Do You Really Need Proof?

[MagniAesir]

For myself I would need proof.

Perhaps one day I will introduce myself to the gentleman that used to drive around here in his old landrover, and ask him if he would mind sharing his experience with me.

[Guest DaveBeaty]

I think it's a wise policy to follow. I know that I'm reluctant to provide any..... possibly identifying details about myself, on a public forum. In fact...why would you want to provide that kind of information ?

Anonymity diminishes credibility. The inverse is sadly not true. Tom Biscardi is Tom Biscardi's real name.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 24 October 2010 - 05:31 PM, said:

What about the inevitable allegation that the video itself was hoaxed?

Then you can just go shoot one Huntster. Problem solved. Good luck.

I doubt I can shoot one. I've never seen one, let alone got a shot at it.

I'd need luck in abundance.

[Guest DWA]

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2010 at 1:47 PM, dopelyrics said:

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

Man, this is my day to resurrect dead threads!  Nothing much else of interest lately.  And I don't think this is just for people who have seen them, but for people who have reviewed the evidence and found it convincing.

 

I think it would be cool to get proof; for one thing, I might see video clearer than the Patterson film, which is more than clear enough but, even us proponents would have to concede, pretty unsatisfying and quickly over with for our taste.  But I don't need it strictly; the evidence (including my two encounters with evidence) has convinced me.  I might even assert (and have, and do) that the evidence constitutes proof.  It's just proof that the ignorant refuse to look at.

 

I see the concerns expressed with regard to poking and prodding (and killing) of individuals, and optimism with regard to things like resource extraction, land preservation and ecological awareness. Which, I guess, is my reason for ambivalence.  There would be cool things about it, but sad things too.

Edited May 26, 2017 by DWA