What Evidence Makes You Believe That Bigfoot Exists ?

[ShadowBorn]

That is a gargantuan fly in the ointment of belief.

 

Gargantuan fly in the ointment of belief is seeing these creatures and having interaction with them and not being able to prove it to the world. To sit here and be made fun of knowing that these creatures really do exist, while trying to express this to the masses.

 

Oh yea, combing their hair is a B***** they never like to sit still, They always seem to be stressed for some reason. Some thing about them not liking humans and yes my dog comb. Besides they stink to hog heaven. No wonder they are shy, it is almost like they know they stink. Ha hahaha

[SWWASAS]

Bobby you touched on my reasoning for abandoning belief.  Indeed 50 years is a very long time.  We went to the moon in 10, we harnessed the atom in 5.

Now that is a ridiculous argument. Total cost of the moon program. 500 billion dollars in 1960s money. Total cost of the Manhattan project. 30 trillion dollars in today money. Throw that kind of money at finding bigfoot and one could expect a lot different results in 50 years. But then again no one has been looking for bigfoot much longer than 1967.

[Guest DWA]

Thinking about this; understanding what evidence is, and the difference between evidence and proof; getting up on what the evidence is saying; weeding out the fuzzy thinking and theorizing; thinking about the evidence in the light of one's own experieces...I have found these things to be very effective fly-removal devices.  No flies in my ointment, nosiree Bob.

Now that is a ridiculous argument. Total cost of the moon program. 500 billion dollars in 1960s money. Total cost of the Manhattan project. 30 trillion dollars in today money. Throw that kind of money at finding bigfoot and one could expect a lot different results in 50 years. But then again no one has been looking for bigfoot much longer than 1967.

One really wonders how many times one has to repeat this; or when people are gonna understand that going on acting like one hasn't heard something one has been told dozens of times, minimum, is no way to get people to take one's argument seriously.

 

The amount of money spent to package freeze-dried ice cream for the Apollo program dwarfs the grand total all time money spent on bigfoot research, and anyone not understanding that isn't participating in the discussion.  Start throwing a similar effort - to packaging the ice cream ferpetesake not getting to the moon - to sasquatch now and we'd all be convinced by November.

 

I honestly think an astute fourth-grader should get that.  I mean it has been said more than enough times more than enough ways.  Anyone who doesn't, allow me to bail you out by saying it must be De Nile, 'coz there is no way you are missing it otherwise.

Edited May 13, 2015 by DWA

[Guest]

It is easy really. I was not aware you had any.

 

But I already said on the previous page that I have personal experience of people I know who have become convinced that bigfoot exists when they have looked at the PGF closely, when previously they hadn't given it much, or any attention. So there is evidence that has actually convinced people of the reality of bigfoot.

The disagreement with another's personal experience stems from the probability that the personal experience while perhaps real to the person claiming it may indeed be a false positive. 

 

I think there has been a misunderstanding. The subject I was posting about was evidence convincing people. I mentioned the PGF as a piece of evidence that I personally know has convinced some people bigfoot exists after they have looked at it and studied it closely. There is no 'may be a false positive' about it. I know people who now are convinced bigfoot is a reality after being swayed by the PGF.

Good shout neanderfoot on the PGF, but even that ( and IMO it's 100% a real Sasquatch ) still gets grilled to this very day 

True. But there still are plenty of people who are convinced bigfoot is real based on it.

 

 

 

and the fact that the best piece of evidence we have is the best part of 50 years old says a lot about current research practices sadly.

 

Or there just aren't as many of them as there used to be and the media exposure has done a lot to contaminate the subject.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[Guest Crowlogic]

But I already said on the previous page that I have personal experience of people I know who have become convinced that bigfoot exists when they have looked at the PGF closely, when previously they hadn't given it much, or any attention. So there is evidence that has actually convinced people of the reality of bigfoot.

 

I think there has been a misunderstanding. The subject I was posting about was evidence convincing people. I mentioned the PGF as a piece of evidence that I personally know has convinced some people bigfoot exists after they have looked at it and studied it closely. There is no 'may be a false positive' about it. I know people who now are convinced bigfoot is a reality after being swayed by the PGF.

True. But there still are plenty of people who are convinced bigfoot is real based on it.

 

 

 

 

Or there just aren't as many of them as there used to be and the media exposure has done a lot to contaminate the subject.

It all goes back to whether a person chooses to accept the evidence or chooses rejects the evidence.  As stated before with the weak exception of those claiming personal sighting or personal interaction we are all drawing from the same well of evidence.  The personal interaction and sightings are only reportage's and they have not delivered proof so it comes down choosing to believe or choosing to disbelieve,  That leaves the seeker on either side to draw from that common well of evidence.  For one such as myself once the layers of special dispensation and fabrication are stripped away there isn't enough evidence to pin belief to.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest DWA]

Choosing to believe or disbelieve is a weak intellectual construct unless one is basing the choice on evidence, not on what one just chooses to believe because comfortable.  Such as, say, one's choosing to believe that personal sightings are weak because done here.

 

Those claiming personal sighting or interaction are the strongest possible evidence for something short of proof.*  In these days of Much Tech Little Thought, we tend to forget the eternal verities, one of which is:  what people see, they describe accurately, barring any one of a number of exceptions none of which apply to sasquatch reports.  This is a staple of the bigfoot-skeptic meme:  saying that people just mis-see stuff, and that's it we're done, despite no record in our society ever existing, ever, of so many people seeing something described so consistently that the society hasn't accepted yet.

 

If one isn't basing the choice on evidence - and Crowlogic is not - one doesn't have a logical basis for the choice, and we of scientific bent prefer choices based on logic.

 

 

 

*Anyone ready to toss DNA, fingerprints etc. in my face might want to pay slightly more attention to current events.

Edited May 13, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

Choosing to believe or disbelieve is a weak intellectual construct unless one is basing the choice on evidence, not on what one just chooses to believe because comfortable.  Such as, say, one's choosing to believe that personal sightings are weak because done here.

 

Those claiming personal sighting or interaction are the strongest possible evidence for something short of proof.*  In these days of Much Tech Little Thought, we tend to forget the eternal verities, one of which is:  what people see, they describe accurately, barring any one of a number of exceptions none of which apply to sasquatch reports.  This is a staple of the bigfoot-skeptic meme:  saying that people just mis-see stuff, and that's it we're done, despite no record in our society ever existing, ever, of so many people seeing something described so consistently that the society hasn't accepted yet.

 

If one isn't basing the choice on evidence - and Crowlogic is not - one doesn't have a logical basis for the choice, and we of scientific bent prefer choices based on logic.

 

 

 

*Anyone ready to toss DNA, fingerprints etc. in my face might want to pay slightly more attention to current events.

I'm reminded of the Miasma theory of disease.  Disease was evident but the actual causes of it were not.  So evidence (disease) was given a cause and that cause being bad air.  Signs of bigfoot are being given the causation as a creature in the form of bigfoot.  However the creature is likely to be a miasma reason rather than the true reason.  Germs cause disease which negates miasma theory and hoaxes, poor ID and fabrications defeat creature theory.

[WSA]

^^^^Up with that DWA.

 

Look, someone who "chooses to reject" a body of evidence doesn't just get carte blanche permission to do that, no matter how much they insist they do.  Well, you might somewhere else, but here you absolutely do not. Come with something coherent and fact-based, or frankly, just ST[H]U.  Very few here are all that interested in your alternative reality where the accounts of thousands of people are never worthy of consideration and where physical manifestations of animals are all explained by, well...what exactly? We all still are waiting on that one, I believe.

 

Does one start to get bored with one's self for all of this rote repetition of incoherency? Apparently, as it continues to be expressed, one does not. The trolls' ability to stay enamored with his/her own fatuousness remains inviolate, I reckon.

[Guest DWA]

Here is something I am never gonna get.

 

MEMEME:  I the omnipotent *I* choose to reject this.

 

Mr. Reasonable (MR):  Hmmmm.  You the omnipotent *you.*  How about thousands whose experience, consistently reported mind you, contradicts yours?

 

MEMEME:  Remember you are talking to MEMEME.

 

MR:  Coolish.  OK, now what about those thousands of people?

 

MEMEME:  YOU!  CHOOSE! To accept the word of rabble?  Over me?  Over MEMEME?

 

Nope.  Never gonna get that.  Reject it, in fact...on the evidence.  [gavel]:  WHAM!

I'm reminded of the Miasma theory of disease.  Disease was evident but the actual causes of it were not.  So evidence (disease) was given a cause and that cause being bad air.  Signs of bigfoot are being given the causation as a creature in the form of bigfoot.  However the creature is likely to be a miasma reason rather than the true reason.  Germs cause disease which negates miasma theory and hoaxes, poor ID and fabrications defeat creature theory.

Yes, such connections are made inside of individuals' heads, all the time.  Doesn't mean they need to be accepted on a science based forum, which this is.  Connection rejected, because a mindset based on science and its exercise perceives the fundamental error in making the connection in the first place.  (Someone else can come up with the Latin name for it.)

Edited May 13, 2015 by DWA

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

I'm reminded of the Miasma theory of disease.  Disease was evident but the actual causes of it were not.  So evidence (disease) was given a cause and that cause being bad air.  Signs of bigfoot are being given the causation as a creature in the form of bigfoot.  However the creature is likely to be a miasma reason rather than the true reason.  Germs cause disease which negates miasma theory and hoaxes, poor ID and fabrications defeat creature theory.

 

You're forgetting that the Germ theory was not readily embraced by the medical/scientific community due to lack of evidence.  People often point to Semmelweis as a pioneering leader of germ theory advocates. But they fail to mention that he was censored and was essentially kicked of the hospital staff because because mainstream couldn't believe itty bitty tiny things caused disease and because no one could demonstrate that these itty bitty tiny things existed. In short, they thought he was a fraud, a hoaxer, a charlatan, and a nut.

 

Anyway, after reading your answer to my question and your subsequent posts, I totally get where you're coming from. You need to watch Big Foot shows, read Big Foot material, take part in Big Foot discussions in order to reassure  and convince yourself that Big Foot is an imaginary creature. If you were more secure in your beliefs about Big Foot, you wouldn't need to devote this much time to convincing yourself it does not exist.

[Guest DWA]

And pretty much *that.*

 

Never seen anyone more adept at tripping themselves up with their own arguments than bigfoot skeptics.  Nice catch, CR; in fact, really nice, as Bindernagel draws, neatly and defly, the following parallel:

 

Semmelweis = Meldrum

[Guest Divergent1]

DWA, have you never heard of the Semmelweis Reflex? You need to incorporate that into your vocabulary.

[Guest DWA]

The Semmelweis reflex or "Semmelweis effect" is a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs or paradigms.

 

Describes bigfoot skepticism, perfectly.

 

Thanks!

Analysis and rigorous application of scientific method has the proponents where they are on this.  The bigfoot skeptics:  ^^^bingo.

[Guest Divergent1]

I was getting bored with the same old verbage, I thought you could use some revamping

[Guest DWA]

I am endlessly varied, cogent, exciting and new.

 

I am fighting people writing the same sentence 15,999 different ways (at latest count).