Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 9:12:00 GMT -5
This isn't as far fetched as you think. The Minnesota Iceman was an alleged rotting carcass that was displayed in a trailer and subsequently replaced with a much faker-looking replacement. Recently someone came along and said "We got these photos that show it was a suit!" but people saw two completely different specimens, which complicates matters. Even more peculiar is that one of the corpses apparently stunk to high heaven, and the other one (i.e. the confirmed suit version) didn't. I don't know, that just says to me that people were eager not to see it as a hoax. People have been really good at creating these types of thing for a long time, and maybe it was a suit and, over time, people's memories of it faded and they thought it was more real (and exhibitors were more into making people think it was a rotting corpse). I know it can be hard to find some creatures in nature, but we've still seen them at some point. Finding a bear corpse is difficult in the wild, but we have seen, studied, and photographed bears. This is a species that people have been looking for over a century now, in one of the most populated countries in the world, and there hasn't been a single good piece of evidence that hasn't turned out to be faked. That would seem to be evidence that it's not a real species, or at least not an extant one, it's certainly reasonable that one like it existed at some point but didn't die in a situation that it left fossils we can find. It's much simpler than that. Both specimens had been documented. There were a lot of differences, like the decay of the eyes, the shape of the mouth, the detail of the hair, etc. There were definitely two different "copies" and the one that got lost is a lot more "real" than the other. How many people actually go out and look for these, and how often do they do it? These are, by all accounts, not very social creatures that live in what is a naturally remote habitat and are seen in very small numbers. If they're real, their population is not very large. They're smarter than other wild animals, and they're nocturnal.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 7, 2014 9:35:33 GMT -5
How many people actually go out and look for these, and how often do they do it? These are, by all accounts, not very social creatures that live in what is a naturally remote habitat and are seen in very small numbers. If they're real, their population is not very large. They're smarter than other wild animals, and they're nocturnal. Considering that there've been about a dozen or so shows, and a bunch more amateurs, and at least one research society? Quite a few. It's not Charles Muntz looking for his dodo, it's thousands of people over the years who have been canvassing woods at every reported sighting in one of the most heavily explored and photographed countries in the world for almost a century, you'd think they'd be able to come up with some sort of credible evidence at the existence of a 9-foot-tall wild animal that isn't revealed to be a fake after all this time and hunting. We have evidence of sneaky nocturnal animals that'd be much harder to spot and leave much less evidence than a proverbial bigfoot would. At some point, the lack of evidence, and the plethora of fake evidence that these people put out there, should seem indicative that there might just be nothing there and people are playing off legends for attention and money, just like the sideshow attractions before them. If there were an extant species and even a quarter of the sightings were credible, we'd probably be looking at numbers high thousands or higher, we have evidence of creatures with smaller populations with far, far less of a distribution. If there was a separate species and it wasn't just a mountain man that some city folk mistook for bigfoot, we'd likely have something from it. And as far as sightings go, memory is a funny thing, research shows that it's horribly unreliable. You can make yourself believe something and come out far more convinced than you were at the time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 9:50:49 GMT -5
How many people actually go out and look for these, and how often do they do it? These are, by all accounts, not very social creatures that live in what is a naturally remote habitat and are seen in very small numbers. If they're real, their population is not very large. They're smarter than other wild animals, and they're nocturnal. Considering that there've been about a dozen or so shows, and a bunch more amateurs, and at least one research society? Quite a few. It's not Charles Muntz looking for his dodo, it's thousands of people over the years who have been canvassing woods at every reported sighting in one of the most heavily explored and photographed countries in the world for almost a century, you'd think they'd be able to come up with some sort of credible evidence at the existence of a 9-foot-tall wild animal that isn't revealed to be a fake after all this time and hunting. We have evidence of sneaky nocturnal animals that'd be much harder to spot and leave much less evidence than a proverbial bigfoot would. At some point, the lack of evidence, and the plethora of fake evidence that these people put out there, should seem indicative that there might just be nothing there and people are playing off legends for attention and money, just like the sideshow attractions before them. As far as sightings, memory is a funny thing, research shows that it's horribly unreliable. You can make yourself believe something and come out far more convinced than you were at the time. A lot of people do look for them, correct. And a lot of people have seen them, too. Hunters, campers and outdoorsmen are among the most frequent reporters of sightings these days. Native Americans and settlers in the 19th and early 20th century reported seeing these creatures in the wilderness relatively often, and this was long before there was any kind of Bigfoot mythos or hype going on. Whenever there is some compelling evidence (The Skookum cast, the Patterson footage) skeptics write it off as a hoax without really looking into it, and most skeptics will immediately embrace any kind of attempted debunking as gospel ("I was the guy in the suit!", the "bell-shaped" object which was a split-second camera artifact). Or alternately, don't ask why certain things exist (nests in the forest, tree branches snapped like twigs--pretty common ape behavior). Not that there haven't been hoaxes and people BSing it, but not everything should be so readily dismissed without reason. But people don't canvas the woods as much as you'd think. These expeditions are highly prepared and take months to organize. What kind of animal is dumb enough to get caught by a huge wall of noisy, smelly people whooping at it and crunching through the underbrush? It's going to get out of there.
|
|
|
Post by EvenBaldobombHasAJob on Jan 7, 2014 10:09:30 GMT -5
that wasn't Big Foot, it was Zach Galifianakis.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 7, 2014 10:17:40 GMT -5
But again, there's been no piece of physical, testable, falsifiable, evidence in hundreds of years. Zero, nada, none.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 7, 2014 10:23:50 GMT -5
Also, one can't ascribe traits like "nocturnal, smarter" etc to a creature that hasn't been shown to exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 10:28:08 GMT -5
But again, there's been no piece of physical, testable, falsifiable, evidence in hundreds of years. Zero, nada, none. Ontario blood samples? Various hair samples? The Ontario blood samples are especially interesting because...there's pretty much nothing that matches them. www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/bigfoot-dna-proves-creature-exists-genetic_n_2199984.html#slide=297140The difficulty in testing these, of course, is that since nobody has collected the samples from a captive specimen, and therefore don't have a genetic basis. People can't just take samples out in the middle of the woods and say "BEHOLD! BIGFOOT!" because we don't actually know what the DNA of an actual, verifiable Bigfoot is. And how can we at the moment? Very few people would dare trying to shoot and kill one of these things because (A) The law's against it, (B) It's allegedly a big, strong predatory animal and (C) Most people are apparently scared shitless when they see these things. There's less people who'd be able to even attempt capturing one alive.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 7, 2014 10:47:46 GMT -5
A lot of people do look for them, correct. And a lot of people have seen them, too. Hunters, campers and outdoorsmen are among the most frequent reporters of sightings these days. Native Americans and settlers in the 19th and early 20th century reported seeing these creatures in the wilderness relatively often, and this was long before there was any kind of Bigfoot mythos or hype going on. People think they see things and attribute it to things they believe in or have heard of all the time, even when there's nothing there. Eyewitness evidence is extremely unreliable, we have studies to prove it. Native American religion included many mythical creatures, and it's not unreasonable that they would see them. When they interacted with settlers, they would have certainly spread these legends. People see the Virgin Mary in paint splotches and toast, it doesn't really mean that she's really there. Not to mention that there's always the possibility that people lie to get more attention, an action which began shortly after the invention of language. Whenever there is some compelling evidence (The Skookum cast, the Patterson footage) skeptics write it off as a hoax without really looking into it, and most skeptics will immediately embrace any kind of attempted debunking as gospel ("I was the guy in the suit!", the "bell-shaped" object which was a split-second camera artifact). Or alternately, don't ask why certain things exist (nests in the forest, tree branches snapped like twigs--pretty common ape behavior). Not that there haven't been hoaxes and people BSing it, but not everything should be so readily dismissed without reason. Probably because that evidence isn't that compelling in the first place, and scientists who do examine this cryptid evidence always show that it's not proof of something else (which is promptly ignored by people who believe it). It really goes both ways, people who want to believe want to look at things presented as gospel and shy away from fairly simple explanations that say otherwise. Maybe people with a vested financial interest in the bigfoot mythos are the types of people who would fake evidence to improve their clout and/or profit margins within that community, just like this guy who tried to pass off a rubber suit as a bigfoot corpse. Maybe the known conman who self-published a bigfoot book a year earlier is the type of person who would rent a suit from someone who admits renting him that suit and film a fake video to drum up interest in himself. It's not that everything is dismissed without reason, it's that there has been so much hoax and bullshittery that the impetus on providing evidence that it is real comes down to the people making the claims, not on everyone else to give them the benefit of the doubt. You picked two examples and presented them as compelling, when they're not really compelling pieces of evidence. If the cryptid community wants people to take their word that they didn't fake something, then they need to overcome the reputation for being evidence fabricators and actually have a scientific mindset. There are species out there that we haven't seen, there are extinct species that we'll never know existed, and, at some point, one of them most certainly was a bipedal ape man (although the hair chest isn't terribly likely considering what we know about evolutionary history). But there's really not any compelling evidence that these creatures still exist and are roaming the country, and a lot of that has to do with the bigfoot hunter community itself. Now, the ontario blood samples are interesting, and if that stands up to independent research then maybe I will change my tune. But right now it's still one person's word in the midst of dozens of hoaxes. But people don't canvas the woods as much as you'd think. These expeditions are highly prepared and take months to organize. What kind of animal is dumb enough to get caught by a huge wall of noisy, smelly people whooping at it and crunching through the underbrush? It's going to get out of there. It doesn't have to be a big expedition. These supposed things are wild animals, they get caught every day by humans in the wilderness. At some point, you're not acting like it's a wild animal, you're acting like it's got superhuman intelligence.
|
|
Gus Richlen Was Wrong
Patti Mayonnaise
Metal Maestro: Co-winner of the FAN Idol Throwdown!
Fun while it lasted
Posts: 38,465
|
Post by Gus Richlen Was Wrong on Jan 7, 2014 10:57:18 GMT -5
R.I.P. BIGFOOT The very first thing I thought of.... Now we'll never get Bigfoot vs. Hunt II!
|
|
|
Post by Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill on Jan 7, 2014 11:59:46 GMT -5
They did it. They found Manbearpig.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 7, 2014 12:09:40 GMT -5
I love the idea of Bigfoot and think it's absolutely plausible that a creature is out there that we've never seen before (it happens every day, after all), but when these turn out to be hoaxes it really sucks because it makes the whole thing a joke. I get that it's been a joke for pretty much forever, but as Art Ruth posted there have been DNA samples done that don't match anything out there which shows that it is possible.
If nothing else, it's good fun.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 7, 2014 12:41:25 GMT -5
I love the idea of Bigfoot and think it's absolutely plausible that a creature is out there that we've never seen before (it happens every day, after all), but when these turn out to be hoaxes it really sucks because it makes the whole thing a joke. I get that it's been a joke for pretty much forever, but as Art Ruth posted there have been DNA samples done that don't match anything out there which shows that it is possible. If nothing else, it's good fun. But you have to admit that there is a little bit of a difference in finding a new species of tiny frog or insect in a place rarely touched by scientists, and finding a giant ape man in forests frequently visited by humans, including scientists. We have some people saying there are DNA samples, but something becomes credible after independent review and extensive research, not just because a veterinarian says they don't know what something is. It's not causing harm, I'd agree, but I don't think you can make it out like there's this wealth of research that mainstream science just refuses to accept. Afterall, I could make a plaster cast of a footprint (and have) or gussy up a costume and get filmed.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 7, 2014 12:45:04 GMT -5
But again, there's been no piece of physical, testable, falsifiable, evidence in hundreds of years. Zero, nada, none. Ontario blood samples? Various hair samples? The Ontario blood samples are especially interesting because...there's pretty much nothing that matches them. www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/bigfoot-dna-proves-creature-exists-genetic_n_2199984.html#slide=297140The difficulty in testing these, of course, is that since nobody has collected the samples from a captive specimen, and therefore don't have a genetic basis. People can't just take samples out in the middle of the woods and say "BEHOLD! BIGFOOT!" because we don't actually know what the DNA of an actual, verifiable Bigfoot is. And how can we at the moment? Very few people would dare trying to shoot and kill one of these things because (A) The law's against it, (B) It's allegedly a big, strong predatory animal and (C) Most people are apparently scared shitless when they see these things. There's less people who'd be able to even attempt capturing one alive. Pretty circumstantial. I shoulda been more specific--evidence that can in no way be shown to have a simpler explanation. As you say, you can't take any random blood or hair and go "yup, here it is", cuz hell I could say it's werewolf or unicorn blood and hair samples, and it be just as plausible.
|
|
|
Post by Raskovnik on Jan 7, 2014 13:26:32 GMT -5
I think it would be awesome if Bigfoot is real. I want to believe.
|
|
Magnus the Magnificent
King Koopa
didn't want one.
I could write a book about what you don't know!
Posts: 12,451
|
Post by Magnus the Magnificent on Jan 7, 2014 13:43:02 GMT -5
It wasn't Bigfoot. It was his Himalayan cousin The Yeti who was in town for a vacation. And The YE-TAY!
|
|
Toxik916
Hank Scorpio
Sacramento Proud
Posts: 6,207
|
Post by Toxik916 on Jan 7, 2014 13:52:45 GMT -5
It wasn't Bigfoot. It was his Himalayan cousin The Yeti who was in town for a vacation. And The YE-TAY!This will never not be funny. Every single time I watch that clip I laugh my ass off. Tony's commentary is hilarious. Look at the size of the Ye-Tay!
|
|
Chip
Hank Scorpio
Slam Jam Death.
Posts: 5,185
|
Post by Chip on Jan 7, 2014 14:07:27 GMT -5
I initially read the thread title as San Andreas which probably says a lot about me.
|
|
|
Post by Threadkiller [Classic] on Jan 7, 2014 14:17:46 GMT -5
"I then thanked Bret Hart for giving me the greatest match of my career, and for being the true hero of this business."
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Jan 7, 2014 14:40:56 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 18:31:54 GMT -5
A lot of people do look for them, correct. And a lot of people have seen them, too. Hunters, campers and outdoorsmen are among the most frequent reporters of sightings these days. Native Americans and settlers in the 19th and early 20th century reported seeing these creatures in the wilderness relatively often, and this was long before there was any kind of Bigfoot mythos or hype going on. People think they see things and attribute it to things they believe in or have heard of all the time, even when there's nothing there. Eyewitness evidence is extremely unreliable, we have studies to prove it. Native American religion included many mythical creatures, and it's not unreasonable that they would see them. When they interacted with settlers, they would have certainly spread these legends. People see the Virgin Mary in paint splotches and toast, it doesn't really mean that she's really there. Not to mention that there's always the possibility that people lie to get more attention, an action which began shortly after the invention of language. Whenever there is some compelling evidence (The Skookum cast, the Patterson footage) skeptics write it off as a hoax without really looking into it, and most skeptics will immediately embrace any kind of attempted debunking as gospel ("I was the guy in the suit!", the "bell-shaped" object which was a split-second camera artifact). Or alternately, don't ask why certain things exist (nests in the forest, tree branches snapped like twigs--pretty common ape behavior). Not that there haven't been hoaxes and people BSing it, but not everything should be so readily dismissed without reason. Probably because that evidence isn't that compelling in the first place, and scientists who do examine this cryptid evidence always show that it's not proof of something else (which is promptly ignored by people who believe it). It really goes both ways, people who want to believe want to look at things presented as gospel and shy away from fairly simple explanations that say otherwise. Maybe people with a vested financial interest in the bigfoot mythos are the types of people who would fake evidence to improve their clout and/or profit margins within that community, just like this guy who tried to pass off a rubber suit as a bigfoot corpse. Maybe the known conman who self-published a bigfoot book a year earlier is the type of person who would rent a suit from someone who admits renting him that suit and film a fake video to drum up interest in himself. It's not that everything is dismissed without reason, it's that there has been so much hoax and bullshittery that the impetus on providing evidence that it is real comes down to the people making the claims, not on everyone else to give them the benefit of the doubt. You picked two examples and presented them as compelling, when they're not really compelling pieces of evidence. If the cryptid community wants people to take their word that they didn't fake something, then they need to overcome the reputation for being evidence fabricators and actually have a scientific mindset. There are species out there that we haven't seen, there are extinct species that we'll never know existed, and, at some point, one of them most certainly was a bipedal ape man (although the hair chest isn't terribly likely considering what we know about evolutionary history). But there's really not any compelling evidence that these creatures still exist and are roaming the country, and a lot of that has to do with the bigfoot hunter community itself. Now, the ontario blood samples are interesting, and if that stands up to independent research then maybe I will change my tune. But right now it's still one person's word in the midst of dozens of hoaxes. But people don't canvas the woods as much as you'd think. These expeditions are highly prepared and take months to organize. What kind of animal is dumb enough to get caught by a huge wall of noisy, smelly people whooping at it and crunching through the underbrush? It's going to get out of there. It doesn't have to be a big expedition. These supposed things are wild animals, they get caught every day by humans in the wilderness. At some point, you're not acting like it's a wild animal, you're acting like it's got superhuman intelligence. I'd have a lot more to say but when quotes get broken up it gives me a headache so I'll keep it short here. It goes past there being an impetus to proving things. There's so much that just gets readily dismissed by scientists as BS without them even giving it empirical examination. Like, that's their job and a lot of them don't even do it. The Ontario samples are probably the best example of this. They've been scientifically examined, it was determined that there's absolutely nothing alive that it matches, but it's also a living creature. But nobody ever talks about it.
|
|