Bonehead74 Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 The lack of proof is troubling, no matter how people spin it. The fact that we haven't obtained, through dumb luck or design, either remains or unambiguous photos and/or video to prove these creatures exist, tells me we're not chasing a big monkey.
dmaker Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 ^^ So I can guess that you are hinting at something closer to human? Do you believe the PGF to be authentic? Do you think Patty looks more human than ape?
Guest DWA Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 The lack of proof is troubling, no matter how people spin it. The fact that we haven't obtained, through dumb luck or design, either remains or unambiguous photos and/or video to prove these creatures exist, tells me we're not chasing a big monkey. Well, I'd say that what's troubling about it is that scientists who should know better are focusing on that, instead of seeing that the arguments-against really don't carry water when the unaddressed evidence hits the scale.
dmaker Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) What evidence is unaddressed? And let us be clear, please. By " addressed" I mean tested. Since we are talking about scientists, who prefer to comment on testable, physical evidence, could you please explain what physical evidence awaits testing? Edited October 2, 2014 by dmaker
Bonehead74 Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) I'm specifically not talking about evidence, but about incontrovertible proof. Given the creature's reported behaviors coupled with its accepted range across North America, I find it difficult to believe we have no indisputable proof of their existence. I don't see how we don't have multiple examples of physical proof if we are dealing with a normal animal. Edited October 2, 2014 by Bonehead74
TD-40 Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 Just a few weeks ago, the first photos of a wolverine emerged from a game cam in Utah. The first giant squid was finally captured a while ago after many decades of predicting their existence. We think bigfoot is nocturnal, much smarter, and even more rare than all of these. It isn't too difficult to see why clear, indisputable, public domain pictures don't yet exist.
Bonehead74 Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 ^^ So I can guess that you are hinting at something closer to human? Do you believe the PGF to be authentic? Do you think Patty looks more human than ape? I'm not hinting at anything. I don't know what they are. I'm just pretty comfortable saying what they aren't. I lean towards Patty not being a bigfoot. She certainly doesn't look like an ape to me.
Guest DWA Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 I'm specifically not talking about evidence, but about incontrovertible proof. Given the creature's reported behaviors coupled with its accepted range across North America, I find it difficult to believe we have no indisputable proof of their existence. I don't see how we don't have multiple examples of physical proof if we are dealing with a normal animal. Oh, I do. Don't have any problem with it at all. I've never seen a topic around which the societal buzz has been so downright weird. Given the effort so far, that we have no proof yet surprises me not a jot.
dmaker Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) I'm not hinting at anything. I don't know what they are. I'm just pretty comfortable saying what they aren't. I lean towards Patty not being a bigfoot. She certainly doesn't look like an ape to me. If Patty is not a bigfoot, then what is she? Is she a man in a suit? And what is a "bigfoot", to you? Edited October 2, 2014 by dmaker
Sunflower Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 Yup You will have to pick up the tab. She won't be paying for your trip.
Bonehead74 Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) If Patty is not a bigfoot, then what is she? Is she a man in a suit?That is the only logical alternative I can see.And what is a "bigfoot", to you?An intriguing phenomenon of unknown etiology. Edited October 2, 2014 by Bonehead74
Bonehead74 Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 Just a few weeks ago, the first photos of a wolverine emerged from a game cam in Utah.How did they know it was a wolverine that they photographed?The first giant squid was finally captured a while ago after many decades of predicting their existence.The first physical remains of a giant squid were identified in 1861. Since then, and long before a living specimen was photographed or filmed, tens, if not hundreds, of dead examples have been found (and not by people who were looking for them, an important point, IMO).We think bigfoot is nocturnal, much smarter, and even more rare than all of these. It isn't too difficult to see why clear, indisputable, public domain pictures don't yet exist.As is your prerogative. I understand your rationale, and even sympathize a bit, but remain unconvinced.
salubrious Posted October 2, 2014 Moderator Posted October 2, 2014 ^^ Correct. But I have yet to see a response that includes a reasonable explanation for why there are no public domain pics of bigfoot. Such pics exist for all other megafauna that lives in alleged bigfoot habitat, indeed in some cases in bigfoot report hot spots. Why no bigfoot then? Pointing out that alpha members of other species avoid it does not fully address the question, as noted above. Also, hinting at some secret photos that are not in the public domain is irrelevant. We cannot count something for which there is no evidence to examine. There are certainly photos that exist in the private domain. The PGF is a whole mess of them. People don't like to take photos and have them wind up in public domain, or are you not talking about copyright? What evidence is unaddressed? And let us be clear, please. By " addressed" I mean tested. Since we are talking about scientists, who prefer to comment on testable, physical evidence, could you please explain what physical evidence awaits testing? The evidence that Patty is the real thing has been tested. In fact, attempts to show that she was a suit have backfired, and actually shown that she was the real thing in spite of themselves. So we are in fact beyond that. Whether a person can **accept** that is an entirely different matter! I think a lot of people experience cognitive dissonance as the reality is too challenging for their worldview. 2
roguefooter Posted October 3, 2014 Posted October 3, 2014 Just a few weeks ago, the first photos of a wolverine emerged from a game cam in Utah. The first giant squid was finally captured a while ago after many decades of predicting their existence. We think bigfoot is nocturnal, much smarter, and even more rare than all of these. It isn't too difficult to see why clear, indisputable, public domain pictures don't yet exist. It was only the first game cam photo of a wolverine in Utah. There are other game cam photos of them out there in regions that they're more common. The difference with Bigfoot is that it's reported everywhere, so there is no regional rarity. This is if you believe the reports.
Guest thermalman Posted October 3, 2014 Posted October 3, 2014 You will have to pick up the tab. She won't be paying for your trip. And where might that be?
Recommended Posts