What Evidence Makes You Believe That Bigfoot Exists ?

[Guest WesT]

The hunting blind, the ground glyphs, the hiding screen, the other hunting/ambush set-up, the monkey chatter type vocalization I heard. Although I've never seen a bf for myself and can't say for a fact that all the evidence I've gathered is attributed to bf. But I'm 99% certain there's something out there that science hasn't documented.

[Guest DWA]

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.

Uh huh.  You know what this is?  Ridiculous to say only one thing; comprehensively uninformed to say another; borderline libel to say only another.

 

I wouldn't trust you against them for a minute.  Your sense of your certainty and rightness crumbles before my assessment of what's backing it up.  Funny how you can say all this stuff...and not be able to show us the comprehensive error hoaxing and lies lies lies that this would have to be...which would be impossible because to get the consistency the evidence has from those randomly-occurring things is such a laughable bet no informed person would make it.

 

And just to add a smidge of info that you'd have if you read anything:  they're much more aware of your "truth bazooka" than you are...because they're much more aware of what error hoaxing and lies lies lies look like than you will ever be.  As am I.  The only qualified debunkers in this field?  The PROPONENTS.

 

Nothing you say, basically, can be allowed in an intelligent conversation about this topic, because evidence backs up precisely zero of it.  If you did any reading you'd know why they can't get published in "legitimate" journals:  because those journals are utter trash when it comes to this.  Never mind M, K and B.  *I* am *far* better informed than any mainstreamer I have read when it comes to this.  But some don't have the chops to assess things independently, and depend on people with degrees who are banking - successfully - that you won't be able to see they haven't done their homework.  Well...I see they haven't.

 

When you can't lift a finger to show me how they're wrong?  Guess what?  YOU ARE.

 

Truth A-bomb!  Truth cruise missile!  Truth tsunami!  Just stop.  OK?  It is sounding more like a childish rant with each emission.  Autopilot.

Edited May 9, 2015 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

Ever hear of Ray Wallace?

I've heard of "two kids wearing a zebra costume."  Gonna tell me now the zebra ain't real?

 

I know of dozens of trackways Ray Wallace didn't do...and the smart money in this field says a human didn't nor a bear neither.

 

Need to get over all the hurtness over proof not coming on your schedule.  Never does.

 

(Ray didn't do 17 X 7's print either.  But you didn't know that.)

[SWWASAS]

DWA, skeptics don't believe in BF because that is too outlandish to comprehend but they seem believe that Ray Wallace is hoaxing footprints and trackways 13 years after his death in 2002. Talk about paranormal! I want how that can happen explained to me.

Note to hoaxers: Look up Ray Wallace on Wikipedia and see what your legacy could be. The report on him is scathing. I think any hoaxer alive would be better off fessing up now and saying it was all a joke than having your children and grandchildren reading about you in Wikipedia after you pass away.

Edited May 9, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[SWWASAS]

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.

I think what we have here is an academic elitist. As I recall the German scientific community said similar things about Einstein in his time. There was a reason why he left Germany and came to the US.

[Guest DWA]

Yep.  The citizen scientist will always be critical to science because of people like this.

 

I think of most so-called scientists as not nearly that at all.  What they are is, generally, very narrowly-qualified techies.  Subjects like this separate the true scientists from the tenure weenies, I think.

[Guest DWA]

Most of the big discoveries are not made by the "academic elite."  They are made by the people the "elite" were before they became "elite."

 

This is the point I am constantly making here about science.  Science isn't a person, it is a process; and it is to science alone that questions answer.  It does not matter how many stuffy degreed types think what; at the frontiers of science, they are irrelevant.  It's the forward thinkers who matter; and they are rarely found, on questions like this, among the "elite" (although Jane Goodall and George Schaller are exceptions to that rule; and indeed Meldrum and Krantz are "elite" in their specialties, which are directly relevant to this question).

[Guest Crowlogic]

What really bothers me and this forum seems to put up with it, is Crow saying in no certain terms that people who find footprints in very out of the way places are hoaxers or fakers.   He is not content to think there might be some like Freeman who did it, but everyone who finds one is somehow involved in the same thing.      That includes me, Meldrum, Krantz, Binderngel, and anyone else that has found a footprint.   Everyone is wrong and Crow and his fellow skeptic squawkers are right.        Let me say this loud and clear, I have never encountered such sheer egotism that can proclaim people with and without PHDs are not only wrong but they are fakers and hoaxers.    I have posted several footprint pictures on this forum that I have found.     I have to defend each and every one.   Yet these 'skeptics' are not required to produce any evidence to support their contention that what I have submitted is a hoax or fake.   They can just say it and walk away with impunity.      That is tolerated by the administrators and I have nearly been thrown off here for challenging what I consider libelous statements by skeptics.     If my claims require supporting evidence then some skeptics claims about my evidence should too.   If they cannot produce evidence to support their claim of hoax then they should be censured just as I am when I cannot produce evidence to support my claims.     

The only people who need to be called hoaxers are the people proven to be hoaxers.  But that does not disqualify that hoaxers are making bigfoot tracks.  You may find what you think is a bigfoot track and it may be a miss identification or you may have stumbled onto the work of a hoaxer.  Can you offer assurance to yourself that your field operations are 100% immune from the work of a hoaxer?  Are you working in deep secrecy?  Point blank Ray Wallace was a hoaxer, Rick Dyer is a hoaxer, Paul Freeman was a hoaxer, Todd Standing was a hoaxer, Ivan Marx was a hoaxer.  Do you not find it troubling that the biggest most widely publicized bigfoot events were all hoaxes?  When does "I seen some tracks, got a few strands of hair and some blurry photos and videos"  become there's nothing of true substance out there after all?  The difference between you and me is I've had enough time to intuit when a game is up.  

[Guest]

 

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.

That attitude seems to be very prevalent over the last few years, I don't drink inferior beer,and I don't consider myself a laymen bigfoot scientist, but I do like nascar, and guns. People like me have been accused of 'clinging' to these kind of things before. I took it as an insult. I would assume those who share that superiority over lessers like me would truthfully think that no contribution of any consequence could possibly come from any group other than those who put zero trust and value in the masses. Otherwise why would they need to lead us?  I, however put enormous trust in enough people to believe it when they tell me something, but then again unlike my current betters, I feel people are extremely competent. I believe they are quite able to think, act and dream,and even contribute to any and every field, notwithstanding the snobbish superiority of those I consider to have an extreme highly unwarranted opinion of themselves and their abilities. Or maybe having certain letters before a name or title in front of it leads one to those conclusions.

[Guest Divergent1]

Moderation Notice

 

Several posts are hidden and I'm sure the authors of those posts know the reason. This will take some considerable time to clean up. I suggest you keep the discussion on topic until further notice.

[chelefoot]

MOD STATEMENT

 

I just read through about 20 posts that were off topic. Rather than deleting them and spending the next 2 hours of my Sunday Morning sending you guys reasons why, and warnings, and documenting all of those posts, I am going to restore them so you can read back through them and KNOW where NOT to head with thread in the future.

 

I don't mind when threads evolve into other meaningful discussions. However, constantly going back to the old worn out skeptic versus proponent argument is boring and frankly embarrassing to the forum.

 

KEEP IT ON TOPIC.

 

And Randy,, you said this:    Calling anyone a hoaxer should be treated as a serious thing here and yet it is tolerated.   I wonder loud and clear why?

 

It IS a SERIOUS thing.  However, Not once did anyone hit the report button.  We cannot see every post the minute they are posted.  If someone is called a hoaxer, they better be ready to back it up or they will be personally escorted to the door. But. how am i to know if you guys don't REPORT it. I do have a job, a life, and a few other things on my plate. I would love nothing more but to sit here and read every post the minute it is posted, but that is not reality. We depend on you guys to help us know when this stuff is happening. So if you see it, report it. If you don't report it, don't complain when nothing is done about it!

[Guest DWA]

OK, that done, let's continue.

 

The important thing to remember when one is considering topics like this is that people aren't what one looks to; science is.  Science is normally practiced in a somewhat slipshod manner by people (reason:  money), so one has to be very careful with the pronouncements of any Wise One With Credentials.  What the WOWC generally say is what is canon in their science; they don't go beyond what is known and proven.  This is, at once, scientists' strength...and their weakness.

 

IT IS NOT SCIENCE'S WEAKNESS.  Science considers the evidence, no matter what the WOWC think. That requires an intelligent and independent thinker to do.  Those are the people one follows in science.  What makes me think sasquatch is real is the concurrence of a number of intelligent and independent thinkers on what the body of sighting reports, footprints and other evidence represent.  I have seen no one disagreeing with these people whose opinion is not a groupthink assumption.

[Guest Divergent1]

Science is a process, it's a process used to evaluate evidence. Conclusions about any evidence usually work on a consensus basis. If the vast majority of scientists don't agree with the handful that say there is something to this phenomena then it doesn't matter what we might think about it. Disregardinging those nay sayer scientists with the educational background to have an informed opinion is not a scientific approach on anyone's part in trying to decide what you think or believe about this issue. It actually demonstrates that you don't really understand the scientific process well enough to be able to evaluate the analysis of the evidence at hand.

 

For me, I like BigTreeWalker's approach in looking at possible kills to rule out what predator isn't responsible. I'm not 100% convinced by the arguments that Patty is just a suit. The discussion threads about possible bigfoot DNA seem like a logical route to take to obtain stronger evidence for the existence of bigfoot. Sighting reports are interesting but they don't really convince me of anything.

 

Thinking that there is an increased probability of bigfoot existing due to the sheer volume of reports isn't really justifiable. Why? Because there is no way to repeat the experience with any rigor. You can go looking for bigfoot and you'll have a 50/50 chance of seeing the creature. That's because it is either there ,or it isn't, there is no fractional interpretation for that experience. If you want to address probabilties related to  bigfoot sightings you need to look at the volume of visitors out in those same areas where the sightings occur that aren't having these experiences IMO.

[Guest DWA]

Consensus is pah.  At the frontiers of science, the consensus is that there's no way that independent thinker is gonna win a Nobel.  Surprise.

 

I don't look at your background to determine whether you have an informed opinion; I look at your opinion, and how you got there.  Once again:  everyone disagreeing with the proponents states assumptions as facts....and the assumptions are clearly contradicted by the evidence. Again.  I don't follow people.  I follow the work.  The proponents show me their work.  The skeptics:  nada.

 

"Thinking that there is an increased probability of bigfoot existing due to the sheer volume of reports isn't really justifiable. Why? Because there is no way to repeat the experience with any rigor."

 

Wrong way to think about stuff like this.  It's not "the sheer volume of reports" that the intelligent independent thinkers are looking at.  It is the amazing - for something that isn't real, that is, but perfectly predictable for something that is - CONSISTENCY of those reports.  On points which, count on it, the people having the experiences don't have the expertise to make up, the time in their busy lives to research so they can fake it, nor the thick skin to put up with the ridicule.  They're only doing this because they had experiences that, simply reading them, one knows full well add up to nothing now acknowledged by science.  Assumptions?  Yep, there's one or two in there, but in the face of the evidence, perfectly safe ones, because they describe how people are.  Before saying "people are doing this" one only needs to ask oneself:  would you?  Would anyone you know?  Would anyone they know?

 

See, the experience is being repeated with meticulous rigor:  people are seeing and describing the same animal, in terms only a specialist would relate, over and over and over and over again.  They aren't describing "a bighairyapeman;" they are saying what they saw:  prognathous jaw; nonhuman limb proportions; a hand and foot and gait broadly similar to but subtly yet distinctly different from ours; no apparent neck; sagittal crest; primate intimidation behaviors and curiosity; etc.  But you gotta read 'em to know this.

 

Bigfoot skeptics make three fatal errors not allowed in science:  (1) they assume the exceptional as the commonplace; (2) they build an entire case on nothing but assumptions mainly stemming from (1); and (3) they refuse to review the evidence because they fail to understand what evidence is.  For example, as you did, they make blanket statements about the reports impossible to make for someone who has made a study of them.

 

People aren't doing this.  An unclassified animal is; and the evidence is very clear on that point.  To anyone who makes a study of it.

Edited May 10, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

DWA, you keep talking about convincing evidence so what have you got?

Edited May 10, 2015 by Crowlogic