dmaker Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 (edited) It is what it is Cervelo. It is not a coelacanth nor is it a leprechaun. If you stuck to the subject, you'd have a much better shot at understanding, I'd just opine... Edited April 2, 2013 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 I think my experience has been very similar to yours - I became aware of the bigfoot mystery years ago. I grew up understanding that most of the people that lived in the world had never had an encounter and that even within the bigfoot community there were many with claimed encounters who were considered untrustworthy and "out there". I've been examining the evidence for myself and have related other's experiences to my own as much as possible but personally can't find any reason to treat the mystery differently than I would as a professional in any other field. I've waited for evidence to surface that could convince me but have only been able to find hoaxes and inconclusive physical evidence that has been unable to prove the existence of bigfoot to me. I've followed the careers of investigators who have devoted significant portions of their life to the search only to die without resolution. I remain convinced that absent conclusive evidence, belief speaks more about those who come to a conclusion rather than about those who continue with skepticism. YMMV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 (edited) http://www.huffingto...a#slide=2289227 BF caught on trail cam in Banff National Park this week...proof that BF is real, of wait, it was an April Fool's joke. You can bet money though, that somewhere along the line, some BF expert will use this image as an example that BF is real. But clearly BF is not real, it is a myth. You can go on and on about all the evidence and proving a negative and all the rest, but at the end of the day, there is not a single shred of evidence that BF is real..er...because it is not. There is no way BF is a real creature and is yet uncatalogued by science. Heck, science doesn't even take it seriously, well except for the fringe. Just sayn'! 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. what he said! Edited April 2, 2013 by summitwalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Well, we have long footprint trackways too. We have had long trackways dating back to the 40's and 50's, right? All the way to the present times. We've had witch doctors dressing in animal skins and doing their best to conjure up fear and superstition as far back as we can tell. It's a time tested routine. It works. It's human nature. It's been going on as long as anyone knows, and will continue to go on as long as anyone knows. You can try to diminish the fact that people all over the world, since the dawn of history, have masqueraded as the boogieman, but that's exactly what has been going on with the bigfoot legend ever since it came into being as a thought in someone's mind. Bigfoot is a legend, a superstition, a myth. It just happens to be one that a lot of people buy into and believe is real. I am certain that there are those around the world that believe in leprechauns too. Does their belief, and their collection of evidence also mean that those exist as well? Seems a lot of people put forth a lot of effort trying to prove they don't exist as well. Seriously? Sounds like someone with no proof feeling a little bit cornered, a little bit insecure that there is not one shred of evidence that can validate the existence of a mythological creature that can't simply be wished into existence. Who exactly is expending so much effort trying to prove they don't exist? And why is it that you think someone would be so inclined to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 It is what it is Cervelo. It is not a coelacanth nor is it a leprechaun. If you stuck to the subject, you'd have a much better shot at understanding, I'd just opine... Huh? I think the two are great parallels seperated only by time...both maybe founded in truth at some point of some type....but still both just myth at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 OhioBill....not wanting to get back into that whole evidence v. proof feeback loop, but yeah, of course. I'd consider my personal experience to trump all other kinds of arguments, but the fact is I remain in the vast majority of those who have to take the word of others on this subject and apply my general knowledge and experience to test that. (And let's not even start on the list of how many other kinds of knowledge we're required to do the same with, shall we not?) I did not seriously consider the possibility of this animal until I tapped into the BFRO database of sighting reports. If anyone comes to this board and purports to have an opinion on this subject but has not gone to school on that database I will have no choice but to treat them as anything but a serious student of the subject. Same goes for anyone who shows up and has no other opinion other than "I don't believe that happened", without giving a broader basis other than, well, they don't believe Sasquatch exists. The reality is that nobody who paints themselves as a Squatch-skeptic has ever showed up in this thread to make anything close to a compelling case that thousands of consistent and detailed sighting reports are pure fabrications and/or products of a fevered mind. Not just that they didn't come close enough to convince....they never got off the Go line. We have had lots of hand waving and smoke shoveling, insisting that this is just like something else easily explained..oh yeah...lots of that. But never any kind of a serious engagment with this huge compendium of evidence. I think I know the reason for that, and it is only natural. I found that I only was willing to treat this matter seriously when I put my ego down. Funny the revelations that will come when a body is willing to do that. Cervelo....the clue as to what restrains your thinking is in your answer. "Myth" is only appropriate when the evidence trail has been exhausted. We are many years, possibly decades from that point. The impatience of your average person notwithstanding... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Tontar, YOU ARE WRONG.....they exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Prove it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 It is what it is Cervelo. It is not a coelacanth nor is it a leprechaun. If you stuck to the subject, you'd have a much better shot at understanding, I'd just opine... Huh? I think the two are great parallels seperated only by time...both maybe founded in truth at some point of some type....but still both just myth at this point. Nothing is or will ever be myth now and real later. If it's real, it's real now, as real as Reese Witherspoon, as real as Barack Obama and Swiss cheese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guillaume Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 WSA, Bigfoot means nothing to my place in the world. If BF is proven to be real, my place in the world will remain the same. In fact, it will be a little more interesting. I am not threatened at all by the notion of Bigfoot. I really don't understand this comment and it comes from you and DWA fairly often. I will not be shaken to my core if BF exists. Not even close. BF is an interesting piece of folklore and pop-culture to me. If it proves out to be more than that, great. But why would my place in the world be in any way changed? I have no huge, vested interest in BF one way or another. I find myself spending time here and arguing with you and DWA because it irks me enough to respond when I see something stated as fact that is not. I tire of the same old, same old in Footery. Oh look another collection of stories! Great! Can we see the Monkey now? We can't? What a surprise. I'd like my first post to be a somewhat positive one, so I'll quote someone I agree with Dmaker, you have expressed the logic behind my impulse to join this forum very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 (edited) Seems a lot of people put forth a lot of effort trying to prove they don't exist as well. Seriously? Sounds like someone with no proof feeling a little bit cornered, a little bit insecure that there is not one shred of evidence that can validate the existence of a mythological creature that can't simply be wished into existence. Who exactly is expending so much effort trying to prove they don't exist? And why is it that you think someone would be so inclined to do so? The length of our posts vs. the length of yours argues against you. The answers to your last two questions are in the books you write here: You, and Once anyone can answer that we'll know. Seems quite peculiar to me. Evidence and science fuel our posts. What fuels yours is what I would think upon encountering a Cacti (or Sasquatch) Are People website. Difference between you and me? I'd chuckle and move on. Edited April 2, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste...so get up off the couch/recliner and check out some dense woods, spend the night or weekend, camp out, whatever floats your boat. Do it several times, act like a camper not a hunter, you might get a big surprise????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Given the choice between wishing the evidence would go away, Wishing the evidence would go away? That's pretty funny. Skeptical people don't generally wish very much when it comes to mythology. There's no wishing that something that has not been proven to exist, would go away. It IS away already. It's not here, it's not there, it's not anywhere but in people's minds, their thoughts, their imaginations, their workshops, their computers, their costume closets. Bigfoot does not have to e wished away, it doesn't exist as far as anyone can tell. Flash! Big new evidence! DNA evidence PROVES that bigfoot exists!!! Research! Evidence! Science! DOH!, Bear and human, oops! Nevermind. Oh wait, there's video proof! Clear as a bell! DOH! Oops, it's a Chewbacca, not a bigfoot. How many times will people get their hopes up that something real will surface, only to have those hopes dashed as it is revealed that all that big proof is nothing more than a clutter of fakery? Bigfoot is a collection of false evidence. A huge pile of evidence, but still a huge pile of false evidence. And no matter how much fake evidence is added to that pile, the size of the fake evidence pile does not mean that somehow the fake evidence will amount to something real. The only wishing I have seen in the years I have been studying the bigfoot phenomenon is where people wish for something real to show up. Nobody wishes bigfoot would go away. Bigfoot is a fun myth, everyone loves it. Everyone enjoys it. It's a fun myth, no doubt. Nobody dislikes bigfoot. And those who don't believe at all, still like bigfoot, they just don't believe it. They have no wishes that it would go away, any more than anyone wishes Santa would go away. The only wishers are those who believe in bigfoot, and wish that some day there will be something that will vindicate their belief in this fantasy, that something will finally show up to prove they were not dreaming, or hallucinating, or were nuts. That's where the wishing comes in; wishing for vindication. ...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. Good science as applied to bigfoot? That's actually a laugh. Good science does things like expose that Patty is no larger than a normal human being, not some non-human size like 7 1/2 feet tall. It exposes that the gait of Patty is a human gait, and one that is not difficult to replicate. It exposes that Patty is so well within the realm of human dimensions and behavior, that there is no way to make the claim that it could not possibly be a human in a suit. Good science exposes that bigfoot has very little evidence, very little sound or solid evidence, to even suggest that it could be real. Frankly, the more I have read, the less hopeful I have become of any possibility that bigfoot does or even could exist. The more I learn about it, the less realistic it all becomes. Don't presume that I have not done my fair share of reading, because I have. That's been my problem, I have read far too much about it, and the evidence does not point towards bigfoot being real. It points to it being a huge myth, with a lot of people totally obsessed with it as a concept, and a lifestyle. It's real, it's real, it's real, and nobody can say otherwise, lest they get criticized for not reading enough, or not reading the right material, or not believing enough, or worse yet, being afraid of mysterious boogiemen existing! Right, people who have studied the evidence and found it to be seriously lacking must be afraid of bigfoot existing. I think I like that one the best. Afraid of bigfoot existing. Why would that be, because if he did exist, he might come after me in the dark, at night, in the woods, and scare me? BOO! AHHHH, run, it's bigfoot! Good science is what believers call other believers who bend sciency sounding terms to make it look logical that a myth could be real. Bad science is what believers call scientists that lay out the hard, cold facts that stack up against the existence of bigfoot. No food, no shelter, no real habitat, no remains, no signs (other than footprints that have no consistency from one trackway to the next, meaning no consistency in species type), no specimens, no DNA, mistaken DNA, mistaken sightings, faked sightings, faked movies, faked videos... Good science shows that to be the reality of bigfoot. Not that there is a 9 foot species of ape in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 (edited) ^^^^Another book. You could just read up to see you're wrong (on the average size too. More like 7 to 71/2. Eight-footers are getting into huge territory). Edited April 2, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts