42 replies to this topic

[R4z3rsPar4d0x]

Sakari, on 07 October 2012 - 11:39 PM, said:

So, in your world, one can make any kind of creature up, and say " it might exist ", because someone can not say " no " unless they have evidence.





Like?

Man doesn't know about every creature on this planet and to say that something just doesn't exist is stupid.

Edited by R4z3rsPar4d0x, 08 October 2012 - 12:07 AM.

[Sakari]

R4z3rsPar4d0x, on 07 October 2012 - 11:58 PM, said:

Man doesn't know about every creature on this planet and to say that something just doesn't exist is stupid.

So, just saying things exist with no physical evidence at all is not stupid?....

[orangepeaceful79]

R4z3rsPar4d0x, on 07 October 2012 - 11:58 PM, said:

Man doesn't know about every creature on this planet and to say that something just doesn't exist is stupid.

You cannot use our LACK of knowledge as evidence for whatever crypto animal you believe in.  A LACK of evidence is just that.  Its zero, nothing, zilch, nada.  Nothing CANNOT be evidence of something.   Its like writing a blank check that covers everything, and my banker says writing blank checks and handing them out is a dumb idea.  Much like claiming that because we don't know everything then anything could likely exist.  Just dumb - the theory.  Not you.

[DieChecker]

Sakari, on 08 October 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

So, just saying things exist with no physical evidence at all is not stupid?....

I think it depends on the situation. Clearly if I make up a creature, say the Hoopak, (Which is a tall thin creature, much like a snake that screws its tail into the ground and then hunts by standing on end and tossing rocks at food animals.) (Totally make up) (NOTE: A hoopak is a slingshot/spear used by kender in the D&D Dragonlance series of books.) then we can discount it immediately as it is totally made up and not even physically possible.

But if a creature is repeatedly reported and seems actually physically possible, and the region is relatively unused and untraveled, then the possiblity should be be discounted out of hand. It was just such information/reports that has led to the discovery of many animals that we know today.

Edited by DieChecker, 08 October 2012 - 03:42 AM.

[Myles]

DieChecker, on 08 October 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

I think it depends on the situation. Clearly if I make up a creature, say the Hoopak, (Which is a tall thin creature, much like a snake that screws its tail into the ground and then hunts by standing on end and tossing rocks at food animals.) (Totally make up) (NOTE: A hoopak is a slingshot/spear used by kender in the D&D Dragonlance series of books.) then we can discount it immediately as it is totally made up and not even physically possible.

But if a creature is repeatedly reported and seems actually physically possible, and the region is relatively unused and untraveled, then the possiblity should be be discounted out of hand. It was just such information/reports that has led to the discovery of many animals that we know today.

However, you must take many other things into consideration:
The amount of sightings in areas that are well populated.
The footprints that cannot be tracked.
The lack of any evidence.
The lack of any clear photos or videos.

[Sakari]

DieChecker, on 08 October 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

I think it depends on the situation. Clearly if I make up a creature, say the Hoopak, (Which is a tall thin creature, much like a snake that screws its tail into the ground and then hunts by standing on end and tossing rocks at food animals.) (Totally make up) (NOTE: A hoopak is a slingshot/spear used by kender in the D&D Dragonlance series of books.) then we can discount it immediately as it is totally made up and not even physically possible.

But if a creature is repeatedly reported and seems actually physically possible, and the region is relatively unused and untraveled, then the possiblity should be be discounted out of hand. It was just such information/reports that has led to the discovery of many animals that we know today.

You just gave smugfish a new cryptid

[R4z3rsPar4d0x]

Sakari, on 08 October 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

So, just saying things exist with no physical evidence at all is not stupid?....

Im saying if yeti/bigfoot doesnt exist than  why are there accounts of it being sighted all over the world practically, and obviously what you said is a stupid thing to do, thats why you have to have witness accounts of the creatures actual existance.  Remember lack of evidence doesnt mean the evidence is not around we just havent found it yet.

[Sakari]

R4z3rsPar4d0x, on 08 October 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

Im saying if yeti/bigfoot doesnt exist than  why are there accounts of it being sighted all over the world practically, and obviously what you said is a stupid thing to do, thats why you have to have witness accounts of the creatures actual existance.  Remember lack of evidence doesnt mean the evidence is not around we just havent found it yet.

Search the threads here for Bigfoot, patterson film, etc....

Every thing is explained numerous times as to why they do not exist.....From fossils, to physical evidence, to breeding population, to dead bodies, to trail cameras, to environment ( people around ).....No need to post it all again.


And yes, " lack of evidence " does mean " no evidence ".....There is none at all.

[Andromedan Starseed 333]

everything seems to happen in Russia man i wish i was there!!!Russia rocks but yeah that's very true there still many unknown creatures and etc that science is unaware of and seems to refuse to accept.science is ignorant and very limited

[PersonFromPorlock]

dharma warrior, on 28 September 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

These creatures won't be found because they don't exist.
We have identified new species at the bottom of the deepest oceans. We have identified new mammals, reptiles and insects in the most remote corners of the planet. Yet some would have us believe that we are unable to locate a large bi-pedal primate that (if you believe all the reports) lives on practically every continent on earth.
When does common sense enter this discussion?
These "creatures" haven't been found because they don't exist.

Fair enough, but I think the most we can conclude is that bigfoot doesn't exist in human-populated places and that people in those places enjoy a good story. That doesn't absolutely rule out the existence of a breeding population in some sparsely-inhabited place like (for instance) northern Burma. Or even Siberia, although I suspect the winters wouldn't be survivable without hibernation.

In this case I'm more inclined to believe in Russian publicists blowing smoke than yet another Yeti, though.

[Choseone]

Panda's and Gorillas were just folklore not too long ago too despite countless eyewitness accounts and no physical evidence.

[PersonFromPorlock]

Choseone, on 20 January 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

Panda's and Gorillas were just folklore not too long ago too despite countless eyewitness accounts and no physical evidence.

Yes, but they were 'folklore' to people far away: to the people who lived near pandas and gorillas, they were just critters. And in an age of near-instant, near-ubiquitous communication, we're all 'near' bigfoot - if he's there.

Edited by PersonFromPorlock, 20 January 2013 - 11:00 PM.

[orangepeaceful79]

Choseone, on 20 January 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

Panda's and Gorillas were just folklore not too long ago too despite countless eyewitness accounts and no physical evidence.

The main difference being that once people started looking for Pandas and Gorillas, they found them rather quickly because being real animals, they leave behind actual evidence, participate in the food chain, die and leave carcasses, etc.  All things which all "cryptids" we discuss in these threads have somehow failed to do for hundreds of years.  Because they are most likely fake.