A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Bodhi]

Somewhere between Bigfootism and Bigfootery is BigFooT

 

Which hasn't happened in half a century.

exactly! And hence we have campfire stories,"morphing", extra dimensional sasquatches, flying sasquatches and of course, portals in this echo-chamber site where believers can reinforce each other and avoid the real world opinion of the lay-public and the VAST majority of scientists.

[Bodhi]

 

 

Not a single molecule of the said creature has ever been brought in?    There sure are a lot of molecules in hair samples that did not test out to be some known animal.   You are aware of them right?  

This is NOT a reality. I'm sorry for your confusion but I suggest you listen to Todd Disotell who was a guest on "The Bigfoot Show", yes the show run by the guy who started this forum. They had Disotell to explain the Ketchum debacle and if you JUST LISTEN you will understand that there is no such thing. Good luck.

[Guest DWA]

Im not saying Swwasp is not honorable and trustworthy but how would anyone really know?

Way too much of this in bigfootery.

No.  Here is what there is way too much of in bigfootery:

 

[holds head] I don't know what to doooooooooooooo?  No proof....can't read....can't analyze...can't think...no proof....oh woe is me....

 

Unfortunately, practically everyone doing it is a bigfoot skeptic.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

 

Do you know what I consider credible looking videos and photos?  I went to the trouble of posting some for the benefit of the forum and they whined that bigfoot researchers don't have the expertise or $$$$$ to make good photos.  That said there is nothing that comes close to the standards that are achieved in the real world photographing nature.

 

As i wrote, you posted a pictorial "comparison" of two legs in different anatomical positions as evidence which contradicted your initial assertion.  If that's the type of evidence you can produce, then your complaints about the inability of BF researchers to produce evidence is hollow.

[Bodhi]

Why is every story regarding bigfoot completely unverifiable?

Thousands of stories and no evidence.

50 years of unverifiable stories.

loving your posts!

^The non-existent fossil record is really all a scientist would need to counter the Bigfoot claims. We're talking about a creature that is supposed to have existed for the past how many millions of years, and is still in existence today in numbers.

Yours too

[Guest DWA]

^^^Many people love crazy rants that could be disspelled with a little reading and thinking.  They don't make a pill for that.

[Bodhi]

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.

well said, very well said.

[Guest Crowlogic]

As i wrote, you posted a pictorial "comparison" of two legs in different anatomical positions as evidence which contradicted your initial assertion.  If that's the type of evidence you can produce, then your complaints about the inability of BF researchers to produce evidence is hollow.

It's what I did with the 7 minutes I had at my disposal to invest in the frame.  This said  the same scale line of same scale subjects actually gave mamma bigfoot a bit longer of a leg.  OTOH what I was actually doing was comparing 2 human beings in monkey suits and a possible doll or baby human in a monkey outfit.  Bear in mind I don't support the existence of bigfoot so all I can do analyze the details of hoaxes.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

It's what I did with the 7 minutes I had at my disposal to invest in the frame.  This said  the same scale line of same scale subjects actually gave mamma bigfoot a bit longer of a leg.  OTOH what I was actually doing was comparing 2 human beings in monkey suits and a possible doll or baby human in a monkey outfit.  Bear in mind I don't support the existence of bigfoot so all I can do analyze the details of hoaxes.

 

It's what you did to be misleading.

[SWWASAS]

Thanks to Gumshoeye, Leaftalker, and anyone else that I missed who gave me words of encouragement and support.        Martin you may not know it but some of us on this forum have actually met face to face, done field work together, and have had time to form face to face conclusions about each other.      So some of us are not as anonymous as some would claim.       I doubt that you resident skeptics can even claim to have even met much less stepped out of the shadows of internet anonymity. 

 

Bodhi there are two ways to classify a hair.   One is from physical characteristics and microscopic examination.    That requires a known specimen that is accepted as the type standard.     The second way is mitochondrial DNA.   That if present, and that is a problem with some hair samples,  yields some markers, that could identify a species, if a type standard had been established.      That has not been done with either method because no BF has ever been lab tested and a type established that we know of.          So  either method of testing could very well have been done on BF hair samples with neither one yielding demonstrable results.      I am a human blond and as such am told that my hair contains no testable DNA.   If tested no DNA would be found.    Does that mean I do not exist or am not human?     Any such test on my hair would show human physical characteristics under a microscope, likely a cut end further indicating human, but no DNA results.    If the hair did not have a cut end nothing would identify it as specifically human.     If one of my hairs was found,   that had not been cut,   it might be indistinguishable from BF hair.   Some BF are said to be reddish blond.        So I stand by my statement.     It is entirely possible that some BF hair has been tested but not recognized as such or has been simply been dismissed as human hair.    Until a BF is on a lab table that hair type cannot be established.     

Edited July 14, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Martin]

^ Just to be clear......  you are saying that you have "actually met face to face, done field work together, and have had time to form face to face conclusions" with Gumshoeye?

 

I

Edited July 14, 2015 by Martin

[Bodhi]

Bodhi there are two ways to classify a hair.   One is from physical characteristics and microscopic examination.    That requires a known specimen that is accepted as the type standard.     The second way is mitochondrial DNA.   That if present, and that is a problem with some hair samples,  yields some markers, that could identify a species, if a type standard had been established.      That has not been done with either method because no BF has ever been lab tested and a type established that we know of.          So  either method of testing could very well have been done on BF hair samples with neither one yielding demonstrable results.      I am a human blond and as such am told that my hair contains no testable DNA.   If tested no DNA would be found.    Does that mean I do not exist or am not human?     Any such test on my hair would show human physical characteristics under a microscope, likely a cut end further indicating human, but no DNA results.    If the hair did not have a cut end nothing would identify it as specifically human.     If one of my hairs was found,   that had not been cut,   it might be indistinguishable from BF hair.   Some BF are said to be reddish blond.        So I stand by my statement.     It is entirely possible that some BF hair has been tested but not recognized as such or has been simply been dismissed as human hair.    Until a BF is on a lab table that hair type cannot be established.     

So clearly, you did not take the time to even listen to The Bigfoot Show episode. I'm sorry for you, you would have been entertained and learned quite a bit at the same time.

I will restate for those who are interested in reality, that the Todd Disotell episodes of the "The Bigfoot Show" are great for learning about what is actually possible in testing dna. If you do invest the time you will learn that folks who come in here with excuses/misinformation about "unknown" results or the necessity of a type specimen are talking our of their hats.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Bodhi

[Guest DWA]

...not to say that ^^^folks like this aren't doing a lot of talking out of *their* hats.  The episodes of The Bigfoot Show one *should* be listening to are the ones in which researchers talk about what they are encountering, in the field.

[Guest]

^ Just to be clear......  you are saying that you have "actually met face to face, done field work together, and have had time to form face to face conclusions" with Gumshoeye?

 

I

 

Somebody proposed BOTB, I have to wonder Martin, do you have Gumshoe on the brain?

[roguefooter]

Honor and integrity are but two of the greatest virtues anyone can bestow on another out of respect and admiration and yet, they are qualities that aren’t easily recognized in an individual unless you (generally speaking) are taught to believe in them.  An individual can be poor in material riches and wealthy in wisdom, honor and integrity and be noble in their deeds.

 

The question how would anyone really know who is honorable and trustworthy? I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I came to that conclusion by SWWASP’s actions and deeds and so the point I’m driving in is that if one doesn’t know what makes a person virtuous what does it matter?  Therefore, I am of the opinion that man exemplifies those qualities not easily found in people.  

 

I don't see any of this being about honor, integrity, or trustworthiness. Bigfoot belief is such a small crowd that in order to have support you have to bond with others and throw all honor, integrity, or trustworthiness out the window.

 

That's why we see people defend others who cry "hoaxer" when the evidence clearly says otherwise, or defending a supposed "bigfoot encounter" when the evidence clearly says it never happened. Those are the exact opposite of 'honor, integrity, or trustworthiness'. People here will choose the group over the facts.