"Bigfoot" Topic

Fisher King makes an incredibly strong point.

So much of the bigfoot evidence in contradictory.

He's curious and inquisitive about humans, often visiting cabins and campsites.

He's trying not to be found.

He vocalizes loudly and calls out in the wilderness with sounds that carry for miles.

But, he's not trying to be found.

He attacks people openly – throwing stones, stick, making noise banging on trees.

Doesn't want to be found.

Overturns trees and drives them into the ground.

Doesn't want to leave a trace.

Gotta wonder….

-Eli

Stepman3 wrote:

It's fun to believe. . . It adds a bit of excitement to our otherwise black and white lives.

1) My life isn't black-and-white. 2) Non-lethal excitement is easier to find now than at any other time in human history. 3) I don't find blind belief or willful ignorance "exciting," I find them stupefying.

I think as a society we've lost our identity.

That sounds "kewl," but what does it mean? What identity have we lost, and how did we lose it? If you mean our capacity to experience wonder, I still have that, I just save it for things that are genuinely wonderful. Not Bigfoot.

We . . . think we are owed the truth and an explanation for everything.

Yes, if the truth is out there, and we're capable of discovering it, then I want to know it. I think pretty much the whole of human history has been a search for the truth and an explanation for everything, with unfortunate starts and stops along the way.

Why can't we live in a world where not all is explained?

Well, just one example: Because that world is full of diseases for which no one is searching for a cure.

For me, if there's an explanation, I want to know what it is.

We can believe in Bigfoot, aliens and God…

Yes, you can. Be my guest. But don't claim that no one can live an exciting, meaningful life without them, because I certainly can.

Fisherking wrote:

Further more if Bigfoot is naturally predisposed to trying not to be found then it is hard to explain the native american legends through actual contact with a Bigfoot.

One explanation I've read from believers is that Native Americans were kinder, gentler, and more in tune with nature than we are today, some kind of pre-industrial flower children, and therefore Bigfoot enjoyed interacting with them. Then the white man came, and Bigfoot became fearful of us and learned to hide (but only when he really wanted to).

That explanation, of course, completely ignores the true nature of many tribes before first contact, and the fact that many Native American stories about Bigfoot involve warfare, killing, raping, stealing, and other unpleasantness.

One explanation I've read from believers is that Native Americans were kinder, gentler, and more in tune with nature than we are today, some kind of pre-industrial flower children, and therefore Bigfoot enjoyed interacting with them.

So, totally different from pretty much every animal out there.

-Eli

Generally, to everybody. I'm just here to have fun and toss speculation back and forth. If I ever get just plain obstinate, or start evangelizing on any topic, call me on it, OK?

@Fisherking & Emu. Excellent points. Purely speculative answer (until somebody gets not only a video, but an interview), but I'd guess boredom or territoriality. Avoid the hairless little gun-toters, but if you have to, chase them away until you can organize a true withdrawal.

@JPattern: "I don't find blind belief or willful ignorance "exciting," I find them stupefying."

Precisely. Thing is, some of us find the "It's a hoax, and no amount of persuasion is going to make me change my mind" attitude to be in the same category as the statements of the most fervid cranks.

Re: D. B. Cooper. Bigfoot didn't just eat him, he took the money and started a debunking and disinformation campaign.

Midas, you can persuade me that Bigfoot exists: Produce a body, living or dead, let legitimate scientists examine it, and I'll accept their conclusions.

Everything else can be faked or misidentified, whether videos, photographs, footprints, or sound recordings. And every alleged physical sample has come back as human, animal, a mix, or unknown.

If you've read all of my posts in this thread, you can hardly say that I have a dismissive attitude. I've looked at every single piece of "evidence" and theory that's been put forward, and examined them in detail. They all fail the smell test.

On the other hand, most of the believers have been hit-and-run posters, tossing "evidence" onto the thread and then not defending their posts. If my analyses have been lacking, they sure haven't stuck around to tell me so.

So I wouldn't say that *no* amount of persuasion would get me to change my mind, but I would say that *extraordinary* persuasion is needed, in the form of a body. Which is as it should be: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

@JP: Sorry if I came across that way, my point was general, not personal. To be frank you are one of the most knowledgeable and reasonable people with whom I've had the pleasure to discuss the subject. The most I can say is that some of your counter examples require a longer look. I'll go back through the thread and pick out any "Yeah But" items. ;)

<offer's tentacle>Shake?

No problem. I'm looking forward to your "Yeah Buts." :)

And, yes, I've run into the "bad" crowd, too: "Even if they produce a body, it wouldn't convince me. With today's technology, a rich believer could have a Bigfoot created using gene-splicing. Or he could just buy off the scientists who examined the body." Ooooo-kay.

@ Thornhammer-

I was not made aware of the exact location, I came in late.

Well I have read the ramblings of the skeptics, the arguments of the believers and everything in between. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

As vast as the cosmos is, there is no evidence of life off of earth, yet the mathematical probabilities would indicate otherwise. In pure aerodynamic terms a bumblebee can't fly, and yet it does.

The Coelacanth was believed extinct until proven otherwise. Life has been found on the ocean floor under such extreme conditions that just a decade ago it was thought to be impossible. A fragment of a meteorite would suggest that life once existed on mars, and yet Viking found nothing.

I believe one thing: that skepticism is not science and that discovery is based on hypothesis. We could go back and forth until the second coming, or maybe until just tomorrow morning, who knows. However, forceful rhetoric one way or the other, proves nothing and is often the indicator of short-sightedness. The only way to find evidence is to search for it. Unless I am wrong about SETI being a scientific endeavor. I applaud those who believe in something strongly enough to pursue it.

I do believe one other thing, if they exist, I doubt they believe in JPat. ;~)

I do believe one other thing, if they exist, I doubt they believe in JPat. ;~)

Not true at all. Why, I was chatting with Tree-Thrower (or Adaya'dega in Cherokee) just the other day, and he – but no, I've said too much! Where's the Delete key?

Regarding unknown life in the ocean: I do believe there are many species, including large ones, that have yet to be discovered down there.

Regarding life "out there": Our Milky Way galaxy contains 400 billion or more stars; 50 billion or more planets circling those stars; 1 trillion or more free-roaming planets; and those numbers are revised upward almost daily. So I think the odds favor intelligent technologically advanced life elsewhere in our galaxy, let alone the rest of the universe.

However, I *don't* think that an interstallar race that wants to stay hidden for some reason is going around probing rural people, mutilating cattle, making crop circles, and flying all over the daytime and nighttime skies buzzing airliners, flashing lights, and making weird noises.

But that's a subject for a whole 'nother thread.

'However, I *don't* think that an interstallar race that wants to stay hidden for some reason is going around probing rural people, mutilating cattle, making crop circles, and flying all over the daytime and nighttime skies buzzing airliners, flashing lights, and making weird noises.'

makes for fun gaming scenarios though ;-)

A crustacean clinging to life in a narrow habital zone around a thermal vent is hardly good support for the existence of a large, free-roaming primate.

Life on another planet is also a very weak point to stand on when it comes to the probability that Bigfoot exists. Bigfoot is not on another planet where anything and everything is possible. He's on Earth where we have a reasonable understanding of how things work.

Coelacanth is a fish. It doesn't supposedly visit campsights, kidnap people, throw rocks at them, attack them, stalk them in the woods, make loud calls across the wilderness, cross streets, skirt tree lines, leave its foot prints all over the place, perform superheroic feats of strength, or any number of other aledged Bigfoot activites. Although it would be all the cooler if it did .

I am not saying there's no room for Bigfoot out there, but let's talk apples and apples here.

-Eli

Perhaps a group of them dress up in a bigfoot costume to the blame goes onto him for their misdeeds? Maybe they have suits to look like little grey men too? ;-)

The coelacanth to my way of thinking is actually a remarkably horrible argument to support the existance of Bigfoot. Coelacanths while once having a wide territorial range now appear to be quite limited. Their particular eco niche is completely alien to humankind. We don't share range nor compete for resources. We can't target them directly. We can only target them indirectly by fishing line, nets, etc etc. Yet we have been able to obtain actual physical evidence of their existence repeatedly. Also it's disingenous to claim their existence was discovered by man recently. Thats like claiming Columbus discovered America. Lots of people knew about it long before the discovery.

Not to mention we had fossil evidence of them for years before finding a live one.

When it REALLY comes down to it, I am not so sure I want a primate the size of bigfoot roaming the woods. The onl;y primate in the fossile record anywhere near that big likely would have considered us potential food much like modern apes like chimps and gorillas often look to monkeys for meat.

-Eli

Bigfoot was real,…but the Loch Ness Monster ate him!

Agggh! Don't bring fake Nessy into this!!!

There's a fake Nessy too? ;-p

And an alien one..and a ghost one…and a mutant of science one…and a zombie one..

-Eli

Oh and I forgot the one that is actually a submarine piloted by Old Man Jenkins .

-Eli

Completely hijacking the thread, but there was an issue of Nick Fury back in the '60s that showed that Nessie was actually a Nazi sub operating from a secret base in thee loch. Must have been before it was common knowledge that the loch doesn't have an outlet to the sea.

Since when has common knowledge mattered in Pulp

Never, and that's as it should be. Hah!

Precisely. Thing is, some of us find the "It's a hoax, and no amount of persuasion is going to make me change my mind" attitude to be in the same category as the statements of the most fervid cranks.

The difference is, the cranks won't ever change their minds. Give me verifiable proof, and I will completely change my tune. Science is awesome that way.

There are *so many amazing* things in our world, all around us, I don't need to put faith in legends and imagination to feel that sense of wonder. There's a *whole world* of excellent things out there.

I assure everyone that no offense is intended, but I know no other way to express this.

In as much as I realize that human strength and frailty can be defined by the compulsion to classify, categorize, and catalog based on the relationships of known to new in the formation and internalization of revised schema, I am perplexed that a group of individuals known for imagination and creativity could confine the realm of possibilities so deeply inside-the-box.

Still, to each their own.

No offense taken, but simply suggesting that we non-believers lack the imagination or creativity to accept the existence of Bigfoot doesn't really advance the discussion in any meaningful way.

I guess there are boxes, and then there are boxes . . .

Of course I can imagine Bigfoot exists. That's the only way he does exist.

Pyrate might also achieve less offense if his statement was loaded with it.

Just because we do not simply jump to accept faeries stories at face value does not mean we lack imagination. Imagination is simply the ability to conceive of the inconceivable and to consider things that might fall outside of our known realities.

I fail to see that anyone has said that Bigfoot doesn't exist. What has been said is that they require more evidence than what has been provided. I think many people would like there to be a Bigfoot. they can certainly imagine what that would be like. But imagining something and something existing are separate things.

-Eli

I'm impressed by the amount of effort JPattern has put into this thread.
I'm unimpressed by the suggestion that if "we" had more imagination then we would see that BigFoot really exists.
Reminds me of the emperors new clothes.

Personally, I think if a couple of guys out hunting with rifles saw a real BigFoot ambling around then the chances are they'd shoot the thing and hope to make a fortune.
No bodies yet though.
None have ambled into a town.
None run down by a train, truck or car.

I don't believe they exist.

Again I ask, please do not take this with any intent of offense, for I am one of you (collectively) and you are very much a part of me (collectively).

I in no way implied a belief in Bigfoot. What I stated was that I also do not disbelieve in Bigfoot and I think this is the point of departure for my shared opinion with a few who have graciously posted their respected opinion. Many opinions posted on this thread are very binary. I believe/I don't believe. I don't discount extreme possibilities. I think many here do. Neither point is right or wrong, just different.

What I do find amazing, and granted this is a small sampling of those in our hobby, is that more do not recognize extreme possibility. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Have a good weekend.

Cheers,

Mick

Pyrate,

I think your assumption demonstrates the same polarized thinking you accuse others of.

Just because people do not believe in Bigfoot, does not mean they do not believe in extreme possibilities. I think for many, like myself, though the desire to believe is there, the evidence very much leans in favor of the absence of a North American primate.

There is nothing concrete in the evidence provided or in comparison to other existing animals that suggests that their is an unidentified species out there in North America.

It's not a lack of imagination. It's a reasonable acceptance of the probabilities.

-Eli

I don't discount extreme possibilities.

Ah, then, Mick, that's definitely where we differ. I *do* discount extreme possibilities, in the sense that you mean. That is, I definitely do *not* accept all possibilities equally.

To put it another way, while all imaginable events are possible, they are not all *equally* possible.

For example, the Sun might rise tomorrow morning, or it might not – it could go nova, or the Earth could be destroyed by an asteroid strike – but the former possibility is *infinitely* more likely than the latter. *Of course* the Sun will rise tomorrow morning, barring a cosmological catastrophe so unlikely that it doesn't bear mentioning in ordinary conversation.

By the same token, Bigfoot either exists in the continental US, or it does not. Based on my analysis and interpretation of the evidence, I find it infinitely more likely that Bigfoot does *not* exist. For me to sit on the fence and say, "Maybe, maybe not," would be dishonest.

The only evidence that could push me into the believers' camp is a Bigfoot body. If one is ever produced, I'll admit that, damn, what do you know, I was wrong, boy, I sure hope the Sun rises tomorrow morning. If leaving that door open even a little crack makes me an extreme Bigfoot agnostic instead of a complete Bigfoot atheist, that's cool.

I think the existence of fairies is as likely.
Some people want to believe in them.
Some kids even took pictures.
Many years later they admitted they were fakes made out of paper.
In the intervening years there were many "experts" claiming the pictures couldn't have been faked.

Don't the same arguments apply?
Britain's a big place and there are woods that people don't bother trekking into because it's too hard.
Fairies are pretty small and they can fly so they're obviously capable of hiding.
Just because those kids admitted they faked the pictures doesn't mean everyone else who believes is wrong.
So maybe there are undiscovered fairies out there, giggling and flying around. Sprinkling fairy dust as they go.

I don't think so.

All very interesting points of view, and Boolean logic would certainly exclude the possibility of Bigfoot, but then again a lot would depend on the entering arguments.

To fly an object must conform to aerodynamic principles.

The Bumblebee does not conform to aerodynamic principles.

Therefore, the Bumblebee cannot fly.

Thus

To exist there must be evidence of existence.

There is no evidence of Bigfoot existence.

Therefore Bigfoot does not exist.

It makes total sense in those terms. But what if the terms are different?

Anyway, I have exhausted all I have to say on the matter. I think I'll turn my sights toward the God question and the more tangible evidence associated with it.

Thanks for great conversation folks.

Pyrate Captain:

Aerodynamics do allow a bumblebee to fly. Its a common myth that they don't, but they do.

And even if the current math on aerodynamics don't conform to reality, you're looking at it backwords.

To have an accurate Law (in a scientific sense), it must describe reality (though it doesn't need to explain WHY its that way).
If a bumble bee is not described as flying in your Law, then your Law isn't.
Therefore adjust your Law.

To prove something exists you must provide evidence.
There is no evidence proving Big Foot exists.
Big Foot is unproven.

And as years go by with no evidence showing up and lots of people looking for it, it becomes increasingly unlikely that it'll ever be proven; its increasingly unlikely that it exists at all.

Same way that every second that gravity keeps working makes it increasingly unlikely that we're wrong about gravity existing and we can actually float around if we think about it hard enough. Not ever impossible, just so unlikely that its fine to call it impossible; you'll probably never get called on it because no one is ever going to be levitating by sheer force of will.

Here's a good debunking of the unkillable 'science says bumblebees can't fly' myth:

link

EDIT: removed stray apostrophe

Just so Bigfoot can't fly …

AONeill,

Anyone who has attempted an al fresco dalliance in the UK will vehemently disagree with the assertion that there are places where trekkers won't go… The s turn up everywhere! Nothing spoils the mood quicker than someone calling for Fido in the middle of nowhere, followed by a cold, wet nose up the bum…

Or so I'm told, er…

As flintlocklaser says, I can't believe the "bumblebees can't fly" canard is still making the rounds.

Is that the QI "Wooaaoooaaooaaoooo!" siren I can hear in response to Pyrate's theory?

Those little bits of 'common knowledge' ruin my nerves. "You only use 10% of your brain," "chewing gum will stay in your stomach for seven years," etc.

As for Bigfoot, I'm firmly in the "would love to believe but nothing indicates it's real" camp. My roommate in school was a big fan and introduced me to the other regional variants, like the Southern "Skunk Ape." Now it's time to fire up the MST3K version of "Legend of Boggy Creek!"

Along the same line of "I assure everyone that no offense is intended, but I know no other way to express this."

Pyrate Captain seems to have retreated in that same bastion of defense that many of those who believe in things like Bigfoot end up in when their "facts" are shot down. The
"you just don't have the imagination/wonder and are too jaded to see the wonder of the possibility of his existence whereas I do" argument.

Boolean logic is not a test or proof of truth it is a proof of logic. Nothing more and nothing less. But I suppose all of the explanation on earth will not stop humankind from reading more (or less) into something than the plain print in front of them. It's that compulsion to categorize based on prior knowledge to produce new schema thing again. It's how a light in the sky becomes a UFO and a footprint becomes a hairy hominid.

It is conceiving something without sufficient knowledge or evidence. It is a human characteristic based on imagination. It is what makes us human and why Boolean algebra can be applied to logic.

What we think and say can be logical but still untrue. Conversely what we think and say may be true but still illogical.

It's OK though as I don't think anyone believes this thread is serious discussion. It does provide comic relief from boredom though.

Now, back to the God question.

It's OK though as I don't think anyone believes this thread is serious discussion. It does provide comic relief from boredom though.

Speak for yourself. There's been a great deal of serious discussion on this thread, with no flaming or insulting on either side. That is, until you joined the thread, with, as jdginaz points our, your passive-aggressive, no-offense-meant, I'm-sorry-if-you-take-this-the-wrong-way insults: unconvincing, whatever, how nice, unimaginative, uncreative, inside-the-box, untrue, illogical, and now comic relief.

What are you like when you *do* want to cause offense?

A lot more serious.

@PC – Honestly. I take great offense to your insinuation that I (among others) lack imagination or creative thinking (well, as much as you can in an internet discussion).

If you know my posts here on TMP I have participated in and opened up discussions regarding a number of purely hypothetical and imaginative subjects.

In addition, I'm also a lifelong gamer and GM having created vast worlds of fictional people and realms. I'm also an amateur game designer. I am an illustrator and a miniatures sculptor and routinely create imaginative characters.

For you to say that i and people like me lack imagination is nothing less than insult regardless of how much you try to play it off and veil it in diplomatic prose.

-Eli

I can only imagine how you must feel.

When this sort of thing happens to me as a result of posting on an opinion board, I don't know what prevents me from just putting my head in the oven. One of the major reasons is that my oven is electric. The other is I try not to identify with generalities. When I find that I do have something in common with something that appears to be an undesirable aspect, I try to be reflective and determine why I identify with what I perceive to be a negativity and work it through instead of lashing out at others.

If this helps you, I tell my 6th graders to "get over it". It usually works.

I hope this clarifies how I approach opinions that don't align with mine and how I advise young people to approach it themselves.

Have a golden day.

Ah…clear what sort of a poster you are now.

Done!

-Eli

I firmly believe that there is no link between Bigfoot and UFOs … IMO … And both topics are very interesting to me … but I'm keeping an open mind …

Loch Ness does have an oulet to the sea! The Caledonian Canal! Would have had to be a fairly small sub, though.

instead of lashing out at others

Haha, I think you need to reread your posts. I think we must have hit a nerve or three! :)