Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Drewbot said:
I can't even bring myself to look at the BFF more than twice a month now.

Either the run-of-the-mill Bigfooters are getting more fringe(y), or the non-fringe run-of-the-mill Bigfooters are not active anymore. I remember when it was not just Saskeptic trying to keep the kook in check.
Click to expand...

its not you, they're fringeyer. erer
 
The technology has developled (trail cams, forensic science, etc.) to where it is an increasingly untenable position. With all the people looking, and what they've got at their disposal you have to come up with paranormal powers to explain the lack of evidence.
 
I stopped watching. This is a test of your self-respect. Will you watch a video of a static scene to the end, or will you do the math on the value of your time...
 
I have a friend with a bigfoot. Yeti never saw a sachs watch in the bush.
 
Last edited:
Deacondark said:
The boys over at Facebook/FindBigfoot are going on and on about some bigfoot tracks on a beach. Pretty obvious it's horse tracks, but I doubt they'll admit it....
Click to expand...
Tomfoolery for sure!

In the comments:

Douglas Norris: ‎@Jon, I am still waiting for the scientific evidence, do you have any? To date there is absolutely no scientific evidence that sasquatch exist.

Bigfoot: @‎Douglas Norris Well we have sat in Meldrum's office and looked at 200 casts plus maybe 50 others, we have seen trackways, watched video, listened to audio. What kind of "Scientific" evidence do you need? Is there a person you trust enough that if they said, yeah it's real, that you would say 'okay'....

Yet curiously, his coming up with the real creature seems totally out of the question. But heck man, he's right, we should just take the word of someone we 'trust'. It's blurry pictures and sincerity, or no-evidence-whatsoever and harsh realities. So I guess those really are Bigfoot tracks on the beach, cause I 'trust' those guys. They're really sincere. :eek:
 
HarryHenderson said:
Tomfoolery for sure!

In the comments:

Douglas Norris: ‎@Jon, I am still waiting for the scientific evidence, do you have any? To date there is absolutely no scientific evidence that sasquatch exist.

Bigfoot: @‎Douglas Norris Well we have sat in Meldrum's office and looked at 200 casts plus maybe 50 others, we have seen trackways, watched video, listened to audio. What kind of "Scientific" evidence do you need? Is there a person you trust enough that if they said, yeah it's real, that you would say 'okay'....

Yet curiously, his coming up with the real creature seems totally out of the question. But heck man, he's right, we should just take the word of someone we 'trust'. It's blurry pictures and sincerity, or no-evidence-whatsoever and harsh realities. So I guess those really are Bigfoot tracks on the beach, cause I 'trust' those guys. They're really sincere. :eek:
Click to expand...

Saint Jeffy's cast collection isnt prove of poo poo.
 
Los Angeles Craigslist:
We are shooting a documentary trying to prove the existence of Sasquatch (commonly known as Bigfoot). We are looking for people currently in the SoCal area who have had Bigfoot sightings or encounters. This is a chance to share your story and be a part of a professionally produced production. Please email with a photo of yourself and a brief summary of your sighting or encounter. We are posting in talent gigs only because this will be on camera. Serious replies only.
Click to expand...
Serious replies only. Seriously?
 
Last edited:
idoubtit said:
I also disagree about the absence of Bigfoot causing people to disbelieve. I'm of the opinion that the public (to distinguish from those who apply skepticism) is wickedly susceptible to the availability heuristic. Many people hold the hope that the damn thing is out there (because they really have no connection to how nature and science works and they think "Why not? Maybe so" is fun to imagine). What they remember is the hoaxes and the silliness that goes on in the media. That has a profound effect on their bias. Yet, if they think that some scientist is seriously looking into it, as opposed to a couple of gun-toting publicity hounds, that adds credibility for some people. I think THIS is why BF hunting groups make lame attempts to look scientific - to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a BIG problem (what I just highlighted)? Something that needs to be addressed (e.g. if it shows an utterly pathetic scientific education system)?
 
Last edited:
mike3 said:
Isn't that a BIG problem (what I just highlighted)? Something that needs to be addressed (e.g. if it shows an utterly pathetic scientific education system)?
Click to expand...
YES, but it's not just a broken educational system. A huge part of the problem is that most people live in cities and suburbs now. Their formative years are not spent like those of millions in my generation who wandered about in fields and forests on the family farm, day after day. That's where I developed my field sense - I certainly didn't learn anything about local wildlife in school.

Check out Richard Louv's "Last Child in the Woods" for a broad-based look at why the average schmoe can't tell a beaver from an otter, or an oak from a maple. There's a lot that Louv gets wrong in the book, but enough that he gets right that I recommend it to anyone interested in this lost connection between humans and their natural world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom