Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[dmaker]

^^ No, I don't believe you did answer it. Could you please re-iterate your answer?

[Guest DWA]

No. There are some efforts I know are worthless. You page back, and find it. When you actually start engaging me...well, I do things for that kind of person.

[dmaker]

Many things appear supernatural that are merely misunderstood. My position is this is one of those, and perhaps the most acute case of it we've seen in a long, long while, if ever. Chimps have absolutely nothing to do with it as I think they have no superior knowledge of us, and our understanding of them is pretty comprehensive as well. This ain't that. I'm not "going" anywhere with this Dmaker. It is a thought to hold or reject, your choice.

One concept you might want to entertain though is the idea that we've never encountered a species that has the capacity to study us as diligently (or even more diligently) than we study it, AND which apparently has the mental agility to modify their activity quicker and more profoundly than we can modify ours? Ever heard the joke about beef tongue? The only food you taste that tastes you back? Exactly.

We encounter creatures that fit your description countless times in History. They are called myths and they are man made. Hence why they seem to adapt and evade detection no matter what we do.

No. There are some efforts I know are worthless. You page back, and find it. When you actually start engaging me...well, I do things for that kind of person.

I did page back, and no you did not. I know folks ( myself included) are not against repeating themselves in this thread, so if you would be so kind as to specifically address that point, as in please explain exactly what you meant by that comment, I would really appreciate it.

I do believe I have located your response to my question for clarification. This would be it, no?

"There is no phenomenon - not one - for which the volume of consistent evidence exists that we have for sasquatch that is not accepted as real."

What about ghosts? Lots of reports of those. Spaceships, again tons of those. Maybe even more reports and photos and such of ghosts and alien spaceships than there are for Bigfoot. I don't believe those two phenomenon are accepted as real. So why should Bigfoot get a pass?

[kbhunter]

MODERATOR STATEMENT:

We are getting very close to attacking each other here and not the subject. PLEASE stick to just the facts of the thread and DO NOT make this personal!! This has begun to take a turn towards proving each other wrong and badgering than the subject matter.

Let's please keep things on track.

Thanks,

KB

[dmaker]

Oki doki.

Edited April 2, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

I did page back, and no you did not. I know folks ( myself included) are not against repeating themselves in this thread, so if you would be so kind as to specifically address that point, as in please explain exactly what you meant by that comment, I would really appreciate it.

I do believe I have located your response to my question for clarification. This would be it, no?

"There is no phenomenon - not one - for which the volume of consistent evidence exists that we have for sasquatch that is not accepted as real."

What about ghosts? Lots of reports of those. Spaceships, again tons of those. Maybe even more reports and photos and such of ghosts and alien spaceships than there are for Bigfoot. I don't believe those two phenomenon are accepted as real. So why should Bigfoot get a pass?

No. None of the things you have listed qualifies. But being read up on this topic would reveal that to you. I would get on that. Worked for many of us.

Edited April 2, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

Why would they not qualify? They have an even higher number of reports that I'm sure have some shared qualities to them. I mean numbers and similarities and credibility of the witnesses are your touchstones. I'm sure the same exist for ghosts, aliens and spaceships. Note I am not talking about dragons or unicorns or leprechauns. I mean this as a serious question so I have selected phenomenon that are current and have a similar, if not higher, degree of participants as Bigfoot.

Edited April 2, 2013 by dmaker

[WSA]

"We encounter creatures that fit your description countless times in History. They are called myths and they are man made. Hence why they seem to adapt and evade detection no matter what we do."

Look for a myth, and you will find one every time Dmaker. They can be created at will too. Again, this ain't that any more than it is a hunt for a specimen of an unclassified bivalve. The comprehension and framing of the issue is always the first task. You've framed yours in a manner that will only lead to your continued frustration. You can expand your comprehension by letting your curiosity frame the issue instead of your ego. You choose though. Stil no skin off me my friend!

Edited April 2, 2013 by WSA

[Guest Tontar]

dmaker, I'm so impressed with your stamina here. But I think you are debating with people who have the ability to change the rules of logic just as easily as they change the physical characteristics and behavior of a fully customizable mythical beast.

When bigfoot is elevated above every other known animal on earth, as well as elevated above even humans, then you have a classic case of mythology existing beyond the realm of the real, physical world. When the only way that people can defend the existence of bigfoot is through their supernatural abilities, and that they are not limited to the rules of our known world of animals, the argument is essentially over. No reason to go on. Herding cats. Can't be done.

What we see here is a subtle slide into the idea that bigfoot is not a real creature, not a real animal, not a real beast. It does not leave physical traces. It somehow can avoid leaving traces. It can somehow avoid leaving dead bodies, poop, hair, clear photos, any form of tangible physical evidence. When a creature roams the earth at night, leaving only vague visual appearances, and nothing behind other than footprints, you have the boogieman. The boogieman has existed in most cultures throughout time. Being modern, smart people, we morph that legend into something more tangible and give it a name, bigfoot, or sasquatch. But even so, it still is as elusive as it ever has been, never leaving a single cell to mark it's presence, but it still haunts the minds and lives of a lot of people. But it's not real, it's still only the boogieman.

And who perpetuates these myths? People who like myths. Certainly not those who like reality, proof, evidence. Bigfoot is a myth, with nothing physical, no undiscovered species, no wild ape, no lost human tribe, none of that. It's a mythological creature that comes in all sizes, shapes, colors, attitudes, and it appeals to those who really want there to be some mystery remaining in the world, something to believe in, something cool, scary, creepy, mysterious, ominous, something that will go bump in the night. That's what bigfoot is, something that goes bump in the night, or is it knock, knock, knock. Three tree knocks seems to be the standard part of the story, right?

Ah, but bigfoot are real, they are smarter than people, the smartest thing on the planet apparently. They leave prints carelessly to keep people interested, but then go to great lengths to hide their tracks at other times, because they somehow know people will be looking for them. They are seen virtually everywhere, yet somehow have an instinct and an ability to hide from man better than any other living thing. They can run on all fours, or upright, no problem. They can jump trains and ride like secret hobos, rarely being seen, but every once in a while there they are! They can pick through a garbage can in the middle of suburban development, yet can vanish without a trace. They can leave hundreds upon hundreds of bits of evidence in their wake, but all of that seems to turn up as dog, cat, cow, human, synthetic, dyed, lemur (?!), raccoon, you name it, everything BUT sasquatch.

Placing the sasquatch into a realm where it is some sort of species the likes of which we have never encountered before, is true evidence, evidence that it does not actually exist in any other form than our own minds. We have encountered tribes of humans in extremely wild forests, who have had no contact with the outside world, yet we have found them, we have documented them, they exist. We have found and documented apes of all kinds. Bigfoot falls outside of all other discoveries because it cannot be pinned down. It cannot be pinned down because it is a myth, which does not exist in the real, physical world. What does exist is faked evidence, which has been faked for a hundred years and counting. We have people that want to believe in that myth, so they believe in the faked evidence. And we have some people who have personal experiences, yet no matter how many people have had personal experiences, they all, every single one of them, come away with not one shred of tangible physical proof. We have a guy that shot two (supposedly, if you choose to buy into that one), yet shazaam, not a single hair, bit of flesh, not a single part of a body, nothing. Nothing at all. Poof!

The biggest proof that bigfoot doesn't exist is the wealth of effort that believers put forth trying to prove they do exist. That's the most convincing thing of all.

[Guest DWA]

That's impressive. Not the point, but the stamina. You could just learn about the topic, and not make it, I dunno, so, you know, Sisyphean.

"No proof." Two words. Not valid from the standpoints of science or reason. But less work.

[Rockape]

We have people that want to believe in that myth, so they believe in the faked evidence. And we have some people who have personal experiences, yet no matter how many people have had personal experiences, they all, every single one of them, come away with not one shred of tangible physical proof. We have a guy that shot two (supposedly, if you choose to buy into that one), yet shazaam, not a single hair, bit of flesh, not a single part of a body, nothing. Nothing at all. Poof!

Well, we have long footprint trackways too.

The biggest proof that bigfoot doesn't exist is the wealth of effort that believers put forth trying to prove they do exist. That's the most convincing thing of all.

Seems a lot of people put forth a lot of effort trying to prove they don't exist as well.

[Guest DWA]

The biggest proof that bigfoot doesn't exist is the wealth of effort that believers put forth trying to prove they do exist. That's the most convincing thing of all.

Seems a lot of people put forth a lot of effort trying to prove they don't exist as well.

Proving a negative. Which they are always saying is impossible. Well. They say it's impossible then keep coming back and coming back and coming back to do it. Oh no, that says nothing about them.

Edited April 2, 2013 by DWA

[ohiobill]

It might help you Dmaker if you start with this premise: The case for Sasquatch is utterly unique in the annals of recorded natural history. The evidence for it is likewise.

There is no parallel or comparison case in all of human history that squarely matches it. We all deafen ourselves and each other with endless "it is like..." statements, but it is not. It is not like dragons and unicorns. It is not like mountain gorillas, wolverines or unidentified amoebas. It IS like a Sasquatch/Yeti/Wood Ape/Skunk Ape/Bigfoot. You either have the ability to grasp this, or you will be completely frustrated by the discussion of the possibility/probabilities.

The world this putative creature might inhabit is your world, but, most assuredly, it is also not. In spades. You can either imagine that world, or beat your head against it endlessly in incomprehension. There is only one phrase that sums it up, overused though it may be, thus: It is what it is. Nothing else.

Virtually all who have had the courage to put their reality at risk by stepping outside the very limited and pitiful manner in which we inhabit the natural world (or, more succinctly, the way we don't..) have come to some greater realizations about what it is, and, most importantly, what it isn't.

Why do you feel bigfoot is unique in the world of cryptids? Are there other cryptids with both historical and recent sightings along with purported blurry proof?

Well yeah, what DWA said. I can't claim to have even read most of the natural history of the world to date, but I have read a boatload. I used to haunt the Smithsonian as a kid and spent countless hours playing in the outside world (and fervently wish I still did more often,) and was raised by very curious and practical people. I've read more than most everyone I've ever engaged on the discipline of natural history who hasn't achieved graduate level degrees on the subject, and sometimes even them.. I respect DWA mainly for the fact that he shares a similar passion for learnig as much as he can about this world, and he has a HUGE database of outside experiences to draw on. Buuut, we are hardly special or unique in this regard. There are tons of people who have applied their practical knowledge of the world to this subject. I''ll say again: Virtually all who dive deep into this evidence come out with the same overall concusion: Much more likely than not. Frankly though, I find the whole proof v. evidence debate pretty tiring and circular, and not very useful. I'm more about the probability and how some seem to have an allergy to even seriously daring to propose the mere question and examine what that means to their place in the world. But, if some choose to be left behind on that point, no skin off of me, ya know?

Thanks for the interesting bio, not sure it would qualify as "stepping outside the very limited and pitiful manner in which we inhabit the natural world (or, more succinctly, the way we don't.." but to each his own. I'd have to disagree with you about all those who dive deep into the evidence being convinced - most of the world does NOT believe in the existence of bigfoot. In fact, most professionals have differing opinions about issues in their fields absent conclusive evidence. MD's disagree about how to treat disease, lawyers disagree about how to handle a case, engineers disagree about design issues. Frankly, absent conclusive evidence it speaks more about the people who can come to a conclusion rather than those who continue with skepticism.

[WSA]

Tontar...to all of that I'd just reply: Given the choice between wishing the evidence would go away, or just not bothering to read all of it (Still!) to begin with, and the choice of considering that we just might not be as clever as we think we are by half, I'll choose the second one! I believe good science does as well. Your choice may differ, and while I appreciate your right to exercise that, it doesn't mean I'm obligated to treat you as someonw seriously engaged with the evidentiary issues. I have no indication you are.

Ohiobill...and your experience is, what, exactly.....?

[Guest Cervelo]

These have been reported as long if not longer than bigfoot and perhaps even wider distribution worldwide...well documented in art and history.

Anybody believe there are any if these in your backyard?

http://www.livescience.com/25559-dragons.html

Edited April 2, 2013 by Cervelo