Bigfoot

[mooeypoo]

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.

 

 

Not only have I never SEEN/HEARD/READ about such evidence, I've read that there are none, and all that were submitted were either proven hoaxes or misinterpretations.

 

Look. You can't just say "but there are evidence!". It doesn't help anyone. Either find those evidence in a publication and link it here, or concede that the evidence that are available are just not good enough.

 

You are not convincing anyone by saying "but there are!" ... it's not working.

 

I know you don't "Care" what we believe, but you're here debating us, and I'm actually quite curious and would LOVE to find out new animals and species. I just don't see any sort of evidence, and your attempts to tell me there are some fail due to your seeming inability to supply proof of those proofs.

 

 

Where are the proofs?

 

~moo

[Watcher]

I know you don't "Care" what we believe, but you're here debating us, and I'm actually quite curious and would LOVE to find out new animals and species. I just don't see any sort of evidence, and your attempts to tell me there are some fail due to your seeming inability to supply proof of those proofs.

 

"a belief that is held in carefully nurtured ignorance of the alternative is hardly a belief to be taken seriously" -Richard Dawkins

 

I'm not debating shit. I'm stating an opinion based on what I have researched. You are stating an opinion based on preconceived assumptions.

 

Open up your web browser of choice, type in http://www.google.com in the address bar, and search for things like "Bigfoot", "Dermal ridges", "DNA", etc. I don't give a shit if you pull the creationist tactic of claiming there is no evidence for the "theory" of evolution. Honestly. Just sit there all happy and ignorant.

 

Forgive me for preferring to learn more about things that interest me than dragging you along behind me spoon feeding you the fruits of my intellectual labor (I'm studying a fascinating book titled "Understanding Human Evolution" and the studies among mainly various Chimpanzees populations but also some Orangutan populations is fascinating). Just sit there and call it complete shit like a creationist calls evolution shit. I'm not willing to "raise" you like you are my offspring.

 

My point is that until you research the matter, you are DEAD WRONG calling this subject BUNK. You are basing that opinion on what? Ignorance of something you have never studied in any detail? Just passively waiting for someone to drop the evidence in your lap? How lazy. Either A) research it and say that you have a solid opinion or B) say that you have no idea.

[mooeypoo]

"a belief that is held in carefully nurtured ignorance of the alternative is hardly a belief to be taken seriously" -Richard Dawkins

 

I'm not debating shit. I'm stating an opinion based on what I have researched. You are stating an opinion based on preconceived assumptions.

 

Open up your web browser of choice, type in www.google.com in the address bar, and search for things like "Bigfoot", "Dermal ridges", "DNA", etc. I don't give a shit if you pull the creationist tactic of claiming there is no evidence for the "theory" of evolution. Honestly. Just sit there all happy and ignorant.

 

Forgive me for preferring to learn more about things that interest me than dragging you along behind me spoon feeding you the fruits of my intellectual labor (I'm studying a fascinating book titled "Understanding Human Evolution" and the studies among mainly various Chimpanzees populations but also some Orangutan populations is fascinating). Just sit there and call it complete shit like a creationist calls evolution shit. I'm not willing to "raise" you like you are my offspring.

 

My point is that until you research the matter, you are DEAD WRONG calling this subject BUNK. You are basing that opinion on what? Ignorance of something you have never studied in any detail? Just passively waiting for someone to drop the evidence in your lap? How lazy. Either A) research it and say that you have a solid opinion or B) say that you have no idea.

 

This is a debate forum.

 

The burden of proof is on you, because you are the one making the claim. If I were to claim unicorns exist, the burden of proof was on me - not on you to prove them wrong.

 

 

If I'm dead wrong, prove it.

 

If I am ignorant of the facts - enlighten me. I asked for links and proofs, I didn't just throw this aside without trying to look at things.

 

But you seem to expect us to take your word for it. Things don't work this way, and quite frankly, your repeated claims that your a skeptic must be put under some question, in light of your very irrational expectation we just "trust you" on this.

 

 

If we're dead wrong and there are proofs, show us.

 

 

Otherwise, you're trolling.

 

 

 

 

~moo

 

EDIT/ADD:

 

Also, friend, seriously, avoid using a language that is inappropriate, and demotes your argument from a debate to a cowardly rant. We're here to talk, take advantage of our willingness to listen and let us hear the facts.

 

Also, your assumption that we didn't research the matter is bunk and irrelevant. The burden of proof is on you. Stop being a child and participate in the debate, or just concede your argument is unproven and talk about something else. I really don't see why I need to prove to YOU that bigfoot doesn't exist, if you're the one making the claim.

 

Would you prove the invisible unicorn non existence if it was my claim? You shouldn't. Grow up.

[swansont]

"a belief that is held in carefully nurtured ignorance of the alternative is hardly a belief to be taken seriously" -Richard Dawkins

 

I'm not debating shit. I'm stating an opinion based on what I have researched. You are stating an opinion based on preconceived assumptions.

 

Open up your web browser of choice, type in http://www.google.com in the address bar, and search for things like "Bigfoot", "Dermal ridges", "DNA", etc. I don't give a shit if you pull the creationist tactic of claiming there is no evidence for the "theory" of evolution. Honestly. Just sit there all happy and ignorant.

 

Forgive me for preferring to learn more about things that interest me than dragging you along behind me spoon feeding you the fruits of my intellectual labor (I'm studying a fascinating book titled "Understanding Human Evolution" and the studies among mainly various Chimpanzees populations but also some Orangutan populations is fascinating). Just sit there and call it complete shit like a creationist calls evolution shit. I'm not willing to "raise" you like you are my offspring.

 

My point is that until you research the matter, you are DEAD WRONG calling this subject BUNK. You are basing that opinion on what? Ignorance of something you have never studied in any detail? Just passively waiting for someone to drop the evidence in your lap? How lazy. Either A) research it and say that you have a solid opinion or B) say that you have no idea.

 

 

This is a science forum. Debate the evidence, lose the anger.

[falcon9393]

bigfoot i think is just a campfire story made up to scare kids. there is no way big foot is real there might as well be wookies running through the woods!

[Sparky]

I think I can shed some light on the fact that the patterson video is the only one. There are several different factions in the Bigfoot hunting community, several of the like Texas Bigfoot and the BFRO have claimed to have video evidence but that they are holding on to it before so they can gather more evidence. The problem is that the Patterson Video is one of those chance encounteres and other videos do not show detail. The theory I have been told for the reason that particular Bigfoot walked slowly was that it was acting as a distraction so that other bigfoot could slip away. I've seen other videos that friends have that are good, but don't show any detail.

I went to a lecture where they put up the theory that Bigfoot could be real based on Native American stories that come from every part of the United States that talk about things like the wild man. She said based on the Native American stories that Bigfoot was more than likely a real animal.

My argument is that there are still vast amounts of unexplored wilderness in the United States and to say that we have found everything there is to find is rather arrogant of people. Until every inch of the Earth is explored in detail, we can not say for sure that something like a Bigfoot does not exist. At the very least everyone here must admit that there is a chance that Bigfoot does exist.

 

Also, your assumption that we didn't research the matter is bunk and irrelevant. The burden of proof is on you. Stop being a child and participate in the debate, or just concede your argument is unproven and talk about something else. I really don't see why I need to prove to YOU that bigfoot doesn't exist, if you're the one making the claim.

 

Would you prove the invisible unicorn non existence if it was my claim? You shouldn't. Grow up.

 

If evidence is given like the Patterson Video and other pictures, then your burden is to disprove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. People researching Bigfoot have given many types of evidence and a lot of it cannot be disproven. My burden is to give enough evidence to convince you that one exists, your burden is to put my evidence to the test.

[swansont]

If evidence is given like the Patterson Video and other pictures, then your burden is to disprove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. People researching Bigfoot have given many types of evidence and a lot of it cannot be disproven. My burden is to give enough evidence to convince you that one exists, your burden is to put my evidence to the test.

 

No, the burden of proof is still on those who contend Bigfoot is real to establish the credibility of the evidence. You have to exclude the other possible explanations for the "evidence," through a combination of quality and quantity of your data.

[Mr Skeptic]

 

Not directly related to Bigfoot, but this picture is of a recently discovered species of sea dog. It was only recently discovered because it lives in an area where people seldom live. However, no samples were taken so most scientists doubt that it exists. This despite the clear photo.

[mooeypoo]

 

Not directly related to Bigfoot, but this picture is of a recently discovered species of sea dog. It was only recently discovered because it lives in an area where people seldom live. However, no samples were taken so most scientists doubt that it exists. This despite the clear photo.

 

Right, and what is the next step with this discovery? Are scientists trying to disprove it, or are they waiting for the discoverer to supply better proof?

 

Obviously, the latter. That's what science is. And if this animal is real (I have no opinion, I don't know the subject well enough), someone will go and research it, and get DNA samples, or catch one of these, document it, pass it through the peer-review process where it will get hammered from all directions, and only if it survives criticism, it will be considered PROVEN.

 

That's how science works.

 

Now until someone does the same with bigfoot (Hence, PROVE its existence), there's no reason to believe it exists, specifically not as a conspiracy-theory claim.

 

~moo

[D H]

Not directly related to Bigfoot, but this picture is of a recently discovered species of sea dog. It was only recently discovered because it lives in an area where people seldom live. However, no samples were taken so most scientists doubt that it exists.

 

A bit more directly related to Bigfoot, this drawing depicts yet another cryptozoological species.

It too was only recently rediscovered because it lives in an area where people seldom live. However, no samples were taken so most scientists doubt that it exists.

 

In all serious now, a recent videotape supposedly shows that the ivory-billed woodpecker is not extinct. The video is fuzzy and short; one frame might show distinguishing characteristics of the ivory-billed woodpecker. The Patterson video was made by a pair of non-scientists who were undoubtedly out to make a buck. The ivory-billed woodpecker video was made by trained scientists who have tenure. Nonetheless, the burden of proof remains on the scientists who make the claim that the ivory-billed woodpecker is still alive. Without sounds, feathers, or better videos the claim remains suspect.

[Sparky]

Now until someone does the same with bigfoot (Hence, PROVE its existence), there's no reason to believe it exists, specifically not as a conspiracy-theory claim.

Even though a body has not turned up, plenty of Hair and DNA has. The problem is science will not accept this until they have a body to look at. To say there is Zero chance that one exists is extreamly narrow minded and kind of arrogant. If you believe that every large land based animal has been found then that is very sad. With thousands of square miles yet untouched by human hands how can you say with 100% certainty that Bigfoot does not exist? New animals are being discovered ever year I think it is only a matter of time before a bigfoot is found. Until then debates like this will go on forever. I still believe that Bigfoot exists and I plan on trying to prove it does. I think that most of the people posting here are a little too closed minded about this subject

[CDarwin]

Even though a body has not turned up, plenty of Hair and DNA has. The problem is science will not accept this until they have a body to look at. To say there is Zero chance that one exists is extreamly narrow minded and kind of arrogant. If you believe that every large land based animal has been found then that is very sad. With thousands of square miles yet untouched by human hands how can you say with 100% certainty that Bigfoot does not exist? New animals are being discovered ever year I think it is only a matter of time before a bigfoot is found. Until then debates like this will go on forever. I still believe that Bigfoot exists and I plan on trying to prove it does. I think that most of the people posting here are a little too closed minded about this subject

 

What does a bigfoot hair look like exactly? I'll bet it looks a lot like a bigfoot hair. (i.e. You might be reading into the hair what you want to see. Some of the best paleontologists of have done similarly with their pet prehistoric beasts; its far from unheard of).

 

What does bigfoot DNA look like? Well like nothing else on record of course. Of course so does badly degraded DNA from practically any source.

 

I even hunted down some bigfoot 'calls' on the internet and listened to them, and honestly bigfoot must have the repertoire of a virtuoso. Some of them sounded remarkably like gibbons, others like birds, others just a grunting sound that I'd imagine could be any number of mammals. So what does a bigfoot sound like? Like a bigfoot, of course.

 

I'm certainly in concurrence with you and Watcher that it is possible that bigfoot might exist (I think its probably one of the more plausible cryptozoological creatures), but hair of fuzzy ownership and DNA of fuzzy ownership and videos and sightings of fuzzy quality don't amount to quite enough to overcome the incredulity of a giant, particularly intelligent, oddly inefficiently bipedal ape with no establishable origins wandering around North America.

 

If I might descend into a little structuralism, I think I can offer an explanation for bigfoot on the whole much more plausible. Bigfoot represents a binary opposite for man. Men live in communities, in 'civilization' if you will. Bigfoot lives in the wild. He represents those wildest aspects of nature; the unknown, the unpredictable, the shadowing and a little frightening. He also represents those untamed aspects of human nature; its savagery and its opposition to the sociality that allows men to be civilized. Seen in this light it is no wonder that bigfoot-like legends appear in cultures all over the world. There aren't a whole lot of mysterious, giant, bipedal apes running around. There are just a whole lot of human cultures in close contact with nature and they have created giants apes as a metaphor, a counterpoint to their own experience.

[swansont]

 

Not directly related to Bigfoot, but this picture is of a recently discovered species of sea dog. It was only recently discovered because it lives in an area where people seldom live. However, no samples were taken so most scientists doubt that it exists. This despite the clear photo.

 

I'm sold, because nobody — nobody — could, y'know, photoshop a dog's head onto a walrus's body.

[mooeypoo]

Even though a body has not turned up, plenty of Hair and DNA has. The problem is science will not accept this until they have a body to look at. To say there is Zero chance that one exists is extreamly narrow minded and kind of arrogant. If you believe that every large land based animal has been found then that is very sad. With thousands of square miles yet untouched by human hands how can you say with 100% certainty that Bigfoot does not exist? New animals are being discovered ever year I think it is only a matter of time before a bigfoot is found. Until then debates like this will go on forever. I still believe that Bigfoot exists and I plan on trying to prove it does. I think that most of the people posting here are a little too closed minded about this subject

 

Where?

 

Please, I'm willing to go over the proof, just ... produce it already, so we can examine it and its viability.

 

I'm waiting.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm sold, because nobody — nobody — could, y'know, photoshop a dog's head onto a walrus's body.

 

Guilty as charged. I'm still pissed that I missed April Fool's Day (I was busy writing an essay).

[iNow]

Well, I've got proof that penguins can fly, and do so all of the time. While the aerodynamics of it all escape me, there's no doubting this visual evidence. It was even offered by the BBC, so it must be real!

 

 

 

 

[mooeypoo]

Well, I've got proof that penguins can fly, and do so all of the time. While the aerodynamics of it all escape me, there's no doubting this visual evidence. It was even offered by the BBC, so it must be real!

 

 

 

 

My best friend actually called me about this that day to ask me if its true.

 

She was so excited about the "Cutie penguins that fly!" that I kinda felt bad to tell her what day it was...

[iNow]

My first reaction was, "No f**king way! That's awesome!!" Then, after about 2 seconds I was like, "Oh yeah. That's right. I'm an idiot. Those batards. That was a good one."

[mooeypoo]

My first reaction was, "No f**king way! That's awesome!!" Then, after about 2 seconds I was like, "Oh yeah. That's right. I'm an idiot. Those batards. That was a good one."

Yeah thats what I thought -- see, I think that if they owuldn't have gone as far as they did (migration to a warmer place!??! i mean.. c'mon..) and just stuck with flapping of wing and circling the air, they'd get lots more people

[Mr Skeptic]

Yeah thats what I thought -- see, I think that if they owuldn't have gone as far as they did (migration to a warmer place!??! i mean.. c'mon..) and just stuck with flapping of wing and circling the air, they'd get lots more people

 

I think part of the point was for it to eventually get outrageous enough that no sane person would believe the last bit.

[iNow]

I think part of the point was for it to eventually get outrageous enough that no sane person would believe the last bit.

 

So, basically what you're suggesting is that we'll soon hear a bunch of nutters all across the web talking about how we've been lied to for years and penguins engage in migratory behavior to the tropics?

 

Just look at the picture! There's clearly an intelligent species on the surface of mars because of the face! Oops... sorry. Wrong thread.