There would at LEAST be bigfoot poop somewhere out there.
I'd like to believe but the footage and pictures (excluding blatantly fake ones) you see are always blurry and you can never make anything out apart from a black blur.
[QUOTE=Lilyo;35310746]"rely more on reasoning and logic" I could tell you the same thing....
Eyewitness and first hand accounts are the most unreliable, most biased, and easily falsifiable pieces of evidence available. Just because there's a lot of something doesn't make that something true. Just because billions of people believe in god doesn't make god true. Just because millions claim to see ufos doesn't make ufos true. Just because millions claim to see ghosts doesn't make ghosts true. All these events show similarities and a unifying feature in human psychology, they do [B]not[/B] add creditably, evidence, or probability towards the subject in any significant way. If you're going to use "logic and reason" actually use it and don't just rely on the numbers...[/QUOTE]
Again, witnesses are evidence. When someone gets killed and several witnesses come forward giving the same story as to what happened, I suppose that's just bullshit, right? You believe science is the only way something can be true, which is stupid. Just because it isn't proven, that doesn't mean it can't be true.
[editline]27th March 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;35309507]Uh yeah, I'm sure they did, I'd do it, it's a practical joke to them. You're honestly telling me that if I were to say right now that I went to Mars last night and found some aliens, you'd believe it?[/QUOTE]
No, I wouldn't. You're one person, not thousands or millions.
[QUOTE=deaded38;35316535]No, I wouldn't. You're one person, not thousands or millions.[/QUOTE]
No you bloody fool, people can be biased.
We need EVIDENCE.
We need something that can be tested RELIABLY in CONTROLLED conditions multiple times over to actually start getting anywhere.
We need fucking fossils, bones, bigfoot shit, corpses, anything.
THERE IS NOTHING.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35308313]Science is based off reasoning and logic you blasted fool, do you even know what the scientific method is?[/QUOTE]
No, science is based off of studies. If there were more studies going on about Bigfoot instead of people just saying "Nope, it's not possible because science says so.", I'm sure it could be proven.
As for what you said about UFOs, that's bullshit. Even if most UFOs had been misidentified, what about all the video evidence? As someone who's seen a UFO (or two), I can tell you that they are definitely real whether the aircraft be of this planet or another. I know I'm just one person, but as I said, there are other people who have seen UFOs, believe it or not. And when you get such a high number of witnesses, video evidence, picture evidence, etc., it's got to be true seeing as how there isn't any good evidence against such a thing as UFOs.
[editline]27th March 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35316586]No you bloody fool, people can be biased.[/QUOTE]
Cool, so everybody who's seen something that goes against science is biased. Awesome.
[QUOTE=deaded38;35316615]No, science is based off of studies. If there were more studies going on about Bigfoot instead of people just saying "Nope, it's not possible because science says so.", I'm sure it could be proven.
As for what you said about UFOs, that's bullshit. Even if most UFOs had been misidentified, what about all the video evidence? As someone who's seen a UFO (or two), I can tell you that they are definitely real whether the aircraft be of this planet or another. I know I'm just one person, but as I said, there are other people who have seen UFOs, believe it or not. And when you get such a high number of witnesses, video evidence, picture evidence, etc., it's got to be true seeing as how there isn't any good evidence against such a thing as UFOs.[/QUOTE]
Please explain to me why no bigfoot fossils, bones, fur, hair, shit, corpses, etc have been found.
Secondly, explain why no records of it exist before the man who faked its footprints came about.
Thirdly, explain how such a creature would survive in such conditions which are far from ideal.
Whether it's actually Bigfoot or not, there's [I]something[/I] going on. It's kind of ignorant to simply assume that all eye witnesses are hoaxers, insane, or just plain stupid.
Here is a really interesting interview with an eyewitness by the way.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCL8Pz0EAzE[/media]
It's not proof, but it's very chilling and interesting, for both believers and non-believers.
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;35316898]Whether it's actually Bigfoot or not, there's [I]something[/I] going on. It's kind of ignorant to simply assume that all eye witnesses are hoaxers, insane, or just plain stupid.
Here is a really interesting interview with an eyewitness by the way.
It's not proof, but it's very chilling and interesting, for both believers and non-believers.[/QUOTE]
Not ignorance. What is ignorance is to state that bigfoot exists without any credible evidence.
This video is not that. What we need is physical evidence.
I am very well up for believing it exists, but you are going to have to bring me evidence first.
There is also a lot of logical flaws when you consider it. For example, how would such a creature evolve in such unforgiving conditions?
Why do we have not HAVE A SINGLE FUCKING FOSSIL OF ANY CREATURE REMOTELY RESEMBLING BIGFOOT OR POSSIBLE ANCESTORS OF IT ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE NEW WORLD?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35316939]Not ignorance. What is ignorance is to state that bigfoot exists without any credible evidence.[/QUOTE]
It's simply a matter of trying to explain what people are reporting.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35316939]There is also a lot of logical flaws when you consider it. For example, how would such a creature evolve in such unforgiving conditions? [/QUOTE]
What conditions? Bigfoot sightings are most common in remote and thick forests.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35316939]
Why do we have not HAVE A SINGLE FUCKING FOSSIL OF ANY CREATURE REMOTELY RESEMBLING BIGFOOT OR POSSIBLE ANCESTORS OF IT ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE NEW WORLD?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus[/url]
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;35317025]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35316939]Why do we have not HAVE A SINGLE FUCKING FOSSIL OF ANY CREATURE REMOTELY RESEMBLING BIGFOOT OR POSSIBLE ANCESTORS OF IT ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRETY OF [b]THE NEW WORLD?[/b][/QUOTE]
South Asia is NOT the New World. Plus, why have no fossils or bones of said creature been found anywhere between there and where it supposedly lives?
There are tonnes of footprints:
[img]http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/chartfootprints1.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;35317141]There are tonnes of footprints:
[img]http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/chartfootprints1.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
No you bloody fool.
Bones! Bodies! Shit! Fossils! Not plaster casts made in the forest by hoaxers!
[url]http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/MJM/hunters.htm[/url]
[quote]Fossils or preserved bones of wood apes may exist in the Americas, but they will be exceedingly rare, because these animals are rare to begin with, and only a tiny fraction of that population will die in locations and soils that will preserve bones somehow.
[/quote]
Basically: It's very rare to find remains. Fossils are even rarer.
And nobody is looking for it or expect to find anything.
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;35317236]
Basically: It's very rare to find remains. Fossils are even rarer.
And nobody is looking for it or expect to find anything.[/QUOTE]
The reason people aren't looking is because it's a waste of time to search for a creature that doesn't exist. The nutjobs that do however look for it (Boy is there a lot of them.) have yet to find anything, and do not even apply the scientific method.
If this creature is so rare, then how come recent changes to the climate of the Earth in the past 2 centuries has done nothing to it, how do they keep breeding populations? How do they get enough food to feed themselves and the bears they co-exist with? How do they avoid inbreeding and unfavourable genetic mutations?
JESUS CHRIST, THE GUY WHO REPORTED THE FIRST FOOTPRINTS OF IT WAS PROVEN TO BE A FRAUD.
Next thing you will be saying the Lake Ness Monster exists.
That's what makes it so weird...
People [I]are[/I] reporting this stuff.
What is it they are seeing?
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;35317347]That's what makes it so weird...
People [I]are[/I] reporting this stuff.
What is it they are seeing?[/QUOTE]
Delusions, misidentification.
The best example of this was a study conducted in Northern Britain.
A motorised stick was placed in a lake in Stirling, and an identical one in Lake Ness. In the former one, everybody pointed out that it was a motorised stick.
In Lake Ness however, everybody said it was the Lake Ness Monster, until somebody with a telescope took a proper look at it and said what it was.
This is true for bigfoot as well. People think they will see it, and thus report things they think is bigfoot. (That could be a whole plethora of other things, such as bears being the most prominent example.) However, when viewed with an objective lens it is not seen to exist.
Hoaxers, the truly deluded and parodists are what keeps the lie living.
Gigantopithecus by the way, wasn't bipedal.
If big foot isn't real, then what about the yeti?
[QUOTE=BCell;35317438]If big foot isn't real, then what about the yeti?[/QUOTE]
A corruption of the regional word they had for bear "Meti".
Blue and brown Tibetan bears live in the area, and the locals often apply supernatural/human qualities to said creatures.
For several years, I was a hardcore paranormal/UFO/Cryptozoological interest kind of person. I still kind of am, even though I'm a very strong skeptic, I frequent 4chan's paranormal /x/ board and Reddits r/paranormal. I've had tons of experience and information on the topic of the supernatural, paranormal, and cryptozoological.
And I can say for certain that bigfoot is one of the least likely to be real. The first problem is that eyewitness reports are only reliable if the eyewitness is reliable, and then you need to make sure that they weren't mistaken. Eyewitness reports are not evidence, especially with something so common as bigfoot, which has reached urban myth status.
The second is that there's literally nowhere for it to live. Bigfoot sightings are common in the Pacific Northwest, Eastern Texas, northern Florida, and eastern Midwest. That's a very large range for a great ape to survive unnoticed. Especially considering how the amount of forest in the United States is significantly decreasing. There have never been bones, bodies, hair, feces, or any indicator of a bigfoot population. No one has ever shot a bigfoot, no one has ever captured one. There are not enough resources to support a population, and simply put, there's not enough room. It's just physically improbable that a population of bigfeet could survive anywhere in the US.
Yeti is another thing entirely- there is [i]some[/i] chance that could happen, and though still unlikely, and there are credible eyewitnesses. Bigfoot is not that case. I can understand small apemen in jungle environments- also possible. But it's equally possible that witnesses to those have transplanted the bigfoot myth to their own location, or have fallen to "I want to believe" syndrome. There really isn't any evidence to go on, and like "innocent until proven guilty", we need to go by the rational and scientific standard of "not accepted until backed by evidence/data". We don't just assume something is real until we can get some evidence, and we can't assume that every witness is credible, truthful, or not misidentifying, especially with something like Bigfoot, the urban myth.
Sources and my credibility on this matter:
In addition to being one of three moderators on TinWiki, AboveTopSecret's (the world's largest alternative/paranormal/etc forum and community) wiki when it was still running-
[t]http://i.imgur.com/IbhZq.jpg?1[/t]
Not included: [url=http://www.amazon.com/Strangest-Unexplained-Mysteries-Matt-Lamy/dp/1841931683]100 strange Unexplained Mysteries[/url], [url=http://www.amazon.com/Aurora-Pentagons-Hypersonic-Spyplane-Mil-Tech/dp/0879387807]Aurora[/url], [url=http://www.amazon.com/The-Truth-Behind-Men-Black/dp/0312965214]The Truth Behind the Men in Black[/url] and [url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Alien-World-Reuben-stone/dp/B005NP9T04]Alien World[/url]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35308162]No you stupid bastard. Science is a way of acquiring knowledge through use of the scientific method. Scientists observe the world, and test it multiple times. The word supernatural is bull in itself. Everything in the universe is natural, and anything that appears not to be is something natural not yet understood.[/QUOTE]
I see you are type of person who just says "shut up I'm right and you're wrong you idiot".
Anyway, you are making the assumption that science is always correct and you are also failing to take into account potential future discoveries that could alter how we interperet things at present. A perfect example is the sun, which, at one time, we believed to orbit the Earth (and was even considered a planet by the Greeks) and how the idea of heliocentrism was attacked because it contradicted existing ideas.
I don't fully support the idea of bigfoot, ghosts, or whatever, but I am open-minded enough to not fall into the same trap that people fell into in ye days of old. I consider the real "stupid bastard" to be anyone who doesn't accept the possibility of anything that doesn't agree with science.
[QUOTE=David29;35317580]I see you are type of person who just says "shut up I'm right and you're wrong you idiot".
Anyway, you are making the assumption that science is always correct and you are also failing to take into account potential future discoveries that could alter how we interperet things at present. A perfect example is the sun, which, at one time, we believed to orbit the Earth (and was even considered a planet by the Greeks) and how the idea of heliocentrism was attacked because it contradicted existing ideas.
I don't fully support the idea of bigfoot, ghosts, or whatever, but I am open-minded enough to not fall into the same trap that people fell into in ye days of old. I consider the real "stupid bastard" to be anyone who doesn't accept the possibility of anything that doesn't agree with science.[/QUOTE]
Galileo fallacy. He was going against established ideas, if he was proven to be right that means that I can say I am right!
Wrong.
The difference is that Galileo provided empirical evidence, his ideas were tested and retested over and over. They were proven correct. The church however, did not like this, and went against it for various other reasons.
Now bigfoot and other bullshit.
They do not provide empirical evidence, when the ideas are tested, they are shown to fail, and retesting yields the same results. It was proven wrong.
Honestly, if bigfoot exists, then why have all scientific studies into the matter yielded fuck all?
[QUOTE=David29;35317580]I see you are type of person who just says "shut up I'm right and you're wrong you idiot".
Anyway, you are making the assumption that science is always correct and you are also failing to take into account potential future discoveries that could alter how we interperet things at present. A perfect example is the sun, which, at one time, we believed to orbit the Earth (and was even considered a planet by the Greeks) and how the idea of heliocentrism was attacked because it contradicted existing ideas.
I don't fully support the idea of bigfoot, ghosts, or whatever, but I am open-minded enough to not fall into the same trap that people fell into in ye days of old. I consider the real "stupid bastard" to be anyone who doesn't accept the possibility of anything that doesn't agree with science.[/QUOTE]
The sun orbiting the earth is the perfect example as to why you are wrong. This was accepted because of the lack of logical, rational, scientific understanding. It was [I]fitting[/I] the solution to the problem, not [I]finding [/I]the solution to the problem. And in a time before scientific observation was available. We're better than that now.
When there's nothing to point to something being fact, and far more pointing at it not being fact, then you need to assume by default that the more likely is true, especially when it conforms to our current understanding of things. You can't just say, "A is correct. There's nothing to support A and things to go against it, but A is correct. We can't take A off the table as being a possibility, even if B-E don't support it and F-Z contradict it. A is still completely right".
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35317663]Galileo fallacy. He was going against established ideas, if he was proven to be right that means that I can say I am right!
Wrong.
The difference is that Galileo provided empirical evidence, his ideas were tested and retested over and over. They were proven correct. The church however, did not like this, and went against it for various other reasons.
Now bigfoot and other bullshit.
They do not provide empirical evidence, when the ideas are tested, they are shown to fail, and retesting yields the same results. It was proven wrong.
Honestly, if bigfoot exists, then why have all scientific studies into the matter yielded fuck all?[/QUOTE]
But you have essentially agreed with my point - a scientific observation (made by Greek astronomers) was overturned when the sun became better understood. Thus, science is not always correct.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];35317667']The sun orbiting the earth is the perfect example as to why you are wrong. This was accepted because of the lack of logical, rational, scientific understanding. It was [I]fitting[/I] the solution to the problem, not [I]finding [/I]the solution to the problem. And in a time before scientific observation was available. We're better than that now.
When there's nothing to point to something being fact, and far more pointing at it not being fact, then you need to assume by default that the more likely is true, especially when it conforms to our current understanding of things. You can't just say, "A is correct. There's nothing to support A and things to go against it, but A is correct. We can't take A off the table as being a possibility, even if B-E don't support it and F-Z contradict it. A is still completely right".[/QUOTE]
First of all, the establishment of the Sun orbiting the Earth was based on observation. Lack of understanding played a part in this incorrect assumption, but they didn't realise that at the time and it is exactly the point I am making - lack of understanding can lead to incorrect facts even today.
Also, I never said 'A' was correct. I said that it shouldn't be removed as a possibility.
[QUOTE=David29;35317780]But you have essentially agreed with my point - a scientific observation (made by Greek astronomers) was overturned when the sun became better understood. Thus, science is not always correct.[/QUOTE]
The difference, is that the the Greek astrologers did not use the scientific method. Galileo did.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35317788]The difference, is that the the Greek astrologers did not use the scientific method. Galileo did.[/QUOTE]
Yet you stated that observation is part of scientific method. The Greeks observed the Sun. You're contradicting yourself.
[QUOTE=Robbi;35307519]I don't know but if you look at the Yeti, why would 2 so different cultures report sightings of a similar thing?
Makes you think.[/QUOTE]
I would've thought that being a snowy place chances are someone was covered in furs so they didn't freeze to death in a blizzard or whatever and there you go, a hairy beast that wanders about snowy places.
[QUOTE=David29;35317852]Yet you stated that observation is part of scientific method. The Greeks observed the Sun. You're contradicting yourself.[/QUOTE]
No he's not. What you just said is akin to saying that "because a buggy has a wheel it must be a race car." Observation is not the scientific method- the scientific method includes observation.
And besides that, for the most part, the Greeks fit the explanation to common beliefs, not their beliefs to observation.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];35318002']No he's not. What you just said is akin to saying that "because a buggy has a wheel it must be a race car." Observation is not the scientific method- the scientific method includes observation.
And besides that, for the most part, the Greeks fit the explanation to common beliefs, not their beliefs to observation.[/QUOTE]
But it is still part of scientific method. You even say so yourself. So he is still contradicting himself.
[QUOTE=David29;35318135]But it is still part of scientific method. You even say so yourself. So he is still contradicting himself.[/QUOTE]
Jesus christ no he's not.
Just because they observed something doesn't mean that they observed it scientifically, using the scientific method. At no point does simply observing something in any way contradict what he said.
the Greeks were not using science.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];35318238']Jesus christ no he's not.
Just because they observed something doesn't mean that they observed it scientifically, using the scientific method. At no point does simply observing something in any way contradict what he said.
the Greeks were not using science.[/QUOTE]
"Regarding the fixed stars, the Sun appears from Earth to revolve once a year along the ecliptic through the zodiac, and so Greek [b]astronomers[/b] considered it to be one of the seven planets"
"An astronomer is a [b]scientist[/b] who studies celestial bodies such as planets, stars and galaxies."
Sorry?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.