What Evidence Makes You Believe That Bigfoot Exists ?

[Guest DWA]

It is kinda like candy, isn't it, especially when you know you're right and the other side's wrong.

 

The skeptics keep forgetting the cruel and unforgiving master under whom they labor.  It is science!  It is not scientists; they are people, who attempt to bungle their way through applying science in all kinds of imperfect, people ways like bigfoot skepticism.  When a scientist tells you, I don't have to provide any evidence for my opinion, it is up to the proponents to prove their case

 

HE IS WRONG; HE HAS COMMITTED AN IRRESPONSIBLE VIOLATION; AND SCIENCE TELLS HIM SO!

 

Whether he likes it or not, shoot, whether he *knows* it or not.

 

Every opinion in a scientific discussion must provide evidence for its case!  To do anything else - especially when science backs unpaid amateurs, spending almost no time - is irresponsible to the scientific discipline, and that is all.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

 

So, my working definition of a so-called BF skeptic  debunker 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.

 

 

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

 

True Skeptics have no opinion, but keep an open mind about the evidence while analyzing it from different points of view.  Debunkers come from the angle "this stuff is false" and structure their argument accordingly.

[Faenor]

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.

 

Exactly both science and scientists show the evidence for bigfoot isn't good enough. It doesn't matter how many proponent scientists claim the evidence is good because they are ill informed, naive, and easily fooled and should not be allowed into the discussion. This is shown by science.

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.

It was meant as a joke and to mimic the ridiculous posting style of others of course there are holes. Anyone who can't see holes on both sides of the bigfoot argument is wearing blinders.

[Guest DWA]

Wrong.

 

A bunch of people that *I* know, and others *know* are talking out their fruit tooters on this, and we don't need science degrees to know this, *think* that the evidence isn't good enough because they haven't examined it.

 

Funny how you guys can never show us where Krantz Bindernagel and Meldrum are wrong.

 

Isn't it.

There is a reason for that.  Ready for it?  Reason IS!

 

Every scientist who has properly engaged the evidence has been convinced; and any reasonably astute layman can tell when a scientist hasn't.

 

Reason is.

Faenor Faenor Faenor.  Why do this to yourself?  why not just give up spouting stuff off the cuff that we know is wrong; get actually interested in this; and find out how much more fun life can be guided by science and evidence?

 

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

[Yuchi1]

Meanwhile, back at the OP:

 

Based upon my own visual observations along with those of people I place a high degree of credibility therein, the conclusion is we have witnessed the appearance and action(s) of an entity yet to be formally classified in the modern forensic fashion.

 

To take that a degree higher, in each instance we observers concluded the facial features of these entities present such compelling evidence of human features that killing one is both legally and morally out of the question.

 

It is interesting to note that the overwhelming majority of those individuals professing their bent to kill one have a common characteristic....they have never had a meaningful FTF visual observation of their quarry.

 

That fact alone leaves them in violation of all the basic tenets of ethical and legal hunting activity.

 

.

Edited May 10, 2015 by chelefoot

[WSA]

Oh yeah, right.....

[17x7]

What evidence makes me believe bigfoot exists?  Well, for starters, something made that footprint I found.

 

17x7

[WSA]

Hold the phone...you mean, giant footprints are made by, you know, giant THINGS???? Crap. There goes my whole construct down the hopper.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

Exactly both science and scientists show the evidence for bigfoot isn't good enough. It doesn't matter how many proponent scientists claim the evidence is good because they are ill informed, naive, and easily fooled and should not be allowed into the discussion. This is shown by science.

 

 

Scientists call evidence or data that "isn't good enough" inconclusive. Scientists also know that "inconclusive" data or lack of data does not completely rule something out. It merely means there is not enough data to determine the veracity or lack of veracity of a claim. This is something debunkers choose to ignore.

 

So if a foot print has characteristics of human, bear and dog, that foot print is "inconclusive" in the sense that there are too many confounding factors for any one to objectively determine it is a human or it is a bear or it is a dog. An objective researcher would categorize that foot print as "inconclusive". By no means does mean "it's human", "it's a bear", "it's a dog" nor does that mean "it's not human", "it's not bear", "it's not dog".

[Guest Crowlogic]

What evidence makes me believe bigfoot exists?  Well, for starters, something made that footprint I found.

 

17x7

Ever hear of Ray Wallace?

[WSA]

You got us there Crowlogic. Dang it, I sure didn't consider that. It is so brilliant in its simplicity I just have to concede. One guy fabricates one track way decades ago..., so we are precluded from ever, ever treating any other tracks as authentic, no matter where or when they were found, or what other evidence coincides with their discovery.  I mean, Check and MATE!! Crap and double-crap.  Have mercy on us, will you?

 

(DWA, stop wasting your time. That was just Ray Wallace or one of his minions who made those tracks you found)

 

This just in too...that horse I thought I saw in a circus when I was 10? Turns out is was a costume.  Good to know too. I was about to plunk some serious coin down to buy a "horse." Dodged that one by golly.

 

Thanks Crow!

[Guest WesT]

Back to the subject at hand,  what makes me think there might be something undocumented in our midst is based on friends and families encounters with said creature. Two of which were daylight sightings and none were ever reported. Which led to my curiosity being piqued and inspiring me to get out there and have a looksy for myself.  At times I wish I hadn't, and at times I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world.

[Guest Crowlogic]

You got us there Crowlogic. Dang it, I sure didn't consider that. It is so brilliant in its simplicity I just have to concede. One guy fabricates one track way decades ago..., so we are precluded from ever, ever treating any other tracks as authentic, no matter where or when they were found, or what other evidence coincides with their discovery.  I mean, Check and MATE!! Crap and double-crap.  Have mercy on us, will you?

 

(DWA, stop wasting your time. That was just Ray Wallace or one of his minions who made those tracks you found)

 

This just in too...that horse I thought I saw in a circus when I was 10? Turns out is was a costume.  Good to know too. I was about to plunk some serious coin down to buy a "horse." Dodged that one by golly.

 

Thanks Crow!

Wait it does not stop there.  Ivan Marx and let's not forget Paul Freeman (yup Freeman hoaxed some tracks).  Wallace made hundreds of tracks spanning years and one of his workers Jerry Crew went public with a track that spawned the word bigfoot.  Funny that Crew worked for hoaxer deluxe Ray Wallace isn't it?  Want to discuss the London track way?  One of it's prime proponents has second thoughts and on and on it goes.  The point being that tracks and casts can be faked and have been faked.  Each and every faker if asked would swear up and down that the tracks were not faked until push comes to shove.  This is the evidence world of bigfoot.  It only makes sense if the believer is willing to suspend a fantastic amount of disbelief.  You don't have to agree with me but the fact remains there is no proven entity of Sasquatch which IMO more than proves that the circus of so called solid evidence is a less than stellar collection.  

[Guest DWA]

There is a reason they call it crow logic.

[Faenor]

Wrong.

 

A bunch of people that *I* know, and others *know* are talking out their fruit tooters on this, and we don't need science degrees to know this, *think* that the evidence isn't good enough because they haven't examined it.

 

Funny how you guys can never show us where Krantz Bindernagel and Meldrum are wrong.

 

Isn't it.There is a reason for that.  Ready for it?  Reason IS!

 

Every scientist who has properly engaged the evidence has been convinced; and any reasonably astute layman can tell when a scientist hasn't.

 

?

Wrong wrong double wrong!

Meldrum bindernagel, and krantz are wrong in not recognizing that all the bigfoot evidence can be attributed to human error, hoaxing, and lies lies lies. Truth bazooka right there. Or maybe they do/did and just wanted to make a buck and get some fame and recognition. If they really had the goods why couldn't they get more bigfoot science published in legitimate journals?

The era of the layman scientist is over and dead these so called laymen bigfoot scientists should stick to their inferior beer, nascar, and guns and leave the heavy scientific work to the academic elite.