Sasquatch

[retiredbosn]

I would not mention intellectual honesty in this discussion and still state that there is no evidence that an unkown animal fitting the description of Bigfoot exsists, there is an abundance of evidence. DNA samples, foot casts, body casts, photographic , audio and video evidence. To state that intellectually honest person would not believe in something until science provides their final stamp of approval is ludicrous, as well as believing in everything that science states is accurate, but that is a topic for a different discussion. I'm sure the scientist who "discovered" the lesula monkey (the announcement of the discovery made last week) is intellectually honest, you can bet he believed the animal existed prior to being classified scientifically. Why because he saw one and then spent four years looking for one.

I didn't see any 8 foot tall primates that have lived in areas habited by modern humans for centuries.

I did see a 0.02 inch long worm that lives miles under the earth, wonder how they missed that one so long or the 3 centimeter mushroom.

Did you have any reason to believe that that 0.02 inch worm existed prior to it being documented as existing? Do you have any reason to believe a flying pizza monster exists? It hasn't been proven NOT to exist.

I notice that you chose to make an example out of the smallest discovery on the short list but convienently overlooked the primate on the list. I also noticed that in making the remark about the worm that you are ignoring the fact that there are 15,000 to 20,000 new species discovered every year, amazing, we have not learned and do not know all there is to know about this planet. In knowing that it is arrogant to close your mind to the possibility of other new discoveries.

I could understand being close minded if there was no evidence, other than eye witnesses and legends. But to categorically state there is no way that a particular animal exists when there is DNA and other evidence is crazy, imo. Just last week a new primate was "discovered" a monkey that is over 3 foot long and about 22" tall weighing 15lbs or so http://news.mongabay...nce-lesula.html In 2003 a possible new specie of great ape was photographed, casts made of footprints, etc. However the scientist involved has since been shot before she could provide a body for the scientific community to be able to classify. It is interesting that this particular ape is not immediately dismissed by the main stream scientific community. The discovery of a new ape 100+ years after the last is indicative that at the least we have not classified every animal. http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/3730574.stm

All I'm saying is that there is evidence, take a look at it, if you don't think it is enough to persuade you fine. But to say that others who have examined the evidence and think that there is enough to warrant futher research are not intellectually honest, smart, educated, or worse; is the epitomy of arrogance and ignorance.

[tyrius.]

But to categorically state there is no way that a particular animal exists when there is DNA and other evidence is crazy, imo.

Odd, I don't recall "categorically stating" that "there is no way that a particular animal exists...". Instead, I was talking about "proving a negative" in regards to Sasquatch "not existing". It's not the disbelievers responsibility to prove that Sasquatch does not exist as that is impossible.

As to the Lesula monkey, my only question is "where was it discovered?" Oh yes, in the forests of the DRC, not a very well populated place.

Now, moving on how about you stop straw manning my points and respond to what I'm actually saying? It makes for a much more well reasoned discussion when people respond to what is actually written instead of making things up. I never said anything about the impossibility of identifying new species. This happens all the time throughout the world, particularly in areas that are not well explored such as the jungles of Africa, deep sea, deep underground, etc. It's part of the scientific process. Someone thinks they found a new species of animal, they obtain a specimen of that animal, that animal is studied to determine it's genetic makeup and a determination is made to see if it's a new species and the classification is done (order, kingdom, family, and all that). Sasquatch is stuck at step one and has been stuck there for centuries. Couple that with the fact that sasquatch is supposed to inhabit areas where modern humans have been living for centuries makes the likelihood of it existing without a human EVER being able to find a body to be very small, miniscule really. Now before you go off the handle again, I'm not definitively stating that they do not exist. I have no proof of that (as I said earlier you can not disprove its existence).

[Glenn]

I'm sorry, but you can't say there are "facts" about something you don't believe exists, nor about something we know very little about.

My point is very simple: Just because somebody doesn't believe it exists, doesn't make it so.

Open, inquisitive minds are the ones that lead to new discoveries, innovation and medical breakthroughs. If it weren't for those people, everyone would still be absolutely, positively convinced the world is still flat....because there was no "proof" otherwise.

You don't want to believe it exists, knock yourself out. There was a ton of people that ridiculed Columbus too. But it's clear nobody is going to change their minds on a bass fishing forum.

Let's move on...

[retiredbosn]

Tyrius,

There was supposed to be a paragraph break the first paragraph following the quote is the only part directed too the quote. I'm using my phone between bi-focals and small screen I missed it not being there. Have edited my post so it doesn't read that I'm accusing u of stating there is no evidence. Sorry for the confusion

[Hyrule Bass]

well, atleast one person had a possible encounter to share and wasnt afraid of any possible ridicule for sharing it. right now i want to believe bigfoot exists, but cant say im totally sure. the last year ive been obsessed with sasquatch, reading stuff about it nearly everyday. im not so sure i can call everyone who has reported a sighting a liar. im sure some of the stories are just that, stories.

i remember someone telling a story here about how they heard something growling or howling at them and a friend while night fishing for bass at a pond and that both of them ended up scared enough to walk out in the middle of the pond to escape whatever it was, said they believed it was possibly a squatch. this story i read this year here too

the first page of this thread is exactly why people are reluctant to share any possible encounters or sightings because of the ridicule they may receive. if you dont believe, thats fine, but theres no reason to mock others, i think thats uncalled for

[Quillback]

Well they don't exist, Sasquatch that is, and people hearing strange, unidentifiable howls or growls in the woods decide, gee I don't know what that is? Must be a bigfoot! But if I did think it was a bigfoot, I'd go check it out, if they existed they must be harmless as there's never been a proven fatality caused by a bigfoot. Of course it's kinda hard to be killed by a non-existant creature.

[tyrius.]

I'm sorry, but you can't say there are "facts" about something you don't believe exists, nor about something we know very little about.

My point is very simple: Just because somebody doesn't believe it exists, doesn't make it so.

And just because somebody does believe it exists, doesn't make it so. What makes it so is evidence. Something that the believers have in short supply.

I'm unsure as to why you think that I'm saying that "there are "facts" about something I don't believe exists". I was disagreeing with the assertion that it is up to the skeptics to prove that it doesn't exist. That's an impossibility and the complete backwards way of thinking about it. However, I will stand by the statement that it is impossible to have facts regarding the non-existence of something. The only thing the non-believers have is centuries of no hard evidence (a body). In centuries of "co-existing" with a Sasquatch, no one has ever produced a live or dead specimen of one. That's all the skeptics have.

[Glenn]

...Couple that with the fact that sasquatch is supposed to inhabit areas where modern humans have been living for centuries makes the likelihood ....

You asked....

[tyrius.]

You asked....

Odd how you missed the words "supposed to" and "likelihood" in my post. Wonder why that was?

[Long Mike]

OK, that's it. This thread has been beaten to death. It has been established that there are believers and non-believers in Sasquatch, just as there were before this thread was started. The arguments, both pro and con, have changed no one's mind.

Good night Irene!