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

[Guest]

Malboro, I too, agree it was likely a human source who trashed the cabin. I don't necessarily agree with all of your logic, or "wordplay", as HRP put it. Anyone, could have snowmobiled over the ice to get there, (BF would have access as well over the ice). Cabin owners in that neck of the woods tend to leave in the fall and return sometime next spring or summer. So there is ample time for anything or anyone to trash the cabin.

But in this instance, the trashing took place in late fall. If you can recall from "Sasquatch Attack Part One", the damage to the cabin was discovered during a visit by staff to shut down the cabin for winter. I would assume this included draining all the water from the piping. So it took place after the last guests were flown out and before the visit by staff to shut down the cabin for winter.

[Guest]

And all it takes is a thread like this: http://bigfootforums...bs-and-bigfoot/

and all this serious credibility goes down the drain. Id lump all the native american legends in the same basket.

Seen bigfoot or a unicorn? And why be insulted? Nobody can even prove what they saw was a bigfoot/unicorn to start with. For some reason just because someone says they have seen a bigfoot/unicorn we have to believe it?

I didn't say you guys have to believe anything. That was the point of my post. Digsy was offended by me saying I don't really care what you guys think about bigfoot existing. He brought up unicorns and doing that is an obvious attempt to make this into just silliness. I'm not insulted at all, all I am saying is that because some people on a forum don't believe what I saw exists, I'm not going to stop approaching the subject knowing it does. I don't doubt what I saw.

[Guest thermalman]

But in this instance, the trashing took place in late fall. If you can recall from "Sasquatch Attack Part One", the damage to the cabin was discovered during a visit by staff to shut down the cabin for winter. I would assume this included draining all the water from the piping. So it took place after the last guests were flown out and before the visit by staff to shut down the cabin for winter.

My apologise on the time of year. How would you explain no prints in the soot?

[bipedalist]

I didn't say you guys have to believe anything. That was the point of my post. Digsy was offended by me saying I don't really care what you guys think about bigfoot existing. He brought up unicorns and doing that is an obvious attempt to make this into just silliness. I'm not insulted at all, all I am saying is that because some people on a forum don't believe what I saw exists, I'm not going to stop approaching the subject knowing it does. I don't doubt what I saw.

Good for you, this is above all a place for people to discuss the subject of the forum Bigfoot.Sasquatch. Others are stuck on the phenomenon. Time is critical for most in this day and age and money/employment even more so. I figure somebody who has devoted time to share their sighting on this forum is going to get primary play from persons such as myself that has been in the same boat; the naysayers tossing bricks and people that aren't even curious, less so. Those hell-bent on telling "us" that we haven't seen anything or that our mind is "filling in blanks" are engaged in an exercise of futility and denial.

Edited August 26, 2012 by bipedalist

[southernyahoo]

But there's nothing stopping them from concluding that it was done by a bears or humans, both of which happen to live in the area. However, since neither of us have seen their final report, we don't know what they concluded.

RayG

About all the insurance company video would do is establish the degree of damage to estimate the loss. it would be a law enforcement investigation that would provide some determination of "what" did the damage. The fact we don't have an obvious culprit that left footprints in the cabin this leaves it open to any animal or human. If there were any definitive evidence of what ransaked the cabin there wouldn't have been a need to put a screw board at the front door. An animal must have been the suspect because I doubt a human wouldn't notice it there. So what was dumb enough to step on it? Well, one examiner has said the hair looked like it came from a wild human.

[Guest thermalman]

Gilbert Syndrome said;

"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?"

There are other forums for your thoughts.

"It obviously does make a difference though, doesn't it? The fact of the matter is, you're a stanger.................... this means nothing to me."

You're thoughts are starting to grow on this forum the same way.

Edited August 26, 2012 by thermalman

[salubrious]

Those hell-bent on telling "us" that we haven't seen anything or that our mind is "filling in blanks" are engaged in an exercise of futility and denial.

+1 from me.

I am sure there are people out there that think they saw something, have a story about it but didn't actually see BF. But there for sure are a lot of people who did. Anyone who admits to seeing BF is taking a risk- of ridicule at least, maybe more. For most people its not worth it. So you have to think about it- why would people admit to such at thing? Fame?? -how about: its just the truth, and they are stuck with it. There are a lot of people here who are in that situation.

[Guest]

Quite frankly I find that post insulting. I have no feeling one way or the other about people looking for bigfoot, infact it's them people that advance subjects like this. Weather you have seen one or not does not inform my opinion, I would have to change my belief system to have any opinion on that. I simply stated that, from my point of view they're not real as I PERSONALLY have no evidence to suggest they are and as science, which my belief system is based on, do not recognise them therefore nor do I.

To throw around insulting remarks like computer jockeys is neither construtive or respectful. That comment says more about you than it does about me.

To be fair, as someone else who has seen one, I find declarations like yours to be insulting (not trying to start a fight, just pointing out how I feel about what you have said). It implies that I am either crazy or not telling the truth about what I have seen. And what others have seen. And what credentialed scientists have determined about the physical evidence.

I also find it insulting from an intellectual point of view. Reality is not shaped by what one person does or does not personally experience. The reality of BF is not contingent on your acceptance, nor that of institutional science. For you or it to say "we haven't personally had absolute proof laid out for us on a silver platter, therefore it isn't real" is an offense against reason and logic.

And all it takes is a thread like this: http://bigfootforums...bs-and-bigfoot/

and all this serious credibility goes down the drain. Id lump all the native american legends in the same basket.

Seen bigfoot or a unicorn? And why be insulted? Nobody can even prove what they saw was a bigfoot/unicorn to start with. For some reason just because someone says they have seen a bigfoot/unicorn we have to believe it?

If you have any proof people who say they have seen a bigfoot are either nuts or not telling the truth, feel free to post it. Only the cynic assumes all statements not "proven" true are necessarily false.

[Guest BFSleuth]

I find it interesting that a skeptic would ascribe to a "belief system" in regards to evidence. Without a personal sighting I look at, for want of a better way of describing it, "data points". Sighting reports, trackways, audio, and visual (photographic evidence) are "data points", some have more weight than others based on my personal interpretation of how credible or conclusive they are. As of now I think the overall collection of data points are indicative of one or more species of large hairy bipeds in North America. I don't think a "belief system" is part of the equation, other than that I think it is a good thing to be aware of the data points, take them into account, and make a judgement call of the state of the evidence.

Perhaps the reason why I think about this concept of the "belief system" is based on a conversation I had with a skeptical friend of mine last year regarding the subject of BF. Once he realized that I'm open to the concept he immediately screwed up his face into a rather surprising look of rage and began railing against how it would be possible they could exist, but after some discussion he admitted that his initial emotional response was simply because if they really did exist then it would be totally at odds with his concept of human beings as the only bipedal life form on the planet.

[Guest]

^Most of what is passed off as "skepticism" IS belief-based. "Phenomenon X does not exist" is not in any way a scientific statement as it is not a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, but "critically thinking skeptics" demand exactly that of proponents all the time. It is a mutated "prove the negative" fallacy.

[Hairy Man]

I agree that taking a specimen is inevitable to an "official" discovery process.That second statement is bold and daring, leading me to believe that you have seen some evidence that others of us have not (at least not me, since I am not a witness) While I think it is a safe bet that BF/wildmen are certainly rather unlike modern humans, what comes of evidence that they may have language? Can we start drawing lines/making pronouncements about classification this early in the game?

Yes, I am a witness. I saw two of them in Area X (TBRC) in May. I had more than a week to experience and observe their behavior. We have a nice little thread going on about it in the Premium Area. You can also listen to eposides 38 and 39 of the Bigfoot Show for more information. And yes, as a trained anthropologist, I think very much that I can start drawing lines in the sand. No matter what their DNA may show, they are not human.

[Guest Darrell]

^Most of what is passed off as "skepticism" IS belief-based. "Phenomenon X does not exist" is not in any way a scientific statement as it is not a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, but "critically thinking skeptics" demand exactly that of proponents all the time. It is a mutated "prove the negative" fallacy.

And all of "proponentism" is belief-based. Prove the positive anyone. But all evidence so far can be faked or ascribed to something else. The skeptical argument is prove it exists. The propents argument is because I believe it exists, it exists.

[Guest]

And all of "proponentism" is belief-based. Prove the positive anyone. But all evidence so far can be faked or ascribed to something else. The skeptical argument is prove it exists. The propents argument is because I believe it exists, it exists.

Complete and utter nonsense. Proponents have evidence. It has been presented repeatedly.

Show me where Skeptics have presented their evidence that the proponent evidence is wrong. Each and every piece of it.

Not that it COULD be wrong, or that Skeptics BELIEVE it to be wrong. That it IS wrong.

Otherwise it is the Skeptic argument that is belief-based, as it has ZERO supporting evidence.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Actually, from some of the presentation of the skeptical side of the argument, it appears that there's a heavy dose of belief that seems to stretch things pretty thin in attempts to make true the statement that "all evidence so far can be faked or ascribed to something else". Some of the proposed theories of how something "could have" been hoaxed or "could have" been caused by something other than a large hairy biped are pretty amusing IMHO... more of a "belief" in something or anything than what the data point is pointing toward. We've had magic bunnies making three mile trackways in the snow, theories that hoaxers go to great lengths to lay down trackways in remote locations (or proposals that said remote locations are not in fact remote at all), theories that all witnesses must be hallucinating or misidentifying,... the list is pretty endless and amusing. Anything than what the data points really indicate IMO. The mantra seems to be "if it can be faked it must be a fake", and therefore the arguments to give some little smidgeon of possibility that a trackway or a sighting can be fake is the over riding motivation.

Sometimes a cigar, is just a cigar... and sometimes a large 5-toed bipedal trackway, is just a trackway made by a large 5-toed biped.

[Guest BFSleuth]

The origin of skepticism had its roots in the idea of "suspension of belief" in order to better perceive and understand that which is. Belief can warp perception. This works with people who want to see BF so much that they can morph a partial view of a hairy animal and it becomes BF, or hear a howl in the woods and it must be BF, etc. On the skeptical side of things this is also true, that perception can be warped by trying hard to make the big hairy hominid become a bear or the voluminous howl become a hoaxer or escaped monkey in the PNW. I see perceptual stretching on both sides of this debate.

I have a healthy respect for anyone on either side of this debate that is willing to suspend belief in order to try and see without clouding their perception. As such this would seem to define Skepticism (as a proponent or a non-proponent of the reality of BF). I have less consideration for anyone on either side of the debate that inject strong belief into their perceptions such that they become misguided, stretching things into the ridiculous on both sides.

Belief shouldn't have anything to do with it.