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

[Guest thermalman]

I'm far better informed than all but a handful of scientists on this; and all the evidence I need is what they say.

Hmmmm, I guess that makes you...................

Edited December 5, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

I love being a skeptic basher. Someone has to stick up for the truth.

I'm raising crow for the coming feast. I'm tired of listening to those old crows anyways. They always give me away. It'll be kind of nice to get rid of them all.

You guys okay with ketchup?

Actually, I'll have mine with horseradish, cleans the pipes you know.

Now, if your "truth" turns out to be a flusher, then what?

[Guest toejam]

Actually, I'll have mine with horseradish, cleans the pipes you know.

Now, if your "truth" turns out to be a flusher, then what?

No flusher here and yes I am completely confident. The print find speaks volumes. Not to mention the constant and consistent activity.

It's an uphill battle but that's the way it goes.

[Guest]

No flusher here and yes I am completely confident. The print find speaks volumes. Not to mention the constant and consistent activity.

It's an uphill battle but that's the way it goes.

Well, I wish you luck my friend, I'll be standing by with fork in hand

[Guest toejam]

Well, I wish you luck my friend, I'll be standing by with fork in hand

Ha, thanks. We're in this for the long haul.

[Guest]

Still, if folks want to go squatching, what do I care? It's way less annoying to me than people who use leaf blowers.

Amen to that. And less annoying than the people who install low frequency noise systems on their cars.

[ohiobill]

But surely not as annoying as long term habiutuator's who can't produce any evidence of what they claim? They who know so much yet produce so little while stridently deriding "science"? Leaf blowers and cars with loud sound systems actually accomplish something so it's not a fair comparison.

[Guest DWA]

Hmmmm, I guess that makes you...................

No. It makes them....well, just in need of a little reading, that's all. I mean, anything I have read that they haven't, I know more about than they do.

And the crown messes my 'do.

Shouldn't you let others be the judge of that?

RayG

And what, praytell, would they do? Showing me they've read up would be nice.

I'm at a loss what to say to people who say things in direct contradction of evidence, but want me to let others judge that. Um, no thanks.

Really, my bottom line is inciting people to exhume their buried Curiosity Gene. Meldrum and Bindernagel have their ways and I have mine.

Edited December 5, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

Yep, just overflowing with humility and critical thinking here!

[Guest DWA]

Awshucks. No, stop the applause, STOP...

Sometimes I just get Igor Burtsev, that's all.

Never mind the humility of all those folks who think they know more about this topic than the scientists who disagree with them.

[Drew]

It is funny that we apply such an astounding number of attributes to a creature that hasn't been shown to exist, far more attributes applied to Bigfoot, than scientists studying real biological animals would ever be able to know about their real study subjects.

I mean the Footers can say with confidence, that Bigfoot can detect cameras, detect guns, porpoise for salmon, bury it's dead, break deer hind-legs, toss hogs, fight grizzlies, have dermal ridges, have mid-tarsal breaks, migrate, hibernate, go underground, use infrasound... I mean, I can go on and on.

[Guest toejam]

But surely not as annoying as long term habiutuator's who can't produce any evidence of what they claim? They who know so much yet produce so little while stridently deriding "science"? Leaf blowers and cars with loud sound systems actually accomplish something so it's not a fair comparison.

I guess most just don't have a clue how the species operates around us. Should just be so easy to sit and wait for them to walk into view, pull out the camera and click away eh ohiobill?

The track find in our long term habituation site is a GREAT piece of evidence. When's the last time you found one?

Edited December 5, 2012 by toejam

[Guest DWA]

It is funny that we apply such an astounding number of attributes to a creature that hasn't been shown to exist, far more attributes applied to Bigfoot, than scientists studying real biological animals would ever be able to know about their real study subjects.

I mean the Footers can say with confidence, that Bigfoot can detect cameras, detect guns, porpoise for salmon, bury it's dead, break deer hind-legs, toss hogs, fight grizzlies, have dermal ridges, have mid-tarsal breaks, migrate, hibernate, go underground, use infrasound... I mean, I can go on and on.

I don't worry about anything that hasn't been proven. Most witnesses make no claims other than the thing they saw, which they describe very consistently. Now, some - and as is typical, they didn't give sasquatch a thought before they saw one - have seen deer-killing and hog-tossing. Animal's gotta eat, right? Bears vary up the diet with meat, right?

Not gonna prove anything without following up evidence, though. I prefer that to the let's-wait-for-a-body approach. Mainly because the latter hasn't worked so well, has it?

[Guest]

^But what does "following up on the evidence" mean if it doesn't lead to proof that the danged things exist at all? No one who's been following up on the evidence - whether you're talking about professionals like Meldrum or amateur folks like some of our personalities here on the BFF - has produced the physical evidence necessary to prove the existence of bigfoot. Thus if you consider both "approaches", neither has worked.

[Guest BFSleuth]

I can go on and on.

... indeed