Does Bigfoot Exist?

[Guest DWA]

Come?

 

AGAIN?

 

What does the Easter Bunny have to do with this?

Your "points" make no sense.

 

So if a rabbit was found to lay eggs, nobody should be dumbfounded?

[Guest]

DODGE!!!

 

I win.

[WV FOOTER]

How does gravity work?

Against me, Always against me?

[Rockape]

“Now we have to rethink the whole story,†Dr. Arsuaga said.

Having to do that with your "PGF suit" story too, eh?

[dudeman]

What I saw in a Florida swamp was either a skunk ape or a 6'+ bipedal orangutan with 5 toe human like foot prints. So I vote yes they do exist.

[Guest]

Again, DWA. The scientists were "baffled" because previous evidence suggested one model for human evolution but the new evidence suggests something different. It has nothing to do with them believing that they have "the full picture". If they did, they wouldn't have bothered to get the new DNA anyway.

[Guest]

Still waiting for an answer from kitakaze on why hundreds of people who have never even thought about bigfoot, hallucinated bigfoot, then went to the trouble to file a report about it. They wouldn't, these people aren't experiencingl sleep paralysis ..they're seeing a REAL animal. get over it.

[Guest DWA]

^^^^I'm really puzzled at how "skeptics" won't accept stories - and then gin up a story that neatly covers all sightings and expect us to buy it no matter how outlandish or unlikely.

 

(Or worse yet, expect us to accept a variety of causes for the evidence - something that, given its consistency, is exponentially more unlikely.)

DODGE!!!

 

I win.

Nobody dodged anything.  Your counter doesn't make sense.  Come on.  Engage. 

[dmaker]

@ItsaSquatch. If they are seeing a real animal, it's not a Bigfoot. This is supported every time a Bigfoot "researcher" submits samples for analysis and they come back as various common animals. We have plenty of those kinds of results. We have zero undocumented primates to date though. 

 

Why do people go to the trouble to report a Bigfoot encounter when they, in fact, did not see a Bigfoot? There are lots of reasons. Most people here will not consider them, however, since they most assuredly do not include seeing a Bigfoot as a possibility.  But those reasons can be summed up to either lying, being a victim of a hoax, or being subject to anyone of the many problems with human perception and recall. Human beings see things that are not there constantly. This has always happened and it will always continue to happen. This is also well documented in experiments and journal articles. To think that none of the problems that plague human perception apply to Bigfoot sightings is to apply an absurdly super-human standard to Bigfoot witnesses.

DODGE!!!

 

I win.

Beautiful!  

Edited December 24, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

@ItsaSquatch. If they are seeing a real animal, it's not a Bigfoot. This is supported every time a Bigfoot "researcher" submits samples for analysis and they come back as various common animals.

 

No it's not, when the provenance of the sample is taken into account.  Here's how a scientist looks at this:  Is this sample from a bigfoot?  If it isn't, nothing has been supported or otherwise with regard to anything but that sample.  Period, exclamation point, argument over.

 

We have plenty of those kinds of results. We have zero undocumented primates to date though. 

 

We do have an undocumented primate.  Everything else in the universe for which there is as much evidence as there is for that primate is proven.  This is known as "telling a smart person how to bet."

 

Why do people go to the trouble to report a Bigfoot encounter when they, in fact, did not see a Bigfoot? There are lots of reasons.

 

You have to prove them, or else be guilty of believing in something for which there is no evidence.  It's silly to toss off all sightings as coming from one or more "reasons" that one simply hasn't given the real-world test one demands of the proponents.  Trying to pass this is a prima facie red flag that the person so doing is unacquainted with the evidence, because it's very simply not what's happening.  Logic says so.  When one is informed, that is.

 

Most people here will not consider them, however, since they most assuredly do not include seeing a Bigfoot as a possibility.  

 

Which is nothing more than resistance of what the real world is repeatedly trying to tell someone, but some are that way.

 

 

But those reasons can be summed up to either lying, being a victim of a hoax, or being subject to anyone of the many problems with human perception and recall.

 

No evidence = junk theory.  A few examples are not evidence pertaining to anything else but those examples.  My confusing something for something else can be used to explain nothing else but that instance unless one can prove the other instances are the same thing. This is pretty basic.

 

Human beings see things that are not there constantly.

 

And they correct themselves almost instantly.  They don't go insisting on something that they're ridiculed for seeing, decades later.  They simply do not.  Anyone asserting anything so obviously contradicted by the day-to-day details of virtually every human life must prove it or not be part of the discussion.

 

To think that none of the problems that plague human perception apply to Bigfoot sightings is to apply an absurdly super-human standard to Bigfoot witnesses.

 

To think that people don't simply see what they see, when people do that infallibly for practically every second of every day, and thousands of independent occurrences across a continent support it, is to presume a societal psychosis surpassing by far anything ever recorded in the medical literature.

[dmaker]

"No evidence = junk theory " DWA

 

Thank-you for summing up Bigfoot so succinctly DWA.   

[Guest DWA]

^^^The difference between those interested in cutting-edge science ...and those interested in winning an argument.

 

(But not enough to read up.)

I love getting those obvious "you win" posts!  Anyone else feelin' that?

[Rockape]

Why do people go to the trouble to report a Bigfoot encounter when they, in fact, did not see a Bigfoot? There are lots of reasons. Most people here will not consider them, however, since they most assuredly do not include seeing a Bigfoot as a possibility.  But those reasons can be summed up to either lying, being a victim of a hoax, or being subject to anyone of the many problems with human perception and recall. Human beings see things that are not there constantly. This has always happened and it will always continue to happen. This is also well documented in experiments and journal articles. To think that none of the problems that plague human perception apply to Bigfoot sightings is to apply an absurdly super-human standard to Bigfoot witnesses.

 

That's certainly the most logical answer and might very well be right, but I am just not convinced that is the case every time. With the number of reported sighting over several centuries, I can't help but think at least a few are actually a BF. I can't commit to BF actually existing however, since I can't get past the fact that no proof has been found.

[Guest]

The difference between those interested in cutting-edge science ...and those interested in winning an argument.

 

I agree... for instance.

 

 

[yaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwn] another day in the Meticulous Deconstruction of the Entire Science of Paleoanthropology... - DWA in response to the "mundane" discovery of 40,000 human DNA that rewrites the story on human evolution.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[SWWASAS]

First of all there is the old axiom that you cannot prove a negative. In other words you cannot prove that something does not exist. Some people here seem to think they can. The only thing you can do, according to quantum theory, is declare that at any given moment in an observers time some BF is either there or not there. I am curious how a skeptic can stand face to face to someone who has had a close BF encounter and tell them that they did not see what they saw. That takes a curious sort of belief system or huge ego to "know" what another person saw when you were not there. It certainly is dismissive of any witness report and not what I would call science. That is the same sort of thing that mainstream science does with regards to the bigfoot phenomena but at the same time is part of many skeptics arguments. Science does not recognize BF so therefore it must not exist. The history of science is full of science being very wrong so any such argument has little validity.