Bigfoot found??? (1 Viewer)

[Holadem]

Scully Syndrome right there. Drives me nuts!

--
H

 

[Bryan^H]

Yes, the rest of the article:





"Up to the early 19th century, the study of meteorites was considered marginal science," she said, explaining that trained scientists were loath to make the connection between meteors, which many had seen with their own eyes, and the rocks that civilians reported falling into their backyards from the heavens and insisted were meteorites.

"There was a long period in which scientists recognized the existence of one of these and not the other," she said. "And it may surprise you that the one they recognized was not the one we had physical evidence for."

As with Bigfoot, the scientific establishment "argued that meteorites were impossible," Roush said. And, as with meteorites, "it's certainly not impossible for a species that's a hominid in-between human beings and apes to be living in the Northwest Territories. That's not impossible at all."

 

[cafink]

Please cite an example of the scientific establishment arguing that bigfoot is "impossible."

 

[Ruz-El]

See, this is another problem with this Bigfoot stuff. Everything we currently understand as being science "FACT" is based on scientific study that is never absolute, true science is always challenging and testing. Early science in meteorites was non-conclusive. Current studies, due to carbon testing and other means not previously available, prove that meteorites recovered are in fact from space.

This has nothing to do with Bigfoot, since there has been NO PHYSICAL SAMPLES FROM A BIGFOOT THAT HAS BEEN STUDIED USING AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF A SERIES OF INDEPENDENT TRIALS. Foot print castings, no matter how real they may be in appearance, are circumstantial. Otherwise every person in the WORLD owning a pair of Chuck Tayler all-stars could be a murder suspect based on prints recovered at a crime scene. To say "BIGFOOT ABSOLUTELY EXISTS" based on recovered tracks and audio recordings is the equevalent to putting a 13 year old on death row for owning a pair of shoes based on my example.

So until such a proper sample of a bigfoot comes forward, and passes said trials, it's comfortable to put them in the "mythical beast" catagory based on every "proof" coming forward being discredited.

 

[Bryan^H]

True. I said before, I'm not trying to make people believe one way or the other. There is no gray area with Bigfoot. Either you believe or you don't. Of the books I have read about the subject, the documentaries I have watched, I do very much believe in Bigfoot. I don't appreciate the stigma attached to it very flattering. It's basically "If you believe, your dumb".
Many major discoveries were considered impossible before proven.

 

[cafink]

This is a false dichotomy if ever I've heard one. Surely one can be skeptical of bigfoot claims, while still being open to well-documented, thoroughly-reviewed scientific evidence? That is, in fact, how I would describe myself. The reason I don't believe in bigfoot is not simply that I'm a skeptic or disbeliever, it's that I have yet to see any compelling evidence that there exists an as-yet-unknown species of upright seven-foot ape. And no, one guy with a webpage is not sufficient, regardless of his qualifications. Let's see what other scientists and researchers think of his findings, and I'll be happy--eager, even--to reconsider my position.

 

[Bryan^H]

Forensic Expert Says Bigfoot Is Real

Carl, when I said no gray area, I think that is an honest assumption.

When you ask someone if they believe in Bigfoot, 99% of the time they will give you a yes or no answer.

Thanks for participating in this debate.

 

[Ruz-El]

nothing in that linked article other then the headline says Bigfoot is real though. all the "experts" say is "There is compelling evidence." which means no real facts. Here's the problem with the "experts"

Jimmy Chilcutt - Claims the cast prove it's real, currently on the Bigfoot speaking circut, appearing on radio shows and such... he's making money off it.

Jeff Meldrum - Has a book called SASQUATCH. which you can buy on the reasearch site owned by...

Matt Moneymaker - who runs that research site.

So, basically everyone in that artical has personal gain by being legitimized by National Geographic, just like the hoaxers who started all this.

 

[cafink]

I respectfully disagree.

Wouldn't you also get mostly "yes" and "no" answers when you ask someone whether they believe in abortion? The death penalty? Corporal punishment? God? Aliens?

Does that mean that those issues also have no gray area? No room for someone to be on the fence?

 

[RobertR]

But there's a difference between "I'm a skeptical nonbeliever who's open to solid evidence" and "I don't believe, and nothing anyone shows me will ever convince me otherwise" (like what Holadem was complaining about with the X Files). Some people tend to lump the two together.

 

[Lew Crippen]

How do you know Bigfoot is nocturnal?

 

[RickER]

As they say, Russ is a masterdebater.

Hey, i found out about 2 weeks ago that we have bigfoot (or is it bigfeet?) in southeast Oklahoma! I never knew that. Course many of the people in southeastern Oklahoma, and western Arkansas dont get out of the meth labs long enough to take a shower and a shave. So, i could see how you might see bigfoot in that part of Oklahoma.

I go hiking all the time in that part of OK, and AR, never seen anything except deer, and wild turkey. Saw a dead mountain lion on the side of the road about 20 years ago. Didnt know we had any of them in OK either...but i still saw its dead carcass! Unfortunately, thats more than can be said about bigfoot. (for now anyway)

And i still have that little boy in me who wants to belive.

 

[Ruz-El]

I think we all do. Just that some of us need more evidence then "What was that sound in the woods..... BIGFOOT IS REAL!!!!"

 

[KurtEP]

There's only one big foot that really concerns me:

 

[Bob McLaughlin]

Why does it matter so much whether or not there is a Bigfoot? It's not really going to affect anyone's life either way, is it?

Then again, I am interested when they discover new things that are millions of light-years away, and I guess that doesn't really affect my life either. But at least that contributes to a greater understanding of the universe. Does knowing about one more animal contribute to a greater understanding of the workings of the universe?

I "believe" in the existence of black holes even though you can't bring one to my doorstep, but I would be hard-pressed to believe in Bigfoot even if I encountered one. Is that a double-standard? Or is it a matter of priorities?

 

[RobertR]

I said pretty much the same thing in a previous post. So there may be another great ape in North America? So what?

I suspect the primary motivation for those who are so interested in Bigfoot (other than some way to make money from the idea) is some kind of emotional satisfaction. If Bigfoot was confirmed to exist, I can see people dancing around yelling "see!? Science didn't know about it!!"

Whoopee.

 

[KevinGress]

While I think that's part of it, I think it's more because Bigfoot is so similar to us. I doubt many would care as much if a large unknown gecko, or even whale, was discovered. But something that 'looks' like us? Could possess close to human intelligence, but not human? That, I think, sparks the imagination, and the large desire in some for it to be true.

 

[Bob Turnbull]

Nope, but I think it's the general discussion of the process of understanding our world, how the scientific method should work and applications of logic and reason that most of us have been curious about. And that definitely matters...

That and the fear that Bigfoot could move in next door to you. Imagine what would happen to your property value...

 

[drobbins]

Here is a little insight on this one Sasquatch and Bigfoot Meet Serious Science | Newsweek Animals and Pets | Newsweek.com

 

[Jimi C]

Look Bob! Way out in the distance! Its Bigfoot!



I gotta beleive that scene accounts for at least 75% of supposed Bigfoot sightings...