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

[Guest]

That people should look in rocks for what's not there to determine what people are seeing right now that's above ground is ludicrous beyond belief. It's like digging a well to find out what the moon is.

The point is that finding sasquatch fossils will give the sightings some credibility.

And the one I'm grasping now is: NEXT!

Don't like talking about fossils? Don't partake in them then.

[Guest DWA]

Never eat them. Never would. Bad for the digestion.

[Guest thermalman]

The point is that finding sasquatch fossils will give the sightings some credibility.

Don't like talking about fossils? Don't partake in them then.

I have a question. Where are all the bones from the 2 million buffalo that were slaughtered, only, 140 years ago?

Edited December 15, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

I have a question. Where are all the bones from the 2 million buffalo that were slaughtered, only, 140 years ago?

Maybe they haven't been fossilized yet?

[Guest thermalman]

They wouldn't need to be, in order to be found. So where might they be?

Edited December 15, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

For some, in museums possibly.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

thermalman:

You see what we're up against.

[Guest]

thermalman:

You see what we're up against.

Maybe you should stop with the battleground mentality.

[xspider1]

That's interesting about the buffalo bones, thermal. I guess we're supposed to beileve that we just can't see them until they turn into fossils.

Since all the Bigfoot proponents are "grasping at straws", I was wondering if Bigfoot detractors have any straws at all that would make every single witness of Bigfoot activity mis-taken? I've really never heard any good reasons not to believe.

[Guest DWA]

I have never seen, anywhere, the dimmest beginnings of what "bigfoot skeptics" must do to have a legitimate place at this table:

Posit a reasonable hypothesis by which the most evidence we have for anything that remains unproven all adds up to a false positive.

If one cannot do that, one is merely obstructing a scientific investigation with nayshouting.

[Guest]

I have never seen, anywhere, the dimmest beginnings of what "bigfoot skeptics" must do to have a legitimate place at this table:

Posit a reasonable hypothesis by which the most evidence we have for anything that remains unproven all adds up to a false positive.

If one cannot do that, one is merely obstructing a scientific investigation with nayshouting.

Maybe you better read professionally written papers on eyewitness testimonies.

[Guest thermalman]

For some, in museums possibly.

OK, I'll give you 10,000. What about the other 1.99 million, 1500lb animals, worth? Com'on what's your best theory?

Edited December 15, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

2 million, 1500lb animals, worth? Com'on what's your best theory?

I said some might. I'm never the bones of millions of individuals of a species should be found. All we need is one.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest BFSleuth]

Are you suggesting at sasquatch fossils so closely resemble humans that they aren't noticed? I'm pretty sure they'd noctice a skull with a sagittal crest.

Excellent, so you have a link to any references that confirms BF has a sagittal crest? Please share.

The point is that finding sasquatch fossils will give the sightings some credibility.

This is true. If there was a fossil record in NA then it would be considered as additional evidence for arguing they currently exist.

On the other hand, does the absence of a known fossil record automatically disqualify modern day sightings? Please advise.

[Guest DWA]

Maybe you better read professionally written papers on eyewitness testimonies.

They're inadmissible to this discussion unless you have proof that a significant number of eyewitnesses were mistaken or lying.

Contrary to what you appear to think, the general tenor of learned thought on this subject is that, when there is no apparent reason to disbelieve the witness, one should not. It's that whole evidence thing. You don't call someone a liar unless they are.

do you...?