Jump to content

What Evidence Convinces You?


georgerm
 Share

Recommended Posts

Name where and when evidence was collected that definately points to bigfoot. Why is it so convincing?

Why could it be no other creature or hoaxed.

Edited by georgerm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wudewasa

When: Never

Where: Nowhere

Evidence collected: A Body

A body has tissues that can be studied, a skeleton that can be examined and DNA that can be sequenced and that can be verified that it was obtained from the said body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JiggyPotamus

It's funny how one person's testimony in court could directly lead to the defendant getting executed, yet we have thousands upon thousands of bigfoot reports, and still some say that ALL of these people in fact did not see a bigfoot. It is laughable. Literally. LOL.

I have never discussed my encounter online, but I believed even before that. Some would say that that fact alone is why I saw one, although I don't believe that, lol. My encounter wasn't as good as some encounters, and it wasn't really eventful, though it was scary and exhilirating at the same time. I was relatively close and got a decent look through the trees...Enough to be positive of what I was seeing.

But I guess what really convinced me before that was when I was little I used to read anything and everything on bigfoot I could get my hands on, and the internet wasn't available then, or had just become available to the masses, so I only had books...The convincing stories are what really made me believe, although I was gullible when I was a kid, lol.

I look at the number of sighting reports available online at present, and realize that of all these thousands upon thousands, if that number was multiplied by a conservative estimate like 4 or 5, or 20% and 25% ish to account for unrecorded sightings, then there is no way everyone is wrong. This wasn't exactly what I used to think when younger, but something along those lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny how one person's testimony in court could directly lead to the defendant getting executed, yet we have thousands upon thousands of bigfoot reports, and still some say that ALL of these people in fact did not see a bigfoot.

What's not funny is how many innocent people may have been executed or have served lengthy prison terms based upon incorrect eyewitness evidence/testimony.

From the link: --Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.--

RayG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Name where and when evidence was collected that definately points to bigfoot. Why is it so convincing?

Why could it be no other creature or hoaxed.

None at all so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also literally funny how eyewitness testimony in court concerns other people, not an unproven animal. We already know people are real. We don't know Bigfoot is. The argument is laughable, literally. We know people are real, people lie and people kill, or steal from their neighbors. These things are for the courtrooms. And they're all real.

Edited by Biggie
-Pasted revised post from user here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of us do know they're real. It's the rest of you that haven't had any proof that go on about proving their existence. I know in the end, the one's that have had their personal experiences get the last laugh. I'd wager my life they're real. Anyone care to take me up on that bet? I only bet when it's a sure thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one's of you who do know, congrats. But we as a whole, don't know. And this is not a competition and no one should need a last laugh. If you must laugh (If they're proven), I'll laugh right along with you.

But that whole "one person's testimony in court could directly lead to the defendant getting executed" silly argument is laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, my favourite piece of evidence (and IMO the only unhoaxedableâ„¢ evidence) I've seen on the internet are these.

http://www.bfro.net/...acks/WI-tab.asp

I hate to say this gershake....but I really think those are jumping animal tracks. In a couple of them you can even see the separation between the legs.

post-395-0-65177300-1329314498.jpg

This one always freaks me out. I wish I knew more about it.

post-395-0-77831100-1329314821.jpg

"Deputy Sheriff Denny Hereford was one of several officers investigating footprints found by loggers on the Satsop River, in Grays Harbor County, Washington, in April 1982. The subject strode from the forest across a logging landing, then doubling its stride, left a series of half-tracks on its return to the treeline. Note the indications of the fifth metatarsal and calcaneocuboid joint on the lateral margin of the cast. The proximal margin of the half-track approximates the position of the calcaneocuboid joint."

- EVALUATION OF ALLEGED SASQUATCH FOOTPRINTS , Dr. Jeff Meldrum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Name where and when evidence was collected that definately points to bigfoot. Why is it so convincing?

Why could it be no other creature or hoaxed.

Well if you're going to use the word "definate" georgerm, then perhaps you are looking for the people who have been body slamed by one. :laugh: Others are trusting their eyes, intuitions and interpretations of evidence they've found, plus what science says about it. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also literally funny how eyewitness testimony in court concerns other people, not an unproven animal. We already know people are real. We don't know Bigfoot is. It is laughable, literally, when people like Jiggy try to use this argument. LOL indeed.

People like Jiggy? Jiggy is entitled to her opinion about bigfoot, but you should keep your opinion of members to yourself. :nono:

Sooo many reports. If only one report is correct, they exist. That convinces me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now, I'm kinda sorta convinced that something interesting is out there. This is due largely to the Ketchum report and Derek's participation. Just going on my assessment of his character from what I've read here and on the OP website. Ketchum seems reasonably fitted out to do this kind of research and I seriously doubt she would risk her reputation or the reputation of her lab. None of this is proof to me just reasoning from the evidence I have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bipedal Ape

There is no evidence at this point. If there was then the species would be scientifically accepted and we would not be here discussing this :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • masterbarber locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...