Does Bigfoot Exist?

[Guest guillaume]

The evidence points to it.  But until that evidence is followed to a conclusion, we'll keep having the discussion.

 

I don't think that any of the evidence is objective enough to weigh toward a conclusion that bigfoot actually exists.  I'd say that the evidence, such as it is, points to the myth of bigfoot becoming a social phenomenon.

 

I also think that this discussion will never end--there will never be a bigfoot specimen and there will always be sightings.

[Guest DWA]

Well, since this actually *is* an existence/non-existence thread...

 

I think that the view that the evidence points to a social phenomenon comes from insufficient exposure to the evidence.

 

Every conceivable nuance of wildlife encounter is reported in a bigfoot sighting.  No, trust me.  You can't describe any kind of wildlife encounter that hasn't been described by a bigfoot eyewitness.  That doesn't happen with social phenomena, because people in general just lack the backwoods experience or understanding of animals - wild primates in particular - to make it up.

 

(I frequently get as a rejoinder "just because one thinks it's impossible to make it up doesn't mean it's not made up."  Not the point.  The point is the way to bet; and ^^ is the way to bet.  That's evidence  Betting that all of those reports are made up is just not what an intelligent person wanting to win the bet would do.)

 

Ditto goes for the footprints.  You're not telling me that a primatological/anthropological prodigy is running all over the continent fooling scientists and trained specialists.  You just aren't.  Again, it's about the way to bet.  No one wanting to win the bet would bet that.

 

No one wanting to win the bet - and knowing anything about Patterson, Gimlin and the problems of suit hoaxing - would bet that Patty's a hoax. 

 

When one reads and sifts the evidence - and one knows how to deal with it - one realizes that the simplest solution is that scientists are doing what they have always done.  It's just in a more public arena now, so people think it hasn't happened before.  It is, in fact, the standard operating state of the natural sciences:  ignoring what doesn't fit in one's neat worldview.  And nobody's about neat like scientists are about neat.

 

 

 

 

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

This isn't about any of that although you bring out the a lot of the dilemma in very good fashion. But your post is also in a sense diversionary. You seem to be all around the question of your thinking existence or not. Whether or not Sasquatch exists is, as one might say, chronically debatable. And whether or not you even WISH it were real isn't really on the table either. If there isn't enough evidence for a person of your seeming objectivity to say that Sasqatch is real then the alternative would be, "No, it does not exist until it's proved to exist". Is that a fair statement? If you agree then is your position one of non-existence?

 

I realize this can be difficult for some when only a very cut and dry answer is requested. That being said, is this a question you are willing to take one side or the other on? Do you think that Sasquatch exists?    

Edited December 15, 2013 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

^^^I said earlier the only answer warranted from anyone acquainted with the evidence (unless I guess you've seen one, in which case you should be laughing at the rest of us).  Which is:  the evidence points to it.  And far from being diversionary, my posts cut to the very heart of this thread (unless I missed the POLL: YES OR NO? one-word-only part.  Checking back to the OP...nope, I'm doing just what the OP intended:  "what's really going on?").

 

If one thinks no, and that's it, and is willing to say that's a gut and not backed by evidence and he's really not equipped to debate it, fine.  Guess one's entitled to that.  But I keep on seeing people coming on here thinking they know this ain't real, and here's why, and revealing they've done zero homework pretty much from their first sentence.  Not sure how anyone can see that as convincing, particularly when the scientists taking the pro slant show their work, and the ones taking the con stance bluntly don't.

Edited December 15, 2013 by DWA

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

OK.

[Guest Stan Norton]

I've reached the opinion that it is essentially a meaningless question. As someone who, on the basis of the evidence I have seen and which I consider credible, is more than willing to entertain the notion that this thing is real, I have a deep-seated issue with folks who do nothing to contribute to the knowledge base whilst at the same time stating fact after fact about this beast. I find it baffling, infuriating and ultimately quite selfish that some folks can profess to have intimate knowledge of one or more of these creatures (they like peanut butter!!??) and yet present no evidence whatsoever. Where exactly have you been? What exactly is the perennial problem with this subject? It's the absence of any substantial evidence presented in a scientific manner. And yet, 50 odd years after the first calls for evidence-based research the field is still plagued with individuals who do nothing to further the evidence and actually perpetuate the nonsensical quasi-paranormal guff which does such damage. Is it honestly any wonder that sasquatch is still on the folklore shelf at the library? We know what the bar is in scientific endeavour so why not apply it to sasquatch? There is no excuse.

[Guest]

I don't think that any of the evidence is objective enough to weigh toward a conclusion that bigfoot actually exists.  I'd say that the evidence, such as it is, points to the myth of bigfoot becoming a social phenomenon.

 

I also think that this discussion will never end--there will never be a bigfoot specimen and there will always be sightings.

 

Read Bill Munns' two excellent peer reviewed and approved (with more to come) papers in the Relic Hominid Inquiry Journal.

[MarkGlasgow]

Distinct possibility.

The sheer volume of close proximity reports cannot be denied or glossed over.

Are each and everyone of these errors or lies?

Some? Yes undoubtedly.

Most? Quite possibly.

All? Highly unlikely.

[Guest]

Up until winter before last I would have said no, period. I wouldn't even be or know about this forum. But now I believe they do. before then I felt people were mistaken, or easily influenced, or were using the topic as a means of entertainment and profit. All of which was fine by me. Im interested in many subjects and the possibliities and wonder of nature. But I was pretty certain there was no such thing as Bigfoot. I could still force myself to feel that way, but I would have to ignore and deny my own senses now.  I would also have to accept that there are people that I trust who are bald faced liars, and can look me in the eye and tell me a complete untruth. That is always possible I guess, but I don't accept that they are indeed lying. Because there are many people to whom their encounters were NOT inconclusive, Not far away, Not unclear. Not really quick. So, the question in this case is just whether these otherwise honest, sane, level headed people are lying. I know people are strange critters themselves, me being one, and no one can know ones' motivations for doing whatever they do. And ones' life experience does greatly influence how youo percieve the honesty or lack of it in anyone. A person who has been lied to as a matter of course their entire life is likely to view everyone as a potential liar and not believe anything that is told to him or her till they check it out themselves. Understandable. And people who like me have been blessed to have lived with and served with people who actually said what they meant, and who word was solid will understandably have a more believing disposition.  But people who have existed with honest people usually have dealt with hordes of liars as well and shouldn't be all considered fools. And in some cases of encounters it does depend on the person of the witness. For instance if R.D. came by with a body on a truck I would consider that he was lying, even with the thing in front of me, because, he is R.D.   If someone I trusted  told me he saw something, depending upon who was saying it, I would think that it would be less likely that this person was lying to me than it would be for there to be an unknown creature which science hadn't verified. But I know that everyone has their own thoughts on people, witnesses, and liars. Those are mine

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

Sometimes it is difficult for me to put my personal experience aside when attempting to tell others that sasquatch are real animals. I'm sure other witnesses have gotten frustrated as well, considering that it can be hard to know something for a fact, yet still have people tell you that you MUST have misidentified a known animal, MUST be lying, or MUST have been hoaxed. Knowing that such things are nonsense, it can seem like a personal attack sometimes.

 

And one cannot really use their personal experience as proof to someone else. But, when one considers just how many reports there are, and surely there are more sightings that go unreported than are reported, it seems quite unlikely that they could all be hoaxes or misidentifications. In fact, I remember a media outfit calculated the odds that all such claims were incorrect, and the number was astronomical.

 

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.

Edited December 17, 2013 by JiggyPotamus

[Guest Darrell]

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.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Darrell

[Guest DWA]

I frequently say that everything else with anything near this much evidence has been proven.  Most of what we accept, in fact, has far less evidence supporting its existence.  (Think of all those deep-sea critters for which "proof" is one photo.  Clearly Photoshop science.)

 

Why would something examples of which have already been found in fossil form in numerous places be the sole exception?

[WSA]

People Booger....well stated. I've said many times here, and I'll say it again: One sighting report is an anecdote. Two is not much better than one, and several don't amount to much more either . Hundreds even, but with no discernible pattern or commonality? Pfffftttt...fugeddaboudit already. BUT, thousands AND in which you see patterns, indicators of credibility and objective signs of veracity? You are talking about a substantial body of evidence then. 

 

What the opponents who dismiss these reports as anecdotal,  non-evidence continuously miss is you must read as many as you can, retain the information, apply your own experiences and just plain think about them in order to come to any informed conclusions. In all I've read here on this site, I've encountered exactly "0" contributors who dismiss this evidence and who have taken this time and effort to do this work.      

[Guest DWA]

^^^That.

 

Too much of this stuff plots on a normal curve to be dismissed or dismissable.

 

To dismiss what isn't proven on the grounds that it isn't proven is pretty much what "denial" means.

[Guest Urkelbot]

Sure as long as you can ignore that pesky absence of evidence.

Who needs any real physical evidence or good photographs when you have tons of anecdotes, footprints, and spooky sounds.

I give Bigfoot 1-5% chance of existing.

I could read all the reports though which could help me forget about the massive hole in the phenomenon. I should then magically change my mind to 100% existence than right?