Squatchy McSquatch Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Yes. No you do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David NC Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Well Crowlogic, we finally get introduced to your redeemer from the belief in bigfoot. I read the whole thing, seems he cherry picks in a few places, Native Americans had teachings handed down about them, every Native American tribe. A lot of it I would have to agree with, it is a big mess. If I did not have my own experience I would not be involved in it now. I can understand your point of view on the subject. I do not know whether to wish you could have an experience or to wish you could just leave all of it behind. If you were to have an experience of your own then you would be in a different position but I can tell you that it is just as frustrating and aggravating if not more so than where you are coming from now. I just can wish you to Be Well whichever way and wherever you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Well Crowlogic, we finally get introduced to your redeemer from the belief in bigfoot. I read the whole thing, seems he cherry picks in a few places, Native Americans had teachings handed down about them, every Native American tribe. A lot of it I would have to agree with, it is a big mess. If I did not have my own experience I would not be involved in it now. I can understand your point of view on the subject. I do not know whether to wish you could have an experience or to wish you could just leave all of it behind. If you were to have an experience of your own then you would be in a different position but I can tell you that it is just as frustrating and aggravating if not more so than where you are coming from now. I just can wish you to Be Well whichever way and wherever you go. Actually I discovered the article today and posted it shortly after reading it. The telling points from my point of view is that it points out many of the same weaknesses in the case for bigfoot that I concluded independently of the the article. But can anyone say that the case for bigfoot is any stronger today than it was in 2002? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David NC Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 I did not know of their existence in 2002 being that my experience happened in the fall of 2012, but I would have to agree that the case does not look any stronger now than then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 This isn't going how I envisioned it would... It never does... They exist. You really want a knockdown drag out you need a contender with WOOO written on both gloves : ) . Shadowborn , you did'nt mention on what caused the said "split" . I will not create a macro so you will have to come here and reread this line :0 Everyone of the reports cannot be fake,hoax, misidentification. currently there are 4836 reports on the BFRO and that does not include the ones they keep private. I have read a lot of them and there are more than several that are from what anyone should call reputable people, people that reporting a Sasquatch sighting could possibly have repercussions on their life. Law enforcement officers, wildlife personnell, doctors phsycologists etc. The number above is not all the reports, I know of a half dozen just around me that have never been reported and I am sure I am not alone in that on this forum. There are some of the above as, we all know, hoaxes, mis id's, But for arguments sake sake ( I do not believe no where near this figure) That 99% are fake / mis id's that means just from the "known" BFRO reports that there are at least 48 Sasquatches running around out there. How can anyone look at the number of people that have came face to face with what that person knows was not a human and tell them that they are mistaken or lying. The math adds up in favor of Sasquatch all day long. argumentum ad numerum ^^^^ Note about Shadowborn's numbers .. he forgot a zero at the right. That should say upwards of 46 THOUSAND reports in the BFRO database, not 4600. Report # 48616 was just published. http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=48616 Very likely that number does include both the published and unpublished reports. If I were setting up a data base (whistling innocently) that's how I'd do it. MIB argumentum ad numerum Looks like we have another one line wonder. Nothing to support their view but one line quips, very original and thought provoking. I can write in that language to and my comment to you would be Ad Nauseam. David, I'm quite sorry I haven't lived up to your expectations. What do you expect this thread to be? I'm guessing it's going to be/devolve into the same back and forth and re-re-re-re-rehashing of the same old evidence and the same old opinions. Sasquatch may exist but if it does it doesn't display the characteristics of corporal animals. For that reason I find the PROBABILITY to be very nearly zero. The fallacy of looking at a large number of anecdotal reports and deciding that a large number of anecdotal equals real is happens here constantly and is just...fallacious. Same with those who just say that they cannot believe that all those who have reported could all be wrong. If this animal exists then it started arriving 35,000 years ago with the first land bridge and since that time has been spreading across the continent. In those 35,000 years not one bone of a dead animal has been located. Not even in places like the La Brea Tar Pits. No den site has ever been documented. No blood, hair,fur, teeth, dna, etc... has been documented. In addition no corporeal animal exhibits the collection of behaviors attributed to sasquatch, no animal has the range that is attributed to sasquatch. The fact that investigators report conflicting behaviors is a problem as are the conflicting claims regarding range. Some claim that sasquatch eschews man and prefers the wilderness but most claims are within 2 miles of a major road, with many directly next to a road or near human habitation. The idea of sasquatch would be more compelling if the range were less all encompassing, if the reported behaviors were consistent and not contradictory and if a single bone, hair or coprolite had been found at this point. To me, 35,000 years is a long time and the absence of any piece of those tangible, testable items is damning. The POSSIBILITY that the animal is real, in the sense that it reproduces, eats, voids, dies, exists to be sure but the PROBABILITY is very, very low for the reasons I've stated. This is my opinion. Again, I'm sorry my other posts didn't live up to your expectations. Please put me on ignore as I have done with you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) Sasquatch may exist but if it does it doesn't display the characteristics of corporal animals. Flat utterly and totally comprehensively contradicted by the evidence. It's left everything an animal leaves: urine feces bones blood placenta etc.... and you know, footprints, as easily and truly running to type as a whitetail deer's...or a gorilla's. Statements like this show the utterer to be wholly unfamiliar with the eyewitness testimony, which could not say more clearly: encounters in habitat with what appears to be a bidpedal, opportunist-omnivore hominoid primate. Unless you want to dump the experience of thousands for, um, Bodhi. The fallacy of looking at a large number of anecdotal reports and deciding that a large number of anecdotal equals real is happens here constantly and is just...fallacious. Statements like this show the utterer etc. Edited September 1, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) I don't believe that bigfoot exists given the current state of evidence. I don't believe that monkey stories equal monkey exists. The world is filled with stories, some of them very, very long standing, of things that do not exist. Some of these stories are even supported by witnesses and long oral traditions. Without supporting, objective physical evidence to support the stories, they remain stories. Stories are useless in scientific testing. They are neither repeatable or testable and are, therefore, not falsifiable. That is a simple fact. Some here may, nay will, argue otherwise in an effort to get people to believe that anecdotes represent strong evidence. The motive for this is obvious, but the fact remains that to proclaim anecdotes to be scientific evidence is simply incorrect. Any high school science student could tell you that much. It's not just the rather dubious state of current evidence that feeds my disbelief. There is a glaring absence of evidence that needs to be addressed. No body, no fossil record, no scat, no hair. None that has ever passed scientific scrutiny when tested. The results are always a common animal, synthetic, human or too degraded for positive result. And before someone chimes in with absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, let me ask you this. Do you think there are T-Rexes running around anywhere in the world right now? Your answer will undoubtedly be that no one is reporting t-rexes. Again, placing too much emphasis on anecdotes that lack supporting evidence. Focus on the testable evidence. That is what scientists do. They don't keep pointing to a mountain of untestable evidence to distract you from the truth. That is what conmen do, and charlatans, or people who are not confident in the physical evidence. I could go on, and most certainly probably will in the due course of this thread. I should add, that if any decent evidence ( physical, testable, objective) were to be produced and tested and yielded a result that supported the bigfoot claim, I would happily adjust my position. But right now, the way the evidence stands--the lack of evidence--and the ridiculous reported range and population of bigfoot, leads me to conclude that is nothing more than a popular, modern myth. Edited September 1, 2015 by dmaker 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 "I don't believe that bigfoot exists given the current state of evidence." I would add something like "released to the public" to the end of that. Totally agree that existence cannot be shown with current evidence that is available. But I think that the current evidence availalbe (however anecdotal) suggests additional thought and effort should be put into the investigation. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 ^^^Right. Putting credence enough to fully examine into something technically consistent *that thousands of non-technical people are reporting* only makes sense, given every other single bingle gingle zingle fact of our life here on this earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Really, Cotter? Conspiracy theory? I'm not touching that one. You believe the current evidence warrants an investigation? Ok, common enough position here, even among some of the more skeptical posters. My opinion is that enough effort has been put in. Evidence, when produced, has been tested over and over again. Every single time it fails to support the claim. In the arena of scientific evidence, bigfootery is batting zero. This is infinitely sustainable technically speaking. But at what point does it become feasible to predict that the next sample will, also, not support the bigfoot claim? Skepticism should not have to be a never ending wheel. At some point a skeptic is allowed to draw a conclusion, albeit it provisional or amenable in the face of new evidence. But isn't that the case with any scientific conclusion? New evidence can change how we view a topic. That is a good thing. I grew up being taught that Columbus discovered America. Obviously that is not true and is no longer written into new text books. A lot of thought and effort already goes into bigfoot. There are dozens and dozens of amateur bigfoot organizations out there. Every state has probably one or two at least. That adds up to a lot of people belonging to an organization whos main focus is studying bigfoot. Yet, we have zero objective evidence. There are professional scientists doing wildlife surveys in any given state or province on any given day, I am sure. Again, zero bigfoot evidence. What would this effort you speak of look like in your opinion? How is that you can only find bigfoot if you are looking for bigfoot? Except, of course, for the thousands of people who claim to have seen one while not looking for one. It' a bit of a paradox, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 "The question of whether the [Patterson] film is in fact a hoax or not is still open, but the claim that the film could not have been faked is demonstrably false."Here we have a failure to stay current and read what is available. In point of fact, Bill Munns' recent book, "When Roger Met Patty", effectively makes a for-now un-rebutted case of just the opposite conclusion: The film could not have been faked according to the sole person to weigh in with the specialized knowledge or experience in the field of film and costuming, after analyzing the images to a degree heretofore never attempted. (For good measure, Munns also throws in some subjective opinions about the nature of a hoaxer and the contradictions he sees for the conclusion the film was hoaxed..but that is beside my point). So, unless and until you are prepared to take Bill's conclusions on by rebutting them one by one...and he is on the record as stating he would welcome that...any who would advance this kind of rhetoric need to just take it off the table. It stands, at the present, to be a demonstrably false assertion. And where does that leave those who would dismiss this footage? In an uncomfortable crack, I would say. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 dmaker - you don't believe that corporations, government and military entities, and private interests keep things from the public? I grew up being taught that Columbus discovered America. Obviously that is not true and is no longer written into new text books. I'd be interested in hearing what is being taught in schools right now about 'who' discovered America. I'll bet they don't talk about a global copper market originating in Michigan in 3000 BC either.... What would this effort you speak of look like in your opinion? How is that you can only find bigfoot if you are looking for bigfoot? Except, of course, for the thousands of people who claim to have seen one while not looking for one. It' a bit of a paradox, no? I don't know. I'm not a professional animal scientists/observer/photographer. Have not been trained on it, have no experience in it. I would start by assembling experts in the field, sharing thoughts on what possibly we are up against (may even have to bring in survellience (sp?)/reconnesaince (sp?)/spy organizations as well, let the think tank come up with a plan. Call Donald Trump, and borrow a billion dollars. A lot of thought and effort already goes into bigfoot. There are dozens and dozens of amateur bigfoot organizations out there. All of this thought and effort by amateurs does not equate to even 1 scientific effort. (IMO) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Cotter, you say all of the current amateur effort does not equate to even one scientific effort right after you state that you have no idea what a scientific effort would look like. If you cannot articulate the difference then from where does your confidence come when proclaiming one to be vastly superior to the other? WSA, you should read your own posts after you post them perhaps. You wrote: "The film could not have been faked according to the sole person to weigh in with the specialized knowledge or experience in the field of film and costuming,... " My bolding. One person is enough for you? That sounds like bias happily swinging the door open as fast as can be. Do you believe Bill to be the only person in the world qualified to analyze the PGF? I would certainly hope not. Yet, in the absence of other, equally detailed investigations, you declare Bills opinion valid until proven otherwise. You dismiss out of hand other professionals who have commented that they believe the PGF to be fake. You seem undeterred by the fact that your sole opinion that put so much emphasis on has never been published in any mainstream scientific publication. When backing the sole horse in a race, it should take some of the wind out of your sails when you declare victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Find me another who has his experience, and done the work, then we'll talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 ^^^Right. Putting credence enough to fully examine into something technically consistent *that thousands of non-technical people are reporting* only makes sense, given every other single bingle gingle zingle fact of our life here on this earth. Right, because it takes so much expertise to fake a bigfoot report. Please. The hallmarks are simple enough to recognize. Bipedal, stinky, conical head, tree peeking, rock throwing, bluff charging, huffing, etc. Gee, that was hard. Besides, we all saw how great your " non-technical" skills were in separating fact from fiction back around April 1st, didn't we? :) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts