MIB Posted December 14, 2013 Moderator Share Posted December 14, 2013 You see, that's fine and all, but you're talking about subjective experience. Although I'm by no means denying what you saw, simply saying "I know what I saw" doesn't cut it for 99% of the world who haven't seen one. Absolutely! I agree. It just doesn't mean to me what it seems to mean to you. I'm interpreting here and may be wrong, but it seems to me you imply a need for the approval of that other 99% and assume I value it as well. I don't. It's irrelevant to me. That's part of that "skew lines" I tried to explain. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 That's a fair question. Both sides are entrenched. Neither side offers proof the other will accept. It's impossible to prove non-existence so the naysayers will never be able to put anything on the table other than to say it hasn't been proven YET. As a proponent, I have to say its obvious we haven't provided proof the naysayers accept though we may accept it ourselves. Stalemate. I don't see any change in the discussion coming until something in the situation changes dramatically. I'm not necessarily certain I want the change, sometimes status quo, though not satisfying, is the best available. That's a personal value judgment. MIB What, possibly, can a skeptic offer as proof of its non-existence? They need not provide anything at all. "And today, for the 18, 487th day in a row, no conclusive proof of bigfoot can be presented." It's strange to expect anyone to attempt to prove "non-existence." It's already the default position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 The only questions that need be asked are "does bigfoot exist?" and "how can we find one?". Finding one isn't as hard as you might think. Disbelief gets in the way there, and I think that's a good thing. And those that have gotten close, and know how to find the unknown, are reluctent to reveal "how to". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 The only questions that need be asked are "does bigfoot exist?" and "how can we find one?". I think that's your opinion. Others no not need to ask, "do they exist"- they know... and many do not care "how we can find one". They may just want to gain an understanding of them. I think there are lots more questions that need to be asked - but that's MY opinion. If we continue to speculate exclusively about trivial matters, we will never prove they exist. Exclusively? But some people do both. There are many that spend countless hours in the field trying to find proof. How would you respond to the question in the OP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 It's a huge conspiracy and everyone's in on it but me... t. Yes. Everyone says you're paranoid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 Perhaps a better question is why would a die hard skeptic be a member of this website if they already "know" that bigfoot does not exist. Seems much to me like an atheist on a religious website. JMHO I've said this before....here I'm a diehard skeptic at work I'm the guy that believes in Bigfoot! Its all relative......my issue is with the evidence or lack of. There are two issues in my mind 1) scientific evidence 2) personal/ancedotal evidence Most if not all bigfoot evidence falls into the second category and then morphs into "fact" over time. 99.9% is worthless IMO and will never prove anything....fun to talk about and debate absolutely, and if it gets someone outdoors....even better! But at this point that's all there is..and as time goes by, it works against the possabilities being anything but a social construct, myth or legend. Somewhere there might be or have been a kernel of fact. Keep in mind this is from a "die hard skeptic" that had a stalking experience when I was 17 that I'll go to my grave saying it was on two feet and no man....but that doesn't make Bigfoot real. It's just another cool story! Why I'm I here to offer an alternative opnion to the very belief system you cite, that everything that we can't explain must be Bigfoot....to me that's the most arrogant, closed minded position one could take Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 I've said this before....here I'm a diehard skeptic at work I'm the guy that believes in Bigfoot! Its all relative......my issue is with the evidence or lack of. There are two issues in my mind 1) scientific evidence 2) personal/ancedotal evidence Most if not all bigfoot evidence falls into the second category and then morphs into "fact" over time. 99.9% is worthless IMO and will never prove anything....fun to talk about and debate absolutely, and if it gets someone outdoors....even better! But at this point that's all there is..and as time goes by, it works against the possabilities being anything but a social construct, myth or legend. Somewhere there might be or have been a kernel of fact. Keep in mind this is from a "die hard skeptic" that had a stalking experience when I was 17 that I'll go to my grave saying it was on two feet and no man....but that doesn't make Bigfoot real. It's just another cool story! Why I'm I here to offer an alternative opnion to the very belief system you cite, that everything that we can't explain must be Bigfoot....to me that's the most arrogant, closed minded position one could take Exactly. One person's account of seeing a sasquatch cannot convince to everyone that it actually exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 A body would do it for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBeaton Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 Cervelo, If on two feet an was no man an yet doesn't make bigfoot real...perhaps...it was a big woman ! Pat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted December 14, 2013 Moderator Share Posted December 14, 2013 I know plenty of skeptics. I don't worry about them- I totally understand where they are coming from. I think the big deal is not so much that they exist, but that we somehow (as humans and our way of thinking??) would like to have the *experience*. I always tell people 'it does not matter what you *think*. Life has a way of going about its business regardless of what is inside our heads. But if you ever are confronted with an encounter, what you *think* may well go out the window in a heartbeat.' Its that latter aspect- that you can have an encounter whether you believe in them or not, that keeps it interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 Cervelo, If on two feet an was no man an yet doesn't make bigfoot real...perhaps...it was a big woman ! Pat... Dang it Pat....I walked into that one LOL!!!Cheers to you as well my friend!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 Exclusively? But some people do both. There are many that spend countless hours in the field trying to find proof. How would you respond to the question in the OP? The researchers who spend countless hours in the field are the one's who actually have a shot at finding one. We need more of these researchers that are focused on actually proving they exist and establishing their existence within zoology. The topic of proving they exist and/or finding one has to be taken into consideration when investigating the bigfoot phenomenon. Call me crazy, but when I think about the sasquatch (which is quite often) I think about whether it exists as a real living creature. The alternative is no easier to explain. Could it really be a combination of hoax, folklore and mistaken identity for hundreds of years? It's just interesting how some people are so reserved in their opinions. To some it is preposterous and could never exist. To some every bump in the woods is a sasquatch. My opinion can be persuaded by evidence, though it seems a great deal of bigfoot aficionados are firm in their beliefs, as with so-called skeptics who denounce material even though it has not been proven otherwise. If you claim to have seen a sasquatch, I might be able to understand why you undoubtedly support their existence, but that doesn't explain the "skeptics" who claim there is no chance it exists. How can you "not" see bigfoot and be convinced they don't exist? No matter how unlikely it is, everyone talking about bigfoot should try their best to keep an open mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MNskeptic Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 According to some surveys, as many as 20% of Americans and 28% of Russians don't believe we landed on the moon. Hoaxed, they say. The astronauts who were there and had firsthand knowledge of the lunar visit think its a silly question. So do I, and of course, I wasn't there. I guess even with irrefutable evidence, or proof certain, a good % of people will not believe. So, this debate will go on even after there is a body on a slab apparently. To directly answer the question posed in the thread...IMO, more likely than not, based on close hand eyewitness accounts. The 49% of me that thinks BF is doubtful is looking desperately for proof to backup the claims of the believing 51%. MNSkeptic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD-40 Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 Some people have had real, undeniable encounters. Hard to deny that. I have not visually seen one, but I have seen a footprint. No doubt at all what I saw--distinguishable and unmistakeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 The evidence points to it. But until that evidence is followed to a conclusion, we'll keep having the discussion. The researchers who spend countless hours in the field are the one's who actually have a shot at finding one. We need more of these researchers that are focused on actually proving they exist and establishing their existence within zoology. The topic of proving they exist and/or finding one has to be taken into consideration when investigating the bigfoot phenomenon. Call me crazy, but when I think about the sasquatch (which is quite often) I think about whether it exists as a real living creature. The alternative is no easier to explain. Could it really be a combination of hoax, folklore and mistaken identity for hundreds of years? The alternative is actually impossible to explain to anyone well-versed in the evidence. If one is coming from a position of zero information, as most are on this topic, it seems a slam dunk. But a comprehensive bigfoot false positive would be the only truly weird thing I have ever encountered in my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts