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

[Guest Darrell]

Ray, I agree with you. i have been into this phenomina since one was seen near where I lived in 1973 (Puyallup, WA). I was 11 then and read every newspaper article and book I could lay my hands on. Here we are almost 40 yrs later and no closer to establishing theses things are real.

[kbhunter]

Darrell, you should state "I". and not "we" in the above statement unless your speaking of you and Ray G. Many here on this forum already know they are real. I would like to add, I am not researcher either. I just spend many days in the woods hunting and fishing. They found me and my family during these outings. I wasn't looking at all, but it was a extremely eye opening experience that is still happening.

KB

[Guest thermalman]

That Roe report can be found here. Being fooled again and again was in reference to the list of 'exciting bigfoot news' that I itemized. Go through that list, one by one, and tell me which ones have confirmed bigfoot.

As for proving all the reports false, I need do no such thing. It's not up to me or any other skeptic to disprove all the reports. For one thing, how exactly do you disprove something that hasn't been proven to begin with? Secondly, with all these thousands of reports, surely we have definitive proof by now, right? If not, what's the point? When do we step beyond the story-telling and demand an actual specimen, or at least a piece of one?

Not sure how long you've been a bigfoot enthusiast, but if I'm still around after you've listened to stories for 40 years, drop me a line.

RayG

My apologizes Ray. I missed the first link you provided. Why is this one different to you, from the others? I've read it and nothing stands out that is no less compelling than many other reports.

Edited September 2, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

This is an honest question, do you spend time in the woods? Have you been to areas of known activity?

Ray's answer could be "no" to both questions and it wouldn't change the truth of his statements in this thread one iota.

Writing for myself, I spend a lot of time in the woods, I've been in areas of alleged "activity," and I specifically do look for signs of bigfoot when I'm out there. Should that make my skeptical attitude toward all things bigfooty any more valid than any other skeptics'? I'd say no. One needn't be the 2nd coming of Grizzly Adams to recognize that there's no bigfoot body in a museum anywhere.

[Guest thermalman]

Sas, you better inspect that chair you frequently sit on and have so much faith in of not collapsing. The next sitdown could be the one that lands you on the floor. My version of skeptic foolishness. Never seen your chair, don't believe you even have one, even though you would tell me you likely do. Silly thinking.........isn't it?

Edited September 2, 2012 by thermalman

[ohiobill]

RayG, thanks for all the time you've spent on this, especially the BFRO reports. I believe you've opened up some eyes around here.

kbhunter, I understand what you are saying - there is a lot of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence but no proof. I say that because evidence can be debated in a court of law - trackways are hard to verify without something to compare them to, recordings are worthless w/o corresponding video or voiceprinting and a known sample, blurry photos/videos are inconclusive etc. Eyewitness testimony is routinely shredded in every court on a daily basis - including that of LEO and other "credible" witnesses. I think the best you could hope for was a hung jury if this went to court.

Sunflower, I spend a lot of time in the woods/outdoors in areas where activity supposedly happens...I haven't seen one. I've heard branches breaking and loud screams and howls but I always attributed it to entropy, owls, and the coyotes that I've seen around the area. Are you a researcher? How do you differentiate evidence of bigfoot activity from other, known animals?

Thermalman, I'd say that lack of skepticism is foolishness.

[xspider1]

Just to be clear: there's evidence of Bigfoot and plenty of it. We just don't have definitive proof. So, yes, since there are people looking for Bigfoot, there just about have to be 'excuses' why no one has brought one in yet. For now, I'm satisfied that they know when we are in their world long before they would pose for any pictures/videos/physical examinations that some require in order to admit that they are real.

Edited September 2, 2012 by xspider1

[Guest thermalman]

RayG, thanks for all the time you've spent on this, especially the BFRO reports. I believe you've opened up some eyes around here.

kbhunter, I understand what you are saying - there is a lot of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence but no proof. I say that because evidence can be debated in a court of law - trackways are hard to verify without something to compare them to, recordings are worthless w/o corresponding video or voiceprinting and a known sample, blurry photos/videos are inconclusive etc. Eyewitness testimony is routinely shredded in every court on a daily basis - including that of LEO and other "credible" witnesses. I think the best you could hope for was a hung jury if this went to court.

Sunflower, I spend a lot of time in the woods/outdoors in areas where activity supposedly happens...I haven't seen one. I've heard branches breaking and loud screams and howls but I always attributed it to entropy, owls, and the coyotes that I've seen around the area. Are you a researcher? How do you differentiate evidence of bigfoot activity from other, known animals?

Thermalman, I'd say that lack of skepticism is foolishness.

Lack of skepticism is foolish in it's own way, but I'd say overzealous skepticism is "over the top".

[Guest RayG]

If you read the true definition of the word, there is PLENTY of evidence. There are many statements of witnesses, both written and oral. There is also proof or sign that supports AS evidence in pictures, videos, tracks and other sign that can help prove the existence. So, The fact is there has been much evidence going back centuries from Native American stories, paintings, etc.

By your argument then, we have PLENTY of evidence for Medusa and unicorns. We know there are carvings, flags, coat of arms, statues, paintings, emblems, tapestries, medals, mosaics, drawings, and writings as representations of the creatures known as Medusa, and the unicorn, so why shouldn't all that be considered evidence for Medusa and unicorns? And what about all the evidence for ghosts, and UFOs?

So, the REAL statement should be is there irrefutable proof that Sas or BF is real?

I think the real issue is whether or not any of this pile of evidence you speak of has been matched up to an actual bigfoot. So far, I'm not aware of any.

I think it would be VERY interesting to have a mock trial to prove the existence of SAS or BF.

Calling bigfoot to the stand would be the highlight of the trial.

I think the evidence would be overwhelming in favor of.

And I think a good trial lawyer would tear you to pieces. It's like going to court to prove Medusa or unicorns existed.

However, I can also see the ABSOLUTE proof to the public might take a body, but could also be swayed by a good presentation of DNA.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. However, we've yet to actuall see any good presentation of DNA, so that argument wouldn't hold up very well in court.

There are many people I know including myself that has the proof we need because we have experienced or know very reputable, honest people that have. I also know a few here that have had very good visuals and experiences. Furthermore, some of the ones here, me included really don't care if others don't believe us. That's cool, those folks don't know us. The only thing that sticks in my crawl is to be called a liar, kook or other adjectives from some of those people. I think respect of comments by all should be adhered to. There are a few posts on this forum that come critically close to that. Thanks to the good work of the mods and admin for there work in not letting that happen.

KB

And I don't care that people think I'm being too skeptical. While I wouldn't go so far as to call someone a liar, kook, or other derogatory term, I did not witness whatever it was that causes some people to ~know~ that bigfoot exists. Therefore, all I can do when someone makes an unproven claim, is to ask that they prove it. If and when that happens, then I will ~know~ too.

For example, when my son claimed he could type faster than I could, I was skeptical and said "prove it". He not only typed faster, he blew me out of the water. He surpassed 100 wpm, while I only scored about 60wpm, which is normal for me. There was no eating of crow on my part though, I just filed it away as another bit of knowledge that I had previously been unaware of. I never labeled him a liar, or full of shite, or anything remotely close to that. I simply said "prove it", and he did. He didn't make excuses for why he couldn't type that particular day, or that his fingers were sore, or that he was too tired, or any other excuse, he simply sat down and did it. Boom! Proven.

When it comes to bigfoot however, that never happens, even when some people claim they've been living near or among whole family units of sasquatches. No hair, footprint, vocalization, drawing, blurry picture, anecdote, twisted tree branch, nest, buttprint, poop-pile, handprint, video, or carving has ever been matched to an actual bigfoot.

So I have to ask, how can you be certain the evidence you're presenting on behalf of bigfoot, actually came from a bigfoot?

RayG

[Guest]

Never seen your chair, don't believe you even have one, even though you would tell me you likely do. Silly thinking.........isn't it?

You're entitled to be skeptical of my chair. Here's my chair:

It would be unreasonable of you to doubt the existence of my chair after having this unambiguous photographic evidence shared in response to your statement. Nonetheless, if you wanted more you could have it. You could come to my office and I would invite you to relax in my chair. I might even make a cup of hot cocoa for you.

That's how it's done. Thank you for illustrating so well for the thread the difference between anecdotal and physical evidence.

[slabdog]

well...I'll be darned....

..photographic evidence can be conclusive after all!

Whew!

I am so glad I don't have to shoot Saskeptic's chair!

[kbhunter]

RayG....I was talking of evidence for Bigfoot clear and simple. That was not my "example" but the dictionary version. If I was talking of all of the others, I would have said so. With that said, there very well could be plenty of evidence of some of those you listed.

KB

[Guest Darrell]

Darrell, you should state "I". and not "we" in the above statement unless your speaking of you and Ray G. Many here on this forum already know they are real. I would like to add, I am not researcher either. I just spend many days in the woods hunting and fishing. They found me and my family during these outings. I wasn't looking at all, but it was a extremely eye opening experience that is still happening.

KB

And whats that supposed to prove? Just because you thought you saw something that "found" you I am supposed to just believe you with nothing to collaborate what you say? Am I supposed to just know your not some kook becasue you post on a bigfoot forum? Fine you know they exist because you say you saw one, good. But I and probably several million people havnt seen one. If you are having these encounters why are you not taking pictures or video and sharring it with all of us hungry to find out if they do or dont exist?

Edited September 2, 2012 by Darrell

[kbhunter]

Well Darrell, I don't think I am some "kook" but I don't care one way or the other if you think so. I am not just merley posting on a BF Forum either. I have been here for a while and I came here in 2009 to share my experiences. I watch you post here daily and you make bold statements about your beliefs that is fine. Skeptics are welcome and I have many friends here that are skeptics as well. You however seem to try and want all to be lumped into your view.

You are here 40 years later and no close to proving these things are real, but many here have had them prove themselves. Why don't I have pictures or video of them? Because I don't walk through the woods trying to prove they are real. But, when I am out hunting, fishing or camping, I will however take pics of things that may others document in their stories such as tracks and other signs. The visuals and other experiences we have had (my entire family now) I share with others so they can learn more.

KB

[Guest Darrell]

But thats the sticky part of it all. I dont know you and you dont know me. I have no idea if what you say you saw is real. Thats the whole point of this thread.