View topic - Who else has seen Bigfoot?

It is currently September 30th, 2020, 11:40 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 214 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 22nd, 2005, 11:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 15th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 1399
Location: Big Flats, New York USA
Watersong wrote:
Then the world is, indeed, a sadder place .............

Huh? I find the world an amazingly wondrous place. Lots of strange life in fantastic places still yet to be discovered. The living geology makes this planet we live on much more than just a chunk of rock.
Quote:
Why did they make the Bigfoot a female?

Maybe because they couldn't fake a full size Bigfoot, and used the female guise to cover?

Seriously Dave, aren't you a science teacher? The scientific method is the most wonderous discovery Science has ever made .It is what keeps us from fooling ourselves. As Richard Feynman put it: "Science is a long history of learning how not to fool ourselves."

Without this, how do you decide what is science and what is psuedoscience? More importantly, how do you teach the kids to be able to tell the difference?

Tony


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 22nd, 2005, 11:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 30th, 2003, 11:36 pm
Posts: 1807
Location: Kitchener Ontario
Quote:
Watersong wrote:
Then the world is, indeed, a sadder place .............

Huh? I find the world an amazingly wondrous place. Lots of strange life in fantastic places still yet to be discovered


I think that was my point........

Quote:
Seriously Dave, aren't you a science teacher? The scientific method is the most wonderous discovery Science has ever made .It is what keeps us from fooling ourselves. As Richard Feynman put it: "Science is a long history of learning how not to fool ourselves
."

Actually, I teach History..... And I'm not a big fan of the scientific method. Try reading" Voltare's Bastards" on that one.........

_________________
Dave

"The way of a canoe is the way of the wilderness, and of a freedom almost forgotten." Sigurd Olson, 1956


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 22nd, 2005, 11:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 15th, 2001, 7:00 pm
Posts: 2586
Location: Shelburne, Ontario Canada
To me, being a skeptic is just as bad as being a wide eyed believer, AN open mind is a wonderful thing. I have my own eccentricites of experience , and I have people from the US military contacting me on a regular basis looking for technical information with regards to that exerience,. SO you can be as sceptical as you want. It just doesn't mean you know anything, And as a person who has had "unusual " expereinces, all your scepticsm does is make you look foolish, and it also ensures you will never know what I've experienced. Skepticism is just another form of abuse. Why do skeptics think they are so important that I would waste my time trying to prove anything to them?

In any case, I have heard very credible people discus both bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster, one who has been diving with Nessy a number of times. I've talked to lots of people who have seen UFO's and been involved in remote viewing and quite a number of other phenomenon. Having an open mind and being able to listen without judging has gotten me into some very interesting conversations.

_________________
I wouldn't join any club that would have someone like me as a member.
Save the Caribooskis. Reintroduce them to Temagami.
http://web.mac.com/normhead/iWeb/Energy ... /Blog.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 23rd, 2005, 1:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 16th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 1488
Location: Ontario, Canada
flyrod wrote:
Still, I rest easy in the knowledge that we are aware of every land mammal in existance that is at least 6 feet tall.

There are many species of animals that mankind has no knowledge of. That includes land and sea creatures. Any animal I know of that's 6 feet tall walks on four legs, not two as reported by the bigfoot sighting. And not with the walking gait that was claimed.

I'm not sure whether the Bigfoot, Yeti or Abdominal Snowman is fact or fiction. But to have so many different cultures make reference to it over the course of history has to make one wonder. Considering the land distance between the Bigfoot sightings in North America and the Yeti sightings in Europe, can both cultures be wrong?

The African Gorrilla was a myth for many years and the flat earth idea was considered a fact for many more. All beliefs depend on the knowledge available at the time which is not always complete.

I'll wait for the proof either for or against before I make a judgement.

Dave

_________________
The Wilderness needs strong voices to protect it. And yours can be one of them.
Visit the Friends of Temagami website to learn more.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 23rd, 2005, 5:33 am 
Offline

Joined: May 11th, 2004, 9:29 am
Posts: 166
Location: Woodstock, NB
.
[quote]Quote:
people believe in bigger things with less or even no "evidence".......

I trust you're referring to religion and faith. Not quite the same caliber as The Loch Ness Monster. If not, I'm not sure what your personal hierarchy is for this sort of thing, but for me we're talking about: sasquach, ogopogo, nessie, UFOs, ghosts, mermaids, el chupacabra and my personal favorite The Lafontaine Werewolves[/quote]

HOW DOES THIS QUOTE THING WORK ANYWAY?

yes i am refering to religion and faith. depends on how you wouldd look at it but i, being one who lost faith a few years back, see no difference in believing in a higher power just because and believing in a big foot, or nessie or even UFO's. anything is possible.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 23rd, 2005, 8:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 16th, 2004, 10:44 am
Posts: 573
Location: Toronto, On
Being a skeptic doesn’t mean that you don’t believe in things until a controlled double blind study has been made, it means understanding that even if you “see” something you need more evidence than just that to change the paradigm.

Science is not the only way to explore the universe, it is nearly useless in the realms of philosophy and religion for example. But what we are discussing here is zoology, and that is a field that science has done wonders for. Part of understanding science is knowing when it pertains and when it does not, if you are dealing with physical occurrences science has a definite role in understanding.

There has been evidence brought forth to support the existence of a Bigfoot, but never any that had stood up under any real scrutiny and it’s usually provided by people with a personal interest in perpetuating the theory.

_________________
When life throws pies at you, make piemonade


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 23rd, 2005, 9:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 15th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 1399
Location: Big Flats, New York USA
normhead wrote:
To me, being a skeptic is just as bad as being a wide eyed believer, AN open mind is a wonderful thing.

Being a skeptic means means I am willing to admit I don't know, and I am open to proof which allows we to know with greater confidence. In matters of science and fact, not beliefs and philosophy, we are limited to rarely knowing something for certain and having to deal with probabilities. It means scientists are always willing to change what they know if compelling evidence comes along. Having an open mind is a wonderful, as long as it is not so open your brains fall out.

Quote:
And as a person who has had "unusual " expereinces, all your scepticsm does is make you look foolish, and it also ensures you will never know what I've experienced.

As foolish as the people who have been duped by things like the Patterson film? Or Miss Cleo? I remember the joy as a child with seeing a magician, believing that magic really is possible. As I learned how the tricks were accomplished, I'll admit some sadness at losing this belief. However, I enjoy a magic show more than ever now by trying figure out how a trick is done.

As an active astronomer who volunteers at the local observatory, I've had many discussions with people who have seen UFO's. Many times, given they have enough details, I have been able come up with reasonable explanations for their sightings. Much to their disappointment. Also note, of all the astronomers I know worldwide, who look at the sky constantly, none of these experienced sky watchers have ever seen a UFO.

People want to believe in magic. One of the greatest abilities of humankind is imagination and creative thought. It is also one of our greatest weaknesses. That is why, without a scientific method we would have floundered with advances in our knowledge.

So, back to Bigfoot. This is totally different than the stories of ape men from the 19th century. It didn't take long for explorers to find gorillas once they started looking, and this was in an undeveloped countinent. How long must we look in a land which you can never get more than 50 miles from a road without ever seeing something before you have proof it doesn't exist? I suggest never will you be able to prove this, however each passing day with any credible evidence being turned up decreases the probability.

As far as bigfoot/yeti myths being worldwide this can be explained in numerous ways without there being an actual creature. Maybe it is the way we are hardwired, every culture I have studied has their bogeyman, and the equivalent of a child's monster under the bed. It also must be remembered that we are all most likely descended from a single tribe. It was just a blink of geologic time ago that Asians came to North America, and verbal histories go back a long time.

As an example, cultures from Europe, to native americans to Asia all have stories about a great bear when looking at the area of the big dipper. Is this evidence that those stars came from a Big Bear that somehow got into the sky?

Tony

PS. As far as the flat Earth myth, I have a few questions for you:
- When was a spherical Earth first proposed?
- When was a spherical Earth first accepted as "fact" by knowledgable people?
(as a side question, did Columbus have a hard time finding sponsors because they thought he would fall off the end of the Earth?)
- How long ago did people quit believing in a flat Earth?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 23rd, 2005, 12:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 3rd, 2004, 10:51 am
Posts: 281
Location: Aurora (Borealis)
Tony,

I think by Columbus' time it was generally accepted by scholars that the Earth was round. The question wasn't so much whether it was possible to get to Asia by sailing west from Europe but whether it was easier than sailing east. (It wasn't)..

The question isn't so much whether it's possible that there's an undiscovered species of ape lurkng in the boondocks, but whether there's any tangible evidence of it .

Noises at night and tracks in mud or snow are pretty intangible. I think I'd at least need some unexplainable bones for it to be a reasonable idea.

It's a fascinating thing to discuss though.

-JF-

ps -- Maybe we should start a UFO thread. (I'm serious) I'll bet a lot of us have seen odd things in the sky when in the wilderness.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 23rd, 2005, 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 15th, 2001, 7:00 pm
Posts: 2586
Location: Shelburne, Ontario Canada
Quote:
It means scientists are always willing to change what they know if compelling evidence comes along.


Unfortunately the experience of others , even when backed up by circumstancial evidence isn't enough. When scientests can't explain something, they ignore it, until they have a viable explanation. That is just as much propaganda as are the hundred of bogus prognosticaters of various sorts predicting the futute while taking hoards of money from thier believers. The world is composed of things you can understand, things you can understand, but don't and things you don't have the capacity to understand. If you only believe in the first category, you live a very limited life.

While many can recite the litany of psychic frauds who have been caught, no one talks about the immorality of the millions of scientests prostituting themselves to help major corporations make money while providing very little, if any benefit to society. I know that the guy who makes non-smudge lipstick is way more valuable to society than the charlatin who gives the dying cancer patient hope, even if it's just for a few weeks. I'm just not sure why. They both are providing false hope to the desperate, and taking their money.

_________________
I wouldn't join any club that would have someone like me as a member.
Save the Caribooskis. Reintroduce them to Temagami.
http://web.mac.com/normhead/iWeb/Energy ... /Blog.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 23rd, 2005, 10:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: April 20th, 2005, 11:15 am
Posts: 10
Location: NW Ontario
About 25 years ago i was up in Dog River , northwest of Thunder Bay , moose hunting . I watched an animal come out on the gas pipeline about 75 yards away and sit down by the treeline . I knew what it was right away but decided to scope it for a better look . The long ropey tail was a dead giveaway . A mountain lion .

I called a biologist at the MNR a day or two later to report the sighting and had a great conversation . Officially the eastern cougar has been extinct for 100 years but this biologist said that he gets about 35 reports per year .

Now we fast forward 20 years and so many reports are coming out of the Kenora area that the MNR decided to investigate . 3 biologists interviewed witnesses , cast critter tracks , collected scat and found a few hairs at the location of a recent sighting . They didn't see any cougars .

A few of the tracks they cast were left by a mountain lion and the dna of the scat and hair were mountain lion or eastern cougar .

None have been found dead or captured or killed on a highway so there is no carcass to hold as evidence and dna isn't good enough for some folks and eyewitness evidence is even more suspect .

I don't necessarily believe in bigfoot but i won't discount it just because no one has driven into town yet with one tied across his hood .

_________________
I ate what ? Socrates


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 23rd, 2005, 11:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: January 31st, 2003, 7:00 pm
Posts: 841
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
atr wrote:
I don't necessarily believe in bigfoot but i won't discount it just because no one has driven into town yet with one tied across his hood .


I agree with that statement entirely--the largest dead thing I've encounterd in the woods, at home or up North, is a half submerged bloated snapping turtle.

Many cultures from the northern hemisphere have traditions of big, hairy, man-like creatures, which might indicate there is, or must have been in fairly recent times, such a being extant. That hoaxes occur to support such a creature does not indicate the creature doesn't exist, it really shows a need to support what is already "known" by some.

And Noth America, especially Canada, has some of the least densely populated areas on Earth.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 24th, 2005, 8:20 am 
Offline

Joined: August 20th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 2864
Location: toronto, Ontario canada
atr wrote:
Officially the eastern cougar has been extinct for 100 years but this biologist said that he gets about 35 reports per year .

None have been found dead or captured or killed on a highway so there is no carcass to hold as evidence and dna isn't good enough for some folks and eyewitness evidence is even more suspect .

I don't necessarily believe in bigfoot but i won't discount it just because no one has driven into town yet with one tied across his hood .


For something to be listed as extinct, we had to have known of its existance in the first place. And to couple this with peoples' beleif that since so many cultures have vampire *ahembigfootahem* myths that they must therefore have some grain of truth in them is ludicrous. The two don't compare. As though the discovery of the ceolocanth validates the dilusion that there are mermaids.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 24th, 2005, 8:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: August 27th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 2561
Location: Geraldton, Ontario Can
When I lived in a fly-in community up north, the Native people had regular sightings of a creature called the "Manosoocan". They described it as a hairy, man-like beast that emitted an extremely foul odour. One night, one was reported to be in the community, and the police even tracked it down to the water front. Many strange things went on up there that I would be at a loss to explain, but I would not be fast to discount them either. It is true that the God of science has had many converts, and these people are quick to dismiss anything that challenges their belief system....lucid dreaming is a prime example...I have met people up north who still practice the traditional dream culture, and it is a mind blowing concept to wrap one's understanding around......so, in short, I believe that "Manasoocan" does exist, along with a host of other unmeasurable things....life would be pointless without these things......I always have a hard time understanding scientific types who believe that the universe is a lifeless scientific formula....those who think they know all the answers are always the ones to be feared......


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 24th, 2005, 9:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 6237
Location: Bancroft, Ontario Canada
Hmmm... I'm reminded of Jay Gould's response to religious fundamentalists who choose to believe that the Earth and universe are 5000 years old, post-creation, never mind little things like fossil records or evolutionary processes. If one chooses to go with faith-based belief systems, critical thinking is often the first thing to be thrown out before such basic things like examination, testing and verification are done to establish reliable knowledge. To the fundamentalists who chose to believe before thinking critically, Gould's answer was "Don't waste my time."

The faith vs science argument has been going on for hundreds of years since Galileo - it's irrelevant to scientific thought since faith-based knowledge isn't testable or verifiable. Belief in Bigfoot also falls more into the faith camp rather than science for similar reasons... anybody can believe in a faith system, or whatever they want to for that matter, but when it comes to using science and scientific method to try and prove a faith system true or false, it's most often a huge waste of time.

Now, for the big, hairy, man-like things sometimes found dead in the middle of nowhere, often those are trippers found at the ends of difficult, grueling portages. A poke with a sharp stick should reveal whether it's Bigfoot or not:

It's not dead, you twit.... it's only sleeping!!!

_________________
><((((º>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 24th, 2005, 11:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 15th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 1399
Location: Big Flats, New York USA
I don't know why I get into these things...

Science is not a faith based belief system. The definition of faith is belief that does not rely on logical proof or material evidence. People who don't align themselves with faith based belief systems try to draw an analogy with science, but it is false. The world is full of myths and beliefs. Without some method, how do you determine what myths you believe in? The method that has been proven to work over time is one based on facts and data. This is the only method in which charlatans are quickly discovered and weeded out, although they have been known to take up residence among the faith based believers.

Science does not ignore beliefs such as bigfoot, or aliens, or magic. Operating under the principle that it takes more than someone saying it is possible, then there is nothing to ignore. Somewhere in this thread someone said the exposure of fakes and charlatans doesn't prove bigfoot doesn't exist. Other than the false evidence created by the charlatans, and the tall tales passed down over the generations, what evidence is it that science is ignoring that makes you believe?

The other biggest difference is that science does not proclaim to know the truth, truth is a concept for believers. What is more foolish, to say you don't know or to say you believe in a falsehood? In the case of Bigfoot, science does not declare it does not exist, it declares there is no credible evidence for the existence. As soon as evidence is produced, the scientific theory will be modified with no embarassment.

My youngest still believes in the toothfairy. In fact, there is much more credible evidence for the existence of a toothfairy than the existence of some giant man like creature inhabiting the well explored north american continent. She loses a tooth, and money appears under her pillow. In fact, this happens with all of her friends. They bring the money to school, everyone has seen that evidence which is left behind. Sure, I put the money under her pillow, but that doesn't prove that there isn't a tooth fairy visiting her friends. What a boring lifeless world it would be if we ever quit believing in the toothfairy.

Tony


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 214 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group