Leaderboard

There are no legitimate reports, as Crow puts it, that the PGF is a fake. No one has produced a suit and no one has recreated it using 49 year old technology and materials to prove that it could be faked. Until it is proven to be a fake, it cannot be dismissed as a hoax and must be regarded as evidence. If you want to convince the rest of us otherwise, produce the suit, or reproduce the film using period materials and tech.

It's not "some", it's ALL so to me, it isn't logical and therefore habbers aren't believable. t.

I'd like to introduce this thread as a medium for current hunters of the big guy to share their successes in the field. Proven strategies, anecdotes, anything field related. Any photos, videos or comments are welcome.

The most persistent point regarding any report is that every single witness providing any bit of data about Bigfoot appears to be sincere yet despite that apparent sincerity of dozens/hundreds/thousands of these witnesses no case has provided even a single piece of verifiable objective evidence that stands up to scrutiny or meets the predefined standard of new species recognition. Not one… That’s 0% conversion rate doesn’t mean that they are all lying – many appear to truly believe what they claim to have experienced. Most of these people are honest and seriously trying to understand exactly what happened. We are taught to trust our own senses and if they saw a giant hairy biped then that is what they saw (unless there is objective evidence of deceit to state otherwise) but that doesn’t necessarily mean that what they subjectively saw was the same as what was objectively there - we don’t really see with our eyes we perceive with our minds. Our minds are geared towards filling in the blanks. Bigfoot may be simply illusive rather than super elusive: It cannot be demonstrated that Bigfoot doesn’t exist but the above examples demonstrate that many people can and do see Bigfoot in moments of uncertainty/ambiguity. People can and do see Bigfoot even when there is no creature to be seen... Can dozens/hundreds/thousands of people be mistaken? Yes. Among the billions of people on this earth every single one can and has been mistaken about many, many things. It can happen any time to all of us. No-one is infallible. No-one...

I doubt that very much. That is, of course, giving you the benefit of the doubt about your being honest about your bigfoot sighting.

Not all of them. Perhaps you should look for a psychiatrist that deals with hallucinations while you're at it.

Not genocide, but definitely complicit in any crimes against humans (destruction of property, assault, stalking, harrassment, etc.) Also, you know how there are signs that say "Don't feed the animals" and some local ordinances have the same clause about feeding animals. Can you imagine the fines a habituator will face for feeding the animals (BF)? Or for running an illegal non-game species conversation program? I wrote it before and I'll write it again: there is no incentive for BF habituators to go public with their BFs because the risk-benefit ratio is unfavorable. You pretty much nailed it. No matter what BF are, if you host them on your property you have to be violating game, animal control, zoning, endangered species, or you name it laws if the authorities step in. It could be even worse if they are human. Talk about harboring illegal aliens! The authorities would just step in and decide what they are going to do to punish you. In the words of Mr. Hill/Branco, "they are not going anywhere". In the words of some other smart person, "they go wherever they want". There's nothing any authority or property owner can do about those facts.

I never worried about my grandkids playing in the yard or the woods either, & they're still alive, so it must not be too dangerous. The youngest heard "voices in his head" occasionally while out there, but I did too, so I never thought anything about it......

I doubt Sykes will answer anything truthfully

But that cuts both ways.... The Bigfoot community is a pretty rough bunch when it comes to hoaxers, just ask Todd Standing. And yet the PGF still stands....it has passed our scrutiny. So it is either a very good hoax or not a hoax at all.

I'm actually a little curious, the title of this thread is Active Skeptics Where Is Your Evidence? What evidence should need to be provided by those who are skeptical of the existence of sasquatch or bigfoot? Evidence that makes me think the above is possible PGF is impossible for me to pass off as a hoax at this point in time - it looks real to me, checks lots of boxes and I can't explain it Footprint evidence that has convinced some scientists is persuasive to me Number and consistency of sighting reports is impressive Native American history and folklore is interesting as usually (though not always) these have some grounding in reality Evidence or lack thereof that makes me skeptical Lack of clear photographs and film apart from PGF is suspicious over this length of time Lack of fossil evidence of any similar creatures in N America is an issue for me The sheer scale of hoaxes and false reports are worrying The failure to obtain a specimen or even good evidence by groups like the NAWAC is troubling Amazing claims (such as habituators make) without anything to back them up weakens the case for me

The evidence that bigfoot does not exist is best expressed by the absence of evidence that should be present if bigfoot were a real animal. There should be proof by now. There should be plenty of biological evidence collected such as: orts, middens, hair, saliva, scat, blood, etc. There should be undeniable video and photographic evidence. There should be fossils and there should be cultural artifacts that are unmistakably bigfoot in origin. There is a long list of evidence that would be present if bigfoot was real. How do we know this? Because every other large North American mammal has left exactly the type of evidence described. Bigfoot simply cannot be so special that it avoids leaving any kind of objective evidence behind. I'm not even going to bother getting into hoaxes, pranksters, delusions, hallucinations, etc. That's a slightly different conversation. The simple fact remains that if an animal such as bigfoot is reported actually existed, the animal would have been described and proven to science a long time ago.

^^ If you are truly interested in the answer to that question, then perhaps you should start a new thread. If all you really want is to create a place to take pot shots at skeptics and their point of view, then please spare everyone the hassle.

You're asking for proof of a negative? How's that supposed to work?

I have a problem with some of the terminology used. I have preconceptions of what I would consider a researcher from my early years in school, and then honed over decades. What, exactly is a "researcher?" Could a "hunter" be a researcher, or just an interested hunter? If some go on extended recons in the field, is that a researcher? If some also do a lot of reading and analyzing narratives, does that also contribute to the title of researcher? So. What is a bigfoot researcher? I also have a problem with the term, Habituator. A long-term witness? How long? What's the criteria to be a "habituator?" How long is a long term witness? How many events of interaction, and what level of interaction or closeness are required to cross into the habituator realm? I have a problem understanding exactly what is to be considered "evidence?" We hang people in this country based on eyewitness evidence. So why are eyewitnesses automatically discounted in the field of large relict species? Observation is 99% of science. What constitutes replication of experimentation? Does that too, also have to be observed? I no longer seem to have an understanding of what "science" is, as I've seen applications here that I was taught were NOT science. Duplication of an experiment, or duplicate observation is supposed to be at least tried before dismissal. Otherwise, science could not advance, and everything would be a postulation. For someone to dismiss observations without them getting off their sorry ***es and doing their own work, is not skepticism - it's a retarded laziness. When some observers see something at a distance, it's entirely reasonable to allow for the possibility of mis-identification. But to dismiss narratives from every historical period, from almost every populated area of earth, from almost every culture on earth, is to be one lazy, disingenuous, willfully contrary, narrow-minded, inexperienced, incapable human imposter. It's almost like they're jealous that others have either put in the work and have seen these critters, or that some of us, who just happened to be doing work in a very remote area just ran into one. But that's not our fault. Maybe the fact that you haven't either seen one, or interacted to some degree with one or more, maybe it's your fault. Others who haven't had personal sightings, but through the preponderance of evidence allow for the existence of these critters - yours is not so much a matter of faith - but a matter of acknowledgement. I've never seen the Eiffel Tower. I'm pretty sure it's there, but I'd be one simple-minded jacka** if I denied its existence until someone either brought it into my range of vision, or somehow, by accident - I actually saw it myself - from where I'm sitting. I have it on good report that there were two huge Twin Towers in New York. They're not there now, so I can't personally verify that they existed. So what stance do I take? Deny they existed? Deny the photographic evidence? Deny the thousands of narratives that they existed? Just how dumb would that be?

Science is being done and presented here in some of my threads as well as in the research section. Come follow along or not. From what I have seen here, most people don't want to hear about science, it's not sensational enough and definitely boring. But yes progress is being made.

I thought it was Good friends and a bottle of wine From Ted Nugent What is, or is not, success, is a very personal measure. Mine is not likely to satisfy you. I've had two certain, probably a third, sightings ... over 40 years. I've had camp visits, tenuous interaction, very basic communication (demonstration of "I am here"), and been within 7-9 inches of physical contact. My personal evidence, though, is limited to a couple of audio recordings reasonably labeled ambiguous because for someone not there, there's missing context, and a few track photos. I'm not on a quest for proof, I'm on a quest for understanding. Sometimes those intersect, sometimes not. MIB

Truth? In the time I've been here I haven't seen you add anything to a conversation, all I see is your snarky one line quips and comments taking away, distracting and derailing topics ... ending discussions I would like to see continue because I might learn something. Are you here for any reason other than to stroke your ego by intellectually bullying others? That's a serious question, not the insult it probably looks like. I'm trying to solve the puzzle, not just talk about it as a form of entertainment. I don't care about your faux-intellectual wrangling. I want to hear from the witnesses. Y' know what? Some are indeed full of crap. My ego is not wrapped up in abusing people just because I don't believe them. I listen, I judge, I move on. Nowhere on that list is pronouncing my judgment. Maybe I don't belong here. Folks here have chased most of the witnesses off and gagged the rest. If you think about it, without the witnesses, a bigfoot discussion is pretty much a mental masturbation exercise. That's not what I came here for. People wonder why BF hasn't been proven. The conduct right here on BFF illustrates the answer. Ego ahead of understanding. MIB