Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 2 votes

Bigfoot: real or myth? -- Why? -- Why not?


  • Please log in to reply
517 replies to this topic

#361    LDJ

LDJ

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 32 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2014
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CA

Posted 15 June 2014 - 04:12 AM

View PostSwede, on 14 June 2014 - 09:46 PM, said:

Odd. Evasion and diversion are not generally considered to be equatable to credible documentation.

For example; you stated that the wholly undocumented "species" under discussion is (purportedly) "far more savvy than given credit" (LDJ #325). Could one then presume that you have at hand the credible documentation to support this statement? If so, providing said documentation would be an asset to your own credibility and the viability of your position.

Edit: Typo.

I'm sorry Swede..  I didn't get the memo that said the existence of Bigfoot relied solely on passing your subjective analysis..  while I generally enjoy a friendly joust and often encourage it, I am thinking that in this case it would just end up petty and less than satisfactory for both of us..  best wishes..


#362    LDJ

LDJ

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 32 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2014
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CA

Posted 15 June 2014 - 04:14 AM

View PostSakari, on 14 June 2014 - 10:00 PM, said:

Normally, I would say welcome to UM........

Understood..


#363    LDJ

LDJ

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 32 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2014
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CA

Posted 15 June 2014 - 04:19 AM

View PostNight Walker, on 15 June 2014 - 12:31 AM, said:

I'm not sure that we are saying the same thing:

If Bigfoot exists as an undiscovered species then only objective evidence is the only way to that truth. However the objective evidence for Bigfoot (ie fakes and misidentifications) reveals that something else is going on...

If Bigfoot exists as an imaginary creature within a cultural context then an open mind (ie a willingness to entertain new ideas) can ultimately only assist in appreciating that truth...

Because Bigfoot is, at best, a subjective "experience" which is not supported by its own objective evidence then anyone (including ourselves) who is presenting a particular Bigfoot argument is also promoting their particular Bigfoot agenda. That is not necessarily a bad thing but the danger of distraction arises when we fail to adequately question that which we already suppose to be true...

I was referring to having an open mind..  that's all..


#364    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 6,735 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • If you don't believe the sun will rise
    Stand alone and greet the coming night
    In the last remaining light -Audioslave

Posted 15 June 2014 - 05:40 AM

View PostLDJ, on 15 June 2014 - 04:19 AM, said:

I was referring to having an open mind..  that's all..

Ironically having an open mind also means entertaining the possibility that Bigfoot isn't real.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#365    Night Walker

Night Walker

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,140 posts
  • Joined:23 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where women glow and men plunder

  • We're all storytellers. We all live in a network of stories. There isn't a stronger connection between people than storytelling.

    J.M. Smith

Posted 15 June 2014 - 06:31 AM

View PostLDJ, on 15 June 2014 - 04:19 AM, said:

I was referring to having an open mind..  that's all..

That's all well and good but simply having an open mind is not nearly enough to get to the truth...

Posted Image Yes! Canada's most fearsome predator. The Kodiak Marmoset – it's the world's largest smallest primate. "My God! He's killing us..."

The Yowie-ocalypse is upon us...

#366    LDJ

LDJ

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 32 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2014
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CA

Posted 15 June 2014 - 05:24 PM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 15 June 2014 - 05:40 AM, said:

Ironically having an open mind also means entertaining the possibility that Bigfoot isn't real.

of course..  but the gate swings both ways.

View PostNight Walker, on 15 June 2014 - 06:31 AM, said:


That's all well and good but simply having an open mind is not nearly enough to get to the truth...

I would suggest it is the ONLY way to get to the truth..  just sayin'..


#367    Insanity

Insanity

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 575 posts
  • Joined:17 Sep 2012
  • Location:Tau Ceti

  • "Men of broader intellect know that there is no sharp distinction betwixt the real and the unreal..." - H.P. Lovecraft, "The Tomb", Published 1922

Posted 15 June 2014 - 06:45 PM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 14 June 2014 - 09:04 PM, said:

I began my interest in Bigfoot more or less on the fence. I thought it was an intriguing possibility but the more I discussed, the more I researched and the more I learned the less I believed that Bigfoot was real. If someone really digs in to the Bigfoot myth and utilizes what we know about biology, ecology, animal behavior, primatology along with a host of other academia there really isn't any other reasonable conclusion to be drawn.

View PostSakari, on 14 June 2014 - 08:03 PM, said:

Uhm, no....I have a ton of " clues " that Bigfoot does not exist.

I used to think he did ( or she ), but after actually studying things, like biology, habitat, breeding populations ( biology ), etc,etc,etc....And not counting on just TV, Bigfoot books, and the internet ( although this site sure taught me a lot of things ) , I know they do not, and have not existed.

I am curious on the research both of you have done to arrive at your conclusions.  Would either of you discuss it in detail, including possible citation of sources used?

"We see things only as we are constructed to see them, and can gain no idea of their absolute nature. With five feeble senses we pretend to comprehend the boundlessly complex cosmos, yet other beings with wider, stronger, or different range of senses might not only see very differently the things we see, but might see and study whole worlds of matter, energy, and life which lie close at hand yet can never be detected with the senses we have." - H.P. Lovecraft, "From Beyond" Published 1934

#368    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 12,567 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona...My heart and soul are still on the Oregon Coast.

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 15 June 2014 - 07:08 PM

View PostInsanity, on 15 June 2014 - 06:45 PM, said:

I am curious on the research both of you have done to arrive at your conclusions.  Would either of you discuss it in detail, including possible citation of sources used?

Sure...

Use the search function here on Bigfoot, and read through the last 5 to 7 years of the same replies I have put in numerous times. Even replies pointing people to replies from my past.

You can even search my name, or go to my profile. Dig through my 11,000 something posts, and narrow it down to Bigfoot.

Sorry man, I am tired of repeating myself, and repeating others facts. As I said, it is a broken record, " Groundhogs Day ".....It goes over, and over, and over..

No matter how many times things are pointed out, facts are given, hoax's are shown, theories are busted. They get buried, and months to years later new topics of the exact same thing, with the exact same questions, and theories get posted. Even though they have been answered and busted hundreds of times.


Posted Image








That is nothing personal, it is how this topic is.

I am not however, going to keep posting the same things over and over anymore. If a new thing pops up ( video, claim, etc. ) I will join in. But I am tired of singing the same song.



edit to add :

I all ready said in this topic, within the last 2 pages, I used to " believe ".....And, I am not typing it again on how I changed my mind, but it will answer part of your question.

Research / Try :

Biology
Ecology
Apes
Pacific Northwest Biology


Live in the PNW, and hunt and fish there....


Anyway, search away, lots and lots of posts from both of us, with links also.

Edited by Sakari, 15 June 2014 - 07:12 PM.

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#369    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,697 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 15 June 2014 - 09:35 PM

There is probably even 2 or 3 threads that have almost this exact Title.

In my opinion, almost all the reasons skeptics put forward can be explained. Population numbers, ecological footprint (pun), origin... all can be refuted.

The ONLY thing that cannot be refuted is that No Bigfoot Body (or even DNA) has ever been conclusively shown to exist. Without a body or DNA, there is no Bigfoot. Everything else is just Discussion and What If.

People that say the Pacific Northwest, or Texas, or Ohio, are impossible environments for a bigfoot, are entirely in the same speculative level as people who say that bigfoot totally Could Live there. It is not possible to state what an unknown animal could or could not do. It is only possible to speculate.

Edited by DieChecker, 15 June 2014 - 09:38 PM.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#370    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 6,735 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • If you don't believe the sun will rise
    Stand alone and greet the coming night
    In the last remaining light -Audioslave

Posted 15 June 2014 - 09:44 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 15 June 2014 - 09:35 PM, said:

There is probably even 2 or 3 threads that have almost this exact Title.

In my opinion, almost all the reasons skeptics put forward can be explained. Population numbers, ecological footprint (pun), origin... all can be refuted.

The ONLY thing that cannot be refuted is that No Bigfoot Body (or even DNA) has ever been conclusively shown to exist. Without a body or DNA, there is no Bigfoot. Everything else is just Discussion and What If.

I think refuted is perhaps too strong a word. To offer a counter point isn't the same as refutation. It just means there is more to be considered.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#371    Night Walker

Night Walker

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,140 posts
  • Joined:23 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where women glow and men plunder

  • We're all storytellers. We all live in a network of stories. There isn't a stronger connection between people than storytelling.

    J.M. Smith

Posted 15 June 2014 - 09:54 PM

View PostLDJ, on 15 June 2014 - 05:24 PM, said:

I would suggest it is the ONLY way to get to the truth..  just sayin'..

Yeah? How so? How many new species have been discovered by people using only an open mind? Just askin'...

But we're not really talking about a giant undiscovered species of man-beast here, are we?

Posted Image Yes! Canada's most fearsome predator. The Kodiak Marmoset – it's the world's largest smallest primate. "My God! He's killing us..."

The Yowie-ocalypse is upon us...

#372    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 4,900 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 15 June 2014 - 10:01 PM

Of all the evidence for bigfoot, none of it interests mainstream science. Why?
Because it is not evidence, they checked?
Or, because science does not think a bigfoot creature inhabits NA? Period.


#373    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,413 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 June 2014 - 10:49 PM

View PostLDJ, on 15 June 2014 - 04:12 AM, said:

I'm sorry Swede..  I didn't get the memo that said the existence of Bigfoot relied solely on passing your subjective analysis..  while I generally enjoy a friendly joust and often encourage it, I am thinking that in this case it would just end up petty and less than satisfactory for both of us..  best wishes..

1) Credible (scientific) documentation, by its very nature, includes empirical data. Qualified data collection and documentation, while potentially subject to interpretation, is not to be considered in itself to be subjective. Nor, in the course of the evaluation of empirical data, is the evaluation of such data limited to the interpretation of any single individual. Such practices are inherent to the scientific process.

2) Some could interpret the specific bolded/general tone to indicate that you are lacking in the capacity to adequately support your own documented statements with credible and verifiable documentation. Duly noted.

.


#374    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,413 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 June 2014 - 11:26 PM

View PostQuiteContrary, on 15 June 2014 - 10:01 PM, said:

Of all the evidence for bigfoot, none of it interests mainstream science. Why?
Because it is not evidence, they checked?
Or, because science does not think a bigfoot creature inhabits NA? Period.

Hi QC,

You may be misunderstanding a point or three.

First, one may wish to define (credible) evidence. One may also wish to be cognizant of the extensive amount of field research conducted by any number of trained and qualified individuals involved in environmental/biological/anthropological research, for numerous agencies and firms, on a continental level. And the vast number of observations and reports that are issued as a result of these investigations.

Secondly, there actually has been, over the years, a number of qualified and specialized studies that have delved into the topic. None of these studies resulted in the confirmation of the various and assorted claims commonly bandied about in mediums such as the present. Please note that the studies referred to do not include such tragic shams as the "Ketchum Report".

Lastly, it may be inaccurate to believe that the professional community has been/is ignoring the topic. The simple matter is, as is well evidenced on pages such as this and many others, that there has yet to be a single shred of unquestionable "evidence" to support the various claims. There has, however, been a rather voluminous amount of hoaxes, fraudulent claims, faked data, bizarre scenarios, etc., etc. Thus, over the years, and quite understandably, professional interest in the topic may not always be of the highest priority. The final Sykes' report may be of interest.

Edit: Addition.

Edited by Swede, 15 June 2014 - 11:39 PM.


#375    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 4,900 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 16 June 2014 - 12:54 AM

View PostSwede, on 15 June 2014 - 11:26 PM, said:

Hi QC,

You may be misunderstanding a point or three.

First, one may wish to define (credible) evidence. One may also wish to be cognizant of the extensive amount of field research conducted by any number of trained and qualified individuals involved in environmental/biological/anthropological research, for numerous agencies and firms, on a continental level. And the vast number of observations and reports that are issued as a result of these investigations.

Secondly, there actually has been, over the years, a number of qualified and specialized studies that have delved into the topic. None of these studies resulted in the confirmation of the various and assorted claims commonly bandied about in mediums such as the present. Please note that the studies referred to do not include such tragic shams as the "Ketchum Report".

Lastly, it may be inaccurate to believe that the professional community has been/is ignoring the topic. The simple matter is, as is well evidenced on pages such as this and many others, that there has yet to be a single shred of unquestionable "evidence" to support the various claims. There has, however, been a rather voluminous amount of hoaxes, fraudulent claims, faked data, bizarre scenarios, etc., etc. Thus, over the years, and quite understandably, professional interest in the topic may not always be of the highest priority. The final Sykes' report may be of interest.

Edit: Addition.

First, I am well aware of what credible means and that no credible evidence for Bigfoot has been documented.
I am also aware of studies (on topics other than bigfoot) being conducted all over the world by any number of professions. I am also aware observations and reports would accompany these investigations.

Second,  please  cite for me  these number of qualified and specialized studies (no bigfootdom bedfellows plz) that have delved into the topic.

I am well aware of Dr. Sykes study. One study over the last x years hardly shows a general and zealous interest by the scientific community. And I suggest you completely familiarize yourself with Dr. Sykes, his study, how his samples were obtained, the scope of his study, and his reason for doing this study. Who did he talk to? Did he keep to the bigfoot  community or did he embark on his own impartial  study before collecting samples from people like Justin Smeja who required  no testing for most of us to know the results.
Have his results about the Yeti as bear been reviewed by the scientific community yet who were skeptical of his results?

Last, why would hoaxes, fraudulent claims, faked data and bizarre scenarios have anything at all to do with professionals not making studies of a bigfoot type creature a priority? That makes no sense to me.  Please cite how this is indeed the case.

I am inclined to say, rather, it is a non-belief in the existence of a bigfoot type creature inhabiting NA that has made bigfoot studies not only low on science's priority list but not any list at all. Save one with questionable backstories and interests and all over approach to an odd and very limited study. It made good TV though.

Meldrum is a bona fide scientist too. But

Edited by QuiteContrary, 16 June 2014 - 12:58 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users