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.
Wow our pendulums are swinging opposite of each other but who knows if they will land in the same place.
I was raised Roman Catholic because my Greek Orthodox mom had been disowned by her family for disobeying arranged marriage & marrying my Catholic dad. Then we transitioned to Orthodox/Catholic when I was 10, after she was "re-owned" (lol).
I never quite bought into the God thing & after studying medical science I was pretty much atheist. Then my faith in science was rocked hard core 15 years ago and forced me to go deeper. I started noticing that science was not actually contradicting religious doctrine. It was supporting it. God was in bed with Darwin ...
I think science supports God. We have pretty much been promised that you will not see scientific evidence of God, that, you will have to discover on your own. Bigfoot ... Science & History supports the existence of Bigfoot. You may one day see scientific proof of Bigfoot because they live on (in) this earth, science just hasn't caught up to them yet.
Science is just the study of something no mortal man will ever be able to create.
Absolutely. I'm with you on that. God & Science go together. God orchestrates everything, especially the science.
Humans just have this innate desire to understand things in a certain way...Our way. So we think we created one; we didn't. It was just revealed to us by the ultimate scientist Himself: God, the Creator. We just re-created what was already there.
Like religion was created to understand God, but God is a truly personal experience, we don't have to go through middle-men to get there. Nobody can prove God exists to you but God Himself.
~
Anyway - with that being said, there leaves so much room for wonder and miracles on Earth. "Bigfoot" certainly could exist, to some extent. Alot of these 'unknown' things could, and probably some do. Some of them I'd rather didn't exist, because that's a scary thought there are perhaps predators to man out there lurking in the darkness. . . . waiting/watching.
(I won't lie, that kinda freaks me out, hahahhaha. )
But as it would turn out, most predators to man (human) are other men. Either in words, or actions. So it isn't so much about discerning whether a person is credible or not, but is what they are presenting the Truth?
People who post on here can take offence or not as they wish. I do think though that anyone coming here needs to understand they will get into some differing viewpoints.
And thats what I was referring to also - the apparent continuing to discredit and deny which is a pointless exercise. A few times is fine, but a continuing series of posts makes no sense unless there is some reason to keep doing it. So, I wonder what are the reasons for the continued posts. I dont mind a well thought out discussion, but most of it is not that.
Science-types are ALSO believers and many do not want to REALLY change their viewpoints, in spite of what they claim.
So, rather than just keep saying "all there is is blurry photographs", as a scientist, you should be saying "I want to find out why all there is is blurry photographs". Rather than keep telling us who believe there is a Bigfoot out there, you should be doing what science does best - investigate and document. THAT is why I think you and others like you have other agendas.
Science starts with verbal reports of events by witnesses. Science should not close down the discussion before it has investigated and reported and even then should be open to more evidence to be investigated. So, are you a scientist or not? (actually, I know you are since you said you went to Antarctica a couple of times)
Anyone who reads my posts regularly will know I am not religious at all.
I already mentioned further up the thread, I am open to the possibility that Big Foot might exist, but so far the evidence I have seen has not made me a believer like you and rstevens62, but that can change one day!
I don't speak for all of the Big Foot non-believers on this message board, but feel many are in the same boat as me.
Maybe a possible solution to all of this, is to have the moderators create a sticky thread where only you and rstevens62 can post in and you guys can have your own echo chamber with regards to Big Foot!
I used to work with a guy that was very hairy, he came to work cleanly shaved, by the end of the day, growth was easy to see on his face, his arms were very hairy as well, and Im assuming he has alot of hair everywhere else, (strangely he was balding on top though...go figure!)...
But he wasnt anything close to being as hairy as people say Sasquatch are, his arm hair was no more than an inch long...thats very different than Sasquatch, plus, while his facial hair was thick,(if he let it grow), its not like his whole face was covered in hair, do you get what Im saying?
There are some people that do resemble a sasquatch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrichosis, especially if they are large. Of course it is not their fault but it could explain some sightings.
What...like the mountain gorilla which was only discovered in the 1990's and now is a valid type of gorilla known to science?
Dianne Fossey began her 18 year study of mountain gorillas in 1967.
Mountain gorillas have been isolated from eastern lowland gorillas for about 400,000 years and these two taxa separated from their western counterparts approximately 2 million years ago.[7] There has been considerable and as yet unresolved debate over the classification of mountain gorillas. The genus was first referenced as Troglodytes in 1847, but renamed to Gorilla in 1852. It was not until 1967 that the taxonomist Colin Groves proposed that all gorillas be regarded as one species (Gorilla gorilla) with three subspecies Gorilla gorilla gorilla (western lowland gorilla), Gorilla gorilla graueri (lowland gorillas found west of the Virungas) and Gorilla gorilla beringei (mountain gorillas, including Gorilla beringei, found in the Virungas and Bwindi). In 2003, after a review, they were divided into two species (Gorilla gorilla and Gorilla beringei) by The World Conservation Union (IUCN).
Maybe they were photographing a person in a costume, either someone playing a "trick" on them or they, themselves were in on it?
There was a story several years ago about a video that was commissioned by Penn and Teller depicting a "bigfoot". The video, known as the Sonoma Footage, was produced to expose the farce that is cryptozoology. Matt Moneymaker of the BFRO certified the video as authentic, and he accused Penn and Teller of lying when they told him that they had paid to have it made. The video was posted on the BFRO website as an authentic bigfoot sighting. Once P&T produced proof, the video and all references to it were quietly removed.
There are some people that do resemble a sasquatch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrichosis, especially if they are large. Of course it is not their fault but it could explain some sightings.
I disagree for two reasons...while people with that medical condition are very hairy, that is the only similarity to Sasquatch, their bodies are not shaped different, they do not have longer arms, etc...
And second, what are the chances a person with Hypertrichosis, is going to go stand in some rural forested area, or along a desolate stretch of highway late at night?
I disagree for two reasons...while people with that medical condition are very hairy, that is the only similarity to Sasquatch, their bodies are not shaped different, they do not have longer arms, etc...
And second, what are the chances a person with Hypertrichosis, is going to go stand in some rural forested area, or along a desolate stretch of highway late at night?
You agreed that about half the sightings are close to roads or cavillation, they don't have to stand in the woods.
As far as long arms we don't know. First we have no clear pictures. Secondly we have no real BF to study and find out if they have long arms. Keep in mind when you posted about what the ancient American Indian tribes said about BF, that many of their stories described it as normal size.
Jim served as a Marine Corps helicopter engine mechanic / air crewman for 24 years. He recently retired as a County Veterans Service Officer. He is a lifetime hunter and outdoorsman. Jim will be attending the upcoming Ohio BFRO Expedition on May 20 - 23, 2021
*Also notice that Mr. Thompson is not writing or selling any books, DVDs, coffee mugs, tshirts, etc. LOL
Seems like a person I would trust and is likely to be very credible.
They don't have to lie.
If you look at the BFRO incident reports, many of them are decades old.
That greatly reduces the credibility of the sightings, especially when the narratives goes into a lot of detail about the circumstances of the incident, but provides little information that would make it easy for a sketch artist to render a drawing of the animal.
There was a story several years ago about a video that was commissioned by Penn and Teller depicting a "bigfoot". The video, known as the Sonoma Footage, was produced to expose the farce that is cryptozoology. Matt Moneymaker of the BFRO certified the video as authentic, and he accused Penn and Teller of lying when they told him that they had paid to have it made. The video was posted on the BFRO website as an authentic bigfoot sighting. Once P&T produced proof, the video and all references to it were quietly removed.
That is not the first time that has happened to Penn and Teller. I believe while they were doing their Vegas shows, Penn would do an amazing job with cold reading the audience. And then he would tell them exactly how he did it, and invariably somebody would walk up to them after the show and say “yeah I know you have to do this for your schtick, but come on you’re really psychic right?”.
If you look at the BFRO incident reports, many of them are decades old.
That greatly reduces the credibility of the sightings, especially when the narratives goes into a lot of detail about the circumstances of the incident, but provides little information that would make it easy for a sketch artist to render a drawing of the animal.
It takes some people a long time to reach the point where they are ready to make a report, nothing wrong with that imo, and I dont think it decreases their credibility at all, plus the BFRO is only one group that accepts sighting reports.
I personally think the BFRO does a good job with reports, they make sure to get very detailed information, like exact time and place, weather at the time, etc
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.
)
Solly says — Be nice!
