2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

[Cotter]

Sasquatch helped fake the moon landing.

[Guest DWA]

Ok bigfoot is real I don't know how I could have thought otherwise.........

 

[snipped obvious-to-everyone hoax video irrelevant to the discussion]

 

....and, um, for your next 'argument,' are you gonna assert that two kids in a zebra costume invalidate the zebra...?

Edited December 22, 2014 by DWA

[SWWASAS]

I haven't directly said anyone specifically has faked evidence.  I did say that evidence can be faked and has been faked.  This said all of the evidence to date measured up against the total lack of proven to science fact leads me to conclude that there is nothing to the evidence.

 

That is a relief to me.    I tend to get in trouble here when someone makes claims about me that are not true.  

 

As far as acceptance by science, have you heard about the Piltdown Man?    That was the missing link discovered in 1912 and accepted by science as such for over 40 years until it was proved to be a fraud in 1952.   They had combined the jawbone of a orangutan with the skull of a modern human and passed it off as the fossilized remains of an early human.     That is good evidence that sometimes science does not know what the hell it is doing and you really cannot trust it at times.    But for 40 years it was accepted by mainstream science as being in the human evolutionary tree.   Newton's idea of gravity was accepted as absolute certainty for over 300 years until some guy named Einstein came along and showed he was wrong.    So acceptance or rejection by science is never a certainty.   Science gets stuff wrong all the time.            

[ohiobill]

Piltdown was a hoax, bigfootery has those too. It's just one example of many that reinforce the necessity of research with repeatable results. That's why sighting reports aren't doing it and never will. Blaming science or scientists for making mistakes doesn't make much sense. Science is a learning process, not a single moment in time. Scientists are human, new techniques and tools provide new answers and new questions. Making a mistake when using the best available knowledge doesn't negate the fact that a mistake was made but consider the alternative and ponder how far off we might be if we relied solely on guesses and impressions. 

 

Einstein worked on what gravity is after Newton described how it works.  Einstein didn't disprove Newton's work, he built on it. Scientists around the world are trying to build on Einstein's work, many believe it won't escape revisions. Compare that to the field of bigfootery and ask yourself which path is more likely to provide the correct answer? Blaming science or skeptics for the lack of bigfoot proof is a dead end which makes absolutely no sense.

[Guest]

Ok bigfoot is real I don't know how I could have thought otherwise.........

 

 

 

 

I may be mistaken but reading some old threads you seem to be quite convinced the Patterson-Gimlin film is not a hoax.

[norseman]

He has had a change of heart.

[WSA]

Stop me if you've heard this one...A Sasquatch walks into a bar and starts to scream. Bartender grabs a thermal gun, takes a reading and says, "Dude, don't have a cow..."  

[Guest DWA]

I'm steering clear of that one.

[Guest thermalman]

I liked that one WSA Plussed. Although, I didn't know Bart Simpson had a thermal camera?

Edited December 23, 2014 by thermalman

[Guest Crowlogic]

Just a question, how much evidence have you or any resident skeptic here scrutinized personally Crow?

You said you touched whale bones one time and that assured you they were real. Ok what if they were a cryptid and there were no bones to touch? Just some grainy photos and video of whales breaching and some audio files of whale songs? It would seem pretty preposterous to most that the idea of largest fish in the sea was a mammal!? That it breathed with lungs through a blow hole on top of its head!? That it birthed its young in the ocean vs laying eggs!?

We have bipedal hominid bones to touch Crow and we ourselves are a bipedal primate. Nothing about Bigfoot that we should find nearly as strange as a whale. The only question left to answer is extant? Or extinct? And where.

The whale bones were skrimshaw done in the 1800's and in the possession of the family whose ancestor made the collection.  I lived at the time in a former whaling town on the north shore of Long Island.  They had photos and other artifacts to support the collection.  Furthermore there was a whaling museum in town.  There is a huge difference between this kind of artifact and a random footprint cast or tuft of hair.  The whale skrimshaw was bone not a copy of itself.  Once again using a Blue Whale as an example was not a good example although i didn't bring whales into the conversation somebody else did.

 

As for bipedal bones sure there's us and our predecessors.  We are the only one's left though.  Again it takes very little to believe in Australopithecus when the fossil evidence is studied.  Non of which exists for bigfoot.  Bigfoot evidence is a kind of wishful thinking.  Look I'll let anybody see anything they thing they need or want to see but so far everything seen or perceived to have been seen has resulted in nothing.  

 

We've got hundreds of hours of bigfoot videos on youtube. We've got bigfoot making structures and leaving piles of stones and offerings to be seen and yet the being is always absent.  Doesn't that tell you anything?  Doesn't that seem a bit shall we say fabricated?  

I may be mistaken but reading some old threads you seem to be quite convinced the Patterson-Gimlin film is not a hoax.

You have read correctly and I maintain the PGF is real.  I also have stated more than once that the species went extinct.  So my argument is that there is no bigfoot out there any more than there is T-Rex.  If you need an extinction date 1978.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Seriously, I would like for Crowlogic to refute the Patty film, just to see how honest

you are about your skepticism.  

[Guest DWA]

See immediately above your post.  Plus an assertion of extinction and even a date, contradicted by the largest volume of consistent evidence that there is for anything unproven, more in fact than we have had for *most* things before the society at large accepted them as real.

Edited December 23, 2014 by DWA

[southernyahoo]

  Bigfoot evidence is a kind of wishful thinking.    

I look at the evidence as an honest and sometimes literal interpretation.  Sometimes face value coupled with circumstance rings true.

[Guest thermalman]

Crowlogic: "

We've got hundreds of hours of bigfoot videos on youtube. We've got bigfoot making structures and leaving piles of stones and offerings to be seen and yet the being is always absent.  Doesn't that tell you anything?  Doesn't that seem a bit shall we say fabricated? You have read correctly and I maintain the PGF is real."

 

What he says. Its the reality of the whole situation, and the purest State Of Sasquatch Science in 2015,...... except for the credulous beliefs. Although I am open minded to all evidence, so far there is nothing out there that's a 100% certainty that science can confirm is BF.

Edited December 23, 2014 by thermalman

[Lake County Bigfooot]

The thread was not really thought of to be another argument for the existence of such a creature,

but as all threads go here, it has become that.  If it is going to digress into that, at least make it 

interesting.  If you are going to make an argument, support it with facts, and illustrations, not just

a statement here or there,  I am challenging the skeptics to refute the Patterson film as a fake, and

if they cannot support their arguments, then we should just dismiss them....

 

It should be easy to refute if your supposition is true, on the other hand I think you will find the

task more difficult, and mind you, I will take you to task over the details, and you will see that

in the end, it stands to reason this film could not have been faked in 1969.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Lake County Bigfooot