Belief in Bigfoot

[Infected Mushroom]

you do realise how incredibly offensive these views are to the people who were responsible enough to report what they saw?

you're basically calling a lot of people unstable here. I find this position a bit offensive (not saying I'm a reporting eyewitness but I'm just surprised at how firm you are on this).

It's not instability. It's a very basic flaw (or perhaps an evolutionary benefit, since it's better to see a lion in the grass when there actually isn't one, rather than not seeing one that's actually there) in the human brain. It effects everyone from every culture equally. There's nothing offensive about it.

the probability that every single person (and there have been at least hundreds of sightings) was malfunctioning to that degree (where they are convinced they saw Big Foot) is basically non-existent.

Its much more plausible that at least at one point in history, at least one of those people saw the real deal.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

And the most reasonable one of them all is he doesn't exist.

but that would involve calling way too many people (way too many people) liars/crazy...

You underestimate the number of people who love to fabricate stories, and the number of people who are medically insane.

[Securitan]

And the most reasonable one of them all is he doesn't exist.

but that would involve calling way too many people (way too many people) liars/crazy...

People see patterns, people see faces when they are not there, people have imaginations, people are crazy, and people are liars. That more than makes up for the stories and no evidence.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

but that would involve calling way too many people (way too many people) liars/crazy...

People see patterns, people see faces when they are not there, people have imaginations, people are crazy, and people are liars. That more than makes up for the stories and no evidence.

That's why Dan Brown got rich from writing The DaVinci Code. Or why conspiracy theories abound, annoyingly so.

[Securitan]

It's not instability. It's a very basic flaw (or perhaps an evolutionary benefit, since it's better to see a lion in the grass when there actually isn't one, rather than not seeing one that's actually there) in the human brain. It effects everyone from every culture equally. There's nothing offensive about it.

the probability that every single person (and there have been at least hundreds of sightings) was malfunctioning to that degree (where they are convinced they saw Big Foot) is basically non-existent.

Its much more plausible that at least at one point in history, at least one of those people saw the real deal.

It is not a malfunction, it is a basic instinctual function.

[Hurdegaryp]

Yes there would be. Here's a little fact about the human brain: it often sees patterns and objects where they don't actually exist, especially in the absence of stimulus. Now, in the dark of the woods, which is a threatening and frightening place for most city dwellers, their minds are going to see things that aren't there or misinterpret things that are. Sometimes, since they've grown up hearing about Bigfoot and it hasn't been as thoroughly dismissed from their minds as The Boogeyman or Santa, they're going to see Bigfoot.

you do realise how incredibly offensive these views are to the people who were responsible enough to report what they saw?

you're basically calling a lot of people unstable here. I find this position a bit offensive (not saying I'm a reporting eyewitness but I'm just surprised at how firm you are on this).

If you find it so offensive, why do you not report it in Moderation? Also it is a common fact that many people tend to be less than trustworthy witnesses, as any police detective can tell you.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Here's one possibility, some of them saw Big Foot (not all of them, but more than one). Big Foot is not an interdimensional wizard, he's an interdimensional creature.

There are plenty of other possibilities and combinations.

I have to ask, do you believe in Santa?

Well so many people say he exists! I mean, by that token I guess Indians are just barbaric savages. I mean the alternative is saying millions of people were wrong! That just can't be the case.

[Laerod]

It's not instability. It's a very basic flaw (or perhaps an evolutionary benefit, since it's better to see a lion in the grass when there actually isn't one, rather than not seeing one that's actually there) in the human brain. It effects everyone from every culture equally. There's nothing offensive about it.

the probability that every single person (and there have been at least hundreds of sightings) was malfunctioning to that degree (where they are convinced they saw Big Foot) is basically non-existent.

Its much more plausible that at least at one point in history, at least one of those people saw the real deal.

There are, however, none-dreds of signs that it actually exists. No bodies of dead bigfeet, no droppings, no reliable tracks, no videos that haven't turned out to be frauds, no evidence of animals or fruits eaten by the bigfeet... Given the absence of ALL of that, it's very likely that people "sighting" bigfoot were A) mentally ill, B) misled by their imaginations, or C) lying.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I have to ask, do you believe in Santa?

Well so many people say he exists! I mean, by that token I guess Indians are just barbaric savages. I mean the alternative is saying millions of people were wrong! That just can't be the case.

So, if I say the Tooth Fairy exists long and hard enough, she does? I'll get to work!!

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Well so many people say he exists! I mean, by that token I guess Indians are just barbaric savages. I mean the alternative is saying millions of people were wrong! That just can't be the case.

So, if I say the Tooth Fairy exists long and hard enough, she does? I'll get to work!!

Well millions of children already think she does, so yeah she does. Obviously. Unless you're saying they're all wrong and that's just offensive somehow.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

So, if I say the Tooth Fairy exists long and hard enough, she does? I'll get to work!!

Well millions of children already think she does, so yeah she does. Obviously. Unless you're saying they're all wrong and that's just offensive somehow.

Je suis Bigfoot. Nous sommes, tous, Bigfoot.

[Scomagia]

It's not instability. It's a very basic flaw (or perhaps an evolutionary benefit, since it's better to see a lion in the grass when there actually isn't one, rather than not seeing one that's actually there) in the human brain. It effects everyone from every culture equally. There's nothing offensive about it.

the probability that every single person (and there have been at least hundreds of sightings) was malfunctioning to that degree (where they are convinced they saw Big Foot) is basically non-existent.

Its much more plausible that at least at one point in history, at least one of those people saw the real deal.

In what sense is it more plausible? There's documented evidence that the human mind regularly misinterprets or straight up imagines things. There's no documented physical evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.

Also, I'd like to point out that there is no way that Bigfoot can actually be a living creature. A non-human ape could not survive in what is traditionally believed to be "Bigfoot habitat", specifically The Pacific Northwest.

[Imperial New Vegas]

No.

[Jetan]

The whole myth is stupid. If it existed, it'd have been found by now.


No, it's not.

you're calling a LOT of eyewitnesses liars...

The probability of a Big Foot existing is higher.

Some are mistaken, some are lying. There is no proof of the existence of bigfoot, and the facts are against such an existence.

[Hurdegaryp]

the probability that every single person (and there have been at least hundreds of sightings) was malfunctioning to that degree (where they are convinced they saw Big Foot) is basically non-existent.

Its much more plausible that at least at one point in history, at least one of those people saw the real deal.

There are, however, none-dreds of signs that it actually exists. No bodies of dead bigfeet, no droppings, no reliable tracks, no videos that haven't turned out to be frauds, no evidence of animals or fruits eaten by the bigfeet... Given the absence of ALL of that, it's very likely that people "sighting" bigfoot were A) mentally ill, B) misled by their imaginations, or C) lying.

Dear Providence, that is just horrible! Are you saying that some observers of the paranormal might be common & vulgar liars? Surely the once noble art of studying the supernatural has been damaged beyond repair!

So, if I say the Tooth Fairy exists long and hard enough, she does? I'll get to work!!

Well millions of children already think she does, so yeah she does. Obviously. Unless you're saying they're all wrong and that's just offensive somehow.

And you do not want to offend the faithful, for they are going to go berserk.

[Insaeldor]

Biologically speak it wouldn't be impossible for a great ape to life in areas like the Pacific North West and Beitish Columbia but I've seen little hard evidence that would be enough to prove its existence to me.

So I'd say open but skeptical.

[Securitan]

Biologically speak it wouldn't be impossible for a great ape to life in areas like the Pacific North West and Beitish Columbia but I've seen little hard evidence that would be enough to prove its existence to me.

So I'd say open but skeptical.

Not little evidence - no evidence.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

you're calling a LOT of eyewitnesses liars...

The probability of a Big Foot existing is higher.

Some are mistaken, so are lying. There is no proof of the existence of bigfoot, and the facts are against such an existence.

Indeed. No skeletal remains, for example.

[Scomagia]

Some are mistaken, so are lying. There is no proof of the existence of bigfoot, and the facts are against such an existence.

Indeed. No skeletal remains, for example.

Then there's the issue of hunters and campers in "Bigfoot habitat". If Bigfoot existed in any significant numbers, which they would have to for all of these "sightings" to be true, someone would have bagged one by now.

[Insaeldor]

Biologically speak it wouldn't be impossible for a great ape to life in areas like the Pacific North West and Beitish Columbia but I've seen little hard evidence that would be enough to prove its existence to me.

So I'd say open but skeptical.

Not little evidence - no evidence.

Again why I'm skeptical, on a theoretical bases given basic biology and examples of other northern primates it's still not something we can totally rule out. Although yes I find it very hard to come over any credible evidence that would prove Big Foot is a physical entity.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Indeed. No skeletal remains, for example.

Then there's the issue of hunters and campers in "Bigfoot habitat". If Bigfoot existed in any significant numbers, which they would have to for all of these "sightings" to be true, someone would have bagged one by now.

And with the advent of cellphone cams, one would've snapped a photo of it already. No such thing has happened.

[Securitan]

Not little evidence - no evidence.

Again why I'm skeptical, on a theoretical bases given basic biology and examples of other northern primates it's still not something we can totally rule out. Although yes I find it very hard to come over any credible evidence that would prove Big Foot is a physical entity.

It isn't very hard to come over credible evidence. It's impossible right now. There is none. Also, how did you come across your theoretical basis?

[Stormaen]

Nope. There's no solid evidence. To date, all we have is hearsay evidence.

Many animals make surprising sounds. Some owls, for instance, can bark and growl; so I think these 'unexplainable' sounds often associated with 'Bigfoot' are actually more cases of mistaken identity or unfamiliarity.

The two most famous cases of 'evidence' for a 'Bigfoot' have both been alleged as fraudulent by those close to the original 'witnesses': the 'big foot' prints (which gave the alleged creature its English language name) in Del Norte County, California were alleged to have been made by a logger working on the site they were found; and Gimlin – one of the two present at the Patterson-Gimlin event – went on record saying that Pattersonnp could well have duped him into a grand hoax. Indeed, Patterson was obsessed with the cryptid long before he actually witnessed one (which I would conclude was rather... 'convenient').

The Indiginous Poeples of North America have had a long history of 'wild men' or 'humanoid' myths but so have nearly all folklores from around the world. Even then, their mythology had these as spiritual rather than physical beings.

We're all humans and part of our psyche is projecting, or humanising, inanimate objects or personifying non-objects: the sun is a god, the world is our mother, the mysterious howl in the dead of night was a manlike creature who will eat you if you wander away from the safety of the camp, etc.

Whilst I'm open-minded to the possibility of some cryptids being out there, until they're proven beyond reasonable doubt with indisputable evidence – which, in our modern age shouldn't be too hard – I'll remain the sceptic.

[Securitan]

This is a clear case of

/thread

[Hurdegaryp]

Indeed. No skeletal remains, for example.

Then there's the issue of hunters and campers in "Bigfoot habitat". If Bigfoot existed in any significant numbers, which they would have to for all of these "sightings" to be true, someone would have bagged one by now.

The species, if it existed, would probably have been brought to the brink of extinction by now, courtesy of all those pesky humans and their ballistic weaponry.