Straight Ahead Science That Indicates Bigfoot Does Not Exist.

[ShadowBorn]

Well whether they exist or not, they sure as heck exist to me. With out doubt I know what I have encountered and I sure as heck not going to keep my mouth shut about it. They are out there and I do not know about you Crowlogic but they are real like if you were standing in front me.

 

Maybe they do not like you, have you ever thought about that possibility? You might have done them wrong at one time. Every so often we need a attitude adjustment. I had mine when they started doing the strange stuff and it is never fun trying to explain this. My wife would not have believed me if it were not for my pittbull. She saw him how he would not eat for a week and curled up in the corner. That dog had his own encounter in a cage mind you in my tent. I had one hair strand that I found in a broken tree and it some how disappeared from my house. I have looked for more and have found none. None!

 

But because I saw them with my own eye's I will not give up. They are real and sooner or later you will have face it.. I just will not be the person to throw one on the slab for all to see. But if I find a dead one laying out in the forest I will bring it in. That's for Sur !    

[Guest Divergent1]

Any prediction on the probability of Bigfoot's existence is going to be based on Bigfoot being a normal relict hominid that migrated here. I think it's only natural that it'll be an incredibly low probability.

Not necessarily, if I can find the articles I'll link them to you.

 

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/but-not-simpler/why-bigfoot-is-unlikely-only-if-you-know-what-e2809cunlikelye2809d-means/

 

http://thoughtsonscienceandpseudoscience.blogspot.com/2012/11/does-bigfoot-exist-statistical-evidence.html

 

Gigantor's calculations for sightings:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/9362-calculating-the-probability-of-having-a-bf-sighting/?p=114539

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I didn't write the article in case you didn't get that.  Jeffrey Kluger  Senior Science editor at Time wrote it.The thread is posted as the counterpoint to the bigfoot science thread and evidence to believe thread.

I am still firmly in the bigfoot does not exist camp.

Or maybe they have done the homework.  While I didn't write the article I'll bet the farm that in 5 years there will still be no proof bigfoot.  

I would like some of that action. Not in five years or five hundred years. Sadly, that is the way it is when one seeks to prove mythical creatures.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Not necessarily, if I can find the articles I'll link them to you.

 

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/but-not-simpler/why-bigfoot-is-unlikely-only-if-you-know-what-e2809cunlikelye2809d-means/

 

http://thoughtsonscienceandpseudoscience.blogspot.com/2012/11/does-bigfoot-exist-statistical-evidence.html

 

Those articles are saying that Bigfoot is highly unlikely to exist and are based on Bigfoot being a regular ape.

[Guest Divergent1]

A regular ape isn't a relic hominid. So what do you think bigfoot is? Besides being an alien GMO.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

By regular ape I meant a species of ape that evolved into what it is. My opinion is that Sasquatch are humans that had their genome modified. I don't have any other beliefs on what they are.

[Guest Divergent1]

I don't think I'm going to find a probabilty formula for that.

[Terry]

With out doubt I know what I have encountered and I sure as heck not going to keep my mouth shut about it. 

 

That's how I'd be if I knew.  I wouldn't keep my mouth shut either.  The dilema is, how do you get folks to believe you?  

 

t. 

[MIB]

I would say, given the atmosphere here ... which is not unrepresentative of society at large other than even the proponents attack you here if you offer evidence that doesn't support their personal view of the truth ... if you really NEED to have anyone believe you, don't share openly.   Be as careful who you share with here as you do "in real life."   If you share in general you'll not only have to face an attack from the scoffers to the front, you'll face an attack from other proponents from the back.   If you can stand entirely alone ... fire away and enjoy the ride.

 

MIB

Edited May 16, 2015 by MIB

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

If I were to see one, I would keep it to myself. Getting criticized by a bunch of denialists on a personal experience isn't something I want. 

[WSA]

You know how I know a writer like Kylie Hill is talking out of his/herposterior in that piece linked above. Simple. They do stupid things like decorate their piece with cartoons of the P/G film and nary a mention of what is show on the film. Might as well head it with, "I have no earthly of what I write about. Ignore all that follows." You want to step up to the Bigs? T

rot your flippant tush over to Bill Munns' turf and take him on toe-to-toe, and explain to him why you can ignore those images. Until you do, you will be in

the category of a pseudo-scientific poser only.

[beerhunter]

I guess if I had 100% no doubt BF is nothing more than a legend, I would just high tail it over to the unicorn forums and plead my case there, and then move on to the Loche Ness forum and so on without any return trips to those sites. What is the absolute motivation of a denialist to come back here so often? Surely the debate isn't worth the effort. I'm not condemning anyone, simply curious. 

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Denialists are often people who used to religiously believe in something, but have switched beliefs. The subject still attracts them. Regardless of what they say, they aren't really sure whether their new belief is true or not. Someone who is truly convinced that Bigfoot doesn't exist wouldn't spend much time thinking about it, let alone post on a forum that's dedicated to the subject.

[ShadowBorn]

If I were to see one, I would keep it to myself. Getting criticized by a bunch of denialists on a personal experience isn't something I want. 

 

Yet it happens, so we are stuck with it. Deniatlist will press on and break the truth down. Only because it does not fit their perception of what we are dealing with. It is like the study that CL posted , there is no diffident DNA that will prove these creatures exist. There is no way that we are even ready to accept what CL is going through. If he says that there is no existence of these creatures on what available evidence there is. Then that's it, he has accepted what he believes to be true. Come on now look at the evidence that there is and it does show that these creatures do not exist. On that alone would of made me a disbeliever if I had not seen with my own eye's these creatures. But to accept disbelief well I cannot say much  about that. Oh wait I did !

[Guest]

My view of it is, that you could chase a chimp through a thorny thicket, and then scour it thoroughly for hair samples, and get similar results, no monkey, lots of deer, fox, coyote, raccoon.... don't mean it wasn't there, means you didn't pick right hairs up.