What's new

Aw, Bigfoot died, boo hoo for the believers (1 Viewer)

Ike

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 14, 2000
Messages
1,672
Why has this been embraced so vehemently by the "believers"? Even if this turns out to be true (which with the death of Wallace, seems even more unlikely) it will at best be a scientific discovery, not something magical/supernatural. I get the fascination with Loch Ness--scary water monster, extinct dinosaur, etc. But, it seems almost too...I don't know, boring....for the alien-ghost-spirit-demon-ESP-ghost in Three Men in a Baby-believers.
Don't be skeptical about aliens... If only I could share what I have heard.
You convinced me! Man, you are good. ;)
 

Dennis Reno

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
862
Here's the deal - come up with proof, good proof. Not second or third hand stories at best. Not shaky home video footage of a guy in a suit. Something substantial. Until then, concede it as not likely.
My thoughts exactly. With all the affordable technology that is available (digital cameras, video cameras, etc.) why is there no definitive proof of UFOs, ghosts, Yeti, etc?
 

MickeS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2000
Messages
5,058
All of these things are invisible, of course, and only reveal themselves to believers. They know you're a believer by reading your mind. That's why they can't be seen by most people. :)
/Mike
 

BertFalasco

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 14, 2001
Messages
839
Julie, Ike.. way to be "schmuckdooshes"... Not once did I ever type a disclaimer on in depth elaboration, hence speculation. Jesus. I had to friggin leave, so I posted a "cliffhanger." Go to sleep. :) :) :)
h3br3wz
-Bert
My thoughts exactly. With all the affordable technology that is available (digital cameras, video cameras, etc.) why is there no definitive proof of UFOs, ghosts, Yeti, etc?
There is. Well, of atleast UFOs/aliens.
Oh, Ron Livingston's dog is named Bert... Ron Livingston's Band of Brothers Diary.quite amusing. But maybe not apparently as amusing as I am, typing wise. :)
 

BertFalasco

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 14, 2001
Messages
839
You would have to ask my mom. She would probobly have to juditsu your sternum afterwards. Don't worry about it. Reality check--> there are in fact those who know certain things and I am just a fortunate one who is the son of someone who does because, wait, damnit..don't manipulate me. Don't worry about it. Believe what you will.

Off to watch some BoB documentary andTrue Romance.
Night.

-Bert
 

Joseph DeMartino

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
8,311
Location
Florida
Real Name
Joseph DeMartino
Yes, well I did. Graduate thesis. Amazingly I found what I'm pretty sure is it. There is only one problem, for absolute proof I need to open it and examine the inside.
I just looked at today's paper. Are you sure you didn't open it just a crack? :)
Regards,
Joe
 

Jack Briggs

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 3, 1999
Messages
16,805


Edit: Evidence, kind sir. Not hearsay. JB (I was a little harsh in my first post, Bert. So I edited the thing down.)
 

Ike

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 14, 2000
Messages
1,672
Julie, Ike.. way to be "schmuckdooshes"... Not once did I ever type a disclaimer on in depth elaboration, hence speculation. Jesus. I had to friggin leave, so I posted a "cliffhanger." Go to sleep. :):):)
Yeah, and after you replied in full, I'm convinced even more! Come on everybody, his mom knows! And it's so top secret, she'll have to "juditsu your sternum afterwards!" Come on, what's the matter with all you skeptics? Here is proof!
BTW, does Randi cover bigfoot? A million dollars if you can prove bigfoot is real? I don't see how you'd come up with a test for that, but it could certainly be interesting.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
Why has this been embraced so vehemently by the "believers"?
I theorize that proof of the existence of Bigfoot would cause a dance of celebration that there was a "mystery" lurking that those "fuddy duddy" scientists didn't know about. They like the idea of the existence of things that are outside of the knowledge of science. Such a notion excites them, even when dealing with something as dull as Bigfoot.
 

Michael Pineo

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 17, 1998
Messages
138
Maybe I'm naive, but I would think that if there really was a government conspiracy to keep some sort of alien discovery secret, you probably wouldn't want to run home and tell your kids about it so they could then go and talk about it on the internet. It would be awfully hard to keep a conspiracy going with that kind of security.

MikeP
 

Bob McLaughlin

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 14, 2000
Messages
1,129
Real Name
Bob
The real question is "Why do these people feel the need to have a Bigfoot?"

Seriously, to the believers, what do you have to gain by thinking there "could be" a Bigfoot.

Granted, there "could be" a pink elephant in my basement right now. I can't prove it until I walk down into my basement to see. Of course, the argument could be made that at the moment I looked for it, the pink elephant hid from me. Or was able to turn itself invisible, or got swept up into outer space by his alien friends.

But it's crazy to think there might be a pink elephant, right? Why do we intuitively know that belief in a giant pink elephant is crazy, even the mere possibility of it, but some people insist that it is rational to believe that there just might be a Bigfoot?

Think about how you KNOW things in your life. They are based on rational observation, repeated patterns, etc. Why are you throwing it all out the window over this man-ape? There must be some sort of psychological need that is being served by this blind belief. Maybe even an understandable need, the need to think there is more to life than what we see, the need to think there is something out there that doesn't have to play by the "rules of reality". But just because you want something to be true, doesn't mean it is.
 

Joseph DeMartino

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
8,311
Location
Florida
Real Name
Joseph DeMartino
BTW, does Randi cover bigfoot?
No. Even if bigfoot turned out to exist somewhere, it would simply be a previously unknown animal - not something paranormal. Similarly Randi's challenge does not embrace UFOs. Psychic powers of all kinds (including dowsing, precognition and mental telepathy), ghosts, "free energy" and perpetual motion machines are all covered - because if they exist than an awful lot of what we "know" about the universe would have to be wrong. Some undocumented mammal would not meet the criteria, because in the end it would just be another mammal. Ditto actual aliens showing up. (So if any of you folks from Beta Reticulii are thinking about coming down to score a quick million bucks, forget it. :))
Regards,
Joe
 

Frederick

Second Unit
Joined
Mar 9, 1999
Messages
400
I'm on the path of anything's possible, within reason. No, there's no 100% solid proof that Bigfoot exists, but by the same token, how can all of you be so absolutely sure that it doesn't? Lack of proof doesn't prove anything. It just means that we don't have any proof. Wait, did that make sense? There was a point in there somewhere when I started this. Really ...

I had the same argument with an Atheist once. He came with the same "You have no REAL proof" argument. I don't want to turn this into a religious thread, but some of you are saying that something doesn't exist just because someone doesn't throw a body, or in the case of my last discussion, a miracle, in front of you. Ok, some dude faked some footprints. Maybe the Patterson film is a guy with a hairy back. Maybe Nessie likes to take summers off and the MIB are REALLY good at hiding stuff. Let people have their beliefs and go after whatever windmills strike them as dangerous. No harm done.

Now, if we were to really find a Bigfoot, I'd be more worried about what was about to happen to the forests, not to mention the creature itself. You find one, people wouldn't rest until they found more. Having few people believing in them would be a blessing. Having the world find out that you really exist would be a curse ...


Freddy C.
 

Kevin M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2000
Messages
5,172
Real Name
Kevin Ray
"The Truth is Out There"!
....or maybe the topic is just "out there".;)
 

Jack Briggs

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 3, 1999
Messages
16,805
I'll go ahead and say what I originally wrote in my edited post:

Bert is trying convince us flying saucers are "real" but says we must first ask his mother about it. That's a very encouraging start.



Then don't bring up the atheism/religionist thing.

As for all these pseudoreligious trappings of flying saucer enthusiasts, bigfoot believers, and all the rest: You're still asking us to believe. Can't do that without evidence, buddy. Otherwise, it's just hearsay.

Nuff said.
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060
Others (Buzz, Joseph, Jack, Bob Julie, et. al.) have already commented on the improbability of this, and similar, concepts. However I still feel impelled to make some additional comments.


Lack of proof doesn't prove anything. It just means that we don't have any proof.
Actually it does. For example, no one has demonstrated that DNA (excepting identical twins) or fingerprints and a host of other common identifiers that we consider unique by sampling every living (and dead) human’s fingerprints or DNA to prove that there is no duplication.

Using this reasoning, one could say that DNA is not unique by saying that it is possible that two humans do have the exact, same DNA. Or, if we actually did sample and analyze everyone’s DNA coming to the realization that no such duplication existed, it could still be claimed that someone is about to be born (or has already been born) who has the same DNA as someone else.

The fact that you must be a biologist of the right type in order to understand the validity of the arguments that demonstrate the truth of unique DNA does not mean that it is not factual.

For another type of proof of what cannot be measured, I would suggest that you consider a simple (now this is very funny) case in quantum mechanics: we can know the position of a particle or the speed of a particle, but not both, or we can predict with exactitude the probability of particle’s decay, but not if or even when any particle will decay.

Does this inability invalidate quantum mechanics?


Personally, I think that the reason that people continue to believe in the existence of things like ‘Bigfoot’, is that they view science and scientific proof with suspicion and alarm. By taking a position that ‘scientists don’t know everything (which they all well know—much more than any layperson), they are validating that their own conclusions (and belief systems) are equal to considered ones.

As many of you have already written, where all of these beliefs consistently fail, is in their ability to prove anything, other than anecdotally.
 

ForresterW

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 10, 2001
Messages
102
noone has yet to prove existence of bigfoot/lachness/etc... but noone has yet to prove other wise...
 

Ike

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 14, 2000
Messages
1,672
noone has yet to prove existence of bigfoot/lachness/etc... but noone has yet to prove other wise...
Noone hasn't proved that if you tape bagels under your arms and jump off a cliff that you won't be able to hover around.
We can assume it's very unlikely through our current evidence, on both bigfoot and the bagel thing. ;)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top