What Evidence Makes You Believe That Bigfoot Exists ?

[Guest DWA]

I think Faenor and Crowlogic are trying to Make Bigfoot Real Through Reverse Psychology.  Shame that; knowing what is going on is so much more fun.  But this is what one is stuck with when belief is one's stock in trade.  Prefer evidence.

 

Here is Faenor's position, could not be more clearly stated:  Nothing science has not discovered yet is real. 

 

There it is.  Shut down the Forums????  SHUT DOWN SCIENCE.  Stick a fork in it; it's done.  Shame.  It was so much fun too.  RIP, Science.

(Oh.  BTW.  Science has discovered sasquatch.  That most alleged "scientists" do not know that yet is no skin offa mine.  Science is not people who are not paying attention.  It is a DISCIPLINE.  It's been applied here, the answers are in, and those who don't know...science doesn't care about.)

[Guest Crowlogic]

There is plenty of 'evidence'.

 

So you are actually saying there is no point to this forum then? Why are you here in that case?

Nothing worse than an ex smoker or ex boozer lecturing those who like to smoke and drink.

There is plenty of evidence?  Name one instance of rock solid evidence.  

 

As a former proponent the forum is an interesting study in belief systems.

 

With regards to smoking and drinking, neither of which I partake in, I'll go on record that either one of those addictions can kill you and there's a better than even chance that they will.  However the odds of drinking and smoking NOT killing you is still greater than the odds of there actually being bigfoot.  

I think Faenor and Crowlogic are trying to Make Bigfoot Real Through Reverse Psychology.  

Negative on that one DWA.  Nothing short of gene splicing is going to create bigfoot and that isn't on the docket.

 

The answers are not in whether from science or otherwise.  Just visit a zoo or museum and you'll see documented answers.  Everything in bigfoot is supposition.  There is no body, no piece of evidence that is beyond reproach. 

Edited May 8, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest DWA]

That must *hurt*, Crowlogic.  I mean, *hurt bad.*

 

"Name one instance of rock solid evidence?"  How many times have we talked to you about this?  What makes....naaaaaaaaaaah, I've said it enough times.  Go back and read.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

Except for the fact no one has ever found a bigfoot dead or alive. Boom truth bomb! Put a fork in the proponent argument it's done.

 

Based on that  rationale when Fracastoro proposed that diseases are caused by teeny tiny things so teeny and tiny that they can't be readily seen because he couldn't produce one of these teeny, tiny things for examination, the theory should have been tossed in the trash and buried. Had people actually done that, then 100 years later van Leeuwenhoek would never have even attempted to try to look for these teeny, tiny disease causing things.

 

It's a rationale like that which stunts exploration, critical thinking and the advancement of science.

 

Do Skeptics a favor and call yourself a Debunker: it's a more precise classification.

[WSA]

Warning: Obtaining your reality exclusively through the internet will predispose you to be confused about most things.(This is one)

[Guest DWA]

What most people - skeptic and proponent alike - don't understand about this topic is that sometimes, gut science is totally accessible to the layman.  This is one of those times.

 

Skeptics point to the weight of opinion; what they don't understand is that on this topic, that is immaterial.  (At scientific frontiers, which this is, it's always immaterial.)  What matters is:  who is applying the scientific method to this topic?  The skeptics can point to no one on their side of the discussion.  The proponents can point to several; and in science, really, *one* is all it takes.  And the coolest thing is:  at least two of the most important proponents - John Green and Bill Munns - are not what any of us would consider scientists, at least not on their academic credentials.  But their application of scientific method is glowingly apparent.  Not to mention completely correct.

 

Skeptics dismiss eyewitness testimony.  This is where the science is happening.  One must read them - yes all of them - to understand why, and how.  To dismiss them based on hoary generalities about eyewitness testimony which are demonstrably inapplicable - and yes, that has been demonstrated times beyond counting here - is simply unscientific and could not be more so.

 

Skeptics dismiss the footprints.  This is where the science is happening.  Analyses have been done of many trackways that all but rule out as a reasonable possibility human manufacture or an accepted species.  That is it; the skeptics are either unwilling or unable to accept this.  That is not science's problem.

 

Skeptics dismiss the Patterson/Gimlin film, which scientific method has already all but proven authentic.  A number of other records, both film and thermal, have been analyzed to the point that alternative theses are all but untenable.

 

Many of us here have done our own application of the scientific method; in my own case, this preceded any reading of the scientific proponents.  They didn't tell me what to think.  They confirmed what I already had concluded.

 

There is no cooler place to be on the right side, and fully understand that, than here, when it comes to science.  We scientific proponents are on truly untrodden ground; no astronomer is farther out into the future of his field than we are.  That people who could easily share in this excitement choose naysaying, pretzel logic and ear-stuffing perplexes me no end.  I'd want, badly, to be on board.

Edited May 8, 2015 by DWA

[Faenor]

 

Skeptics dismiss eyewitness testimony.  This is where the science is happening.  One must read them - yes all of them - to understand why, and how.  To dismiss them based on hoary generalities about eyewitness testimony which are demonstrably inapplicable - and yes, that has been demonstrated times beyond counting here - is simply unscientific and could not be more so.

 

Skeptics dismiss the footprints.  This is where the science is happening.  Analyses have been done of many trackways that all but rule out as a reasonable possibility human manufacture or an accepted species.  That is it; the skeptics are either unwilling or unable to accept this.  That is not science's problem.

 

Skeptics dismiss the Patterson/Gimlin film, which scientific method has already all but proven authentic.  A number of other records, both film and thermal, have been analyzed to the point that alternative theses are all but untenable.

 

Many of us here have done our own application of the scientific method; in my own case, this preceded any reading of the scientific proponents.  They didn't tell me what to think.  They confirmed what I already had concluded.

 

It's great you believe this and if you close your eyes and ears to reality and keep repeating them they can be real for you forever. It won't matter that the DNA tests fail and the nawac and everyone else hunting fails to bring in a body because you believe science has already discovered bigfoot.

[Guest DWA]

You are describing yourself.  Again.  And showing you don't understand what's under discussion.  Again.

 

Autopilot, man.  You really want to come up with more entertaining stuff to do.  No, you really do.

Remember:  science does not care what you - or scientists - think.  Science doesn't care.  If a scientist can be clearly shown not to be informed, it really doesn't matter what he thinks; and science shows the skeptical scientists not even to be in the discussion.

 

Sorry if that's an issue.

If you are going to *quote my post, the post after my post,* the least you could do is *address my points,* not just put up scoftical paffle.

 

Science does not care what you - or anyone in direct opposition to the evidence - thinks.  That is what is so very very very cool about this!

 

To those, um, who, you know, know what is up.

[Guest WesT]

The lack of evidence is the hole in the proponents bucket. The proponent think it's getting filled up but it always ends up empty. Unlike the skeptical bucket which try as one might nary a hole can be found!

 

The problem is, the skeptical bucket has as many holes in it as the proponent bucket, The dismisser's, on the other hand, believe their bucket has no holes because they fail to realize they don't have a bucket to begin with, all they really have is an agenda. And just because someone is a proponent of the creatures existence, doesn't mean they aren't skeptical minded.

[Guest]

There is plenty of evidence?  Name one instance of rock solid evidence.  

 

 

 

 

I don't think you comprehend the difference between evidence and proof. I will repeat, there is plenty of evidence for bigfoot. If there wasn't I wouldn't be a proponent. I even have a book titled Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence. It's full of decent evidence.

Consistent eye witness reports are evidence, especially from the days before media contamination.

Convincing tracks.

Footage (PGF).

All of the above are evidence supporting the existence of such creatures. Just because you refuse to call them evidence doesn't mean they are not. They are. In fact seeing as the PGF is impossible to be a human in a suit I would go as far to say it's the nearest thing to proof. The only other thing it could remotely be is a robot, and that was and probably still is beyond technology.

[WSA]

The resident so-called skeptics here remind me of the occasional hold-out jurors I've had the misfortune to encounter. Couple of weeks ago we heard a juror screaming so loud at another juror everyone in the courtroom heard it through the closed door of the jury room, "DID YOU EVEN LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCE??!!!" Funny, I know exactly how that juror felt.   There are those who will always be around who think deductive reasoning should always be served up as a sacrifice on the altar of clueless and misguided individualism. Simply, if you don't trust yourself, you'll never trust others. This limits your opportunities in this life like just about nothing else will. Or, as we like to say down here, "Bless his heart."

[Guest Crowlogic]

I don't think you comprehend the difference between evidence and proof. I will repeat, there is plenty of evidence for bigfoot. If there wasn't I wouldn't be a proponent. I even have a book titled Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence. It's full of decent evidence.

Consistent eye witness reports are evidence, especially from the days before media contamination.

Convincing tracks.

Footage (PGF).

All of the above are evidence supporting the existence of such creatures. Just because you refuse to call them evidence doesn't mean they are not. They are. In fact seeing as the PGF is impossible to be a human in a suit I would go as far to say it's the nearest thing to proof. The only other thing it could remotely be is a robot, and that was and probably still is beyond technology.

I quite understand the difference between evidence and proof.  So once again what kind of rock solid indisputable evidence can you furnish?  I know what the PGF is and I know there will always be a question mark hanging over it.  Furthermore the problem with the PGF is it has never been repeated.  If it had happened 5 or even 10 years ago it's uniqueness might be excusable.  But we're going on half a century and nothing of real visual value has come forward since.  Right there is a major red flag.  I've read the books too, I saw the Minnesota Iceman when it toured in the early 70's,  I've see the documentaries  The tired fact remains that none of it has moved anything towards a positive conclusion.  Because bigfoot is not a proven member of earth fauna it can only exist as a matter of belief.  The problem with belief systems is that they are seldom objective and the proponent will tell themselves whatever they need to in order to uphold the belief.  I  myself used the typical belief pillars to maintain my proponent stand until the pillars themselves were sucked into the vacuum of the null set.

 

Lastly eyewitness testimony is essentially a form of story telling.  In this day and age anyone doing a bit of homework can create a first class sighting report.

[Guest]

It's quite clear to me that you most certainly do not comprehend the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'. Faenor claimed there was a lack of 'evidence'. There is not a lack of 'evidence'. There is plenty of 'evidence'. If there was no evidence then I wouldn't be here and nor I suspect would most people. The 'evidence' is there. You just won't see it anymore. That is a problem for you, not me.

 

 

Lastly eyewitness testimony is essentially a form of story telling.  In this day and age anyone doing a bit of homework can create a first class sighting report.

 

Which is why I highlighted sightings before media contamination. There are a lot of sightings from decades gone by that I find at least pretty interesting if not **** well compelling.

[Guest DWA]

The problem is, the skeptical bucket has as many holes in it as the proponent bucket,

 

Really, the proponent bucket does not have a single hole in it.  Not one that anyone has identified, yet.  Here *must be!* the nature of any such hole:  this raises the very significant possibility that all the evidence adds up to a false positive. Nothing such exists.

 

The dismisser's, on the other hand, believe their bucket has no holes because they fail to realize they don't have a bucket to begin with, all they really have is an agenda.

 

This is precisely right.  When one rants on and on about the absence of something that is abundantly in front of one's face...well, ^^^this is the unappealable judgment passed by the scientific method.

 

And just because someone is a proponent of the creatures existence, doesn't mean they aren't skeptical minded.

 

The only true skepticism is based on reason and science; and it is all, in this field, being practiced by the proponents.

I quite understand the difference between evidence and proof.  No.You.Do.Not, and what follows <<<this, proves that.

 

Lastly eyewitness testimony is essentially a form of story telling.  In this day and age anyone doing a bit of homework can create a first class sighting report.

 

Totally meaningless.  Totally and could not be more meaningless.  Utterly meaningless.  What matters is the real-world probability that that shenanigans is, in its entirety, the body of the evidence.  To bet that would be laughable.

It's quite clear to me that you most certainly do not comprehend the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'. Faenor claimed there was a lack of 'evidence'. There is not a lack of 'evidence'. There is plenty of 'evidence'. If there was no evidence then I wouldn't be here and nor I suspect would most people. The 'evidence' is there. You just won't see it anymore. That is a problem for you, not me.

 

It really is fifty years beyond high time for bigfoot skeptics to drop the "no evidence" gig.  It's an ignorance marker; and anyone using it has, indeed, quite failed to understand what the word means.

 

Which is why I highlighted sightings before media contamination. There are a lot of sightings from decades gone by that I find at least pretty interesting if not **** well compelling.

 

Really doesn't even matter.  The continuing consistency - no one will, I trust, try to tell me that people reporting sightings in 2015 are reading nineteenth-century accounts - of reportage, by people who know nothing about primates but are describing one in terms only a specialist would recognize, is all that matters.

[WSA]

I'd forgotten how much fun this kind of conversation is...thanks all for setting up the pins.

 

So, my working definition of a so-called BF skeptic is: Someone who will tell you whenever you want to know it that that all the evidence is false, but won't ever be able to tell you how that could possibly be true.

 

You'd think they'd start with the low-hangers like the PGF. But no, you'd be mistaken there.

 

Oh wait...I forgot.

 

(See: Steve Martin on "How to be a MILL-ionaire, and never pay taxes..." )

 

The first rule of BF skepticism is: There is no BF. See? Works every time. Now, you try it.  Easy-peasy, needs no greasey.

 

Kit, where are  you man? We need you here, now! There must be some assemblage of screenshots that will turn all this logic on its head if you'd only just hit us with it.