Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[Guest]

the science being done on this subject points squarely to a long lasting, continually propagated, folkloric hobby

And isn't it just so interesting that some folklore that has far far less documented history is now being shown to have a basis in fact.

The lost city of Atlantis having only a single written description in history was finally found to be a real place on the coast of Spain.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42072469/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/lost-city-atlantis-believed-found-spain/

The reason it was found it because people refused to give up and kept trying to link together the logic that explained the legend.

Edited April 6, 2013 by BipedalCurious

[Guest Tontar]

Now if only the same could be said of bigfoot.

[Guest DWA]

Now if only the same could be said of bigfoot.

Oh, it's going to be. Some people just don't give it time.

[Guest LarryP]

I have been around these things now for a few years, what I do know for sure is they are real. I also know for some it will take more than what I or anyone else says and that is cool. As long as there is a mutual respect between the ones that know, don't know for sure but think they are real and the skeptics that won;t believe until there is a body, I can deal with it..

Nicely said. And by the way, buy your wife a camera for gosh sakes! ;-)

A perfect example of intellectual dishonesty......

All that matters is my quote.

Yeah, whatever. Most people complain when others quote mine to edit out the larger context. You seem to want to quote mine yourself and edit out the larger context. As you wish.

For what it's worth, I always get a chuckle when people fling the intellectual dishonesty phrase around. I know that it's long hand for calling people liars, and I also know what it means when people get so uppity that they find the need to call people liars.

You're projecting.

Intellectual dishonesty does not necessarily = you are lying.

Conversely, telling someone that tells you they have seen a BF that you don't believe them, does = you're lying.

BTW, if you want to increase your chances of seeing a BF significantly, then do not carry a camera or any type of weapon.

When it first happened to me the only thing I was carrying was a fishing rod.

[Guest Cervelo]

Oh goody another thread reduced to word games!!

I wanna play!!!

I'm not a real smart man Larry but anytime a person includes the word dishonesty in a sentence your calling someone a liar!

Now if I say I don't believe you saw a Bigfoot that doesn't mean I'm calling you liar....I just don't believe that's what you saw.

You can change my mind or I could be wrong.

But I'm kinda thinking you already know this

Edited April 6, 2013 by Cervelo

[Guest DWA]

Apples and Ganymede. With a black hole, you not never entirely "prove" it exists, no can you entirely prove plate tectonics or evolution. However, you can prove a species 100%. Bring in a specimen. The extraordinary claim of a large primate living across a continent and wandering near rural/suburban areas requires nothing short of a body or DNA. Bigfoot proponents still fail to do just that. And yes, biologists have just as much imagination as any other scientists. That's why we have people sequencing genomes and searching for cures for cancer.

Naaaaaah, I'm right but thanks for playing. Sequencing genomes and searching for cancer cures (WHY HAVEN'T THEY FOUND THEM YET WHAT IS THE BIG PROBLEM HUH??!?!!?!??! sorry, had to sound like a bigfoot skeptic for a second there) are plowing the furrow of the known. The example I cited is right on, because in Astronomy they think out of the box a bit (which one can do and still follow evidence). They don't wait for a black hole to suck in the earth before postulating black holes. Capisch?

You're knocking no-specimen...which is exactly my point! The mainstream is half a century past when they should have brought in a sasquatch specimen...which would have been, at the latest, December 1968.

[Guest]

Finding evidence for a black hole ≠ confirming a species. Nope you lose. And no its the responsibility of the people who believe in the "evidence" published in blogs, websites and ragtag newsletters to go find the bigfoot. And anything that leads to new knowledge is plowing into the unknown. Sorry, but its not all about finding giant monsters. But only narrow-minded people think it is.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest Cervelo]

Apples and Ganymede. With a black hole, you not never entirely "prove" it exists, no can you entirely prove plate tectonics or evolution. However, you can prove a species 100%. Bring in a specimen. The extraordinary claim of a large primate living across a continent and wandering near rural/suburban areas requires nothing short of a body or DNA. Bigfoot proponents still fail to do just that. And yes, biologists have just as much imagination as any other scientists. That's why we have people sequencing genomes and searching for cures for cancer.

Naaaaaah, I'm right but thanks for playing. Sequencing genomes and searching for cancer cures (WHY HAVEN'T THEY FOUND THEM YET WHAT IS THE BIG PROBLEM HUH??!?!!?!??! sorry, had to sound like a bigfoot skeptic for a second there) are plowing the furrow of the known. The example I cited is right on, because in Astronomy they think out of the box a bit (which one can do and still follow evidence). They don't wait for a black hole to suck in the earth before postulating black holes. Capisch?

You're knocking no-specimen...which is exactly my point! The mainstream is half a century past when they should have brought in a sasquatch specimen...which would have been, at the latest, December 1968.

Yup they went looking for black holes based on the evidence.....seems the evidence hasn't been compelling enough to warranty looking for biggie

That's really the issue what some consider a mountain of evidence...for most is just a pile of manure.

No need to dig around in it to tell what it is...most people can tell what poop is just by the smell!

Edited April 6, 2013 by Cervelo

[dmaker]

^^^ Love that! Great analogy!

[norseman]

Now if only the same could be said of bigfoot.

Oh, it's going to be. Some people just don't give it time.

The very reason why I've become proactive in hunting the thing? Is because I have lost patience. I had a little chat with a very well known researcher who shall remain nameless. His take on the mystery is that he could care less about proving it's existence to anyone........

So we have a disconnect here, on one side we have the skeptics and science asking for proof. And on the other side for the most part we have prominent researchers who do not care about proving it's existence. It's more of a personal experience type of thing for them. If you don't believe? Too bad for you.

That is why I feel like I'm caught in the middle, on one hand I agree with the skeptics who demand proof. Why shouldn't they? On the other hand I have had an experience that tells me something could very well be out there...... So what am I to do? Either I sit on the fence and hope well known researchers have some sort of break through with forest rave parties and tree knocking........ Or I pick my rifle up and utilize the tools at hand and try to drag one out by it's foot.

I really do not see any other options.

But to be sure.......I have lost patience.

[Guest]

the science being done on this subject points squarely to a long lasting, continually propagated, folkloric hobby

And isn't it just so interesting that some folklore that has far far less documented history is now being shown to have a basis in fact.

The lost city of Atlantis having only a single written description in history was finally found to be a real place on the coast of Spain.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42072469/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/lost-city-atlantis-believed-found-spain/

The reason it was found it because people refused to give up and kept trying to link together the logic that explained the legend.

interesting read but this doesn't prove Atlantis was real, yet. I'm not really sure this does much to support either side of this debate.

I think that every skeptic that ever comes to this forum would be more than happy to be presented with a bigfoot specimen. I am positive that each one would revel in the discovery, in something new, something unique, something thought provoking. They have nothing against bigfoot, are not afraid of bigfoot existing, and have no secret anti-bigfoot agenda they have to stick to.

You really believe that about "every skeptic" ?!

I would agree with you if you'd said every "true" skeptic.

But the vast majority are pseudo-skeptics who are absolutely terrified of anything that might tear apart their materialist view of the world and what they percieve to be "

Can anyone explain to me how this would work? I just can't imagine a scenario where big foot being real woud tear apart a skeptic's world view. I'm really having trouble wrapping my head around this. It seems the proponents of big foot would have more to fear (if anything). I would guess the average big foot supporter has probably invested more time, money, and effort into the subject than most skeptics.

Edited April 6, 2013 by mbh

[dmaker]

I don't understand this either, but I hear it pretty regularly here. If you don't buy into the Bigfoot myth, then somehow that means that I am terrified of it being real. Uhm, no. No,no and no. I actually welcome the idea. It does not threaten my world view, my religion or my place in the world in any way. I don't know if that's what proponents think is why we don't believe in Bigfoot, but it's really not true at all. Bigfoot is a fairy tale because it is not real, not because I'm afraid of the idea. That is nonsense.

[Guest]

I would be more shaken if something were to completely disprove an idea like evolution. That would actually change my view of the world. Big foot wouldn't do this as far as I can tell, so I'm cool with him being real or fake.

[Guest DWA]

Apples and Ganymede. With a black hole, you not never entirely "prove" it exists, no can you entirely prove plate tectonics or evolution. However, you can prove a species 100%. Bring in a specimen. The extraordinary claim of a large primate living across a continent and wandering near rural/suburban areas requires nothing short of a body or DNA. Bigfoot proponents still fail to do just that. And yes, biologists have just as much imagination as any other scientists. That's why we have people sequencing genomes and searching for cures for cancer.

Naaaaaah, I'm right but thanks for playing. Sequencing genomes and searching for cancer cures (WHY HAVEN'T THEY FOUND THEM YET WHAT IS THE BIG PROBLEM HUH??!?!!?!??! sorry, had to sound like a bigfoot skeptic for a second there) are plowing the furrow of the known. The example I cited is right on, because in Astronomy they think out of the box a bit (which one can do and still follow evidence). They don't wait for a black hole to suck in the earth before postulating black holes. Capisch?

You're knocking no-specimen...which is exactly my point! The mainstream is half a century past when they should have brought in a sasquatch specimen...which would have been, at the latest, December 1968.

Yup they went looking for black holes based on the evidence.....seems the evidence hasn't been compelling enough to warranty looking for biggie

That's really the issue what some consider a mountain of evidence...for most is just a pile of manure.

No need to dig around in it to tell what it is...most people can tell what poop is just by the smell!

Naaah, this just means there is a place your nose is that you need to drag it out of, and look around.

[Guest]

 I just can't imagine a scenario where big foot being real woud tear apart a skeptic's world view.

Tear apart no. Illustrate a clear lack of critical thinking and logic. Oh yes.