Bigfoot

[ydoaPs]

To say it is bunk mean that you don't take into account of the large number of sightings and reports in such a large area of the United States.

 

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence."

[Phi for All]

I admit that I could not tell what it was but it was large about six feet tall which narrows it down to a deer, bear, or bigfoot.

... or a human.

 

And don't forget that with all the tens of thousands of Nessie, Bigfoot, Yeti and UFO hunters worldwide, NOT A SINGLE ONE has ever gathered any evidence that would pass review.

 

Believers aren't necessarily hoaxters. They often just really want to believe.

[Sparky]

... or a human. QUOTE]

Yes it could have been a human. At the time it was not hunting season, we were in the middle of the Kiamichi Mountains and the nearest town had a population of only 300 people and the town was about six miles away. The area we camped at had many bike trails and ATV trails but we were not near any of those. Could it have been a human. Yes but then you have to ask why they did not say anything to us and if they were on a bike or ATV why did we not hear an engine or see tire tracks or for that fact any tracks at all?

 

This is not a personal attack but before anyone can pass judgement on something like Bigfoot, Nesse, or UFOs, you should go and do some hands on research instead of talking about something from the comfort of your home.

[Phi for All]

Yes it could have been a human.

That's all I meant by my comment. You left out what Occam's Razor tells us is probably the right answer. However unlikely you may think it is due to circumstances, a human is still, by far, the most likely suspect.

 

This is not a personal attack but before anyone can pass judgement on something like Bigfoot, Nesse, or UFOs, you should go and do some hands on research instead of talking about something from the comfort of your home.

Well I, for one, didn't try to reach any conclusions with my comments. Since there isn't any evidence that can pass peer review, we're left to fall back on skepticism. I'm not convinced enough by anecdotal claims and unsubstantiated sightings of Bigfoot, Nessie, or UFOs to leave the comfort of my home, where I have access to all the current studies on these "phenomena".

 

Of course, short of actual capture or the finding of a deceased specimen, I'm not sure anything would convince the scientific community that Bigfoot exists. Maybe some fur we could test for DNA. Anyone ever found a tree Bigfoot rubbed up against?

[Sparky]

I've read accounts of hair being found, but unless it has an intack follicle no DNA can be found. They did compare the hair found to the hairs of local animals, humans, and apes and found that some of the samples found do not match any of those. they have found DNA sample like skin, but the DNA is degraded and inconclusive. They have multiple casts that show dermal ridges that look like those of known apes. The man that did the test says that unless someone had detailed knowlege of primate anatomy and flew across multiple parts of the United States, then the casts could not be fake. The problem is that unless a body is found, scientist will not believe in it despite all of the evidence which is circumstantial. Finding a body would be hard. Decomp happenes fairly quickly. I saw a show where a women put a dead deer in the woods and in about a month the deer was gone and the bones scattered. Assuming that the population of Bigfoot is small the chance of finding a body is low. There may be bodies, but they are so deep in the forests no one can get to them. If one does turn up I think it will be the result of a car hitting one crossing a road.

Hands on research will always be better then getting the infomation from other people. You can use what those people collect, but it will always be better to see things for yourself.

 

\ I'm not convinced enough by anecdotal claims and unsubstantiated sightings of Bigfoot, Nessie, or UFOs to leave the comfort of my home, where I have access to all the current studies on these "phenomena".

At some point you have to leave the comfort of you home and do some grunt work to either disprove or prove something. This is how text books are changed and Nobel Prizes won. At some point we have to stop being arm chair researchers and go out into the field and do some of these things ourselves despite what we might think.

[ydoaPs]

At some point you have to leave the comfort of you home and do some grunt work to either disprove or prove something. This is how text books are changed and Nobel Prizes won. At some point we have to stop being arm chair researchers and go out into the field and do some of these things ourselves despite what we might think.

 

Then go back out there and catch a BigFoot.

[Sparky]

Then go back out there and catch a BigFoot.

 

I plan on going back in October to do just that.

[Watcher]

I have to side with Sparky here. I've researched a lot of crypto-animals and I have personally failed to consider any of them likely but two.

 

Bigfoot

Champ

 

All others are complete and utter bunk from what I can find. Those two, however, actually do have compelling evidence to back them up. It's easy to dismiss the idea. However if you research them with an open mind you can not simply dismiss them as myths.

[ydoaPs]

I have to side with Sparky here. I've researched a lot of crypto-animals and I have personally failed to consider any of them likely but two.

 

Bigfoot

Champ

 

All others are complete and utter bunk from what I can find. Those two, however, actually do have compelling evidence to back them up. It's easy to dismiss the idea. However if you research them with an open mind you can not simply dismiss them as myths.

 

What about Nessie or the dinos in the Congo?

[Watcher]

What about Nessie or the dinos in the Congo?

 

I absolutely loved the idea of Nessie when I was younger. However, not only is every bit of "evidence" that has ever been produced to support Nessie has been proven to be a hoax, but Loch Ness has been scoured for anything with nothing turning up, and also you have to consider an actual real animal like that living in the Loch.

 

Obviously if there is a creature that compares to the stereotypical image of what Nessie is suppose to look like we can deduce how much food it would need. We can also take into consideration how many of them there need to be to have a stustainable population of them in the Loch. We'd need at least 30 of them. There's simply not enough food.

 

1) Every tad of evidence has been proven faked.

 

2) Intense searches using baiting, underwater cameras, and radar have failed to find anything.

 

3) Not enough food to support a population of Nessie's.

 

I'm sorry, I can't find a reason to believe. Don't get me wrong, I would love for it to be true. I've even been to Loch Ness and waded it's shorelines. But there's nothing that mysterious there that I can find any evidence for.

 

As for the "Dino's" of the Congo...well all you have are some tribal natives blabbing about seeing something that looks like a dino. That's it. Nothing else.

 

I'm not saying that there is no possible way that there might be something there that is unusual. However, I can find no compelling evidence to even take it seriously enough to keep researching it.

[ydoaPs]

I absolutely loved the idea of Nessie when I was younger. However, not only is every bit of "evidence" that has ever been produced to support Nessie has been proven to be a hoax

What about Bigfoot?

 

As for the "Dino's" of the Congo...well all you have are some tribal natives blabbing about seeing something that looks like a dino. That's it. Nothing else.

And as for Bigfoot?

 

However, I can find no compelling evidence to even take it seriously enough to keep researching it.

At least we're on the same page in this regard.

[Watcher]

What about Bigfoot?

 

And as for Bigfoot?

 

 

Video footage that cannot be easily or even professionally dismissed and has never been adequately replicated (despite desperate and repeated attempts to do so), footprints with epidermal ridges unlike any other known primate, DNA evidence that is inconclusive only because we have no proven sample to compare it to (But is known to belong to a primate unknown to science), etc.

[CDarwin]

As for the "Dino's" of the Congo...well all you have are some tribal natives blabbing about seeing something that looks like a dino. That's it. Nothing else.

 

If it's civilized North Americans making sightings that's one thing, but them primitive tribal natives?

[Watcher]

If it's civilized North Americans making sightings that's one thing, but them primitive tribal natives?

 

Where did I point out eyewitness accounts among my reasons to think bigfoot is real?

 

If my mind worked that way I would still believe in god. I prefer solid evidence.

[ydoaPs]

I would still believe in god. I prefer solid evidence.

 

I love the irony.

[mooeypoo]

Video footage that cannot be easily or even professionally dismissed and has never been adequately replicated (despite desperate and repeated attempts to do so), footprints with epidermal ridges unlike any other known primate, DNA evidence that is inconclusive only because we have no proven sample to compare it to (But is known to belong to a primate unknown to science), etc.

 

the videos are not dismissed; there are a lot of groups who spend a lot of time examining those - otherwise we wouldn't have had the vast amount of evidence they are all fake.

 

~moo

[Watcher]

the videos are not dismissed; there are a lot of groups who spend a lot of time examining those - otherwise we wouldn't have had the vast amount of evidence they are all fake.

 

~moo

 

There has never been any evidence that the Patterson footage was a fake. Nor can it be reproduced to this day.

[mooeypoo]

There has never been any evidence that the Patterson footage was a fake. Nor can it be reproduced to this day.

 

I'm open minded. Link?

 

But another issue to remember: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim that there is an animal out there that is involved in a conspiracy (hidden from view/facts about it is hidden/blabla) and defies what we know about the evolutionary process today, and all the rest of the claims that bigfoot proponents seem to be making, you need to supply *enough proof* for it, and the proof needs to be equal to the claims.

 

A single video (I haven't seen it, so I don't judge yet, I'm simply saying this in general) will never convince me in the existence of bigfoot -- it might convince me that bigfoot is plausible enough to go out and check out the area/details of the footage, but a single vid shouldn't and wouldn't convince a true rational person.

 

For that matter, if I claimed there is life on mars, a group of stills wouldn't have convinced anyone, even if they showed faces on mars or "buildings"... these photos might convince people that a more thorough investigation needs to be done (and in the case of bigfoot there are NO EVIDENCE found other than videos, which can be misinterpreted or hoaxed).

 

So.. take that into account.

 

~moo

[ydoaPs]

I'm open minded. Link?

 

Yeah...that couldn't POSSIBLY be a person in an ape suit...

[CDarwin]

Where did I point out eyewitness accounts among my reasons to think bigfoot is real?

 

If my mind worked that way I would still believe in god. I prefer solid evidence.

 

It was just the way you said "tribal natives" that set my anthropological sensibilities on alert.

 

Yeah...that couldn't POSSIBLY be a person in an ape suit...

 

Either way its a really inefficient walk. One wonders how that gait would evolve.

[iNow]

There has never been any evidence that the Patterson footage was a fake.

 

Now, that, is an avenue for research worthy of some attention.

[ydoaPs]

There has never been any evidence that the Patterson footage was a fake.

 

What about Bigfoot's heel?

 

 

edit: post #4,444 for me

[Watcher]

I'm open minded. Link?

 

But another issue to remember: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim that there is an animal out there that is involved in a conspiracy (hidden from view/facts about it is hidden/blabla) and defies what we know about the evolutionary process today, and all the rest of the claims that bigfoot proponents seem to be making, you need to supply *enough proof* for it, and the proof needs to be equal to the claims.

 

 

I agree. I looked into the matter with an open mind and after researching it for several months I left feeling rather...well surprised by what I found. I'm not here to convince you. I don't really care what you think about it. I just can't prove to myself that the creatures referred to as Bigfoot are bunk. I've done it with Nessie. I've done it with Chupacabras. And so on, and so on. Practically all of them are baseless bunk except for two of them.

 

Champ and Bigfoot. *shrugs* believe whatever you want. Also about Bigfoot defying the evolutionary process. What? I'm a big fan of the evolutionary process. I'm a human evolution enthusiast. I don't see anything with Bigfoot that defies what science currently understands about evolution.

 

I'm open minded. Link?

 

A single video (I haven't seen it, so I don't judge yet, I'm simply saying this in general) will never convince me in the existence of bigfoot -- it might convince me that bigfoot is plausible enough to go out and check out the area/details of the footage, but a single vid shouldn't and wouldn't convince a true rational person.

 

 

I agree that one single video alone would not convince me. That's not all the researchers have. They also have DNA samples of a primate unknown to science. They also have a number of the supposed bigfoot tracks that display characteristic epidermal ridges in them that are unlike any other known primate, etc. There is a TON of fake evidence about Bigfoot I agree. However to dismiss the real evidence because of the fake ones sounds exactly like what the Intelligent Design morons do with the Piltdown man Hoax and all the real evidence about Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Heidelbregensis, etc.

 

I'm open minded. Link?

 

(and in the case of bigfoot there are NO EVIDENCE found other than videos, which can be misinterpreted or hoaxed).

 

So.. take that into account.

 

 

I did. I'm a skeptic. You are wrong about there being "NO EVIDENCE" other than videos. You are ASSUMING there is no other evidence. *shrugs* Believe whatever you want. I was curious enough to look into it on my own. If you don't care enough to do the same that's fine. I really don't care.

[mooeypoo]

Now, that, is an avenue for research worthy of some attention.

 

Here are a few good points in a nice 3-part vid I found:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=P4PvDC8W22E

and part 3

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7NoTZ_OUd5w

 

 

(part 2 is a better version of part 1, but you can watch part 1 if you want, sme same).

 

In any case, any "ape like" animal would not move like that, and would not have feet like that. And that is when we're not even discussing the terrible quality of the video, which makes the odds this is a hoax to double or triple.

 

In any case, I never could understand what the proponents of bigfoot claim; We know large apes exist.. is that ... what? a "smart" large ape? Where are its family (does it live forever?) how is it that it's so large, and lived for so long (hence, it's not alone, has family, multiplying, etc) and the only accounts for it are low-quality videos from people who have no wittnesses or good OTHER evidence (what about blood samples? DNA? from the foot prints even! that shouldn't be hard even AFTER the animal "escaped").

 

 

There are just too many things missing here that were otherwise supposed to be easy to collect, even without "catching" this animal.

 

It's absolutely bunk.

 

~moo

 

I did. I'm a skeptic. You are wrong about there being "NO EVIDENCE" other than videos. You are ASSUMING there is no other evidence. *shrugs* Believe whatever you want. I was curious enough to look into it on my own. If you don't care enough to do the same that's fine. I really don't care.

 

Well, you haven't supplied any evidence, and when I asked for one that *wasn't* debunked, you gave only a single video that is CLEARLY not enough to be any sort of proof.

 

So. What evidence?

[Watcher]

What about Bigfoot's heel?

 

 

edit: post #4,444 for me

 

Oh yeah. I've seen that. I think there are at least 6 people claiming to have been in the "suit" so far. Anecdotal evidence. Professional Biologists in both America and Russia have studied the footage and could not conclude it a fake. Actually a lot of them called it genuine.

 

Anyways, like I've said it before. You guys are all skeptical. That's awesome. *high five* I'm not going to belabour the point any longer. Believe whatever.

 

 

Well, you haven't supplied any evidence, and when I asked for one that *wasn't* debunked, you gave only a single video that is CLEARLY not enough to be any sort of proof.

 

So. What evidence?

 

I agree that one single video alone would not convince me. That's not all the researchers have. They also have DNA samples of a primate unknown to science. They also have a number of the supposed bigfoot tracks that display characteristic epidermal ridges in them that are unlike any other known primate, etc. There is a TON of fake evidence about Bigfoot I agree. However to dismiss the real evidence because of the fake ones sounds exactly like what the Intelligent Design morons do with the Piltdown man Hoax and all the real evidence about Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Heidelbregensis, etc.