Does Bigfoot Exist?

[AaronD]

I've said this before, but I think it boils down to 2 possibilities:

 

1) Sasquatches are not mere animals but rather something way above us; be it intelligence, stealth, or the grand ecosystem.

                                                                       or

2) They do not exist. 100% of all encounters, reports, and such are either mistaken identity, the effects of drugs/alcohol, or outright hoaxes.

 

If it were neither of these, and just some animal--we'd have captured the daggoned thing by now

[Guest]

^^

 

 

What can you say about the recently discovered animals who are only now just being captured for the first time?

Edited December 19, 2013 by AaronD
removed quote of preceding post

[AaronD]

Could you name a few? And prior to their discovery were there decades or centuries of eyewitness accounts and such? And please don't use deep sea discoveries or other critters that we had no other way of seeing prior to technology allowing it

[dmaker]

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.

It is foolish and intellectually dishonest to conclude that Bigfoot does exist when there is not one single shred of hard evidence to support the claim.

[dmaker]

What can you say about the recently discovered animals who are only now just being captured for the first time?

If you are talking about the tapir you are way off base. This is not a completely new animal. You would have to waltz through a herd of them to single out the new classification. It has no parallels whatsoever to Bigfoot. It is simply an animal that was known to locals and probably eaten by them regularly and for a long time. It very much resembles every other tapir in that area.  Now if you can point to herds of Bigfeets and say oh look, that ginger colored Bigfoot there, I think we have enough information to actually re-classify that one as a different species, well then you might have a valid comparison to Bigfoot. 

[Guest]

Could you name a few? And prior to their discovery were there decades or centuries of eyewitness accounts and such? And please don't use deep sea discoveries or other critters that we had no other way of seeing prior to technology allowing it

I don't see how it makes any difference. We are continuing to discover new species both undersea and on land. The Hoan Kiem turtle was present in Vietnamese culture since the fifteenth century before it's scientific categorization in 2000. 

[AaronD]

^^ Of course it makes a difference. You claim we have been discovering  "recently discovered animals who are only now just being captured for the first time" I want to know what you mean.

[MIB]

It is foolish and intellectually dishonest to conclude that Bigfoot does exist when there is not one single shred of hard evidence to support the claim.

 

It is foolish and intellectually dishonest to conclude that there is not a single shred of hard evidence.   This track casting on my shelf is quite hard and absolutely is evidence.   Perhaps, as other (faux?) skeptics do, you deliberately and mistakenly insist on equating the terms proof and evidence despite having the difference pointed out to you repeatedly?

 

MIB

Edited December 19, 2013 by MIB

[Incorrigible1]

And the foot that may have created that impression? Nary a trace.

[Guest DWA]

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.

Bigfoot skeptics seem the most unusually dedicated folks I have met to travelling in those other directions.

[dmaker]

It is foolish and intellectually dishonest to conclude that there is not a single shred of hard evidence.   This track casting on my shelf is quite hard and absolutely is evidence.   Perhaps, as other (faux?) skeptics do, you deliberately and mistakenly insist on equating the terms proof and evidence despite having the difference pointed out to you repeatedly?

 

MIB

The casting you boast of means nothing if no one can point to the animal that allegedly left the original track. Meldrum has been known, I believe, to sell casts that come from known hoaxes. Enjoy your paperweight.

[AaronD]

^^ Got any proof of that?

[Guest DWA]

^^^^Doesn't need it.  Bigfoot skeptics are the first to tell you they can say anything they want!

[dmaker]

Doesn't Meldrum, still or used to, sell Freeman casts at like $50 a pop?

[dmaker]

"^^^^Doesn't need it.  Bigfoot skeptics are the first to tell you they can say anything they want!" DWA

 

According to your logic, all I need is a few people to tell me something and then I can flaunt it as true without supporting evidence.