Leaderboard

Proof of such will never, ever be, Terry. As has probably been mentioned above, no one can prove a negative. What I wonder is why so many are intent on trying to prove that Bigfoot do not exist in the first place. What is it about theses creatures that bothers many folks to the point of being in 100% denial and even to crusade against those who feel differently? Surely there are worse things in the world to worry about..

What will it take to prove that there's no such thing as a Bigfoot? Too late. I had a meeting engagement with this thing - so the possibility that they don't exist - is nil.

^^ Your wasting your time. He's only here to troll the boards. I just haven't decided if I believe him to be someone's alternate joke account or not. Im surely not convinced he's sincere about the actual subject at hand here. There's zero substance to his posts, just him banging his drum against skeptics and scientists.

xspider1, It has always baffled me as to why a complete skeptic would even bother bein' on a bigfoot discussion forum, haha ! I can understand folks on the fence, or skeptics...but a few here...haha ! I wonder if they start threads like these on unicorn forums or minotaur forums ? Pat...

This is really a question for those who haven't come face to face with one. If you have, then you understand that, for whatever reason they haven't been disclosed, it's not a matter of nonexistence.

In no way do I feel crusaded against here as a believer. I come here knowing this is a well run/moderated forum that promotes civil "debate". I "debate" with people whose opinions differ with mine, proponent and skeptic alike. It's a means of being exposed to a different point of view/new information. I wouldnt show up to a rally and expect the other side not to show up with signs that oppose mine. Expressing opinions naturally leads to opposing views and disagreements. One side should not claim the victim role when both sides are being equally stubborn to give any sort of ground.

Your belief / acceptance is not required for a thing to be true. (Go ahead, finish the irony by saying you don't believe that to be true, either. :)) MIB

Ok, I'll bite. The problem is circular. Peer review means submission to a journal, acceptance for review, then review by a panel of scientists either working for, or volunteering for, the journal. Scientists .. y' know, the exact people who won't do the review for the paper they won't read. You'll never get scientific acceptance of a paper for review 'til science has already accepted bigfoot. MIB

Yep. Even though mine could have torn me apart - and didn't - I fear their mass, stealth, strength, and speed.

1) Right: reverse the logic ... those who DISBELIEVE without reason also cannot be convinced by reason. Scoftics and denialists are a waste of oxygen. 2) The statement fails to address those who do indeed "believe" with very good reason: personal experience or substantive analysis of available data. It does not address them because, of course .. it can't, with integrity, without having to change positions. MIB

Yes, the 460V comment was directed to Gigantor. I posted it separately but the system merged the two posts unbeknownst to me. I don't have any reservation that the 47oz Toklat will be too small much less the 460V. I am fully confident a 360gr hard-cast, flat-nose 454 Casull round will take down anything that walks on North America. A 190 gr Buffalo Bore round from a 30-30 produces 1,860 ft/lbs of energy at a velocity of 2,100 fps. A 360 gr Buffalo Bore round from a 460 S&W produces 2,860 ft/lbs of energy at a velocity of 1,900 fps. A 300 gr Buffalo Bore found from a 454 Casull produces 1,813 ft/lbs of energy at 1,650 fps. A 430 gr Buffalo Bore round from a 45-70 levergun produces 3,537 ft/lbs energy at 1,925 fps. I would pick a 45-70 if I wanted a long (brush) gun. The 460 S&W outshines the 30-30 while the 454 Casull is about equal. In the end, I'd take the other three over the 30-30 because they produce a substantially bigger hole.

Quite the opposite conclusion for me. I would hope people who espouse the existence of a paranormal sasquatch would NOT throw in the towel if a "normal" one were found. The reports exist with some consistency. Discarding that report data just because much of the rest were explained is as wrong-headed as discarding sasquatch data because sasquatch hadn't been found. Discarding that data is an act of BELIEF, not an act of SCIENCE. The reports should be examined an an explanation pursued with the same dogged determination with which we pursue the F&B sasquatch. Good science requires it. MIB

I can't answer the poll. It needs a "When necessary" in it.