Do You Really Need Proof?

[norseman]

I don't believe in the existence of BF, the Unicorn or the Loch Ness Monster. The reason why, is I've never seen any evidence or proof to convince me that it exists.

What about Dr. Meldrum's research into track ways that show a "living foot" and not a board nailed to a boot? What about the skookum body cast and the Achilles heel evident in the cast? There is some pretty convincing evidence out there, but we don't have a body for science yet.

I need fact, not opinion to form my views.

Other people are different in how they develop their views.

On the other hand, perhaps one believes in the existence of BF. If this statement is accurate, then one either believe they have seen proof or evidence that such a beast exists.

Or they just 'believe' and their belief is so rooted, that any argument, proof or evidence to the contrary, is not accepted, because they just 'know' and therefore believe.

I don't which category you fit into, or perhaps I've missed a category.

Les

What would it take to convince you that they do exist? (Honest question)

Some people take things on faith, others form opinions based on the evidence at hand and then there are those that wouldn't believe even if they saw it with their own two eyes.

I think we are beyond mass hallucinations and fairy tales, either this is some sort of mass hoax conspiracy or we have a living creature on our hands.

It's also interesting that after centuries of westerners hearing about "little people" in the woods by way of indigenous folk tales, we now have skeletal evidence of Homo floresiensis.

I have a sneaking suspicion that as we learn more, homo sapiens are going to learn that we are not all that special or unique after all, and that there were thousands of different species of bipedal apes roaming the earth at one time. Each time we find a new species that seems extinct and fits the profile of a sasquatch, the whole credibility of something still being out there goes up.

I don't even think we have discovered all of the great apes yet for that matter.

[Branco]

I don't believe in the existence of BF, the Unicorn or the Loch Ness Monster. The reason why, is I've never seen any evidence or proof to convince me that it exists.

I need fact, not opinion to form my views.

Other people are different in how they develop their views.

On the other hand, perhaps one believes in the existence of BF. If this statement is accurate, then one either believe they have seen proof or evidence that such a beast exists.

Or they just 'believe' and their belief is so rooted, that any argument, proof or evidence to the contrary, is not accepted, because they just 'know' and therefore believe.

I don't which category you fit into, or perhaps I've missed a category.

Les

You only need fact? Been a lot of that here. What you are looking for is proof.

Oh yeh,you missed a category, one that does not have the word "belief" or "believe" in it. Knowing and believing are not the same thing. The "boogers" do exist, that is for certain, and there is "no proof or evidence to the contrary".

You will just have to wait for a body or the DNA for your view to change. Or you can do the unthinkable, prove it to yourself like hundreds of others have done. As I said before, the proof you need to bring you up to speed on the subject ain't gonna fall off your screen onto your key board while reading this forum.

[Guest Lesmore]

You only need fact? Been a lot of that here. What you are looking for is proof.

Oh yeh,you missed a category, one that does not have the word "belief" or "believe" in it. Knowing and believing are not the same thing. The "boogers" do exist, that is for certain, and there is "no proof or evidence to the contrary".

You will just have to wait for a body or the DNA for your view to change. Or you can do the unthinkable, prove it to yourself like hundreds of others have done. As I said before, the proof you need to bring you up to speed on the subject ain't gonna fall off your screen onto your key board while reading this forum.

I see.

I note that you seem to make a lot of assumptions, without basis about other posters, that you don't know at all. Me for example.

BTW, I have been bringing myself 'up to speed' about the subject...Sasquatch.... since the late 1960's.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Lesmore

[Guest Lesmore]

What about Dr. Meldrum's research into track ways that show a "living foot" and not a board nailed to a boot? What about the skookum body cast and the Achilles heel evident in the cast? There is some pretty convincing evidence out there, but we don't have a body for science yet.

What would it take to convince you that they do exist? (Honest question)An actual BF, or a body.

Some people take things on faith, others form opinions based on the evidence at hand and then there are those that wouldn't believe even if they saw it with their own two eyes.I form my judgment, based on the evidence at hand.

I think we are beyond mass hallucinations and fairy tales, either this is some sort of mass hoax conspiracy or we have a living creature on our hands.

It's also interesting that after centuries of westerners hearing about "little people" in the woods by way of indigenous folk tales, we now have skeletal evidence of Homo floresiensis.

I have a sneaking suspicion that as we learn more, homo sapiens are going to learn that we are not all that special or unique after all, and that there were thousands of different species of bipedal apes roaming the earth at one time. Each time we find a new species that seems extinct and fits the profile of a sasquatch, the whole credibility of something still being out there goes up.

I don't even think we have discovered all of the great apes yet for that matter.

You may well be right. But as said before I need evidence, concrete proof that is inarguable that clearly confirms the existence of BF.

BTW, I don't think we are that much apart.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Hello,

This is one for all those who have actually seen a Bigfoot I think.

I can't help thinking that if Bigfoot was ever discovered to be a real animal (a recognised animal, by the scientific community) that it would be bad news for the creature. No matter what anyone said, some of the animals would be taken from their natural habitat by scientists to have tests done, to be prodded and poked, to see what the creature could do for mankind. Their habitat would no doubt become in jeopardy due to the increased number of people looking for them etc'. It happens with a lot of animals. The fact is that, if the animal is real, it has done a remarkable job to stay largely undetected for thousands..millions, of years. So I'm not too interested in the "science could help protect the species" viewpoint.

So, with that in mind, are eyewitnesses satisfied in their own knowledge that the creature is real? Is it really necessary to prove its existence, for reasons other than, "I told you I was right"?

Best regards,

Lee

Guys, Lee has a great OP here. Let's not get into another Bigfoot exists/Bigfoot doesn't exist stand off. Great thread Lee, interesting topic. Chris B.

[Branco]

I see.

I note that you seem to make a lot of assumptions, without basis about other posters, that you don't know at all. Me for example.

BTW, I have been bringing myself 'up to speed' about the subject...Sasquatch.... since the late 1960's.

I assumed the things you said in this and a previous post were truthful: "I don't believe in the existence of BF, the Unicorn or the Loch Ness Monster."

And I assume that if you have been "bringing yourself up to speed" since the late 1960's your research was either not done in the field, or, if so in the wrong areas. 30 odd years is a long time, I know, that's how long it took for me to see three of the things.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Branco

[Sasfooty]

This is one for all those who have actually seen a Bigfoot I think.

So, with that in mind, are eyewitnesses satisfied in their own knowledge that the creature is real? Is it really necessary to prove its existence, for reasons other than, "I told you I was right"?

I have no desire to prove they are real anymore. It's probably not possible to prove them to anyone else, anyway. Everybody has to prove it to themselves.

I'm 100% satisfied that they are real, but not sure what they are. They are not animals. Possibly they are some kind of ancient people that kept their original knowledge...knowledge that we no longer have.

There's very little we humans can do to endanger them, other than what we are doing to endanger ourselves, & the planet. There's nothing they need us to do to protect them. They can take care of themselves.

[Guest]

This is one for all those who have actually seen a Bigfoot I think.

So, with that in mind, are eyewitnesses satisfied in their own knowledge that the creature is real? Is it really necessary to prove its existence, for reasons other than, "I told you I was right"?

" I told you so" is reason enough for me. I am shallow that way.

[Guest]

I have no desire to prove they are real anymore. It's probably not possible to prove them to anyone else, anyway. Everybody has to prove it to themselves.

I'm 100% satisfied that they are real, but not sure what they are. They are not animals. Possibly they are some kind of ancient people that kept their original knowledge...knowledge that we no longer have.

There's very little we humans can do to endanger them, other than what we are doing to endanger ourselves, & the planet. There's nothing they need us to do to protect them. They can take care of themselves.

It's not impossible to prove them. You throw a specimen on a slab or you bring in one alive. Perhaps even clear video or pictures could even get the proper attention.

The one I watched did not look or act human in any way other then it walked bipedal, so opinions vary and don't really matter. The answers will come with a specimen.

You just corrected yourself in the same sentence. They may know how dangerous we are and thus they avoid us.

[Sasfooty]

You just corrected yourself in the same sentence. They may know how dangerous we are and thus they avoid us.

You're right. I could have worded that better. Let me try again.

There's very little we humans can do to endanger them (collectively), other than what we are doing to endanger ourselves, & the planet.

There's nothing they need us to do to protect their habitat (other than what we do to protect our own). They don't need our laws setting aside "bigfoot habitat". They do very well, living in areas with fairly large human populations, rarely being seen or even suspected of being there.

They can take care of themselves.

It's not impossible to prove them. You throw a specimen on a slab or you bring in one alive. Perhaps even clear video or pictures could even get the proper attention.

That seems to be the impossible part. That slab is still empty in spite of all efforts. And as for the clear video, how much clearer does it need to be than the PG film? No film will ever be accepted as proof by everyone.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Sasfooty

[Guest midnightwalker1]

I'd concur with sasyfoot. They don't need our help and you'll never catch up with them anyway. As for me, I feel privileged to walk amongst them. It's quite fascinating when you think about this parallel world existing around us. People go to sleep and they come alive. To me, it's like discovering this hidden city. I love it.

Edited October 24, 2010 by midnightwalker1

[Huntster]

This is right on the money:

......And as for the clear video, how much clearer does it need to be than the PG film? No film will ever be accepted as proof by everyone.

[Guest]

That seems to be the impossible part. That slab is still empty in spite of all efforts. And as for the clear video, how much clearer does it need to be than the PG film? No film will ever be accepted as proof by everyone.

Well just call me one of the stubborn ones who will keep trying for the specimen. You really think the PGF is a clear piece of evidence? I don't.

[Guest]

I'd concur with sasyfoot. They don't need our help and you'll never catch up with them anyway. As for me, I feel privileged to walk amongst them. It's quite fascinating when you think about this parallel world existing around us. People go to sleep and they come alive. To me, it's like discovering this hidden city. I love it.

I don't want to help them and never said I did. I attempt to get proof of their existence. I don't believe your claims. Even if I did it is not my goal to interact with these animals.

[Guest]

This is right on the money:

Again, I disagree. What is needed is a prolonged, clear video of one of these animals performing something out the the scope of human ability.