Post by Red Impact on Jan 9, 2014 13:32:27 GMT -5
Several of those books, videos, or interviews haven't debunked it. You can debunk anything if you are skeptic. However, the same can be said with scientists who are believers and have studied it, perhaps they're seeing what they want to see as well. But from what I've read, studied, and seen via documentaries and lectures is that the lengths of the arms, the gait of the walk, and the muscle movement are wrong for a human in a suit. Also why go through the trouble in adding breasts to the suit? If Patterson/Gimlin really wanted to create a hoax, a simple male Bigfoot monkey suit would've sufficed, so why add breasts to the suit is my question?
As for the rest of your posts? Granted it would be ideal to see that in order for a species to sustain its existence, there would have to be breeding obviously. But I refuse to believe that EVERYONE is making it up.
Look how rare it is to find bear remains. We know bears exist and yet we never find any of their remains, as when they die, they go to very remote area and pass away and that's when nature takes its course. With that said, I don't believe it's a hoax, there is something out there and while it's easy for skeptics to sit back and say its a hoax, they will never find themselves out there in the element/woods looking for it.
None of them has satisfactorily debunked it because when you truly believe in something, you tend not to take easier explanations into account and ignore evidence that would point to it not being true when you can't explain it. Yes, both sides very much see what you want to see, and if you're presenting a lecture as to why it's real, you're not likely to include people who explain that it's false unless you have a neat and tidy explanation. That's why so many people deny that evolution has proof, it does have proof, they just don't want to take it into account. In science, you can't get away with ignoring alternate explanations, for your evidence to meet muster, you have to address the real critiques, and I've not seen that done.
Why would he add breasts if he were making a hoax? If you're smart enough (and he probably was) and want to create a hoax, you're not going to use an off-the-shelf suit, you're going to modify it. And if you believe the people who said they were involved in the hoax (by either selling him the suit or the guy who said he was the one wearing it, which was corroborated by a friend), it was modified. The real question should be why is those breasts are hairy when Bigfoot is supposed to be a creature that either is or evolved from a link between humans and primates, neither of whom have hairy breasts (and female non-human primates only develop breasts at all when they're in the act of suckling). Hair on the breasts would be a harmful mutation, because it'd make feeding the young more difficult, since thick hair would get in the way of the milk and make it harder for a newborn to latch onto the teat. To me, that'd point to either a rare bigfoot suffering from hirsuitism, or a suit modified by someone who knows the mythos but isn't biologically minded. I'm not an ape biologist, so I can't talk about normal behavior, but I'd also wonder if it'd be common for a mother primate to leave her young, since primates in general have a lower birth rate and take closer care of their species than other classes of animals.
Do I think everyone went out there, hatched a plan to say they saw bigfoot, then come back and enact it? No. Do I think everyone is a reliable witness? Not at all. But if everyone really saw what they said they saw, we'd have mermaids in the Mediterranean trying to lure tourists to their deaths and the stage production of Peter Pan wouldn't have to have the audience clap if they believed in fairies, because Tinkerbell would be played by a fairy actress. What happens a lot is that people might see something move, might see something dark, and then their mind jumps to something else. One poster here talked about a camping trip that went normally, but his friends insisted later that they saw the Jersey Devil. We have studies that show human memory is really faulty and can be easily influenced after the fact. So do I think everyone is making up every story? No, but I also don't think people saying they saw it can be taken as surefire proof of anything. The bigfoot legend is so pervasive now that people who see something vaguely human shaped in the woods that they can't explain are going to at least think about it.
I don't really get the point of the bear argument, because I don't think people are going out there hunting for bear corpses on a regular basis, primarily because we don't need to. We see evidence of bears in the wild, we have identifiable footprints, droppings, photos and videos. We're not looking for proof of their existence while trying to wade through all the hoaxes, so it's not really a similar argument to me. Humans have encroached more and more into the wild that these creatures supposedly live in, and they'd have to have a population to sustain themselves for several centuries in that time, so the lack of physical evidence is a big blow to the idea that this is a living species.