dmaker Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 The argument for Bigfoot loses validity every day when thousands of people report seeing one, yet not a single shred of objective evidence can be produced. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Explorer Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 Kitakaze wrote: "What I think we are left with is about 1% undefined. I know and have friends personally that claim to have seen Bigfoot. The red glowing eyes my firend Scott Herriott saw are a mystery to me. What truly traumatized John Cartwright when he was a teenager in a hunting stand is a mystery to me. The answer to those mysteries I do not think likely to be real Bigfoots. Scott said glowing, not reflecting, and this was daytime." My interpretation of what you wrote above is that you still believe there is a mystery within the BF phenomenon. Whether BF exists or not, the mystery is real. There are many interpretations of what BF is or could be. I have no idea, but believe there is a mystery here. Even if BF is not a real physical animal, I find it fascinating that so many people claim to see one. I did not get interested in this field because of the PGF film (which I don't really care much about) or maps plotting thousands of cases, but because of friends I trust who claim to have had close encounter with BF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 Having to do that with your "PGF suit" story too, eh? lol, +1 rock , there is that pesky double standard again . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 It occurs to me that the skeptical argument that "all people who report having seen a bigfoot are somehow mistaken" is co-equal in value to the argument that "all skeptics who claim bigfoot does not exist are somehow right." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 Firm optimistic fence-sitter, myself, but a little physical evidence would do wonders for the proponent side of things. And that "little physical evidence" must be extremely difficult to provide. Otherwise, the skeptic's side would be found wanting. As it is, they've got the upper hand. As in the 1984 Wendy's commercial, the actress Clara Peller asked "Where's the beef?" Until something/anything other than sketchy evidence is proffered, proponents should learn a little humility. That's the way it works in the real world. Before you nail me to a cross, I believe (note:believe) the PGF depicts a flesh and blood creature. But since October '68, there is precious little else to stake a claim upon. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 Can't and don't fault your position at all. Reality is that, short of a type specimen, there needs to be enough mutually supporting evidence from a single encounter to be irrefutable. To my mind this indicates at least both video and DNA (not photos, because a still can be readily faked, whereas a series of motion frames provide physiometric data that is either consistent, or is not - and, preferably, the video shows the deposition of the DNA). The means by which the DNA is collected also needs to be well documented to later demonstrate proper handling and chain of custody. Footprint data and other secondary forensic evidence is of lesser value because it cannot be tied directly to the individual that left it without the individual itself to compare it to. It is, however, icing on the cake if the primary evidence (video and DNA) are already available. I don't mean to denigrate footprint evidence at all. The body of footprint data has provided a lot of meaningful information. It is just that any individual print, or limited number of prints can be faked, and so, for a specific encounter, it needs to be coupled with enough other evidence to preclude the possibility of a hoax. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted December 25, 2013 Share Posted December 25, 2013 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. I think sleep paralysis would account for a minuscule amount of reports. I think reports being completely fabricated makes up for a lot more. That doesn't necessarily mean fabricated by a person then submitted to a Bigfoot enthusiast organization. I think many reports in the BFRO database are made from scratch by the BFRO, though certainly many are real in terms of being from real people. How do you prove someone has never thought of Bigfoot? And why do they consciously have to have considered something to have it as part of their culture. Bigfoot is part of our schema as a society so consciously contemplating something isn't a requirement to be part of your experience. Bigfoot is a social construct you can have lots of people claiming to see it and it can be no more real than grey aliens and ghosts. http://www.alien-ufos.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkGlasgow Posted December 25, 2013 Share Posted December 25, 2013 Kit, out of interest, why do think the BRFO creates bogus sightings? Do you have any evidence of this or is it a bit of guesswork on your behalf? I'm not sure that sleep paralysis comes into play in this arena however this condition is very relevant to the ufo phenomenon. I like your BF map. Lots of dots and I'll agree lots of misidentification and BS. But all of them? I guess it only takes one right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted December 25, 2013 Share Posted December 25, 2013 Hello MarkGlasgow, ...I'm not sure that sleep paralysis comes into play in this arena however this condition is very relevant to the ufo phenomenon... This is true. There has been much said about abduction experiences being the result of sleep paralysis episodes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2013 Share Posted December 25, 2013 Christmas really is a magical time. Plussed JDL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MNskeptic Posted December 25, 2013 Share Posted December 25, 2013 Kit, question for you: If BF is a social construct, how come there has never been a sighting in Hawaii? At least none that I'm aware. There are millions of people that live and have lived on the islands for generations. I would guess that enough people there have some familiarity with the BF phenomenon? Wouldn't at least some of those people suffer the same construct as the people here on the mainland? Maybe I don't understand the concept though. MNSkeptic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted December 25, 2013 Share Posted December 25, 2013 http://www.bigfoothawaii.com/aboutus.html http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.ca/2012/05/bigfoot-sightings-in-hawaii.html Kit, out of interest, why do think the BRFO creates bogus sightings? Do you have any evidence of this or is it a bit of guesswork on your behalf? I know of fake sightings reports from connections to people that were once part of the organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted December 25, 2013 Share Posted December 25, 2013 Kit - The BFRO { as whole group } does not fabricate reports, I am in very close connection to more than a couple report investigators and have done field time with them. I can't speak for every member of the organization but I do know for a fact that the organization is not making things up or deliberately leading details in any shape or form. I have taken reports where full grown men { most of witch scoffed/laughed at the idea of bigfoot } break down, shaking and you could read the fear in their face as if it was plastered on a billboard in big bright red text, they are not lying, mistaken or hoaxed. There is not explanation for these such reports other than they seen a very rare animal with a very high intelligence level, if this is not conceivable for you I completely understand, been there and thought that. Not to mention my own up close daylight sighting in 2009, I am not posting this as to start an argument but more of a statement for anyone who will sit back and say no way. It is easy for one to write off something they do not understand and the moment you stop holding a level field is the moment you have written it off or have become overly decided for the case of not. Nothing more to say from here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted December 25, 2013 Share Posted December 25, 2013 Nathan, to be specific, I don't think the BFRO as a whole (like every member in it) fabricates reports, but rather has been certain people within the group. I also couldn't not speak to anything happening now. Well before your time there was a mass exodus of people from the BFRO about seven years ago in which a lot of the organization's dirty laundry had been aired, including that some reports had been fabricated and that hoaxing had occurred on pay-for-play Bigfoot expeditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WV FOOTER Posted December 25, 2013 Admin Share Posted December 25, 2013 Considering the Graphics and the number of reported sightings, not to mention unreported sightings, it always amazed me that these creatures can avoid being proven to exist. That is Some Accomplishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts