If Bigfoot Were Real.

[MIB]

Even after you do see one with your own eyes, the scoftics will still call it a belief or a delusion or a lie.   Been there done that.   Be prepared to be ridiculed just like everyone else who has seen one is.   You're not going to get special treatment.

 

MIB

[SWWASAS]

DWA:   "I know.  No rational person bets that one either.  All one needs to do to get to the rational presumption that these animals are authentic...is approach it objectively."       The difference between skeptics and those  proponents who are either witnesses or had "it could only have been BF" encounters is location,  luck and time spent in the field.    I do not get the impression from any skeptic here on the forum that they have spent significant time in the field in a region where BF are at all common.    One can see where they could come to the conclusion that nothing is there to see where they live,  but that does not mean that applies to the whole country.   In the PNW sightings are so common that if you ask around,   you will frequently find someone that has had a sighting or knows someone that has.   I do not think that happens in most parts of the country where sightings are very rare.     It is a whole lot easier here to be open to the possibility of existence.   

[Rockape]

 

 

If Bigfoot were real I would feed them cookies.

You're more likely to catch a Bobo Fey doing that.

 

Once again  I appreciate your perpestive.  I would bet on your  explanations. I am a scientist  and have concluded  that  the creature does not exist.  I so wish it did. . Sadly, it does not.

 

 

Well, I'm not ready to say it does or doesn't exist. It's like ex-member Cervelo used to say, 90% of the evidence is pure crap.

 

I agree with him. But that 10% that can't easily be explained away to my satisfaction is what keeps me in the "it might exist" camp.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

If Bigfoot were real, beef ribs wouldn't be so surprisingly expensive and BigFoot Burgers wouldn't be made out of ground chuck  

[Terry]

I used to be hopeful but that's pretty well gone for me.  If I was forced to bet a pay cheque,  I'd say no such thing.

 

t.

[xspider1]

I'm a bit surprised that article made it to puplication in Scientific American myself.  It seems that, pro or con, that could have been a lot better.  Most of Science seems spoiled to using cookie-cutter approaches when describing animals.  That doesn't seem to work with Bigfoot any better than it does with humans.

 

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

We used to think the lock ness monster was real or how about mokele mbembe (african sauropod).

Both are easily debunked by trained scientists (won't bother with the logic here).

Lot of similarity, blobby pictures, endless stories of sightings, many witnesses.

Can Bigfoot be far behind?

 

I'm still pulling for the big feller, though.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[Incorrigible1]

For such a massive creature, they seem to leave the biological indicators of a church mouse. Their food-gathering requirements should leave beaucoups telltale sign, and be a dead giveaway to their presence. No wonder some are tempted by thoughts of portals and dimension-jumping. It's the only way to explain away the lack of biological indicators.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

He leaves cookie crumbs.

[Guest DWA]

I used to be hopeful but that's pretty well gone for me.  If I was forced to bet a pay cheque,  I'd say no such thing.

 

t.

If I were forced to bet all my possessions...I'd bet, real.

 

I'd have to.  I don't go against the clear direction of the evidence.  

 

I think the problem here is that most people don't have sufficient interest in the topic to do the basic reading, never mind the requisite sifting and reflection.  They wait for the HOAX?  of the month, talk about it for a bit, and then wait for the next HOAX? of the month.  That won't go anywhere.  One has to do it the way a scientist does:  dive in, both feet, and devour whatever one can.  And then spend time, lots of it, squaring it with what life has taught one about people, animals, information and the wild.

 

The topic may be unique, but science gets here all the time:  the thing that only the people who have seen it, or thought about it, know.

[MIB]

I used to be hopeful but that's pretty well gone for me.  If I was forced to bet a pay cheque,  I'd say no such thing.

 

You can't win that one even if you were right, the closest  you could get is not losing yet.  Can't prove negative existence, you can only prove you didn't find anything.  Equating the two requires invalid logic.   If I were going to take that bet I'd play lawyer and find some way to word it so that I could win. 

 

The thought behind your choice certainly is a thing we all should ponder in own ways.   I know they're there, I've seen what I've seen.  So how, and why, and all that, do we not have proof?   I'm not deliberately heading for the rabbit hole but if the tracks lead there I will follow.   Real science doesn't refuse to examine uncomfortable evidence.   But .. yeah .. how (not), and why (not) ... (yet) ... that's a real puzzle.   Somewhere, somehow, our assumptions, maybe assumptions we aren't aware of making, are misleading us causing us to look in the wrong place, not notice something obvious ... or something.   We need to get a better grasp of all the things we assume and recheck their validity.   I think 'til we do that, we're going to stay stuck with no further progress.

 

MIB

Edited July 5, 2016 by MIB

[Guest DWA]

Right.  Anyone forcing that bet on you is desperate; he'll come up with (most likely) a Date By Which Proof...and 150 codicils provisions and chants to get around any problems.

 

Then...the proof comes in, the next day.

 

So it is with the scoftic fringe.  WHEN WILL YOU ADMIT DEFEAT!!?!!?!?!?!?  they screech.  Why?  Science awaits evidence that the search will bear no fruit.  That would be....wellp, I can sure tell you this:  it will be some date AFTER science *starts looking.*  Let me know when the search starts...and you have at least a century after that before you'll get a dime from me or my heirs and assigns.

 

How.Science.Works.  Chapter six million.

[Guest DWA]

Now.  As to why we don't have proof, well, there are lots of things about which we as a species seem to be in abject denial.  And this is one of them.

[salubrious]

Are you not bothered by the simple fact that most sightings occur  where the bear population is the highest. The PNW for example.

I spend a lot of time in the great outdoors of Florida. The weather is realatively good year around. A friend of mine who is a wild life officer tells me that most sightings here are by tourists. Rarely by locals. Once again this points to bears and wishful thinking.

 

The ones I saw were in Colorado near the town of Ridgeway. I don't think that is considered bear country. Despite that, when I saw them I did spend some time looking at their heads which I could see in side profile. There was no snout- that was the first thing that really caused me to think I was seeing something weird.

 

Actually I think it might have been more frightening if they really were bears because if that is what they were, then bears in the lower 48 can get a lot larger than anyone had any idea!

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Yes, I have spoken to you about your sighting. I believe you are a sincere man and truly believe what you saw. However, the mind is a very complex thing. We can see  and remember things that are not exactly as the way we remembered. Especially as we get older.The size is often exaggerated in times of fear as well. 

I hear complaints about Mr  Gimlin's  story changing . I am sure it is unintentional. That is just one example.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Patterson-Gimlin