Bonehead74 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 The preponderance of evidence comes into play here. The disconnect comes when the two sides evaluate the proffered evidence. Those who believe that Bigfoot do/might exist place more weight on that evidence being true than those who believe that bigfoot do not exist. Those who know that bigfoot exist and those who believe that bigfoot can not exist are beyond reasoning with. Their worldview is fixed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 I believe we are in a dream and logical inconsistencies like giant hominids that can't be gotten ahold of are a pretty good indication. Kind of like the Dreamtime in Australia. and then Neo wakes up. The End. The absence of evidence should not be misconstrued for the evidence of absence, just sayin'... Cause you all know that a negative assertion cannot be proven. And a double negative is positive. Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 If you look inside a box for a known object and can't find, then you have proven to yourself it isn't there. An entity whose characteristics are mostly unknown is a different story. You would have to discount every possibility in order to determine it isn't there. That's what makes it impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aether-drift Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 The null hypothesis is where science begins. The statement "There is NOT a giant, hairy bipedal hominoid resembling Sasquatch living in the North American forests." So far, this statement has failed to have been falsified. It has withstood every test thrown at it for 50+ years. Rejecting the null is commonplace in science - but not in the BF world. Because most of Sasquatchery isn't science - it's believers posing as investigators. They take lots of low quality evidence and talk themselves into believing even more. If the NAWAC doesn't have a body by 2020, I'd say the thing doesn't exist. The population of Wolverines in the Sierra Nevada is < 5 and we have multiple game camera images. Why no game camera images at all of Sasquatch? And don't say these photos exist - everything I've seen online is crap. Meanwhile there are excellent shots of elk, puma, deer, etc. It really doesn't make sense if bigfoot is real that all these people fanning out across the country can't acquire a single good image with established chain of custody and provenance. I agree it's still possible Squatch exists, but the probability is less than one in a million. I would say one in ten million. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 (edited) You can only really say with certainty that an object is or is not in a given place at a given time, and only while observing it by some means. At a given time it may be in another place, or it may be in a given place at another time. But there are inherently unobservable objects whose existence we accept. We cannot catch and directly observe electrons. We can indirectly observe signs of their presence, tell where they've been, and predict the probability that they will occupy a certain point in space, but cannot predict when they will be there. We, as scientists, are comfortable with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle as applied to electrons and other unobservable phenomenae. We do accept their existence based on indirect evidence. Edited March 16, 2016 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic Raider Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 I'm actually a little curious, the title of this thread is Active Skeptics Where Is Your Evidence? What evidence should need to be provided by those who are skeptical of the existence of sasquatch or bigfoot? Evidence that makes me think the above is possible PGF is impossible for me to pass off as a hoax at this point in time - it looks real to me, checks lots of boxes and I can't explain it Footprint evidence that has convinced some scientists is persuasive to me Number and consistency of sighting reports is impressive Native American history and folklore is interesting as usually (though not always) these have some grounding in reality Evidence or lack thereof that makes me skeptical Lack of clear photographs and film apart from PGF is suspicious over this length of time Lack of fossil evidence of any similar creatures in N America is an issue for me The sheer scale of hoaxes and false reports are worrying The failure to obtain a specimen or even good evidence by groups like the NAWAC is troubling Amazing claims (such as habituators make) without anything to back them up weakens the case for me 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 As there are many skeptic on this forum, please show us your evidence/ proof that bigfoot/ almas/ yeti and yowies do not exist We are all ears, lets start with Crow This is the best indication I think that Bigfoot does not exist in the heart of Bigfootland... http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/5116-cascades-carnivore-project-how-do-they-miss-the-bigfoots/ Woods & Wildmen excuse mill activate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 The evidence that bigfoot does not exist is best expressed by the absence of evidence that should be present if bigfoot were a real animal. There should be proof by now. There should be plenty of biological evidence collected such as: orts, middens, hair, saliva, scat, blood, etc. There should be undeniable video and photographic evidence. There should be fossils and there should be cultural artifacts that are unmistakably bigfoot in origin. There is a long list of evidence that would be present if bigfoot was real. How do we know this? Because every other large North American mammal has left exactly the type of evidence described. Bigfoot simply cannot be so special that it avoids leaving any kind of objective evidence behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Only people leave cultural artifacts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 I am not a skeptic, just impartial, unbiased, neutral. If arguing against, the only evidence are a couple of videos from medium long distance that although compelling are not proof, an a science sense. There are rational explanations that cover no body, no fossils (acid wet environment does not preserve fossils), no artifacts (it is not commonly asserted that Bigfoot ever produced any artifacts) The fact you can't track any down and locate them is highly anomalous. More of a mystery than anything else. The best evidence are the foot casts, but again what does that prove as it is not substantive? You cannot prove something does not exist only that it is highly likely to not exist. That bar cannot be met either. Conclusion: you cannot confirm or deny so all those spending all their free time here doing just that are engaging in an exercise in futility. You know who you are I'm guessing the motive must be social and along the lines of entertainment. A game like tic tac toe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 I did not mean that bigfeets produce artifacts. I meant there would be art, sculptures, bone jewelry, bigfoot hide clothing, etc that were unmistakably bigfoot inspired, but created by humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 With real evidence, sceptics will be convinced they were wrong. With no evidence ever forthcoming, believers will never be convinced they were wrong. t. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted March 16, 2016 Moderator Share Posted March 16, 2016 (edited) Edit for correctness / thoroughness With real evidence, honest sceptics rather than scoffers will be convinced they were wrong. With no counter evidence ever forthcoming, believers will never be convinced they were wrong since that is based on the evidence they already have available. MIB Edited March 16, 2016 by MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Edit for correctness / thoroughness With real evidence, honest sceptics rather than scoffers will be convinced they were wrong. With no counter evidence ever forthcoming, believers will never be convinced they were wrong since that is based on the evidence they already have available. MIB Was this edit provided from Joe the bigfoot thru a mindspeak episode? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 (edited) I did not mean that bigfeets produce artifacts. I meant there would be art, sculptures, bone jewelry, bigfoot hide clothing, etc that were unmistakably bigfoot inspired, but created by humans. Well, you do have the Bukwas masks and a few others created by Northwest tribes, plus the Hairyman cave drawings. Others scattered worldwide also. http://hatch.kookscience.com/wiki/Wild_Man_legends Edited March 16, 2016 by Rockape 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts