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

[dmaker]

^^^ I don't believe that saying BF has not been accepted by science is " contradicted by evidence".

[Guest]

...which would amount to what I'm saying he has to show. So you are saying he can't.

How would an elk needing to put its feet under it discount it leaving the cast? Because it would leave hoofprints in the body outline? I showed you why thats wrong and Anton cited Elbroch, M., 2003, Mammal Tracks and Sign, Stackpole Books to prove his point.

I'm going with Daris Swindler over some "skeptic."

And I'll take Anton Wroblewski over a bigfoot "expert".

Edited January 10, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[dmaker]

There are thousands of people more who have seen bigfoot than have watched aliens make a crop circle.

I would say the numbers on both sides of that assertion are ZERO.

[Martin]

Some people claim that bigfoot hangs around ufo's.

[Guest DWA]

^^^ I don't believe that saying BF has not been accepted by science is " contradicted by evidence".

No. That's a fact. But the evidence supports the existence of sasquatch. That's a fact too, to everyone who has taken the time. Nobody has shown me that Meldrum is a crank; Krantz neither; Bindernagel neither; they seem to be applying science in its purest distilled form; what they say on the topic makes eminent sense; thousands of people who don't seem to have anything wrong with them are describing great ape features and behavior despite no discernable experience with the known apes; and what the scientists who disagree with them say is what, well, anyone disagreeing with them says and needs little education to say. As I expect more than that from scientists, that's why I discount the mainstream attitude.

"Maybe I am overly skeptical in an effort to avoid fooling myself into a position."

I'm just skeptical. You gotta convince me; and evidence is all I look at. Nobody fools me into anything unless I'm just not paying attention, and this don't look like one of those instances.

There are thousands of people more who have seen bigfoot than have watched aliens make a crop circle.

I would say the numbers on both sides of that assertion are ZERO.

As to the former side: when thousands disagree with you, I'm not putting my money with you.

Edited January 10, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

As to the former side: when thousands disagree with you, I'm not putting my money with you.

Great, so you believe in ghosts and alien abductions

[WSA]

dmaker......Duuuuuude. It is a very fundamental question, and I promise it is not a trick one. I will go and sin no more if anyone can show me a reasonable impersonation of Patty. Without that (and the clock is ticking), my cards are: I'm holding a high resolution moving image of a Sasquatch, with provenance and corresponding physical evidence. Hell, I'll even throw provenance and physical evidence back in the deck. And you got.....?

This is the way serious inquiry works. So far, mostly science has refused to confront what is shown in these images in any meaningful way. If all there was was Patty, we'd still be right here. I'm pretending for the sake of this question that it is all we have. Now, again, show me how it was done. Wishing it didn't show what it shows doesn't count. Saying there has never been any further meaningful evidence after Patty doesn't count...I'm giving you that.

Now, show your cards.

[Guest DWA]

Maybe the wrong spot for this but anyway....

I don't understand why more sightings are not explained like this:

Reporter: What did it look like?

Witness: Patty. or Patty no boobies.

Believe it or not, most people haven't seen the Patterson film. (Interested in this subject since 1968, I didn't see P/G until like 2003.) What lends the accounts their power is that people, from scratch, are citing the same features and behaviors down to fine detail, over and over. If everybody said what you are thiking they should all say: Bigfoot ain't real, simple as that. When people are making it up they glom onto tropes like Patty.

]

I also think a clear case can be made to exclude all class B and C sightings.

Just saying.

Why? Read a lot of Class B and C and you can see it's not just Bobo yelling "squatchy."

The point is not for the evidence to BE proof. The evidence is more than voluminous and consistent enough to get field research started. That's where proof is coming from.

Great, so you believe in ghosts and alien abductions

Not sure where you get that, but you do seem to believe what you want to, so continue.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

There are thousands of people more who have seen bigfoot than have watched aliens make a crop circle.

Aliens don't make crop circles people do, and don't forget those thousands of people that have seen BF can't touch him or even get a good picture, you can stand in a crop circle take hundreds of good pictures, maybe even have a few beers while you bask in it's reality.

I'm only having fun with ya

[dmaker]

^^^^ Please do not call me Duuuuuuude. This is not The Big Lebowski and I'm not smoking whatever you are ( and really I could not care less what sins you commit). I'm not saying that Patty is easy to fake. In fact, I was not the one having the Patty argument with you. But for the record, I don't believe Patty to be a Bigfoot. But I don't need to be an ichthyologist to tell you the shark in Jaws is fake either. Nor do I need to go out to my backyard and build you a fake shark anymore than I need to build a Patty suit. I try to stay away from Patty arguments because I don't have anything to fall back on other than my gut reaction to it. Not an anthropologist, biologist or special effects expert. So I stay away from that one. I will say, though, of all the video evidence I have ever seen, if any one of them is going to turn out to be true, it's Patty. There is just something about it. I am fascinated while watching it imagining that it's real, but again, at the end of the day, I'm just not convinced. My gut reaction is that it's fake. Can't tell you how or why, but that's just my opinion. Argue the operational details of a Patty suit with someone else.

Edited January 10, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Aliens don't make crop circles people do, and don't forget those thousands of people that have seen BF can't touch him or even get a good picture, you can stand in a crop circle take hundreds of good pictures, maybe even have a few beers while you bask in it's reality.

I'm only having fun with ya

Well, given most people's attitudes toward wildlife photography, I can tell you for sure that you are talking to the - THE- most astonished person on this board if a compelling pic or video is ever taken by anyone who isn't in the field for that specific purpose.

Edited January 10, 2013 by DWA

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Well, given most people's attitudes toward wildlife photography, I can tell you for sure that you are talking to the - THE- most astonished person on this board if a compelling pic or video is ever taken by anyone who isn't in the field for that specific purpose.

Game cams aside of course.

[dmaker]

EDIT: @WSA you may call me Dude if you like After reading my post, my opening came across as snappish. Wasn't meant to be, and I know you meant no offense in calling me duuuude. I think I just need a break from the boards for a while...nerves are fraying a bit. Sorry if I sounded too abrupt with you.

[Guest DWA]

Game cams aside of course.

Well, game cams don't go, Holy whatthe...and realize about the time they get home that they were carrying a camera.

Now, we're not all like that. In Alaska I encountered a grizzly and a white wolf at close range, and snapped neither. The griz, I was more focused on his intent to take our food than on photography, but one of us did get pictures. The wolf, I don't remember if I had my camera with me or not but I probably did. I wanted, though, to see the wolf, not to snap him. I'd already found out by then that experiencing life through the viewfinder isn't my thing so much.

So I won't say that people just can't do it; some can. But you have to get one of those people, with a camera at the ready, and a bigfoot in the same spot. I'm not betting on it.

Oh. With the grizzly, the guy that got the pix had plenty of time. In that sense it wasn't like most sasquatch encounters.

[WSA]

dmaker, no apology necessary, but thanks. I've a tough ol' hide, and I try to not make a habit of judging anyone's tone through key strokes, unless they are playing the piano. If I sounded peevish as well... I didn't mean to come across that way either.

@dmaker, here's the thing: You CAN'T ignore Patty. Well, I mean you can, but it is the entry point of the whole discussion, and is likely to be for a long while. I can't (nor can anyone else) argue the relative merits, pro/cons of a Patty suit with anyone. That analysis flat-out doesn't exist because the entry level for THAT discussion has not been produced. I've waited 45 years since it was released for that to show up. I'm beginning to get the feeling 45 more years of waiting wouldn't bring a different result.

If I can presume to analyze your feeling about it, I'd hazard the unease you have with Patty is a very normal reaction, commonly referred to as cognitive dissonance. It is hard to hold two opposing positions of equal but opposite probabilities in the mind at the same time. So, your mind tells you "Patty not real" and "I can't explain Patty" at the same time. Like most binary choices, it is a false one. The mark of the enlightened mind is to accept something as true when it contravenes all other experiences and presumed truths previously held. No, I don't claim to be enlightened, but some of us do have our moments of enlightenment, akin to a blind hog finding an acorn now and then. Give it a try.

Oh, and besides all that, Patty ties the whole room together. (Just kidding dude)