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

[Guest DWA]

^^^Pretty much. (I love piling on.)

In fact, the entire "anti" case amounts to harping on irrelevancies:

• the 'celebrities' are loons (then ignore them except for entertainment);
  
• the sizes quoted are silly (your Ph.D allowing that determination please; and btw I will tell you you are wrong unless you show evidence of actually applying that Ph.D);
  
• the witnesses are wrong (you need to PROVE that, and would have to in a court of law too);
  
• this is just impossible (to people who don't get outside, or think about the time they spend outside, much);
  
• ...I could go on all day but you get the idea.
  
• Oh. Ignoring scientists who actively dispute you is nothing but pure and simple denial. Addressing your rants to the fringe rather than to the scientists is simple evasion.
  

Just sayin' there.

Edited March 7, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

Checking out the BFRO recently submitted reports this morning. HA! What a stitch. Just another report of some kooky homeowners trying their darndest to devalue the market price of their newly acquired property and some zany confused man who has been hunting only 20 years! They crack me up. Why in the world should we consider them as having any useful evidence to provide? Get out of here you knuckleheads! Go stand over there with those other...oh...two thousand jokers. Jeez, you people!

Edited March 7, 2013 by WSA

[Guest DWA]

Pretty instructive, that exercise.

(Ran the make on that house. Do the words "Stay. A. Way" mean anything to you?)

Edited March 8, 2013 by DWA
to remove political rant

[xspider1]

I wonder how they make all those people lie, hallucinate and/or, get hoaxed so effectively in so many interviews (including' some of those on Finding Bigfoot'). We can't fully explain Bigfoot so, for some reason, that makes them completely unbelievable for many. And, since the subject is extraordinary and since 'Bigfoot' is a funny word, what great excuses for ridicule. : | Oh well, it's the same for a plethora of other things. Some people lie on both sides of the fence but, Bigfoot can't seem to be explained away with any all-knowing rhetoric to date.

[Guest]

When the substantial evidence exists; scientists vouch for it; the scientists who don't can be demonstrated by non-scientists to be not paying any attention; and the rationalists refuse to pay attention to that, going on for ....er, 176 pages now empirically demonstrating their imperviousness to information (getting the mean heights and weights wrong among other things), then 'normal' is not what they're being, unless one considers denial a normal part of the human condition.

Oh, and I should add: if what we are saying is that post 3501 is proof positive that WSA is a whacko who should not be your defense attorney: This is why I say a population of 56 million, 15-foot tall, two-ton sasquatch could live entirely in US suburbs and go totally unconfirmed. If the response to seeing one is "you didn't see that," shoot, we could have blue whales flying down our streets daily and no one would officially know it.

I'm sure this has been covered before but is there a list of maybe the strongest pieces of evidence supporting the existence of these animals?

As a newer member, the amount of information is a bit overwhelming.

[Djj]

mbh- the Patterson-Gimlin Film (that's what the PGF) is the most controversial and well known bigfoot film. There are tons of other films that are of uneven quality- good, bad and outright hoaxed fakes. There is the Ketchum DNA study, which proves- something. There are the sighting reports from the BFRO. (The BFRO does Finding Bigfoot and is a clearing house for sighting reports).

Then there are the habituator reports (bigfoot living close by isolated people/houses where there is some level of contact between the people and their bigfoot neighbors- again, monumentally controversial, but something is going on...)

There are also scores of Native American legends about Sasquatch, and other legends (ape canyon is one of them). I offer this as unbiasedly as I can. What is real, what is a hoax, I leave for your discretion.

[Guest DWA]

I'm sure this has been covered before but is there a list of maybe the strongest pieces of evidence supporting the existence of these animals?

As a newer member, the amount of information is a bit overwhelming.

The P/G film could be proven fake tomorrow, Ketchum in my opinion has zero; and the evidence is still overwhelming. What makes it so is frequency and coherence-there is lots of it and its consistency indicates a source external to the observers. Many trackways have been found that it stretches credulity to presume fakes. They are fooling- if fake- scientists with specialized training. The sightings are guidebook consistent- I tick off 8 to 10 often-reported markers with each one I read. If one reads a lot of the. - and one really has nothing to say about them if one doesn't- one is very hard put to presume they're fabrications.

[Guest]

Edit: deleted.

Edited March 11, 2013 by leisureclass

[WSA]

I'm sure this has been covered before but is there a list of maybe the strongest pieces of evidence supporting the existence of these animals?

As a newer member, the amount of information is a bit overwhelming.

Yes, it really is, isn't it?

You'll hear it from me a lot, and some are no doubt weary of me saying so, but there is no better introduction to the evidence than the sighting reports available on the BFRO website. There are currently about two-thousand of those to peruse, from the continental U.S. and Canada. Some are majorly compelling. Some are very sketchy, and some you flat-out won't believe no matter how hard you try. But....there are what they are and if you are truly captivated by this question, you owe it to yourself to put the time in to read as many of those as you can. If you put in enough time and thought you'll have a ground level appreciation for what this thing might be, and an advantage over many so-called skeptics. Or, you may be one of those who arrive at a different conclusion. If you don't find those compelling after reading lots of them, nobody should be able to offer any contrary opinion on this subject that will matter. (My personal position is that anyone who claims to have an informed opinion on the probability of Sasquatch, and hasn't read those, doesn't.) Enjoy the hunt.

[Drew]

Checking out the BFRO recently submitted reports this morning. HA! What a stitch. Just another report of some kooky homeowners trying their darndest to devalue the market price of their newly acquired property and some zany confused man who has been hunting only 20 years! They crack me up. Why in the world should we consider them as having any useful evidence to provide? Get out of here you knuckleheads! Go stand over there with those other...oh...two thousand jokers. Jeez, you people!

Because normal people see things that don't exist, it is a fact.

Normal people also embellish stories, many normal people believe that seeing things means you are crazy. While not true, this is a deciding factor in whether or not you tell people you saw a giant hairy bush ape, or had a hallucination. At least the people who say that they saw a bush-ape, have a community of people to support them, hell, those people will even come out and hang out with you for a couple hours if your story is good enough.

Hunters see things that don't exist all the time. Get up really early, stay up really late the night before, pretty soon you are in hypnogogic la la land sitting in your deer blind. It is a fact.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Drew

[Guest DWA]

Because normal people see things that don't exist, it is a fact.

Normal people also embellish stories, many normal people believe that seeing things means you are crazy. While not true, this is a deciding factor in whether or not you tell people you saw a giant hairy bush ape, or had a hallucination. At least the people who say that they saw a bush-ape, have a community of people to support them, hell, those people will even come out and hang out with you for a couple hours if your story is good enough.

Hunters see things that don't exist all the time. Get up really early, stay up really late the night before, pretty soon you are in hypnogogic la la land sitting in your deer blind. It is a fact.

(My personal position is that anyone who claims to have an informed opinion on the probability of Sasquatch, and hasn't read those, doesn't.)

Add the TBRC's as well. And why leave oneself without a, well, you know, out?

[Drew]

(My personal position is that anyone who claims to have an informed opinion on the probability of Sasquatch, and hasn't read those, doesn't.)

Add the TBRC's as well. And why leave oneself without a, well, you know, out?

???

[Guest DWA]

Just seeing if you're reading the thread.

(Read the thread.)

(Then read those reports!)

[WSA]

Funny...can't recall ever getting to an hypnotic state in my deer blind. (Not that I would have found it unpleasant) Oh, wait. Riiiiight. If you are IN a hypnotic state, you don't KNOW you are in an hypnotic state, so....

Wait too....you're going to hallucinate the same thing as two-thousand other people. Sure, that makes sense.

You keep on this way Drew you're gonna slip a disc. :-)

Edited March 11, 2013 by WSA

[Drew]

WSA-

Not hypnotic, hypnogogic.

Please re-google