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

[Drew]

Ignoring what evidence? Footprints and Sightings? Should he spend time on Fairies, Unicorns, and Dragons? Maybe some T-Rex's down in South America? How about Loch Ness Monster?

You believe that scientists should utilize their limited resources to go after a beast that hasn't been shown to exist? Perhaps some actual existent animal should be forced to pay the price, because some scientist decided to leave his current research and go hunt Bigfoot in the swamps of Florida.

[Guest DWA]

Yes! Fairies, Unicorns and Dragons! Their footprints are all over the place...! I saw them all flying together today, over my house...!!! The Real Blue Angels...!!! [sigh]

No. Scientists should never look into anything that isn't proven. That's only what the definition of science is, and so they should cut it out.

Dude. Tylenol. You are making your own head hurt here.

SCIENCE IS THE FINE ART OF PROVING UNPROVEN STUFF.

No. Thank me later.

But the sasquatch should take the ultimate hit just so we can find one more shade of Madagascar mouse lemur whose already-'protected' habitat will be a cow-dung wasteland by next year. Got it.

Edited March 18, 2013 by DWA

[Drew]

SCIENCE IS THE FINE ART OF PROVING UNPROVEN STUFF.

Comprehension fail.

[Guest DWA]

Yes. But there is a way for you to fix that. You just choose not to. Choose differently.

[Drew]

Everytime I get in the car and head to the woods, I have a chance to fix that, so do you, but it isn't happening.

for the last 300 years or so, people had a chance to fix it. And before that, 10,000 years ago, someone should have made a necklace from the monster's teeth. But alas, the mystery ape continues to elude...

[Guest DWA]

Not my fault. All I can do is look at the evidence, and go, hmmm. That's interesting. Wonder what that is.

Anyone who is not bending efforts in this discussion to an on-the-ground confirmation of what all this evidence represents is wasting bandwidth.

[Guest LarryP]

Perhaps James Randi is a noble exposer of things that appear magical but in fact are creatively mundane,

Or perhaps Randi is the exact opposite of a "noble exposer" : http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge

[Guest DWA]

Oh, he's nobly exposing something all right. It is normally covered by things called "trousers."

[norseman]

Everytime I get in the car and head to the woods, I have a chance to fix that, so do you, but it isn't happening.

for the last 300 years or so, people had a chance to fix it. And before that, 10,000 years ago, someone should have made a necklace from the monster's teeth. But alas, the mystery ape continues to elude...

fossil evidence is pretty spotty at best some extnct species are represented by a handful of fragments and a few teeth.

and drew when u go out into the woods do u go armed with something capable of doing the job? and if you came face to face with one would u pull the trigger?

[BobbyO]

Everytime I get in the car and head to the woods, I have a chance to fix that, so do you, but it isn't happening.

for the last 300 years or so, people had a chance to fix it. And before that, 10,000 years ago, someone should have made a necklace from the monster's teeth. But alas, the mystery ape continues to elude...

Doesn't say a great deal about people does it ?

Edited March 19, 2013 by BobbyO

[Drew]

and drew when u go out into the woods do u go armed with something capable of doing the job? and if you came face to face with one would u pull the trigger?

No way.

If I came face to face with a Bigfoot, I would not even think of shooting it, because it is a human in a suit. I don't want a manslaughter rap, I've got a kid to take care of.

[Cotter]

What is you came face to face with an undiscovered primate? Let's drop the 'Bigfoot' term here, b/c I think you use that to bolster your arguement.

Please correct me if I'm wrong - but Bigfoot to you is a mind-reading, dimension jumping, sound zapping, 15 foot tall ape/human creature, correct?

I would agree with you 100%, using that definition of Bigfoot, that Bigfoot does not exist.

Now, back to the question about the undiscovered primate.....thoughts?

[norseman]

No way.

If I came face to face with a Bigfoot, I would not even think of shooting it, because it is a human in a suit. I don't want a manslaughter rap, I've got a kid to take care of.

i respect that i really do but,

a- you dont think face to face you could discern a hoax from a biological creature?

b- i think the vast majority of skeptics and believers are like you very timid with the thought of shooting one for various reasons.

[Cotter]

In a sense, Drew just demonstrated why a specimen has been so difficult to acquire.

[Guest Primate]

i respect that i really do but,

a- you dont think face to face you could discern a hoax from a biological creature?

b- i think the vast majority of skeptics and believers are like you very timid with the thought of shooting one for various reasons.

Even a casual reading of any of the PGF threads will reveal the difficulty skeptics have discerning a biological entity from a man in a suit ..