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

[Sasfooty]

but I guess it all depends on whether or not you WANT to believe.

No, it doesn't ALL depend on whether or not you want to believe.

Sometimes it depends on knowing that you have looked one in the eyes, & seen life, intelligence, & reality there. Once that has happened, you don't have to "believe", & it makes no difference whether anybody else believes or not.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

If you search up a list of Cryptids, you'll get names like the Ohio Grassman, Florida Skunkape, Yeti, Almas, Fouke monster etc etc. Point is, these are all Bigfoot except from different places around the world where people have been seeing them. And if people are really seeing them then it's pretty much guaranteed they exist. I'd have trouble believing it too if it were only a few dozen people reporting it, but we're talking 10's of thousands. Are all of them lying to us or misidentifying something else for the exact same thing?

[Guest Gilbert Syndrome]

My degree is in a field making me a qualified observer of behavior. Yes, you can be uneducated and a good observer or you can be educated and an excellent observer. To tell someone that has seen an unknown bipedal like this at six feet ignorant or anything else along those lines is at your own peril though.

I am a knower Sir I am no longer a mere unqualified believer. Good luck to you in your pursuit of knowledge. But I rather think your motivations belie your desire for further information on the subject matter personally.

I'd be surprised you would hang around long enough on this forum to eat any crow, perhaps a "to go" box might fit the bill in due time I'd imagine.

Well, go and get me the evidence which proves you're seeing a fictional being. That's all I can say. As for me sticking round, i'll be here, i'm also on the JREF. I'll be waiting for this evidence as soon as it (doesn't) arrive(s).

I'm totally up for the pursuit of knowledge and new discovery, I just don't think this new discovery takes the shape of a 6-12 foot Apeman. But like I said, i'm prepared to eat crow.. It's just that for all the threats of eating crow, all I see are dead pigeons... but alas, no dead Bigfoot.

If you search up a list of Cryptids, you'll get names like the Ohio Grassman, Florida Skunkape, Yeti, Almas, Fouke monster etc etc. Point is, these are all Bigfoot except from different places around the world where people have been seeing them. And if people are really seeing them then it's pretty much guaranteed they exist. I'd have trouble believing it too if it were only a few dozen people reporting it, but we're talking 10's of thousands. Are all of them lying to us or misidentifying something else for the exact same thing?

I could name a laundry list of other beings that people are supposedly seeing all around the world, so where do this belief end? Are we going to resort to blowing the dust off ancient tomes regarding winged terrors and glowing banshees and begin another idle pursuit, or are we going to begin using logic to rule out such nonsensical beasts?

No, it doesn't ALL depend on whether or not you want to believe.

Sometimes it depends on knowing that you have looked one in the eyes, & seen life, intelligence, & reality there. Once that has happened, you don't have to "believe", & it makes no difference whether anybody else believes or not.

It obviously does make a difference though, doesn't it? The fact of the matter is, you're a stranger on the internet who is claiming to have seen a Sasquatch, this means nothing to me.

Further, how many people do you think have a clue what your forum name means without Googling it? Well, I for one do, it is a chronic hyperbilirubinemia and a genetic syndrome which is benign and causes routine blood-tests for bilirubin to read elevated.

Congratulations, this has nothing to do with my choice of screen name.

Edited August 26, 2012 by slabdog

[Rockape]

This is something that continues to baffle me: people constantly insinuate that it's unintelligent to disgregard Bigfoot or it's many supposed witnesses. I also don't understand why a witness becomes more credible if he has a degree....

In my personal opinion, it is highly ignorant to assume that there aren't creatures on the earth that we haven't found, but in contrast, I find it highly nonsensical to even remotely consider Bigfoot as being one of those creatures. Common sense should dictate the debate and give you your answer, but I guess it all depends on whether or not you WANT to believe.

All I see here is a bunch of people who want to believe in something that clearly doesn't exist. I'll gladly eat some crow if it ever arrives..... but I imagine i'll be waiting a while, like Patterson, and Krantz etc....

I've never seen one so I can't say that they do exist, but I also realize that just because I haven't seen one doesn't mean they don't either. Just as you saying they don't possibly exist doesn't mean they don't. To view the possibility that they do exist as nonsensical is rather conceited and to not even consider it a possibility is nothing more than a closed mind, and to me common sense does not coincide with a closed mind.

And if all you see here is a bunch of people who want to believe in something that clearly doesn't exist, you are not looking closely enough. There are many sceptics and even the many who know or believe don't automatically take all stories as gospel.

[Guest Gilbert Syndrome]

I've never seen one so I can't say that they do exist, but I also realize that just because I haven't seen one doesn't mean they don't either. Just as you saying they don't possibly exist doesn't mean they don't. To view the possibility that they do exist as nonsensical is rather conceited and to not even consider it a possibility is nothing more than a closed mind, and to me common sense does not coincide with a closed mind.

And if all you see here is a bunch of people who want to believe in something that clearly doesn't exist, you are not looking closely enough. There are many sceptics and even the many who know or believe don't automatically take all stories as gospel.

It's hardly conceited, it's basically just my opinion, based on everything I currently know and can read-up on the enigma that is Bigfoot.

Surely anyone can watch Legend (barely) Meets Science and (never) Finding Bigfoot and think: "this is nonsense."

I personally watched my nephew laugh all the way through the PGF, whereas I was intrigued by my first viewing, albeit as a child. If that's still the best evidence for Bigfoot then i'm not going to hold my breath on the real deal.

To view the possibility that they do exist as nonsensical is rather conceited and to not even consider it a possibility is nothing more than a closed mind, and to me common sense does not coincide with a closed mind.

I have considered the possibility of Bigfoot being real, but to be honest, most of this consideration was done as a child, even then, at that cheerful age, I knew it was basically just a modern myth born out of a confused legend.

There is no real intelligence in the pursuit of such a fictitious creature. What keeps me interested, apart from the legend itself, is the people who continue to believe in spite of the fact that this creature has never existed beyond the pages of Monster magazines.

Edited August 26, 2012 by slabdog
Language

[salubrious]

There are??

Never seen again? How convenient.

No, what we have are a very few second-hand reports where we've heard that a supposed bigfoot was shot and the body was allegedly turned over to authorities. We have no traceable evidence of this, however.

Unless it was all bs and it turns out to be diddly-squatch. Again.

[snip]

Besides, any scientist worth his salt is going to jump at the chance to prove the existence of bigfoot.

Ray, three things. First, your moniker affords you a lot of anonymity on this site. Googling your moniker gets 630 million hits....

2nd. Most of your post above is pretty much what I was saying, but I get the impression you were trying to contradict me.

3rd. the last sentence?? LOL! ROTFLMAO!!! obviously you don't have a career to risk....

Niceguyjon ,Where are these "bigfoot witnesses" that you speak of; i don't see them. It is possible they have seen a bat that they thought and mistaken as a bigfoot.

Ah- well I'm one. PM me if you want to know more. My sighting was unambiguous and the lighting was excellent. Is 8 feet close enough?? There are plenty of people on this site that had encounters. Please don't assume that just because you don't see/know them that they don't exist. That would be committing a logical fallacy known as 'Hasty Generalization'.

[Guest]

Gilbert Syndrome, you haven't quite insulted everyone here yet, and it's obvious that's the only reason you came here, so get to it. I am self-conscious about my short legs; maybe you could start there.

[salubrious]

Surely anyone with at least half a brain can watch Legend (barely) Meets Science and (never) Finding Bigfoot and think: "this is nonsense."

True enough!

I don't really care what people choose to believe, but in all fairness, Bigfoot has to be one of the silliest beliefs

[snip]

There is no real intelligence in the pursuit of such a fictitious creature. What keeps me interested, apart from the legend itself, is the people who continue to believe in spite of the fact that this creature has never existed beyond the pages of Monster magazines.

Anyone who has had an encounter can tell you a simple fact: It does not matter what you think right now. If you ever have an encounter whatever you think will go right out the window. Before I saw what I saw, I didn't give a hoot about BF, didn't think about it and did not 'believe'. I don't believe now either- I know. Honestly, I wish I didn't. But I didn't go looking, it was a situation I encountered. That's the way it is with a lot of people.

[Guest Gilbert Syndrome]

Gilbert Syndrome, you haven't quite insulted everyone here yet, and it's obvious that's the only reason you came here, so get to it. I am self-conscious about my short legs; maybe you could start there.

If you think that's my agenda then you're mistaken. I'm just establishing where i'm at, which is apparantly a lot further than where Bigfoot's at on the "Scale-of-Relevance."

Edited August 26, 2012 by slabdog

[Guest]

A couple minutes of investigation shows that it's a fact, not speculation, there are humans within 10 miles of the cabin. We have no such fact concerning bigfoot.

Which does not prove it was a human. The evidence suggests otherwise, given the extreme size of the foot in question. On a human-size frame it would be like having feet the size of clown shoes.

You're confusing facts for excuses. First, unless you have something that shows otherwise, stepping on nails (or screws) is not something usually considered to be life-threatening. Painful, certainly... life-threatening, not so much.

Stepping on not only that many pointy things, but SCREWS, and doing so hard enough to leave blood and tissue would be a debilitating injury for any biped.

Second, a quick google image search for 'bed of nails' resulted in over 41 million hits. Many of the people pictured are clearly engaging in entertainment purposes. That's a fact easily verified. What part of either of those statements of mine is confusing you?

So now you resort to supernatural swami powers of "nail bedding" to explain how something could step on that many screws, and still be able to walk away after leaving not only a large amount of blood, but also hunks of tissue torn out of the foot by screws...

Ladies and gentlemen, a BFF first: a Skeptic proposes that a human with swami powers is more likely than bigfoot!

This is something that continues to baffle me: people constantly insinuate that it's unintelligent to disgregard Bigfoot or it's many supposed witnesses. I also don't understand why a witness becomes more credible if he has a degree....

Possessing a degree implies a certain level of intelligence and the ability to think clearly and process information, making such a person less likely to make a mistake of information. Possessing relevant experience (hunter, forrest official) implies better knowledge of wildlife making misidentification. Possessing relevant other experience (military, Law Enforcement, etc) implies a calm head under pressure, attention to detail, and a higher degree of personal credibility, which is a requirement of their professions, esp law enforcement.

In my personal opinion, it is highly ignorant to assume that there aren't creatures on the earth that we haven't found, but in contrast, I find it highly nonsensical to even remotely consider Bigfoot as being one of those creatures. Common sense should dictate the debate and give you your answer, but I guess it all depends on whether or not you WANT to believe.

Not at all. I don't "want to believe", I know. I saw one with my own eyes. Furthermore, it is not "highly nonsensical" to at a minimum at least be open to BF as an explanation for the mountain of sightings, tracks cast, forensically typed hairs, etc.

All I see here is a bunch of people who want to believe in something that clearly doesn't exist...

Proof of non-existance please?

[Guest Gilbert Syndrome]

Which does not prove it was a human. The evidence suggests otherwise, given the extreme size of the foot in question. On a human-size frame it would be like having feet the size of clown shoes.

Stepping on not only that many pointy things, but SCREWS, and doing so hard enough to leave blood and tissue would be a debilitating injury for any biped.

So now you resort to supernatural swami powers of "nail bedding" to explain how something could step on that many screws, and still be able to walk away after leaving not only a large amount of blood, but also hunks of tissue torn out of the foot by screws...

Ladies and gentlemen, a BFF first: a Skeptic proposes that a human with swami powers is more likely than bigfoot!

Possessing a degree implies a certain level of intelligence and the ability to think clearly and process information, making such a person less likely to make a mistake of information. Possessing relevant experience (hunter, forrest official) implies better knowledge of wildlife making misidentification. Possessing relevant other experience (military, Law Enforcement, etc) implies a calm head under pressure, attention to detail, and a higher degree of personal credibility, which is a requirement of their professions, esp law enforcement.

Not at all. I don't "want to believe", I know. I saw one with my own eyes. Furthermore, it is not "highly nonsensical" to at a minimum at least be open to BF as an explanation for the mountain of sightings, tracks cast, forensically typed hairs, etc.

Proof of non-existance please?

Possessing a degree implies a lot of things, but in most cases, none of them are true. This has no relevance with the subject as many people hold degrees etc and listen to Kenny Loggins.

Should the opinions of people who really know how to study and memorize facts be held any higher than anyone else? Nah, not when it comes to Bigfoot.

Proof of non-existance? You can't prove a negative, surely a degree in logic can tell you that.

As for the supposed evidence, I see nothing but mutton dressed as lamb. It'd be funny if we took any other living creature and reversed it's roll with that of the Bigfoot. Thousands of Geese going undetected, leaving footprints in their wake and shoddy film footage...

Edited August 26, 2012 by slabdog

[Hairy Man]

While that sounds like an immovable notion, it is in fact very much movable: show me a bigfoot and I'll move it. Few things in this world would make me happier than being able to say "I was once absolutely convinced that there was no such thing as bigfoot, but I was wrong."

So I take it based on this comment that you are in full support of the TBRC mission of obtaining a specimen for scientific study?

[slabdog]

Staff is reviewing multiple posts on this thread ...many of which have been removed.

Please do not get sucked into a melee.

Keep the debate on point and within the rules.

[Guest Darrell]

So I take it based on this comment that you are in full support of the TBRC mission of obtaining a specimen for scientific study?

I dont really know why this is even controversial. Produce a specimen and speculation about existance goes away. But I dont think that will happen.

[Hairy Man]

It's going to happen. It's controversial because some think bigfoot is human, which is isn't.