Does Bigfoot Exist?

[Guest]

So.  If I'm right....what's science's problem?

 

Nothing. Bigfoot proponents are free to participate in science and bring in a bigfoot. The BFRO is a scientific organization isn't it?

 

 

But ask most scientists - whose minds are influenced by things other than evidence when it comes to topics like this, like money, tenure, tenure, money, cash, dough, career, tenure and money - about it. 

 

 

Nope. Topics "like this" (new discoveries) lead to better pay, tenure etc.

[Guest DWA]

Right, says:  money, tenure, tenure, money, cash, dough, career, tenure and money.

 

I prefer evidence.  I'm a scientist that way.  I'd encourage other scientists to follow my lead, but...^^^

And it's not like I don't loooooooooove my favorite Catch-22:  "This would make people richrichrich...if it were real whichofcourseitisn'tsodon'tlookdon'tlookISAIDDON'TLOOK..."

[bigbear]

As a scientist are you writing in hopes of publishing all of this cold hard evidence you keep speaking of?  Perhaps it's already published in a respectable journal and you can provide the title, journal, vol, issue, publish date?

 

Surely you have enough for at least a review paper and the beauty of it is that you don't even need to have any of your own research, what is stopping you?

Edited December 19, 2013 by bigbear

[Guest]

Right, says:  money, tenure, tenure, money, cash, dough, career, tenure and money.

 

Like Meldrum?

 

I prefer evidence.  I'm a scientist that way.

 

You and 99% of actual scientists

Edited December 19, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

As a scientist are you writing in hopes of publishing all of this cold hard evidence you keep speaking of?  Perhaps it's already published in a respectable journal and you can provide the title, journal, vol, issue, publish date?

 

Surely you have enough for at least a review paper and the beauty of it is that you don't even need to have any of your own research, what is stopping you?

Oh, it's published all right.  If you had curiosity about this topic you would, you know, read it and think about it.

 

Speaking of not doing any of your own research.

 

One doesn't need a science degree to think like a scientist.  On this topic, as with most, I do, and they don't. 

 

Oh wait.  Jeff Meldrum.  John Bindernagel.  Grover Krantz.  They do.

 

 

 Get most other scientists out of their comfort zones and you might as well be talking to the garbageman.

It is astonishing how often one hears people with multiple degrees - some with distinguished reputations - commit baldfaced violations of everything science stands for.

 

I did mention that bigfoot is real because the evidence says so, right?

 

You'd think that would interest some people.  But it doesn't look as if that is what some people are interested in.

Edited December 19, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

One doesn't need a science degree to think like a scientist.  On this topic, as with most, I do, and they don't

 

Why, because they're not all looking for bigfoot?

 

Meldrum and co are free to look for Bigfoot while others can explore the depths of the oceans or outer space. There's room for everyone.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

[edited to express appreciation for the Ignore function]

[bigbear]

toss me a bone here and give me a title at least, so I can make sure I am reading the correct one.

 

No one said anything about needing a science degree to make scientific discoveries and I also believe this point has been proven throughout history so I don't know where you are going with this. 

 

Lots of typy not so much useful content. 

Edited December 19, 2013 by bigbear

[dmaker]

toss me a bone here and give me a title at least, so I can make sure I am reading the correct one.

 

No one said anything about needing a science degree to make scientific discoveries and I also believe this point has been proven throughout history so I don't know where you are going with this. 

 

Lots of typy not so much useful content. 

He is most likely talking about The Discovery of the Sasquatch (2010), Bindernagel 

 

This is, of course, a monograph, not a peer reviewed paper. 

[Cotter]

@Bigbear - have you read Bill Munn's 2 recent publications?

 

Thoughts?  Can you cite specifically where his evaluation is wrong?

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

So while some can claim that there is no evidence for bigfoot, and therefore no reason to believe in them, logic states that the sighting reports alone almost make the existence of bigfoot a mathematical certainty.

 

In no way is that statement correct. In fact it is irresponisible to even have that POV. Using your logic, flawed as it is, Pop Rocks and Coca Cola killing you, alien abductions, and Elvis being alive are a mathematical certainty. Easy answer, bigfoot exists because a certain segment of society want it to exist.

 

No no no. There is a HUGE difference between your examples and mine. How is this? Because none of those people in your examples were claiming to have been killed by pop rocks and coca cola. And it is very logical to conclude that bigfoot is a real animal based upon the sighting reports alone, and it is by no means an "irresponsible" conclusion to draw. We are NOT talking about people's beliefs. We are talking about eyewitnesses to an event, which is completely different.

 

And the truth of the matter is, since there are so many sasquatch witnesses, they must be seeing something. And an irresponsible conclusion, in my opinion, is that ALL of these people are seeing a known animal, are lying, or have been hoaxed. That is just preposterous once one actually starts to realize the implications that has. What implications? Well, seeing as how our society relies heavily on eyewitness observations in a variety of areas, why is it that we can take the word of just one or two people regarding something much more important than the existence of sasquatch, yet when we have thousands of reports claiming that sasquatch is real, those all get thrown out the window?

 

Just look at how many reports are from military personnel, police officers, and many other "observational" vocations. Heck, there are even reports from trained military snipers, and those guys are more highly trained in observational skills than just about anyone else you can find. Unless of course all these types of people are lying about their vocations as well as about what they saw. No matter that many witnesses are interviewed, and their claims scrutinized.

 

So I suppose we should just believe that there is an above average amount of lying going on with people who report sasquatch sightings, even though that is statistically unlikely, if not impossible. Out of all the thousands of reports claiming to see sasquatch, not to mention the thousands upon thousands that have gone unreported, (which is a very logical conclusion as well), all it would take is for ONE report, a single report, to be accurate regarding the animal that was seen for bigfoot to be a certainty. Now when you look at it that way, coupled with all of the other things I've mentioned, the existence of bigfoot is definitely approaching mathematical certainty.

 

Mathematically, or statistically speaking, it is MUCH more likely for sasquatch to be real than for all of the evidence, including eyewitness reports, to be false. It is as simple as that really.

[bigbear]

@Bigbear - have you read Bill Munn's 2 recent publications?

 

Thoughts?  Can you cite specifically where his evaluation is wrong?

 

Nope, ill look into them, they could be very well writen and thourough. 

[Guest]

I agree jiggy. all it takes is for one person to be telling the truth for Bigfoot to be real. out off all the reports,the chance of 100% of reports bein hoax,,mis ID,Or a lie are slim to none.. like you said..

[Guest Urkelbot]

And to show even more clearly who knows how science (doesn't) work.

 

Read the proven and only the proven.  What is not proven, isn't real.  If it isn't proven, ignore it.  If it cannot be referred directly back to something proven, ignore it.  You are only allowed to take one thing you know, combine it with another thing you know, and get another thing you now know. To apply science to anything but the proven ist verboten.

 

I just said that sentence I quoted there, using slightly different words.

My point was that people like you could benefit from reading science journals rather than Bigfoot reports. You have the absurd notion that scientists aren't in fact probing into the unknown. If you actual looked into where current research is going you would realize you are mistaken.

[Guest DWA]

You wouldn't be able to show me an example.  Go ahead.  I'll show you how anything you come up with is firmly tethered to something proven.

 

Scientists - with, fortunately, a few exceptions - have no idea how to deal with a large and coherent body of evidence that isn't firmly anchored in the known.  But could be, from every indication, very easily tested.

 

You just, however, reinforced (squared, and cubed the result) my post.

Why in the HECK would I want to read a "science journal" about this topic, when all it does, basically, is ask questions a sixth-grader could ask?  I like to read folks who are exploring the unknown and testing evidence, not sitting on their hands asking dumb questions.

Edited December 20, 2013 by DWA