Does Bigfoot Exist?

[Guest DWA]

I am not sure how anyone could be on this site a week and continue thinking there is a "pesky absence of evidence."

 

Which part of "normal curve" do you not get?  Which part of "confusing evidence and proof is the bugbear of bigfoot skeptic minds" do you not get?

 

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.      

...and I just responded to one more who hasn't.

 

If one can't come up with an opinion a person read up on this subject can respect, better not having one.

[Guest Urkelbot]

Physical evidence or DNA. So far there's none.

You can spin it anyway you want in your head Bigfoot is magic, government conspiracy,no one is looking, or just general impotent rage at science and scientists.

It's a big hole, in your anecdotal evidence, that gets deeper every day.

[Guest]

Don't worry, if someone captured a sasquatch alive it would prove it to the whole world. As for physical evidence or DNA, someone may already have some as we speak, however even if it were proven beyond reasonable doubt to be an unknown primate, it still wouldn't establish the sasquatch's existence as a species. It would still be one of those things on the "fringe". In short, the body is the smoking gun that would end the mystery.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Jonathan Poulsen

[MIB]

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?

 

There is no absence of evidence.  There is an absence of evidence YOU accept.   Big, BIG difference.  

 

MIB

[Guest DWA]

Physical evidence or DNA. So far there's none.

You can spin it anyway you want in your head Bigfoot is magic, government conspiracy,no one is looking, or just general impotent rage at science and scientists.

It's a big hole, in your anecdotal evidence, that gets deeper every day.

Those things are called "proof."  Proof and evidence, two very different things.

 

Most of the evidence in the history of science....is anecdotal evidence.  Probably over 90%, educated guess.  Were it not for anecdotes science would have nothing.

 

You can spin it in your head any way you want.  When scientists get serious about looking, come to me then. 

 

Until then the general impotent rage about things one doesn't understand gets tiresome, and the need to do it more puzzling by the day.

[Guest]

Rene Dahindon said

 

"Footprints are physical evidence. Someone said, they're not physical evidence! I said, how would you feel if I hit you over the head with one of them footprints' plaster casts??? Don't you think that would be physical?"

[Guest DWA]

One could argue that in that instance it might be mental. 

[Guest]

Mr Dahindon would not have lasted long on this forum, methinks.

[bigbear]

unfortunately footprints and casts no matter how detailed they are generally don't cut it as evidence for me.  There is no way to prove where they came from.  Get me casts from a 100% controled environment with good documentation and we might have something to talk about. 

 

There was a person posting on this forum ealier this year... or was it last year?  Can't remember time goes by to fast but anyway this person had tons and tons of "evidence"  or at least they saw it that way.  The bar for "evidence" needs to be set a little higher than it currently is IMO

 

As far as existence, i find the idea very alluring but with so much time past how has no definitive proof turned up yet?

Sasquatch in CONUS... not likely  Alaska maybe

[Guest DWA]

In the end, evaluating evidence the way a scientist does it - and the way too many of them can't, outside of their own narrow corners of the scientific vineyard - requires serious mental work leavened by one's personal experience.  That work WSA is talking about.

 

(I'll let the skeptics page back to it, for a feel of the kind of work I'm talking about.)

 

The way I've come to see it, it's pointless to dredge up evidence to try to convince somebody who has given no indication that they're gonna do the mental work and sifting.  They've taken the lazy way out and won't change their minds one iota until a bigfoot lands on their heads.  One puzzles at this, and hopes they don't do their whole lives that way.  We who have done the scientific engagement like to put on clinics occasionally, but trust me, we're doing it more for the fun than because we hold out any hope.  Some grasshoppers just have to get eaten.

Mr Dahindon would not have lasted long on this forum, methinks.

I'm trying to imagine it, most of all the gesture he would make to his computer when he got the ban notice.

[southernyahoo]

Get me casts from a 100% controled environment with good documentation and we might have something to talk about. 

 

 

Bigbear, you want someone to control the environment that BF would live in?    Well , we can control when and where we look for them, but where ever we find them, there they are, and other people could have been there.

[Guest]

Mr Dahindon would not have lasted long on this forum, methinks.

 

Haha, Rene wouldn't last 10 seconds with the rules regarding explicit language.

[Guest Urkelbot]

Those things are called "proof."  Proof and evidence, two very different things.

 

Most of the evidence in the history of science....is anecdotal evidence.  Probably over 90%, educated guess.  Were it not for anecdotes science would have nothing.

 

You can spin it in your head any way you want.  When scientists get serious about looking, come to me then. 

 

Until then the general impotent rage about things one doesn't understand gets tiresome, and the need to do it more puzzling by the day.

Science is based upon repeatable experimental data. When a scientist decides to research/experiment it is generally not done off anecdotal evidence but previous research. Look at the references at the end of any journal they are other experiments. The conclusions and methodology from previous work is used in future research. It is a structure built up by repeatable experiments and data not anectodal evidence.

[Guest]

Did Dahinden still believe in bigfoot by the time he died?  I was under the impression he did not.

[bigbear]

Bigbear, you want someone to control the environment that BF would live in?    Well , we can control when and where we look for them, but where ever we find them, there they are, and other people could have been there.

 

exactly,  a control environment sounds ridiculous... because it is and that is why i don't buy into the majority of tracks found and a few might peak my curiousity. 

In the end, evaluating evidence the way a scientist does it - and the way too many of them can't, outside of their own narrow corners of the scientific vineyard - requires serious mental work leavened by one's personal experience.  That work WSA is talking about.

 

(I'll let the skeptics page back to it, for a feel of the kind of work I'm talking about.)

 

The way I've come to see it, it's pointless to dredge up evidence to try to convince somebody who has given no indication that they're gonna do the mental work and sifting.  They've taken the lazy way out and won't change their minds one iota until a bigfoot lands on their heads.  One puzzles at this, and hopes they don't do their whole lives that way.  We who have done the scientific engagement like to put on clinics occasionally, but trust me, we're doing it more for the fun than because we hold out any hope.  Some grasshoppers just have to get eaten.

I'm trying to imagine it, most of all the gesture he would make to his computer when he got the ban notice.

there is "evidence" to support both sides, therefore skeptics and believers alike choose to dismiss "evidence" your points are not one sided.