Does Bigfoot Exist?

[bigbear]

I believe it is also your opinion that you have backed up your opinion, just my opinion. 

 

The way I see it is that it is up to the believers to provide proof, the skeptics or non believers do not need to dis prove something that has not yet been proven, therefore I can just sit around and do nothing if i so choose and continue to be a skeptic.

[Guest DWA]

...and contribute nothing to the discussion including examination of what you think.

 

Well, that's OK if you'd rather we not discuss it with you.  I got here the way anybody can:  by reading and a lot of thinking, leavened by a lot of outdoor experience.  I really don't see why anyone who is just doing what you're doing merits that much of my information or time.

 

The biggest fallacy in 'footery is that the skeptics need to do nothing.  To be taken seriously, they do.  No mainstream scientist with a negative take on this topic is serious or needs to be taken seriously, and I have no problem telling him that.  And have, way more than once.

Edited December 18, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

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?

Opinions backed up by more opinions and stories are not impressive. Remember, the plural of anecdote is not proof.

[Guest DWA]

"I know nothing about this, but I disagree with you" is just a really...well....interesting position to take over and over in post after post.

 

That the evidence points to the existence of sasquatch isn't an opinion, and no skeptic's opinion matters with regard to that any more than it would were his opinion that the sun is a heat lamp.

[Guest DWA]

Opinions backed up by more opinions and stories are not impressive. Remember, the plural of anecdote is not proof.

But if reviewed properly by people who know how to think about it, it might be evidence.

 

Plural anecdotes have led to most of what we know.

[dmaker]

"Plural anecdotes have led to most of what we know."

 

Really?  Just like going out in the cold with a wet head will make you sick? Or you lose most of your body heat through your head? Or dogs age at 7:1 human years? Or...etc, etc.

 

Just because many people swear by something, does not make it a fact. Evidence makes it a fact. Scientific, repeatable, verifiable evidence is what is needed to prove Bigfoot. Not more stories and opinions.

[Guest Darrell]

^But when you only have stories and opinions and nothing else then the proponent accepts that as evidence and proof in thier belief system. You cant even find foot prints any more. 

[dmaker]

"That the evidence points to the existence of sasquatch isn't an opinion..." -DWA

 

It most certainly is. In the absence of a Sasquatch, or any verifiable evidence that they exist, it is most certainly an opinion and nothing less. You cannot be saying that it is a fact, can you? That is illogical. To say the evidence points to a sasquatch when a sasquatch has not been proven to exist is not a logical statement. You can continue to say that you do not know what the evidence points to, but you cannot state, as a fact, that the evidence points to a sasquatch since, as noted, sasquatches are not proven to exist. So if it cannot be stated as a fact, then it must be an opinion. 

[chelefoot]

bigbear, I would like to hear what circumstantial evidence you mentioned that the skeptics have.

 

 

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.

It would have to be brutally murdered?

 

Well, it's good that you realize that killing one might be considered murdered by some.

[Guest DWA]

Well, I'd settle for coaxed into a cage by a big jar of peanut butter.

[MIB]

bigbear, I would like to hear what circumstantial evidence you mentioned that the skeptics have.

 

 

Ditto!

 

bigbear - you challenged me to put forth anything as evidence.   I've given you a list that includes physical things that could be examined.   You said you have evidence, right?   So ... what tangible, physical thing ... circumstantial or otherwise ... do you offer as evidence of non-existence?  

 

MIB

Edited December 18, 2013 by MIB

[WSA]

Let's just say we say, as dmaker suggests, that we don't know what the evidence points to. And what then? We then, what, just say it-is-what-it-is and go back to sleep? Do we make up something (or a dog's dinner of somethings) that can't test out, but reassures us our pre-conceived world is intact? Do we ignore it in the hopes it will go away? Here's a radical proposal...how about we apply the scientific method and keep testing it with that until we know what the evidence means or we admit we'll never know. Those are your choices kids.  Ignorance and cowardice lay in the other directions, frankly.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Hey Jonathan, looks like you woke up the old Dmaker, DWA, WSA, debates.

I can tell you first hand that your thread will grow beyond measure if you keep

this debate going.  I would agree with your thought that we indeed do not have

proof that Bigfoot exists, but in that void we have enough evidence to say that

it would be foolish to conclude that it does not exist because of that lack of hard proof.

I mean the evidence certainly indicates the possibility, and we should proceed with

caution, unless of course we actually have enough proof for our own individual

determination, while I have never seen one, nor have I known anyone who has

personally, I deem the evidence sufficient to warrant a belief, and yes that is all

it is until you have an eye witness encounter, and check out as mentally sound.

Likewise no one can say they know it does not exist, they simply have a belief that

it does not, so you see it's all a matter of belief until you have seen one...then you 

can say you are in the know.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Guest]

It would have to be brutally murdered?

 

Well, it's good that you realize that killing one might be considered murdered by some.

 

That's exactly what some true believers need to hear. A body is the only thing that will prove it exists.

[Guest]

Hey Jonathan, looks like you woke up the old Dmaker, DWA, WSA, debates.

I can tell you first hand that your thread will grow beyond measure if you keep

this debate going.  I would agree with your thought that we indeed do not have

proof that Bigfoot exists, but in that void we have enough evidence to say that

it would be foolish to conclude that it does not exist because of that lack of hard proof.

I mean the evidence certainly indicates the possibility, and we should proceed with

caution, unless of course we actually have enough proof for our own individual

determination, while I have never seen one, nor have I known anyone who has

personally, I deem the evidence sufficient to warrant a belief, and yes that is all

it is until you have an eye witness encounter, and check out as mentally sound.

Likewise no one can say they know it does not exist, they simply have a belief that

it does not, so you see it's all a matter of belief until you have seen one...then you 

can say you are in the know.

 

We do not have any proof that Bigfoot exists, yet. That is why I'm suggesting more people try to find one. I am neutral on the matter of it's existence.