A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Guest Crowlogic]

I want to do science and discuss it with people as much as the next guy, but what you and roguefooter are pushing is just fantasy.

 

Please read up.

This is one of very few topics I am aware of in which one side gets to declare victory by claiming that published evidence, which is publicly available information, doesn't exist.

 

Guys.  The fantasy is that bigfoot is a fantasy.  The evidence says otherwise, and it says it pretty convincingly.

Ahhh fantasy is the cryptoid in question.  Remember the thread is 50 years on and remember I'm signing on that this time next year it'll still be fantasy land.  Now you can say bigfoot is fantasy but you've delivered nothing that indicates otherwise.

[Guest]

Good Post SP!  J

[Guest Crowlogic]

Leaftalker,  thank for saying that and but strange you would make that comment this morning.    I was just commenting in PM that if I had any sense I would, like so many others have, just leave the forum.     I take no pleasure in arguing or being some sort of skeptic punching bag.    I do enjoy sharing information with other field researchers.    At this point I am holding very little back including locations where I have done field work.   What Old Dog says about trolls makes good sense but there seems to be little member support in dealing with it.      

You can give me a map to your hottest haunts and guess what?  I won't waste my time going there so worry not about the skeptics, worry about your comrades.  Was it not you claiming that bigfootism is not a mutual admiration society?

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

You can give me a map to your hottest haunts and guess what?  I won't waste my time going there so worry not about the skeptics, worry about your comrades.  Was it not you claiming that bigfootism is not a mutual admiration society?

 

I've asked this in other threads, so I'll ask it again: why are you following Big Foot news and hanging around a Big Foot forum?

[Guest]

^^^That, pretty much.  Bigfoot skeptics are insisting on doing this from an armchair, which has not the most spectacular history in terms of results.

 

What we have here is an animal that is pretty much proven.  I mean, we have more evidence for bigfoot than we do for any dinosaur...and far more than we do for many living species we accept.  As an astute scientist put it:  we rely on fossils, including fossil footprints, which are really the same kind of evidence as the footprints we have for yeti and sasquatch.  The only significant difference is the skeptics' reliance on hoaxing as the blanket explanation...which doesn't explain *any* of the trackways for which any reasonable person, presented with the facts, would rule out hoaxing, or known animals, as reasonable explanations.

 

Then we have thousands of people's sightings, which metronomically repeat guidebook-consistent physical and behavioral characters known to be standard-issue primate signatures only to specialists in the field.  Which skeptics discount because scientists aren't having the sightings - which, um, they are - and ignore, in doing that, that we rely all the time on the things seen by people who aren't scientists.

 

Then there is a film that could not link the footprints and sightings more beautifully than it does.

 

Proven.  Before that, nothing skeptics say amounts to any more than chaff on the wind.  It's just that most people don't understand that science is almost always this way; proof comes long before it's acknowledged.

Thanks for the good laugh. So now there is more evidence for Bigfoot than there is for dinosaurs? You don't understand that not all forms of evidence are equal? Bigfoot stories are not the same as dinosaur bones, petrified skin, organs and eggs. 10000 bigfoot stories is not better than (scientifically speaking) even 1 dinosaur bone. Stories are made of words, bones are the remains of a actual animal.

Then you say there is far more evidence for Bigfoot than any other living species we accept. Really? That doesn't even deserve a response.

[roguefooter]

The question of  existence is not going to be found picking apart statements made by proponents.   That seems to be your idea of research.   You can discredit everyone on this forum and the person who gets off his butt and goes into the field is the only one who can ever answer that question.     I hope it is someone here that I know who does the field work that proves you wrong.    I don't need excuses.      I only post pictures that I have taken so I don't have to research the rules about copyright.        But I suppose a skeptic has a quandary trying to find something to photograph to prove something does not exist.    You might try blank white paper.   For heaven sakes don't  take any pictures in the woods.     If you go there you might have an encounter, or accidently take a picture of a BF peeking around a tree at you.

 

What does any of that have to do with you falsely calling me a hoaxer? It doesn't. All you're doing is making more excuses and deflecting from the point.

 

Once again the dumb assumption of skeptics 'never going in the woods' comes up. The last ditch defense. Except that I actually do go out in the woods- a lot, because I live surrounded by heavily forested mountains for about two hours in every direction (in the Rogue Valley, Oregon).

 

 I hope it is someone here that I know who does the field work that proves you wrong.

 

 

Proves what wrong?

Edited July 9, 2015 by roguefooter

[Guest diana swampbooger]

Thanks for the good laugh. So now there is more evidence for Bigfoot than there is for dinosaurs? You don't understand that not all forms of evidence are equal? Bigfoot stories are not the same as dinosaur bones, petrified skin, organs and eggs. 10000 bigfoot stories is not better than (scientifically speaking) even 1 dinosaur bone. Stories are made of words, bones are the remains of a actual animal.

Then you say there is far more evidence for Bigfoot than any other living species we accept. Really? That doesn't even deserve a response.

Everybody knows about the bigfoot prints & dinosaur footprints found together, Nakani.

Why is anybody even pretending anything different.

[Guest Crowlogic]

I've asked this in other threads, so I'll ask it again: why are you following Big Foot news and hanging around a Big Foot forum?

It is a fascinating example of how people can latch onto an idea or concept of questionable or sketchy possibility and go through all manner of construct to insure that the idea/concept of their focus can have an air of substance/reality.  Now then why do you call yourself ChasingRabbits.

Everybody knows about the bigfoot prints & dinosaur footprints found together, Nakani.

Why is anybody even pretending anything different.

Bigfoot prints and dinosaur prints together?  Ahhh were these found recently like in you know the place where bigfoot and dinosaurs are co habituating side by side in the flesh?

[Guest diana swampbooger]

It is a fascinating example of how people can latch onto an idea or concept of questionable or sketchy possibility and go through all manner of construct to insure that the idea/concept of their focus can have an air of substance/reality.  Now then why do you call yourself ChasingRabbits.

Bigfoot prints and dinosaur prints together?  Ahhh were these found recently like in you know the place where bigfoot and dinosaurs are co habituating side by side in the flesh?

Yup. Google it.

[ShadowBorn]

http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/footprints.htm

 

So do you mean like what is in this article, I hope that I am not infringing on copy rights here. Large human like foot prints found near dino's. There are more stuff like this that has been found. These creatures are ancient.

As you read on it turns out that they could have been made by erosion. To bad  oh well, but there are still other foot prints found .

[Guest diana swampbooger]

This one is all kind of fun

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=human+like+footprint+in+stone&biw=1301&bih=592&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=TQefVYXBOIKYNsOZmNAB&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&dpr=1.05#imgdii=tYEIJsoi7EqazM%3A%3BtYEIJsoi7EqazM%3A%3BUvsB4SlKx1a8BM%3A&imgrc=tYEIJsoi7EqazM%3A

[Guest]

Ms. Swampbooger,

I can't tell if you are being serious or not. If you do think dinosaurs and Bigfoot lived together, I found this website maybe reading up on the subject will help.

Google paleo.cc and you should find it.

[Martin]

http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/footprints.htm

 

So do you mean like what is in this article, I hope that I am not infringing on copy rights here. Large human like foot prints found near dino's. There are more stuff like this that has been found. These creatures are ancient.

As you read on it turns out that they could have been made by erosion. To bad  oh well, but there are still other foot prints found .

 

Uh.... the article clearly says:

 

"When these tracks were reexamined very closely by Glen Kuban and then by experts, they were found to be dinosaur tracks not human footprints. Erosion and back fill made some of them look human. "

 

Very common in bigfootery... 

 

Yours too Diana :

 

However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.

 

The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).

 

Bigfooters are not very good at pealing onions... they are always stuck on the first layer.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Martin

[bipedalist]

I appeal to your "peel" Martin.  Nice response which might help explain for the majority of such tracks.  I am thinking there may be some in Australia that might not fit this explanation IIRC.  

Edited July 10, 2015 by bipedalist

[Martin]

^ Your appeel is duly noted and won.

 

Post up those Aussie tracks and lets have a look.