Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'After Hours Lounge (Off Topic)' started by Scott McGillivray, Aug 15, 2008.
I bet that bear does in fact have big feet, and large poops, he may in fact be the real "bigfoot"!
> Why does it matter so much whether or not there is a Bigfoot? If a live one is captured or a body found and authenticated, it would finally put the question to rest. Humans are curious. Look up the Zeigarnik effect, basically the idea that we want stories to come to a conclusion. Since the non-existence of Bigfoot can't be proved, the only real way to settle the question would be if real proof of its existence were found. Same thing with UFOs/aliens.
the only way to settle it is if evidence came through? Well, you can make a pretty solid case for bigfoot not existing, mainly since every sighting is completely unreliable. your example with UFO and Bigfoot is the equivalent of someone saying. "I rode a unicorn, so unicorns exist. I can't prove it, but you can't prove I didn't, so you have to agree that Unicorns exist." Philosophically it may be logical, but in a practical world that we live in, it's ridiculous. Just like the Lochness monster living in that lake when it's been so completely scanned and searched.
You know the great thing about Bigfoot? You can't prove he doesn't exist, and I can't prove that he does! We can continue to discuss why we choose or not to believe in him. I will also say that someday there will be proof, and all the nay sayers will switch gears and focus on something else that doesn't exist like aliens, or the Loch ness monster
I'm not sure, but most Bigfoot experts believe it's a nocturnal species. People that devote their life to finding proof. I agree with their assumption.
Bzzzzt!!!! You just broke a fundamental rule of logic. You can't ask someone to prove that something does NOT exist. It is an impossibility. Think about it. Proving that Bigfoot does not exist would require someone to observe every square inch of the earth all at once, which is impossible. So to require it is a logical fallacy. Sorry, but the burden of proof is on existence, not non-existence; and lack of "proof" of the latter is not any proof of the former. BTW, it would'nt be a "I know XYZ exists" thread without someone asking the skeptics to prove a negative.
Oh, a technicality. Then I guess all the skeptics should get together and start finding a way to prove that the species does, in fact exist Thanks for clearing that up.
Skeptics use a thing called "common sense", and instead attempt to inform the public into not being scammed by such things as tarot cards, aliens and bigfoot hunts....
Just a question, but what are the criteria that makes one a Bigfoot expert? And what have the experts observed that lead them to conclude Bigfoot is nocturnal? What is it that the experts have identified that Bigfoot has in common with other nocturnal primates and animals? And Jeff’s point of the erroneous logic in proving something not to exist is very much more than a technicality.
As Lew said, it isn't a technicality, it is an irrefutable tenet of logic and a basic concept of both philosophy and science. Big difference.
Bryan, I've been consulting with my own experts, and they tell me that these "Bigfoot" creatures are just a myth. And my experts would also like to collectively inform the prepubescent girls of the world that they actually resent all the feminization of their noble and robust culture. They do not enjoy being drawn trotting around rainbows, floating hearts, and pink rivers. The unicorns have spoken. Brad
Bigfoot experts? Um, how do you get that title? After reading this thread and watching some fake videos on the internet, I think we all qualify as a Big Foot expert. In my professional opinion, I think they can fly and live on the moon. It's the only explanation of why we have never found a dead one.
I agree, and of course those saying science was wrong, would be wrong themselves. Science is not prejudiced against BF existing, no more than the moon being made of cheese. If scientific proof were provided which proved that the moon was made of cheese, science (after rigorous examination of the data) would accept it. When proof is provided of BF's existence, science will accept it. The scientific method allows for change, for new discovery that alters what was previously accepted. Individual scientists may personally believe BF does not exist, and if BF is proven to exist, they as individuals, will be wrong. But the scientific method will not be wrong because it allows for change. As for me, I think BF is extremely unlikely to exist in the present.
I'm actually in the process of making an all Bigfoot soundtrack(music cd inspired by the thought of Bigfoot) with my Moog synthesizer. I've got the bulk of it worked out, I just have to spread it into 6 tracks. track 1- Footprints in the sun track 2- 1976 forever track 3- Bluff Creek blues track 4- Deep Forest, calm night track 5- It's lonely at the top track 6- Dermal ridges..conundrum
Canadian News Media Now Covers Sightings Fairly recent sightings in Canada.
that sites terrible, I mean really. good articles in the links though, neither of them substantiate that Bigfoot is real.
Saw this article on Randi's site, made me laugh Why We Can't Find Bigfoot
That is funny. And true. That whole thing was weird. I lived in Palo Alto at that time, and for just a moment, I thought I might be real. Too bad.
Cryptozoology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Real scientists that deal in the study of hidden animals(Loch Ness, Bigfoot). Also, they are not a laughing stock in the scientific community. It is a relevant science. The nocturnal thing was a conclusion from Loren Coleman.