"Skeptics" Need To Do More Research
Editor’s Note: Jonathan Poulsen has been researching the Sasquatch since 2008, but really involved himself heavily in 2011. He has since devoted his life to the near impossible challenge of verifying the existence of the Sasquatch. Shawn refers to him as the Bigfoot encyclopedia.'The Skeptic's Dictionary' by Robert Todd Carroll has a short section devoted to Bigfoot. After reading this segment, I was flabbergasted. How could anyone write such an absurd piece of so-called literature? In order to understand my frustration, I'll give you some examples of statements that are one-sided, opinionated, and just downright not true.
1.) "An ape-like creature reportedly sighted hundreds of times around the world since the mid-19th century".
No, there are not just hundreds, but 42,000 sightings and counting. Alleged sightings date back thousands of years. In North America, Leif Erickson claimed to have encountered hairy dark-skinned creatures in Newfoundland in 986 A.D. And in Asia, Alexander the Great's men fought against a very large group of Yeti's.
2.) "The evidence consists mainly of testimony from Bigfoot enthusiasts, footprints of questionable origin, and pictures that could easily have been of apes or humans in ape suits".
The great majority of eyewitnesses were not researching the subject of the Sasquatch prior to their sighting, and afterwards they don't involve themselves in the field either. The Patterson film could easily have been a human in an ape suit? That is indeed interesting. That's exactly what we're claiming them to be in the first place: apes.
3.) "There are no bones, no scat, no artifacts, no dead bodies, no mother's with babies, no adolescents, no fur, no explanation for how a species likely to be communal has never been seen in a family or group activity".
We have bones from the fossil hominid genus Gigantopithecus which is very similar to the Sasquatch. Scat was recovered on one of Tom Slick's expeditions. Artifacts? You mean like archaeological relics? Hundreds of accounts of dead bodies being found or hunters shooting them are on record (the most famous of these is the 'Minnesota Iceman' incident of 1968). In the Memorial Day footage, the creature is thought to be a mother with her young (also, Zana, the Russian Almas, gave birth to several children). In the Albert Ostman kidnapping, there were two adolescents; both a male and a female. Hair samples are recovered regularly, I have a possible hair sample myself. Again, in the Albert Ostman kidnapping there were 4 individuals; an adult male, an adult female, a young male, and a young female (also in Muchalat Harry's alleged 1928 kidnapping there were a total of 20 Sasquatch living together).
4.) "Of the few footprints available for examination in plaster casts, there is such a great disparity in shape and configuration that the evidence suggests many independent pranksters".
That is because the Sasquatch most likely has a flexible foot such as humans, and will not leave the exact same impression in every step. Also, with the consistency of the general shape, size, and depth of the footprints, one researcher suggests that there would need to be 25,000 full-time hoaxers if all the footprints are fake.
5.) "Over 30 years have passed, yet no cryptozoologist has found further evidence of the creature near the site except for one alleged footprint".
Bob Titmus located the site 9 days later and casted 10 additional tracks.
There are a few more such factual errors (or errors in cynical "logic"). The writer adds that he finds it odd that Bobbie Short didn't interview John Landis for his side of the story of John Chamber's alleged involvement of making the Patterson "suit". Why would this need to be done is Chambers already denied this allegation?
Shawn, what are you basing your statement about Leif Erickson on? I hope not a 3rd hand quote from Loren Coleman.
ReplyDeleteHe's basing it on Erickson's written accounts, actually. You may not have known this, but Scandinavian cultures have been literate for a few hundreds of years.
DeletePlease direct me to a bonafide library that has put these accounts online.
Deletefyi-not shawn, this piece was written by hank paulsen.
DeleteI have heard "researchers" cite Erickson in Newfoundland before but have been unable to find the actual historical record. I would love to read word for word what Erickson said/wrote.
DeleteHe saw a squatch - its all there in the history books.
DeleteThey shared some lutefisk and called it a day. Leif then headed to Novia Scotia.
This is an excellent article. I know that this species exists because I had an encounter with one. Dealing with skeptics I have sadly discovered that most do not care about the current evidence since it could have been hoaxed, or fabricated, or they just think this is a big joke and we believers are ignorant, or we are believing lies, or we have misidentified something else as being a Sasquatch.Pictures, footprints, and stories could also be hoaxed. It will take undeniable proof such as DNA with film, and eventually a body for skeptics to think that there may be something unknown and officially unrecognized living in forests around the world.
ReplyDeletei saw the flying spaghetti monster but noone will believe me!!!!!!
Delete^Was that right after you ate the peyote?
DeleteI haven't seen his noodleness, yet I still believe...
DeleteWhere is your proof? Except 4 empty bottles of prozac?
DeleteI agree with your statements and most of the replies are exactly what can be expexted from some skeptics. I have also seen them, recorded them, got finger prints, lip prints and had a few chances to even kill one if I chose to, but I couldn't live with myself if I had. Honest skeptics will search for and find the truth eventually, the others are likely to never leave mommy and daddy's basement. Its a strange sort of fear that prevents many people from looking for the truth, sad really when all you have to do is invest some time and go on some camping trip in the right places at the right times, that is all it takes. Instead of teasing and insulting people with the fortitude and dedication to seek it out. Besides one murdered (as in another human being) squatch isn't worth the admiration and respect of such people.
DeleteThe only thing to be expected of skeptics is to reserve judgement until verifiable evidence is put forth. Which had not happened. Science needs a specimen. All you guys offer are anecdotes and shitty track castings.
DeleteI think everyone knows how I feel about Bigfoot.....yes I am a big-time realist and skeptic.
ReplyDelete1) Human psychology commonality to believe in the big scary monster in the woods.....every culture has it
2) Everyone gets into the field, or stays anonymous to hoax, thats it. If someone had real concrete proof aka physical evidence there would be no fear to show it,
3) two teeth from china is proof for bigfoot here? I can go right now and find examples of local, ancient Native nations here, and if Bigfoot is so common and so numerous why not one example of a bone or tooth from N america? Not an internet fantasy mind you a real physical specimen?
4) Ive seen and helped to hoax them myself, fooling Biologists, police, game rangers, reporters, etc....dont discount a bunch of talented kids from messing with their community,
5) Ive camped and fished around Bluff Creek many times in my life. Spent damn near 3 weeks there in a tent in areas ranging from 2-10 miles from where PGF was shot....I have walked Patty's steps, and the reason why no one has seen another is because Patterson toom his secret to the grave, and the idiot-Bigfoot culters have spent thousands trying to discredit Bob Heironomious who was CLEARLY Patty! The perfect walk....is even in the (mostly hidden) part of PGF and Patterson documentary, on a horse, one person away from Patterson. Just like Sierra Sounds and all the other examples there is only one case study because they are the hoaxes that were good enough to slip through our culture.
There is absolutely ZERO evidence of Bigfoot because it is fake. Yes Bigfoot did evolve from humans....as a grandiose, psychologically disseminated lie!
All, please allow me a small and brief indulgement of dry humor: We, for the benefit of ourselves, and for Timmy, should probably dart him in the butt, strap him to the hood of a jeep, take him down to the zoo, and release him inside the enclosure that has a sign over it that says: "LESSER APES".
DeleteYes no reason to let fact or proof stand in the way of your beliefs. I'm definitely an idiot for pointing that out.
Delete+1,000. Damn beelevers crazy as hell! Bigfoot LOL! Rock on Timmy
DeleteTimmy get tha fuk outta this board seriously troll. Everyone ignore this obvious MIB poster or group of posters "Timmy" who is here to detract from serious Sasquatch research and destroy all who involved in its research. No wonder with a secret this big they go to so much trouble!!!
DeleteOperation Timmy- lets rid the world of Bigfoot evidence.
DeleteOMG LOL whoever thinks bigfoot is a conspiracy or government coverup is SERIOUSLY FUCKED
Did you say conspiracy? Do go on.
Delete- Dale Gribble
In regards to skeptics of any unknown/unproven topic, Bigfoots included there is a quote I want to state here.
Delete"Don’t bother us with the facts, our minds are made up." Stanten Frideman, UFO researcher and nuclear physicist.
His statements about UFO skeptics apply equally to Bigfoot Skeptics.
His list of skeptic's 4 debunkery rules are as follows:
1.What the public doesn’t know, we are not going to tell them.
2.Don’t bother us with the facts, our minds are made up.
3.If we can’t attack the data, we will attack the people; it is much easier.
4.Do one’s research by proclamation, rather than investigation. It is much easier and most people won’t know the difference.
As I said, his rules apply equally to all unknown topics. In my opinion Skeptics can be plain ignorant and lazy researchers, not to mention they make assumptions without bothering to look up the facts.
On guy at work told me that no one has ever seen a big foot therefore it doesn't exist!
Another skeptic stated on this site that he had done research on foot print casts. After pressing him, he said he had read about them in books and seen them on TV. That is not researching a topic!!!
Chad W
that actually is research Chad......
DeleteI am retired military and have a science degree and really don't appreciate the above comments which suggest that what I saw was figment of my imagination. You have no knowledge of what you have never seen, but I guess having no facts is a prerequisite to spinning your nonsense opinion. If you had one shred of intellectual discipline you would be supporting scientific methodology to properly investigate these thousands of sighting all over the world. I have no doubt there are hoaxed events out there but to argue that is sufficient to dismiss every encounter is just dishonest. I have no doubt you will have to retract your words one day but in the meantime try not to call decent people liars. The skeptics that come here to denigrate people have argued themselves into a corner but I suspect you will not have the gumption to apologise when the time comes, but will instead slink off to find some other people to harrass. Frankly, I think they are cowards who will reap what they sow.
DeleteYes! Good post! + 1000. I'm a big believer in individuals and the half dozen people I know that seen them are as honest as they come and I believe what they have told me. 4 were hunters and some military and long time freinds of my grandparents and parents. No reason to lie and had fairly long sightings and live out in the country. They actually were embarrased to talk about it and a few have been teased and now won't talk about it . It's a shame some people have to be so judgemental and cruel.
DeleteHey Anon 4:12,
DeleteFirst off, you don't come on a Bigfoot website and try to fucking intimidate people you asshole. It won't fucking work.
Second, I have met plenty of schizos in my line of work, and they don't scare me. Because schizophrenics are just like everybody else in that some of them are assholes, and it's the assholes who choose to be a problem.
Third, your “are you calling me a liar!” approach to skeptics is the tactic of a bully and if you honestly think that people should believe something because “you said so” then you have lost touch with reality.
And Finally, with regards to what you saw, there are only a limited number of explanations:
1. You're schizophrenic
2. You were hoaxed
3. You saw a bear (and chose to believe it was a Bigfoot)
4. You're a liar.
Now I don't know if you lied to yourself first (they call that delusion) or you're just flat-out lying. But it doesn't honestly matter because in the end you're still on this website speaking untruths and acting like a jackass.
The point is that if you make outrageous claims back them up with proof or you have absolutely no right to demand that people believe you.
You need to look into anger management treatment, sunshine.
DeleteThere has to be just a little (at least) amount of misanthropy that leads some skeptics to be so ardent. The witnesses I see on shows like Finding Bigfoot don't seem like liars, fraudsters, pranksters, insane, stupid or attention seekers. They seem unassuming, earnest, slightly embarassed, decent, genuine people. You have to have quite a low view of humanity to declare outright that ALL sightings and evidence are hoaxed or that people are too stupid to see the difference between a bear and an ape-man.
DeleteI don't think witnesses expect people to believe, just a "maybe" maybe they actually did see what they think they saw. Why is "maybe" or "I don't know" so hard to say for skeptics?
IF Bigfoot is discovered I will definitely be back to apologize, on this board, multiple times. Im not a coward or a troll or a government agent LOL...I am 100% certain though that there is NO Bigfoot.
DeleteAnon 5:13 you are the asshole your talking about and you act like a schizo nut case who needs anger management classes. You seem like a short fuse! Freakin nut case! Asshole jerk off!
DeleteThink about this guys. Until 1995 100 foot tall freak waves in the oceans were deemed seen by only drunk salors. The thousands of people that saw the freak rogue waves and lived through them weren't drunk and weren't lying.
DeleteIt turns out they were right. 100 foot rogue waves were proven by first an oil rig wave height sensors then by a NASA satellite.
Now I bring this up because this is proof that eye witness testimony that was previously dismissed as lunacy has turned out in fact to be 100% accurate. Giant rogue waves were fiction till 1995, now they are fact.
This simple fact proves that thousands of eye witnesses can be relied upon accurately and reliably as proof positive that yet unproven phenomenon are real.
The skeptical argument that eye witness testimony can't re relied upon holds up only for an individual eye witness, but does not and cannot explain away 40,000+ eye witnesses.
When you factor in statistics of large numbers then you have to wonder. Not all of these witness can or will be hoaxers, hoaxies schizophrenic and drunkards. Most of these witnesses don't go public but make these reports in a way that their name doesn't public out of fear of ridicule.
The shear number of witnesses means that the skeptics arguments are totally ridiculous.
Chad W
Anon 5:13 is the craziest wife beater! Dude if you work with schizos them it sounds like you joined them! ANGER MANAGEMENT DUDE! Lay of the Meth . Don't come on a Bigfoot sight and intimidate people blah blah blah Oh I just got out of Jail- Blah blah cry cry. Ahhh ! I work with as$holes blah blah ! Friken lade dah!
DeleteAmon 5:13 obviously became one of his crazy patients !
DeleteI'm a skeptic and I don't even agree with anon 5:13! Nut case!
DeleteNuttier than a squirrel turd under an oak tree
DeleteI would love to punch anon 5:13 in the face.we all saw bears? youare a retard. people choose being looked at like loons because they saw a sasquatch? you prolly live in a big city with all concrete no trees.
DeleteId love to see you get sodomized by an angry 9 footer, then everyone could tell you you imagined it, or are just lying for attention.
fckn loser...
Lol. Anon 5:13 is a loser!
DeleteTimmy is an asshole for hoaxing! Low life like a crack dealer!
DeleteLadies and gentlemen, watch your tax dollars hard at work as goverment employee Timmy Tiptoes ignores all evidence by saying there is no evidence, and gets paid to do so. There is some evidence that the PGF film is genuine; there is no evidence that it is fake or hoaxed. Going by the film, period, watching the film only, there is evidence that the creature is real, and no evidence that it is not. We don't know anything for sure, but the evidence weighs in favor of it being genuine.
DeleteTimmy Tiptoes and unbelievers-at-all-costs-no-matter-the-evidence ignore such things such as the sheer mass and enormous arm length of patty when viewed from the rear walking away.
Also the crouched walking, strange and uncomfortable for a human.
The exaggerated arm swing, oft reported in sightings, and bizarre hand swinging-stretching postures. Again, things which wouldn't be hoaxed.
And Patty's tracks are in the tightrope pattern, aren't they? This also tallies with other reports.
The less hairy sides of the waist, almost bare even, also reported in some other sightings.
The female breasts, which you don't stick on a costume and which wouldn't look like that anyway if you managed to attach balloons or God knows what. We all know they are a feature which wouldn't be faked; that's so obvious to any clear-thinking person.
It's too bad the rest of us can't get paid by the goverment or a university for posting here "there's no such thing!!" in tantrum-like fashion, as Timmy Tiptoes does and gets paid for.
Assuming Timmy Tiptoes is an adult, why would he or she call him- or herself Timmy, a name normally for small boys?
In regards to skeptics of any unknown/unproven topic, Bigfoots included there is a quote I want to state here.
ReplyDelete"Don’t bother us with the facts, our minds are made up." Stanten Frideman, UFO researcher and nuclear physicist.
His statements about UFO skeptics apply equally to Bigfoot Skeptics.
His list of skeptic's 4 debunkery rules are as follows:
1.What the public doesn’t know, we are not going to tell them.
2.Don’t bother us with the facts, our minds are made up.
3.If we can’t attack the data, we will attack the people; it is much easier.
4.Do one’s research by proclamation, rather than investigation. It is much easier and most people won’t know the difference.
As I said, his rules apply equally to all unknown topics. In my opinion Skeptics can plain be ignorant and lazy researchers.
Chad W
Stanton Friedman is more guilty of ignoring data and facts than any man alive. He has never explained the manner in which a small craft could travel the extreme distances involved. Nor has he produced anything more than anecodotal "evidence".
Deletethe plural of anecodote is not evidence
Stanton Friedman is also one of the goofiest looking individuals who has ever been photographed.
DeleteI wasn't arguing for UFOs but arguing how ridiculous skeptics look to people that actually know the facts!
DeleteChad W
What are the facts, Chad? Facts, not beliefs.
Delete> "Don’t bother us with the facts, our minds are made up."
DeleteThat applies to believers as well, especially Friedman. Forty years of research have improved star chart figures; some researchers have pointed out the revised distances of stars invalidates the Hill-Fish map. STF has been questioned on this a number of times and he has REFUSED to answer!
http://ufoupdateslist.com/2011/jan/m14-002.shtml
Kevin Randle recently complained (especially in the comments) about how UFO fandom seems to be ignorant of past research explaining sightings.
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.ca/2012/07/roswell-and-chasing-ufos.html
Finally something worth reading. On the other hand, Timmy the Troll is not worth reading at all.
ReplyDeletetruth hurts?
DeleteNope,teabagging feels good!
DeleteOnly Timmy makes any sense. Only Timmy
DeleteTimmy, I had a daylight encounter with my skeptic hubby along for the adventure. We both have post grad degrees, we were in daylight and were only a few feet away from the creature. We saw a black hair covered 7-8 feet tall and several hundred pounds of muscle male stand up and run away from us. Timmy, Do some real research for yourself, look at the real evidence,talk to the marines who had an encounter while out on night war games with a Sasquatch, then come back and explain why you are a skeptic. Forget the PGF. Look at real people who have had real encounters, such as the policemen in Oklahoma who still shake to this day when discussing their encounter with a Sasquatch. Why would so many responsible and reliable people lie about seeing this animal? Hopefully in a few days or weeks we will have definite proof through DNA plus film of this species. Are you aware that a university in England is also doing a DNA and other evidence study to prove the reality of this species? It will be proven to exist this year, followed up by other researcher's specimens coming out next year that has samples from around the world of skin, hair, teeth, and body parts.
ReplyDeleteyou saw a bear.
DeleteThere are no bears in Davey Crockett National Forest in Texas.
DeleteThanks Big Dad, you are correct,and I did not see a bear! No bear can run like the creature I saw run away on 2 legs to hide from us behind a tree. Just even thinking about that sighting makes me frightened to this day. It was so large, and to my way of shocked and frightened thinking at that time it was not supposed to have been there because I was NOT expecting to see a Sasquatch in the Davy Crockett National Forest in November beside a dirt road. Seriously, I was so shocked it took many seconds before I could even say to my hubby "Did you see that black Sasquatch creature"? Yikes!
DeleteLinda,where about in D.C.N.F. did you have your sighting?The reason I ask is I was on a deer lease just outside of Weches,Tx off of St.Hwy. 21 and C.R.1195.Had some strange things going on there from 1989 to 2006.Also I own property in Laneville,Tx and have had some sightings there and in Gladewater,Tx.Thanks for your reply. Mike.
Delete100% sure you couldn't have been hoaxed yourself?
DeleteHello Mike, I'll have to look up my sighting reports that I posted at several BF forums to help researchers know that there are Sasquatches in that area. I'll get back with that info ASAP, I'm going to research the route that we were on, which was a dirt road BTW. We were delayed due to rescuing an abandoned black Lab, and hubby programmed our new GPS unit for the shortest route to Texarkana so we were on BACK ROADS! However, We did see a Sasquatch, so it was meant to be I guess. My sighting sight was well known at the BFF as being a "Squatchy" area to several of my fellow members at the BFF. I will return ASAP with the info you have requested.
DeleteThanks Linda.It would be interesting if it was close to where we were hunting.Also,what year? Mike.
DeleteLast December 2011, early in December like the 3rd or 4th. I've got to find the report and I'll come back with the info.
DeleteWe were on HWY 7, heading towards Texarkana, and were 5 miles down the dirt road area when I saw the creature stand up.
DeleteLinda I live and grew up in Eureka, NorCal and the epicenter of all things Bigfoot. I am a non-believer because growing up I was immersed in the lore...and after obtaining my own degrees and doing research I am convinced that low oxygen and long shadows make humans see things in a distorted fashion. And, I had a friend who convincingly faked tracks for years.....some still talked about to this day but no Bigfoot. If it was real we'd have one, end of story.
DeleteTimmy, move on to debunk UFOs and Ghosts. No one likes you here.
DeleteI dont give a rats ass if you like me or not, lets debate Bigfoot intelligently....oh wait, you CANT!
DeletePersonally I think Timmy is the only one making any sense here.
DeleteTimmy is obviously trolling. I can come on here and do the same thing, but I'm not a troll. The guy above me is probably Timmy acting as anonymous LOL. Give up man.
DeleteYes there are some Timmy fans here. Somone likes Timmy after all
DeleteMore than one Timmy maybe they are ALL in on the government cover up?
Deleteanon 301 do us a favor stop feeding the trolls!!!!!
Deletea story without evidence isn't worth the paper it's written on....
Deletea post grad degree doesn't stop one from making mistakes, nor from being insane.
your story is just a story, you could be a liar, a drunk, a drug addict, prone to confusion, your "skeptic" friend could have just agreed with you to avoid one of your delusional tantrums for all we know.
unfortunately, without evidence,your anecdotes aren't worth anything
^^^^^^^Timmy
DeleteI like Timmy. He's been a straight arrow, merely asking somebody/anybody to show him PROOF he can believe.
DeleteTimmy, I can't debate this issue with you because you have the right *not* to believe, and I'm thankful that you are able to do so. I had believed that something was happening before my sighting, but my sighting convinced me they exist. You are totally free to disagree, that's okay, I'm able to say I now believe 100% since I did see one, and that's okay also. In America we are free to have our own opinions and thoughts on issues.I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just mentioning what happened to me personally.Please respect that I can have a different opinion about Sasquatch than what you may have.
DeleteShit dickity dammit! Why the hell does everyone pick on Timmy like this? Leon comes here and goes to troll town all over the website and nobody says a damn thing. But “Timmy please go away” is included in polls? That's a double standard is what that is.
Delete+1 ^^^ Not to mention Timmy is logical and literate. Leon's writing is a massive, unreadable trainwreck. The one that worries me is James with his delusions of MIB and conspiracies around every corner. We'll read about him in the news after he goes postal on some skeptic in a McDonalds parking lot.
DeleteTimmy should know better than to argue that because we have not found one that ipso facto they do not exist. Try telling that to the physicists that have spent 50 years looking for the Higgs boson. That is simply a dumb argument Timmy and you insult your own intelligence and make yourself look really silly. You must have slept through the lectures on research methodology. If you feel you got conned by clever footprint hoaxers, don't use that to argue that all encounters and evidence are fake. They are not all fake. Try lying in a foxhole in a jungle late at night and have one walk past a few metres away. It was not the enemy and there was enough filtered moonlight to know the difference. Then you look at your buddies wide eyes and no words are needed.
DeleteHiggs boson wow talk about a bad analogy
DeleteIt's not just a bad analogy, it's a false analogy (a type of logical fallacy).
DeleteMy degree is in zoology not physics, but I know enough to understand that the Higgs boson's existence was predicted by credible evidence. Sasquatches existence contradicts all credible evidence. The existence of discrete units of inheritance was predicted my Mendel a long time before we discovered just what a gene actually is but his prediction was based on reproducible experiments. Bigfoot's existence would be contrary to established principles in ecology. You cannot compare things predicted to exist by science and things predicted not to exist by science and claim that you're making a valid analogy.
Except that both are hypothetical until proven to exist. The point is that to not search because they "should" not exist is in itself hardly a sound scientific approach. You take the evidence as you find it and then test and retest. The Higgs is not proven yet if I read the debate to date. Also, not all scientists believed they would be found. They could well find something totally different but that is cool. The truth lies at the end of the research, not in an unproven statement implying that we should not bother to look at all because we are wasting our time. That is a flat Earth argument and typical of skeptics who refuse to accept that there are many undiscovered things in science. Someone at some point has to ask "what if..". That is why some of us are explorers and others just like to think there is nothing on the other side of the ocean so let us stay in our comfort zone. The analogy is about why we should search for answers and is valid. How else do we prove or disprove anything?
DeleteFirst off, you are correct in that both are hypothetical until proven to exist. HOWEVER not all hypothetical things are equally likely to be true. I thought that I had made that point clear in my previous post, but I will try a different analogy to explain it: Lets say I set a cookie on the table and leave, then come back five minutes later. The cookie is gone, but my dog is on the table and cookie crumbs are everywhere. Let us consider two possible explanations:
Delete1. My dog ate the cookie.
2. The cookie was abducted by space monsters.
One of the two explanations is more likely than the other. Just because they are both hypothetical until proven to be true does not indicate that they are equally probable. Furthermore to give serious consideration to the possibility that my cookie was stolen by extraterrestrials is absurd. In asking skeptics to consider the possibility of Bigfoot you're telling them that every possibility, no matter how much it contradicts established facts is worthy of consideration, and that is absurd. If you seriously treated every absurd possibility as thought is were worthy of consideration you would never go in the woods for fear of werewolves. You wouldn't go swimming for fear of krakens. And you wouldn't get out of bed in the morning because the gollywoggles might nip off your toes.
Second, Do NOT try to put words into my mouth you stupid motherfucker. You take straw man fallacy to a whole nother level when you say “That is a flat Earth argument and typical of skeptics who refuse to accept that there are many undiscovered things in science.” You are such a stupid shit. You couldn't think of something that I actually said that you could criticize so you lied and said that I said something that I didn't so you could criticize it. You are the most pathetic, degenerate, variety of sophist there is. The kind of looser who can only win an argument by pretending that his opponent said something that they didn't. Now listen to what I am saying: I have a masters in zoology so I KNOW that there are many undiscovered things in science. I KNOW of many unanswered questions. And I strongly suspect that there are a great many questions that we haven't even thought to ask. However the Sasquatch question has been asked and it has been answered. So you can take your “That is a flat Earth argument and typical of skeptics who refuse to accept that there are many undiscovered things in science” bullshit and shove it right up you ass.
No offense "susi", but you're clearly prone to flights of fancy as evidence by all your posts on BFF...Your report says you saw it duck behind a tree(sidenote: I always find it humorous that footers get into bigfoot and then Presto, got their first sighting)but here you say you saw it walking. Pretty much you wanted to see a BF, so you saw a BF.
DeleteWhy does it not surprise me that the rudest ones here who quickly resort to agrestic language are the same ones who profess great knowledge and learning. Ah! The incongruity of it all.
DeleteThanks for the info Linda.A buddy of mine takes his family hunting in D.C.N.F. off of Hwy 7 every deer season and had a couple of sightings.If you hunt in any National Forest in Texas you are required to wear hunter orange.Therefore it couldn't of been a hunter.If it was a hunter w/o the orange on he would be crazy.Thanks again for the reply.Mike.
DeleteAnon@10:52-How can you call Linda out on her sighting? Was that you in the woods pulling a hoax?Seems to me she is telling it like she saw it.I for one have had some strange things going on in that area.Although it was about 5 years earlier.Explain her inconsistency that you have seem to express in your reply.Thanks,Mike.
DeleteWell big dad, if you read all her posts on BFF you'd realize why I have come to the conclusion that she really wanted to have/claim a sighting. I'm sure she was driving down the road so something dark(probably a stump) and she wanted to believe it was a bigfoot...so she did. Kinda reminds me of bill greens sighting.
Delete1) Please cite the source for this statement: "42,000 sightings and counting." Thanks.
ReplyDeleteAlso, how reliable is this data, and what efforts have been made to eliminate duplicate reports across databases, and what efforts have been made to eliminate hoaxes and mis-perceptions? How many of these have been investigated and verified in any way? How reliable are reports from the Vikings and ancient Greeks?
(The map image above shows about 4,000 sightings.)
DeleteThanks for making the effort to ask fair and solid questions, Steven. I hope Jonathan will follow through and respond to them.
DeleteMay I also add that I'd like the source cited for his statement: "Hundreds of accounts of dead bodies being found..."
There are accounts of everything Bigfoot...unfortunately no evidence or proof of any kind.
DeleteWhy are you here Timmy? No evidence nothing, but you're still here. I think you're just waiting for evidence and you're hoping that Bigfoot will be proven one day. LOL
DeleteLet me start by saying I am a believer and I think people like Timmy are very important to these kind of forums and blogs because a healthy amount of skepticism is valuable to keep us from running wild with outlandish theories without any opposition.
DeleteNow trolls are different people who just call everyone idiots and with no counter arguments are just destructive to these types of forums
Also shame on every believers who ignores every single counter argument!
I think the source for the 42000 figure may be Robert Lindsay although when I read it he reported it as 40000. I don't know if he was quoting another source or not. It seems to me that the greater number of sightings without testable, repeatable evidence argues for the non-existence of bigfoot rather than it's reality.
DeletePer Robert Lindsay, 42,000 gerbil sightings in the Bay Area over the same timeframe.
DeleteI should know...lol.
- Gary
2) They are talking about evidence, not sightings. The statement is pretty much true, that photos, track prints and hair samples have been retrieved by researchers.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you have to address what they are actually saying. They are not speaking specifically to the PGF, nor saying that it was a film of an ape. They make a GENERAL statement, which says that the photos/films/videos could be hoaxes. This is true... they could be. Even today, as convincing as it is to some, the PGF has failed to prove the existence of Bigfoot, and the subject in the film has not been proven true or false.
"We have bones from the fossil hominid genus Gigantopithecus which is very similar to the Sasquatch." And you know this how?
ReplyDeleteI think Sasquatch are Gigantopithecus. I think they are not extinct,but living in the forests around the world. What I saw was not human, but looked a lot like a black hairy Gigantopithecus.
DeleteWe really have no idea what the Giganto looked like. All we have to go on is a few teeth and two jawbone fragments.
DeleteSteven, There are more bones in storage and larger pieces for Gigantopithecus than what you said. Scientists have enough to make reasonable calculations on it's height and weight, which was tall, massive and heavy, just like the Sas I saw.
DeleteLinda, you've outed yourself as a liar or fool. there are only tooth fossils of Gigantopithecus. That is absolutely 100% fact. Where on earth have you heard otherwise? Claiming that it looked like one makes me think you are completely full of it, unless of course you got a good look at your creatures molars.
DeleteThere are two fragmentary pieces of jawbone and something like a shoebox worth of teeth. That is all, unless you believe the conspiracy theories.
Delete3) There is no proof as yet that Gigantopithecus is Bigfoot, unfortunately, though it is suggestive. None of the claimed Bigfoot scat, hair, flesh, blood, or other samples has been convincingly shown to be truly "Bigfoot," though many "unknown primate" returns are suggestive. The Ketchum and Sykes DNA projects may change all of this... though, all we have is rumors and leaks at this point.
ReplyDeleteNeedless to say, the Albert Ostman, Muchalat Harry and Zana stories are almost certainly just that... stories. However, they may be exaggerations based upon real experiences. It is simply anecdote, and thus provides no means of testing to avoid fictionalization or mis-perception, unfortunately.
4) The footprints DO vary quite widely, suggesting that there are either many sub-species with differing anatomy, or else that many of the claimed Bigfoot footprints are hoaxes. This is undeniable. It is a FACT that there are hoaxes. What we need is more solid criteria for determining authenticity. Meldrum is making some headway on this, but even the good Dr. has verified some prints that have suspicious shapes or origins. Compare the Freeman tracks to the Patterson tracks... they vary greatly, and this variation goes way beyond the flexion of the foot in motion.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I would really like to know how this number of "25,000 full-time hoaxers" was arrived at. I mean, all it takes is a few here and there to add doubt to the mix, to insert false data into the track record.
There does seem to be an authentic type of Bigfoot track, but with advances in hoaxing abilities and the spread of the idea of Bigfoot in the mass culture, it is getting ever more likely that hoaxes will be perpetrated.
This is not even to mention, of course, the countless cases of mistaken identification of human or bear tracks as Bigfoot tracks.
5) The problem with that argument is that the tracks Titmus found were the SAME ones that Patterson and Gimlin cast, from the same trackway. However, there have been many track finds in the Bluff Creek area since then, though the most famous finds were BEFORE the PGF was caught on film.
ReplyDeleteThe argument against Bobbie Short is spurious, as she only sought to question Chambers when the opportunity arose, and she asked the right question. She was under no obligation to pursue every other claimant to hoaxing knowledge, like Landis, or whomever. That would have become a life-long occupation, as one may observe in the studies of Kitikaze and other Forums denizens. There is no end to false hoaxing claims, just as there will never be an end to false hoaxes.
nice article!
ReplyDeleteFor only $33 all your questions answered, and 'WHAT' a review from Henry May. LOL!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOV6YgB3yx8
Henry May finds contrete proof of Bigfoot outside his shed that will destroy any skeptic.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgy_i2l9wnI
You have to feel some empathy for the deluded mad bastard I suppose.
Steven, no two human feet look exactly alike so to state that a purported sasquatch footprint doesn't look the same as another is just stupid.
ReplyDeleteNice try!
Sorry, but no, it isn't. There are variations but they stay within the human morphology. Some of the claimed bigfoot tracks are clearly divergent to the point of indicating either a separate species or a hoax. And, look, it is undeniable that many are fake.
DeleteWhat's a typical human morphology of a foot?
DeleteStephen
Which ones have you looked into are clearly faked?
DeletePersonal sightings can be explained in 1 of 4 ways:
ReplyDelete1. Witness was hoaxed
2. Witness was part of the hoax
3. Mis-indentification of an object or known animal
4. Sighting of un-discovered species
All known reports will fit one of the following scenarios.
The results from a search of the BFRO database are in:
Delete1-4%
2-55%
3-15%
4-1%
5-25% (witness is a drugged up red diaper doper baby)
I forgot #5... Good one!
DeleteSkeptics don't have to do any research. All we hav to do is sit and wait for the Monkey. You deliver the monkey, existence confirmed, high fives given, BBQ's scheduled!
ReplyDeletethis^
DeleteYou make is sound as easy as sliding off a greasy log backward.
DeleteWould you like the monkey delivered freezer-boy style?
Deleteotherwise, we cant guarantee its freshness
Word.
DeleteSo, who is your grand poobah for recent sightings? Tim Fasano (T-FAT) Rick Dyer? the squatchmaster? How about the idiot joebblack1963..And lets not forget thesquatchmasters retarded daufghter.. Get a non-retard to post something
ReplyDeleteglad im not a bleever relying on people like smeja, ketchum etc
ReplyDeleteill side with the scientists thanks
Good post. The only thing I disagree on is the Gigantopithecus comparison. Other than that, he is right-"skeptics" should do more research.
ReplyDeletewhy? is there some conclusive proof out there that all the skeptics are missing?
DeleteLol not so much as there are tons of so called "skeptics" who come to sites like this one having done little to no research on the subject and run their mouths just to get under the skin of people. To use "all" in that question makes me think that you might be one of them. There are skeptics out there that are knowledgeable and open-minded on the subject. And then there are those that could give two shits about it. And then there are some that have no idea what the hell they are talking about and they come on here and argue points and wind up making themselves look idiotic. I believe those are the skeptics he's referring to.
DeleteYou miss the point! 'IS THERE ANY' proof? apart from anecdotal?
DeleteYep. Reread the article above.
DeleteAnonymous hair samples, countless castings and stories are not proof of anything. At this point, after all this time, no body = no case for bigfoot.
DeleteBig problem is that it seems the longer you go with no carcass, the weirder the claims start to get. Eventually, all of the "paranormal shapeshifter, glowing red eyes, ufo flying , psychic, spirit stick" people are going to worm their way in and take over footery, and then all is lost.
ReplyDeleteThey are trying really really hard to force their way in now. You believer folks should be chasing them off with pitchforks and torches. They bring nothing but shame, and eye rolling idiocy and take any scientific credibility you have left with them
Birthing station stick structures, EM pulses, mind speak, only revealing them selves to the chosen ones. The list goes on.
DeletePART I:
DeleteBe careful NickB et al since some scientists and science types are eye-rolling idiots and
only uselessly pontificate from behind their desks.
Some scientists have decided there are other dimensions. If, theoretically, some species had
mastered the ability to switch dimensions, moving from one dimension which scientists have
decided exists, to another dimension which scientists have decided exists, it would explain
much, such as tracks which stop in the middle of nowhere and don't pick up again, and this
problem of a carcass which skeptics insist on.
People who regard science as a religion, which many skeptics do, have a big problem. Science
is often wrong, and science is constantly proving itself wrong (new science disagreeing with
earlier science, then old science disproving new science, over and over again). A problem is
that some of these people, if confronted with something considered supernatural by science,
are likely to reject it since it doesn't fit their religion of science. They will also
conceal the fact that they had the experience, thereby protecting their religion of science
and avoiding the "shame" which would accompany such a revelation, and also to avoid being
seen as "giving in."
It's interesting and a failing of science that it denies anything intangible. Science is
physical, period. According to science, thoughts and feelings don't exist, since they are
intangible, invisible, untouchable. Science could measure the effects of thoughts and
feelings on the body, but the actual thought as something existing, the actual feeling as
something existing--these are only thin air to science, and can't be measured
scientifically.
Why still love someone who has since died? They are gone, other than physical remains, they
are intangible, and don't exist anymore. It makes sense then to cease loving the person at
the time of the person's death. Also, your thoughts of the deceased must cease, since that
person doesn't exist anymore.
But it doesn't work that way. We are bound to, even controlled by, the intangible, the
invisible. Loving the deceased reveals the force of love: loving beyond the grave shows that
death can't conquer love.
Love is intangible, invisible, yet it is the strongest motivating force in human beings.
PART II:
DeleteScience would say love doesn't exist, because it is intangible.
Imagine losing a loved one, or all of your loved ones, and what it would do to your life,
and whether or not you could even survive such an ordeal.
While contemplating that, contemplate too that science would say love, as well as thoughts
and other feelings, don't exist.
Science is a box. Skeptics and similar are living in this box with science. They believe
what science tells them. Anything existing outside this box is invisible to science, and the
skeptics and alike therefore say the thing outside the box does not exist, because they bow
to the religion of science.
The problem isn't with the thing living outside the box; it's with the skeptics and similar
living inside the box who refuse to look outside the box.
If something lives outside the box of science, according to rules of physics and human
senses, it's proclaimed to not exist, and those who might say the thing exists are attacked
by in-the-box skeptics as lunatics.
Remember this: not everything can be measured by science. As long as thoughts and feelings
exist--and all of those posting here have thoughts and feelings--you have concrete evidence
within your own beings that there are things beyond science, which science can't measure.
Science is not the yardstick for all. Science does not have the Rosetta Stone for all
things. One of those things appears to be Sasquatch, or the possiblity thereof. If science
doesn't possess the correct tools to bring evidence of such a creature, it will never happen
until/unless it does obtain those tools.
PART III:
DeleteAll of the science and skeptic people posting here, are motivated by thoughts and feelings.
Others are paid to post here, though might still be motivated by thoughts and feelings.
If they truly absolutely believed in science and only in what could be verified by their
five senses, they would be inhuman automatons. They would deny the existence of thoughts and
feelings and they would not have them or experience them.
But as we can all see, the skeptics and science people posting are highly motivated by
thoughts and feelings, such as resentments over anything which threatens the box of science
and in their attempts at insulting anyone who differs with them.
These "science people" reveal themselves to be emotional and defensive individuals; both
traits are outside the scope of science.
Tell someone who was standing in their kitchen and heard the squeal of brakes outside and
ran out to find his/her child hit in the street that love is not the greatest power within
human beings, and love is proof that science does not emcompass everything, that there are
things existing outside the box of science. They will tell you to get lost.
Science can only reach so far, and explain so much. Science can't explain the grief of the
parent who ran outside to find the hit child. Science can't measure it. Grief is motivated
by love. Science can't explain that. Since grief is a hindrance to continuing life, it is
illogical and has no place in the ideas of science. Grief gets in the way. Yet it is
intangible.
Thoughts and feelings are outside science, yet we all know they exist, and are aware of
their power.
Love's existence proves science is limited.
PART IV:
DeleteSince you know that thoughts and feelings, and love, are real, and that they influence and
rule the human race, yet are intangible, untouchable, and you all have proof of this within
your own personalities and beings and very existences, this leads to the very obvious next
step: the consideration of the existence of a soul, and the soul's existence independent of
the body.
Since thoughts and feelings are intangible but real and powerful, they prove the intangible
can be, or is, real. It makes a lot of sense that these intangibles issue from an intangible
source, and not our physical bodies: a soul. An intangible soul as the source of intangible
thoughts and feelings fits neatly and is even logical.
The love of that parent for the hit child, the love being intangible, comes from more than
the physical body. The physical body as the source of this love in no way fits with or
explains the life-or-death depth of the love.
Since you all know that thoughts and feelings exist outside of and even despite science, and
the hard evidence is inside you as your thoughts and feelings race constantly through your
being, then it follows that there might be other things which exist outside science and
which science fails to meausure. Perhaps there are aspects to sasquatch which are likewise
outside the limits of science, unmeasureable, not decodable at this stage of science's
development.
Why would thoughts and feelings be the only intangible things in existence? Since they are
proof of the existence of the intangible, isn't it likely more intangibles also exist?
Love proves that things outside science exist. Try to stop loving, anyone, and you will have
your proof that science is limited. You know that love is real, but it operates and exists
outside the box of science, outside the rules of science, outside even of your five senses.
Love, thoughts, feelings, are your proof of the intangible. They are inside you, working and
flowing, right now.
Love is proof of existence beyond and outside science.
WTF!
DeleteMan the guy above WTF needs to get laid, and I mean quickly.........
DeleteAll of this "love" stuff is covered by the somewhat soft science called Psychology, but may be quantitatively evaluated and ultimately understood by neurobiology. In fact, Buddhism offers a fine critique of "love," even while advocating it.
DeleteIndeed - or you mean qualitatively evaluated.
DeleteWho knows these days w/ quantum mechanics?
I think the guy was joking but he has a point.
I started to read all that but got really bored really fast. Without a body it's all just noise.
DeleteI'm serious, if any of these people show up at Bigfoot conferences, throw rotten veggies at their stands until they leave. If they get up and give psychic Bigfoot lectures, boo them off the stage.
ReplyDeleteChase them into the hills, or else you are all going to be even more tainted with the crazy brush than much of the general public paints you already
I do wonder whether this sub culture would exist if Patterson didn't pull off his hoax
DeleteI actually thought that many times, what would be if the PGF didn't exist? Now for 'SMART' people it shouldn't and if they beleive Bigfoot exists start from fresh.
DeleteBut no, it's always the PGF when infact it should be a 'clean' slate.
That's an interesting thought Anon 4:37. Patterson's hoax sure seems to have started American footery, but who's to say that some other conman wouldn't have done it a few years later if Patterson hadn't beat them to it. If you look at the other subcultures who believe in bullshit they tend not to have a “grand hoax” like footery does. Ghost hunting for example has “the brown lady of raynham hall” and “the s.s. Watertown” but they aren't central to the subculture. They are merely more prominent hoaxes. In order to find out if Patterson really “made” the Bigfoot subculture I think you would have to compare American footery to the groups who believe in mythical apes in other parts of the world.
DeleteI'm serious, if any of these people show up at Bigfoot conferences, throw rotten veggies at their stands until they leave.
DeleteI tell you what would happen..f*ck all..as most are cowards.
One note to Timmy. You said you were here to debate . Fair enough, but if your only going to say fake and no to everything then there is no debate. So in essence you are here just really to troll and fight! Not debate . Just because you didn't see a Bigfoot like many others doesn't mean they don't exist. I live in a state with 38,000 black bear and I camp regularly and never see them, but I know their there! Oh one more thing . Since you were a hoaxer-go to hell! Dihonest and con people are ushually The lowest parts of our society!
ReplyDeleteYou can only actually debate if your opponent presents an argument. When footers say things like “the muscle movement in the Patterson film conclusively proves that Bigfoot exists” and then refuse to acknowledge that they are just giving their opinions they aren’t really arguing. They are being intellectually dishonest. It's possible to make them look stupid in front of others, but how can you actually argue with someone who deludes themselves incessantly?
DeleteThis subject needs skeptics, but skeptics that provide an alternate theory to the one that was posed. Not name calling, "Your momma" jokes & "Man in a monkey suit" posts.
ReplyDeleteWhen you go through alot of purported sasquatch evidence there are explainations for some of it. When you get to that point, there is still some unexplained.
We all need to keep working towards the goal of proving or disproving the Sasquatch and it needs to be done rationally from both sides.
I call bullshit. You're lying dude. You know that alternative theories have been presented, and you know what they are. This “skeptics only insult, they don't offer any alternative explanations” argument isn't fooling anyone. The alternative explanations have included: bears, “mental illness”, hoaxes, pareidolia, etc...
DeleteTypical - attack the man not the argument. I guess that proves that some skeptics DO only insult. QED.
DeleteWhat he said is a sensible approach.
"We all need to keep working towards the goal of proving or disproving the Sasquatch and it needs to be done rationally from both sides."
Obviously you do have a problem with a rational approach, hence the need to call him a liar? That's truly a winning tantrum formula that most of us stopped using in preschool. Do you not realise how ludicrous and irrational you sound?
Actually, I attacked the man AND the argument because his argument was bullshit and because he attacked skeptics. Dot try to criticize me for insulting someone who insulted me you dipshit because THAT is ludicrous. You sound like a preschooler who hits someone and then wines and cries and throws a tantrum when the get hit back. Also the part of his post that you chose to quote was not all that he wrote. You conveniently ignored the rest of what he wrote.
DeleteIF YOUR HERE TO CRAP ON WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE, YOU START EVERY ARGUMENT WHEN YOU SHOW UP, THATS THE POINT ASSWHIPE, GO AWAY!
DeleteNo Leon, YOU started shit. You started the argument that brought me here. You attacked my science. You slandered biologists. You lied to our faces. You called us “closed minded” over and over again. Your arrogance is so profound that you think others should accept your bullshit without question. What did you think would happen when you attacked biology you retard? Did you think you would be allowed to get away with it? You footers threw the first insult. YOU are the aggressors. And you deserve every bit of ridicule that you receive. We all know the real reason that you fucks do this is because it makes you feel smarter to tear down the established sciences. Well Leon, when you get your kicks by attacking biology do not wine like a little bitch when we come here to tear you down, asshole.
DeleteTHE SPOTTED OWL WAS BULLSHIT!
DeleteTHE DESSERT TORTISE WAS BULLSHIT.
KANGAROO RAT IS BULLSHIT
THE DELTA SMELT IS BULLSHIT
GLOBAL WARMING IS BULLSHIT.
THE LIST OF MEDICATIONS THAT FUCKED PEOPLE UP IS ENDLESS----BAD SCIENCE.
HOW ABOUT ALL THE SCIENTIFIC "EXPERIMENTS" ON PEOPLE OF THIER OWN COUNTRIES, ALL OVER THE WORLD---- IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE.
HOW MANY THEORIES ARE WE PAST THE BIG BANG????????????????
EVOLUTION, DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED.
WHY DON'T YOU SCIENCE MOTHER FUCKERS GO GET PROOF OF ONE 1 ONE 1 ONE 1 ESTABLISHED CHAIN OF EVOLVED SPECIES.
BECAUSE THERES NO PROOF MOTHER FUCKER, NO PROOF.
SCIENCE IS WRONG ALL THE TIME.
WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS RELIGIO-SCIENTIFICS!
THIS IS JUST BIGFOOT YOU PUSSY, WHY DON'T YOU GO WORK ON A CURE FOR HYMROIDS AND RUB SOME AROUND YOUR MOUTH,
LIBTARD DUMBASS!
I take it you haven't had your medication today Leon?
DeleteRight, no counter argument, libtard!
Deleteleon...... there is ample proof of evolution , in fact it happened in a very short period of time with a species of moth in Birmingham ,England during the industrial evolution, the moths were normally grey, but over a period of years they became coal black as the lighter moths were easily seen by the birds against the ash covered trees, as the factories switched from coal furnaces to natural gas and electricity, the black moths became easy pickings and the population switched back to light grey again.
Deletenot to mention easy things like Darwin's Finches, pelvic girdle in boas and pythons, the fossil record showing the progression of different species over time.
denying evolution is for mindless jesus freaks....don't be a mindless jesus freak.
not to mention, that that you are just an obvious idiot with you terrible spelling and horrible lack of grammar.
DeleteJesus doesn't love you Leon, he thinks yer an a$$hole
Leon loves fighting! He's as stupid as a stump! Most of what he says comes from a 3rd grade education drop out! Leon and Timmy are in the extreme minority when it comes to their opinions. Don't believe a word they say!
DeleteLeon still hasn't come to the conclusion on Global Warming? Let's pump exhaust into his body for the next week and see how his body reacts and cut his oxygen level in half. I wonder how natural his body will react to it ( kidding on doing it , but proves the point)!
DeleteIt took me awhile utp, how you been. ASSWHIPE STUPID LIBTARD.
DeleteWHAT YOU MENTIONED ABOVE ABOUT THE MOTH, THATS ADAPTATION IDIOT, NOT EVOLUTION. ARE YOU SERIOUS, TALK ABOUT THIRD GRADE.
DeleteTHE HEAD ALARMIST GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTIST ALREADY ROLLED, WE DISCUSSED IT LAST WEEK. GUY ADMITTED THEY HAVE KNOW IDEA WHY THE PLANETS WARMING. COME ON IDIOT, KEEP UP WITH CURRENT NEWS.
what do you think evolution is you idiot? it's adapting to changes in the environment.... If animal A is better at surviving and reproducing due to some differentiating trait it will be more likely to reproduce, passing those gene's onward to it's offspring and so on....
DeleteYou really are that dumb aren't you..... wow
and actually, no, that Gaia guy didn't say that global warming isn't happening, he said that he was an alarmist about the severity of the effects over the next 100 years.
so, you are just another kind of uninformed alarmist..... sometimes a little bit of information can be dangerous, and you appear to have very very little information. (and judging by your spelling very little education)
read more, or have someone read to you, it'll help you in the long run. (well if have the free time in between the sweeping)
I saw a ten footer yesterday. It was the biggest one I've seen yet.
ReplyDeleteWell mine was smaller but I'm not telling.
DeleteYou two guys are type 3 skeptics juveniles
Deletedont let the facts get in the way of a good fantasy!!!
ReplyDeleteThe facts are that this is not a myth or legend; it's simply a matter of people telling the truth.
DeleteIt's a matter of more hoaxers than you can count and delusional supporters believing it anyway. That's not truth.
DeleteYour statement is irrelevant. It's a matter of whether an alleged eyewitness is lying, mis-identifying, hallucinating, or telling the truth. All this nonsense about an 'urban legend' is hogwash. The stories of the Sasquatch originally came from First Nations/Native American tribes who lived in very dense wilderness, the exact opposite of 'urban'.
DeleteBelieve or not, or if its real or not, to verbally abuse someone else for what they believe when it has No direct effect on you, makes you a pretty sad person.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, so what if people believe in it, people getting worked up on a BIGFOOT site when they don't believe are only projecting for a number of reasons.
1. Bullied at some stage, internet warriors , trolls are 99% of the time ppl who have been bullied.
2. Shit job, you need to feel important and intelligent so you find ppl who you feel society considers less then you and you attack them. Through the safety of you computer screen.
3. Your a juvenile
I have more respect for a bigfoot believer than a troll. And there's No point throwing the " this site needs a skeptic card". Skeptics never discovered anything just got in the way. So if you don't believe, fine but step aside with the abuse and let ppl have a bit if fun with there hobby.
Stephen
It's not possible that we are trying to change minds, to get people to think more critically and to find better, more rewarding pursuits? That's my goal here. Name calling is for cowards and bullies. I want people to think.
Deletehard to do when doped up on corn syrup and gmo food
DeleteI don't know what that means, but I assume it's supposed to be insulting.
Delete"Believers" need better evidence.
ReplyDeleteYou need to get a life, I think your a type 2 skeptic (Shit job)
DeleteThere is no element of belief about this whatsoever other than your belief. You've made up your mind and made a conclusion and think you know it all before you even heard the word 'Sasquatch'. The investigators on the other hand go out and interview eyewitnesses, examine trackways, and conduct field research and base their opinion on that. The Sasquatch is not part of a religious belief, it's a scientific view point that an unverified species of primate could exist today (and a very small minority of people favour this theory).
DeleteHolding an opinion contrary to what evidence suggests is belief. I'd love for this to be true, but that doesn't make it so.
DeleteThere is alot of evidence that suggests the Sasquatch exists (PGF, footprints, handprints, body prints, hair samples, scat, eyewitness reports). Can you show me one piece of evidence that suggests they don't exist?
Delete> Can you show me one piece of evidence that suggests they don't exist?
DeleteThat is a ridiculous statement.
Show us the positive evidence.
There is some small validity of your nit-picky critique of Carroll, but his basic point is sound: there is no positive, verifiable evidence of Bigfoot. There is only evidence you believe was left by a Bigfoot but cannot verify was left by a Bigfoot. Big difference.
Hi there, this weekend is good for me, because this time i am reading this impressive educational article here at my residence.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to visit my homepage :: summer internship
Because the admin of this web page is working, no uncertainty very soon it will be renowned, due to its feature contents.
ReplyDeleteMy website ... summer internship
They set up team for each project; you may even contractually link
ReplyDeletepayment to these goals. The downside is that it can seem quite
scary for more traditional people and companies do student
loans people.
Feel free to surf to my webpage; Private Student Loans for People