The Government Just Shutdown a Bigfoot Researcher.

Men in Black and Governments shutting down anything to do with Cryptid researchers is nothing new. People tend to think that angle only pertains to the UFO field, which is wrong.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: trollz

I like how whenever there's a bigfoot thread, there's always one person who comes along to spout the usual "There's no evidence!" bs.

Where is the evidence the government shut down bigfoot research. Where is the cease and desist order, anything at all. There is none, this should be in the HOAX bin.

Why would any of this be made public for readily access? Apparently, if the Government wants something such as this shut down, its due to secrecy of some sort. Same thing with UFOs and various UFO researchers who were shut down or killed over the decades under very suspicious circumstances. So of course you wont find any hard evidence on the matter. Its all hidden behind a huge veil of secrecy. Its something that the higher ups don't want us knowing about.

Anything fringe related will not be made public when Government officials are involved. Never has been, never will be.

originally posted by: jaffo
You know what "shuts down" Bigfoot "researchers"? The fact that it's 2015 and I can find a picture of Brett Favre's junk but I still can't find one of Bigfoot. Bigfoot does not exist. It's that simple. No pics, no hair, no body, no facts or evidence. No one shut this guy down. He is just another huckster trading on hopes and dreams. He's just another guy who knows that the more outrageous his claims, the more someone will drive traffic to his YouTube channel and fill his pockets. There is no Bigfoot. There is no possibility of a breeding population of undiscovered large bipedal hominids on the American continent. Period. People have spent the last fifty years looking everywhere for Bigfoot and they have come up dry. Because there is no Bigfoot to be found. Period. Did I believe in Sasquatch when I was ten years old in 1983? Sure I did. Now? Nope. Not at all. Because I deny ignorance.

You mean you have a closed mind to all the evidence that is out there already.

The "It cannot be, therefore it isn't" approach is every bit as stupid as the staunch believer is.

The Patterson film to THIS DAY still has not been debunked to any satisfied level yet. Only people that have their blinders on will say otherwise.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

Why would any of this be made public for readily access? Apparently, if the Government wants something such as this shut down, its due to secrecy of some sort.

Because the reason why is kept secret, but the fact you have been ordered to stop is not. I am not asking for the reason WHY to be shown, only evidence it was actually done. Which there is none, because it didn't happen.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
You mean you have a closed mind to all the evidence that is out there already.

The "It cannot be, therefore it isn't" approach is every bit as stupid as the staunch believer is.

The Patterson film to THIS DAY still has not been debunked to any satisfied level yet. Only people that have their blinders on will say otherwise.

Gimlin admitted it COULD have been a hoax, but said he was not in on it.

Someone said they made the suit. Whether they did or not, others have said making the suit would have cost about $1k back in the day.

Attempts to debunk it have shown the man-in-suit theory is possible, they simply can't prove it.

At this point you believe because you want to believe. It has not been shown to be genuine.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

Why would any of this be made public for readily access? Apparently, if the Government wants something such as this shut down, its due to secrecy of some sort.

Because the reason why is kept secret, but the fact you have been ordered to stop is not. I am not asking for the reason WHY to be shown, only evidence it was actually done. Which there is none, because it didn't happen.

In other words.....
"It cannot be, therefore it isn't"

Gotcha.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

Why would any of this be made public for readily access? Apparently, if the Government wants something such as this shut down, its due to secrecy of some sort.

Because the reason why is kept secret, but the fact you have been ordered to stop is not. I am not asking for the reason WHY to be shown, only evidence it was actually done. Which there is none, because it didn't happen.

In other words.....
"It cannot be, therefore it isn't"

Gotcha.

That is not at all what I said, but it's pretty much a given that is true. What I said is there is zero evidence, and until evidence is provided, it didn't happen.

Here is my claim, the Men in Black came to me and told me to stop filming the sky. Aliens don't exist and it's all military planes. I will not provide you any evidence, but it happened, believe me.

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
After watching the TV show "In Search for Giants" I've come to wonder if all those news articles of Giant bones discovered in Native American burial sites, which seem to have gotten funneled into the Smithsonian's abyss of lost artifacts, could be Bigfoot skeletons. There is also the red headed Paracas Giants of Peru that may lead some credibility to the mystery of our worldwide giant hairy man.

There are numerous oral accounts and news articles of these large, six fingered, double rows of teeth skeletons found but, of course, there is no physical evidence to be had. Why is that? Are we to believe all these articles from our past are lies? Sure maybe some but all of them?
I think we are seeing some kind of coverup going on and it looks to be older than just the last few decades. That may imply the Vatican is involved. Why? Maybe what is being encountered is the offspring of the Nephilim spoken about in Genesis when the Fallen Angels interbreed with human women. You know, 'when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.' - Genesis 6:4. Later on in Numbers 13:33 and the Book of Enoch they are described as Giants.

Maybe or Maybe not. It's up to you to decide.

A good watch. In case others are interested...

a reply to: CraftBuilder

Yep, that is an excellent show. I cannot wait for season 2. Ive often wondered if Giants of the past and Bigfoot correlate in some fashion. Some of the Giants of the past were measured over 8-9 feet tall in some instances. Bigfoot reports range anywhere from 6-12 foot tall. So who knows.......

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: jaffo
You know what "shuts down" Bigfoot "researchers"? The fact that it's 2015 and I can find a picture of Brett Favre's junk but I still can't find one of Bigfoot. Bigfoot does not exist. It's that simple. No pics, no hair, no body, no facts or evidence. No one shut this guy down. He is just another huckster trading on hopes and dreams. He's just another guy who knows that the more outrageous his claims, the more someone will drive traffic to his YouTube channel and fill his pockets. There is no Bigfoot. There is no possibility of a breeding population of undiscovered large bipedal hominids on the American continent. Period. People have spent the last fifty years looking everywhere for Bigfoot and they have come up dry. Because there is no Bigfoot to be found. Period. Did I believe in Sasquatch when I was ten years old in 1983? Sure I did. Now? Nope. Not at all. Because I deny ignorance.

You mean you have a closed mind to all the evidence that is out there already.

The "It cannot be, therefore it isn't" approach is every bit as stupid as the staunch believer is.

The Patterson film to THIS DAY still has not been debunked to any satisfied level yet. Only people that have their blinders on will say otherwise.

Baloney. There is ZERO "proof" of the existence of Bigfoot. ZERO. The PG film is a joke. If you can watch it in HD and with stabilization and still try to tell me that it is a BF and not a guy in a suit, you are either trolling or delusional. Because stabilized and in HD, that film is a joke. As to eye witness testimony? Get real. There is a reason eye witness testimony must meet rigorous standards in court and that it is viewed with a high level of suspicion. This is not about ME "not believing." This is about YOU holding tightly to your faith that something is real even though you have NO EVIDENCE at all to back the belief. It's just that simple, no matter how much ad hominem and hand waving you wish to engage in.

originally posted by: jaffo
The PG film is a joke. If you can watch it in HD and with stabilization and still try to tell me that it is a BF and not a guy in a suit, you are either trolling or delusional. Because stabilized and in HD, that film is a joke.

Wrong. If you watch it stailized and in HD, it becomes even more apparent that it's legitimate, especially since you can see the leg muscles flexing.

originally posted by: jaffo
As to eye witness testimony? Get real. There is a reason eye witness testimony must meet rigorous standards in court and that it is viewed with a high level of suspicion.

David Paulides is a former police investigator who is trained to interview people and know when people are lying or telling the truth. He wrote two books specifically about eyewitness testimony from personal interviews he conducted according to professional standards. He also employed a prominent forensic sketch artist with over 40 years of experience who worked on several high-profile cases. If that's not professional, I don't know what is.

originally posted by: jaffo
This is about YOU holding tightly to your faith that something is real even though you have NO EVIDENCE at all to back the belief. It's just that simple, no matter how much ad hominem and hand waving you wish to engage in.

Again, this is simply untrue. There are multitudes of evidence.

Sorry, but my gut tells me this is a ruse to add legitimacy to his 'research" if you want to call it that. I know some here believe such a creature exists but I just can't get on that wagon. Something solid would have turned up by now. Humans have been everywhere - I don't care how far you go into the wilderness you'll find signs of people having been there.

As for those who honestly believe they encountered a bigfoot I would guess they probably ran in to a bear that reared up on it's hind legs as they do when scared or wanting a better view. I have studied tracking intensively for years and to date I haven't seen any convincing photos, casts or video. Creature that large would have to eat tremendous amounts of food every day and would make a big mess while doing so just as every other creature does.

I think most of these researchers are just looking for a good excuse to spend most of their time camping and tramping around in the woods. That's a motivation I could identify with.

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: jaffo
The PG film is a joke. If you can watch it in HD and with stabilization and still try to tell me that it is a BF and not a guy in a suit, you are either trolling or delusional. Because stabilized and in HD, that film is a joke.

Wrong. If you watch it stailized and in HD, it becomes even more apparent that it's legitimate, especially since you can see the leg muscles flexing.

originally posted by: jaffo
As to eye witness testimony? Get real. There is a reason eye witness testimony must meet rigorous standards in court and that it is viewed with a high level of suspicion.

David Paulides is a former police investigator who is trained to interview people and know when people are lying or telling the truth. He wrote two books specifically about eyewitness testimony from personal interviews he conducted according to professional standards. He also employed a prominent forensic sketch artist with over 40 years of experience who worked on several high-profile cases. If that's not professional, I don't know what is.

originally posted by: jaffo
This is about YOU holding tightly to your faith that something is real even though you have NO EVIDENCE at all to back the belief. It's just that simple, no matter how much ad hominem and hand waving you wish to engage in.

Again, this is simply untrue. There are multitudes of evidence.

No, there is not "evidence." EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT at getting Wookie DNA has turned up human or bear. ALL OF THEM. There is not one instance of truly unknown hominid DNA of known provenance being produced in North America. And the PG film is laughable. Seriously, if you believe it to be real, there just isn't much to say to you. It's a hoax. And a bad one. Again, ZERO bones, ZERO DNA, ZERO film, ZERO hair, ZERO blood. Yep, that's ZERO evidence. "Belief"? You bet ya. "Hop"? You know it. "Denial"? extreme, lol. I don't know what you call evidence, but when it comes to BF you have none.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Humans have been everywhere - I don't care how far you go into the wilderness you'll find signs of people having been there.

No... Not even close...

a reply to: jaffo

And you have no evidence that Bigfoot does not exist.

All you use is the "It cannot be, therefore it isn't" stance which is pretty dumb.

And you do realize that staunch debunkers/disbelievers are the polar opposite of staunch believers right? In other words, both are just as bad as the other is. Both are annoying.

I keep an open mind on these things and I don't shoot first and ask questions later like some do.

Just because something seems incredible and has no proof does not mean that it didn't happen.

I guess you think trees don't make any noise when they fall over in the woods when nobody is around to hear it huh? lol Because OMG, you need proof!

They exist but we are not supposed to know it or mess with them.

That is the only thing i can come up with that accounts for the stance some take that they do not exist.

Many of the naysayers are fairly smart people that show critical thinking skills sometimes that go beyond the bounds of blind ignorrance.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: jaffo

And you have no evidence that Bigfoot does not exist.

All you use is the "It cannot be, therefore it isn't" stance which is pretty dumb.

And you do realize that staunch debunkers/disbelievers are the polar opposite of staunch believers right? In other words, both are just as bad as the other is. Both are annoying.

I keep an open mind on these things and I don't shoot first and ask questions later like some do.

Just because something seems incredible and has no proof does not mean that it didn't happen.

I guess you think trees don't make any noise when they fall over in the woods when nobody is around to hear it huh? lol

Because OMG, you need proof!

Is your open mind open to the idea that it's all just a load of baloney? The truly open mind is open to any and all possibilities.

And the time to believe a thing is when there is good evidence for it, not before. Saying that there is no evidence to disprove a thing is meaningless. Trying to use that as a justification to believe in a thing is an argument from ignorance fallacy and an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Burden of proof always lies with the person making the positive claim.

Personally, I and many skeptics take the scientific approach and default to the Null Hypothesis until good evidence can be assessed and the claim demonstrated to exist. That's just good, sound critical thinking in my book - because if you are going to start believing in things without evidence, you will believe any old fairy story anyone tells you and that's pretty much the definition of gullibility.

a reply to: karl 12

Regarding the map of bigfoot sightings: There is simply no way there could be large hominids living in northeastern states like Delaware, Rhode Island and Connecticut.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

No, Ive seen Bigfoot with my own two eyes. I'm not a believer, I'm a knower. I know that the big guy exists so I don't need skeptics or debunkers talking about something that they don't understand

Have fun with your null hypothesis.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: jaffo

And you have no evidence that Bigfoot does not exist.

All you use is the "It cannot be, therefore it isn't" stance which is pretty dumb.

False. I already told you. It's the "there is no evidence, therefore it isn't" stance.

You have no evidence Santa does not exist, or the tooth fairy, so until you do shall we say they exist?