Most of us have seen the video of the Sasquatch, or Bigfoot creature (can be seen on youtube: link Do you believe it to be true or some kind of hoax?
Many have claimed that the "creature" is a man in a suit, this would be a good argument if it wasn't for a couple things:
1. That video was shot in 1967, costume technology of that time would've shown compression of the fabric (move your arm and watch your shirt fold up to see what I mean) technology to prevent this visual effect from being obvious was not invented until the 1980's. In an episode of the History Channel's "Monsterquest" This video was enhanced and it was observed that the creature opened and closed its mouth, it was also observed that the mouth was too low on the face to be human, challenging the thought that it was a mask.
2. In the same episode of Monsterquest it was observed that there was some kind of abnormality in the stride of the creature, specifically in the knees. While I am no expert on the subject, an athele was chosen to try and get into poses this creature displayed as it walked and was not able to reproduce the stance/stride of the beast.
Both of these things are inconclusive, but add ammo to the argument that Bigfoot is real. Though it is still not proven one way or the other.
In another episode of Monsterquest the mystery of why a body has not been found was explored. An Elk corpse was placed in the woods with a camera to watch it, within 7 days the body was completely devoured and the bones either covered up or taken by animals. This creature tends to be spotted in very remote places, mostly the woods of the northwestern United States, so it goes to show how it could avoid discovery for so long.
So which side of the argument do you find yourself on and why?
A person's gait (i.e. his/her pattern of movement, the way he/she walks) is unique to the individual. Not being able to mimic someone else's gait really doesn't say much; I don't think an athlete is more qualified than anyone else to make such an attempt.
That aside, it doesn't matter how much evidence you have, people will believe what they want. I hate that I keep throwing out psychology theories, but what the hell--confirmation bias. People seek information that will prove them right more often than they look for examples that would prove them wrong, and they give more weight to the information that confirms their belief. That means that a person needs less confirming evidence to accept a belief than disconfirming evidence to reject that same belief. So someone who believes Bigfoot exists can watch the videos, hear the info you've presented here, and take it as confirmation while someone who doesn't believe it won't be swayed. I honestly think a lot of people still wouldn't believe it even if scientists said they captured one and put it on display for the world to see.
You're probably right about catching one and showing, there will still be skeptics no matter what.
Though like I said to Soxfan94, if Bigfoot does exist one day it will be proven. - 22 days ago
Answerer
If that's true, why hasn't it been proven yet? Bigfoot would have to have been around for a long time, and technology has only improved, not to mention that society has grown and would most likely be taking over its habitat, yet it still hasn't been proven. I don't see how more time could make a difference. - 22 days ago
Question Asker
If it exists, it must be in very limited numbers. It tends to be sighted in the woods of Washington state, northern California and the entirety of Oregon, a place of very remote forests. Exbiditions to find proof of its existance are often very small and concentrate in a very small area.
New species of animal are found quite often, only a couple years ago two new creatures were discovered in the South American Jungle, so it's definitly possible. - 22 days ago
Answerer
Well, I'm a skeptical person. Until there's solid evidence, I don't believe it. - 21 days ago
Question Asker
I don't believe anything until I see solid evidence either, but I have to say I'm thinking this one is real. - 21 days ago
Answerer
I'm more likely to believe in extraterrestrial life. Earth is just one planet in one solar system in one galaxy, so I find it hard to believe that there's no life anywhere else. The idea of Bigfoot seems less logical to me. No offense. - 21 days ago
Question Asker
None taken, and I agree that aliens probably exist since the universe is has so much in it that we know nothing about.
But hey, we're both young so if it gets proven, we;ll most likely see it. - 21 days ago
I so believe in bigfoot mainly because of this video and the fact they can't copy this in a costume and the closest one they made dosen't look like it.
B) I refuse to have the burden of proof when it comes to mythical creatures like bigfoot, the chupacabra, leprechauns, etc. It's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist; proving a negative is futile. Instead, I would suggest that the onus is on the "believers" to offer conclusive prove that bigfoot does exist. As yet, there have been many fanatical followers and yet still not definitive proof. I regard that as failure on behalf of the believers and refuse to cater to their arguments of "but you didn't prove me 100% wrong." I say, prove yourself right.
But lots of reputable scientists have made very detailed _positive_ claims about empirical evidence associated with Bigfoot sightings. Qualified critics have largely failed to rebut this evidence on its own merits. In a case like this, the critics lose credibility IMO, just as a defense attorney loses credibility for failing to rebut the prosecution. - 23 days ago
Answerer
Gotc147 - Without trying to be indignant, I doubt that the video would have changed my answer, so it's mostly moot.
Atomizer - Be clear that I don't criticize your viewpoint, but I very strongly disagree with it. The legal analogy is apt, although it must be noted that a defense attorney no case will still prevail when the prosecution fails to present a case which carries their burden of proof. Based on my personal perception of the matter (evidence, anecdotes, etc), I don't think they carry it - 23 days ago
Soxfan: I figured you'd correct me if the legal analogy was flawed (I was scrambling for a comparison).
The burden for any claim does and should rest with the claimant. The evidence is *far* from conclusive. But when critics say, "where's the evidence?" and qualified scientists say "here's the evidence!" and the qualified critics respond with silence or demands for more definitive evidence, I lose some respect for the critics for using the "moving the goalposts" fallacy. - 23 days ago
Answerer
Apologies for the utter lack of grammar in my comment. Either the site deleted an entire phrase of my answer, or my brain stopped working for 4 seconds without me noticing. Both are plausible. I agree that summarily dismissing the notion of bigfoot due to a lack of proof, and then refusing to confront proof which is offered, is disingenuous. I don't sympathize for those arguers. A more appropriate discussion may be concerning the level of proof needed for credibility. That's subjective I guess. - 23 days ago
And FWIW, when I was a kid I was obsessed with bizarre paranormal stuff. But shortly after high school I read Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and became quite interested in how the "proper" fields of scientific study mutate over the decades. Now, I'm probably more interested in the debates and interplay between "believers" and "debunkers" as I am in the merits of a particular claim. - 23 days ago
Answerer
Funny that we simultaneously posted comments which conceded that the most important part of the debate involved the proper level and technique accepted for "proving" a claim. Yours, of course, included proper academic background and citation whereas mine, as usual, was just pulled out of you-know-where. Whoops. Haha. - 23 days ago
Answerer
Funny that we simultaneously posted comments which conceded that the most important part of the debate involved the proper level and technique accepted for "proving" a claim. Yours, of course, included proper academic background and citation whereas mine, as usual, was just pulled out of you-know-where. - 23 days ago
Answerer
^This site drives me crazy sometimes. Sorry. - 23 days ago
Question Asker
Soxfan: While your legal comparison is quite valid, respectivly, I must say it does not fit with this situation because it is not a legal issue.
The idea of Bigfoot has it's two side like anything, but it wouldn't exist at all if something didn't come along to start it in the first place. In the case of the Patterson video, it was not the first item brought to the table in the Bigfoot phenomon, it was simply the most controversial. It cannot be dismissed until the proof is found one way or - 23 days ago
Gotc147 - The legal analogy was offered by Atomizer, and I was simply referring to it so as to correct the analogy. We both agreed that its relevance may not be superb, but it is a compelling principle nonetheless.
As for the argument that the existence of the controversy proves a meaningful argument, I think this is incorrect. Santa Claus was made up at some point, but no one seriously argues that his existence is real because someone had the motivation to invent him. I respect your opinion on - 23 days ago
By
Answerer
The matter, but I don't think that you can rely on the existence of a controversy to prove that there is a rational reason for that controversy. - 23 days ago
By
Question Asker
The idea of Santa Clause was started up as a religious ideal, or so I hear, I may be wrong. But either way like anything in religon it is all faith and no fact.
The idea of Bigfoot has a handful of what I guess could be dubbed "soft facts," such as the Patterson video above. Facts that are possible truths, but have yet to be proven as such.
I do not claim Bigfoot does exist because there is no definit proof, but I do believe that if it does, someday it will be proven. - 23 days ago
By
Answerer
I believe there are MANY religious believers who would take very strong opposition to your distinction between bigfoot and religion. In fact, both have their fair share of "soft facts" intertwined with a generalized "belief." I don't think that there is a distinctive difference between believing in big foot and believing in religion, personally. But the overall point is that there is a subjective level of "fact" that a person will require before believing. - 23 days ago
I wouldn't say I *believe* in Bigfoot. There are a lot of amateurs and cranks involved, but I'll say that many reputable scientists have noted *a lot* of curious evidence that hasn't been effectively explained. It's funny to me when people who don't know the basic evidence think their opinions are valid...
The Patterson-Gimlin film you mentioned has never been conclusively debunked. Many esteemed anthropologists have offered detailed explanations for why that figure in the film can't be a human in a suit. You mentioned some of those reasons, and there are many others. Jeff Meldrum determined that the proportions of the creature's joints are impossible for a human to duplicate. Most of the counter-arguments against the film are *extremely* weak: they fail to rebut the pro-Bigfoot claimspoint-by-point, and basically say "It just can't be." Additionally, a lot of photographic and costume experts have argued the film was not hoaxed. For more, read "Big Footprints" by Grover Krantz, Ph.D, and "Bigfoot: The Legend Meets Science" by Meldrum.
Krantz also established that Bigfoot sightings are consistent with a creature occupying a specific ecological niche. Same as how you tend to see deer in one place and mountain goats in another -- but you rarely see 'em together, because they've specialized in different foods and habitat.
Meldrum discovered one of the most impressive bits of evidence, IMO. Supposed Bigfoot tracks show evidence consistent with a "midtarsal break" -- this is a basically a joint in the tarsus, or the cluster of bones in the arch of a human foot. Only a few primates have this tarsal break in their feet, and most of 'em are extinct. These footprints leave a characteristic little mound of dirt in with each step. Humans _can not_ duplicate this kind of footprint with their own feet, and it's even less likely to expect that a hoaxer could duplicate this obscure little mound of dirt with wooden feet carved in their garage. Yet this mid-tarsal break has been discovered in many Bigfoot prints in North America. www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_18_1_meldrum.pdf
Additionally, there's a lot of interesting historical evidence. Such as the "monkey masks" and stone relics of pre-modern NW pacific native tribes -- they use ceremonial animal objects, most of which match with known animals from the region (otters, birds, etc). But a few of these objects show ape-like faces. Natives in 1000 A.D. obviously saw Ravens and Whales ... but did they also see apes? www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_18_1_bindernagel.pdf
Debunkers sometimes say that Bigfoot was "invented" in the 1950s, but there's reports of sightings by reputable people from earlier years. www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_18_1_green.pdf
Bigfoot was in my gym the other day. I got out of the shower and walked to my locker to get dressed and there he was. All huge and hairy drying off from a strenuous workout I am assuming. Had a wedding ring on. I feel bad for Mrs. Bigfoot, where ever she is.
Thanksgiving is right around the corner and just like the last year and the year before, you will most likely spend it with your family. And just like everyone else, you have a crazy uncle or an...
$20 Amazon Gift Card
Check out the winner of the last contest! Worst Pick Up Lines
Winner received $20 Amazon Gift Card
My ex and I were fooling around (I know, I shouldn't be messing around with him but he knows what I like). Anyway, I don't want to sleep with him but...
I don't know if it's possible to use the phrase circle of life without instantly projecting the image of Elton John into everyone's head. Musical talents notwithstanding, I certainly don't want to do...
Dawn has come early today rousing me out of a restless slumber. Beads of sweat making their way down my temples. Crumpled sheets beneath me reveal another night of troubled sleep. My body still...
Disclaimer: GirlsAskGuys cannot guarantee the accuracy of answers, opinions and advice submitted by members. Please use common sense when following or omitting any content on GirlsAskGuys.com
When: 23 days ago
$20 Amazon Gift Card
Site Links
About GirlsAskGuys
GirlsAskGuys Widgets
Help Us Improve!
