Jump to content

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


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

BFF Donor

well it brings up the issue of "good" video evidence and the fact that i think its a waste of time.

with shooting one tho skeptics do raise a good point as to why we dont have a specimen from when buffalo and grizzlies were being shot almost to extiction and i dont have a good answer for that.

all we have are some accounts from respected people from those times such as thompson and roosevelt.

but looking at the problem as of right now? no we do not have good odds of ma and pa kettle out for picnic and they see and blast one. most people do not pack any gun let alone a big bore rifle into the woods these days. some government agencies even frown upon it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, too often the "why hasn't somebody shot one" type of argument is used to talk past the evidence. Which leaves the evidence standing unaddressed. I want to know what is producing all the evidence. That question just wastes bandwidth...until somebody hits one, and brings it in for examination.

Edited by DWA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^^If a specimen doesn't turn up then we can be more sure that a sasquatch isn't producing the evidence. There's a reason why foot prints ect can't prove a species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never said they were proof. But if nobody had gotten out and tested that Here Be Dragons and Earth Is Flat and Sailing West Gets You To India stuff, well, where would we be? That's why we try to figure out what's making the prints. Science thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in Canada. It's cold here in the winter, I can attest to that. How does a squatch survive the cold and what does it eat? By all reports it must have a caloric daily requirement of 10k at least. Probably more in colder weather.

You know what? Please disregard my question. Since I am tired of making the same arguments and asking the same questions over and over again. I'm content to say that my position right now is that there is not enough evidence to support the claim that an 8ft bipedal creature is running amok in North America. It's simply not very tenable. Until that position is proven to be wrong, I'm uninterested in debates about what it eats, what its' musculature is like, whether it needs salt to survive, or what it's favourite brand of ribs happens to be. For me, right now, those arguments are like wrestling an imaginary animal to the mat. You can never win, and it's ultimately pointless.

I am sure there are vast unexplored forests. I don't think that they are hiding previously undiscovered large mammals. Do you know how rare it is to find an undiscovered mammal, much less an 8ft carnivorous primate that, by reports, wanders through our own suburbs and greenspaces? It just doesn't happen.

I get what you are saying about hobbits. Or homo floresiensis. But no one is suggesting that HF is an extant species, are they? That's a pretty key difference. If someone were saying that there used to be a BF type creature that lived in this hemisphere on this continent 10's of thousands of years ago AND had at least ONE piece of fossil evidence to support it, then I would have no problem at all believing that. But that's not what we are talking about it, is it? So what is the point in bringing HF into the debate?

Really don't know if it does any good to post this...

I've seen one with my own eyes in Alaska. Reported it to the Fish and Wildlife and they weren't surprised in the least...and no they were not humoring me.

I've done so simply as listening to some of the accounts on youtube, guys that were hunters and now refuse to enter the woods. The one 911 call where the you can tell the guy is TERRIFIED! He stops short of calling it BF, but you know exactly what he is seeing.

To me, personal accounts, using my gift no other organism has on this planet to interpret information I'm not personally seeing, are just as good as any body on a slab.

Somewhere along the line, we as people lost something. We lost the ability to take another persons word. We made the jump to become like computers and if there's no physical data...it doesn't compute? We weren't made to be as such.

We have science and it's the grandest mechanism we have, yet it is fallible and incomplete. Unfortunately we have a growing pool of people whom are letting this incomplete and constantly changing mechanism govern them. If they can't read it in Nature Magazine then it doesn't exist. Again, those are characteristics of automated things, not people.

We are applying our incomplete science in methods such as, a BF wouldn't be able to find sufficient calories to exist. Our incomplete science tells us this. When I say incomplete I am saying our science doesn't have all the answers. Well if something doesn't have all the answers it is foolish to use it as the Alpha and Omega.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LarryP

Really don't know if it does any good to post this...

I've seen one with my own eyes in Alaska. Reported it to the Fish and Wildlife and they weren't surprised in the least...and no they were not humoring me.

I've done so simply as listening to some of the accounts on youtube, guys that were hunters and now refuse to enter the woods. The one 911 call where the you can tell the guy is TERRIFIED! He stops short of calling it BF, but you know exactly what he is seeing.

To me, personal accounts, using my gift no other organism has on this planet to interpret information I'm not personally seeing, are just as good as any body on a slab.

Somewhere along the line, we as people lost something. We lost the ability to take another persons word. We made the jump to become like computers and if there's no physical data...it doesn't compute? We weren't made to be as such.

We have science and it's the grandest mechanism we have, yet it is fallible and incomplete. Unfortunately we have a growing pool of people whom are letting this incomplete and constantly changing mechanism govern them. If they can't read it in Nature Magazine then it doesn't exist. Again, those are characteristics of automated things, not people.

We are applying our incomplete science in methods such as, a BF wouldn't be able to find sufficient calories to exist. Our incomplete science tells us this. When I say incomplete I am saying our science doesn't have all the answers. Well if something doesn't have all the answers it is foolish to use it as the Alpha and Omega.

What it all boils down to for the "if there's no physical data...it doesn't compute" crowd, is a deeply seated fear of the unknown.

As a result of that fear, there are a lot of people in the Western world whose entire worldview is predicated on a mental addiction to what they perceive as physical data.

Which is why pseudo-skeptics like James Randi attract so many loyal followers. This following has resulted in a collective comprised of fellow pedant's who find safety and comfort in numbers to assuage their fear.

Unfortunately for them, this collective and single minded mob mentality ends up displaying all of the usual ugly aspects of any mob mentality that is driven by fear.

Which is why ad-hominem attacts and ridicule against everyone and anyone who dares to upset their pedantic apple cart has become acceptable behavior in their mind.

It's really no different than why Junkies hang out with other fellow Junkies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it all boils down to for the "if there's no physical data...it doesn't compute" crowd, is a deeply seated fear of the unknown.

As a result of that fear, there are a lot of people in the Western world whose entire worldview is predicated on a mental addiction to what they perceive as physical data.

Which is why pseudo-skeptics like James Randi attract so many loyal followers. This following has resulted in a collective comprised of fellow pedant's who find safety and comfort in numbers to assuage their fear.

Unfortunately for them, this collective and single minded mob mentality ends up displaying all of the usual ugly aspects of any mob mentality that is driven by fear.

Which is why ad-hominem attacts and ridicule against everyone and anyone who dares to upset their pedantic apple cart has become acceptable behavior in their mind.

It's really no different than why Junkies hang out with other fellow Junkies.

Your rhetoric is chaotic,confusing and border line insulting.

Stupid Westerners, addicted to evidence. When all we should do is link hands, and share our stories and take everything on faith. Never want evidence or proof for anything. Just accept everything we are told, no matter how preposterous.

There is zero , ZERO, incumbency to accept an outrageous claim until that claim is proven. In other words, you want me to believe your wild claims? Simple.

Prove them. In the meantime I'll stick with what the facts can prove, and so far that aint much. DWA loves to point to milestones from the past. But they also help bolster the skeptical argument against Bigfoot. Yes, those are great examples of paradigm shifts. Of things that were once skoffed at, but are now accepted as fact. But they key point is that those things were pursued and the claims were proven out. If that ever happens and BF takes its spot up there along with the rest of mans great discoveries, then awesome. Join me for dinner, I'll eat crow and you can have a big, fat I-Told-You-So steak. In the meantime, I'm not going to hold my breath. Turns out, I'm addicted to oxygen.

Edited by dmaker
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LarryP

Your rhetoric is chaotic,confusing and border line insulting.

Stupid Westerners, addicted to evidence. When all we should do is link hands, and share our stories and take everything on faith. Never want evidence or proof for anything. Just accept everything we are told, no matter how preposterous.

There is zero , ZERO, incumbency to accept an outrageous claim until that claim is proven. In other words, you want me to believe your wild claims? Simple.

Prove them. In the meantime I'll stick with what the facts can prove, and so far that aint much. DWA loves to point to milestones from the past. But they also help bolster the skeptical argument against Bigfoot. Yes, those are great examples of paradigm shifts. Of things that were once skoffed at, but are now accepted as fact. But they key point is that those things were pursued and the claims were proven out. If that ever happens and BF takes its spot up there along with the rest of mans great discoveries, then awesome. Join me for dinner, I'll eat crow and you can have a big, fat I-Told-You-So steak. In the meantime, I'm not going to hold my breath. Turns out, I'm addicted to oxygen.

It was simply an observation and it was not meant to be insulting.

And unlike you, I could care less about people eating Crow or a "big, fat I-Told-You-So steak", for that matter.

Nor do I "want" you to believe anything that you don't want to believe. Which is why I have absolutely no desire or need to "prove" anything to you or anyone else.

To me, it's no different than if I wrote that I have a really nice antique Maple wood writing desk and you replied that you don't believe that I have an antique Maple wood writing desk because as far as you're concerned there is " ZERO, incumbency to accept" that claim "until that claim is proven".

Well, I know that I do own the antique Maple wood writing desk that's in my Den. So why would I care whether or not you believe that is true?

The same applies to what I know about BF. Because what one person perceives to be an "outrageous claim", is another persons known reality.

But that does not mean that I have some obligation to prove what I know to anyone, just because they have not experienced what I've experienced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LarryP: Right. Down the line.

That there is "ZERO, incumbency to accept" a claim "until that claim is proven" is a virtual non sequitur. Of course we don't accept anything until it's proven! This is the continuing failure to understand the difference between evidence and proof. What people addicted to the current template fail to understand is that

the current template has no special claim to primacy in a scientific debate, other than proof being required to overturn it.

What bigfoot skeptics seem to be - no actually they are - saying is that no evidence can even be considered until proof is obtained. This is contrary to scientific practice, and indeed makes scientific progress impossible. When bigfoot skeptics come down on proponents with all this no-proof stuff, what they fail to realize is that scienitific protocol is being followed, to the T, by the scientific proponents. Evidence comes to light; it is considered; and if warranted it is followed until the proof is obtained. Shouting it down (and that's just the precise term) because proof hasn't been obtained yet is like telling sailors to watch out for the edge of the Earth. Sooner or later, somebody had to go out there and prove that wasn't an issue.

And I agree, totally, with LarryP that almost all the "skeptical" case against sasquatch doesn't even rise to the level of a case. What it basically amounts to is ranting. And getting wrapped around one's own axle, as here:

" DWA loves to point to milestones from the past. But they also help bolster the skeptical argument against Bigfoot. Yes, those are great examples of paradigm shifts. Of things that were once skoffed at, but are now accepted as fact. But they key point is that those things were pursued and the claims were proven out."

Um, major no. MAJOR no. Where Meldrum and Bindernagel are on sasquatch now is in "pursuing" until the claim is "proven out." This is so utterly obvious I didn't think it needed mentioning. But 184 pages are disputing me big time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...