A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Guest Crowlogic]

No, but anthropology, origins of homonids, and historical populations on the planet would help.

 

The one thing that most folks forget is that IF the planet is not shared between several types of hominids (meaning homo sapiens are the only one) that this is the exception to the rule.  One look back and we can realize that for 4 million years plus, there have been several groups sharing the planet.  As recently as 10k years ago I might add.

 

So, proof aside, it is those that are taking the 'non existant' side are the ones pushing the potentially absurd. 

Indeed but the big change in how the other's survived took place when we became a bit smarter and blood thirstier.  This said there is nothing in North America's fossil record  that suggests anything on two legs other than us made it here.

Bigfoot skepticism is, essentially, trolling.  It never learns, never builds on what it has never learned, never adds to the conversation.  They're still arguing every single thing that's been laid to rest over the last 50 years.  Not doing well there, I'd opine.

Yo........... you still haven't answered my question  posed several times already.  So did you deliver bigfoot to the mainstream scientific establishment today yet?  Have you delivered anything of real science to anybody?  Now you're good at saying bigfoot is real ad nauseum but your statements are hollow to the core.  Just put the monkey on a real slab or a nice cage in a real lab in perhaps a real university ,  Yerks would be good, and then your pontificating may actually have value.

All I can say then is I disagree. Skeptisism sparks debate in which we can all learn something new. Trollings intent is to drag down a discussion and make people look bad.

However the bigfoot issue makes itself look bad.  Have you any idea just how many dufuss supplied bigfoot offerings are out there?  In fact a person has to practically bend over backwards in order for the subject to look scientifically substantial.  Please don't lay the blame on dissidents,  the bigfoot contingent is doing a much better job of it from within than an outside agitator could ever hope to.

[Guest DWA]

[just claws eyes]

 

What is all this "ad hominem" nonsense about one of the most ad-hominem stances that there is on any topic?

[Guest Crowlogic]

Don't we humor some people, huh.

He takes nothing seriously....and feverishly posts here and even STARTS THREADS.

 

Something interesting must be said about anyone whose approach is "I don't read, study or think...and here are my conclusions."  There is bigfoot skepticism.

I posted for you a partial list of publications I've read.  And what did you do?  Well you kept you head in the sand and let it slip by.  Gee did I read the wrong stuff, see the wrong documentaries?  Now for someone spouting off  "go read, go study, go learn", you sure haven't much regard for the core publications that helped build and support the bigfoot empire.  Yet I'm not surprised because you have demonstrated a certain pompous dictatorial stance that is reflected here and elsewhere.  But at the end of the day it is we skeptics/nonbelievers who are backing the truth.  We'll be on the right side of the truth until proven otherwise.  So I'll ask again, Did you deliver bigfoot to the world today?

Edited July 29, 2015 by Crowlogic

[WSA]

(Somebody get the attention of someone at the scorer's table to flag the ref)  

 

Big building...look for the lions. Reference materials are to the right, circulating materials right next door.  Natural History upstairs.  Let us know if you need help finding specific titles.  We're here to help. 

[Guest Crowlogic]

(Somebody get the attention of someone at the scorer's table to flag the ref)  

 

Big building...look for the lions. Reference materials are to the right, circulating materials right next door.  Natural History upstairs.  Let us know if you need help finding specific titles.  We're here to help. 

Well why don't you visit the post where I made my partial list.  The post you made is a show of ignorance, it does not surprise me.

[BigTreeWalker]

You found some chewed on bones in a pile.  We know.  When the rest of the general woods going population and or scientific research/bigfoot research community finds the same thing 1000 miles from you well those teeth marks will have stronger legs.  My guess is they will be just another enigma that will be often quoted but not repeated.  I hope you guys are right because at least a chewed on bone is not wishful thinking no matter what chewed it.

Plussed you on that one Crow. My hope is more will be found. As I said before, it is my main reason for posting here. I have seen other photos of large tooth impressions posted by other members here and elsewhere. To my knowledge though little has been done in the way of measuring and compiling this evidence. I think it would be a good endeavor but it would take a concerted effort to do so.

[Branco]

Sasquatch is an enigmatic animal that a lot of people have heard about, and one that relatively few of the world’s population have seen. While most of the citizens in the US and Canada  have heard of them, and many of them hope that they actually do exist, the majority of the population doesn’t care whether they exist or not simply because they have never set foot on lands reportedly inhabited by Sasquatch nor do they expect to do so. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that a segment of the public to be totally skeptical concerning the existence of Sasquatch if questioned about the subject.

 

On the other hand, many people – some who live, hunt, hike, fish, camp, prospect or routinely drive through areas which have a long history of Sasquatch sightings and encounters  â€“ vehemently dismiss the idea that the animals could exist on the American Continent. Some of these skeptics spend an inordinate amount of time on various interactive internet web sites in which Sasquatch is the primary subject and on general social media boards or forums where the subject is occasionally mentioned. Their participation in such discussions is limited solely to constantly reiterating their opinion that such creatures could not and do not exist. Curiously, they feel it is their duty or obligation to convince those that have seen these animals - sometimes more than once and in some cases more than one at a time – that those witnesses did not actual see a Sasquatch, but simply saw a another animal and mistakenly identified it (or them). If the skeptic fails in that endeavor, some go the extra keyboard mile by challenging the reporting witness’s veracity, medication intake, alcohol consumption levels and “motivesâ€.  If those “stirring the pot†tactics fail to convince the witnesses (and other readers) that the skeptic is so intelligently enlightened and all-knowing that they must be right, the skeptics are forced to revert to their last few dribbles of sputtering, nonsensical and  pretentious rhetoric. (Mind you, the skeptic’s responses to the reports of sightings of Sasquatch are the primary subjects here.)

 

The skeptic’s “fall back†questions are usually: (1) Where is your proof? (2) Do you have good clear photographs?  (3) Can you provide the names of the people who have been involved in the  reports you have published or mentioned on line.

 

Of course the answer to their first question is so asinine no reply is warranted. If the witness had obtained biological “proofâ€, confirmed by science, the entire world would know about it.

 

The answer to number 2 would be a simple “Noâ€, if directed at most folks who have seen Sasquatches. The animals’ brief visual observations of humans, whether accidentally or deliberately, can usually be likened to a kid’s examination of a horse shoe recently pulled from a blacksmith’s forge; it don’t take but a second to satisfy their curiosity.

 

The answer to number 3 from any credible researcher/investigator would be a flat-footed “Yes I can, but no, I will notâ€. Sasquatch field research/investigative organizations do not and will not disclose the names, addresses or phone number of the witnesses that send reports to them, unless the witnesses specifically requests it. Seldom do witnesses request or permit the disclosure of personal information or locations of sightings or encounters.The reason should be obvious.

 

Why is it that some of the most vehement Sasquatch skeptics are residents (self declared) of areas of North America that are deemed prime Sasquatch locations by Sasquatch “hunters’, and which generate an unusually high number of reports from apparently credible witnesses?  On the surface, the answer seems as enigmatic as the subject animal itself.

 

There are two adjoining counties in a state in the Pacific Northwest that have - based on the number of Sasquatch sightings and/or encounters reported to multiple research groups, law enforcement agencies and the news media - an impressive population of the subject animals.The overall area of these counties also provides excellent habitat and food sources for the animals.

 

The total number of Sasquatch sightings/encounters from that state reported to and published by only one (of many in the PNW) prominent research groups is about two hundred forty-two. That same research group has received several hundred more reports from witnesses in the state that have not yet been published.

 

One of the two specific counties mentioned has generated twenty one reports that have been published by the same research organization. One witness from that group of witnesses is a psychologist and another is an ex-military policeman. The research group’s unpublished reports list show there are at least two dozen more sightings/encounters reports from that county.

 

The adjoining county to the east of the first has generated only six sightings/encounters reports that have been published by that same research group, although the group has received more than thirty additional reports which have not been published.

 

It would be reasonable to conclude these two very scenic counties would be ideal areas for anyone with any real interest in knowing the truth about the existence of Sasquatch. A person need not be concerned about bringing back good photos or biological proof of one; a person only has to see one clearly to know they exist.

 

So how could any intelligent, open minded resident of such an area arrive at a concrete conclusion that Sasquatch does not exist there, or in other areas far removed from their own? Does that person base their opinion on a belief that the thousands of his peers in his own state who have come forward with descriptions of their sightings or encounters are liars, hoaxers or mentally impaired?

 

Along the Applegate River in the southern part of the Eastern County is the location of the historical Bigfoot Trap monument on federal land. The trap was built with a permit from the federal government by the NAWRT in 1974. Located in the town of Ashland in that county is the Department of Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service’s Animal Forensic Lab, reportedly the only such lab in the world.  

The Western County is the home of the Oregon Cave National Monument.  That county has a rich history of Bigfoot sighting and encounters. A local group erected a giant figure of a “Prehistoric Caveman†at the I-5 exit to Grant’s Pass.

 

Any nay-saying skeptic from that area wishing to convince rational people that Sasquatch does not exist has, as folks down this way are prone to say, a hard row to hoe.

 

Might it be that the opinions expressed by some of the skeptics are not really their own, but those of others that have strongly 

suggested those are the appropriate ones for public consumption? But that would suggest skullduggery, cover-up or conspiracy wouldn’t it? Well, such things are becoming fairly common during the past few years, aren’t they? Even the most hardened skeptic will admit that. It is well known and documented that those with questionable agendas routinely use gullible and willing stooges to assist by posting untrue, vicious and demeaning statement about those who know the agendas being promoted are deceitful. (More about that later.)

[Cotter]

 Surly you understand that I don't take you or any other member of bigfootism seriously.

 

Hate to say it crow, but you are a member of bigfootism as well.

 

;-)

[Guest DWA]

Crow is about as staunch an exemplar of bigfootism as I have seen.  He has one thing right.  The fringes are "bigfootism."  Then there's the scientists.  The real ones I mean, the ones always doing it, the ones doing it here like they do everywhere else.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Hate to say it crow, but you are a member of bigfootism as well.

 

;-)

Yup that is true but I'm in the ranks of the let's grow up already contingent.

Crow is about as staunch an exemplar of bigfootism as I have seen.  He has one thing right.  The fringes are "bigfootism."  Then there's the scientists.  The real ones I mean, the ones always doing it, the ones doing it here like they do everywhere else.

So did you deliver bigfoot to the real world of real science today yet?

[WSA]

I often find Branco's posts to be pure anodyne for a lot of the foolishness that passes for reasoned discourse around here.

 

The man with the gavel. 

[Guest DWA]

Yup that is true but I'm in the ranks of the let's grow up already contingent.  But clearly...still in the early stages of workin' on that.

So did you deliver bigfoot to the real world of real science today yet?

 

Crow, so help me, if you ask that question one more time your id is gonna auger your ego right into the ground.  Kick the habit, join the unhooked generation. It's a matter of life...and breadth.

Edited July 29, 2015 by DWA

[Guest]

More ad hominem attacks from the believers. 

 

While the scoftics talk about growing up and tinfoil hats you mean?? I see you don't have a problem with that. I'm not surprised. You seem intent on being offended.

[Guest WesT]

However the bigfoot issue makes itself look bad. Have you any idea just how many dufuss supplied bigfoot offerings are out there? In fact a person has to practically bend over backwards in order for the subject to look scientifically substantial. Please don't lay the blame on dissidents, the bigfoot contingent is doing a much better job of it from within than an outside agitator could ever hope to.

You forgot to add in your opinion. Also I don't see where I laid blame. I was pointing out the positive effects of skeptisism vs the negative effects of trolling. It's not my problem if you have a guilty conscience. You'll have to work that out on your own.

[Guest DWA]

While the scoftics talk about growing up and tinfoil hats you mean?? I see you don't have a problem with that. I'm not surprised. You seem intent on being offended.

Thin skins on this topic best not show up around me...particularly when they offer ignorance, and cloak it in arrogance to boot.  Ad hominem, indeed.  There is nothing more ad hominem than bigfoot skepticism, which ridicules honesty and effort and elevates lassitude and denial.

I posted for you a partial list of publications I've read.  And what did you do?  Well you kept you head in the sand and let it slip by.  Gee did I read the wrong stuff, see the wrong documentaries?  Now for someone spouting off  "go read, go study, go learn", you sure haven't much regard for the core publications that helped build and support the bigfoot empire.  Yet I'm not surprised because you have demonstrated a certain pompous dictatorial stance that is reflected here and elsewhere.  But at the end of the day it is we skeptics/nonbelievers who are backing the truth.  We'll be on the right side of the truth until proven otherwise.  So I'll ask again, Did you deliver bigfoot to the world today?

You have read nothing serious...and thought about it even less.  And have no idea that *you broadcast that here.*

You're backing denial, and saying things that if you heard anyone saying them about anything other than this you'd think they were out of their heads.

You will not be on the right side of truth, ever...when it is proven (which it already pretty much has been) that you were wrong all along.