Branco Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Most of America is thoroughly explored every year and from the looks of things, the way Sasquatch avoid people out in large forested areas, they could probably do the same near suburban areas without much difficulty. I realize that's hard to believe. About every year there are reports of BF foraging within town, community or city limits, especially in the South and Southeast. Some of those reports have been published in local newspapers. In some cases the creatures were seen by LEO's investigating the citizens' report. In a few cases, the sighting reports were generated by LEO's themselves while on routine patrol, usually in the late night/early morning hours. Of course these were anecdotal accounts that did not generate a body for the slab, so they are basically worthless. (Except maybe to folks who have an interest in the subject and spend a little time trying to confirm or discount the reports.)
Guest DWA Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Pretty much all the other large animals we know: 1. Dumpster dive (and sasquatch has a big advantage: looking from a distance like a vagrant); 2. Hang out around people's windows and front and back doors and driveways and carports from time to time; 3. Eat out of people's trash cans, gardens, compost piles, crops and livestock pens; 4. Enter supermarkets and the like; 5. Walk down suburban (or sometimes even city) streets; 6. Visit campgrounds; 7. Cross (or use) roads and trails... ...and I could go on. There are reports of sasquatch doing every one of these things (except 4; and they have been caught on video *outside* such establishments, doing stuff like 1.). And people are *surprised* and *in denial* about this. Huh?????
Old Dog Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 It's amazing that we wait for science to validate what people already know. 1
dmaker Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 How can science validate bigfoot when the physical evidence provided consistently fails to support the claim?
Guest DWA Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 It's amazing that we wait for science to validate what people already know. Well, I'd say that it's amazing that so few people are curious to bring science to bear on thousands of people's experiences...when there are scientists putting books in print doing just that...
dmaker Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) A scientist can publish a book on any topic desired. Without peer review, or some sort of consensus, I'm going to be skeptical of the conclusions. Edit: Let me put this another way. If a scientist publishes a book that provides all of the necessary data to replicate the results and those results are then replicated and agreed upon by other scientists, then I'm going to sit up and take notice of that book. I believe that process is called something--the scientific method. Edited September 2, 2015 by dmaker
norseman Posted September 2, 2015 Admin Posted September 2, 2015 In biology this requires physical evidence, and in order to be repeatable you have to have enough material for it to be repeatable. Unlike say an experiment on cancer cells, or creating a god particle with a collider.
dmaker Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) And just to be clear, since this is the existence thread, I am not saying that bigfoot does not exist. I am saying that given the current evidence, I do not accept the claim that bigfoot exists. Bigfoot exists is a positive claim. With a positive claim comes a burden of proof. That burden has not been met. Not accepting the claim, absent the required burden of proof, is not a claim in itself. Nor is it a denial of anything. I am simply saying that without meeting the burden of proof, I am not going to accept the claim that bigfoot exists based on the current evidence. If compelling evidence came along that met the burden of proof, then obviously I would accept the original claim. In the meantime, I don't believe that bigfoot does, in fact, exist. If bigfoot does not exist, then the evidence, as it were, must be explained by social construct. That bigfoot is a social construct is my provisional explanation based on the current evidence. One could call this a negative claim, I suppose. Negative claims do not carry a burden of proof. Edited September 2, 2015 by dmaker 3
hiflier Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Hello All, Just wondering if it isn't time to pin this thread yet.
BC witness Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 dmaker, I'd be in the same mindset as yourself, were it not for a series of 3 events, over a 4 year period, that occurred in my life about 35 years ago. I've detailed those elsewhere on the forum, so won't elaborate here, but will say that each thing built on, or confirmed the others, so I'm now a "knower", but I understand the stance of a true skeptic, and appreciate your contributions to the discussion here. As a "knower", I am doing my best, now that I have some free time in my life, to find that piece of confirming evidence that everyone is asking for, and have been fortunate enough to find a small group of like-minded folk in my area to join me (actually, they let me join them) in that effort. That group does include a true skeptic, a recognized author of several books of report collections, and several who have had unexplained encounters, short of clear daylight sightings, that they wish to find the explanation for. We are fortunate enough to live in that part of N.America that has the most likely habitat, the most native stories, and the highest concentration of reports (historical and modern) on the continent, so we have real hopes of finding real "proof". It would be nice to have adequate funding to spend more than token time (several day/evening field trips per month) in the search, but we do what we can with what we have.
Old Dog Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) There are people in this world, such as BCWitness and others, who really don't need a scientist to validate what they already know to be true. No amount of denier rhetoric will change what they know. Edited September 2, 2015 by Old Dog
Rockape Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 True Old Dog, but the "knowers" must understand many of us still doubt or outright disbelieve, and have good reason to.
hiflier Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Hello dmaker, And just to be clear, since this is the existence thread, I am not saying that bigfoot does not exist. I am saying that given the current evidence, I do not accept the claim that bigfoot exists. Bigfoot exists is a positive claim. With a positive claim comes a burden of proof. That burden has not been met. Not accepting the claim, absent the required burden of proof, is not a claim in itself. Nor is it a denial of anything. I am simply saying that without meeting the burden of proof, I am not going to accept the claim that bigfoot exists based on the current evidence. If compelling evidence came along that met the burden of proof, then obviously I would accept the original claim. In the meantime, I don't believe that bigfoot does, in fact, exist. If bigfoot does not exist, then the evidence, as it were, must be explained by social construct. That bigfoot is a social construct is my provisional explanation based on the current evidence. One could call this a negative claim, I suppose. Negative claims do not carry a burden of proof. I'm in agreement with everything you posted. In two paragraphs You summed up my position perfectly and why I hold it. BC Witness is one of those people though that in relating his history I lean toward being a proponent for existence. It may seem incongruous to hold seeming two realms of thought but for me it works out pretty OK. @ Bodhi, I'd be off topic to go into details 1
ShadowBorn Posted September 3, 2015 Moderator Posted September 3, 2015 Ok it was this report that made me go and start to investigate this creature existence. I had to find out for myself that they were real and yes I thought that I would be able to gain proof. But that was in 2001 when this report was fresh on the internet. I was within two weeks of the sighting and had an idea that the creature was some where in that area. I've talked some friends in going with me on a bigfoot hunt and they all laughed and so did I , skeptical as oh H****. I drove around the area with them in the farm areas , all of us from the city. I asked this farmer about Bigfoot and he just laughed at me.so I told him to have a great day and left. Well we then found this large area of forest that was public land. But it seemed like no one seemed to walk these trails since they were covered with brush. so we just pushed on. In this area is where I had my first encounter but not a sighting. The encounter was sounds that did not sound like normal animal sounds but more like an ape or a chimp. we were heading right towards it while we were in this thicket and we all at once decided to change our direction. We all felt like we were in danger and this was our first bigfoot investigation. We had no guns , no recording devices or cameras and neither video cameras. During the winter we went back to that area when the woods were more open and found a crude shelter: These are the pictures we took of the shelter on a ridge over looking these trails I have posted them before. You know that there is more then this that I have posted on this forum and you know the gauntlet that I/we went through. But there are still things that I cannot explain and maybe bringing in a body might explain that.
Recommended Posts