Sasquatch aka Bigfoot Evidence

[Reilly.]

23 hours ago, DieChecker said:

There is no good proof of Bigfoot... Otherwise we'd not be speculating on BF, but BF would be a fact. That the supposed evidence that has been put forward wasn't verified, or repeatable, is why BF still fails to have scientific evidence.

I don't know about that. I think there is quite a bit of proof. Just no solid evidence. Its important we distinguish the difference.

[+DieChecker]

56 minutes ago, Reilly. said:

I don't know about that. I think there is quite a bit of proof. Just no solid evidence. Its important we distinguish the difference.

I agree there is a lot of eyewitness and circumstantial proof, but what I meant by "good proof", is stuff that will stand up to scientific scrutiny. 

Even the specific footprints that are known fakes are evidence. The question is, of what?

[stereologist]

6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I don't think a requirement of evidence is necessary for belief. The stories alone, some of them from respected people, leads many to believe. 

This thread is about evidence, so there's no crime in demanding evidence. And nothing wrong in pointing out why specific things brought up are insufficient. But I see nothing wrong in continuing to bring forth suspected evidence to again be inspected.

I see many people posting, "There is no evidence, so shut down the thread.". Is that really what these threads on UM are about?

I am not demanding that the thread be closed or that only good evidence be supplied. I continue to point out that PrisonerX's statements in multiple threads are nothing more than childish chest thumping.

It is well known that witnesses are often mistaken. An appeal to authority such as "respected people" is a non-starter. Studies have shown that pilots are often poor witnesses for UFOs. There is the mistaken idea that the more reports there are the more certain we are. The problem is that collecting more and more bad reports only supports the idea that only bad reports exist. Blurry long distance videos and bad reports are the norm.

[oldrover]

11 hours ago, Reilly. said:

I don't know about that. I think there is quite a bit of proof. Just no solid evidence. Its important we distinguish the difference.

It's proof definitely, but as Diechecker asks, what of?

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I agree there is a lot of eyewitness and circumstantial proof, but what I meant by "good proof", is stuff that will stand up to scientific scrutiny. 

Even the specific footprints that are known fakes are evidence. The question is, of what?

I'd say the main issue is when this 'evidence' (and that's not used dismissively, it is evidence of something) started to appear. I'd say that's the single biggest piece of evidence of all of it. 

Edited July 15, 2017 by oldrover

[Gaden]

6 hours ago, stereologist said:

...

It is well known that witnesses are often mistaken. ...

  All you have to do is tell someone that you heard of someone who heard and saw a bigfoot. From then on, many of the people who heard the story will attribute many noises and sightings to bigfoot. The legend grows from there. More and more people attribute sounds and sightings to BF, therefore, more and more people are convinced, who then hear and see phantom BF and so on and so on.

 It's the same with alien controlled UFOs.