duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 17, 2012 23:06:00 GMT -5
what is the best sighting/picture/video, in your opinion, of bf's existence? obviously, if you've had a personal sighting, then that would be yours.
myself, i've had no personal experience at all that i could say was definitely bf. and most the pics and videos that are floating around out there are farcical at best. so, to me, it's still that one that got us all wondering, the patterson/gimlin bluff creek footage. and the movie that really got me going was "the legend of boggy creek". also the six million dollar man episodes with sasquatch.
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on May 19, 2012 2:22:46 GMT -5
I have never seen any evidence that makes me believe. The PGF never looked real to me HOWEVER Thomas Steenburg showed me a digital copy of a1st generation copy of the film. That copy blew away any of the versions that I had seen on tv and I can understand why someone would think that was a film of a real animal
I want the sasquatch to exist, but I just do not think it does.
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 19, 2012 13:33:32 GMT -5
hi, billr.
yeah, that's pretty much my thoughts exactly. there just isn't any evidence. all that can leave then is hope and belief. but nobody out there is able to present anything that they can say, "look at this, this proves it".
now i can understand that if someone has had a personal sighting, then they would be convinced in their mind. but even then, if it were me, i'd still be questioning just what i might have seen.
i was kinda surprised. i've been asking most people lately, aquaintances, fishing and hunting friends, etc, what they think of bf. not one has said that they believe it exists or have seen anything remotely strange. one fishing guide from vancouver mentioned being way up harrison river, wading along casting for cutties. he said that he just had this strange feeling come over him. that something was watching him. he said it was an uncomfortable feeling. now that in no way is a bf experience. even though many would try to turn it into one. it could have been a bear, a cougar, another person, anything. but stories like this are quickly turned into a bf report for no reason at all.
in my opinion, it is hunters who would find the most evidence of anyone. the remoteness that they go into, and the silence with them stalking also. even if they weren't having actual sightings, they would definitely be finding tracks, etc, if any bf were anywhere in the vicinity.
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on May 19, 2012 17:14:30 GMT -5
Well my one brother in law and a friend of ours had a sasquatch sighting together, both of them are experienced hunters (and bear hunters). They saw it crossing the road in front of them as they were driving down a FSR.
My father in law who was a very experienced outdoorsman (worked as a cowboy on the Gang Ranch in the late 1950's early 60's) also had a visual and nasal (said he smelled it before seeing it) at close range while walking. He claimed that he got a real good look at it.
I personally know three other hunters (all separate instances) that saw a large bipedal animal at a distance. These guys won't commit to what they saw other then it looked too large to be a person and it walked bipedal
For myself nadda
|
|
Richard
Really into this!
Thinking I should be out in the bush ...
Posts: 562
|
Post by Richard on May 22, 2012 8:18:16 GMT -5
I want the sasquatch to exist, but I just do not think it does. Curious, you mention that your brother-in-law and other friends/relatives have seen what is best described as a Sasquatch, and yet do not think it exists. What is it you think they saw? How do you explain these sightings? Either it was: 1. Bear 2. Person 3. An unknown creature (Sasquatch) Richard.
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 22, 2012 10:00:34 GMT -5
I want the sasquatch to exist, but I just do not think it does. Curious, you mention that your brother-in-law and other friends/relatives have seen what is best described as a Sasquatch, and yet do not think it exists. What is it you think they saw? How do you explain these sightings? Either it was: 1. Bear 2. Person 3. An unknown creature (Sasquatch) Richard. i can't speak for billr, but just because someone thinks they saw a bf, doesn't mean they did. for one, there is still zero evidence to prove the existence of bf. so it's kinda impossible to prove a be positive of a sighting then. and an unknown creature does not mean it's a sasquatch. i noticed you didn't add yours to here richard. what is yours? do you have one?
|
|
Richard
Really into this!
Thinking I should be out in the bush ...
Posts: 562
|
Post by Richard on May 22, 2012 11:03:50 GMT -5
i can't speak for billr, but just because someone thinks they saw a bf, doesn't mean they did. for one, there is still zero evidence to prove the existence of bf. so it's kinda impossible to prove a be positive of a sighting then. and an unknown creature does not mean it's a sasquatch. i noticed you didn't add yours to here richard. what is yours? do you have one? Re: Seeing Bigfoot - True, but if it is someone you know and TRUST in their observational capabilities then I would have to say it leads credibility to the cause. Re: Myself - I haven't seen anything I couldn't explain - in fact I haven't experienced anything that I have not been able to justify using the "standard model" - however it doesn't mean that there aren't several very interesting occurrences out there that I not stumped by, Bigfoot being one of them. There have been (on more than one occasion) several types of animals that local legends have talked about that have only recently been "proven" to exist by our western standards of scientific scrutiny. It is rather short sighted to think that there aren't more of the same waiting in the sidelines. I would also caution anyone in making the assumption that our current western "scientific" standards are the pinnacle of observational skills. After all, just because science cannot prove something it certainly doesn't mean it isn't happening. Richard
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 22, 2012 16:18:04 GMT -5
you are correct. new things are still found.
but science CAN prove it. it's just that there's no evidence that's been given that has turned out to be anything. all the most substantial claims have all turned out to be bogus.
now i agree, it doesn't mean that it's not a possibility even though nothing has been found to support it. but it's also "short-sighted" and should also be "cautioned in making the assumption" that report after report are all legit. nothing should just be believed for the sake of believing. anyone who hasn't had a personal sighting has absolutely no reason to not be more skeptical in bf's existence than convinced.
|
|
Richard
Really into this!
Thinking I should be out in the bush ...
Posts: 562
|
Post by Richard on May 22, 2012 20:35:23 GMT -5
anyone who hasn't had a personal sighting has absolutely no reason to not be more skeptical in bf's existence than convinced. I think that is being a tad harsh - I would say that is indeed correct of say Vampires and the like - however there is a lot of evidence (in the form of plaster casts) that would indicate SOMETHING is making these tracks. I would argue that it is much harder to believe that they are all hoaxed vs. something as yet unidentified by science is making them. Science has and can prove that the prints are genuine, the problem is what made them. Remember, as a word of caution: Science is a religion of sort. People can all too often take their own version of the scientific method and form it to fit their theories ... correct or not. Proper application of the scientific method is to keep and open mind and ask why - everything else falls into place. And yes, I am searching for the "thing" in "something" that is making those prints. Richard.
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 22, 2012 21:10:34 GMT -5
science is religion? ;D that's a good one. especially when they are polar opposites.
show me some tracks that are actually "proven" to be genuine. and just how can a track be deemed "genuine"? so, show me some "proven, genuine" tracks.
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on May 22, 2012 22:17:48 GMT -5
I want the sasquatch to exist, but I just do not think it does. Curious, you mention that your brother-in-law and other friends/relatives have seen what is best described as a Sasquatch, and yet do not think it exists. What is it you think they saw? How do you explain these sightings? Either it was: 1. Bear 2. Person 3. An unknown creature (Sasquatch) Richard. Simple I wasn't there so I really don't know. In my brother in laws case, the two of them were driving down a dark road after a long day of hunting. Driving in the dark while tired can lead to all sorts of sightings. They are positive it was a sasquatch and they stopped and claimed to have found tracks I think they believe they saw a sasquatch, but I can't say more than that. In my father in laws case, once again I think he believed he saw a sasquatch. By the same token I have family members that a dead certain that they have seen ghosts. I think they believe they saw them, but I don't believe in ghosts either. I do try to keep an open mind, but I put little credence in eye witness reports, except to keep me interested in the research
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 23, 2012 1:10:24 GMT -5
that's a great comparison, richard. i have friends who have some great ghost stories. and they are 100% not making them up. but that still does nothing to make me believe that they really saw ghosts or that ghosts exist.
ditto for bf. some people truly believe that they've seen bf. but that does nothing to convince me. and there's about as much evidence to support them both, in other words, none.
|
|
Richard
Really into this!
Thinking I should be out in the bush ...
Posts: 562
|
Post by Richard on May 23, 2012 12:44:23 GMT -5
science is religion? ;D that's a good one. especially when they are polar opposites. show me some tracks that are actually "proven" to be genuine. and just how can a track be deemed "genuine"? so, show me some "proven, genuine" tracks. I was quite serious - science is a religion (You misquoted me, I did not say it is religion, but a religion). A religion is a is a collection of cultural and belief systems that covers a particular topic. The "followers" of said religion (Science), like many other followers of other religions, are often over zealous about their beliefs and will blindly shut out anything that contradicts them. I have had the misfortune of working with more than one "scientist" that is so against anything that isn't in a textbook that I cringe when I learned they were doing "research" ... gaining new knowledge is not possible if you don't question what is already known. There are dozens of cases where questioning the "accepted" scientific belief systems have resulted in amazing discoveries. Thus when one stops asking "why" then one in fact stops learning - and thus stops discovering and ultimately fails as a scientist. So I am certainly not trying to be funny - rather making a statement to the overall shortsighted viewpoint of a group of people that should be inquisitive and above all else, open-minded. In terms of footprints: There have been several prints taken that contain sufficient details in terms of anatomical features that couldn't be made with anything BUT a real foot (or a cast taken from a real foot - thus real by proxy). Generally, I guess it boils down to a matter of belief - does one believe that the current scientific paradigm sufficiently encompasses all of existence - if the answer to that is YES, then no need to continue any further. If the answer is NO, then one must look at every possibility, no matter how remote. Only then can one be truly a practitioner in the religion that is known as science. For the record the old statement "it doesn't exist within science, because science hasn't proven it exists" is just a useless tautology ... we have heard it all before "it is true because it is written in the Bible, and we know the Bible to be true because it is written in the Bible" (Replace Bible with Qur'an, Shruti, Tipitaka etc). R
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 23, 2012 14:39:00 GMT -5
but science does prove something's existence.
whereas, bf, ghosts, ufo's, ogopogo, etc are all like religion and are based off belief. there is zero evidence of any and simple stories are taken as truths.
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on May 23, 2012 20:31:40 GMT -5
For most people science can be as much of a belief system as is religion. When science states that an electron has no mass when at rest, most people believe it even when they don't understand why. I don't understand the mathematics involved in higher level theoretical physics, but I believe a lot of conclusions that they put forward.
|
|