Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[Guest DWA]

^^^^And wow, there's another one. Every scientist who has paid serious attention, in fact, is open to the animal's existence, or convinced of it.

[Guest Kerchak]

Understood, but I don't think he gets to dismiss everyone with a different opinion than his and show them the door. Regardless, I never once said that I thought ALL eye witness reports are "Ka-Ka". I just said that eye witness reports ( scientifically speaking, which so many people here seem to love to preach but not follow) are very poor "evidence".

Fair enough, then I guess he can't be meaning you then. Maybe he thought wrong. But some people here clearly do have the opinion it's all false and there is nothing at all to bigfoot. He's meaning those folks who have already made up their minds and won't be swayed.

[dmaker]

^^^^And wow, there's another one. Every scientist who has paid serious attention, in fact, is open to the animal's existence, or convinced of it.

Ok for the record, I have never said I was not open to animal's existence. In fact when I did say that same thing as Dr.Goodall, I got a patronizing chuckle on this board. To which you seemed to enjoy very much.

[Guest DWA]

Well, as WSA has pointed out, it's an odd response to say "I want it to be real..." and not be acquainted with the evidence that it is.

Edited January 3, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

Well, as WSA has pointed out, it's an odd response to say "I want it to be real..." and not be acquainted with the evidence that it is.

I am well acquainted with the evidence that points that it "could" be real. I am sorry, but there is no evidence that conclusively proves that it IS real. And that is a fact. If there was, we would not be having this conversation.

[Guest DWA]

The continued inability to separate proof from compelling evidence among "bigfoot skeptics" never ceases to astound me.

Don't feel bad, though. Big club.

[dmaker]

The continued inability to separate proof from compelling evidence among "bigfoot skeptics" never ceases to astound me.

Don't feel bad, though. Big club.

Proof does not equal truth. Proof is evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true ( dictionary definition). I do not see enough evidence to convince me. There clearly is enough evidence for you to support your belief that BF is real. Great for you, but there isn't enough for me. It's not personal, it's just the way I see things. All of the evidence, in my opinion, could be something other than BF. And as long as I can say that about any piece of evidence, then I will remain skeptical. I don't understand how that would amaze you as much as it does, or why it compels you to condescend as much as it does.

[Guest DWA]

This isn't about condescencion. This is about people calling people "deluded" who take a scientist's proper approach to the world. (One, I might add, that most scientists stand guilty of not taking in this instance.)

I'm going to start in on anybody who marks as loony something about which they are clearly badly misinformed. Anyone who doesn't like that needs to grow some skin.

And yet no body was recovered, how convenient.

Some would call it that. Some would ask you what you would do if it happened to you, and probably chuckle at your response.

Where are they then?

Since when did I become the keeper of the evidence? Let me ask you: where's your proof? Don't say you don't need to, because yes you do. There could be 50 (or 500) unambiguous videos in existence, all taken by people who care not fig one what you think of that. Prove there aren't. (Yes you do.)

[Guest]

Since when did I become the keeper of the evidence? Let me ask you: where's your proof? Don't say you don't need to, because yes you do. There could be 50 (or 500) unambiguous videos in existence, all taken by people who care not fig one what you think of that. Prove there aren't. (Yes you do.)

No I don't. The person making a postive claim has to provide proof. The fact that your resorting to demeanding me to prove a negative on this subject is very telling.

[Guest]

The continued inability to separate proof from compelling evidence among "bigfoot skeptics" never ceases to astound me.

Don't feel bad, though. Big club.

@ DWA

Which evidence (give specific examples, not a generalization) do you feel is authentic sasquatch evidence? Name your best three pieces.

The problem to me is, not the matter of science taking a look at the claimed evidence or not. Science has looked, and was not convinced. (neither am I!) We can prove time and time again that men (not bigfoot, not even once) leave footprints that have been claimed to come from bigfoot. We can prove time and time again that videos of alleged bigfoots are men in suits. (go to youtube and search for bigfoot videos) Yet we cannot prove one real bigfoot made any impressions in the ground, or was captured on any film or video to date. The proof is there, it just does not point to bigfoot. It points to man pranking, and to man misidentifying things.

I'm interested to hear what you feel is the cream of the crop, the absolute best supporting evidence of bigfoot being a real animal. (please give three specific examples)

[Guest DWA]

No I don't. The person making a postive claim has to provide proof. The fact that your resorting to demeanding me to prove a negative on this subject is very telling.

You made that up in a world that listens to you.

Nothing telling on your side. Sorry, that's just the way it is. Every entrant in a scientific discussion must provide evidence for its claim, and address the evidence of the other entrants. Fail for you.

[Guest]

Some would call it that. Some would ask you what you would do if it happened to you, and probably chuckle at your response.

Right, calling in someone to see roadkill is so hard to do.

You made that up in a world that listens to you.

Nothing telling on your side. Sorry, that's just the way it is. Every entrant in a scientific discussion must provide evidence for its claim, and address the evidence of the other entrants. Fail for you.

Nope thats how science works I didn't make it up. The fail is for the person who can't come up with these 500 photos.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

@ DWA

Which evidence (give specific examples, not a generalization) do you feel is authentic sasquatch evidence? Name your best three pieces.

The problem to me is, not the matter of science taking a look at the claimed evidence or not. Science has looked, and was not convinced. (neither am I!) We can prove time and time again that men (not bigfoot, not even once) leave footprints that have been claimed to come from bigfoot. We can prove time and time again that videos of alleged bigfoots are men in suits. (go to youtube and search for bigfoot videos) Yet we cannot prove one real bigfoot made any impressions in the ground, or was captured on any film or video to date. The proof is there, it just does not point to bigfoot. It points to man pranking, and to man misidentifying things.

I'm interested to hear what you feel is the cream of the crop, the absolute best supporting evidence of bigfoot being a real animal. (please give three specific examples)

That's a joke, right?

Know what you would say? "Those could all be [use your illusion]."

It is the volume and consistency of the evidence that is the thing. But if you are unaware of it, you wouldn't know that.

Here's your hint, though: if the Patterson/Gimlin film - or any other piece, three pieces, fifty or 100 pieces - were found to be fake tomorrow, not one person well acquainted with the evidence would change his mind. That's how much there is and how deep it is. Read up.

Right, calling in someone to see roadkill is so hard to do.

Nope thats how science works I didn't make it up. The fail is for the person who can't come up with these 500 photos.

Nope, I just told you how science works. Your not knowing that doesn't change it, nannabooboo as you (undoubtedly) will. I've made all the response I need to. Read up or find something other than a dead end to introduce.

Edited January 3, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

You made that up in a world that listens to you.

Nothing telling on your side. Sorry, that's just the way it is. Every entrant in a scientific discussion must provide evidence for its claim, and address the evidence of the other entrants. Fail for you.

No, the claimant has the burden of proof. Even according to Dr. KrantzGrover Krantz: "Bigfoot/Sasquatch evidence"(1992) p. 3 & 7"The skeptics are under no obligation to disprove all or, for that matter any of the evidence. The burden of proof rests with those who think that the animals are real. The skeptics are not obligated even to look at the evidence....Science requires solid evidence for the existence of a new species...A "type specimen" must be obtained, which is then described in a scientific journal and continues to be available for other experts to examine."

[WSA]

Drew, I won't pretend to know what any BF researcher purports to "want", unless he/she would tell me. Myself, I don't want anything to happen except dogged pursuit of the evidence until it the animal is scietifically listed/confirmed or it dead-ends. Neither has happened yet. My personal opinions about the likelihood of either are really besides the point. One outcome would satisfy me more than another, but that is also beside the point. As for what you might want, if anything, I don't know that either.