Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anecdotal does not = true. Right after the election half the Country thought that Hillary was President - it did not make it true. Many cite government conspiracies about Big Foot; that does not mean it is true. What is true is that the believers are desperate for any evidence to support their beliefs. We also have to sort out those that have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth. Just because people want to sell a book; is not evidence
Yes; "vested interest" is what I was referring to but you said it better!
Anecdotal evidence, I think; can be valuable in establishing motivation for employing the scientific process. As in when enough people start to experience adverse events after starting a certain medication & Pharma has no choice but to investigate. After the scientific process has been initiated; anecdotal evidence takes a back seat.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye
There is no creature, that we can see at night, that we cannot see better in the daylight. We can imagine better at night; but we cannot prove better at night.
Well; there is the Owl. And the Bat.
If you take into account the different evolutionary stages a species may be in; I think it's possible for a species to be temporarily difficult to spot. Especially if transitioning from diurnal to nocturnal.
I totally respect that. Which is why when it comes to a lot of these supposed sightings, it makes far more sense to me to not discount the supernatural than to try to hammer a square peg into the round hole of hundreds of years of scientific fact.
I think most Bigfoot sightings are explainable by hoaxes, wishful thinking, or mistaken identity. Those that can't be explained by such ... ?
To me, the supernatural seems the most likely explanation until further facts come to light.
Things that can't be readily explained as such doesn't mean "supernatural" is a better explanation. It could be quite natural but is unknown at the present time. Just a new species called the Frilled Giant Pacific Octopus was recently discovered. It was confirmed by capturing an actual specimen. And as you said, because of all the "hoaxes, wishful thinking or mistaken identity", it will require the capture of an actual living Bigfoot to confirm that it does indeed exist. Either it exists or it doesn't exist. New Frilled Giant Pacific Octopus Discovered in Alaska
If you take into account the different evolutionary stages a species may be in; I think it's possible for a species to be temporarily difficult to spot. Especially if transitioning from diurnal to nocturnal.
There are plenty of skunks, raccoons, fox and some flying squirrels that forage at night and sleep during the day. But I did not mean it that way. Without light; we do not see these nocturnal animals. There is absolutely no proof that Big Foot is nocturnal since we have no solid evidence. The one film that made so many 'believers' was taken during the day. Of course there is some evidence that the film might be a hoax. It is not enough evidence to prove the existence of a new species.
I totally respect that. Which is why when it comes to a lot of these supposed sightings, it makes far more sense to me to not discount the supernatural than to try to hammer a square peg into the round hole of hundreds of years of scientific fact.
I think most Bigfoot sightings are explainable by hoaxes, wishful thinking, or mistaken identity. Those that can't be explained by such ... ?
To me, the supernatural seems the most likely explanation until further facts come to light.
I keep an open mind because now; I would be a hypocrite if I didn't. And it's not like we can't be wrong about things. Science & it's "experts" are wrong all the time. Some examples:
The Horton Plains Slender Loris is native to Sri Lanka but is so rare that it has only been seen four times since 1937. And it is a nocturnal primate.
Due to a 63-year gap between sightings from 1939 to 2002, it was feared to be extinct. It was caught on camera, for the first time; in 2010.
There is now evidence suggesting that the Thylacine (Tasmanian Tiger), which was thought to have gone extinct from the Australian mainland more than 2000 years ago, is not actually ... extinct.
Although there have been unverified sightings in many states of Australia, most thought that these creatures "did not exist" until 2017. Based on just one video, filmed by trackers in 2017; a research team has been formed.
A nocturnal snake seen one time on Clarion Island in 1936 by a researcher who named it "the Clarion Island Nightsnake in a paper he published 10 years later: Future researchers in the 1950s actually discounted his findings, saying that it simply did not exist & suggested it was an error in his notations.
The snake was found & confirmed in 2014, on a hunch of another researcher who admitted that his state of the art satellite imagery technology had actually rejected the possibility of its existence.
And these are not isolated incidents; this happens, all the time. Although none have been as pursued as Bigfoot, obviously.
A mammal of that size would require a population of several hundred individuals just to maintain a healthy genetic population. Otherwise you get all sorts of genetic horrors that would soon lead to extinction.
A mammal of that size requires an incredible amount of daily calories just to stay alive. And this is not equatorial Africa (where gorillas live) or Borneo (where orangutans live), both of which are surrounded by tons of nutrient-rich vegetation. And the large primates who live there still spend most of their day eating, and they NEVER have to deal with winter weather, which would only increase their caloric needs.
This would mean that Bigfoot would either need to hunt to supplement its diet, hibernate, or both. Much like bears.
So now the Bigfoot believers would have us believe that there are several hundred gigantic primates roaming the wilds of North America, hunting and killing and making baby Bigfeet , and yet they have not left behind a single corpse, a bone, a pile of poo, a tuft of hair, or stood still long enough for a decent photograph.
This just isn't possible, true believers. Sorry. Not in an area as heavily populated as North America. You're not talking about a newt or a badger or some little monkey in a thick jungle, but about a giant primate.
A mammal of that size would require a population of several hundred individuals just to maintain a healthy genetic population. Otherwise you get all sorts of genetic horrors that would soon lead to extinction.
A mammal of that size requires an incredible amount of daily calories just to stay alive. And this is not equatorial Africa (where gorillas live) or Borneo (where orangutans live), both of which are surrounded by tons of nutrient-rich vegetation. And the large primates who live there still spend most of their day eating, and they NEVER have to deal with winter weather, which would only increase their caloric needs.
This would mean that Bigfoot would either need to hunt to supplement its diet, hibernate, or both. Much like bears.
So now the Bigfoot believers would have us believe that there are several hundred gigantic primates roaming the wilds of North America, hunting and killing and making baby Bigfeet , and yet they have not left behind a single corpse, a bone, a pile of poo, a tuft of hair, or stood still long enough for a decent photograph.
This just isn't possible, true believers. Sorry. Not in an area as heavily populated as North America. You're not talking about a newt or a badger or some little monkey in a thick jungle, but about a giant primate.
When you think of how many small planes we have in the sky and how many drones are in the US and how many cellphones that take great pictures and how many security cameras - is there anyplace anything can hide?
PS With Google 'Earth' I can see our sheets on our clothesline and cars parked in our driveway!
When you think of how many small planes we have in the sky and how many drones are in the US and how many cellphones that take great pictures and how many security cameras - is there anyplace anything can hide?
PS With Google 'Earth' I can see our sheets on our clothesline and cars parked in our driveway!
You cannot discount all the reports and sightings over many many years either though. Its more logical imo to admit it is probably something we do not yet understand.
You cannot discount all the reports and sightings over many many years either though. Its more logical imo to admit it is probably something we do not yet understand.
If you read my post #21 - I said that me and my wife saw a mountain lion in NEPA and that our Game Commission did not believe us. I agreed with them when they pointed out to me that there have been no carcasses found on the sides of our roads in PA. One would think that eventually one of your mythical creatures would make a mistake. I was also relieved when a mountain lion was hit and killed in Connecticut because the DNA found the animal was from SD - so it could have traveled through PA. It gave our sighting some credibility.
But here is the crux of the problem; you don't have roadkill, scat, hair or any tangible evidence that one of the Big Foot ever existed. The burden of proof is on the believers. Find a dead one or part of a dead one and let us have a look! All animals die and all animals eat and relieve themselves. If they don't; they are not animals or do not exist.
The Horton Plains Slender Loris is native to Sri Lanka but is so rare that it has only been seen four times since 1937. And it is a nocturnal primate.... There is now evidence suggesting that the Thylacine (Tasmanian Tiger), which was thought to have gone extinct from the Australian mainland more than 2000 years ago, is not actually ... extinct. ... A nocturnal snake seen one time on Clarion Island in 1936 by a researcher who named it "the Clarion Island Nightsnake in a paper he published 10 years later: ... And these are not isolated incidents; this happens, all the time. Although none have been as pursued as Bigfoot, obviously.
There's a number of huge differences between the ability of a 12 ounce loris, a 60 pound thylacine, or an 18 inch snake to avoid detection and find resources to exist, and the ability of a eight- or nine-foot-tall omnivorous or carnivorous primate of unclear provenance to do so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
