Straight Ahead Science That Indicates Bigfoot Does Not Exist.

[WSA]

Oh, got it. Crow sez 5 years is the deadline for species confirmation. We'd better get busy then.

[Guest DWA]

Nope, we were done...let's see...42 years ago.  Besides, look at the title!!!!  We're done already.

 

I have never seen any position, regarding any topic, so little interested in facts and science and so much interested in Just Stopping The Argument Now So's I Can Declare Victory.  Meanwhile, a bunch of us are intellectually enlightened and having more fun to boot!  Why?

 

Because ..wait here...

Straight Ahead Science Indicates Bigfoot Exists.  And Here All You OPers Seem to Forget *Your Own Advice* about Proving A Negative.  And Expect Us To Forget That.

 

Seriously, Crow, what is it?  One of us might be a specialist with some good advice.

Obviously you missed where I openly stated that I have read the books and the reports as well as the film and pictorial evidence.  Obviously your stand is that there is only one conclusion to the evidence but there is more than one.  There is the stand of rejecting the evidence and you and I differ because I will let anyone believe anything they want but I fully endorse those who have rejected the evidence as the evidence stands.  We can have this debate in 5 years and there will still be no bigfoot.

Well, one can do in one's mind with one's imagination what one wants.  When one conclusion is backed by the evidence and the other is backed by none, well...then if one lets one's imagination take over, who am I to comment?

IOW:  it doesn't matter what one has seen and read, but how one engages it.  And one hasn't in this case...and one has.

Oh, I haven't missed a thing you've said...and do not believe you have caught a single thing *we* have.

You honestly think, King Canute, that you can sit there and tell the tide to go away.  The tide doesn't listen to one person who insists on fantasy.  The tide is science, and that tide sweeps all before it, in particular scientists who don't see stuff.

[Cisco]

Like it or not, Crow makes a very strong and painful point. We, in the Bigfoot community, have lived through the emotional highs and lows of new "scientific evidence."

 

We hold our collective breath, every time some new study is conducted, hoping this will finally allow us to legitimately defend our belief and interest in this creature. We all know that it will take a mountain of scientific evidence to ever convince skeptics or denialists that these creatures exist.

 

Foot prints, fuzzy photos and grainy film, are not irrefutable evidence and more of a hindrance than a help, in trying to rationalize the belief in a creature that defies all efforts to prove its existence.

 

We all want to be vindicated for a long series of demoralizing events, ranging from "dead bodies" to DNA evidence.

 

However, these ups and downs have not managed to staunch the long and steady flow of sighting and encounter reports that are published on this and many other websites. These sighting reports are submitted by a very broad cross section of our society. These people have different back grounds and have diverse levels of education, socioeconomic status, age and individual circumstances. In short, they can't be linked in some sort of planned or orchestrated conspiracy to perpetuate the myth of a bipedal North American primate.

 

This is, by far, the strongest and most compelling evidence we have at our disposal. Skeptics can dismiss the lack of hard "scientific" evidence but they have been unable to explain the constant stream of sighting reports flowing in from all over the country. These reports have maintained a very uniform geographic pattern that is consistent with the type of habitat a creature like this would require.

 

Some skeptics would argue a form of mass delusion is causing random people to file sighting reports. However, the range of people is so large that its literally impossible to attribute one, or even several, common forms of mental or psychological defects, as an explanation for these sightings. Many attempts have been made to explain or rationalize this as a form of mass delusion or conspiracy but not one has been successful in explaining, as whole, why people have seen or continue to see these creatures, under very diverse and unique circumstances. No sighting report is exactly the same as another one, either in the details or the witness. It's this uniqueness that provides the most compelling proof. While the Bigfoot community may not have "hard scientific" evidence, it does have a constant stream of reports, that continue to defy explanation and dismissal from skeptics.

[Guest DWA]

Actually, no, not me.  I don't do any of that stuff.  I know the animal's real, and that no one I have ever seen attempting to say otherwise knows what he's talking about.

 

People that hold their breaths on The Latest Thing, and agonize over this, are, in general, not paying attention.  I simply do not do that agonizing.  I pay attention.  I read up.  I know within a sentence or two whether someone pronouncing sentence on this has done his homework.  I rely on what the bulk of the evidence tells me.  I know what evidence is, and how to use it.

 

Bigfoot skeptics contribute *zero of any value* to this discussion.  I have never seen one make a halfway decent point, never mind a "very strong and painful" one.  They do not "keep us on our toes."  Only people employing common sense, and scientific method, can do that.  

Edited May 21, 2015 by DWA

[WSA]

Who is this "we" you speak of Cisco? I sure ain't  of any "we" of that description.  My conclusions aren't waiting for any such miraculous breakthrough to supply some kind of world-tilting epiphany. Applying garden-variety curiosity and elementary school logic, anyone is equipped to come to the same conclusions regarding existence.  Lots of folks (you too, apparently) are looking for that, and without it arriving when you think it is due (like our friend Crowlogic) they retreat in disgust. The backlash these unreasonable, and unmet expectations create is really quit amusing to me. There are plenty of mystical happenings and unfathomable and weird stuff going on in this world to occupy anyone who has a yearning to delve into the paranormal and just plain  strange. Bigfoot is really not one of those.  It remains in that realm only because some insist it stay there. I've never felt this need as the first time I heard of BF was the first time I saw one big as life. Done.  The rest of it has just been me trying to flesh out the details, of which there are an extraordinary number.

[Cisco]

Crow's topic states BF does not exist because science, such as DNA studies, have provided proof that physical evidence is not from BF. My post has nothing to do with your personal belief in Bigfoot. My use of "we" is in reference to the Bigfoot community, in general, and our "generalized" interest in proving the existence of these creatures. Therefor, the word "we," in terms of this post, is in reference to people that would like to see Bigfoot proven to exist.

 

If you have no interest in proving the existence of this creatures, that's your prerogative. I understand that some people may only be interested in satisfying their own curiosity, when it comes to Bigfoot, but my post was aimed at people that would like to see proof provided to the general public. I suppose I didn't stop to consider there are people, such as yourself, that are unaffected by the scientific disappointments in recent years. If you felt singled out by the use of the word "we," please know that my intent was only to encompass the individuals that are interested in public proof and have been disappointed by hoaxes and scientific results. I apologize to you and anybody else that does not consider themselves in this group. Since I have not been fortunate enough to witness a Bigfoot, with my own two eyes, I hope you'll understand that leaves me depending on other forms of verification.

[WSA]

Oh, well, I am in THAT "we" Cisco, as I've never had the experience either (although I do think I've had one, possibly two, "Class B" encounters...which really don't form much of a basis for my conclusions).  My point to you and some others is that "proof" becomes completely extraneous after some point that comes from applying run-of-the-mill and off the shelf scientific analysis. Getting hung on this point, or even retreating as some have done, just unnecessarily vexes a body.  If your evidentiary foundation is only as good as the latest BF news, you got a problem, I think.  Facts is facts, and wishing the evidence to be fable or lies  is never going to change that, nor is any number of people telling you it is fable and lies. Note: This position presupposes that people tell fables and lies.  Those who have the most trouble with the logic of evidence, don't understand how these two positions co-exist.  

[Guest DWA]

But, see, this is presuming that WSA and I - in absence of other evidence you'd pretty much have to be talking about us - don't have an interest in seeing this animal proven to exist.  Au contraire; the difference between us and most is that we know (1) how to do it and (2) that it has already been done.

 

OK, the second may be just me.  And John Bindernagel.  But I am right.  As is he.

 

Science is a thing, a process.  It is not people, but a thing created and applied by them.  Science - applied by scientists with a direct interest and expertise that could not be more relevant - has been applied to this topic, and it has been applied so thoroughly as to leave no reasonable question that we share the planet with an upright hominoid - at least one - that we do not as a species popularly acknowledge.  "Popular" means nothing to science.  For all we hear about Eistein and relativity, the vast majority of Earth's people - really, statistically, our entire species - has no idea how to address Einstein's findings; in essence, we just take what he said for granted.  (Most physicists only get it because Al dumbed it down for them.)  Meldrum, Krantz and their comrades in arms have proven sasquatch; it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.  So such as Crowlogic are in truth spouting falsehood.  But for the taxonomy, detailed behavioral studies, and all that other window dressing that follows proof, we're done here.

 

I want to see one.  I'll settle for pictures and video (better video than P/G, mind).  I acknowledge that my mind is irrationally poisoned against P/G by the public response to it; I want to see something that we all know is a sasquatch.  But that is irrational, as P/G is a sasquatch, and that's been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

 

One isn't gonna sweat every new little thing when one has gotten here.  One is simply gonna go:  Sure, if that means something, they'll probably tell me.  And back to one's life.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Oh, got it. Crow sez 5 years is the deadline for species confirmation. We'd better get busy then.

Take another 50 years the set will remain the null set.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Nope, we were done...let's see...42 years ago.  Besides, look at the title!!!!  We're done already.

 

I have never seen any position, regarding any topic, so little interested in facts and science and so much interested in Just Stopping The Argument Now So's I Can Declare Victory.  Meanwhile, a bunch of us are intellectually enlightened and having more fun to boot!  Why?

 

Because ..wait here...

Straight Ahead Science Indicates Bigfoot Exists.  And Here All You OPers Seem to Forget *Your Own Advice* about Proving A Negative.  And Expect Us To Forget That.

 

Seriously, Crow, what is it?  One of us might be a specialist with some good advice.

Well, one can do in one's mind with one's imagination what one wants.  When one conclusion is backed by the evidence and the other is backed by none, well...then if one lets one's imagination take over, who am I to comment?

IOW:  it doesn't matter what one has seen and read, but how one engages it.  And one hasn't in this case...and one has.

Oh, I haven't missed a thing you've said...and do not believe you have caught a single thing *we* have.

You honestly think, King Canute, that you can sit there and tell the tide to go away.  The tide doesn't listen to one person who insists on fantasy.  The tide is science, and that tide sweeps all before it, in particular scientists who don't see stuff.

Except that for all of the proponent's claims and pleading for open minded  research the specimen case remains empty.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to intuit why.  If I say nothing more on the subject for the rest of my life that specimen case will still be empty.  It'll be empty not because I say it'll be empty and it'll be empty not because you follow evidence.  It'll be empty for the same reason the Griffon and Unicorn specimen cases are empty.

[Faenor]

Actully bindernagel also proved the griffon exists as well. Check his book out "Griffons, Hey why not guys"

[Guest DWA]

You guys are forgetting the click your heels part.  Never mind making up books that don't exist, although do tell me what's in them.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Actully bindernagel also proved the griffon exists as well. Check his book out "Griffons, Hey why not guys"

I saw Bindernagel display his cast collection and a motley collection of "you can't be serious it was."  I was intrigued though by his explanation of how the young ones foot starts out looking nothing like the adult foot and morphs into a proper looking bigfoot foot.  As near as I can tell there isn't a mammal on earth that goes through such a morph.  Once again special dispensation at it's finest.  Dr. B. actually was instrumental in my starting to question the quality of reasoning in the bigfoot camp.

[Guest DWA]

Three times, Crow.  THREE TIMES.

Why am I stunned, though?  The more science the more you are repelled.  Talk about thoroughly misunderstanding something.

[Guest]

I'm writing a book called "Hiding under the bridge, a field guide to trolls"

I've found plenty of evidence for their existence.