Leaderboard

Big talkers are even more common than skeptics and much easier to pick out in a crowd. At least Habituators have blurry photos of shadows. Big talkers use tall tales to make up for short comings in real life.

Why is this so hard to understand? dmaker has patiently explained, repeatedly, how science views anecdotal evidence. It simply provides a starting place to look for testable evidence, no more and no less. It's simple logic that's applied the same whether we're discussing bigfoot, fairies or a child's imaginary friend. .

Or you could just post a picture and/or recording of you many interactions.

You sure have a lot of bad luck thinking. You simply must come up with a new slur - Norse already threw out the Rambo word - before, so that's been used. Got another? I won't apologize for serving in Special Forces, in two Ranger companies, nor for serving in combat. The illustrations I may resort to in order to demonstrate how easy it is to hide from searchers are in fact based on my military service in combat. LRRP activity and practices are something Incorrigible is apparently ignorant of - as are you. Only some 3% to 5% of those who volunteered from scratch made it though. So what if you have never beaten some really skilled opponents in combat - no use in feeling inadequate - and tossing that crap at me. If you feel you don't measure up, that's not my fault. You can bet your bippy you didn't get your genes from me. Why would I leave my nice, warm sleeping bag and get out of the tent? I already had one face to face in daylight some 20 feet away? We got a real good look at each other. And besides, they would throw pebbles at the tents all the time at night - just boys having fun - so why react like a pansy pilgrim would - as you suggest you'd probably do? This went on for months. They were having their fun, we had ours - and you'd be amazed at the patience they exhibit - they can stay so still, for so long - I've never seen anything like it. And neither have you.

I agree with you, Norse, to a point. If someone said bigfoot lives in that cave, and DNA evidence supporting an unclassified hominid was recovered from that cave, there would be an avalanche of scientific interest. It would not be, "oh, well, no more hairs available...too bad" type response you described. There would be a full on, full press, effort to confirm those results. And that position is supported by recent events. Recent evidence suggesting human habitation far earlier than thought in North America has gotten full press, and full attention. Every effrot is being made to verify those results. The same would be true if even one piece of alleged bigfoot evidence provided a similar intriguing result. There is a decided lack of government spin teams involved with recent evidence. No one is trying to suppress this evidence. Quite the opposite. It made quite a splash, and continues to do so. The same as confirmable evidence of bigfoot would do. Think about it. We have part of a tooth to confirm G.Blacki. The same extinct species that you love to link to bigfoot. If anything even close to that was recovered from a cave in N.A. that supports bigfoot? The scientific community would go nuts. We've confirmed G.Blacki on a tooth fragment, do you really think any significant find supporting bigfoot would suffer from a paucity of physical evidence if even just one piece proved interesting? When we are happy to pronounce G.Blacki based on a tooth fragment? I don't believe so. If we can happily classify something like G.Blacki on a tooth fragment, then why do we need an entire body for bigfoot? Don't get me wrong, a body would be awesome. It would be the ultimate point to the discussion, but that should not diminish the role that other evidence should be playing in this. I can't argue with that.

My wife thinks BF could be real but that's as far as it goes with her. But she doesn't mind me going out looking. My cousin likes to hike so I ask if he wanted to go. At first didn't tell him what I was really doing. So the first time we went we came across a juvenile print. And he says "who would let their kid run around out here barefoot". I said don't know then took pictures. He thought that was weird and I didn't explain. Anyway next time we went I found more prints so I told him what I was doing. He laughed at me then I started explaining things to him and he got better about it. He says he will have to see one to believe in them but he still goes and has found tracks that I did not see so I guess it's a win! Now we need to find one!

Oh, that would take away the thrill he could have by actually getting off his butt and taking a look for himself. You and dmaker and others want everything handed to them on a silver platter - not surprising - in a time where no one wants to do squat themselves, but want things all wrapped up in nice packages, so that after a brief moment of examination, they can move to another cause. Skeptics are a dime a doze, as it requires no effort. A skeptic can be lazy, sleep in late, in nice soft sheets, and after a leisure cup of coffee - make their way to the keyboard for their big day. Let's see, which canned denial or refutation will I select out of the dozen I have - will I apply to this post. Semi-professional skeptics lies somewhere between acute constipation, and something like a blown out tire. They demand your attention, but they never add one iota of benefit, and only slow things down. It's a lazy man's engagement.

Yes DWA, all this prattle about "un-falsifiable data" and zero effort to engage on actually attempting to determine if this is truly the case, or not. Let's go with the original observation here: The hypothesis of a true sighting report can't be shown to be un-falsifiable, so any report is scientifically invalid, a nullity. Zero. Zip. So what the man avoids is the reality of coming to terms with hard data, like so many others exhibiting atrophied reasoning abilities and overall intellectual laziness. To wit: If Roger Patterson's sighting report is true, all other sighting reports can be tossed with no damage to the hypothesis of BF. (I'll leave to the side what it would mean to the other sighting reports if the PGF can't be shown to be un-falsifiable...another discussion all together) The images on the film are all that should matter on this question...not all the collateral b.s. that gets inserted into the discussion about what Roger and Bob cooked for breakfast that day, etc. And on this question you have Bill Munn's analysis, hulking like Patty on the coffee table....lots and lots and lots of data points and hard information open to anyone who wants to tackle it, and Bill all but begging somebody to do just that. Takers? Not a one as far as I know. And until you refute each and every one(Not "some", not "most", not "all but these few") of the material points in his hypothesis, you have not shown the film is not un-falsifiable (i.e., falsifiable), and you've not done the same for the sighting it supports. It is just that simple. But it hurts-es the brain, I know. So, again, those of this school, spare me this un-falsifiable crap. Here is your job. Do it or go somewhere else and find somebody more gullible to share your pseudo-scientific non-reasoning with. If you don't have the brain amperage to take on the job, fine. Admit that and stop trying to convince others you do. Admit that and leave it to smarter people like Bill to do the work for you. Until then, those more serious minded inviduals here will consider you to be nothing but a pseudo-intellectual poser with too much time on your hands and no ability to bat in this league.

I can't bring myself to sneer at a veteran of the armed forces. Thank goodness you're here to pick up the slack.

^^^ Yes, however at some point it would appear carpal tunnel syndrome would defeat even the most ardent participants of such circle jerks.

Yeah. I see the same evidence ... and notice the same missing evidence. I have one other piece to consider though: I've seen them so non-existence isn't an option for me, I would be lying if I did so. Instead, the balance of existing and non-existing evidence points me towards a guess at what they must be to account for that balance. It's not what most people are looking for though people seem to deliberately misunderstand the difference. That best guess about what they are changes my approach to finding bigfoot and changes my belief about to do when I find them .. or when they find me ... again. It's an interesting puzzle both as a participant and as an observer of participants. MIB

Cool opinion, with a weight and value of a dung beetle's trophy.

Easiest question to answer ever.. Number 2, all day long.. Why ?? Because i'm in it for me & others who sit on the same side of the Fence as i do & i don't care at all about Pictures to sell, i just want to learn about the Animal & who knows, one day be able to pass on some knowledge about them from what i'd have learnt, that'd make me a very happy & content Man.. Edited : For grammar...