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.
Well, but there are other studies done, like the one on the Patterson footage, that proved NO HUMAN BEING could possibly walk with that same gait. It was physically impossible.
I am sorry; but every claim about the holly grail of BF pictures is debatable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film. It is not conclusive evidence and many claim it is simply another hoax. Even your claim about walking speed of the supposed creature; is debatable because of the shutter speed of the camera used.
We need good pictures and we need a body or body part to give this myth credibility. It is only a few more days until the CA trial/hearing; lets see how that plays out for you. I have a feeling that they will not even consider the Patterson film as any evidence.
There are many people who are susceptible to wishful thinking regarding Bigfoot. I won't be one of them.
Potential evidence is information that has not yet been researched or explained.
The bulk of what I refer to as "potential evidence" is compiled from about 189 years (1771-1960) of archived newspapers.
The name "Bigfoot" describes: A large, hairy, bipedal, human-like animal with a conical-shaped skull & round, black eyes who vocalized using shrieks & howls, who was at times seen grasping implements (clubs/branches) in a clawed "hand" & who's stride was described as wide, fast & agile.
But by the time that name was coined, (the 1960's) "Bigfoot" had attained celebrity status easily spawned by mass media & the inevitable hoaxes had ensued. The name "Sasquatch" appeared quite a bit earlier (1890's-1900's) but was not linked to Bigfoot in the mainstream until also in the 1960's.
Using an archived government report from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (the 1930's); I noticed the phrase "wild men" used as synonymous with "Sasquatch".
After narrowing parameters to the United States & Canada; keyword(s) of "Wild Man" or "Wild Men" were utilized, then decades of 1960 to present were excluded. Many results were eliminated for:
1. Articles & advertisements regarding traveling circus acts & "freak shows".
2. Articles of interviews of various members of academia & science who had traveled to Africa, India, etc
3. Articles describing a phenomenon that resulted from military defectors & fugitives from the law who escaped into the wilderness with literally nothing but the shirts on their backs & managed to turn somewhat feral in behaviors & appearance.
Examples of articles cross-referenced for consistency:
Probably the two most frequent consistencies were: 1. Men who lifted their gun to their shoulders & suddenly declined to shoot the BF. Their reason was always the same "It resembled man too much". 2. Caves.
Is any of this "hard evidence"? Obviously not.
But it is information that has not yet been researched. It is information that mentions entire communities being aware of "what would later become known as BF". It has not been processed nor filtered. Anderson Cooper did not report that NPR stated that CNN also mentioned that ... etc ... Heck; the CDC hasn't even had a chance to lie about it yet.
It's got potential.
And no; I never cared about BF one way or the other. I found the information just since this thread was started. What I do care about is the integrity of science being compromised to fit a narrative. Can't challenge Darwin in the least, you know (except that it doesn't)?
What I do care about is the integrity of science being compromised to fit a narrative. Can't challenge Darwin in the least, you know (except that it doesn't)?
This has nothing to do with Darwin or challenging anything. People would not be shocked or amazed if Big Foot was found. They would be curious and interested. There have been legitimate scientists looking but that does not fit your narrative so you dismiss it. Where are the pictures?
Remember, you dont accept pictures as evidence for anything except nice to hang on your wall.
Why do you lie ocpaul20? I will accept pictures as evidence, it is just amazing that there are no good pictures. Starting with good pictures and then continuing to field study would be great. Amazingly there are no good pictures, cameras seem to be worse than in the 60's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
I seem to remember dawin suggests that all dogs are descended from the wolf, so where are the in-betweens from a wolf to a peekanese?
This may be of help to you but I have a feeling the truth will not set you free:
I don't accept just pictures of anything as evidence, either. Now, dead bodies, dissected and learned about? Live versions being raised and fed in zoos? Claws, fur left behind? Carcasses, bones found lying around? Those I believe. And we have all of those for most of the "but X was discovered in Y location where it couldn't have been" real, classified animals. By the millions, literally.
We have not one single Bigfoot skeleton, full stop. The "government" doesn't post special Bigfoot Ops every 36 yards to quickly gather and spirit away dead Bigfoot the moment they drop to make sure skeletons are never discovered by the millions upon millions of forest explorers per year all over the world, so...we can effectively say, in a very practical way, that there ARE no dead Bigfoot, and are no Bigfoot, period.
Lacking real, physical evidence and relying only on stories plus blurry pictures, there is literally as much evidence for fairies as there is for Bigfoot. If the idea is "we have some pictures that may not actually be real, plus decades of stories, therefore we HAVE to accept that Bigfoot may exist," then we also must be comfortable with saying "we have some pictures that may not actually be real, plus centuries of stories, therefore we HAVE to accept that four-inch-tall fairies, Santa Claus, leprechauns and werewolves exist." Literally you are saying any unlikely story anyone can possibly make up could "possibly exist."
Okay, but then taking it as "...but then the government is covering it up" gets a little ridiculous...and prohibitive. The "government" can't possibly cover up every single supernatural entity that leaves no trace when it dies and doesn't ever poop. I think instead...they kinda just roll their eyes.
I don't accept just pictures of anything as evidence, either. Now, dead bodies, dissected and learned about? Live versions being raised and fed in zoos? Claws, fur left behind? Carcasses, bones found lying around? Those I believe. And we have all of those for most of the "but X was discovered in Y location where it couldn't have been" real, classified animals. By the millions, literally.
We have not one single Bigfoot skeleton, full stop. The "government" doesn't post special Bigfoot Ops every 36 yards to quickly gather and spirit away dead Bigfoot the moment they drop to make sure skeletons are never discovered by the millions upon millions of forest explorers per year all over the world, so...we can effectively say, in a very practical way, that there ARE no dead Bigfoot, and are no Bigfoot, period.
Lacking real, physical evidence and relying only on stories plus blurry pictures, there is literally as much evidence for fairies as there is for Bigfoot. If the idea is "we have some pictures that may not actually be real, plus decades of stories, therefore we HAVE to accept that Bigfoot may exist," then we also must be comfortable with saying "we have some pictures that may not actually be real, plus centuries of stories, therefore we HAVE to accept that four-inch-tall fairies, Santa Claus, leprechauns and werewolves exist." Literally you are saying any unlikely story anyone can possibly make up could "possibly exist."
Okay, but then taking it as "...but then the government is covering it up" gets a little ridiculous...and prohibitive. The "government" can't possibly cover up every single supernatural entity that leaves no trace when it dies and doesn't ever poop. I think instead...they kinda just roll their eyes.
This whole BF argument is like the Russell's teapot argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot. Of course the original argument was invoked in the discussions about the existence of God. But in that link under 'Similar Analogies' is this little gem:
"Other thinkers have posited non-disprovable analogies, such as J. B. Bury in his 1913 book, History of Freedom of Thought:
Some people speak as if we were not justified in rejecting a theological doctrine unless we can prove it false. But the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter.... If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed? Some minds would be prepared to accept it, if it were reiterated often enough, through the potent force of suggestion."
This has nothing to do with Darwin or challenging anything. People would not be shocked or amazed if Big Foot was found. They would be curious and interested. There have been legitimate scientists looking but that does not fit your narrative so you dismiss it. Where are the pictures?
They would be if grey aliens were proven to exist, people would loose it.
They would be if grey aliens were proven to exist, people would loose it.
Why?
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.
