What Evidence Makes You Believe That Bigfoot Exists ?

[Guest rockinkt]

Not only that, but Chilcutt has been examining, collecting evidence, and testifying in various media formats for years, but has yet to write or submit a single report, analysis or paper for peer review. If the evidence is really as conclusive as he claims, the question remains, "Why not?".

Yep.

IF his court work was as sloppy as this - I would love to be a defense lawyer...

[Guest]

Not only that, but Chilcutt has been examining, collecting evidence, and testifying in various media formats for years, but has yet to write or submit a single report, analysis or paper for peer review. If the evidence is really as conclusive as he claims, the question remains, "Why not?".

Given the history of hostility towards the subject on the part of "peer review journals" and symposium, where would you suggest he DO seek to publish?

On the OT, aside from personal experience in finding sign (and a good, if brief sighting), I was convinced even before that by not any one piece of evidence, but the totality of the evidence. Eyewitness reports going back hundreds of years that are generally consistent in terms of the creature depicted that jibe with NA stories going even back farther than that. Good quality witness accounts coupled with physical evidence are also important. What clinches it for me is when obscure technical detail emerges from the evaluation of the evidence (like Fahrenbach's track trait distribution curve) that makes hoaxing and or misidentification virtually impossible. Furthermore, reputable lab evidence (forensic hair comparison and dna testing) as far back as the 70s (Wyoming Fish and Game's Moore) and up until recently (the Bhutan Yeti results) pretty much nail the coffin shut on any other theory than "we got ourselves a critter here".

[Guest]

I too am open to the existence of Sasquatch..I have however become far less open to these bigfoot people (edit) who claim to see them on a semi regular basis?..I am very suss of this type of human,or groups. Not to discount that some of them may actually have?...My observance of people is they tend to create in their own minds what they want to see, for different reasons( Fame,attention,status,..And the biggy "HOAXING" which i am sure takes place in this phenomenon...I am very much against any who may exploit, or use this realm as a means to make money!..That is SO off to me!..Seeking a creature like a Sasquatch would be very expensive and beyond time consuming...And many are obsessed with doing so...I myself am in awe of all wildlife, so if a Sasquatch is out there?I would leave them be as i would any wildlife

Edited September 14, 2010 by ShadoAngel
To remove derogatory term

[Guest]

^As far as that goes, most of the people I know of who have semi-regular experiences simply treat them as part of the environment for the most part. I'm thinking of people like Timberghost, who works and lives in and around these creatures on a regular basis.

[Guest]

My belief means nothing. It does not matter in regards to evidence. We need to do better. We need to try new ideas. What has been done so far is simply not working. The evidence that has been found is very lacking.

[Guest Paul V]

Or is there no evidence....your view that BF exists is just that...a belief, not encumbered by any concrete evidence.

I don't like the word 'belief' at all.

I think that as of today, the existence of bigfoot is a theory, supported by a small amount of evidence that is far from being concrete.

[BobbyO]

My belief means nothing. It does not matter in regards to evidence. We need to do better. We need to try new ideas. What has been done so far is simply not working. The evidence that has been found is very lacking.

Do we though John, do we really need to try new things ??

Of course we do ( well not me specifically, i'm not in N America but i am using " we " as a member of the Human Race ) if we want the species to be recognised & accepted by Science & every Person that has ridiculed us over the Years but that's just the horrible Human trait known a selfishness in my opinion & the hate of the unknown that we all have in us..

I actually think theyr'e doing pretty ok as they are now personally, they have to be.

& even if we did get some evidence, let's say a Roadkill for example, who's to say that we won't go another x amount of Years wihtout ever gettign another sniff because that's what recent history is saying will happen unless we tear up their Habitat & every Tree in it to get another one..

I've said it before & i'll say it again, the evidence that has been made public up to now may not be great, in fact it's pretty crap but i'd bet all the money i have there are peices of evidence that isn't being made public for all kinds of reasons unknown to " us " but of course, unless the Person holding it decides to chnage the way he/she's mind is currenlty & the reasons that they are currently keeping things pivate change too, we'll never know..

[Guest spoiler]

I think we all remember a year or so ago when the guy from back east went public and said that they had found a dead bigfoot and had it in the freezer, we all saw the photos of what some thought was a dead bigfoot, As we all know that was a hoax and it was only a rubber suit in A freezer, I guess that those people had done some things like that before, but for a day or two I had such mixed emotions, On one hand I thought ok now we are going to see the truth! On the other hand I thought, wow, maybe I don't want to know, Maybe I want to believe that they are still out there eluding us in our search. I think finding one will take the mystery off of the whole bigfoot debate. I have my beliefs, and I have had my encounter. Even though I know that they exist, I think I would rather keep the mystery than to prove something to the world that I already know to be the truth.

[Guest spoiler]

I too am open to the existence of Sasquatch..I have however become far less open to these bigfoot people(Bleevers) who claim to see them on a semi regular basis?..I am very suss of this type of human,or groups. Not to discount that some of them may actually have?...My observance of people is they tend to create in their own minds what they want to see, for different reasons( Fame,attention,status,..And the biggy "HOAXING" which i am sure takes place in this phenomenon...I am very much against any who may exploit, or use this realm as a means to make money!..That is SO off to me!..Seeking a creature like a Sasquatch would be very expensive and beyond time consuming...And many are obsessed with doing so...I myself am in awe of all wildlife, so if a Sasquatch is out there?I would leave them be as i would any wildlife

I guess I am kind of the same way witht he people that have these encounters, If I start to read an encounter and somewhere in their writing they say the words, "I felt like I was being watched" I emediately stop reading the encounter and move on. I know thats crazy but thats just me. I automatically don't believe theier encounter. Heres what I would say about some of the people that see them on multiple occaisions. I have seen many Bears in the wild, I have friends that have never seen a Bear, The reason? I put myself in the position to see Bears, I visit the mountains where there are Bears, I go into the mountians in the mornings and watch for them, So I have seen more Bears than most people, Same with the people that have had multiple sightings of BF, They spend a huge amount of time in the areas known to have BF, The do the things they need to do to see them. They are quiet in the field, and because of the things they do, They see them. They simply have a greater desire to do the things they need to do to see them.

[Guest]

Do we though John, do we really need to try new things ??

Of course we do ( well not me specifically, i'm not in N America but i am using " we " as a member of the Human Race ) if we want the species to be recognized & accepted by Science & every Person that has ridiculed us over the Years but that's just the horrible Human trait known a selfishness in my opinion & the hate of the unknown that we all have in us..

I know my reasons for wanting proof are selfish. I don't hide it. I am not a Bigfoot fan. Never was, never will be.

[Guest rockinkt]

Given the history of hostility towards the subject on the part of "peer review journals" and symposium, where would you suggest he DO seek to publish?

<snip>

Chilcutt doesn't need to publish to try and back up his disputed discredited findings - all he has to do is produce a report detailing how he came to his conclusions.

Sign it, date it, and give it one of the sasquatch research groups to put on their web site.

He obviously knows how to do this since he has made a living at forensic reports for a long time.

His silence speaks volumes... IMHO

Edited September 13, 2010 by rockinkt

[Guest]

Chilcutt doesn't need to publish to try and back up his disputed discredited findings - all he has to do is produce a report detailing how he came to his conclusions.

Sign it, date it, and give it one of the sasquatch research groups to put on their web site.

And the Skoftics and Debunkers will simply say "That's posted on a BF site, it doesn't count as True Publishing.

And I remember the threads about the "debunking" of the ridges. All that was ever demonstrated was that in some cases there was the possibility of dermal ridge-like casting artifacts. Hardly the "slam [de]bunk" you make it out to be.

[slabdog]

This one really keeps me leaning a little towards the "it's real" side of the fence.

although I think many of the other casts (not all mind you) are likely hoaxed bunk.

I would love to speak with the deputy who cast that in WA to learn more about the back story.

I often ask myself "Would you bet you house that Sas is real..?"

The answer....MY answer...."Nope"

I'm a skeptical beleiver on the fence. I sway back and forth slightly from time to time with a light breeze.

I'd love to roll up my sleeves and try to find out for myself someday.

Edited September 13, 2010 by slabdog

[Guest Grazhopprr]

People who've seen BF, don't need to be convinced, and all the "evidence" discussed over the years, isn't enough to convince people who haven't seen BF. I think the bar for evidence, belongs to the people who've never seen BF, and think it's a bunch of hooey. That bar is very high. Whether we believe in BF or not, means nothing to the rest of the world. World acceptance will take an absolute situation, to accept anything having to do with BF, or Yowie, or any of the dozen other versions. Foggy blobsquatches, tracks, hair, dna, will never be a totally acceptable evidence, as the Patty film has shown. Until then, it's all just fun and games, and taking your own views personal, against others, is rediculous emotional baggage needing copious drugs. It's a hobby. Enjoy the research, and the people you work with, on it. The last few years of back stabbing, group migrations, creating more new groups, forums, blogs, videos, doesn't help with proving BF exists, to the ones who don't believe in it. If all else fails, read below:

[Branco]

That evidence has been put to the test and found lacking by the experiments of people who were members of the old forum.

Matt Crowley aka Tube (who was the original experimenter and first proposed casting artifacts as the explanation), wolftrax, and Bittermonk (who both provided independent replication of Tube's experiments and observations) pretty well showed that what Chilcutt asserted were dermal ridges - were actually casting artifacts.

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/experiments_cast_doubt_on_bigfoot_evidence

Did Jimmy get the opportunity to look at those casts and comment on whether or not he knew the differece between the "casting artifacts" and the dermal ridges he originally reported?