Like most UFO sightings, I think most bigfoot sightings are mis-identified animals. That said, I think there's a possibility for something like a BF to exists in certain parts of the world.
I hope it's true. How cool would that be?!?!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bigfoot | Fact or Fiction?
- Thread starter Trey of Diamonds
- Start date
Like most UFO sightings, I think most bigfoot sightings are mis-identified animals. That said, I think there's a possibility for something like a BF to exists in certain parts of the world.
I hope it's true. How cool would that be?!?!
I've wondered that myself. So many different cultures seeing basically the same thing throughout history, but only at certain times.....
I watch the show simply because I enjoy the "hunt". I enjoyed Monsterquest as well. It's just as much about the search for these things as it is the thing itself - at least for me. Finding Bigfoot is a bit of a low brow show I admit. Just this week, Renae (the skeptical biologist) was with Matt (the leader) and they came along a heard of cows at night while walking around rural Kentucky. She asked Matt - the bigfoot expert on the show - why bigfoots leave alone the easily caught cow, and put effort and energy into hunting the much more swift deer. His response was that bigfoot know that the cows belong to humans and if they leave the cows alone and go after the deer, the humans will leave the bigfoots alone.
The look of 'WTF" on Ranae's face was priceless! Well worth the hour of moonshine drinking and back-woods Kentucky bigfoot hunting.
People laugh at bigfoot believers. People also laughed at those that claimed a large silver backed ape in Africa at one point as well.
These laughing people seem arrogant in the fact that they think we know so much more than we actually do.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Fiction. 200 years ago, I could see believing in something like this. These days we have too much information, and we've investigated too much of the world to believe Bigfoot could exist. If we haven't found a body, a part of a body or any other obvious piece of evidence to them by now, it's not real.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
It doesn't matter whether you believe in Bigfoot or not - he still believes in you. Now get out there and make Bigfoot proud.
Two hundred years ago the intelligent classes laughed at reports of rocks falling from the sky, too.
When the mechanism of a reported phenomenon is unknown it's easy to dismiss it as unlikely/impossible. Once science uncovers a mechanism that would account for it, its perceived possibility increases dramatically.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
This defense doesn't work. It's not arrogance. It's acknowledgement of the fact that we have been through all of the possible areas Bigfoot could live and haven't found anything.
Your argument could be used to support all kinds of things:
People laugh at leprechaun believers. People laugh at believers in alien abductions. People laugh at creationists. People laugh at believers in the idea that the world will end this year. Etc.
Just because people laugh at a group now, and people laughed at a group a long time ago doesn't mean they are connected in any way.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
Excellent point. It's hard to conceive of a breeding population of such a large animal in a populated region remaining unknown and leaving no trace.
What if single individuals just pop into existence, though? What if they're unable to survive long and leave little trace?
Of course, this still leaves the question of why they'd pop into existence only in wilderness areas and not in Central Park.
(perhaps they're indistinguishable from some of the human denizens of the park
)
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
Yet, one could also say that just because something is laughed at does not make it insignificant.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Good TV. Esp. when pole cams are used.
It's simple arrogance and you showed it again. We haven't been through all the possible areas. That's an arrogant assumption on your part.
Beyond that enormously arrogant assumption, the point is it's easy to laugh at something when we don't know everything there is to know. It's a lot harder to go out and try to prove something is or isn't.
Laughing is for the lazy.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
I like your explanation of UFO's. As far as chupacabra goes, one vet thought it was mange, but the tests were inconclusive. The more likely answer they found was that it was some sort of mutation, as mange didn't exactly fit completely. The hind legs were for some reason longer, and the canine teeth were much longer than in regular canines. Plus, the fact that the animals survived on only blood, and not meat was also a sign.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Yeah, like "hoax that just won't die."
How was it determined that the animal was living only on blood?
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
First, the reports. When they came across farms where chupacabra sightings were, they noticed the dead animals were partly drained of blood, but no meat was torn from the bones. Then, they started finding dead ones. After that, they began to be able to view them in the wild, alive, and noticed their eating habits.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Sorry, but no.
Incorrect. We have been through all the possible areas enough to know that some community of human/ape-like creatures aren't living there. This isn't 100 or 200 years ago, when great expanses of America, Canada and South America were yet to be settled or explored.
If we were talking about some small animal, like a mouse or something, then it might be possible. But not something the size of humans.
How exactly do you prove something isn't? How do you want me to prove to you that Bigfoot isn't? People have been searching for it with cameras and video-cameras for decades now. It's been a legend for well over a hundred years. No one yet has come up with any concrete evidence. All we have are some random, blurry camera shots and video that could easily be faked. In all of the research done, amazingly no one has every found any real evidence, like bones, a full body, feces, hair, etc. Nothing.
Do you want me to disprove leprechauns to you to? How about unicorns? I mean, hey, it's possible unicorns exist, and we just haven't seen them, right?
There's nothing left to do but laugh at the notion of a Bigfoot existing.