A Question(S) For Skeptics....

[dmaker]

^^ If a search will not disprove Bigfoot, then could you please explain what  you meant when you said:

 

 I mean, I expect that sooner or later somebody is gonna decide that talk is cheap, and make a compelling enough push for a serious search that it happens.  And we find out.

 

One way or the other.

 

That sure sounds like a search could disprove BF. What do we find out in your statement, one way or the other?

[Guest Cervelo]

There have been too many sightings from people who have no vested interest in bigfoot describing their characteristics as consistent, and the history, legend, and lore are too consistent for me to disregard their existence.

Does consistency of reports and sightings over time immemorial from people who have not vested interest in them make for compelling evidence, or just intrigue?

I would suggest (and have any times) there's as much or more "evidence", certainly more historical...of these guys than bigfoot.

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

Do you think there are dragons still around?

[dmaker]

Maybe once it goes mainstream and we have a TV show called Finding Smaug  

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

There used to be science applied but by the early sixties because of the strength of the cold war there was a clamp down. In the fifties the public and scientific community along with the military had fairly good lines of communication.

More people on the planet now means more in the woods, expanded adventure outfits, increased camping facilities all over the place including deep into forests, more folks on vacation (JULY/Aug are peak months for sightings), clear-cut forest management practices, etc. These are all factors of course for habitat encroachment and disruption but couple it with the speed and nearly universal delivery of data via communications and it's not hard to see how easy it is to broadcast information across the internet. Throw in some greed and the hoaxsters will and have come out of the woodwork. But the SSQ industry isn't 100% hoaxsters. There's good folks in there too.

Yep, it's not easy just saying that there is a giant wood ape on the loose. It IS easy to make money off of it without bothering to be on a Forum or having proof.

Edited June 23, 2013 by hiflier

[TD-40]

 

There have been too many sightings from people who have no vested interest in bigfoot describing their characteristics as consistent, and the history, legend, and lore are too consistent for me to disregard their existence.

Does consistency of reports and sightings over time immemorial from people who have not vested interest in them make for compelling evidence, or just intrigue?

I would suggest (and have any times) there's as much or more "evidence", certainly more historical...of these guys than bigfoot.

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

Do you think there are dragons still around?

 

Do you know of any recent reports of dragons not from a bygone era? Any town hall meetings where people discuss their sightings?

[norseman]

Unknown or unclassifiable due to contamination? 

 

Hoaxing a Grizzy track does nothing for the argument for the animal's existence because that argument was settled by science long ago. But when trying to convince the world that an animal is not a leftover myth or a man made construction, a steady stream of hoaxes does little for your credibility.

 

I'm waaaaaaaay past that.

 

Foot casts and video are not going to prove anything, therefore I'm not going to waste my time doing those things. Nor am I going to worry about "credibility"........ the only thing that is credible is a body or body part.

 

But regardless, humans hoaxing grizzly bear tracks has absolutely ZERO to do with grizzly bears...........

 

There have been too many sightings from people who have no vested interest in bigfoot describing their characteristics as consistent, and the history, legend, and lore are too consistent for me to disregard their existence.

Does consistency of reports and sightings over time immemorial from people who have not vested interest in them make for compelling evidence, or just intrigue?

I would suggest (and have any times) there's as much or more "evidence", certainly more historical...of these guys than bigfoot.

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

Do you think there are dragons still around?

 

 

Yah, I do.

 

[Guest Cervelo]

There have been too many sightings from people who have no vested interest in bigfoot describing their characteristics as consistent, and the history, legend, and lore are too consistent for me to disregard their existence.

Does consistency of reports and sightings over time immemorial from people who have not vested interest in them make for compelling evidence, or just intrigue?

I would suggest (and have any times) there's as much or more "evidence", certainly more historical...of these guys than bigfoot.

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

Do you think there are dragons still around?

Do you know of any recent reports of dragons not from a bygone era? Any town hall meetings where people discuss their sightings?

Here ya go...no town hall meeting that's the confirmation ...whew boy!

Sorry couldn't get the link to work but if you go to tube and search pterodactyl numerous ones will come up

And some reports...

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/04/stunning-evidence-of-living-pterodactyls-2064568.html

Edited June 23, 2013 by Cervelo

[Guest Grifter9931]

Norseman,

 

Hoaxing a Grizz track does not impact the species. We have seen them in the flesh at Zoo's and in the wild etc..

We have interactions with them all the time.... They are a known commodity in our eco system... Unlike you know who....

[Guest Cervelo]

[norseman]

Norseman,

 

Hoaxing a Grizz track does not impact the species. We have seen them in the flesh at Zoo's and in the wild etc..

We have interactions with them all the time.... They are a known commodity in our eco system... Unlike you know who....

 

What I'm saying is that hoaxing Sasquatch tracks, has nothing to do with it's existence. 

 

There seems to be a fight on the BFF and in the world in general that if you can provide enough evidence.........then that's proof. So evidence would be, anecdotal stories, casts, pictures, video, audio, etc......

 

So because of that flawed mindset, I think Skeptics knee jerk reaction is to push back against that evidence. They want to prove hoaxes to then drag the whole issue through the mud.

 

I'm not even really apart of that......... I see it as finding evidence that's compelling. And then going out and looking for proof. I have to be able to discern what evidence is bogus......and what evidence is good. Otherwise I'm going to waste a lot of my time that would be better spent in the bush.

 

If we could all just agree that proof equals a body, then I think a lot of this reciprocal argument would go away.

 

As Dmaker said, he discounts all track ways with just a simple picture. I would suspect that he does this because he is convinced the creature does not exist and to give any credibility to the track way itself would negate that conviction he has, and give ammo to the other side.

 

Buy agreeing that a body is only proof and not a trackway? It completely changes the game, he no longer feels threatened to say........yah, that's a pretty good trackway.

[Guest Grifter9931]

Norseman,

 

But people are using the "tracks" as proof of BF existing. I dont believe you are incorrect in your statement that body is needed to have definite proof of one existing. We do it as a requirement for other animals etc.

Body, part s, skeleton etc... 

 

I have no idea why BF is excluded from this...

[dmaker]

I know precisely why BF is excluded: to date no one has managed to provide any body parts of one.

Norse, I look at a picture of a track way and think " I do not know what made that" and regardless of how "bi-pedal" it may look, my uncertainty as to what made it does not immediately open the door for Bigfoot for me.

Edited June 23, 2013 by dmaker

[hiflier]

Hello All,

In as much as many claim to be objective on the SSQ front the chronic lack of proof, not evidence, can undermine that objectivity. A pre-existing mindset or belief can slant the data regardless of what that data "points" to. In research in the past I've seen myself tempted to round corners to make data fit a profile. I've even seen reports from organized reporting centers "add in an arbitrary time" for an event when the time was not reported by a witness! That's the worst. When a database one is accessing as a reference is seen to, or admits to fudging with the information.

[norseman]

I know precisely why BF is excluded: to date no one has managed to provide any body parts of one.

 

 

BF is not excluded.........if it was excluded from Scientific process? It would already be classified by now and taught in HS biology class.

 

Which is a good thing.

 

Norse, I look at a picture of a track way and think " I do not know what made that" and regardless of how "bi-pedal" it may look, my uncertainty as to what made it does not immediately open the door for Bigfoot for me.

 

Right, and that's because your mind is already made up. So nothing compels you to go take a look at it for yourself, or see where it leads.

 

That is your right, but for someone that is trying to get proof? They don't have that luxury. Nor do they have the luxury of assuming that EVERY track way is bona fide either. 

[Midnight Owl]

I think the only real solution to this controversial subject that even all the Bigfoot/Sasquatch interest groups can't agree on, is that a government agency with qualified professionals take a hard serious look at this phenomenon and be totally open to the public. Having said that, I think this work has already been done in the past by certain agencies and for what ever reasons, has kept it from the public. They could also be the ones involved in efforts to discredit genuine witnesses....who knows for sure!