Bigfoot: Does It Exist? Or Not?

[roguefooter]

 

Or knowledge.....

 

 

Or faith.....

 

Stroud witnesses strange lights in the sky during his encounters just like other people have in the past. If people claim that repeating anecdotal evidence is worth something then why not this?

 

For all we know the Government could be responsible for both strange objects in the sky and Bigfoot sightings- messing with people for fun, just because they can. Which brings up Government conspiracies- more repeating anecdotal evidence in the Bigfoot world.

 

The Bigfoot thing is definitely not clear cut when you really look into the evidence.

Edited September 16, 2015 by roguefooter

[Rockape]

 

^^^ Do you believe there may still be a population of T-Rex running around?  No?  Why not?

 

There are some sightings of mini t-rex  in the four corners area. There are also reports of other bi-pedal dinosaur type animals from other places.

 

http://s8int.com/articles/157/19/dino7.html

 

 

I offered to show him my T-Rex photo, but I don't think he believed me.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Rockape

[norseman]

Well when I track a Bigfoot to a UFO landing zone? I'll call you first and apologize, ok?

I'm done talking UFO's with you.

[ShadowBorn]

"Go there and one should find this."   This has not worked for bigfoot. Despite your affection for NAWAC and others, none of them have ever produced any tangible evidence that can be directly linked to an unclassified primate in North America

 

 You know I agree with this but with the exception that when one has a encounter, that the encounter has evidence that backs up that encounter. That when you investigate the report that there is evidence of a creature was involve. This is how these cases should be treated at a level of pure skeptism until proven other wise.

 

I never went into this trying to prove this to anyone else but my self. If some of you could be some what open and test what some have tried we might be a lot closer then where we are at now. The proof is out there in our wilderness of North America and these creatures are roaming through out the US in places that people might not think they are there. The signs are there and if you sit still you will hear it.

[roguefooter]

 

^^^ Do you believe there may still be a population of T-Rex running around?  No?  Why not?

 

There are some sightings of mini t-rex  in the four corners area. There are also reports of other bi-pedal dinosaur type animals from other places.

 

http://s8int.com/articles/157/19/dino7.html

 

 

They even have a fossil record. What do you think that adds to the reality of their modern existence?

 

Does it add credibility or give their modern existence any likelihood?

Edited September 16, 2015 by roguefooter

[AaronD]

There were giant skeletons discovered near my home as well--same thing, "officials" came and got em, never heard of again.....convenient

[norseman]

^^^ Do you believe there may still be a population of T-Rex running around?  No?  Why not?

 

There are some sightings of mini t-rex  in the four corners area. There are also reports of other bi-pedal dinosaur type animals from other places.

 

http://s8int.com/articles/157/19/dino7.html

 

They even have a fossil record. What do you think that adds to the reality of their modern existence?

 

Does it add credibility or give their modern existence any likelihood?

65 million years vs. tens of thousands of years?

[Lake County Bigfooot]

The fact that individuals of all walks of life, many who have no inclination toward belief in such a creature happen

to witness something they have not seen before, nor have any explanation for, the consistency of their descriptions, the

geographical relevance of the locations, and the sheer number of reports, surely it is worth considering that these creatures may and do exist...

BFRO Recent report from Mass. near Vermont border on Hwy. 7

Spoke with 72 year-old female witness via telephone. Witness states she was a passenger in the front seat of their large motor home with her husband driving, traveling about 40 mph. She looked to the left out thru the windshield and observed a tall black, bipedal creature walking a steady pace in an open field, height estimated at 9 ft. It was a 4-5 second brief observation. Witness described the creature as very large on two feet with long arms down by its sides. Walking a smooth steady pace and heading in the same direction as her, North. At this location the Hoosic River runs along this route as well. There was a tree line it was heading towards. The creature was about 150 yards away from their vehicle and she got a clear, brief look at it. The distance of 50 yards mentioned is the amount of distance the creature was from the edge of the highway. She compares what she observed to the subject in the Patterson-Gimlin film.

A motorist reported a sighting not far from this location, see BFRO Report #46780. The other sighting on Route 7 that they refer to can be found on the Bigfoot Encounters website, and occurred in Vermont, see Man spots 'Bigfoot'.

During the entire interview witness and husband were articulate, polite and constant with their replies. This investigator will follow up with a site visit as I am very familiar with the location and will update this report accordingly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

t....

Edited September 16, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[norseman]

Or knowledge.....

 

Or faith.....

 

Stroud witnesses strange lights in the sky during his encounters just like other people have in the past. If people claim that repeating anecdotal evidence is worth something then why not this?

 

For all we know the Government could be responsible for both strange objects in the sky and Bigfoot sightings- messing with people for fun, just because they can. Which brings up Government conspiracies- more repeating anecdotal evidence in the Bigfoot world.

 

The Bigfoot thing is definitely not clear cut when you really look into the evidence.

How do you propose that the US government is responsible for bigfoot sightings?

[roguefooter]

 

65 million years vs. tens of thousands of years?

 

 

65 million years made no difference when it came to other cryptids like the Loch Ness monster. Why is it a problem now?

 

How do you propose that the US government is responsible for bigfoot sightings?

 

 

I don't. That was just an example of 'fringe' claims being made in the Bigfoot world that tend to get filtered out.

Edited September 16, 2015 by roguefooter

[dmaker]

The fact that individuals of all walks of life, many who have no inclination toward belief in such a creature happen

to witness something they have not seen before, nor have any explanation for, the consistency of their descriptions, the

geographical relevance of the locations, and the sheer number of reports, surely it is worth considering that these creatures may and do exist...

 

No. You are basing your entire supposition on something that CANNOT be known. The truth of an anecdote is impossible to verify. They have no place in any discussion dealing with scientific evidence. 

 

Why will people here never grasp the concept that the plural of anecdote is not proof?  Boggles my mind. 

[Guest DWA]

"Go there and one should find this."   This has not worked for bigfoot. Despite your affection for NAWAC and others, none of them have ever produced any tangible evidence that can be directly linked to an unclassified primate in North America

 

 Well, sure it has.  The guys that did it, found them.  Does it matter that you personally don't have proof of that?  No.  Scientists confirming saola were sure it existed long before you and I knew anything about it.  All NAWAC is doing is engaging in what, to them, is a mere formality:  proving it to the mass of people that haven't been paying attention.

 

I do the same thing with this that you, I and everyone do with every other scientific topic.  Is there a good reason to doubt them?  No?  Then why doubt them?  The thing that I have explained over and over here, and folks still seem not to be getting, is that this is not the same thing as believing it's been proven.  (I believe that for other reasons, purely scientific ones.)  I simply don't have reason to doubt you.  So I don't go around calling you a liar or mistaken.  I wait for your proof,  if I still need that.  But I don't think you're lying to me.  You have to give me a reason for that.  All of us have lived long lives that confirm, over and over, that this is the best way to go about it.

 

If I've seen a deer, I've seen it.  Don't have to prove it to anybody.  Saw it.  Same with a fox; same with a sasquatch.

Edited September 16, 2015 by DWA

[dmaker]

If I've seen a deer, I've seen it.  Don't have to prove it to anybody.  Saw it.  Same with a fox; same with a sasquatch; same with a unicorn; same with an alien; same with a leprechaun.

 

 

^^ The logic remains consistent with your original statement. Which is pretty much the core of your argument. An argument designed to ignore the lack of physical evidence and focus on the anecdotal. If someone says they saw something, then they saw it.  Except you don't like it when that logic is extended to phenomena that you are uncomfortable sharing a seat with. Too bad. It's your logic, deal with it.

 

 

These guys that found bigfoots, in your words, they have no proof either.  They have hickory nuts and stories. Terribly compelling. 

 

 

"I do the same thing with this that you, I and everyone do with every other scientific topic.  Is there a good reason to doubt them?"

 

Yes. Very good reason to doubt. The lack of any shred of verifiable evidence after this long is one gigantic reason to doubt anyone who claims to have seen or interacted with a sasquatch. The fact that no one can manage to produce one iota of testable evidence that supports the claim. The fact that people are known to make mistakes in perception regularly. The fact that evidence does not exist where one would expect to find that evidence. The fact that people lie and play games regularly. The fact that people do suffer from conditions that produce false events and images in the brain. The fact that every type of bigfoot evidence has been hoaxed at one point or another in the past 50 years. 

 

All of those add up to some very good reasons to doubt any bigfoot story.

Edited September 16, 2015 by dmaker

[JDL]

Point is that your counterarguments remain specious.

 

There's plenty of evidence out there, and when assembled it doesn't add up to a body, but it sure enough adds up to a silhouette of an extant hominid where one is indicated to be.  When someone does drag in a body it'll fit nicely into that spot.

Edited September 16, 2015 by JDL

[JDL]

There is, in fact, evidence that the government has suppressed evidence of giant skeletons and cultural artifacts going back to the latter half of the 1800s.

 

FarArcher had a good post and referred to things being sent into the Smithsonian black hole.  This is not conjecture, it actually became a matter of policy (The Powell Doctrine) for political reasons not long after the Civil War.  At the time there was a body of contemporary evidence building from investigation of Indian Mounds that a species of giants had existed in North America and that there was interaction with the Old World that predated Columbus.  There was an active counter effort by Thomas Powell, the first Director of the Smithsonian's Bureau of Ethnology to suppress any of this emerging school of thought for three reasons:

 

1.  To contravene any counterclaims to the doctrine of Manifest Destiny.

2.  To contravene, in an attempt to limit their growing strength, any evidence that could be construed to support the Mormon doctrine that Biblical figures had visited North America or that lost tribes had migrated to North America prior to Columbus.

3.  To portray Native Americans as nothing more than aboriginal to morally justify by contemporaneous standards their resettlement and the confiscation of their lands.​

 

I am reposting below a post I made to a Giants thread during discussion of the Book "Giants in America" by Richard Dewhurst.  I will also bump that thread back up for the enjoyment of new members.

 

 

"In reading about the Powell Doctrine on pages 5 - 12, the dismissal of American archeological finds seems pretty overt.

For those who don't yet have the book, Major John Wesley Powell was a geologist and explorer. After the Civil War, he occupied himself by exploring, most notably the Colorado River from Wyoming to the end of the Grand Canyon. His expedition, as the first to officially explore the Grand Canyon, complete with a photographic record, was famous. In 1879, Powell was appointed as head of the Smithsonian's new Bureau of Ethnology, and held that position until his death in 1902.

Powell's first report to the Secretary of the Smithsonian was titled "On Limitations to the Use of Some Anthropologic Data". In it he commented that "the uses to which the material has been put have not always been wise". Up until then such material had been shared freely without restriction, to include the conclusions of those researching the material, who frequently theorized, based on the artifacts they were finding, that there had been contact between ancient cultures from Europe and the Mediterranean, and the Americas. Powell specifically objected to the use of the information to connect Native American culture to "...so-called races of antiquity in other portions of the world".

I don't want to stray into political or religious ground here, but I will point out for purely historical context that at that time there was a rapidly growing religion based in the American West founded upon the belief that there had been contact between Native Americans and a person of antiquity from another portion of the world. Also, the concept of manifest destiny was in full bloom, which was, in part, predicated on the right to displace "primitive" native cultures. The author suggests that Powell did not want to elevate the status of Native Americans by promoting contact with, or descent from "lost tribes". Powell himself states that "...there is no need to search for extra-limital origin through lost tribes...". He then singles out artifacts that he considers primitive from the American Southwest and states that it is improbable that anything found anywhere else in America would be any more valuable.

One of Powell's statements that I find most damning is "A brief review of some conclusions that must be accepted in the present status of the science will exhibit the futility of these attempts.", (connecting Native American culture to contact with "so-called races of antiquity"). Note that his statement is heavily qualified by a "brief" review of "some" conclusions that "must be accepted" in the "present" status of the science to pronounce such study "futile". This subjective position is not in consonance with the Smithsonian's original objective purpose to "increase the diffusion of knowledge among men". The statement is also self-contradicting because it refers to the "present status of the science", but hampers its advancement by subjectively limiting further study in certain areas. If what he believed to be futile is futile, then it would prove itself futile on its own.

The "Powell Doctrine" remains in force today even as contact with some of those races of antiquity becomes increasingly evident.

To me, there is sufficient cause to hypothesize the past existence of an extinct race of very tall people with its own culture in North America. I will also note that recent DNA findings in Europe show that a genetically different race of humans (non-Neanderthal) once occupied Europe and have since disappeared (died out?) prior to the inward migration of the current human inhabitants (just read the article before coming to this site, and find that the link is now gone from the news site where I found it. I'll have to dig up the source article later).

It makes me wonder.

Did a race of people of large stature with their own culture once exist?
Did they exist in both Europe and the Americas?
If so, what caused them to die off?

When ancient lore refers to "giants in the earth" in those days, or asserts that a given structure was built by giants, are they simply referring to this putative extinct race of people?"

​