Do you have to see one before you can know they exist?

[wiiawiwb]

It would be interesting to get the photographer and go back to the spot it was taken. Have someone stand in the same spot and take that picture and compare.

[WV FOOTER]

Here is a Link regarding the Squatch Photo. http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=55583

[Whistler]

I’m a believer (99.9%err), but to get that last 0.1% (knower).. I’d have to see one with my own two eyes... 

[WSA]

Indeed that report had some great content....one of the best. My refresh confirmed that there were no photos published of any prints in the snow. For whatever reason. 

[JKH]

Wow, look at the shoulder mass!

[OkieFoot]

On 9/4/2018 at 2:14 PM, PBeaton said:

To truly know they exist, I'll say yes, least for myself. However, havin' not seen one, I'm still of the opinion they exist based on the evidence.

 

 

I look at it the same way; to know for certain they exist, I would have to see one for yourself. My belief is based on "weight of the evidence". To me, there have been far too many sightings over a long period of time (1-2,000(?) to all be fabricated stories. And too many tracks too long and wide for humans, with some showing toe impressions and some in remote areas, for all be hoaxed. 

 

 

 

[Homer666]

I believe enough that I would rather have my "non-believer" wife see one.

 

I agree with Okiefoot.  It seems highly unlikely to me that every eyewitness is either a hoaxer, the victim of a hoax or simply misidentified another animal.  Same with footprints - all are fake or a double bear print, etc?  For me it comes down to numbers of sightings and types of sightings.  A friend brought up how there are x number of sightings of leprechauns yet I don't believe in them - my response was I don't believe there is a fossil record, a green clothed very little person doesn't fit into any taxonomy, and there are many more bigfoot sightings - etc - so I am not just blindly accepting sightings without some independent thought.

 

(and yes, I understand that the bigfoot skeptics will also argue fossil record and taxonomy, but a North American great ape sure as heck seems more plausible scientifically than the Lucky Charms dude).

 

H

Edited September 11, 2018 by Homer666
clarification

[hiflier]

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 3:32 PM, NatFoot said:

Maybe some of us are just waiting for someone else to do the hard work and get lucky by bagging one of these beasts and beating the .gov to national media sources that can't be ignored or undone?

 

If any one thinks the government is anywhere near aware of these creatures then they need to sit down and think long and hard about why we do not have a Sasquatch publicly on a slab. And if the government does not want public discovery by anyone trying to bring such a creature in then one has to also think long and hard about what lengths a government would go to in order to make sure it does not happen........and HOW the government would go about it. I have said on several occasions that unless an individual or group becomes a 'digital ghost' (as in completely OFF the digital grid) then any chance of securing a voucher specimen, or even a piece of one, and getting it to science anywhere will be virtually impossible.

 

(P.S. I cover this in my tiny 88 page book along with many other things including a chapter on 'To Shoot Or Not To Shoot')  

Edited September 11, 2018 by hiflier

[Guest jmdawg]

I'm a believer, but only through the massive amount of evidence and encounters of others. I've yet to have a sighting or be able to collect any evidence of my own. I don't think seeing one myself would do much for my belief in the existence of BF. I believe they exist based on there being no other answer to "what was it" when examining the thousands of videos, pictures, casts, structures, vocalizations, knocks, etc., etc. I don't need to see one myself to answer that confidently with "it was Bigfoot."

[gigantor]

8 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

 

To me, there have been far too many sightings over a long period of time (1-2,000(?) to all be fabricated stories.

 

 

Yup, some 5600. Of those, about 2900 are classified in the SSR database.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Homer666 said:

I don't believe there is a fossil record, a green clothed very little person doesn't fit into any taxonomy

 

Maybe not green clothed, but there is H. Floresiensis

 

4 hours ago, Homer666 said:

I understand that the bigfoot skeptics will also argue fossil record and taxonomy

 

There is Gigantopithecus

 

 

 

[Redbone]

1 hour ago, gigantor said:

 

Yup, some 5600. Of those, about 2900 are classified in the SSR database.

Something is amiss with those images. There are 5100 BFRO reports alone that have all been classified. How is there only 2923 showing in the pie charts?

[PBeaton]

An lets not forget, how many sightings go unreported.  

[NCBFr]

On 9/10/2018 at 7:05 PM, Whistler said:

I’m a believer (99.9%err), but to get that last 0.1% (knower).. I’d have to see one with my own two eyes... 

 

Have you ever seen an electron?

[TritonTr196]

That's an on the fence question for me. After having numerous encounters over the years and having seen them during the nighttime in several different states, and had encounters during the daytime and seeing a shaggy blur going behind some trees, I've still never said I've seen one. Even the daytime shaggy blur which I fully well knew what it was, it wasn't enough for me to say I've seen one. Sure I've seen them on thermals, but until I actually see one in the daytime, Be it a head view, torso view, side shot, or all of those at once, I'm still not saying I've seen one even though I have. I just need a full daytime shot for me to say I've "actually seen" one. Seeing them on thermals is seeing them of course, but not in great enough detail to learn anything about them other than their size and behavior patterns in the dark. Thermal doesn't tell me what color they were, or their type of hair, or their facial features, ect. Which is information our research team needs. And the thermal it doesn't help us any other than letting us know they are around to video them, otherwise thermals just shows us information we already have. Thermals aren't research tools btw, they are simply tools to let us know when a real life monster is too close for comfort in the dark of the night... So yea, I've seen them but I haven't see them if you get my point.

Edited September 12, 2018 by TritonTr196

[OkieFoot]

gigantor, thanks for filling in on numbers of sightings. I was thinking there were considerably more than a couple of thousand or so but I wasn't certain. Over 5,000 makes it even more unlikely, as Homer mentioned, that every one of them is either making up fake sightings or is misidentifying or is being fooled by a hoaxer. 

 

This is just a side comment, I don't want to steer things away from the original topic. In the "Sightings by State" chart, something I thought was interesting were the number of sightings for Texas and Illinois; they both ranked higher than I would have guessed. 

On 9/5/2018 at 7:40 PM, Caenus said:

I have seen them. I did not believe they truly existed prior, it was more of an academic/field exercise. 

 

Caenus, there have been a few witnesses in the BFRO reports that have said the same thing. They stated they were skeptical of Bigfoot's existence, until they actually saw one for themselves. Then they became believers.

Seeing one with your own eyes is the best evidence.