Jump to content
Terry

What Will It Take To Prove There Is No Such Thing As Bf?

Recommended Posts

AaronD

Good point slicktrick! And I am sure there are people in remote places who interact regularly with the squatches, and to them no amount of publicity or even money is worth betraying or exploiting a "friend" knowing what science, not to mention the media would do to them.

It would be much easier to disprove the loch ness monster, in simply draining the body of water and sifting through all the marine creatures flip-flopping in the muck (not to impugn the gravity of actually carrying out the deed). Like JiggyPot said, you'd have to literally comb the entire planet to make a 100 % certain determination that the creature doesn't exist. I'm with Lonesquatcher, they exist so proving is impossible :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Check

No one will ever be able to prove they do not exist simply because they do exist.

Lone Squatcher, I'd love to read about your experiences/encounters. Are they on this or another site somewhere?

Thanks

CHK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wild eyed willy

I would require a good clear video and photo stills of the nonexistant BF as well as verified hair and scat samples from the non creature and even then there may be skepticks who claim your proof is a hoax or inconclusive. Simple audio examples from a nonexistant sasquatch and nonblobsquatch footage will never be sufficient to prove they don't exist. Please note that eyewitness reports of non squatch encounters and activity will also be subject to controversy.

I really hate to say it, but an actuall body of a non existant BF will probably be needed to prove thier nonexistance.

Good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDL

If people searched for these creatures for 50 years and found nothing . If we lived in a technologically advanced era where people have devices which can shoot photos / record video but we have no photo/video. If we lived in an era of automobiles and we had no dead bigfoot roadkills. If we lived in an era of surveillance camera overkill but have not captured one on camera. If trail camera technology existed and were deployed throughout America but nothing was captured. That would all be pretty convincing that it did not exist.

I know, you'd think they'd be more cooperative so we could catch one.

I'll have to ask my friends in Missouri to convey our dissatisfaction. The squatch there are habituating them, so they have regular contact.

Edited by JDL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ajciani

It's difficult to prove a negative, non-existence, more-so than existence. The thing is that you are not gathering evidence to prove a claim, but rather disproving evidence as being caused by something other than a sasquatch.

I do not see how all current evidence could ever be disputed. Things such as the sheer number of prints, unidentified or unknown hair samples, which are very important imo, as well as eyewitness encounters, etc...There is just too much evidence present on the subject that points to sasquatch existing.

The burden on evidence goes both ways, and there has been sloppiness on both sides, but this statement is correct for the current situation. There has been a rather significant amount of evidence collected which strongly correlates to the existence of a species or race of large ape or human roaming wild. Meanwhile, this evidence fails in "proving" the existence of bigfoot because there still exists some small possibility that all of it is the result of widespread hoaxing, incompetence and mistaken identity.

This is where the sloppiness comes in, especially on the skeptic side. It is fine to brainstorm alternative explanations for the evidence, but then taking the brainstorming as proof to dismiss the evidence is just as foolish as using belief or knowing as proof to accept the evidence. If one wants to disprove some evidence which has been analyzed and a conclusion draw, then they must go beyond brainstorming to create and test a hypothesis. This seems to be rarely ever done on the skeptic side. Instead, the skeptic favors to be intellectually lazy and place the burden on the proponent, and when the proponent meets that burden, to then fall back on belief of non-existence.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

The BF issue can't be disproved. But the overwhelming body of evidence is nevertheless weak in spite of assertions otherwise. At this point in time I don't know if there is any evidence in hand that can stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AaronD

I really hate to say it, but an actuall body of a non existant BF will probably be needed to prove thier nonexistance.

Didn't them thar boys down in Georgia have a non-existent BF in a freezer???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDL

Fakes don't count. You've got to have the real thing before it can be disappeared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kronprinz Adam

Will there ever be a means of convincing those of us who hope there is such thing as bf that it doesn't exist? My guess is technology will do it if that's the case.

t.

I think it would be very hard to find a single solid proof that simply negates the existence of Bigfoot...but nevertheless, we can give some ideas.

1. Finding proof that all footprints are man-made...

2. Findig "the suit" that was used on the Patterson video.

3 If the number of reports and sightings gradually dwindle in a couple of years, so they become rare..

4. If all hairs turn out to be human, moose or bear...

I think if such things happen, we can forget about Bigfoot....(which is not happening at the moment!!)

Greetings.

K. Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious

I find a an interesting double standard when we are talking about proof. Witnesses are good enough for a court case, but apparently worthless for 'science', even though all science requires witnesses. The difference seems to be that in the case of science, the witnesses must be 'qualified'.

Years ago the DNR in Minnesota had declared the peregrin falcon extinct in Minnesota. But I flew the ridges of Lake Pepin with a community of hang glider pilots, and we saw them all the time. The reason the 'scientists' didn't see them is they did not know the habits of soaring birds, which are more likely to fly at a ridge where the wind is blowing into it, rather than away from it or cross to it. So we saw all sorts of soaring birds and the scientists saw none until they hatched them themselves on an office building in downtown Minneapolis. So for them the bird did not exist until they 'reintroduced' it.

We have a bigger problem with bigfoot. 'Scientists' don't want to risk their careers for starters, but even if they were willing to take that issue on, they don't know the behaviors and won't acknowledge the observed behaviors seen by witnesses. So they remain clueless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VAfooter

3 If the number of reports and sightings gradually dwindle in a couple of years, so they become rare..

If we say, go 10-15 years without any new reports from that time period, then one might say they have gone extinct or at least into deep cover. But it does not negate PGF or previous reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I find a an interesting double standard when we are talking about proof. Witnesses are good enough for a court case, but apparently worthless for 'science', even though all science requires witnesses. The difference seems to be that in the case of science, the witnesses must be 'qualified'.

...

Some witnesses are good enough for some court cases. All witnesses must be 'qualified'. An 'unqualified' witness does not help a court case, and in some cases works against a court case. You're making a sweeping generalization, a weak argument.

Edited by Ace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wild eyed willy

The one constant I have found in the BF world is the argueing back and forth between those who believe and those who don't. While it is certainly true there have been hoaxes perpatrated and there must be some misidentifications made by well meaning upstanding people, the vast numbers of reports has to indicate that something is out there. Even those staunch skeptics must surley see this as an indication that something other than the usual suspects is to blame. Be it Bigfoot, Aliens with big feet or ghosts with big feet, something is leaving really large tracks in the ground around the country. Scores of people are reporting seeing tall hairy bipedal creatures accross the country. This fact alone has to be weighed by those who disbelieve in a Bigfoot type creature as evidence that something is going on.

If we could all collectivly agree, that the body of reports is overwhelmingly evident that somthing is amis here on planet earth, I think it would go a long way towards common ground where both sides of the debate could stand and perhaps work together to achieve the answer.

To answer the question, yes bigfoot's existance could be disproven, when we figure out what creature is responsibile for the evidence being reported, If it does not fall within the boundries of the sugested BF profile we all know and love.

Or we need the body of a nonexistant Bigfoot creature, either way would work.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

There will be nothing that can convince what many thousands of people have seen (including myself) doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×