A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Bodhi]

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.

I'm reached my max for positive votes for posts, sorry that I can't add one for this!

[Guest]

...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.

 

Very good point DWA.

[Bodhi]

gum,

You feel free to listen to campfire tales if it comforts you. I think if you look at the NAWAC & the creators of this forum you'll find that they also want concrete evidence rather than anecdotes, but what the heck you carry on with stories pal.

[beerhunter]

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.

Another absolute, an absolute sweeping generalization of a group of people. This is also an absolute crock of duck droppings.

[chelefoot]

Hard lined skeptics, scoftics, and denialists are a curious group of folks...(just as much so as those who believe every thing they are told).

 

I am very skeptical of everything I see/hear/read in Bigfootery.  I feel that a huge percent of it is BS. I like listening to Todd Disotell. I think most critical thinking proponents do.  But even Todd won't go so far as to say there is absolutely no way that Bigfoot exists.

 

Is there not one single story that you have read from a credible witness that makes you wonder if you're NO BIGFOOTS stance might be wrong?  I would never assume that my stance MUST be correct and that I KNOW the answers. Do I think enough evidence has been presented to say that they exist - heck no. Do I think there is any evidence right now that is 100 percent, without a doubt, evidence of BF? Heck, no, So, that being said, am I prepared to say that because of this, there is no Bigfoot? Heck NO! Why? Credible witnesses.... not many.... but a few.  There are a few who have nothing to gain, there could have been no mistaking, they are not on drugs, they saw what they said they saw. What did they see?

 

I think denialist can probably think of at least one instance of a credible witness with a story that can't be explained (they just won't admit it).... So how then, can they still be a denialist?

 

But the funny thing is, even though I believe a few witnesses are telling the truth, I can't say 100 percent that I believe BF exists. I think they possibly could.... but I don't know.

 

I don't think any of you really KNOW either, except those of you who have had clear, unobstructed sightings that aren't on drugs, and don't have mental illness. (I think we have a few of those here). Some non-witnesses proponents may think they know, but how could they?

 

It all boils down to what you are willing to believe in. And belief has no place in science, so....

 

(Just thoughts to start the day.  I just find it interesting how proponents and skeptics will battle on and on, when neither can prove anything)

[Guest DWA]

gum,

You feel free to listen to campfire tales if it comforts you. I think if you look at the NAWAC & the creators of this forum you'll find that they also want concrete evidence rather than anecdotes, but what the heck you carry on with stories pal.

Or he could just review the evidence, the most rock-solid interaction of anecdote, forensic evidence and video confirmation of both as has existed for anything unconfirmed.  (Which means:  It's confirmed.)

 

 

It all boils down to what you are willing to believe in. And belief has no place in science, so....

 

(Just thoughts to start the day.  I just find it interesting how proponents and skeptics will battle on and on, when neither can prove anything)

Really:  it all boils down to *what the evidence says.*  The evidence is unequivocal.  But not enough have steeped themselves in it enough to see how compelling - nigh on conclusive - it is.  So a lot of us are saying:  people really need to get where we are on this, because all requirements to do it are not only available, but how to use them and think about them amply detailed.

 

Now, as to The Daily Bigfoot Feed?  Other than the continuing corroboration by sightings and track finds, yep, it's all crap.

[SWWASAS]

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 hat

If Todd Disotell entertained you on "The Bigfoot Show" it is because he is as a big a skeptic as you are.   Todd is the guy with the Mohawk who appeared on a 10 Million Dollar Bigfoot bounty.     In other words someone that will hire himself out for the right amount of money to prove that someone did not provide evidence to prove the existence of BF.    He was not there to help the contestants but eliminate them and was paid handsomely to do just that.        Brown who got the consolation prize of 100,0000 wishes that he had saved some of the material he submitted during the show  and had it independently tested,  because he thinks it was the real deal.   But of course Disotell did not want that to happen.          You seem to disagree with me that a body on a lab table will settle things once and for all.  Of course you would, because in your mind, BF does not exist.    Until that happens DNA testing will always be questioned due to the possibility of contamination during collection,  transfer, and testing.      Now disagree with what I just said.    If you cannot, you can just call me a few names, and move on as is the skeptic custom.        

Edited July 15, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Bodhi]

Hard lined skeptics, scoftics, and denialists are a curious group of folks...(just as much so as those who believe every thing they are told).

 

I am very skeptical of everything I see/hear/read in Bigfootery.  I feel that a huge percent of it is BS. I like listening to Todd Disotell. I think most critical thinking proponents do.  But even Todd won't go so far as to say there is absolutely no way that Bigfoot exists.

 

Is there not one single story that you have read from a credible witness that makes you wonder if you're NO BIGFOOTS stance might be wrong?  I would never assume that my stance MUST be correct and that I KNOW the answers. Do I think enough evidence has been presented to say that they exist - heck no. Do I think there is any evidence right now that is 100 percent, without a doubt, evidence of BF? Heck, no, So, that being said, am I prepared to say that because of this, there is no Bigfoot? Heck NO! Why? Credible witnesses.... not many.... but a few.  There are a few who have nothing to gain, there could have been no mistaking, they are not on drugs, they saw what they said they saw. What did they see?

 

I think denialist can probably think of at least one instance of a credible witness with a story that can't be explained (they just won't admit it).... So how then, can they still be a denialist?

 

But the funny thing is, even though I believe a few witnesses are telling the truth, I can't say 100 percent that I believe BF exists. I think they possibly could.... but I don't know.

 

I don't think any of you really KNOW either, except those of you who have had clear, unobstructed sightings that aren't on drugs, and don't have mental illness. (I think we have a few of those here). Some non-witnesses proponents may think they know, but how could they?

 

It all boils down to what you are willing to believe in. And belief has no place in science, so....

 

(Just thoughts to start the day.  I just find it interesting how proponents and skeptics will battle on and on, when neither can prove anything)

I don't know what a skoftic is, but if asking for tangible evidence over stories is part of the definition then I'll proudly declare to be a skoftic. To accept anything other than that which will meet the threshold which science demands and seems, to me, to be pointless.

 

The possibility that sasquatch exists is undeniable but the probability seems quite low. I say low because the range reported is larger than any other animal, including man while tangible evidence is zero.

 

The larger that claimed territory the larger the total number of animals has to be and the more likely that some piece of hair,blood,bone,scat, etc. would be discovered by 

 

With regard to credible witness stories; they are unverifiable and, while they may be life changing for the witness, they are just stories. What makes a person credible anyway? I've seen a lot of mentions about reverends,cops,soldiers witnesses and claims that a witness has nothing to gain by making a claim. But honestly, appeals to authority are fallacies and we cannot know the motivations for people who claim an encounter.

 

Anyway, as Disotell says "show me the evidence".  I'm eager for ANYTHING that might sway the scientific community to give the possibility a serious look, just something which might spark interest! I wouldn't be here otherwise but witness stories, regardless of credibility, are just stories that are unverifiable.

If Todd Disotell entertained you on "The Bigfoot Show" it is because he is as a big a skeptic as you are.   Todd is the guy with the Mohawk who appeared on a 10 Million Dollar Bigfoot bounty.     In other words someone that will hire himself out for the right amount of money to prove that someone did not provide evidence to prove the existence of BF.    He was not there to help the contestants but eliminate them and was paid handsomely to do just that.        Brown who got the consolation prize of 100,0000 wishes that he had saved some of the material he submitted during the show  and had it independently tested,  because he thinks it was the real deal.   But of course Disotell did not want that to happen.          You seem to disagree with me that a body on a lab table will settle things once and for all.  Of course you would, because in your mind, BF does not exist.    Until that happens DNA testing will always be questioned due to the possibility of contamination during collection,  transfer, and testing.      Now disagree with what I just said.    If you cannot, you can just call me a few names, and move on as is the skeptic custom.        

You are simply wrong. Disotell is a friend of the community and has been for some time. A type specimen is not required before DNA is terrifically useful, you would know this if you'd listened to the episode which you still clearly haven't done. I suspect this is because you want to cling to your misinformation for your own reasons. Feel free to continue clinging to the lie, I'm done attempting to discuss it with you- willful ignorance is something I cannot overcome. 

[Martin]

................................

You are simply wrong. Disotell is a friend of the community and has been for some time. 

 

I agree Bodhi but footers don't like it when someone tells them their evidence doesn't stack up. Words like denier, denialists and scoftics start coming out.

 

There is a clear space between the statements  "There is no bigfoot"    and    "The evidence is proof bigfoot real"  that footers don't generally acknowledge.

[Bodhi]

I agree Bodhi but footers don't like it when someone tells them their evidence doesn't stack up. Words like denier, denialists and scoftics start coming out.

 

There is a clear space between the statements  "There is no bigfoot"    and    "The evidence is proof bigfoot real"  that footers don't generally acknowledge.

Martin, Yeah it's frustrating when people spread misinformation and that they know is misinformation, regardless of their motivations.

[Guest]

Newspapers, books and texts are just bundles of ideas to skeptics and yet, they rest their case on science and gleefully cite anyone's educational achievements and title when it supports their views and refer to all others as stories, fairy tales and myths.  In another instance of this so called, pseudo-objectivity skeptics make up a medical term for a non-existent “syndrome†they refer to as BOTB (Bigfoot on the Brain) calculated for laughter and ridicule of proponents and suddenly become quiet when it is demonstrated to be patently false. If you ask them if they possess degrees or diplomas, and if they're honest they will either admit or deny ownership. Either way the next question to ask is if they still believe that piece of paper they hold is simply just story, a myth or a fairy tale too?  Which reality is it?

 

Is it any wonder there will never be any agreement among two opposing sides of the issue?

Edited July 15, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest Crowlogic]

Or he could just review the evidence, the most rock-solid interaction of anecdote, forensic evidence and video confirmation of both as has existed for anything unconfirmed.  (Which means:  It's confirmed.)

 

Really:  it all boils down to *what the evidence says.*  The evidence is unequivocal.  But not enough have steeped themselves in it enough to see how compelling - nigh on conclusive - it is.  So a lot of us are saying:  people really need to get where we are on this, because all requirements to do it are not only available, but how to use them and think about them amply detailed.

 

Now, as to The Daily Bigfoot Feed?  Other than the continuing corroboration by sightings and track finds, yep, it's all crap.

Evidence that is analyzed improperly or with a predetermined agenda is useless.  That's why bigfoot organizations need independent testing labs.  I doubt any have such.  So evidence up the wazoo but the game is rigged.  And since you're not sharing you're adding to the assaults marshaled on the topic.

Newspapers, books and texts are just bundles of ideas to skeptics and yet, they rest their case on science and gleefully cite anyone's educational achievements and title when it supports their views and refer to all others as stories, fairy tales and myths.  In another instance of this so called, pseudo-objectivity skeptics make up a medical term for a non-existent “syndrome†they refer to as BOTB (Bigfoot on the Brain) calculated for laughter and ridicule of proponents and suddenly become quiet when it is demonstrated to be patently false. If you ask them if they possess degrees or diplomas, and if they're honest they will either admit or deny ownership. Either way the next question to ask is if they still believe that piece of paper they hold is simply just story, a myth or a fairy tale too?  Which reality is it?

 

Is it any wonder there will never be any agreement among two opposing sides of the issue?

In the book Legend Meets Science there is a trackline going through a snow field and the caption reads "A Sasquatch track line ".  Yet it says nothing of how and why it was determined as such.  It's not even a good photo that shows scale or directly into a track.  Yes the authors had an agenda did they not and they stacked the deck in favor of the agenda.

[Bodhi]

Newspapers, books and texts are just bundles of ideas to skeptics and yet, they rest their case on science and gleefully cite anyone's educational achievements and title when it supports their views and refer to all others as stories, fairy tales and myths.

 

1. It's not skeptics who view sasquatch as myth, it's 80% of the u.s. population.

80%. 

Just so we're clear let me say that again - 80%. Everyone, other than the deluded, rests their cases on science, I thought you were a cop or something. DNA, fingerprints.....science works.

 

2. Are you suggesting that your pet cryptid should be deemed "real" by science based on the current evidence? How do you support that stance? What other animal was acknowledged by science based on the level of evidence for sasquatch?

 

Isn't this special pleading and yet another logical fallacy?

[Guest diana swampbooger]

lol

 

66 million people = # of people who do think boogers exist

 

Hey did you know 29 million people either have diabetes or are undiagnosed 

[Guest DWA]

I agree Bodhi but footers don't like it when someone tells them their evidence doesn't stack up. Words like denier, denialists and scoftics start coming out.

 

No.  Deniers and scoftics haven't done their due diligence, refuse to do it even when it is carefully (and OMG how *repeatedly*) spelled out to them what it entails...and then uses that refusal as their excuse.  (It never stacks up if one doesn't even have the foggiest idea *what it is.*)

 

There is a clear space between the statements  "There is no bigfoot"    and    "The evidence is proof bigfoot real"  that footers don't generally acknowledge.

 

No, actually that clear space is in denialists'  *heads.*  They don't understand what the question "what is the probability, in the real world both of us inhabit, *that all of this is a crock?*" even means.

One can always use one's ignorance as an excuse...if one's own opinion is all that matters to one.

Edited July 15, 2015 by DWA