And you Dont Believe

[sasysquatchgirl]

And you DON'T Believe in Bigfoot?!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Irreligious Survivalist]

SSG, you produce indelicate matters delicately! I enjoy! ty,

IR

 

[Bob Watson]

No hair samples. No stool samples. No body. Every Bigfoot body is fake. Every photo is fake.
Case closed.

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk

 

[Han]

And you DON'T Believe in Bigfoot?!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does 'Bigfoot' use tools?

 

[Han]

No hair samples. No stool samples. No body. Every Bigfoot body is fake. Every photo is fake.
Case closed.

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk

I don't think it is case closed at all.
But I agree 100% about the fake bodies and hairs etc

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

I don't think it is case closed at all.
But I agree 100% about the fake bodies and hairs etc

As Uncle Stanton loves to say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

We humans tend to succumb to the idea that "everything that isn't proven must be unreal." That's ultimately just a thinly veiled conceit, i.e. "if it were real then I'd know all about it!"

But just in my own lifetime, I've watched the subject of ball lightning go from that of a ridiculed myth scoffed at by "the scientific community," to an accepted fact. What really turned it all around? A single clear photograph taken by a guy (in Japan, iirc) who just happened to have his camera in hand when ball lightning floated right over his garage. Then in 2013 researchers at the US Air Force Academy succeeded in making small plasma balls in the lab using microwaves. And finally in 2014 the formation of ball lighting in nature was accidentally caught on film with a high-speed camera, ending centuries of highly contentious debate.

The same process is underway right now regarding anomalous aerial vehicles. After my own sighting as a 7-year-old boy, I obviously knew that ufo's were real, though their origin (military or extraterrestrial or something else) remained unknown. So I went to the library and began studying the literature about it, and as I went through the "paranormal" books and various articles about such subjects, I noticed other things like ball lighting and spontaneous human combustion - which were also being subjected to the same smarmy and cynical treatment by the disbeliever community. By the age of eight I understood that when a large and disparate group of credible people report the same kind of experiences, something is actually happening, and yet the "academic consensus" will viciously attack them and mock their claims.

And over the years I've noticed that there are no consequences for those miserable people who laughed in the faces of all those good folks honestly reporting the things that they've actually experienced. If you make a claim that you can't prove, then your career and your life is likely to be hobbled or destroyed by such people, who are common, mundane, uninsightful, and generally extremely wicked - people like Philip Klass. But even after these people are proven wrong for attacking honest claimants, there are no consequences whatsoever - their lives and careers go right on without the slightest inconvenience.

I find that to be one of the greatest and most infuriating injustices of our civilization because it's everywhere, all the time, and nobody even questions it.

 

[marduk]

As Uncle Stanton loves to say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

And you know as well as I do that statement is totally irrational.

Absence of evidence - when you look for it - is indeed evidence of absence.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

And you know as well as I do that statement is totally irrational.

Absence of evidence - when you look for it - is indeed evidence of absence.

That logic only applies when a search is comprehensive and definitive. For example, in particle collider experiments where you can collect the entire data set and determine whether any new by-products are being created at specific energy levels.

But it doesn't apply in situations where a comprehensive data collection effort hasn't been conducted. For example, it's virtually impossible to study the entire ocean, so it's impossible to definitively rule out reports of some exotic variety of fish: we thought that the coelacanth had been extinct for 66 million years, until somebody caught one in 1938. Lots of people had been fishing in those waters for a very long time, but our knowledge was nevertheless insufficient to draw a conclusion one way or another, until we eventually had the proof in our hands.

Similarly, huge swaths of territory all over North America and elsewhere could harbor an as-yet-undiscovered bipedal primate. Especially when we consider the possibility that they might have a significant level of intelligence, perhaps akin to that of our Australopithecus ancestors, and actively evade us. Think of it this way - if you grew up in the woods among a small tribe that feared and loathed other humans, so you all actively evaded detection, could you? I think that you probably could. Now imagine that your senses of hearing and smell were sharper than that of homo sapiens: you'd have a substantial edge for successful evasion - you could easily leave the area undetected when the constantly yapping and universally blundering, smelly humans came crunching through the woods in your direction.

I think it's very unlikely that a large higher primate could've escaped detection up to this point, but I don't think that anyone can completely rule it out, given the unknown factors that may be at work like sharpened hearing and/or olfactory senses, and an unknown level of intelligence and/or aversion to contact with human beings. I tend to assume that most Bigfoot reports are simply people who are either crazy or just turned their back on civilization for some reason, which Micah Hanks wrote about in this article which mentions a number of such reports.

If we could monitor entire forests with infrared satellite surveillance at night, and found no signs of bipedal creatures roaming around in there, then I'd say that we had ruled it out. But I seriously doubt that any conclusive scientific investigation of that kind has ever taken place.

And until that happens, I don't think it's rational to jump the gun and assume that there's nothing strange going on in the swamps and forests where these reports keep popping up. Lots of credible people have reported very similar sightings of something, so it seems likely that something is out there - but human or primate, I have no idea. Maybe both.

 

[marduk]

That logic only applies when a search is comprehensive and definitive. For example, in particle collider experiments where you can collect the entire data set and determine whether any new by-products are being created at specific energy levels.

But it doesn't apply in situations where a comprehensive data collection effort hasn't been conducted. For example, it's virtually impossible to study the entire ocean, so it's impossible to definitively rule out reports of some exotic variety of fish: we thought that the coelacanth had been extinct for 66 million years, until somebody caught one in 1938. Lots of people had been fishing in those waters for a very long time, but our knowledge was nevertheless insufficient to draw a conclusion one way or another, until we eventually had the proof in our hands.

Similarly, huge swaths of territory all over North America and elsewhere could harbor an as-yet-undiscovered bipedal primate. Especially when we consider the possibility that they might have a significant level of intelligence, perhaps akin to that of our Australopithecus ancestors, and actively evade us. Think of it this way - if you grew up in the woods among a small tribe that feared and loathed other humans, so you all actively evaded detection, could you? I think that you probably could. Now imagine that your senses of hearing and smell were sharper than that of homo sapiens: you'd have a substantial edge for successful evasion - you could easily leave the area undetected when the constantly yapping and universally blundering, smelly humans came crunching through the woods in your direction.

I think it's very unlikely that a large higher primate could've escaped detection up to this point, but I don't think that anyone can completely rule it out, given the unknown factors that may be at work like sharpened hearing and/or olfactory senses, and an unknown level of intelligence and/or aversion to contact with human beings. I tend to assume that most Bigfoot reports are simply people who are either crazy or just turned their back on civilization for some reason, which Micah Hanks wrote about in this article which mentions a number of such reports.

If we could monitor entire forests with infrared satellite surveillance at night, and found no signs of bipedal creatures roaming around in there, then I'd say that we had ruled it out. But I seriously doubt that any conclusive scientific investigation of that kind has ever taken place.

And until that happens, I don't think it's rational to jump the gun and assume that there's nothing strange going on in the swamps and forests where these reports keep popping up. Lots of credible people have reported very similar sightings of something, so it seems likely that something is out there - but human or primate, I have no idea. Maybe both.

I don't think that at all.

I remember finding footprints with my Uncle in the interior of BC. Another Uncle saw one on the North Saskatchewan river. I think they're out there.

I just think Stan's quote is way off base. And in this case, there's actually plenty of evidence of their non-absence.

 

[Bob Watson]

What do these have in common?
Santa Claus
The Easter bunny
The tooth fairy
Cotttinley fairies
Loch Ness monster
Bigfoot.

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

What do these have in common?
Santa Claus
The Easter bunny
The tooth fairy
Cotttinley fairies
Loch Ness monster
Bigfoot.

How many credible witnesses have reported Easter Bunny sightings?

I don't think that at all.

I remember finding footprints with my Uncle in the interior of BC. Another Uncle saw one on the North Saskatchewan river. I think they're out there.

I just think Stan's quote is way off base. And in this case, there's actually plenty of evidence of their non-absence.

Oh okay - for some reason I thought you'd be totally skeptical of Bigfoot reports.

Generally when people say "evidence," they mean empirical evidence. I'm kind of a freak in the sense that I tend to consider testimony as evidence when I see a lot of credible people independently making similar reports: that's typically not a popular perspective. Is that what you're referring to as "evidence of non-absence," or are you aware of something more tangible? I've never really dug into the subject of Bigfoot, but I do recall seeing some plaster castings of foot impressions with some kind of expert saying that it looked legit - it's just so outside of my area of knowledge that I have no idea what to make of that stuff.

 

[Bob Watson]

How many credible witnesses have reported Easter Bunny sightings?


Oh okay - for some reason I thought you'd be totally skeptical of Bigfoot reports.

Generally when people say "evidence," they mean empirical evidence. I'm kind of a freak in the sense that I tend to consider testimony as evidence when I see a lot of credible people independently making similar reports: that's typically not a popular perspective. Is that what you're referring to as "evidence of non-absence," or are you aware of something more tangible? I've never really dug into the subject of Bigfoot, but I do recall seeing some plaster castings of foot impressions with some kind of expert saying that it looked legit - it's just so outside of my area of knowledge that I have no idea what to make of that stuff.

How many credible ppl. Dress up in a gorilla suit and run around in the woods?
Or claim a wax dummy or Halloween costume is Bigfoot? How many of your "credible witnesses " saw a guy in a gorilla suit?
Can you truly tell me NONE?

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

How many credible ppl. Dress up in a gorilla suit and run around in the woods?
Or claim a wax dummy or Halloween costume is Bigfoot? How many of your "credible witnesses " saw a guy in a gorilla suit?
Can you truly tell me NONE?

That's apples and oranges, man: just because some reports and sightings are hoaxes doesn't mean that they're all hoaxes. That's like saying that just because there are a lot of Paris Hilton impersonators, there's no such thing as Paris Hilton (if only...). Or like saying that since a bunch of shysters like Billy Meier have faked ufo photos, that there aren't any ufo's. One doesn't logically preclude the other.

 

[Bob Watson]

Billions of kids wait for Santa Claus on Christmas eve.
They wait for the Easter bunny.
They place a wrapped tooth under a pillow..

Does this make them real?
Please don't just say "A lot of ppl seen Bigfoot "
I want proof.
Hair
Stool
A body
A skeleton
Do you have this evidence sir?

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk

 

[Bob Watson]

Keep in mind sir,a great claim requires great proof. Beyond that what Rick Dyer toured with. There has been 100% no evidence of the existence of Bigfoot. Beyond sightings and those could well be hoaxes or misidentified animals.

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Billions of kids wait for Santa Claus on Christmas eve.
They wait for the Easter bunny.
They place a wrapped tooth under a pillow..

Does this make them real?
Please don't just say "A lot of ppl seen Bigfoot "
I want proof.
Hair
Stool
A body
A skeleton
Do you have this evidence sir?

Like I just told marduk - I've never really dug into the Bigfoot stuff, but I do recall seeing some kind of biologist looking over a plaster casting of a large strange foot impression and saying that it looked legit to him. And there are tons of credible reports from people who seem perfectly sincere to me.

It's silly to disbelieve everything which hasn't been proven yet. Like I said before, people disbelieved the ball lightning reports until just the last few years, and now it's proven. Similarly, we don't have sufficient physical evidence to prove the existence of anomalous aerial vehicles either, but I've seen a pair of them executing completely inertia-defying maneuvers at thousands of miles per hour, so I know those are real.

It's easy to just sit back and disbelieve everything that hasn't been proven as a scientific fact. But that's a really passive and myopic way to live. By that yardstick, one would blithely assume that there are no advanced technological alien civilizations in the universe either, because we have no physical evidence of them. But that would be absurd: with at least 40 billion trillion Earth-like planets in the habitable zones of their parent stars within the observable universe alone, it would be statistically ludicrous to think that we're alone in the universe, just because we don't have any physical evidence to prove it yet.

All of the interesting stuff in life is in the undiscovered areas. Scientists live for that stuff. By the time you can read all about it in the New York Times, you've missed all the real action.

 

[Han]

Billions of kids wait for Santa Claus on Christmas eve.
They wait for the Easter bunny.
They place a wrapped tooth under a pillow..

Does this make them real?
Please don't just say "A lot of ppl seen Bigfoot "
I want proof.
Hair
Stool
A body
A skeleton
Do you have this evidence sir?

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk

From what I have seen anybody who claims to have physical evidence of a 'primate' Bigfoot is either lying or mistaken.

I think it is like trying to catch a reflection or shadow.

I will ask a question:

If I die falling off a cliff whilst running away from a unicorn, then did the unicorn kill me?

 

[marduk]

From what I have seen anybody who claims to have physical evidence of a 'primate' Bigfoot is either lying or mistaken.

I think it is like trying to catch a reflection or shadow.

I will ask a question:

If I die falling off a cliff whilst running away from a unicorn, then did the unicorn kill me?

Meldrum's anatomical analysis of Bigfoot as bipedal primate based on castings is pretty damned compelling.

EVALUATION OF ALLEGED SASQUATCH FOOTPRINTS AND THEIR INFERRED FUNCTIONAL MORPHOLOGY

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Meldrum's anatomical analysis of Bigfoot as bipedal primate based on castings is pretty damned compelling.

EVALUATION OF ALLEGED SASQUATCH FOOTPRINTS AND THEIR INFERRED FUNCTIONAL MORPHOLOGY

Hmm...it's a bit troubling that I couldn't make it through the first paragraph without noticing that he doesn't know the difference between the word "incredible" and the word "incredulous":

"Throughout the twentieth century, thousands of eyewitness reports of giant bipedal apes, commonly referred to as Bigfoot or Sasquatch, have emanated from the montane forests of the western United States and Canada. Hundreds of large humanoid footprints have been discovered and many have been photographed or preserved as plaster casts. As incredulous as these reports may seem, the simple fact of the matter remains -- the footprints exist and warrant evaluation. A sample of over 100 footprint casts and over 50 photographs of footprints and casts was assembled and examined, as well as several examples of fresh footprints."

 

[Han]

Hmm...it's a bit troubling that I couldn't make it through the first paragraph without noticing that he doesn't know the difference between the word "incredible" and the word "incredulous":

"Throughout the twentieth century, thousands of eyewitness reports of giant bipedal apes, commonly referred to as Bigfoot or Sasquatch, have emanated from the montane forests of the western United States and Canada. Hundreds of large humanoid footprints have been discovered and many have been photographed or preserved as plaster casts. As incredulous as these reports may seem, the simple fact of the matter remains -- the footprints exist and warrant evaluation. A sample of over 100 footprint casts and over 50 photographs of footprints and casts was assembled and examined, as well as several examples of fresh footprints."

I think he is correct in the usage of the word:

incredulous:

3. (largely obsolete, now only nonstandard) Difficult to believe; incredible. [from 17th c.]

incredulous - Wiktionary

I don't think he is right about Bigfoot though.