when will enough be enough?

DPinkerton wrote:

BurdenOfProof wrote:I guess there is no problem but it will just drag on and on leaving the believers susceptible to being hoaxed again and again

Then your job of stating "hoax" is secure.

Haha!

SasquaiNation wrote:

Got Yeti Yet? wrote:Enough will be enough when there is a confirmed body - dead or alive.

Until then, there is no bigfoot.

Just some cool folklore, if you're into that sort of thing.

And the earth was flat, until someone proved it. Gorillas were mythical creatures, until someone proved it. The list goes on and on.
You have every right to think there is no Bigfoot. It appears to be an open & shut case for you. I on the other hand think there is no reason why Bigfoot cannot exist. Bears hibernate during winter, so this cuts down on competition during the lean months. Wolves, coyotes and other predators often leave remains behind. I'm sure Bigfoot would be opportunistic if a situation presented itself.
There is plenty of fresh water, plenty of seclusion and plenty of cover in forested areas where I live.
To say there is no Bigfoot seems a bit hasty to me.

These animals all exist and have been verified.

There's a very good reason why bigfoot cannot exist:


Because they don't. Show me a verified bigfoot and we'll talk.
There is no evidence.

Got Yeti Yet? wrote:

SasquaiNation wrote:

Got Yeti Yet? wrote:Enough will be enough when there is a confirmed body - dead or alive.

Until then, there is no bigfoot.

Just some cool folklore, if you're into that sort of thing.

And the earth was flat, until someone proved it. Gorillas were mythical creatures, until someone proved it. The list goes on and on.
You have every right to think there is no Bigfoot. It appears to be an open & shut case for you. I on the other hand think there is no reason why Bigfoot cannot exist. Bears hibernate during winter, so this cuts down on competition during the lean months. Wolves, coyotes and other predators often leave remains behind. I'm sure Bigfoot would be opportunistic if a situation presented itself.
There is plenty of fresh water, plenty of seclusion and plenty of cover in forested areas where I live.
To say there is no Bigfoot seems a bit hasty to me.

These animals all exist and have been verified.

There's a very good reason why bigfoot cannot exist:


Because they don't. Show me a verified bigfoot and we'll talk.
There is no evidence.

The Bili ape
Its amazing how we can have locals talk about an APE like the Bili ape and scientist it takes years and years to actually document them.
Has real science set out in expeditions for YEARS in the american forests of the north west looking for bigfoot?

In local parlance, the great apes of the Bili Forest fall into two distinct groups. There are the "tree beaters", which disperse high into the trees to stay safe, and easily succumb to the poison arrows used by local hunters. Then there are the "lion killers", which seldom climb trees, are bigger and darker, and are unaffected by the poison arrows.

When Karl Ammann, a Swiss photographer and anti-bushmeat campaigner, first visited the region in 1996, he was looking for gorillas, but instead discovered a skull that had dimensions like that of a chimpanzee, but with a prominent crest like that of a gorilla. Ammann purchased a photograph, taken by a motion-detecting camera, from poachers that captured an image of what looked like immense chimpanzees. Ammann also measured a fecal dropping three times as big as chimp dung and footprints as large as or larger than a gorilla's.

In 2000, Ammann returned to the area described by the bushmeat hunter with a group of ape researchers. Although they did not find a live Bili ape, they did find several well-worn ground nests, characteristic of gorillas rather than chimpanzees, in swampy river beds

.

In 2001, an international team of scientists, including George Schaller of the Wildlife Conservation Society and Mike Belliveau of Harvard University were recruited by Karl Ammann to search for the elusive Bili ape, but the venture came up empty.

Since a five year long civil war ended in 2003, it has been easier for scientists to conduct field research in the Congo. The first scientist to see the Bili apes, and also recruited by Ammann, was Shelly Williams, PhD, a specialist in primate behavior. Williams reported on her close and chilling encounter with Bili apes, "We could hear them in the trees, about 10 m away, and four suddenly came rushing through the brush towards me. If this had been a mock charge they would have been screaming to intimidate us. These guys were quiet, and they were huge. They were coming in for the kill – but as soon as they saw my face they stopped and disappeared."[7]

But they found the Bili apes, and not soon after they went looking for them. it's not lik there were 1,000 people going out into the field every week looking for them and coming up empty for 50 years. They got a photo, they went to the area, they found em.

It's like the Mt. Gorilla fallacy. They heard of them, and the FIRST time they sent an expedition to search for them, they found em. Right where the natives said they would be.

This is not a good analogy for Bigfoot. If they searched and searched for Bili Apes for 50 years and had all of this anecdotal evidence and finally one person got lucky and captured one. Then it would work as a Bigfoot analog.

There's a very good reason why bigfoot cannot exist:


Because they don't. Show me a verified bigfoot and we'll talk.
There is no evidence.

You say Bigfoot cannot exist, yet you don't provide reasons. Why is that?
No evidence, or just no evidence you will accept?
Show you a verified Bigfoot? Come on, you can do better than that.

At least there are skeptics here who provide good rebuttals for their position. You have provided nothing.

You're right Stank, my analogy wasn't the best, but it was a different point I was trying to make and I failed at it.
My point this: many things have been said to be impossible, only to be proven possible. Many people have made discoveries in the face of ridicule. If they had not persisted those discoveries may have taken much longer to realize.

StankApe wrote:But they found the Bili apes, and not soon after they went looking for them. it's not lik there were 1,000 people going out into the field every week looking for them and coming up empty for 50 years. They got a photo, they went to the area, they found em.

It's like the Mt. Gorilla fallacy. They heard of them, and the FIRST time they sent an expedition to search for them, they found em. Right where the natives said they would be.

This is not a good analogy for Bigfoot. If they searched and searched for Bili Apes for 50 years and had all of this anecdotal evidence and finally one person got lucky and captured one. Then it would work as a Bigfoot analog.

I suggest you actually do research before you open your mouth.
The ape was not JUST magically found in less than 50 years. The natives in the area spoke about them for centuries. Yet "Modern Science" didn't take they account as credible they wrote it off as oh its just a gorilla. Until someone spent MONEY to research it and trake them and if you actually read they failed several times to locate them.
So where is the MONEY to fund a team to spend years in the forests of the US to look for bigfoot?
Show me the money and someone will spend the time in the forests.

StankApe wrote:But they found the Bili apes, and not soon after they went looking for them. it's not lik there were 1,000 people going out into the field every week looking for them and coming up empty for 50 years. They got a photo, they went to the area, they found em.

It's like the Mt. Gorilla fallacy. They heard of them, and the FIRST time they sent an expedition to search for them, they found em. Right where the natives said they would be.

This is not a good analogy for Bigfoot. If they searched and searched for Bili Apes for 50 years and had all of this anecdotal evidence and finally one person got lucky and captured one. Then it would work as a Bigfoot analog.

Oh yea the Mt. Gorilla,
How many years did the natives of the area speak about them before someone spent the money to find them.
How long did she spend Looking for them how well was she funded?
Seriously you need to do better than that.

You really don't have a real clue on the nature of Biological and zoological research the actual time and effort it takes to sit in the woods/jungles for years maybe tracking and observing learning the signs of the animal the behaviour.
Big foot research doesn't have the funding at present to do this so. When you put up the money to do it then you can claim that oh they didn't find it. So it must not be alive.

BurdenOfProof wrote:I guess there is no problem but it will just drag on and on leaving the believers susceptible to being hoaxed again and again

So be it ~ that's their problem (or not). I think a lot will continue their search simply because boys are hard-wired to compete, hunt and "play guns". Boys will be boys. I get a chuckle out of some of the YouTube weekend warriors when they report back using military lingo ...

Call to the buddy: "I jumped outta the truck and first took a quick look-see up the trail. I saw a couple of 'maybe' prints that I'll check out more next time. Then I hung the cam by those two big rocks we saw, and stuck some branches and leaves around it for camo. I thought the skeeters were gonna eat me alive so I got the hell outta there."

YouTube report: "I secured my vehicle downwind of the trailhead and proceeded to conduct a full recon of our Zone of Interest prior to deploying the trailcam. I discovered several suspicious, but partial footprint-type impressions that will warrant a further mission. The camera is now in a favorable position, and using natural foliage I gathered from the site perimeter, I camouflaged the unit and confirmed its GPS coordinates. The biting insect infestation in this area forced me to readjust my research plan and leave."

I saw this comment on the blog I think this says it all.

Ignorant people have a hard time thinking outside the box and understanding the passion that possesses great people to persevere in something unknown to most people.
There are so many great people in history that have proved the world wrong because they continued on no matter what was said of them and their crazy ideas!
I can go on...but I will say goodnight!
Sincerely,
Lindsay Broughton

Thinking outside the box leads to an infinite amount of scenarios.

That doesnt really help scientific progress in anyway.

Shouting omg theres a bipedal magic ape in north america is a MASSIVE leap in logic.

Im off to go prove the flying spaghetti monster exists! Its true cos this guy I used to know said he knew someone who saw one once!!

Bumping this up

The reality is that as long as there is something unexplained, humanity will continue to search for the answer.

What DPinkerton said. +1!

A strong characteristic of humans is our curiousity. I want to know. There are many things in the world that are mysterious and that is a challenge to me. I am not complacent, I am not content to sit and do nothing.

"Enough will be enough" when there is proof - while I am NOT a proponent of killing a bigfoot creature, I think only a body or blood or limb or something tangible with DNA will suffice for "proof". And proof that is not hidden by the government or shadow agencies or whatnot. Proof that is open to everyone, tested multiple times by many organizations with the same answer, and is undeniably not homo sapien sapiens (unless that is what BF is - though I doubt it). I do believe something is out there and will eventually be explained.

And that will only be enough to prove it's existence. Then the game will change to discovering it's culture (if it has one) and it's habits and all that.

And if hoaxing happens, it happens. Some people have too much time on their hands and stupid people exist. That IS proven I betcha hoaxing will stop or become less frequent when some bozo gets shot trying to set up a "sighting", like that guy getting ran over while running around the woods in a ghillie suit. And it'll serve the dumb-a**es right for doing so. That's called karma. Hoaxers take their lives in their hands these days if they are not hoaxing with friends.

For me, I have interacted with something three times and seen something out of the corner of my eye once that I cannot explain. I feel I MUST try to make sense of my experience - that, and it's a great excuse to enjoy the great outdoors and get some sunshine. We are creatures, too, and living in boxes as we do is not healthy for us.... get our there and breathe free air and if it takes bigfoot to get me out there, so be it. We do not know everything there is to know, and I am grateful for that.

Where is spell check when you need it, lol?

BurdenOfProof wrote:Thinking outside the box leads to an infinite amount of scenarios.

That doesnt really help scientific progress in anyway.

Shouting omg theres a bipedal magic ape in north america is a MASSIVE leap in logic.

Im off to go prove the flying spaghetti monster exists! Its true cos this guy I used to know said he knew someone who saw one once!!

Thinking "outside of the box" has led to many discoveries, so what if it gives us "infinite" scenarios. One could prove to be helpful in finding Bigfoot. And yes it does help scientific progress, by having people not involved look with fresh eyes, may give us the answer we need to move on. For example the Apollo 12 mission. It took someone not involved directly to come up with a solution. And Bigfoot may not be a "magic"ape but it is bipedal. And does not need a "massive" leap in logic to believe. I am logical and I believe.

And good luck with the spaghetti monster. Anything is possible.

BurdenOfProof wrote:Thinking outside the box leads to an infinite amount of scenarios.

That doesnt really help scientific progress in anyway.

Shouting omg theres a bipedal magic ape in north america is a MASSIVE leap in logic.

Im off to go prove the flying spaghetti monster exists! Its true cos this guy I used to know said he knew someone who saw one once!!

More and more consideration is being given to the "Infinite Universe Theory" or "Multiverse Theory"....the idea of which is that there are an infinite number of universes existing simultaneously. With an infinite number you thus have an infinite number of possibilities. That sure sounds like thinking outside the box and does infact lead to an infinite number of scenarios!

Science does conciser this to be progress, in that this Theory helps to explain (or eliminate) the Big Bang.

Now logically with an infinite number of universes...it is no leap to have a magical bipedal ape in North America or the flying Spaghetti Monster....in fact,

It would be an ABSOLUTE that both did truly exist!

And since both are Theories....science is well on its way to absolutely proving the existence of Bigfoot!

Thinking outside the box gave us the Theory of Relativity.
Thinking outside the box gave us electricity.
Thinking outside the box has given us the ability to land a rover on the moon.
Thinking outside the box has given us many many discoveries and advances.
Thinking outside the box gave us some of current cars safety features from "The Tucker"

But Burden likes to think these all came about out because of the NORM
He really has no concept how people make advances in science.