Belief in Bigfoot

[Insaeldor]

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?

Theoretical bases?

Judging from the terrain as someone who used to live around in that area and has been in the area several times it's not wholly impossible for a large creature to hid in the area unditect for large periods of time. Given that animals like the the Gorilla which remained nothing more then folk stories until credible scientific evidence was found and the creatures studied afterwards. If the biology is correct as to have large bodies and thick hair it could potentially live within the forest of British Columbia fairly easily and if they do some sort of winter hibernation it make it all the more easier for them.

Again this isn't me say this is how it would survive this is me saying I could potentially see this happening. It's all theoretical and is made up of knowledge of the area and of biology which grated I've only got a semester of college biology under my belt.

[Securitan]

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?

Theoretical bases?

Judging from the terrain as someone who used to live around in that area and has been in the area several times it's not wholly impossible for a large creature to hid in the area unditect for large periods of time. Given that animals like the the Gorilla which remained nothing more then folk stories until credible scientific evidence was found and the creatures studied afterwards. If the biology is correct as to have large bodies and thick hair it could potentially live within the forest of British Columbia fairly easily and if they do some sort of winter hibernation it make it all the more easier for them.

Again this isn't me say this is how it would survive this is me saying I could potentially see this happening. It's all theoretical and is made up of knowledge of the area and of biology which grated I've only got a semester of college biology under my belt.

What area, there are many areas that people have reported Bigfoot in. It is possible for a creature to remain undetected, but to leave absolutely no trace that it was ever there? Wow. How about some sources for gorillas being myths?

[Farnhamia]

Theoretical bases?

Judging from the terrain as someone who used to live around in that area and has been in the area several times it's not wholly impossible for a large creature to hid in the area unditect for large periods of time. Given that animals like the the Gorilla which remained nothing more then folk stories until credible scientific evidence was found and the creatures studied afterwards. If the biology is correct as to have large bodies and thick hair it could potentially live within the forest of British Columbia fairly easily and if they do some sort of winter hibernation it make it all the more easier for them.

Again this isn't me say this is how it would survive this is me saying I could potentially see this happening. It's all theoretical and is made up of knowledge of the area and of biology which grated I've only got a semester of college biology under my belt.

What area, there are many areas that people have reported Bigfoot in. It is possible for a creature to remain undetected, but to leave absolutely no trace that it was ever there? Wow. How about some sources for gorillas being myths?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla

The people living within the gorillas' original range certainly knew about them. Westerners didn't "discover" them until the mid 19th century, though they were reported by Hanno the Carthaginian around 500 BCE.

[Insaeldor]

What area, there are many areas that people have reported Bigfoot in. It is possible for a creature to remain undetected, but to leave absolutely no trace that it was ever there? Wow. How about some sources for gorillas being myths?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla

The people living within the gorillas' original range certainly knew about them. Westerners didn't "discover" them until the mid 19th century, though they were reported by Hanno the Carthaginian around 500 BCE.

Ahhhh beat me to it

[Jetan]

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 the light of the facts, no it's not. And that seeing things thing Scomagia mentioned? It happens even if you know about it before hand and are aware there really isn't anything there. Now imagine a situation where the person is not aware of it, is actively looking for the bigfoot and thus more suspectible to interpreting the things they "see" as said bigfoot, and is most likely running pretty high adrenalin levels at the same time, and, let's face it, is atleast a bit on the gullible side of things. The chances of that person "seeing" bigfoot? Pretty good.

[Securitan]

What area, there are many areas that people have reported Bigfoot in. It is possible for a creature to remain undetected, but to leave absolutely no trace that it was ever there? Wow. How about some sources for gorillas being myths?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla

The people living within the gorillas' original range certainly knew about them. Westerners didn't "discover" them until the mid 19th century, though they were reported by Hanno the Carthaginian around 500 BCE.

Very good. However, if I were a westerner in 1840, it would be irrational for me to believe in something with absolutely no evidence. More people exist today than they did then, so obviously the chances of someone running across and killing a Bigfoot would've taken less time than it took 150 years ago. Also, people back then were not actively searching for gorillas like people are searching for Bigfeet today.

[Laerod]

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.

Coelocanths, man. They live in an environment humans do not venture to very often, and even then it's really, really dark. Their remains tend to not fare well at the surface (on account of differences in pressure often turning them into shredded meat), if they make it there at all. All this makes them a lot harder to prove as existing than bigfoot, and yet fishermen were still managing to haul out evidence for quite some time before scientists managed to identify them as real. All those things counting against coelocanths ever being found and there was still a bounty of evidence.

[Stormaen]

What area, there are many areas that people have reported Bigfoot in. It is possible for a creature to remain undetected, but to leave absolutely no trace that it was ever there? Wow. How about some sources for gorillas being myths?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla

The people living within the gorillas' original range certainly knew about them. Westerners didn't "discover" them until the mid 19th century, though they were reported by Hanno the Carthaginian around 500 BCE.

I literally just read that by complete coincidence the other day and here it is being used as a course and all. What a coinky-dink!

[Farnhamia]

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.

Coelocanths, man. They live in an environment humans do not venture to very often, and even then it's really, really dark. Their remains tend to not fare well at the surface (on account of differences in pressure often turning them into shredded meat), if they make it there at all. All this makes them a lot harder to prove as existing than bigfoot, and yet fishermen were still managing to haul out evidence for quite some time before scientists managed to identify them as real. All those things counting against coelocanths ever being found and there was still a bounty of evidence.

Well, but Coelocanths were never really cryptids. They were thought to be extinct, is all, until those South African naturalists got a hold of one and managed not to lose their lunches long enough to figure out what it was. The specimen was in pretty bad shape.

[Insaeldor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla

The people living within the gorillas' original range certainly knew about them. Westerners didn't "discover" them until the mid 19th century, though they were reported by Hanno the Carthaginian around 500 BCE.

Very good. However, if I were a westerner in 1840, it would be irrational for me to believe in something with absolutely no evidence. More people exist today than they did then, so obviously the chances of someone running across and killing a Bigfoot would've taken less time than it took 150 years ago. Also, people back then were not actively searching for gorillas like people are searching for Bigfeet today.

Given the remoteness of these locations it completly plausibly to not run across these animals. I mean we discover new species all the time so it's not impossible for an animal to live secluded from scientific discovery within the remote woodland of British Columbia.

[Ifreann]

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...

And people are never wrong, or lying, or crazy, and if it ever looks like they are then it's just the paranormal.

---

I don't think so. The paranormal interacts with this plane on its own terms, so you can't say that any of those people were wrong or lying.

I can't say with any degree of absolute certainty.

In fact you can't say anything with any degree of certainty ever. Because the paranormal can do anything, and does it on its own terms.

[Securitan]

Very good. However, if I were a westerner in 1840, it would be irrational for me to believe in something with absolutely no evidence. More people exist today than they did then, so obviously the chances of someone running across and killing a Bigfoot would've taken less time than it took 150 years ago. Also, people back then were not actively searching for gorillas like people are searching for Bigfeet today.

Given the remoteness of these locations it completly plausibly to not run across these animals. I mean we discover new species all the time so it's not impossible for an animal to live secluded from scientific discovery within the remote woodland of British Columbia.

No, but sightings have not only been reported there.

[Farnhamia]

Given the remoteness of these locations it completly plausibly to not run across these animals. I mean we discover new species all the time so it's not impossible for an animal to live secluded from scientific discovery within the remote woodland of British Columbia.

No, but sightings have not only been reported there.

Show me the body, then I'll be happy to say, "Bigfoot is real." Heck, let's have some hair, even.

[Insaeldor]

Given the remoteness of these locations it completly plausibly to not run across these animals. I mean we discover new species all the time so it's not impossible for an animal to live secluded from scientific discovery within the remote woodland of British Columbia.

No, but sightings have not only been reported there.

Yes, I'm simply using British Columbia as an example.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

No, but sightings have not only been reported there.

Show me the body, then I'll be happy to say, "Bigfoot is real." Heck, let's have some hair, even.

That's my whole point. If someone shows me the body of a Bigfoot specimen, I'll believe in it. Since that hasn't happened and all I have to go by are eye witness accounts that aren't always reliable, then Bigfoot remains nothing but a legend to me.

[Laerod]

Coelocanths, man. They live in an environment humans do not venture to very often, and even then it's really, really dark. Their remains tend to not fare well at the surface (on account of differences in pressure often turning them into shredded meat), if they make it there at all. All this makes them a lot harder to prove as existing than bigfoot, and yet fishermen were still managing to haul out evidence for quite some time before scientists managed to identify them as real. All those things counting against coelocanths ever being found and there was still a bounty of evidence.

Well, but Coelocanths were never really cryptids. They were thought to be extinct, is all, until those South African naturalists got a hold of one and managed not to lose their lunches long enough to figure out what it was. The specimen was in pretty bad shape.

Depends on how the interpretation of Eberhardt's exclusion criteria goes. Otherwise they qualify (or qualified, rather) as cryptids as per category 3.

[Securitan]

No, but sightings have not only been reported there.

Yes, I'm simply using British Columbia as an example.

And I am using the other locations, where people have actively searched and found no evidence, as proof supporting that there is no Bigfoot, at least there. And if all the evidence we have is eyewitness testimonies, how much can we trust them if there is no evidence in the places we have searched?

[Laerod]

Very good. However, if I were a westerner in 1840, it would be irrational for me to believe in something with absolutely no evidence. More people exist today than they did then, so obviously the chances of someone running across and killing a Bigfoot would've taken less time than it took 150 years ago. Also, people back then were not actively searching for gorillas like people are searching for Bigfeet today.

Given the remoteness of these locations it completly plausibly to not run across these animals. I mean we discover new species all the time so it's not impossible for an animal to live secluded from scientific discovery within the remote woodland of British Columbia.

We discover new species primarily in the deep ocean or that resemble organisms already known to exist in that environment. Finding a large hominid in an environment without anything comparable is not the same as finding a new species of river dolphin.

[Americanada]

Believe in bigfoot? He is the smartest and most charismatic employee/cleaner/flower arranger/gardener/cosmetologist/mechanic/handyman/fisherman/toy-maker/singer/author/painter/musician/stand-up comedian/athlete/roboticist that I've ever seen.

Okay, that was Bigfoot in The Sims 2 (or "Hairy Sue" since he is fantastic at everything), but that is harder evidence than everything "Finding" Bigfoot has presented.

[Benuty]

Personally the rumors of cannibalistic humans becoming feral monsters known as Wendigo are more believable.

[Ifreann]

Given the remoteness of these locations it completly plausibly to not run across these animals. I mean we discover new species all the time so it's not impossible for an animal to live secluded from scientific discovery within the remote woodland of British Columbia.

We discover new species primarily in the deep ocean or that resemble organisms already known to exist in that environment. Finding a large hominid in an environment without anything comparable is not the same as finding a new species of river dolphin.

Unless we found a new species of river dolphin chilling in the woodlands.

[Hurdegaryp]

We discover new species primarily in the deep ocean or that resemble organisms already known to exist in that environment. Finding a large hominid in an environment without anything comparable is not the same as finding a new species of river dolphin.

Unless we found a new species of river dolphin chilling in the woodlands.

Or unicorns deftly jumping from rock to rock in the mountains.

[Jetan]

Unless we found a new species of river dolphin chilling in the woodlands.

Or unicorns deftly jumping from rock to rock in the mountains.

Unicorns have already been found in North Korea.

[Hurdegaryp]

Or unicorns deftly jumping from rock to rock in the mountains.

Unicorns have already been found in North Korea.

Truly a land of mirth and miracles.

[Ifreann]

Or unicorns deftly jumping from rock to rock in the mountains.

Unicorns have already been found in North Korea.

Ah, but not the American Bald Unicorn.