So, where do Bigfoot sleep/settle?

[Night Walker]

[Lilly]

At the Big Foot Inn: https://www.yelp.com/biz/big-foot-inn-harvard

[acute]

3 minutes ago, Lilly said:

At the Big Foot Inn: https://www.yelp.com/biz/big-foot-inn-harvard

Hahaha!

Case closed.

[Merc14]

On ‎11‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 0:53 AM, Dunbaraj said:

Have you guys thought much about this?  Yea, we all know that Sasquatch could live up in the mountains, deep in the woods, somewhere in the swamp, etc.; but what kind of homes would they come up? And wouldn't they have an effect on the environment somehow? This BFRO article touches on that. 

Caves seem like the likely domicile, but what about trees? Do you think grass huts are possible? And, assuming they are the architects, do Sasquatch settle beneath those bizarre tree structures? Bigfoot Base cites over 500k abandoned mines in the United States alone. If you ask me, I think these old mine shafts might be the most popular destination for roaming Bigfoot in need of a longterm rest. They better be cool with bats though. 

Any thoughts?

Has anyone actually gone and read the BFRO article?   It is a real eye opener of ridiculous supposition, guessing and using of  "facts", that someone has made up whole cloth, as if these "facts" were actual observations made by biologists!   The whole article is based on the seemingly accepted fact that "Gigantos" (sic) crossed "the Bering Land Bridge" and established a breeding population in NA.

As far as the aband0oned mines thing, please explain how a family of 700lb, 7' tall hairy creatures could continuously enter and exit a mine without ever leaving a clue or being seen.

[Thorvir]

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

As far as the aband0oned mines thing, please explain how a family of 700lb, 7' tall hairy creatures could continuously enter and exit a mine without ever leaving a clue or being seen.

Dude...it's magic.

[papageorge1]

I have come to believe Bigfoots are not like other creatures we know of in science. I think they are creatures with aspects we would call paranormal and that they are not full time residents of our physical plane but enjoy the physicality of nature experiencing.

[Merc14]

6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I have come to believe Bigfoots are not like other creatures we know of in science. I think they are creatures with aspects we would call paranormal and that they are not full time residents of our physical plane but enjoy the physicality of nature experiencing.

So they are magical creatures?  That is your conclusion rather than given the complete lack of evidence I must assume they don't really exist.

[Thorvir]

10 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I have come to believe Bigfoots are not like other creatures we know of in science.

I agree. Made up creatures are not like real creatures, after all.

10 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I think they are creatures with aspects we would call paranormal and that they are not full time residents of our physical plane but enjoy the physicality of nature experiencing.

And your proof of this is what, exactly?

[papageorge1]

7 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

So they are magical creatures?  That is your conclusion rather than given the complete lack of evidence I must assume they don't really exist.

I disagree with 'the complete lack of evidence' assertion. Many sightings by competent individuals is evidence for their existence along with footprints and other things. This is evidence (not proof) and we can each judge quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence. I believe Bigfoot is likely to exist.

Edited December 21, 2016 by papageorge1

[Myles]

3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I disagree with 'the complete lack of evidence' assertion. Many sightings by competent individuals is evidence for their existence along with footprints and other things. This is evidence (not proof) and we can each judge quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence. I believe Bigfoot is likely to exist.

The footprints being real would suggest that they would leave physical evidence.    However we do not have even 1 hair.   Not one.

[papageorge1]

4 minutes ago, Thorvir said:

I agree. Made up creatures are not like real creatures, after all.

And your proof of this is what, exactly?

Where did I claim to have 'proof'?

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, Myles said:

The footprints being real would suggest that they would leave physical evidence.    However we do not have even 1 hair.   Not one.

I have heard of tested hair and it is always disputed between the two sides. Anyway, if you read earlier I do not think Bigfoot is a creature like other animals and involves things we consider paranormal. They are not full-time residents of our physical domain or we would have definite proof by now.

[Thorvir]

4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I have heard of tested hair and it is always disputed between the two sides.

Yes, one "side" making claims with nothing to back it up, and the other "side" using the scientific method and coming up with no evidence. to support the claims.

4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Anyway, if you read earlier I do not think Bigfoot is a creature like other animals and involves things we consider paranormal.

Yet, "things we consider paranormal" lacks all complete evidence as well.

4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

They are not full-time residents of our physical domain or we would have definite proof by now.

And what proof do you have to back up that claim?

[Thorvir]

10 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Where did I claim to have 'proof'?

Your claim requires proof for us to believe it.

[Merc14]

12 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I disagree with 'the complete lack of evidence' assertion. Many sightings by competent individuals is evidence for their existence along with footprints and other things. This is evidence (not proof) and we can each judge quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence. I believe Bigfoot is likely to exist.

I saw something in the dark is not evidence.  Eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable evidence there is, especially when people are excited and/or are seeing things at night.  As far as I know most of the "footprints" have been proven to be frauds and the others are of the "they could be something real" variety.  That's it, that is the evidence you bring to the table.  

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence for a reason.  Do you know what that reason is?

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, Thorvir said:

Yes, one "side" making claims with nothing to back it up, and the other "side" using the scientific method and coming up with no evidence. to support the claims.

Yet, "things we consider paranormal" lacks all complete evidence as well.

 

It seems we disagree about the evidence out there. So be it. I think the so-called 'scientific side' has an irrational dislike of anything that smacks of the paranormal or spirituality and that clouds their ability to consider rationally. And you probably think I am gullible and unscientific. I have been at these debates for decades.

[papageorge1]

10 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I saw something in the dark is not evidence.  Eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable evidence there is, especially when people are excited and/or are seeing things at night.  As far as I know most of the "footprints" have been proven to be frauds and the others are of the "they could be something real" variety.  That's it, that is the evidence you bring to the table.  

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence for a reason. This is a test Do you know what that reason is?

Is eyewitness testimony not evidence in courts? In the court of common sense? We each subjectively judge the likelihood of error and don't just dismiss it.

All footprints proved to be fraud, you say. That is disputed strongly by many. I know there are those that will claim any evidence of the paranormal or crypto-creatures has been found to be fraudulent or debunked. After serious consideration, I don't buy that.

'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. I agree with that statement but I am not claiming proof but that the preponderance of al evidence and argumentation leads me to believe it is likely (not proved) that something unknown to science is involved with this phenomena.

[Carnoferox]

50 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I disagree with 'the complete lack of evidence' assertion. Many sightings by competent individuals is evidence for their existence along with footprints and other things. This is evidence (not proof) and we can each judge quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence. I believe Bigfoot is likely to exist.

Sad how people still think that eyewitness testimony constitutes actual evidence.

[papageorge1]

9 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Sad how people still think that eyewitness testimony constitutes actual evidence.

Despite your sadness, do you think eyewitness testimony is actual evidence in court because it is considered 'evidence'.

Sad how people don't know the difference between the words 'evidence' and 'proof'.

 

[Carnoferox]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Despite your sadness, do you think eyewitness testimony is actual evidence in court because it is considered 'evidence'.

Sad how people don't know the difference between the words 'evidence' and 'proof'.

 

It may be "evidence" in court (even then it is taken with a grain of salt), but not at all in the realm of science. Unless you are trying to argue that Bigfoot is a matter of law, that is.

[Thorvir]

3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

It seems we disagree about the evidence out there. So be it.

There isn't any.  You're not disagreeing with that or me, you're disagreeing with facts.

Quote

I think the so-called 'scientific side' has an irrational dislike of anything that smacks of the paranormal or spirituality and that clouds their ability to consider rationally

And you'd be wrong to think that.

Quote

And you probably think I am gullible and unscientific. I have been at these debates for decades.

I don't think you're gullible or unscientific--you seem to be rational and likable.  I just think you're wrong.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Thorvir

[Habitat]

On 12/16/2016 at 8:52 AM, Night Walker said:

I take it that is a genuine photo, but who trimmed the bigfoot's beard?

[Merc14]

4 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Is eyewitness testimony not evidence in courts? In the court of common sense? We each subjectively judge the likelihood of error and don't just dismiss it.

Here is a paper from the Stanford School of Law regarding the reliability of eyewitness testimony https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

Quote

All footprints proved to be fraud, you say. That is disputed strongly by many. I know there are those that will claim any evidence of the paranormal or crypto-creatures has been found to be fraudulent or debunked. After serious consideration, I don't buy that.

Feel free to present your best footprint evidence.  BTW, Dr. Meldrum has never presented his footprints for peer review so neither should you.  Just sayin'

Quote

'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. I agree with that statement but I am not claiming proof but that the preponderance of al evidence and argumentation leads me to believe it is likely (not proved) that something unknown to science is involved with this phenomena.

Great! That means that you realize making an extraordinary claim such as a 7 foot, 700 pound, hairy biped wandering the PN in breeding numbers (let's forget all the other states that report the same creature as that just adds to the problem) but doesn't leave a single bit of observable (empirical) evidence of its existence in at least 60 years (several hundred/thousand according to several believers here) is an unreasonable event. 

Edited December 22, 2016 by Merc14

[Night Walker]

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

I take it that is a genuine photo, but who trimmed the bigfoot's beard?

The even more elusive Red-Crested Lesser Hairy-Man, obviously:

Known from historical accounts to perform difficult tasks while everyone else is asleep...

Edited December 22, 2016 by Night Walker

[papageorge1]

2 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

It may be "evidence" in court (even then it is taken with a grain of salt), but not at all in the realm of science. Unless you are trying to argue that Bigfoot is a matter of law, that is.

Eye witness descriptions are also considered (not blindly dismissed nor blindly accepted) in the court of common sense. A level of quantity, quality and consistency of testimony can be telling.