Guest DWA Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 Neither one has solid evidence of being anything more than folklore , myth and wishful thinking. Not true. The evidence for sasquatch is as very scientifically solid as any true scientist could possibly want, the footprints alone solid forensic evidence compelling unto proof. That's not opinion. The mainstream simply refuses to examine what has been repeatedly thrust in its face; that's not opinion either. What I've just written is solidly documented fact. Gotta read it though. And here is where people's problems come in. No one who has demonstrated familiarity with it...disagrees with me. Another solidly documented fact. Shoot. I'd just want to read were I some folk.
Guest 67Mopar Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 Why would anyone who does not believe in the existence of Sasquatch, join this forum?
Patterson-Gimlin Posted September 13, 2015 Posted September 13, 2015 (edited) Neither one has solid evidence of being anything more than folklore , myth and wishful thinking. Not true. The evidence for sasquatch is as very scientifically solid as any true scientist could possibly want, the footprints alone solid forensic evidence compelling unto proof. That's not opinion. The mainstream simply refuses to examine what has been repeatedly thrust in its face; that's not opinion either. What I've just written is solidly documented fact. Gotta read it though. And here is where people's problems come in. No one who has demonstrated familiarity with it...disagrees with me. Another solidly documented fact. Shoot. I'd just want to read were I some folk. I am a scientist ,but not an expert in this field.The evidence is compelling, but not proven. Hopefully, soon that will not be the case. Edited September 13, 2015 by Patterson-Gimlin
MarkGlasgow Posted September 13, 2015 Posted September 13, 2015 (edited) Been away for a while but what a humdinger of thread to come back to! Let me also welcome Dmaker back to the fold. We may not always see eye to eye but your contributions are always valuable. I've been fascinated by this subject since I was a kid. Back then once I'd made the link between the sightings in the PNW and the creature reported in the truly terrifying (to an 8yr old at least!) Legend of Boggy Creek, I was hooked. I cannot say I'm a Bigfoot believer. I'm much more of a Bigfoot 'hoper'. I fully agree that there is nowhere near enough evidence to state for sure that the big guy exists. I do think however there is enough data out there to suggest the subject is worthy of further scrutiny. I'm sure our sceptical friends would agree. We'd all hate to think they were just here to tell us 'BF don't exist man!' Over and over and over.... For me the three main elements of BF data worthy of analysis are sighting reports, footprint casts/trackways and of course the PGF. Sighting Reports are casually dismissed by the sceptical minded. To light-heartedly summarise, all 50k incidents are either lies or bears. Where the all important evidence for this clinical conclusion comes from escapes me to this day. I personally don't have much interest in what is regarded as a 'Class B' encounter. Strange noises in the woods, no matter how compelling, simply do not confirm 100% conclusively that a Sasquatch was in the vicinity. I focus on the much smaller Class A pot. Even within this classification I'll dismiss sightings that: i) are viewed from a considerable distance ii) happen when light conditions are unfavourable iii) are a fleeting glimpse of something which 'could' have been a BF iv) just don't smell right or stack up in my view This takes our original 50k (or 10k if we count what is publicly made available) starting position down to roughly a few hundred cases. If the 40k unpublished pot of sightings have the same percentage of viable encounters then I'd very much like to see them. Are all the cases I've focused on outright lies and hoaxes? I've no idea. No one does. Is it likely? I'd say no, but by coming to this conclusion it suggests that there is a 7ft tall hairy hominid rocking around the forests of America. Hmmmm.... Next up is footprint 'evidence'. Again these are All hoaxed and Meldrum is just in it for the money according to the sceptical gallery. This is an area which I spend least time looking at. Hoping to put that right over the coming year. Anyone who has attended any of Jeff Meldrum's recent presentations can only be impressed by the possibilities but also by the frustrating limitations that a 'genuine' print/cast can offer. So is Meldrum just another guy looking to make a quick buck from this incredible multi-million dollar industry which is Bigfoot (lol)? Again evidence for this claim appears to be somewhat lacking but I can vouch for Meldrum's sheer energy and enthusiasm for the subject. This may be part of 'the act' of course but kudos to the guy for keeping it going for the last 20-30 years. Which finally brings me to the PGF. I actually spent most of life firmly of the belief the the footage was a hoax. Mainly due to the proliferation of expose documentaries back in the 80's which seemed to mostly feature our old friend Bob H. It's here the sceptics have it correct. Roger Patterson may not have been the most straight up guys you'll ever meet. Hence the focus on the cameraman and not the actual subject. Strange approach huh? But we all know why Roger has attracted so much more attention than Patty has, in skeptical circles at least. If we discount the guys who see zippers and shoulder pads, the subject of the film stands up to scrutiny incredibly well. Even after all this time. Even when we throw more and more technology and analysis at it. This brings me to another arch-enemy of the skeptical movement, Bill Munns. Bill is another guy who has been crucified and belittled by some for daring to look at the subject from a professional stand point. Anyone familiar with Bill's time spent on the Jref forum will wince when they recall some of the exchanges which took place. I soon discovered that there just as many 'wahoo' critical thinkers as there was 'out-there' bigfooters. So does Bigfoot exist? I'm sure we'll find out either way by the time this thread has run it's course... Edited September 13, 2015 by MarkGlasgow
wiiawiwb Posted September 13, 2015 Posted September 13, 2015 (edited) It's my belief that the average-Joe, amateur, field reseacher will make the final discovery. It will not come from the scientific community. They will come in after the riddle has ben solved. Edited September 13, 2015 by wiiawiwb
Rockape Posted September 13, 2015 Posted September 13, 2015 Why would anyone who does not believe in the existence of Sasquatch, join this forum? Because some of us still keep an open mind on the subject. Some with a closed mind still find it interesting and often add value to the conversation.
Guest Crowlogic Posted September 13, 2015 Posted September 13, 2015 Just sayin.... That looks like the Arvo machine. It was barely able to rise more than 3 feet from the ground and was unstable as well. Saucer shaped devices prior to the advent of small electric cells and high powered motors as in modern personal drones never worked well and certainly couldn't do what UFO saucer craft were said to do.
MIB Posted September 13, 2015 Moderator Posted September 13, 2015 Some with a closed mind still find it interesting and often add value to the conversation. The first, I can't argue with. Could you offer an example of the second? I can't recall any, however, I've only been here a couple years and it might have been before my time. Thanks! MIB
Rockape Posted September 13, 2015 Posted September 13, 2015 <Could you offer an example of the second? I can't recall any, however, I've only been here a couple years and it might have been before my time. Thanks!> I'll point to these two posts. I think Kit is doing a good job of parsing those reports. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/52083-where-you-think-bigfoot-does-not-exist/?p=926011 http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/52083-where-you-think-bigfoot-does-not-exist/?p=926049
norseman Posted September 13, 2015 Admin Posted September 13, 2015 (edited) Just sayin....That looks like the Arvo machine. It was barely able to rise more than 3 feet from the ground and was unstable as well. Saucer shaped devices prior to the advent of small electric cells and high powered motors as in modern personal drones never worked well and certainly couldn't do what UFO saucer craft were said to do.No. But this design was proposed by the same company (Avro).http://www.laesieworks.com/ifo/lib/AVRO-Silverbug.html And how would you know what or what did not work well with top secret aircraft? It's impossible to know, unless you work for the Air Force. Edited September 13, 2015 by norseman
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 13, 2015 Posted September 13, 2015 People were reporting UFOs and abductions before the wright brothers invented the first airplane. How does someone take those into account? Were they just hoaxes?
MIB Posted September 13, 2015 Moderator Posted September 13, 2015 <Could you offer an example of the second? I can't recall any, however, I've only been here a couple years and it might have been before my time. Thanks!> I'll point to these two posts. I think Kit is doing a good job of parsing those reports. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/52083-where-you-think-bigfoot-does-not-exist/?p=926011 http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/52083-where-you-think-bigfoot-does-not-exist/?p=926049 Guess we have a different idea of what constitutes a "valuable contribution." All I see there is manipulative snark. If you define manipulative snark as a valuable contribution towards understanding ... we're going to have to disagree. MIB 1
Rockape Posted September 13, 2015 Posted September 13, 2015 I think you have strange definition of manipulative snark. 1
Guest Crowlogic Posted September 13, 2015 Posted September 13, 2015 (edited) Just sayin....That looks like the Arvo machine. It was barely able to rise more than 3 feet from the ground and was unstable as well. Saucer shaped devices prior to the advent of small electric cells and high powered motors as in modern personal drones never worked well and certainly couldn't do what UFO saucer craft were said to do.No. But this design was proposed by the same company (Avro).http://www.laesieworks.com/ifo/lib/AVRO-Silverbug.html And how would you know what or what did not work well with top secret aircraft? It's impossible to know, unless you work for the Air Force. Avro was declassified and there is information about it. Has been for years. Anything using a ducted fan to form an air cushion is going to be a subsonic slug as was the Avrvo. The silverbug as shown is just such a ducted fan slug. People were reporting UFOs and abductions before the wright brothers invented the first airplane. How does someone take those into account? Were they just hoaxes? Have any links to reports of pre Wright alien abductions? There was the great airship sightings in the late 19th century. Edited September 13, 2015 by Crowlogic
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 13, 2015 Posted September 13, 2015 (edited) This is a report of an attempted abduction that happened in the late 1800's The November 19, 1896, edition of the Stockton, California, Daily Mail featured one of the earliest accounts of an alleged alien craft sighting. Colonel H.G. Shaw claimed that while driving his buggy through the countryside near Stockton, he came across what appeared to be a landed spacecraft. Shaw described it as having a metallic surface which was completely featureless apart from a rudder, and pointed ends. He estimated a diameter of 25 feet and said the vessel was around 150 feet in total length. Three slender, 7-foot-tall (2.1 m), apparent extraterrestrials were said to approach from the craft while "emitting a strange warbling noise." The beings reportedly examined Shaw's buggy and then tried to physically force him to accompany them back to the airship. The aliens were said to give up after realizing they lacked the physical strength to force Shaw onto the ship. They supposedly fled back to their ship, which lifted off the ground and sped out of sight. Shaw believed that the beings were Martians sent to kidnap an earthling for unknowable but potentially nefarious purposes. This has been seen by some as an early attempt at alien abduction; it is apparently the first published account of explicitly extraterrestrial beings attempting to kidnap humans into their spacecraft. There's some really old accounts listed here http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/caseview.asp?section=sortoldest Edited September 13, 2015 by OntarioSquatch
Recommended Posts