Does Bigfoot Exist?

[bigbear]

Not even close.

 

The majority of people vastly over estimate what is actually known, especially regarding the human body.

 

We use drugs today that we still don't fully understand how they work and which pathways they are associated with. 

A simple pub search on just about any medical condition, disease will turn up numerous research papers where researches are looking for the answers to the unknown. 

 

search, inflammation, metabolic disease, cancer, traumatic brain injury, hearing loss just to name a few.

 

Sure a lot of research is based on previous research, thoughts or ideas but that is how science works you need something to spark the idea and or to build on.  You generally observe something and or connect a few dots then devise a way to prove, strengthen your belief or figure out why and how said thing happens/doesn't happen.

 

Most research requires outside funding, yes it is unfortunate and lots of important things may not get funding and then not researched because it is not the flavor of the month.  Who hands out most funding.  government, are they going to hand out 1 million bucks to joe shmoe who wants funding so that he can research something with out an ounce of reasoning? 

Yeah, I wouldn't give him the money either, but the scary thing is sometimes they do. 

[Guest DWA]

Not even close.

 

Actually, smack on the nostrils.  I know you're going to show me where I'm wrong, any year now.

 

The majority of people vastly over estimate what is actually known, especially regarding the human body.

 

And - do trust me on this - other stuff.  Or do you just happen to know where all the unknowns are...?  Why would it be slam dunk logic that something about which science is in denial couldn't be real, when we "vastly" - and we do - "over estimate what is actually known"?

 

 

 

We use drugs today that we still don't fully understand how they work and which pathways they are associated with. 

 

And this is, what, smart?  (Triclosan.  Thalidomide.  Oh let's not make that list, it would take days.  Maybe not so much on the smart part.)  Maybe I'm not putting all my cash on a scientific establishment that so demonstrably does so much dumb stuff.

 

A simple pub search on just about any medical condition, disease will turn up numerous research papers where researches are looking for the answers to the unknown. 

 

Anchored, very very firmly, in stuff that is accepted.  Or it wouldn't get funded...right?   Unless, I mean, science doesn't accept human body parts and human physical complaints as real.

 

Sure a lot of research is based on previous research, thoughts or ideas

 

..pretty much all of it. 

 

Most research requires outside funding, yes it is unfortunate and lots of important things may not get funding and then not researched because it is not the flavor of the month.  Who hands out most funding.  government, are they going to hand out 1 million bucks to joe shmoe who wants funding so that he can research something with out an ounce of reasoning? 

 

"[W]with out an ounce of reasoning"

is not what "large and coherent body of evidence" means.  What  "large and coherent body of evidence" means - and has always meant, for everything but this - in science is:  follow it up and you will find the cause.  And it will be what the evidence says it is.  All scientific research, basically, is betting that.

 

Thanks for reinforcing my post.

 

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

Darell, I see you've altered your post from the one I replied to, thus nullifying one of my arguments, unless of course I just overlooked those two other examples, in which case I wholeheartedly apologize. But I can comment on alien abductions and Elvis being alive as well. As far as Elvis being alive, there are barely a fraction of the people who claim to have seen bigfoot that claim to have seen Elvis. Conspiracy theorists believe in all sorts of things, some with more evidence than others. But what I am focusing on are eyewitness testimonies. And something else that must be considered is that people can look alike. Someone can see a person who does look like Elvis. But, if Elvis were 8 feet tall and covered in hair, it would be a bit easier to distinguish which sightings could potentially be real.

 

And yes, the existence of aliens is a mathematical certainty. Have you ever heard of the Drake equation, or the modified forms of the equation? What is less likely is that aliens are visiting earth, but even that is a possibility that cannot be discounted. And the main difference, in my opinion, between the large numbers of witnesses to UFO phenomena and bigfoot is that people witnessing UFO phenomena are usually seeing lights in the sky. It is much easier to be confused about what one is seeing when looking upward, because we live down here. Most people cannot judge distances, directions, size, etc. when looking at an object in the sky.

 

And then there is the fact that there are probably atmospheric phenomena, and other undiscovered phenomena that can cause lights to appear in the sky, aside from unconventional military crafts. But when people are seeing something in the woods, they are much less likely to get it wrong. People are much more adept at judging distances, characteristics, etc. while on the ground. And the majority of witnesses are familiar with all North American animals, animals that could be found in the forests.

 

And I am positive that witnesses are much more likely to get minute details wrong, as opposed to the larger details. There are many, many cases of sasquatch encounters where the witnesses have an unimpeded view of the subject. THAT is what makes sasquatch sightings different from many other types of claims and phenomena. And another HUGE difference is that the majority of witnesses to the sasquatch phenomena are not "conspiracy theorists" by any means, and usually had no belief regarding sasquatch one way or the other. In fact, many witnesses didn't  believe in bigfoot before they had a sighting.

 

I understand that I am a bit biased, having had an unmistakable encounter myself. It is difficult for me to separate personal experience from my arguments sometimes, and others cannot accept the personal experience of their fellow man, even though this is quite hypocritical in my opinion, considering just how many other areas of society rely heavily on eyewitness observations, as I stated in my previous post.

Edited December 20, 2013 by JiggyPotamus

[Guest DWA]

Someone can see a person who does look like Elvis. But, if Elvis were 8 feet tall and covered in hair, it would be a bit easier to distinguish which sightings could potentially be real.

 

I usually look for equation to things like Elvis, fairies and unicorns as a primary indicator that I don't need to take this person's opinion on the topic seriously.

 

And yes, the existence of aliens is a mathematical certainty. Have you ever heard of the Drake equation, or the modified forms of the equation? What is less likely is that aliens are visiting earth, but even that is a possibility that cannot be discounted.

 

It's actually a pretty obvious blind spot in our thinking that hard science does, indeed, consider intelligent life in the universe a virtual certainty...and yet there's no way they could be visiting Earth.  Oh.  OK.

 

And the main difference, in my opinion, between the large numbers of witnesses to UFO phenomena and bigfoot is that people witnessing UFO phenomena are usually seeing lights in the sky. It is much easier to be confused about what one is seeing when looking upward, because we live down here. Most people cannot judge distances, directions, size, etc. when looking at an object in the sky.

 

UFOs are just that; lights in the sky are just that.  Can't, of course, Mr. Drake, discount what they are.  But they sure aren't identified (the, um, reason for the term "U"FO).  Of course they're real!  People see stuff in the sky they can't identify all the time.

 

But when people are seeing something in the woods, they are much less likely to get it wrong. People are much more adept at judging distances, characteristics, etc. while on the ground. And the majority of witnesses are familiar with all North American animals, animals that could be found in the forests.

 

Add to this that a large plurality of these witnesses are people with lots of experience in the woods, many with professional responsibilities or avocations that, as you point out elsewhere, put a high premium on powers of observation.

 

And I am positive that witnesses are much more likely to get minute details wrong, as opposed to the larger details. There are many, many cases of sasquatch encounters where the witnesses have an unimpeded view of the subject. THAT is what makes sasquatch sightings different from many other types of claims and phenomena. And another HUGE difference is that the majority of witnesses to the sasquatch phenomena are not "conspiracy theorists" by any means, and usually had no belief regarding sasquatch one way or the other. In fact, many witnesses didn't  believe in bigfoot before they had a sighting.

 

The typical bigfoot sighter is this guy.  http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=42448  "Total absolutely-no-way scoffer gets battlefield conversion" is the most frequent type of bigfoot report, by one heck of a lot.

 

Witnesses with no experience with known primates in the wild repeatedly report standard-issue ape features and behaviors.  NAWAC is, too.  And they are all hallucinating biologically-correct hallucinations, or making up stuff they wouldn't even know how to make up, or they're all biologists faking ignorance.  OH.  OK.

 

I understand that I am a bit biased, having had an unmistakable encounter myself.

 

That's not bias.  Personal observation is personal proof.  As our Typical Joe Scoffer Turned Bigfoot Witness up there can vouch for, now.

 

It is difficult for me to separate personal experience from my arguments sometimes, and others cannot accept the personal experience of their fellow man, even though this is quite hypocritical in my opinion, considering just how many other areas of society rely heavily on eyewitness observations, as I stated in my previous post.

 

The one thing each of us does, more than anything else but breathing and heartbeat, is take the word of someone we don't know about something.  Most of what we "know," in fact, is nothing more than that; which makes bigfoot skeptics' unthinking faith in mainstream science so heartwarming, touching and fallibly human.

 

[dmaker]

 Maybe I'm not putting all my cash on a scientific establishment that so demonstrably does so much dumb stuff.

 

 

DWA, if you think so poorly of scientists, other than Meldrum and Bindernagel of course, why do you constantly bemoan the lack of their involvement in Bigootyness?

[bigbear]

None of the quote functions work from this website when on this computer, besides I think we all know who I am talking to. 

 

DWA (better?)

 

"I know you are going to show me where I'm wrong, any year now"

 

After you? I only asked 4 pages ago

 

With all of your comments to what I said  I don't know what you are getting at? It is like you are talking to yourself or again just trying to use misdirection by posting a bunch of babble about stuff that no one but you are bringing up.  and it worked,  I feel totally mind screwed right now.

 

I would hardly consider an "once of reasoning" being equivalent to "large and coherent body of evidence"

Edited December 20, 2013 by bigbear

[dmaker]

DWA, the notion that a report has credibility simply because it describes ape features is , frankly, laughable. Anyone can describe an ape. I guarantee you that I could ring up the BFRO and get a Class A report lodged with almost zero thought and effort. Anecdotes can be fabricated. Anecdotes are fabricated constantly. You choosing to ignore this fact does not make it go away.

Edited December 20, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC
3 B

[Drew]

Witness: I saw this Bigfoot over there by the trees.

 

B.I.: Did you notice anything about it's eyes?

 

Witness: Yeah... they were like really crazy

 

B.I.: Was it doing anything like moving side to side?

 

Witness: Yeah... I'm still so scared from the encounter, it is all a blur kind of you know?

 

B.I. Yeah, I know

[Guest DWA]

[hope they're enjoying that conversation they're having^^^^)

[Guest LarryP]

. Anecdotes can be fabricated. Anecdotes are fabricated constantly. You choosing to ignore this fact does not make it go away.

 

So that's your theory?

 

All the reports are just fabrications?

[Guest DWA]

^^^Yes!  Can't you see, man!  You are totally free from having to think about it!  That's the point!

The original post asks, what is going on here?

 

That's it, in a nutshell.  People not thinking about stuff they don't want to think about

[Drew]

So that's your theory?

 

All the reports are just fabrications?

 

Many of the reports are fabrications, even strident Bigfooters will tell you that.

 

Many of the reports are embellished, even strident Bigfooters will tell you that.

 

None of the reports have led to verifiable evidence, even strident Bigfooters will tell you that.

 

The few reports that pass Bigfooter's smell-test, (whatever their criteria are) have not provided verifiable evidence.

 

If we could get a criteria on how to judge a sighting as a legit sighting or a bogus , from the Bigfooters, we could then go through the reports and see how they stack up to each other.  But it seems to be a vacuous criteria, that I can't get a decent check list to go over.

[dmaker]

So that's your theory?

 

All the reports are just fabrications?

No, of course not. But a great many of them, yes. The others are mistaken identity of objects and other animals, shadows, etc..and, of course, other types of tricks the human brain loves to pull such as hallucinations. 

 

Not a single one of them would be an actual Bigfoot in my opinion.

[Guest DWA]

Well, at least it's the topic of this thread.  [sigh]

[Guest LarryP]

None of the reports have led to verifiable evidence

 

 

 

That depends on your definition of verifiable evidence.

 

There are many reports that also included very clear and well defined tracks.