Bigfoot
- Thread starter Chillarmy
- Start date
Oh I see. That footage remains today the most solid evidence, and there's hardly anything you can say about it to explain what that is on camera. It was not a gorilla suit, since in that time period a suit of that quality would be pretty rare, if they even existed, and it was clearly not a bear or any other known animal. Also contrary to popular belief, that video was not the first alleged bigfoot encounter that started the hype, there have been bigfoot stories since long before.
EonEye99 said:
The Yeti of the Himalayas is considered to be the parallel of bigfoot from what I've heard / read. They're both said to be tall, hairy, and with ape-like features. The only real difference is their location and climate preference.
Why has nobody addressed the hunting issue? Why haven't people shot these things to prove their existence with hard evidence. Evidence doesn't get any more solid than a body. It's on the same level as trying to physically assassinate an imaginary person - you can't kill what isn't there.
Rikko145 said:
Because killing an extremely strong and fast great ape that avoids humans is easy, right? There are also actual laws in some states that prohibit shooting large apes in general. Yes, actual laws were formed to protect sasquatches in the chance that they are a real species.
Rikko145 said:
http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=411
You can also find stuff on why we haven't found a dead one (by natraul means) and more on this site. This site provides probably the best arguments.
Almost that entire article has skewed information. For starters, you can hunt any furred animal on your property that you can justify as causing you, your property, or your values any harm whatsoever, as long as it insn't protected by the government. There are no laws that say you can't carry a specific type of gun at certain times. As long as you have a license, you can go anywhere with your gun. A CCL (Concealed Carry License) is for carrying hidden weapons into any public place. So, I can walk into a nursery full of infants with a .38 and a CCL for no apparent reason as long as it is hidden and not used inappropriately. Have the writers of this article never heard of hunting trips/expeditions? People go deep into remote woods just because they can. One section of this article is so flawed, I can do nothing but quote it.
Some suggest that the credibility of any video footage would be questionable because of the capabilities of high-tech Hollywood special effects. This is a rather naive argument because even the best computerized special effects, when used to create living creatures, can be immediately distinguished from reality by the trained eye, and by the untrained eye in most cases. Thermal imaging can be faked by amateurs and professionals alike. And for Pete's sake, look at what we've already done in Hollywood. Real footage of real animals has qualities that still cannot be duplicated by computers. Look up on youtube some of the behind-the-scenes sections for holywood films. With professional makeup and the right lighting, a costume can look mighty real. People are animals, are we not? And there always seems to be some bluriness to the footage. Real footage of a bigfoot up close in daylight would be WOULD BE. Not is. Would be. extraordinarily powerful and captivating to most people, and therein lies its power and commercial value. The owner of the footage does not have to convince every last stubborn skeptic before he can market his tape for public consumption or create media interest. A good tape would create a lot of public interest, even if it did not provide immediate "scientific proof." Let me reword this. "It doesn't matter if we can prove anything with hard evidence or not. If we can get people to believe what we're saying, we're getting all the publicity we need!"
One section talks about poachers who shoot animals from their cars. No, those are called rednecks. And where we live, we hit deer with our cars all the time, but as long as the guts haven't spoiled the meat, we clean them up and eat them. Does that make me a poacher?
There is no reputable value in that article at all. Am I close-minded? No. But I will not be irrational.
Some suggest that the credibility of any video footage would be questionable because of the capabilities of high-tech Hollywood special effects. This is a rather naive argument because even the best computerized special effects, when used to create living creatures, can be immediately distinguished from reality by the trained eye, and by the untrained eye in most cases. Thermal imaging can be faked by amateurs and professionals alike. And for Pete's sake, look at what we've already done in Hollywood. Real footage of real animals has qualities that still cannot be duplicated by computers. Look up on youtube some of the behind-the-scenes sections for holywood films. With professional makeup and the right lighting, a costume can look mighty real. People are animals, are we not? And there always seems to be some bluriness to the footage. Real footage of a bigfoot up close in daylight would be WOULD BE. Not is. Would be. extraordinarily powerful and captivating to most people, and therein lies its power and commercial value. The owner of the footage does not have to convince every last stubborn skeptic before he can market his tape for public consumption or create media interest. A good tape would create a lot of public interest, even if it did not provide immediate "scientific proof." Let me reword this. "It doesn't matter if we can prove anything with hard evidence or not. If we can get people to believe what we're saying, we're getting all the publicity we need!"
One section talks about poachers who shoot animals from their cars. No, those are called rednecks. And where we live, we hit deer with our cars all the time, but as long as the guts haven't spoiled the meat, we clean them up and eat them. Does that make me a poacher?
There is no reputable value in that article at all. Am I close-minded? No. But I will not be irrational.
Rikko145 said:
Ok, you need to read things more clearly... A "drive-by" isn't red-necks shooting animals, it was gangs shooting other gangs in LA in the past. It was used as an example for something that happened a lot, but with a chance of catching it on camera very slim.
I don't see what you find so irrational, you're just being stubborn. The truth is, so am I. Everyone on this thread is attached to their opinion and is going to be stubborn and cling to it no matter what, so the whole thing is getting pretty stupid.
First off, I hate you with all my heart. You are distracting me from doing my Government homework at 10:30 PM. For that, I hate youMeaty said:
You are making quite a few mistakes here. Non Sequitor (I love his username) proved you completely wrong. Intellectual honesty is huge in discussions like this. He made a post, and I responded explaining to him why he was wrong. We had a side discussion, and he agreed to look more into what I was saying and thanked me for it. He was not "too stubborn to change his mind". As an intellectually honest individual, he saw reason in what I was saying, followed our discussion, and decided to research more as he was interested in what I was saying. Nice try, but we'll continue discussing this. From what I can see, you are the only stubborn one in this conversation. We are presenting logical points... this post is more of a cop-out than anything.
Having gone over bfro's website, it is pretty much nonsense. The FAQ section really riles me up. They often avoid questions in favor for providing a convenient excuse as to why X, Y, and Z can't happen. The testimonials are unreliable also. A large number of reports are from Georgia, Florida, and Illinois (among others). None of which are supposed homes of bigfoot. I can tell you for a fact that Florida and Georgia are unsuitable places for big apes to live. They make no attempt to weed through their testimonials, so that page as a whole is less reliable than it would have been if they actually cared to read through those testimonials.
As Rikko said (ew I'm agreeing with Rikko?), professional camera work can do wonders. There are a number of severe issues with Patterson-Gimlin Film. Many professionals have looked over and stated that it is impossible to prove that the film was entirely accurate. Many questionable decisions were made such as setting the frames per second to 24 fps (as opposed to more standard FPS settings). Moreover, the film was shaky enough to make it difficult to determine what it actually showed.
The most solid evidence that bigfoot has is footprints and film. Sightings are pretty much inaccurate for the reasons I listed in a previous post. Footprints are fakable by just about anybody. When I was 5 years old, I got to put my footprint in wet concrete. I made it look bigger than my dad's foot using my cunning 5 year old brain. As a 17 year old, I can come up with many more cunning plans to make my shoe size appear triple what it is. All of the film that we have is pretty much blurry and inconclusive, so nice try.
Now then, Meaty's basic argument is that bigfoot are too fast and human-phobic to be caught or viewed. That is fine, but why believe them then? We have very loose evidence at best, so why believe it? Until it is conclusively proven, there is very little reason to believe in bigfoot. All we have is a series of unrelated blurs (memories and films) and many prints that rarely, if ever, corroborate. The reason many give for this lack of evidence is because bigfoot are elusive. There are many elusive species, but we have mountains of evidence for those species. Species as big as bigfoot should have more evidence than what there is for them right now...
Some of you guys are a little bit gullible... which is a very bad trait to have.
That's the only reason why I'm posting in this thread. To keep you from doing your government homework. Nyehehehehehe.
You may have proved me wrong, as you said, but while there are some intellectual honest people in this discussion, we do still have plenty uneducated people attached to their opinions posting. I don't consider myself an intellectual with entirely valid arguments, but I consider myself someone who has looked into bigfoot in general more than most, and I do have several problems with skeptics.
My main one is the Patterson Grimlin film. You say it's impossible to prove the film entirely accurate, but I see no reason why that should prove it fake or innacurate. The BFRO's website isn't nonsense as you claim, they provide logical and reasonable answers to every question listed there. Sure, that isn't every question that skeptics will ask, but in my opinion so many questions from skeptics are more unreasonable or just as unreasonable as you claim the answers to be. The BFRO doesn't just take any picture, track or other type of evidence presented and assume it's valid, they do actually look at things skeptically. You also claim that Georgia and Florida are not suitable homes for great apes. Please elaborate on this, as I disagree entirely.
I understand how it would seem that there isn't enough evidence to conclude that bigfoots are real, but there is definitely enough to look more into the matter. And whenever you have individuals who know that they're doing look into it, they tend to come up with more evidence. While it's true that it's not hard to fake tracks or put on a gorilla suit, do you honestly believe that every single report of the thousands in the past several decades was a hoax or misidentification? No, that kind of logic would be implying that thousands of people across the country are taking the time to hoax bigfoot stories, and for what purpose? If there wasn't any truth to it, you would not find such numbers for sightings and reports.
As for us being gullible, I think that's a bit of a stretch. There is a fine line between "open-minded" and "gullible," and I do not believe that I have crossed the line to gullible. While I am a strong believer in the existence of the sasquatch species, I don't honestly believe everything I find, I remain skeptical unless I see no reason to be.
You may have proved me wrong, as you said, but while there are some intellectual honest people in this discussion, we do still have plenty uneducated people attached to their opinions posting. I don't consider myself an intellectual with entirely valid arguments, but I consider myself someone who has looked into bigfoot in general more than most, and I do have several problems with skeptics.
My main one is the Patterson Grimlin film. You say it's impossible to prove the film entirely accurate, but I see no reason why that should prove it fake or innacurate. The BFRO's website isn't nonsense as you claim, they provide logical and reasonable answers to every question listed there. Sure, that isn't every question that skeptics will ask, but in my opinion so many questions from skeptics are more unreasonable or just as unreasonable as you claim the answers to be. The BFRO doesn't just take any picture, track or other type of evidence presented and assume it's valid, they do actually look at things skeptically. You also claim that Georgia and Florida are not suitable homes for great apes. Please elaborate on this, as I disagree entirely.
I understand how it would seem that there isn't enough evidence to conclude that bigfoots are real, but there is definitely enough to look more into the matter. And whenever you have individuals who know that they're doing look into it, they tend to come up with more evidence. While it's true that it's not hard to fake tracks or put on a gorilla suit, do you honestly believe that every single report of the thousands in the past several decades was a hoax or misidentification? No, that kind of logic would be implying that thousands of people across the country are taking the time to hoax bigfoot stories, and for what purpose? If there wasn't any truth to it, you would not find such numbers for sightings and reports.
As for us being gullible, I think that's a bit of a stretch. There is a fine line between "open-minded" and "gullible," and I do not believe that I have crossed the line to gullible. While I am a strong believer in the existence of the sasquatch species, I don't honestly believe everything I find, I remain skeptical unless I see no reason to be.
I apologize if I come off hard-headed. That being said, I am skeptic because I am a hunter myself (animals, not bigfoots) and I'd like to consider myself to be somewhat proficient in my knowledge of it. One thing that came to mind while I was reading all of this was, "Why, if they are so large and fast, aren't they trackable?" I know that the faster the animal, the more tracks it makes and the more marks it leaves to follow. Something as large as a giant ape running at high speed to avoid people would surely leave trackes, broken sticks, disturbed brush, and/or torn treebark. These very obvious indicators would lead a group of people right to its nest (cave, nest, home...?).
While Bigfoot is plausable, what we imagine it to be is probably not a living species. Nah, you know what, he did exist. He has a long history in the world of mischief and heroics. Bigfoot was the man in the grassy knoll, but he wasn't much of a marksman and hit the wrong target. You won't find Bigfoot today, though -he isn't alive anymore. He died in Pennsylvania after bringing down Flight 93 with his bare hands to save the country he loved so dearly, yet shyed away.
His son lives on to promote Jack Links beef jerky. At what a cost though!: each person he attacks in retaliation in those commercials dies.
His son lives on to promote Jack Links beef jerky. At what a cost though!: each person he attacks in retaliation in those commercials dies.
I don't know what to believe.
People show proof, but most of the time they look like costumes. Or just apes. But actual proof, rarely ever found. Nothing really is true.
But then people say it's false. They say the proof is false. That there's no such thing.
But I just don't know what to believe.
People show proof, but most of the time they look like costumes. Or just apes. But actual proof, rarely ever found. Nothing really is true.
But then people say it's false. They say the proof is false. That there's no such thing.
But I just don't know what to believe.
Rikko145 said:
Actually, the answer to that isn't hard to find. Believe me, there are tracks, there are scratched tree trunks and snapped branches, as well as other "marks." These do not lead to a bigfoot's "nest" simply because the animal isn't one that lives in a stationary area, they migrate and roam, following herds of deer and elk and going to just about any other way that will lead them to more food. Big omnivorous apes like that can't afford to remain in one small area for a very long time, they need to move in order to keep finding food. I should also mention that they are believed to be primarily nocturnal, so it's not easy to find one roaming around in visible conditions.