Bigfoot :)

[BigJoeNobody]

Funny how the conversation has moved from Bigfoot to love...

such is IF... moving from a discussion of belief in a cryptospecies being possible to love and/or God existing. SMH This is why we can't have nice discussions

Either way, with exception to wil who has concluded the odds are so slim that it is impossible, It seems like most are saying it is possible, but needs more research

 

[Devils' Advocate]

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?

That's the second time you have threatened a rant and have not followed through. GO for it Tea. Come on and jump into the deep end of the pool with the rest of us who put our opinions out there to be agreed with, or slammed!

As a quick response, physical interactions are certainly part of one kind of love between two people. It is hardly limited to just that. There is (one hopes anyway) also the mental give and take between two people (or more if that's what turns you on, I'm not to judge) that stimulates, no pun intended, the relationship.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Funny how the conversation has moved from Bigfoot to love...

You started it! Nah-Nah-Nah.

p.s. I agree with you that it is very unfortunate that Western culture has only one word for what is a whole range of emotions and feelings. Some of the European countries have multiple words for different kinds of love do they not?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

with exception to wil who has concluded the odds are so slim that it is impossible

No, you have to include me in the odds are so slim category as well.

 

[juantoo3]

Either way, with exception to wil who has concluded the odds are so slim that it is impossible, It seems like most are saying it is possible, but needs more research

How can one prove the impossible? Sure, I suppose it is possible. I agree the world is big enough there are mysteries still to solve. Bigfoot isn't high on that list for me.

Even considering all the sightings...how many are shown definitively to be hoaxes? (A lot.) How many are ambiguous? (A lot.) How many could just as easily be misinterpreted sightings of a bear or buffalo or some other large, furry creature? (I would guess a lot.) How many sightings involve overindulgence in alcoholic beverages or other intoxicants? (Don't know, but I might guess a good many.) Where are the caves, presuming they live in caves? If not, where do they nest? If they found scat, what do the "researchers" say they eat? Why isn't this info used to better track them down?

In the case of the Flores Island Hobbit, they were isolated on a remote island...reasonable to presume they largely went unnoticed, and even as recently as two hundred years ago there were rumors among the Dutch traders that visited those Islands that such people may have even still existed at that time.

Neandertal are known... there are multiple sites that have been researched. It has come to light increasingly over the past decade that Neandertal and Cro Magnon (modern humans) cross-bred, and Neandertal DNA is now traceable in modern human lineages, particularly those from Northern European descent. Science has the data and the evidences, we can say with as much certainty as we have available to us that these beings existed.

No such for Sasquatch. Bigfoot is in accessable areas...otherwise why all the "sightings," yet no hunter has bagged one? I don't know... it doesn't add up.

Now, dragons are another matter. That issue I've chased out before in another thread. Dragons are everywhere around the world in myth and legend, and yet there isn't a whole lot of evidence to explain why these myths persist in the human psyche.

There are legitimate mysteries. And there are manufactured mysteries. Sometimes it is really hard to tell them apart, and the skeptics tend to lump them all together anyway.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

How can one prove the impossible? Sure, I suppose it is possible. I agree the world is big enough there are mysteries still to solve. Bigfoot isn't high on that list for me.

Even considering all the sightings...how many are shown definitively to be hoaxes? (A lot.) How many are ambiguous? (A lot.) How many could just as easily be misinterpreted sightings of a bear or buffalo or some other large, furry creature? (I would guess a lot.) How many sightings involve overindulgence in alcoholic beverages or other intoxicants? (Don't know, but I might guess a good many.) Where are the caves, presuming they live in caves? If not, where do they nest? If they found scat, what do the "researchers" say they eat? Why isn't this info used to better track them down?

In the case of the Flores Island Hobbit, they were isolated on a remote island...reasonable to presume they largely went unnoticed, and even as recently as two hundred years ago there were rumors among the Dutch traders that visited those Islands that such people may have even still existed at that time.

Neandertal are known... there are multiple sites that have been researched. It has come to light increasingly over the past decade that Neandertal and Cro Magnon (modern humans) cross-bred, and Neandertal DNA is now traceable in modern human lineages, particularly those from Northern European descent. Science has the data and the evidences, we can say with as much certainty as we have available to us that these beings existed.

No such for Sasquatch. Bigfoot is in accessable areas...otherwise why all the "sightings," yet no hunter has bagged one? I don't know... it doesn't add up.

Now, dragons are another matter. That issue I've chased out before in another thread. Dragons are everywhere around the world in myth and legend, and yet there isn't a whole lot of evidence to explain why these myths persist in the human psyche.

There are legitimate mysteries. And there are manufactured mysteries. Sometimes it is really hard to tell them apart, and the skeptics tend to lump them all together anyway.

TBH I am not here to convince anyone of Bigfoot actuality. I think there is enough evidence that goes unnoticed by the general public, to warrant a deeper look being necessary before one could say that even with what evidence there is, that a "majority" is hoax. Yes, over the years there has been several attempts at hoaxes, and many more proven falsehoods. The questions asked here go to show how obscure the depth of research is known to the general public (aka people not interested). To tie this experiment of a topic into other threads, this has shown people's will is generally to dismiss evidence in discussions due to the fact that they are preemptively making up their mind as to the sincerity or extent of scientific credibility. Cryptozoology is actually a well versed science. They have to be to have their research even taken seriously. Bigfoot theory used to be considered like juan stated, a theory from drunks and misunderstanding of witnesses, and of course hoaxes. The areas that are generally used in research are way backwoods. Only accessible by crews with fuel backups or helis. Hair/blood samples are being genetically coded time and time again, and more samples are coming in. The Questionable evidences are getting to a point that mere coincidence becomes unlikely (sound recordings, gamecam, tampering of equipment) and can usually only be assumed as true evidence or hoax. And as has been pointed out here, Hoaxing is the first conclusion most would say. No hunter has bagged one is usually an argument by someone ignorant of combat experience or the dangers of hunting. These creatures are assumed to be over 1000 lbs (a large bear) and witnesses say their movements range from unnoticeably slow to unrealistically quick. Their diet according to most researchers tends to be deer, wild fruits, berries, and various other meats while venison seems to be a favorite. Kill sights tend to show great care in harvesting of deer and the scat has shown that deer (or other large mammals) is traced in nearly every bit of scat examined. That being said, The bigfoot theory could easily be a hoax or misunderstanding. It could just as easily all be bears, or it could be even more creepy and be a bear hybrid. Either way, I don't think anyone here is versed enough in the evidence to warrant calling it either way. Possible is IMHO the only logical conclusion at the moment.

 

[juantoo3]

I don't think anyone here is versed enough in the evidence to warrant calling it either way. Possible is IMHO the only logical conclusion at the moment.

That is why I leave room enough in my consideration to say that when and where "they" can show conclusively that one exists, I won't have a problem with it. I do have an amateur fascination with anthropology, and I would think that if there was anything substantive at this point that it would have made itself known. I'm not so sure I would dismiss so cavalierly the impact of a hunter...taking down a 1000 pound (or bigger) bear is not at all out of the question, so taking down a 1000 pound Bigfoot would seem just another day in the woods for a *good* hunter. As I recall, Grizzlies and Polar Bear males routinely cross the 1000 pound threshold, so it really wouldn't be that far fetched. Think in terms of an 800 pound Gorilla, because in essence this would be the same thing...and before Gorillas became protected it happened, bull males were taken by competent hunters. As for remoteness...hunters by far *prefer* remote areas. Which effectively leaves only very inaccessible areas in the rugged high mountains, which if that were the only range of Bigfoot then how did so many people manage to get glimpses of them? See the conundrum? If people can spot them, and hunters are people, then hunters can spot them too.

Might not be the most humane answer, but if a hunter did bag one and could show it, then "we" would have something to build on. Even a dead body of natural causes. Even a cave dwelling. Something definitive...

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Now, dragons are another matter. That issue I've chased out before in another thread. Dragons are everywhere around the world in myth and legend, and yet there isn't a whole lot of evidence to explain why these myths persist in the human psyche.

One of my big question marks as well. Always have been fascinated with dragon legends. And the why of them. Something I have studied as a hobby, not so much these days, but quite a bit in my high school/ college era. Coming from European descent, my favorite dragon is of course, the flying, fire breathing variety. Smaug. Vermithrax Pejorative. And of course, Toothless!

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I said "Agreed. Which roundabout gets us back to the original discussion about Bigfoot. It has been my experience that too many people who believe in Bigfoot desperately want to believe in Bigfoot. They accept as evidence stuff that I would term meager at best, useless at worst. The desire to believe overrides the objectivity to examine the evidence evenly. This is a huge problem within this community."

And Juan responded "Well, yes...but isn't that true of most any strongly held belief? It seems to me that is what makes people cling desperately to what they believe even when they ultimately are faced with the challenges and contradictions that those beliefs invariably will produce."

No. The way I perceive it is not that 'people cling desperately to what they believe', rather it is 'people cling desperately to what they want to believe. Even when there is no genuine evidence to support what they want to believe. So they settle for unsupported evidence as being good enough so they can continue to believe what they want.

Coelacanths are often used by Bigfoot supporters as a reason to believe. The fish was believed to have been extinct since the Cretaceous 66 million years ago - until someone pulled up one in a net off the coast of Africa in the 1930s.. Turns out nobody told the Coelacanths they were extinct! Since then, more of the fish have been caught; it has been found they at least two species of the fish are still extant in the Indian ocean and off the Indonesian coastline. Bigfoot supporters point to this as a virtual proof that science doesn't always know what it is talking about.

Well, first of all most scientists are perfectly willing to say they do not always know the truth of something. Far from being a weakness of the system, it is one of its strengths! But that is beside the point right now.

For me, the finding of multiple Coelacanths from the depths of the ocean only makes it that much more unreasonable that no living or dead Bigfoot have ever been found and shown to the world. If pure random chance allows us to find multiple samples of a fish we thought extinct 66 million years ago from the depths of the ocean - a much, much more difficult place to explore than dry land, how can it be that pure random chance hasn't led to proof of a Bigfoot creature by now.

It is not reasonable to me. It is unbelievable that no specimen has ever come to light. Now Bigfoot supporters will jump through all kinds of hoops to try and explain this blatant contradiction. Bigfoot are very shy, they always move away from any humans in the area. Bigfoot are smarter than fish and can actively keep hidden. Bigfoot always cart away the remains of their dead so they will not be found. And so on, and so on, and so on.

Is all this really possible? Or perhaps the more exact question, is all this more likely than the fact that they just don't exist?

Now if someone tomorrow comes out of the northern forests with a trapped Bigfoot, I will gladly eat humble pie, and rejoice as much as anyone. I want these things to be real, and to have been able to keep hidden all this time. It's just that what I want to believe does not, can not, trump what is the more likely reality.

That last bit there - that is the difference between believing what the facts show us, like it or not versus ignoring the facts so one can believe what they want to.

 

[juantoo3]

No. The way I perceive it is not that 'people cling desperately to what they believe', rather it is 'people cling desperately to what they want to believe. Even when there is no genuine evidence to support what they want to believe. So they settle for unsupported evidence as being good enough so they can continue to believe what they want.

Believing in facts is only one form of belief.

I'm aware of the Coelacanth, awesome story. Got to see moving pics of one that was caught live and the folks tried to rescue, but being a deep water fish it eventually succumbed, but watching it use the limbed fins was such a unique experience, quite unlike any other fish I've seen.

I am essentially in agreement with you, but I'm going to go out on a limb and take Joe's side for a moment, in support of my statement.

I presume by "facts" you mean so-called "evidence," which implies science. At least that is pretty well how it typically breaks down. Included in that science is the belief in evolution. (I can already hear the cringing, so bear with and hear me out) I am going to presume a belief in evolution as it is commonly taught...and here I get all sorts of "excuse" answers as well, when I say "one species gradually becoming another," which draws fire as if I am saying a tabby cat becoming a wombat, which I am vociferously *NOT* saying. I am saying, for example, like an ape-ish animal to become human through transitional species.

Now...the trouble is that even among those who are *well* versed in the subject, there is no clear distinction on what *precisely* defines a species. First up I usually hear about the finches in Galapagos getting stronger beaks. So, does a bigger nose constitute a new species? Then I hear about the moths in Industrial England turning from grey to black. So, does skin color constitute a new species? And when I mention how different a Great Dane is from a Chihuahua...so are different breeds of dogs different species? I can go on, at length, and have on more than one occasion here, I'm welcome to point to them if you wish, gone toe to toe with very learned people...point is, grade school evolution as taught is chock full of holes. It is a belief, a functional belief that works *to a point,* after which various anomalies have to be accounted for (and are, in the field). And quite frankly most people never get beyond grade school evolution, even if they hold PhDs. For them, that is sufficient belief, and sufficient to scoff at any others who don't agree with their POV on the subject, behaving as if *all* "facts" and "evidence" were on their side...when in point of fact they are not.

So I feel justified in my statement as is, "people cling to what they believe," even when they are ultimately faced with challenges and contradictions. What do we hold as scientific truths today that will be scoffed at a hundred years from now?

Religion is another belief set (that works *to a point*), philosophy yet another (that works *to a point*)...and while there is nothing to stop a person from holding multiple belief sets, usually one dominates over the others in a person's mind. All belief sets have shortcomings...hence my comment.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

There are many species where individuals within the group don't look alike. The moths you talked about. The finches with differing beaks. Species are not identified by physical characteristics though. The simple answer is the ability to interbreed. If two creatures can interbreed they are the same species. No matter what type of dog you have, it can breed with any other type of dog on the planet. They are many different breeds within that one species, of course. Doesn't change the simple fact that dogs are one species.

Not that you are wrong about the complexities of speciation. Even the experts, as you say, have a difficult time when it gets down to the nitty gritty of species identification. The fact that at the edges there are complications that are vexing does not make the basic definition invalid however. For most applications that people might need on a day by day basis, the above definition works well enough.

That being said, I truly do not understand where you are coming from with that last post. Sure there are different belief sets. All are not equal! You mentioned that a hundred years from now many current theories will be proven wrong. That is the whole point! Science is the only belief set where if the evidence proves one wrong, the theory goes down the garbage chute. It baffles me how people can look at that as a weakness in the system when it is science's greatest strength. And the one thing that separates it from every other belief system on the planet.

What belief structures in Christianity have changed since the beginning of the religion? None to speak of. The same thing believed 2000 years ago are the same things believed today. Religion is a stagnant belief system.

The examples about Bigfoot I gave are not my preferred belief system, they are examples of evidence (or lack thereof) that make a belief in this creature less believable. If the evidence changes, I will change my opinion - as the evidence leads, which I already stated quite plainly.

This is not the same thing as people who put their belief in nebulous accounts and unprovable theories because it allows them to believe what they want to believe. I know you well enough by now to know you understand the difference. So I'm not sure what your real question is.

 

[juantoo3]

There are many species where individuals within the group don't look alike. The moths you talked about. The finches with differing beaks. Species are not identified by physical characteristics though. The simple answer is the ability to interbreed. If two creatures can interbreed they are the same species. No matter what type of dog you have, it can breed with any other type of dog on the planet. They are many different breeds within that one species, of course. Doesn't change the simple fact that dogs are one species.

OK...I already mentioned the Neandertal species cross-breeding with the Cro-Magnon species. How about the "common" horse interbreeding with Przewalski's horse, successfully, with virile offspring...in spite of the *fact* the Przewalski's horse has 66 genes instead of the typical 64 genes in the common horse? Point being, different "species" interbreed frequently...and not all produce sterile "mules."

Not that you are wrong about the complexities of speciation. Even the experts, as you say, have a difficult time when it gets down to the nitty gritty of species identification. The fact that at the edges there are complications that are vexing does not make the basic definition invalid however. For most applications that people might need on a day by day basis, the above definition works well enough.

But it is misleading, especially when a not fully true statement is used in a factual way to look down one's nose at someone else with an alternate belief set. Not saying you specifically, but I see it a *lot.*

That being said, I truly do not understand where you are coming from with that last post. Sure there are different belief sets. All are not equal! You mentioned that a hundred years from now many current theories will be proven wrong. That is the whole point! Science is the only belief set where if the evidence proves one wrong, the theory goes down the garbage chute. It baffles me how people can look at that as a weakness in the system when it is science's greatest strength. And the one thing that separates it from every other belief system on the planet.

I've already pointed out the politics involved, it is not as straightforward as you suggest. Further, I have met several Buddhists and Hindus online that would argue that their belief sets would adjust every bit as well, perhaps better.

What belief structures in Christianity have changed since the beginning of the religion? None to speak of. The same thing believed 2000 years ago are the same things believed today. Religion is a stagnant belief system.

I suppose it is unavoidable to focus on Christianity as it is the predominant faith in the developed world, but that would be a rather narrow focus, don't you think? I haven't focused on Christianity in this discussion, or at any other time I recall in any of the previous discussions that focused on evolution, yet I was repeatedly labeled as a Christian to the point of assuming I was defending creationism...which I am not.

The examples about Bigfoot I gave are not my preferred belief system, they are examples of evidence (or lack thereof) that make a belief in this creature less believable. If the evidence changes, I will change my opinion - as the evidence leads, which I already stated quite plainly.

I never said they were. I feel the need to clarify...I understand your logic, I share it. Nevertheless...when that ...how can I say?... outlook carries beyond into a self-congratulatory pat on the back (again, not accusing, but I see it way too often) and a sharp look down one's nose...it closes the mind. That is a Buddhist teaching that I find agreement with. I "know" nothing, and the more I learn, the less I know. The result is a mind that remains open to learning, rather than being sealed shut by certainty.

This is not the same thing as people who put their belief in nebulous accounts and unprovable theories because it allows them to believe what they want to believe. I know you well enough by now to know you understand the difference. So I'm not sure what your real question is.

Define "fact" for me, please. In my mind it equates with "truth" and "reality," in other words facts don't change. So if facts don't change, science wouldn't change. If facts do change, they weren't really facts to begin with.

Whether one belief set is "better" than another is opinion, and I would say pending where one is at in a given time; mentally, spiritually, physically; which returns us to what I've said in the past regarding cultural superiority.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

OK...I already mentioned the Neandertal species cross-breeding with the Cro-Magnon species. How about the "common" horse interbreeding with Przewalski's horse, successfully, with virile offspring...in spite of the *fact* the Przewalski's horse has 66 genes instead of the typical 64 genes in the common horse? Point being, different "species" interbreed frequently...and not all produce sterile "mules."

As species are defined the way I'm taught and the way DA explained it the number of genes are irrelevant. You are saying that if there isn't a clear line where one species pop into another that look different and have a new set of genes it is a whole in the theory?

But it is misleading, especially when a not fully true statement is used in a factual way to look down one's nose at someone else with an alternate belief set. Not saying you specifically, but I see it a *lot.*

It's not misleading to understand the basic level of a theory, it is the process of learning. How it is used is not a flaw in the theory but the way people using it. Evolution is an explanation, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

What belief structures in Christianity have changed since the beginning of the religion? None to speak of. The same thing believed 2000 years ago are the same things believed today. Religion is a stagnant belief system.

What should change do you think? Change is a strength in a system like the scientific method, but that doesn't mean it's a strength everywhere. And what belief structure is complicates things. Christians today are very different from early Christians, and some Christians turned into Muslims. There is change, it's just not the same as something that which solely studies the material.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Actually religious beliefs have changed, at least to some degree. My bad for making a blanket statement like that. How about this instead. Most changes in religious theory have occurred because of advances in science. Now I know that is a loaded statement, and some people may prefer the word 'many' to 'most'. Which is fine and doesn't change the concept; rather the degree of the concept.

And most all these changes are peripheral ones for the religions anyway. The universe isn't six thousand years old. It doesn't sit on the back of a turtle. Burning witches is not a cure for certain ailments plaguing a society. Women are not inherently inferior to men (haven't gotten that change universal yet, sadly).

Core religious beliefs have not changed in any serious way since they were founded. That is a rewording too as I find your comment that Christianity changed into Islam for a third of the world perceptive. Now how society has acted towards their beliefs have certainly changed over time. The Fundie nature of Christianity in the Middle Ages has changed in much of the world to a more enlightened version. I'm not sure that is a change in the core religion though, rather a change in perception of the core religious concepts.

Change is a strength in a system like the scientific method, but that doesn't mean it's a strength everywhere.

That one I have to do some pondering on. My initial reaction is that change is a fundamental necessity for growth. Of a person, of a society, of a philosophy. Should it not also apply to religion as well? If not, why should it be the only holdout.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Define "fact" for me, please. In my mind it equates with "truth" and "reality," in other words facts don't change. So if facts don't change, science wouldn't change. If facts do change, they weren't really facts to begin with.

Just out of curiosity, were you ever on a debate team? Or studied debate theory?

I ask because the quoted passage is pushing a concept so far as to derail rational thinking. A strategy professional debaters are taught. In other words, do you sincerely believe that quote? Or are you pushing the envelope to see what type of reaction you can generate.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Actually religious beliefs have changed, at least to some degree.

I think it's a tricky question that's all. I agree that church stance on things have changed based on scientific finds, as well as it should. Not sure I agree that that is part of the religion. It was once when religion was in everything, but being a modern man I don't think that's a good thing.

I can't say if Christianity has changed, I think a theologian is the right man for the job there. I'm fine with defining the core axioms as 'the religion' and they might very well have stayed the same since Jesus, Paul or Constantine, whatever people want. It might be argued that the Church fFthers defined and moulded the religion over time, but I don't really know to what extent. I have a hard time seeing change any time soon, perhaps there needs to be something new under the sun the Church needs to relate itself to.

That one I have to do some pondering on. My initial reaction is that change is a fundamental necessity for growth. Of a person, of a society, of a philosophy. Should it not also apply to religion as well? If not, why should it be the only holdout.

First thought: does God change? Second thought: what is it religion needs to change to, what has changed that it needs to adapt? The axioms are the same, humans are the same. Is not religion humans relationship with God? If we or God are the same, shouldn't our relationship remain the same?

I have a hard time relation, as you might understand. Stoicism is more relatable, a detached relationship with the world. The world is the same, we are the same, our relationship is the same, Stoicism is the same.

Hmmm, science hasn't really changed either, as a tool to understanding the world. The resulting volume of knowledge on the other hand has changed. That might be it for me, separating the tools from the products. Perhaps the same can be said with the Church Fathers.

 

[juantoo3]

How it is used is not a flaw in the theory but the way people (are) using it. Evolution is an explanation, nothing more, nothing less.

BINGO!!!

Science is an explanation...nothing more, nothing less.

Religion is an explanation...nothing more, nothing less.

Philosophy is an explanation...nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Bingo, Schmingo! Science is an explanation based on verifiable evidence. Everything else is an explanation just because!

 

[juantoo3]

Just out of curiosity, were you ever on a debate team? Or studied debate theory?

I ask because the quoted passage is pushing a concept so far as to derail rational thinking. A strategy professional debaters are taught. In other words, do you sincerely believe that quote? Or are you pushing the envelope to see what type of reaction you can generate.

Aw now...that's a nice debate team duck and dodge of the subject. I think mine was a very reasonable question given the subject, and I even provided my definition of the term.

In order to see if we are saying the same thing and understanding the same thing, is why I asked what you mean by the term "fact?"