Farmer sees group of 5 Bigfoot in his orchard

[Syne]

Believe science when it says something is. Disbelieve science when it says something is not.

Science never says something is not, it just starts from the null hypothesis, that nothing is assumed without verifiable evidence.

[Magical Realist]

Video of big hairy biped verified by 3 eyewitnesses and giant footprints in the snow. Add that to all the thousands of other sightings and footprint casts taken over the decades and the video and the photos and the scientific conclusion is: Bigfoot is real. Get used to it.

[Syne]

Video of big hairy biped verified by 3 eyewitnesses and giant footprints in the snow.  Add that to all the thousands of other sightings and footprint casts taken over the decades and the video and the photos and the scientific conclusion is: Bigfoot is real. Get used to it.

You're delusional if you really think that's the scientific conclusion. Your blind faith is just so strong that you completely invert reality to suit your dogma.

[Magical Realist]

Video of big hairy biped verified by 3 eyewitnesses and giant footprints in the snow.  Add that to all the thousands of other sightings and footprint casts taken over the decades and the video and the photos and the scientific conclusion is: Bigfoot is real. Get used to it.

You're delusional if you really think that's the scientific conclusion. Your blind faith is just so strong that you completely invert reality to suit your dogma.

The evidence speaks for itself. That's what science does. It goes by all the evidence. It doesn't presume something doesn't exist and then try to debunk all the evidence for it like skeptics do. It seeks the truth. Always. And the truth.....is out there:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkiltWvU8AQ

[Syne]

Video of big hairy biped verified by 3 eyewitnesses and giant footprints in the snow.  Add that to all the thousands of other sightings and footprint casts taken over the decades and the video and the photos and the scientific conclusion is: Bigfoot is real. Get used to it.

You're delusional if you really think that's the scientific conclusion. Your blind faith is just so strong that you completely invert reality to suit your dogma.

The evidence speaks for itself. That's what science does. It goes by all the evidence. It doesn't presume something doesn't exist and then try to debunk all the evidence for it like skeptics do. It seeks the truth. Always. And the truth.....is out there:

Thanks for continuing to reiterate your scientific illiteracy. The null hypothesis does presume pink unicorns don't exist until compelling, verifiable evidence is demonstrated. Your supposed evidence is neither compelling nor verifiable, which is why science hasn't concluded bigfoot exists. You fail to understand that debunking doesn't deny the evidence, only that there are so many more known, rational explanations for said evidence. Without verification, the evidence is just open to a wide variety of interpretations, and rational people side with the odds, that we are much more likely to find something mundane than anomalous.

Again, kill or trap one and I'll believe they exist.
And again, where's the photo mentioned in your OP?

[Magical Realist]

Video of big hairy biped verified by 3 eyewitnesses and giant footprints in the snow.  Add that to all the thousands of other sightings and footprint casts taken over the decades and the video and the photos and the scientific conclusion is: Bigfoot is real. Get used to it.

You're delusional if you really think that's the scientific conclusion. Your blind faith is just so strong that you completely invert reality to suit your dogma.

The evidence speaks for itself. That's what science does. It goes by all the evidence. It doesn't presume something doesn't exist and then try to debunk all the evidence for it like skeptics do. It seeks the truth. Always. And the truth.....is out there:

Thanks for continuing to reiterate your scientific illiteracy. The null hypothesis does presume pink unicorns don't exist until compelling, verifiable evidence is demonstrated. Your supposed evidence is neither compelling nor verifiable, which is why science hasn't concluded bigfoot exists. You fail to understand that debunking doesn't deny the evidence, only that there are so many more known, rational explanations for said evidence. Without verification, the evidence is just open to a wide variety of interpretations, and rational people side with the odds, that we are much more likely to find something mundane than anomalous.

Again, kill or trap one and I'll believe they exist.
And again, where's the photo mentioned in your OP?

Thankfully none of us have to wait until Science says something is. Anyone can look at the videos and photos themselves and draw their own conclusion. Anyone can read the numerous compelling encounters of normal everyday people with Bigfoot. You don't have to be a scientist or a brain surgeon. The evidence is that simple and clear. And the more evidence you consider, the more solid the conclusion that Bigfoot is real. There's just too many eyewitness reports, too many videos and photos, and too many footprint casts not to reach that conclusion. Again, we go to the people who are actually researching Bigfoot. The ones collecting the evidence. Those are the experts, not scientists living in denial in their pristine and sterilized labs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkiltWvU8AQ

[Syne]

Thanks for continuing to reiterate your scientific illiteracy. The null hypothesis does presume pink unicorns don't exist until compelling, verifiable evidence is demonstrated. Your supposed evidence is neither compelling nor verifiable, which is why science hasn't concluded bigfoot exists. You fail to understand that debunking doesn't deny the evidence, only that there are so many more known, rational explanations for said evidence. Without verification, the evidence is just open to a wide variety of interpretations, and rational people side with the odds, that we are much more likely to find something mundane than anomalous.

Again, kill or trap one and I'll believe they exist.
And again, where's the photo mentioned in your OP?

Thankfully none of us have to wait until Science says something is. Anyone can look at the videos and photos themselves and draw their own conclusion. Anyone can read the numerous compelling encounters of normal everyday people with Bigfoot. You don't have to be a scientist or a brain surgeon. The evidence is that simple and clear. And the more evidence you consider, the more solid the conclusion that Bigfoot is real. There's just too many eyewitness reports, too many videos and photos, and too many footprint casts not to reach that conclusion. Again, we go to the people who are actually researching Bigfoot. The ones collecting the evidence. Those are the experts, not scientists living in denial in their pristine and sterilized labs.

Consensus fallacy.

[Magical Realist]

Thanks for continuing to reiterate your scientific illiteracy. The null hypothesis does presume pink unicorns don't exist until compelling, verifiable evidence is demonstrated. Your supposed evidence is neither compelling nor verifiable, which is why science hasn't concluded bigfoot exists. You fail to understand that debunking doesn't deny the evidence, only that there are so many more known, rational explanations for said evidence. Without verification, the evidence is just open to a wide variety of interpretations, and rational people side with the odds, that we are much more likely to find something mundane than anomalous.

Again, kill or trap one and I'll believe they exist.
And again, where's the photo mentioned in your OP?

Thankfully none of us have to wait until Science says something is. Anyone can look at the videos and photos themselves and draw their own conclusion. Anyone can read the numerous compelling encounters of normal everyday people with Bigfoot. You don't have to be a scientist or a brain surgeon. The evidence is that simple and clear. And the more evidence you consider, the more solid the conclusion that Bigfoot is real. There's just too many eyewitness reports, too many videos and photos, and too many footprint casts not to reach that conclusion. Again, we go to the people who are actually researching Bigfoot. The ones collecting the evidence. Those are the experts, not scientists living in denial in their pristine and sterilized labs.

Consensus fallacy.

Only about 30% of Americans actually believe in Bigfoot. So no...not consensus fallacy.

[Syne]

Consensus fallacy.

Only about 30% of Americans actually believe in Bigfoot. So no...not consensus fallacy.

LOL! A consensus fallacy is "if many believe, it is so", not if a majority, or even plurality, believe.
Again, learn the words before you attempt to use them yourself.

[Magical Realist]

Consensus fallacy.

Only about 30% of Americans actually believe in Bigfoot. So no...not consensus fallacy.

LOL! A consensus fallacy is "if many believe, it is so", not if a majority, or even plurality, believe.
Again, learn the words before you attempt to use them yourself.  

I didn't even appeal to many believers in Bigfoot. So again, no consensus fallacy here.