowing.

No, it wasn't. It was intended to deflect from the actual question.

Factual claims without supporting objective evidence are just stories. There is no cultural incumbency to accept one unsupported belief over another. I am sure there are many things that a Westerner could claim as fact that an Eastern person would not believe--even with supporting evidence. Native American mythology (much like Western Civ) is rife with fantastic creatures. Why should bigfoot (given the complete absence of any proof of existence) be treated any differently?

They are an indigenous population that has lived in harmony with their environment for thousands of years, like our own Native Americans. It is a Western conceit to simply sweep aside those things that they claim to be fact.

Perhaps the Bhutanese are just like everyone else in the rest of the world -- they experience the Yeti (along with other entities of their particular cosmology) just as we, collectively, in the West experience those in ours i.e. sea serpents, lake monsters, ghosts, UFOs, Chupacabras, and a whole host of other mystical experiences (exorcisms, ESP, etc). The human experience of such things may well be subjectively real but the objective evidence just doesn't support it...

Yep, this instance is pretty far down the list of questionable Meldrum decisions. Bigfoot North radio anyone?

^^ Agreed. I really don't understand Meldrum and the hero worship of him that goes on in this community. He is the "bigfoot professor", yet he has published exactly zero bigfoot papers in mainstream journals. He has advanced bigfoot science not one iota. Other than attending conventions (while being paid of course). cozying up with just about anyone that will put him on tv (for a fee, I am sure) and selling his wares at comicons, and publishing books and pamphlets (again, all for personal profit), what has he really done to move the bigfoot ball forward? Sykes has done far more actual science in regard to bigfoot than Meldrum ever has, imo. And Sykes is a new comer compared to Meldrum, but at least Sykes applied testable scientific methods to his approach. The results were not what footers wanted to hear, I'm sure, but at least it was actual science.

Probably but I'm sure he'd cast it anyway and find dermal ridges and .. Oh, wait, you meant does it make him look bad. Yeah, it does.

Waste of time even engaging the denialists. The proverbial BF will be on the proverbial lab table and these same people will be questioning the credentials of those who examined it and determined it is a previously unknown to science species. What do PHDs really know anyway? Just another delusional Ketchum or Meldrum wanting to get rich with a hoax. They will not simply tuck tail and fall silent. They will not admit they were wrong. They have too much invested in their belief system to simply walk away. Part of that is their constant mantra about no evidence existing. Because some videos have been faked all are. Because some footprints have been faked they all are. Because some hair samples don't show any viable DNA, they must all be something else. All evidence, good or bad has to be dismissed because they cannot even let the possibility they are wrong into their mind or the discussion here. Thousands of witnesses spanning hundreds of years are wrong and misidentified what they saw. It makes no difference to them that many of these are life long woodman who know what they saw was not a bear. Only the enlightened skeptics know what is real and they will not be satisfied until everyone thinks like they do. Oh there are delusional people here on both sides, but the most delusional of the lot are those that think they can know what every witness must have seen. At least a BF witness does not have to think themselves an omnipresent demigod to know what is seen in the woods.