Hello, all. Is the forum open to newbies? I've read a few sasquatch books and am familiar with the BFRO site and a few other websites. I'm an outdoors guy, but have had no sasquatch encounters.
I already had my first online argument with closed-minded folks who had everything all figured out already. Maybe you've met them. They're the it's-all-a-hoax-only-accepted-by-gullible-soft-headed-wishful-thinkers-who-will-place-
their-faith-in-things-that-have-no-real-evidence-nevermind-that-I-don't-know-anything-
about-the topic-besides-what-I-saw-on-an-In-Search-Of-episode-thirty-years-ago kind of people. I could use some like-minded company about now.
And, I've got plenty of questions. For one, what's a decent one or two sentence response for people who blow you off or ridicule you? I'm not looking for a slam dunk insult that says, "I've got a chip on my shoulder". I don't want to convert anybody either by launching into a dissertation.
More like a reasonable response that implicitly sends the message, "You know, it's not stupid to consider this as a real possibility." Something that might let the other person save face, garner some respect for you, and defuse the situation so you can move on to other topics.
Full Version: Hello from newbie and question
Yep..Its open to everyone Jud..biptos rules are at the top...welcome to the BFF. [edit] best response may be another question...simply "why ? "
Jud,
I'd say something like, "It's easy to ridicule the idea that an undocumeted ape lives in North America, but several prominent scientists, primate experts, have recently stated that some of the evidence is compelling." Then I'd refer them to this article in the Denver Post for more information.
Good luck.
I'd say something like, "It's easy to ridicule the idea that an undocumeted ape lives in North America, but several prominent scientists, primate experts, have recently stated that some of the evidence is compelling." Then I'd refer them to this article in the Denver Post for more information.
Good luck.
Welcome Judd, keep asking questions. You found a place with some interesting
people who have good resources for those questions.
Is it possible that all the scientists, land owners, wildlife specialists, teachers, patrolmen and women, boaters, hikers, fishermen, skiers, and outdoorspeople are mistaking bears or some other animal for this? Are they all liars ? And all the footprints are fake? Why do people keep reporting these things ? Why is there repetitious behavior? How about before the internet ?
Its a great mystery Judd, enjoy it.
people who have good resources for those questions.
Is it possible that all the scientists, land owners, wildlife specialists, teachers, patrolmen and women, boaters, hikers, fishermen, skiers, and outdoorspeople are mistaking bears or some other animal for this? Are they all liars ? And all the footprints are fake? Why do people keep reporting these things ? Why is there repetitious behavior? How about before the internet ?
Its a great mystery Judd, enjoy it.
"It's okay if you don't believe there's enough evidence to support the existence of sasquatch. I'm sure that there's enough evidence for sasquatch to believe that you exist. 
[edit] Forgot to add, welcome to the BFF. Where newbies have some of the best stuff.
[edit] Forgot to add, welcome to the BFF. Where newbies have some of the best stuff.
Using the PM button at the bottom of this post, send me your address (each line on a separate line so my label software can print it easily). I'll send you six business cards headed "Eight Reasons Why Bigfoot Might Exist." On the back there are "10 More Reasons Bigfoot Might Exist" (in case the first side didn't do the job). All you have to do is let us know how it's received. (I'll delete your post after printing the label.)
Welcome to the BFF Judd.
And Fishbone is right - some of our best discussions are the result of new members.
I don't like the term 'newbie' personally - it suggests that a newbie is a novice, which couldn't be futher from the truth.
I keep saying it, but none of us know anything about these creatures.
And Fishbone is right - some of our best discussions are the result of new members.
I don't like the term 'newbie' personally - it suggests that a newbie is a novice, which couldn't be futher from the truth.
I keep saying it, but none of us know anything about these creatures.
QUOTE
." Something that might let the other person save face, garner some respect for you, and defuse the situation so you can move on to other topics.
This is something I have fun with. I have made a list of 21 animals that are found in Michigan, give it to the doubter and then ask them how many of them have they seen personally? When they can only respond to a few of them, I then ask if that means they don't believe in the animals they haven't seen. It is real effective and usually causes open discussion.
Some of the animals I have listed are black widow spider, Missauga(spelling?) rattle snake, beaver, otter, elk, moose, etc. Not surprisingly, most people have seen very few of them personally. They probably have seen film or pictures, which they will usually bring up. So, then I state that both film and pictures have been taken of BF.
My mother once asked me, "How come I haven't heard of it?"
Of course I laughed. Of course she's heard of it. She just hasn't seen BF.
Another thing I sometimes state, I have spent thousands of hours in the field, on the internet and in private research and I am convinced that BF exists. (Of course it helps that I had a sighting, but that was while doing field research and I was already convinced of its existence.) You, (referring to the arguer) on the other hand, have spent zilch time even pondering the issue and have rejected it off hand and you're telling me that you don't believe based on what...nothing?
welcome and have fun. That is what BF research is about.
Wecome to BFF Juda
I am about to the point where I just don't waste my breath with the close-minded people. A skeptic is a skeptic and nothing short of a close encounter of their own is going to change some of their minds... JMO
(but if they would look at the scientific data it sure wouldn't hurt!!)
This is a great forum with a lot of awesome folks!!! Glad to have you here
I am about to the point where I just don't waste my breath with the close-minded people. A skeptic is a skeptic and nothing short of a close encounter of their own is going to change some of their minds... JMO
(but if they would look at the scientific data it sure wouldn't hurt!!)
This is a great forum with a lot of awesome folks!!! Glad to have you here
Wow, what a welcome! You're a friendly bunch of folks here.
OK, I've considered various responses, some of which I have previously tried. I'll list them here. You can let me know which one(s) you think would go over best in public with someone razzing you in a small group setting amongst peers, where you are aiming for mutual respect. If you would change the wording slightly, but the theme is the same, just say so.
1. Appeal to knowledge: "There is more scientific evidence for this than most people are aware of. So, if you haven't read what's available, I would hold off on any judgement. I can give you some references if you like."
2. Appeal to authority: "I can think of no primate researcher more widely known and respected than Dr. Jane Goodall. Last year, she admitted on NPR that she was sure that large undiscovered primates, like sasquatch, do exist. Several mainstream scientists think that this is a real possibility that should be investigated."
3. Appeal to difficulty in searching: "It took a year to find Chandra Levy, and they found her in some bushes in an already searched city park not far from her apartment. After years of a massive FBI manhunt, Eric Rudolph wasn't found until he decided to come into town and pick through a dumpster. D.C. and North Carolina are nothing compared to the wilderness areas of the Pacific Northwest. No one is paid full-time to search for this animal. Sasquatch are very rare and have plenty of places to hide. And, just like other animals, they want to avoid humans."
4. Appeal to history: "When people first heard of the gorilla, the komodo dragon, and the grizzly, they laughed them off as impossible and always claimed, 'If something that big were real, science would know about it by now.'"
5. Appeal to evidence: "There may not be a body to examine, but there's already plenty of physical evidence available: hair and scat that don't match other forest animals, recorded screams that sound like howler monkeys on steroids, difficult to fake tracks that reflect a different foot anatomy from humans, and plenty of sightings from some very credible people."
6. Appeal to probability: "There are thousands of sighting reports, and likely many more sightings that are unreported. There are hundreds of track casts. There is even some film. Even if 95% of those things were hoaxes or mistakes, that remaining 5% means we have got some explaining to do. And if it's all a hoax, it's the largest undiscovered conspiracy on the planet that has been perpetuated for decades, perhaps longer. You decide what's more likely."
7. Appeal to inference: "You believe in plenty of reasonable things that you can't see or touch: atoms, the planet Pluto, the Earth revolving around the sun. The initial evidence for all those things was demonstrated through inference, and that was sufficient. The same can be done with sasquatch."
8. Appeal to intellectual honesty: "Anything can be doubted. There is plenty of physical evidence for evolution, the Holocaust, and the moon landing. But, there are people who are convinced those things never happened. There is also plenty of physical evidence for the existence of sasquatch."
Of course, there's what I really want to say, but it may not go over as well...
9. Ridicule is the only weapon of the uninformed.
10. You don't want to debate me on this, because I will crush you.
11. An opinion based in ignorance is worth nothing.
Thoughts?
OK, I've considered various responses, some of which I have previously tried. I'll list them here. You can let me know which one(s) you think would go over best in public with someone razzing you in a small group setting amongst peers, where you are aiming for mutual respect. If you would change the wording slightly, but the theme is the same, just say so.
1. Appeal to knowledge: "There is more scientific evidence for this than most people are aware of. So, if you haven't read what's available, I would hold off on any judgement. I can give you some references if you like."
2. Appeal to authority: "I can think of no primate researcher more widely known and respected than Dr. Jane Goodall. Last year, she admitted on NPR that she was sure that large undiscovered primates, like sasquatch, do exist. Several mainstream scientists think that this is a real possibility that should be investigated."
3. Appeal to difficulty in searching: "It took a year to find Chandra Levy, and they found her in some bushes in an already searched city park not far from her apartment. After years of a massive FBI manhunt, Eric Rudolph wasn't found until he decided to come into town and pick through a dumpster. D.C. and North Carolina are nothing compared to the wilderness areas of the Pacific Northwest. No one is paid full-time to search for this animal. Sasquatch are very rare and have plenty of places to hide. And, just like other animals, they want to avoid humans."
4. Appeal to history: "When people first heard of the gorilla, the komodo dragon, and the grizzly, they laughed them off as impossible and always claimed, 'If something that big were real, science would know about it by now.'"
5. Appeal to evidence: "There may not be a body to examine, but there's already plenty of physical evidence available: hair and scat that don't match other forest animals, recorded screams that sound like howler monkeys on steroids, difficult to fake tracks that reflect a different foot anatomy from humans, and plenty of sightings from some very credible people."
6. Appeal to probability: "There are thousands of sighting reports, and likely many more sightings that are unreported. There are hundreds of track casts. There is even some film. Even if 95% of those things were hoaxes or mistakes, that remaining 5% means we have got some explaining to do. And if it's all a hoax, it's the largest undiscovered conspiracy on the planet that has been perpetuated for decades, perhaps longer. You decide what's more likely."
7. Appeal to inference: "You believe in plenty of reasonable things that you can't see or touch: atoms, the planet Pluto, the Earth revolving around the sun. The initial evidence for all those things was demonstrated through inference, and that was sufficient. The same can be done with sasquatch."
8. Appeal to intellectual honesty: "Anything can be doubted. There is plenty of physical evidence for evolution, the Holocaust, and the moon landing. But, there are people who are convinced those things never happened. There is also plenty of physical evidence for the existence of sasquatch."
Of course, there's what I really want to say, but it may not go over as well...
9. Ridicule is the only weapon of the uninformed.
10. You don't want to debate me on this, because I will crush you.
11. An opinion based in ignorance is worth nothing.
Thoughts?
1. and 2. are pretty good... Don't forget to add at the end, "and if ya don't like it, kiss my entire ass." (say this in a southern accent)
I am kidding of course.. well kind of :rolleyes:
OK.. I'll just shut up now
I am kidding of course.. well kind of :rolleyes:
OK.. I'll just shut up now
QUOTE
Don't forget to add at the end, "and if ya don't like it, kiss my entire ass." (say this in a southern accent)
OMG MountainLady. I have got to remember this one! I'll surely make some good use of that statement.
Here's the contents of the most recent version of my Bigfoot Business Card:
Eight Reasons Why Bigfoot Might Be Real:
1. Jane Goodall is a believer.
2. 30 or so policemen have reported seeing a Bigfoot.
3. Over 1500 good-quality sightings have been reported.
4. Sightings go back 200 years—Native Americans’ further.
5. Certain creature-characteristics would make hoaxing difficult, e.g.: Height (often 8 feet!), Girth, Stride, Weight, & Stench. No hoaxers of 8-foot Bigfeet have come forward with suits.
6. Hoaxing of many footprints in remote locations is unlikely.
7. Feet: longitudinal dermal ridges & subtly non-human features.
8. 33 positron emission profiles of Chinese Wildman hairs match one another, but don‘t match any known animal’s.
For more info: <fill-in-site[s]>
10 More Reasons Bigfoot Might Be Real:
9. 25 hair analyses = “unknown animal” or “… primate.”
10. Expert DNA analysis of Yeti-hair root: “unknown animal.”
11. Piles of human-shaped but gigantic poop have been found.
12. Twisted trees & branches + BF heard limb-snapping.
13. There’s no convincing imitation of the ape in Patterson’s film.
14. Dogs often fear the scent of Bigfoot, when brought to a site.
15. 1000’s of borderline encounters reported: unusual sounds, stenches, rocks thrown, “beds” found, strange “kills.”
16. Audiotapes of Bigfoot calls have withstood sound-expert analysis & been endorsed by those who’ve heard Bigfoot.
17. Variance of footprint lengths to widths = bell-shaped curve.
18. Possible BF bones sometimes found, but misplaced or lost.
I liked your point about argument from inference--that's one I missed. I also liked your point about how the police couldn't find Levi & Rudolf. You might supplement that by pointing out that since 1945 some 50-odd light planes have been lost in the forests of WA state (and 75 between CA & AK) and not been found, indicating that there are lots of places people never go, and hence where BF could be unmolested.
By "good-quality sightings" I meant ones where witnesses have gone to the authorities with their report and/or where conscientious investigators have questioned them and gotten an impression of credibility.
Eight Reasons Why Bigfoot Might Be Real:
1. Jane Goodall is a believer.
2. 30 or so policemen have reported seeing a Bigfoot.
3. Over 1500 good-quality sightings have been reported.
4. Sightings go back 200 years—Native Americans’ further.
5. Certain creature-characteristics would make hoaxing difficult, e.g.: Height (often 8 feet!), Girth, Stride, Weight, & Stench. No hoaxers of 8-foot Bigfeet have come forward with suits.
6. Hoaxing of many footprints in remote locations is unlikely.
7. Feet: longitudinal dermal ridges & subtly non-human features.
8. 33 positron emission profiles of Chinese Wildman hairs match one another, but don‘t match any known animal’s.
For more info: <fill-in-site[s]>
10 More Reasons Bigfoot Might Be Real:
9. 25 hair analyses = “unknown animal” or “… primate.”
10. Expert DNA analysis of Yeti-hair root: “unknown animal.”
11. Piles of human-shaped but gigantic poop have been found.
12. Twisted trees & branches + BF heard limb-snapping.
13. There’s no convincing imitation of the ape in Patterson’s film.
14. Dogs often fear the scent of Bigfoot, when brought to a site.
15. 1000’s of borderline encounters reported: unusual sounds, stenches, rocks thrown, “beds” found, strange “kills.”
16. Audiotapes of Bigfoot calls have withstood sound-expert analysis & been endorsed by those who’ve heard Bigfoot.
17. Variance of footprint lengths to widths = bell-shaped curve.
18. Possible BF bones sometimes found, but misplaced or lost.
I liked your point about argument from inference--that's one I missed. I also liked your point about how the police couldn't find Levi & Rudolf. You might supplement that by pointing out that since 1945 some 50-odd light planes have been lost in the forests of WA state (and 75 between CA & AK) and not been found, indicating that there are lots of places people never go, and hence where BF could be unmolested.
By "good-quality sightings" I meant ones where witnesses have gone to the authorities with their report and/or where conscientious investigators have questioned them and gotten an impression of credibility.
I keep hearing the tired old argument "there is no proof" That never fails to cause me much frustration because my mother spoke English very well and words have certain meanings. What I think they are trying to say is that they personally do not know enough evidence to constitute proof for them. They commonly use the word "proof" when they really mean to use the word "evidence". Proof is a subjective thing in my opinion. Proof isn't defined by closed-minded scientists. It is found by looking at all the available evidence, both for and against, and then making up your mind. You can either accept bigfoot as proved, you can have doubts, or you can tell yourself it does not exist based on your own background of knowledge and experience. People keep saying there is no proof. Give me proof that Hitler lived, that we landed on the moon, that George Bush is president. If skeptics are unwilling to look at evidence, then proof is not what they are looking for at all; they are probably just trying to impress us with how knowledgeable and how main-stream their thinking is. There is plenty of evidence that constitutes proof to me that bigfoot wanders our forests. It seems that no amount of evidence will ever convince some people until they see that the main-stream scientific orthodoxy takes the subject more seriously.
QUOTE(Jim Zenor @ Dec 3 2003, 02:18 AM)
You can either accept bigfoot as proved, you can have doubts, or you can tell yourself it does not exist based on your own background of knowledge and experience. People keep saying there is no proof. Give me proof that Hitler lived, that we landed on the moon, that George Bush is president. If skeptics are unwilling to look at evidence, then proof is not what they are looking for at all;
Hmmmm, interesting thoughts there Jim, your examples really help make your point and I totally get where you're coming from. You're right, "proof" is the wrong word.
Oh btw, late chiming in here, but welcome to BFF Jud!!
Rog, those are all great points. Since most people don't really want to enter into an extended debate and change their minds, it's good to have some sound bytes that I can whip out to at least give them pause.
Jim, I hear you on how people misuse the word "proof". I'll slip into my nerd hat for a second...
There's a different vocabulary for different kinds of reasoning. A word like "proof" is best used for deductive reasoning and logic. That includes things like geometry and syllogisms.
Inductive reasoning is more typical for what most people call natural sciences. Natural scientists (and I'll include rigorous social sciences here) use words like: observation, probability, data, inference, reliability, validity, variance, control, evidence, hypothesis. That's more typical of reasoning that relies on replicable methodologies, standardization of measurement, and descriptive and inferential statistics. The word "proof" doesn't fly in that domain. (removing nerd hat...
)
When people say, "There is no proof," they really mean, "It sounds far-fetched. I haven't seen anything to convince me, and because I am all-knowing no one else has either." That's why I think a good response is, "There's more scientific evidence than most people are aware of. So, if you haven't read what's available, I would hold off on any judgement."
I've tried that twice, and got decent responses both time. One guy backed off right away and told me, "You're right, I probably shouldn't make fun of something I haven't bothered to learn about it." Everyone was cool with that, and the conversation moved on to another topic.
The second time, I got laughed off and was asked with a smirk, "What evidence?" I then went on for five minutes about hair, feces, tracks, etc. and ended with the "mainstream scientists think it's worth investigating" bit. By the time I was done, he was kind of defensive and said he still didn't believe in Bigfoot. But, he admitted to me that he didn't know all of things I told him and he shouldn't have given me a hard time about it. He offered to let me beat him with a sasquatch femur when a body is found.
I've got a boatload of questions, but don't want to spew them all at once in one thread. I'm also sure that some of the questions have already been discussed one way or another, perhaps ad nauseum. Best approach?
Jim, I hear you on how people misuse the word "proof". I'll slip into my nerd hat for a second...
There's a different vocabulary for different kinds of reasoning. A word like "proof" is best used for deductive reasoning and logic. That includes things like geometry and syllogisms.
Inductive reasoning is more typical for what most people call natural sciences. Natural scientists (and I'll include rigorous social sciences here) use words like: observation, probability, data, inference, reliability, validity, variance, control, evidence, hypothesis. That's more typical of reasoning that relies on replicable methodologies, standardization of measurement, and descriptive and inferential statistics. The word "proof" doesn't fly in that domain. (removing nerd hat...
)When people say, "There is no proof," they really mean, "It sounds far-fetched. I haven't seen anything to convince me, and because I am all-knowing no one else has either." That's why I think a good response is, "There's more scientific evidence than most people are aware of. So, if you haven't read what's available, I would hold off on any judgement."
I've tried that twice, and got decent responses both time. One guy backed off right away and told me, "You're right, I probably shouldn't make fun of something I haven't bothered to learn about it." Everyone was cool with that, and the conversation moved on to another topic.
The second time, I got laughed off and was asked with a smirk, "What evidence?" I then went on for five minutes about hair, feces, tracks, etc. and ended with the "mainstream scientists think it's worth investigating" bit. By the time I was done, he was kind of defensive and said he still didn't believe in Bigfoot. But, he admitted to me that he didn't know all of things I told him and he shouldn't have given me a hard time about it. He offered to let me beat him with a sasquatch femur when a body is found.
I've got a boatload of questions, but don't want to spew them all at once in one thread. I'm also sure that some of the questions have already been discussed one way or another, perhaps ad nauseum. Best approach?
QUOTE
4. Sightings go back 200 years—Native Americans’ further.
The oldest possible sighting I am aware of is that of Leif Ericson in 986 A.D. in one of his journals.
Personally if the person I'm speaking with isn't of a scientific background and works in a scientific capacity for a living I don't feel especially compelled to try and prove anything whatsoever to him or her. It simply isn't worth the effort in my opinion. Anyone who has done any research in this field for any length of time can argue a skeptic to the ground with facts and they still won't be convinced until a squatch has utilized them as a treeknocker. It's a whole lot simpler to tell them if they are looking to be convinced they are talking to the wrong person.
My opinion of you you just went up a couple of notches
The search function at the top of the page is a great way to track down
topics and bits of info that have already taken place on the board.
It works extremely well. With that being said, by all means stir up
some controversy, bash a few pet theories, in other words, get some
people riled up and thinking. It's what keeps this place interesting...
QUOTE
I've got a boatload of questions, but don't want to spew them all at once in one thread. I'm also sure that some of the questions have already been discussed one way or another, perhaps ad nauseum. Best approach?
The search function at the top of the page is a great way to track down
topics and bits of info that have already taken place on the board.
It works extremely well. With that being said, by all means stir up
some controversy, bash a few pet theories, in other words, get some
people riled up and thinking. It's what keeps this place interesting...
Personally I find PGF the best evidence, especially with the level of magnifacation and clarity of the LMS DVD.......
However, I find that my friends that laugh at me when I show then Pattys's breasts and leg heria, shut up and listen when shown the Meldrum and Chilcutt interviews......they seem to be more willing to listen to scientists than their own eyes, but that is human nature I guess......
Also I have a very open mind and am not fooled visually very often so the PG film is my favorite.......but having said that nothing is better than having respected scientists, etc. studying evidence and producing excellent research.....
10 years max to "real proof" I say.......
However, I find that my friends that laugh at me when I show then Pattys's breasts and leg heria, shut up and listen when shown the Meldrum and Chilcutt interviews......they seem to be more willing to listen to scientists than their own eyes, but that is human nature I guess......
Also I have a very open mind and am not fooled visually very often so the PG film is my favorite.......but having said that nothing is better than having respected scientists, etc. studying evidence and producing excellent research.....
10 years max to "real proof" I say.......
If Jadaculla is a newbie with 154 posts, what does that make me?
I guess it is all subjective...as are most things..
A believer's evidence; is not 'proof' to a non-believer!
Sometimes, a believer's proof; is not even 'evidence' to a non-believer.
A believer's evidence; is not 'proof' to a non-believer!
Sometimes, a believer's proof; is not even 'evidence' to a non-believer.
ummm did you mean to another believer ? 
QUOTE(jimf @ Jan 10 2004, 12:17 PM)
ummm did you mean to another believer ?
Not really..
But to take it that one step further ,the concept would still retains it's
subjectiveness!
The difference is not in 'believer' or non-believer', but in proof and evidence.
Evidence is a trail of clues which draws one to a conclusion!
Proof is what makes that conclusion a truth.
Ergo ;evidence and proof are not the same thing.
Ouch! My head hurts!
I do get what you're talking about.its been that way for a long time..taking it a step further even..most 'believer' can't even accept the evidence or proof of each other..throw a non-believer into the mix and well.....what do you get...even less credibility.But based on whats been offered so far as proof or evidence..can anyone really blame them...and yeah I'm just returning the favor of the headache.tylenol ? 
QUOTE(jimf @ Jan 10 2004, 01:06 PM)
I do get what you're talking about.its been that way for a long time..taking it a step further even..most 'believer' can't even accept the evidence or proof of each other..throw a non-believer into the mix and well.....what do you get...even less credibility.But based on whats been offered so far as proof or evidence..can anyone really blame them...and yeah I'm just returning the favor of the headache.tylenol ?
Also...
I think that what it is...is that as time goes on, people who have been waiting for the final proof for many years have a hard time getting excited about another foot print! And being jaded in this matter, they could care less about the authenticity of said footprint.
The same with another 'howl from the woods'. Old hat!
They do nothing for me. Most sound like poor special effects audio from Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. Underwater noises,and mammals, such as seals, sea loins and walrusses!
People want to get excited again, like they did back in the day of the Patterson film! I remember my first glimps of film framed exposure in Argosy magazine. Wow! Didn't want to go to the cabin outhouse that night!
As I sit here typing this Boggy Creek 2 is about to start on tv. See! It is so hard to have faith these days when you see such things.
We have mostly all lived with decades of evidence! Now we want the proof!
Show us the proof! Gerry McGuire!!
Oh well...Boggy Creek 2 is just starting....wheres my beer and popcorn?
Websters Collegiate Dictionary for the word Evidence:
1....an outward sign or indication.
2....something that furnishes proof
I hope this helps??
P.S... Congratulations Jimf you are now a Moderator, you have earned it !!!
1....an outward sign or indication.
2....something that furnishes proof
I hope this helps??
P.S... Congratulations Jimf you are now a Moderator, you have earned it !!!
QUOTE(believe22 @ Jan 10 2004, 02:47 PM)
Websters Collegiate Dictionary for the word Evidence:
1....an outward sign or indication.
2....something that furnishes proof
I hope this helps??
P.S... Congratulations Jimf you are now a Moderator, you have earned it !!!
1....an outward sign or indication.
2....something that furnishes proof
I hope this helps??
P.S... Congratulations Jimf you are now a Moderator, you have earned it !!!
True! It does furnish proof, but it is not proof in itsself!
To find a BF with Preparation H on his fingers is evidence that he was up to something..
To find a person sitting a few feet away in their outhouse with a lodge pole inserted into their rectum is 'proof' that he was up to something.
I am agreement with you GrandC, its the 2 words you used "final proof" that counts, I believe BF does exist the scientific evidence, the real encounters & sightings etc. etc. (not the so-called we live with BF, he comes to all my childrens birthday parties, we go on cruises to the Bahamas with them but we have every excuse since time started as to why we can't show you proof)
QUOTE(believe22 @ Jan 10 2004, 03:30 PM)
I am agreement with you GrandC, its the 2 words you used "final proof" that counts, I believe BF does exist the scientific evidence, the real encounters & sightings etc. etc. (not the so-called we live with BF, he comes to all my childrens birthday parties, we go on cruises to the Bahamas with them but we have every excuse since time started as to why we can't show you proof)
I'll tell you what , friend..
I was reading Thom Powell's book 'The Locals, just the other day.
I got some 200 pages into it listening to his suppositions on BF behavior.(And some of his suppositions were pretty silly!)
Now friends and neighbors, it was at this point that increduality was stretched!
Here, it was said, that a BF 'mentally' told someone to put down their camera. That if they took his picture ..then the resulting re-action would be swift and ghastly! (And it had nothing to do with their soul being stolen!) That big ol' BF was just gonna put this guy's lights out ,unless the camera was put away! (Bigfoot Paparazzi?)[sp?]
If I could only accept that and go on my way, happily, knowing that was the answer at to why they were so elusive! What shocked me even more was the fact that Powell actually believed this occurance! Did that mean I also was supposed to believe it??
At that point I put away he and his silly tribute to investigators [$24.95-CDN].
Then started on a more saner path..Raincoast Sasquatch! A place where Sasquatches 'grunt' like they are supposed to!!
Grand Cherokee's post in Member's Lounge got me thinking. It turns out today is my BFF anniversary too. Here's my first post and thread.
If I'm a newbie, why do I feel so damn old?
If I'm a newbie, why do I feel so damn old?
Congrats Jud!!!
I feel your pain Bro!
I feel your pain Bro!
QUOTE(Judaculla @ Dec 1 2004, 04:41 PM)
If I'm a newbie, why do I feel so damn old?
Because once you get involved in this stuff, you age in bigfoot years.
Happy Anniversary Jud! A year already, eh? Sure has been nice getting to know you!
This thread can serve as the perfect example of how to make an "entrance" without putting people off or making as ass of oneself.
This thread can serve as the perfect example of how to make an "entrance" without putting people off or making as ass of oneself.
It seems that there is a plethora of informaton out there which needs to be disseminated. It is up to each of us as individual researcers to determine what works for us. I have seen some pretty wacked out ideas out there, as I am sure most of you have, but I try to respect the researchers and what they stand for even if it doesnt jive with my views. Although I am new to this board, I am not new to BF investigation, I have been at it for about 7 years. I do feel that someone will get that crucial piece of (clear) photographic or video evidence sooner or later. The thing that bothers me most is when that time does come and there is indisputable evidence of he existance of BF, it may well be the beginning of the end for the big guys. Scientists will want bodies, zoos will want specimens and rich peple will want the latest exotic pet. NOW THAT SUCKS, but we must continue, why..because we can.Three cheers for the human race, we rape pillage and destroy everything in our path. HIP HIP HOORAY!!!!
QUOTE(RogerKni @ Dec 2 2003, 11:47 PM)
Here's the contents of the most recent version of my Bigfoot Business Card:
Eight Reasons Why Bigfoot Might Be Real:
1. Jane Goodall is a believer.
2. 30 or so policemen have reported seeing a Bigfoot.
3. Over 1500 good-quality sightings have been reported.
4. Sightings go back 200 years—Native Americans’ further.
5. Certain creature-characteristics would make hoaxing difficult, e.g.: Height (often 8 feet!), Girth, Stride, Weight, & Stench. No hoaxers of 8-foot Bigfeet have come forward with suits.
6. Hoaxing of many footprints in remote locations is unlikely.
7. Feet: longitudinal dermal ridges & subtly non-human features.
8. 33 positron emission profiles of Chinese Wildman hairs match one another, but don‘t match any known animal’s.
For more info: <fill-in-site[s]>
10 More Reasons Bigfoot Might Be Real:
9. 25 hair analyses = “unknown animal” or “… primate.”
10. Expert DNA analysis of Yeti-hair root: “unknown animal.”
11. Piles of human-shaped but gigantic poop have been found.
12. Twisted trees & branches + BF heard limb-snapping.
13. There’s no convincing imitation of the ape in Patterson’s film.
14. Dogs often fear the scent of Bigfoot, when brought to a site.
15. 1000’s of borderline encounters reported: unusual sounds, stenches, rocks thrown, “beds” found, strange “kills.”
16. Audiotapes of Bigfoot calls have withstood sound-expert analysis & been endorsed by those who’ve heard Bigfoot.
17. Variance of footprint lengths to widths = bell-shaped curve.
18. Possible BF bones sometimes found, but misplaced or lost.
I liked your point about argument from inference--that's one I missed. I also liked your point about how the police couldn't find Levi & Rudolf. You might supplement that by pointing out that since 1945 some 50-odd light planes have been lost in the forests of WA state (and 75 between CA & AK) and not been found, indicating that there are lots of places people never go, and hence where BF could be unmolested.
By "good-quality sightings" I meant ones where witnesses have gone to the authorities with their report and/or where conscientious investigators have questioned them and gotten an impression of credibility.
Eight Reasons Why Bigfoot Might Be Real:
1. Jane Goodall is a believer.
2. 30 or so policemen have reported seeing a Bigfoot.
3. Over 1500 good-quality sightings have been reported.
4. Sightings go back 200 years—Native Americans’ further.
5. Certain creature-characteristics would make hoaxing difficult, e.g.: Height (often 8 feet!), Girth, Stride, Weight, & Stench. No hoaxers of 8-foot Bigfeet have come forward with suits.
6. Hoaxing of many footprints in remote locations is unlikely.
7. Feet: longitudinal dermal ridges & subtly non-human features.
8. 33 positron emission profiles of Chinese Wildman hairs match one another, but don‘t match any known animal’s.
For more info: <fill-in-site[s]>
10 More Reasons Bigfoot Might Be Real:
9. 25 hair analyses = “unknown animal” or “… primate.”
10. Expert DNA analysis of Yeti-hair root: “unknown animal.”
11. Piles of human-shaped but gigantic poop have been found.
12. Twisted trees & branches + BF heard limb-snapping.
13. There’s no convincing imitation of the ape in Patterson’s film.
14. Dogs often fear the scent of Bigfoot, when brought to a site.
15. 1000’s of borderline encounters reported: unusual sounds, stenches, rocks thrown, “beds” found, strange “kills.”
16. Audiotapes of Bigfoot calls have withstood sound-expert analysis & been endorsed by those who’ve heard Bigfoot.
17. Variance of footprint lengths to widths = bell-shaped curve.
18. Possible BF bones sometimes found, but misplaced or lost.
I liked your point about argument from inference--that's one I missed. I also liked your point about how the police couldn't find Levi & Rudolf. You might supplement that by pointing out that since 1945 some 50-odd light planes have been lost in the forests of WA state (and 75 between CA & AK) and not been found, indicating that there are lots of places people never go, and hence where BF could be unmolested.
By "good-quality sightings" I meant ones where witnesses have gone to the authorities with their report and/or where conscientious investigators have questioned them and gotten an impression of credibility.
These are all very good reasons!!!
But I'm coming out with cards that just use reason 11!!!!!!
It's all in the poop!!!!
18 excellent reasons. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
QUOTE(sierramadre @ Dec 3 2004, 11:39 PM)
18 excellent reasons. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
sierramadre,
You on a race to 1000 posts? Or is it 10,000?
RF
No I am jst a newbie who is consumed with the site and trying to gain some insight into BFF so I get alittle wrapped up in it. My wife is going to kick my butt if I dont spend more time with her...LOL :marge:
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.