Does Bigfoot Exist?

[MIB]

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

 

I don't think this is true.  Show me *evidence* to support non-existence.   I'm not aware of any.   2 things to remember.  1. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.  2. Logic is not evidence.   So ... what is this evidence you claim?

 

MIB

Edited December 18, 2013 by MIB

[Guest DWA]

No case against the existence of sasquatch has ever been offered, for one reason:  no evidence supports the comprehensive false positive that would be required to give the case any traction at all.

 

Let me head off any "you can't prove a negative" responses right here.  You can prove a comprehensive false positive.  Let me head off any "you want me to do all that work?" responses right here:  you're right.  There's so much work to do it would be easier to just prove the animal.

 

And if you insist:  isn't it a bit woo-woo to believe in something there is no way to prove...?

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.

Well.  Hasn't somebody highlighted the problem here?

 

Science doesn't explore the unknown, at all.  All science is plowing plowed ground, combining one thing you know with another thing you know to get another thing you  now know.

.

Science can't handle a large, consistent volume of anecdotal evidence because scientists' brains aren't trained that way.

 

That's most of them.  The ones that win the Nobels?  They are trained that way.

[bigbear]

what is the evidence that the believers claim as "evidence"? 

[Guest DWA]

Um, no.

 

Come on.  Get where we are the way we did.  What am I the public library?  READ UP.

 

There have only been about 500 threads on this.

(Tip to anyone else considering responding:  anyone who is coming out with that at this point will be persuaded by nothing but a bigfoot falling through his roof, and that only possibly.)

[bigbear]

My question was directed at MIB, if he can ask for evidence to support non existence surely i can ask for evidence to help support existence. 

 

And thanks for dodging my question successfully

 

Besides everyone's beliefs on what can be considered evidence is different so the question will have a numerous answers. 

[Guest DWA]

"Lack of interest in or need to" would be the reason if you were wondering.

 

Yeah, I gotta really convince this guy, he's the key.  EVERY BIGFOOT SKEPTIC THINKS HE'S THE KEY.

[bigbear]

opinions opinions if only they were good for something

[Guest]

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

 

Rene Dahinden searched for the sasquatch throughout the North West from 1953 up until his death in 2001.

[MIB]

what is the evidence that the believers claim as "evidence"? 

 

Witness reports, hair, scat, tracks, photographs, audio recordings, videos including but not limited to the PGF, a toenail, a tooth, blood samples. 

 

Your turn.  Where's your evidence of non-existence?

 

MIB

[bigbear]

Circumstantial at best as is my evidence and therefore don't claim BF exists or doesn't exist solely on evidence alone.

I have no personal encounters so I have nothing to go on there either, hence I am a skeptic.  

[southernyahoo]

Yes, we have opinions based on evidence, and so would a body be evidence. So, how many opinions of what a body is, would it take to actually be evidence?

 

Proof is.......

 

get this.....

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof

 

the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

[Guest]

Circumstantial at best as is my evidence and therefore don't claim BF exists or doesn't exist solely on evidence alone.

I have no personal encounters so I have nothing to go on there either, hence I am a skeptic.  

 

The available evidence isn't good enough to prove the sasquatch exists. We still need to recover the 1st body.

[Guest]

Witness reports, hair, scat, tracks, photographs, audio recordings, videos including but not limited to the PGF, a toenail, a tooth, blood samples. 

 

Your turn.  Where's your evidence of non-existence?

 

MIB

 

The evidence you listed is essentially useless. Scientists have been doing analysis on alleged sasquatch DNA samples for years. The only thing that can prove it in full is a brutally murdered corpse.

 

Yes, I said it.

 

If we haven't found a body yet and nobody's up to the challenge of catching one, we need to kill one to prove they exist.

[dmaker]

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?

It's not the sole exception. Science needs a type specimen, or a piece of one that can be verified.  This is not extraordinary or exceptional. It is just the way it is.  Please name some other large mammals that have been classified without a specimen or even a single, verifiable tissue sample. 

[Guest DWA]

opinions opinions if only they were good for something

We back ours.  You don't back yours. 

 

What does your opinion mean if there's nothing to back it up, ask the people whose opinions have a large and consistent body of evidence backing them up, hmmmmmmmmm?