Which is exactly what I mean by special pleading. To make any case for the existence of Bigfoot, you have to start with the assumption that the majority of your data points are a load of bull.
Unless the “credible-sounding” reports cluster around a geographical area and are consistant with each other, my point about distribution stands. I haven’t looked at this in a great deal of depth, that would be a research project, but browsing the reports on the site I linked to earlier I don’t get that impression.
See my earlier point about self-selecting groups. A group of all “experienced woodsmen” is not neccessarily the same as all “experienced woodsmen who report a sighting of Bigfoot”. In my personal experience, I’ve come across both very dishonest and extremely credulous people.
Remember, Bigfoot is just one of many cryptids, it’s a global phenomenon. Not one of them has been proven to exist.
And you show me a poster HERE who doesnt think most of the Bigfoot sightings are questionable at best. I certainly think most are.
My impression here is most “pro Bigfoot” folks that are posting here are at the “well, its not IMPOSSIBLE that something like that could be lurking out in the middle of nowhere, with a tiny population thats probably always been on the border of extinction” level.
You are just trying to have your cake and eat it too IMO.
There are several posters in this thread who have said they find the existence of Bigfoot plausable, if unlikely. I’m arguing that the evidence is of far poorer quality than they think it is, once you start to look at it in detail.
For those who insist that it can never be proven that a bigfoot creature doesn’t exist, you’re right.
For those who insist that we should never say it doesn’t, let me make an analogy to the analytical geometry concept of limits and asymptotes. When graphing some mathematical functions, as the input values become greater, the graphed line gets closer and closer to a limit, but never, ever reaches it.
We can pile up evidence (or lack of it, if you will) that bigfoot doesn’t exist, but we can never, ever reach the limit of “No, it doesn’t exist.” However, there comes a time in the graph’s progress where you have to say, “Is this going anywhere? Is evidence getting better? Are the pictures getting sharper and at the same time, less likely to be faked? How long shall we continue before deciding that this is largely unrewarding and most likely nonsense?”
Last week I was only 99% sure. This week, that’s improved to 99.9%. Next week, 99.999%. How many nines do we need before fantasy loses out and reality kicks in?
[THREAD=395683]Here[/THREAD] is an old thread about Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Yeti/giant cryptoids. If it isn’t obvious, the people who actually have knowledge and experience with zoology and cryptozoology find it manifestly unlikely that such a creature does or could exist, and the purported evidence to be exceedingly thin.
