Bigfoot :)

BigJoeNobody

BigJoeNobody

Professional Argument Attractor
Messages
1,179
Reaction score
126
Points
63
Location
Texas
Just because the Logic debate and the like seems to be dieing down, and I could use a little non-religious discussion. I raise the Question "Is Bigfoot Real?" But before we get down to it, Let's define what I mean by Bigfoot as there are a lot of myths that can befuddle anyone (such as telepathy and dual left footedness). And I will allow speculation of maybe real if one defines their points of evidence why it may not and the evidence that makes it possible. Please refrain from absolute naysaying without evidence to say so (I know.... It's impossible to prove the negative) and refrain from inputting known false or wild speculation.

I will start... as I made the thread :)...

To steal a line from Survivorman show "Do I believe in Bigfoot? Eh... But if you ask if I believe there could be a bipedal ape standing 8+ft with high Intelligence that has attempted to avoid contact with the human race yet being responsible for thousands of sightings? That's another thing entirely" (paraphrased slightly due to laziness)

My claim: Maybe, with a likely true outcome

Evidences:

1. Thousands of Sightings (Error here is usually perception, people don't know what they are looking at. In addition the number of confirmed hoaxes is staggering as of the last 30 yrs.

2. Repeatable experiments with great success from multiple sources.

These experiments tend to fall around food "gifting", returned calling, and manipulated "traffic" signs. (error source in these is hoaxing possible, other species influence, and general mistakes/environmental demonstration)

3. Hundreds of unexplainable images on gamecams (again, same as sightings, but usually not as easily hoaxed)

4. Hair and blood samples taken around gifted areas (Hair and blood was DNA tested and concluded from multiple 3rd parties to be a hybrid and/or mix of Human and an unknown ape DNA)

This is one of the most compelling evidences due to the fact that Blood and hair are tough to hoax, and the fact that they were tested by multiple 3rd parties, some of which (supposedly) weren't told what the samples were supposed to be from, makes it very difficult to hoax.

5. HD pictures are popping up that researchers are getting. Many are scrutinized by the public, but many are consistent with each other. (Again Hoaxing possible, but the more pictures come out the more widespread the hoax would need to be)

6. In addition to the returned calls mentioned above, there are hundreds of HD audio recordings. If you take out the option of digital manipulation, these become difficult to hoax, but with today's computers, any hoax is possible as long as it uses digital media.

7. And I'm going to lump these together, Foot prints and poop samples. both are found in large numbers, but both can be deceptively easy to fake.

So my answer is possibly, or probably. It would have to be the worlds biggest hoax to accomplish such levels of fake evidences, both in quantity and quality. How about you?
 
Are there ANY legitimate pictures? We've now got everyone with a cell phone....

Are there ANY legitimate scientists that claim this?

The possibility that an 8' primate has been living an breeding in the American NW through the past decades of hunting seasons.....real close to nill I'd say.

This is conspiracy theory at faked moon landing level.
 
wil said:
Are there ANY legitimate pictures? We've now got everyone with a cell phone....

Are there ANY legitimate scientists that claim this?

The possibility that an 8' primate has been living an breeding in the American NW through the past decades of hunting seasons.....real close to nill I'd say.

This is conspiracy theory at faked moon landing level.
Click to expand...
:) obviously the legit pictures/ legit scientists would be under scrutiny the moment they made the claim to believe in the bigfoot existence. Truth is there are some pictures that are called fake, but never analyzed. Todd Stanton's photos were declared fake because they didn't conform to common images of Bigfoot (or so that's what I've read). IF they are real and not fake, they are absolutely clear, They are shown a few times on the Survivorman: Bigfoot Series on Discovery, not to confuse this with evidence directly since not everything you see on TV is real obviously. There are patches of scientists mixed in the researcher groups. (by scientists I mean degreed scientists with experience researching rare species and such).

Remember though, odds aren't nil, and it took many years of research before they confirmed silverbacks in Africa. Now we have them in zoos all over the world (which is sad in itself). Men have gone into the wilderness and never been found, dead or alive. Why then is it difficult to believe a creature born and raised in the wilderness cannot avoid detection as well?

I realize a lot of this rides on hypotheticals, and that there is a common hoax potential in all the evidence (same as any other research I suppose)
 
This is the internet age.... we've got access to the world...

yet I don't see thousands of sightings.... pictures that pass scrutiny....or repeatable experiments from multiple sources....

links and information to verify any of your 6 claims.
 
Does Bigfoot exist; a subspecies of some creature we already know or a completely new species never before seen? As unfortunately, no one has been able to capture a living specimen or even drag a dead body out of the wild, we are left with secondary evidence. That is problematic.

We know from long experience that human testimony is the very worst type of evidence there is. Even when people are telling what they believe to be the truth, it ends up they are misreading what it is they saw, heard, etc.

Hair and blood samples are on the other end of the spectrum when it comes to evidence.(Your point #4). With the caveat that some professional has examined these samples and determined through SCIENCE that it is a new species, or a sub-species of something we truly have not seen before. If someone comes out of the woods with fir and claims it was from a Bigfoot they saw - that in and of itself is worthless.

So my first question is has any reputable scientist done a DNA examination of these physical findings to determine what they are? Unless the answer is yes (in which I would be very interested to see the report on those tests), hair and blood samples are meaningless. They could be from anything we already know is in the actual world - like a bear. That I know of NO reputable sources that will confirm this is suspicious. So I must ask who are these '3rd parties' doing the testing and are they truly unbiased?

People who tend to believe in such things as Bigfoot are notoriously susceptible to hoaxes. And hoaxes there have been aplenty. The level of sitings is not so large that it cannot be a combination of hoax and misunderstanding on the part of the person who makes a claim. These same people have, as a general rule, little to no understanding of what critical thinking is. They come from a place that they want to believe, and accept the examples of proof too readily.

In comparison let me ask you this - do you believe crop circles are some unknown earthly force or vortex that is creating these things? There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of crop circles that have popped up - and these require a significant more amount of work to create - hours spent on the project in the dead of night. It has fairly well been established that they are all the work of people. Not mysterious earth forces, or even worse, alien landing patterns.

Bottom line, there are enough people who are willing to take the time to pull off a hoax, enough to create a formidable number of hoaxes just for the fun to it and the notoriety.

As it is with crop circles, so I suspect it is with Bigfoot. The paucity of hard evidence is suspiciously absent. Much as I would really like for these creatures to exist (no sarcasm there, I really would be very excited if truth could be found), the type of evidence thus far acquired falls far below the level where I can accept that they exist.
 
I almost completely agree with you DA, it is completely possible, people from all over getting into this hoax. Crop Circles IMO would be more simple to disprove in general due to the mechanical nature of such happennings. Nothing Says there aren't some that are real and ETs aren't actually causing some. It just makes proving real or not more difficult.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/bigfoot-dna-proves-creature-exists-genetic_n_2199984.html is talking about one of the research labs under scrutiny for the claims. When I get time, I might try to find a list of other labs making claims of positive affirmations.
 
That was 2012....and more info was to be coming....and peer reviews were to be completed... 3 years later....nothing.... "Ketchum's research has yet to stand the scrutiny of independent researchers."
 
Devils' Advocate said:
In comparison let me ask you this - do you believe crop circles are some unknown earthly force or vortex that is creating these things? There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of crop circles that have popped up - and these require a significant more amount of work to create - hours spent on the project in the dead of night. It has fairly well been established that they are all the work of people. Not mysterious earth forces, or even worse, alien landing patterns.

Bottom line, there are enough people who are willing to take the time to pull off a hoax, enough to create a formidable number of hoaxes just for the fun to it and the notoriety.
Click to expand...
Crop circles are fun, like Halloween cornfield mazes.

But for a *real* mystery...how about the Plain of Nazca? Or the White Horse of Uffington? Or the Giant in the Mojave Desert?
 
Natural mysteries with hundreds+ witnesses do absolutely fascinate me. There are several accounts of UFOs and underwater UFOs from WW2 from entire ships of sailors in the North sea and battalions of men in the Black Forest. or the Polynesian Heads, or some of the temples in the Amazon that predate civilizations in any of the Americas. There are thousands of natural and unnatural mysteries that are being explored.

I cannot say whether or not for sure, but it does seem evidence, is piling up, and more people are going about it in more scientific ways. There will probably never be a definitive answer until 1 is killed or captured (latter being less likely due to the careful nature they seem to portray from eye witness accounts). If I were to guess, I would say we are looking at an undiscovered Asian Ape due to the almost exact same descriptions for tales of Yeti and Sasquatch/Bigfoot. It also is interesting the tales from the Native American tribes almost entirely mimic the nature described in Chinese lore of Yeti. If either are real of course.
 
Well there is nothing mysterious about the Uffington White Horse. Except perhaps for why the local community felt they needed to do it!

As a completely irrelevant aside, I remember many, many moons ago, my best friend and I bought pasties from a place near the site of the horse, and we sat on a hillside eating our food and admiring the chalk horse.

As for the Nazca plains, I have not yet heard any explanation, scientific or pseudo that explains how it was done or why it was done. This is one of those true to life mysteries we may never learn what it was all about. It is nice there are still some mysteries left in this old world though.
 
the how is simple...they aint that big (600 m the biggest) and can be seen from the hillside.... much more amazing were tunnels and aquaducts and pyramids than lines cut in the dirt...

But UFOs are just that, unidentified...until they are.... but the same folks that make up bigfoots, lochness monsters and mermaids create G!ds as well....not quite so unusual....and like the russian cosmonaut said....ain't no heaven up here....with billions of cell phone cameras if there were aliens flying around....we'd have them by now....
 
Yeah the pyramids is another one that boggles my mind. And again even after all this time, we still don't have a clue how they were built. Plenty of theories but no real idea. The moving of all the stone megaliths around the world are an amazement. 20, 40, and even some 60 ton stones moved in England during the stone age. Some of them we can barely move today. The pyramids in Central & South America - they didn't even have the wheel! Extraordinary feats of engineering for such primitive cultures.
 
I do think the world is still plenty big enough that mysteries remain. Only a couple of hundred years ago they didn't even know to ask about radiation, now we use Geiger counters to measure it. The Large Hadron Collider has isolated the "god" particle (Higg's Boson), after many years of speculative research and some high cost experimentation...things we were only beginning to consider 50 years ago.

Public school texts (read that as "secular") taught that all energy came from the sun, that without the sun life could not exist. Then Ballard found the smoking vents in the deep ocean teeming with microbial life in the complete absence of sunlight. Later other life forms were found deep in salt mines, again in the complete absence of sunlight.

We didn't know to ask a hundred years ago about sub-atomic particles that pass through planet earth and keep on truckin', but we do have an elementary understanding today of neutrinos.

Who is to say energy beings can't be "seen?" We just don't know what eyes to use yet in order to look at them.

What questions do we not even know to ask today that will be common knowledge a hundred years from now? That is, if we don't kill each other and the rest of the world off in the meantime.

I've had atheists argue with me about G!d, until I ask them if love exists. "Of course it does." "OK, show me." "Love is chemicals in the brain." "OK, I can show you three independent scientific studies that show the exact same chemicals in the exact same places in the brain while a person is communing with G!d...so by your own reasoning, love is chemicals in the brain therefore love exists means that G!d is chemicals in the brain, therefore G!d exists."

We don't know. There is so much we don't know, and so seldom we are honest enough with ourselves to admit we don't know. But the more I learn, the less I know.
 
Your statement Juan, ergo ipso facto Columbo oreo, your logic. I have a bit of trouble with your logic here as well, which surprises me since you usually have a solid foundation in such.

The difference, obviously, is that love with another person (for example) is something one can see, feel, touch, hear with the senses available to us in the physical universe. That is there is positive feedback from another person that you are in love.

Love with a God lacks any of the physical sensual confirmations, hence it is not the same. Any positive feedback might very well be illusory. Might as well say you love My Pretty Pony; it is just as logical as love of a God. This a logical fallacy known as a non-sequiter.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
Your statement Juan, ergo ipso facto Columbo oreo, your logic. I have a bit of trouble with your logic here as well, which surprises me since you usually have a solid foundation in such.

The difference, obviously, is that love with another person (for example) is something one can see, feel, touch, hear with the senses available to us in the physical universe. That is there is positive feedback from another person that you are in love.
Click to expand...
Love is still something you can't hold in your hand as such and point to and say "see, there it is." Love is a feeling, an emotion. A scientist *could* argue that those under its influence were suffering shared delusions...

Love with a God lacks any of the physical sensual confirmations, hence it is not the same. Any positive feedback might very well be illusory. Might as well say you love My Pretty Pony; it is just as logical as love of a God. This a logical fallacy known as a non-sequiter.
Click to expand...
Unless Love *is* G!d, or G!d *is* Love. But we'll save that possibility for another day.

Love comes in three flavors recognized by the Greeks: Eros (physical or animal love), Phileo (love of a brother/sister or friend), and Agape (love of G!d). Greek philosophers recognize love as such in those manners...where we "moderns" don't really go to the trouble to differentiate. ;)

Funny how the conversation has moved from Bigfoot to love...
 
Last edited:
Devils' Advocate said:
The difference, obviously, is that love with another person (for example) is something one can see, feel, touch, hear with the senses available to us in the physical universe. That is there is positive feedback from another person that you are in love.
Click to expand...
I disagree here, I almost went on a rant but let me first ask what it is we see, feel, touch and hear? Are you talking about social interactions, the physical body?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top