I'd like to examine your choices about the video footage being either "rubbish" or "clearly someone in a suit". So, if it's NOT someone in a suit, then it's rubbish? So if it's a real creature, then it's rubbish? (Not sure I understand).
Sorry, rubbish as in the footage is always blurry, not clear enough, nearly always from too far away and so on. And then others it's footage of someone clearly in a suit.
I'd like to see some of what you think are some good examples of Bigfoot via drone footage. Actually interested.
Why the hell would Bigfoot be so hard to find? Name me a creature that size which lives its existence in terror of man? Lions, tiger, and bears dont see us and start running. Natives with higher intelligence might, but obviously not to a mythical ninja level like these 8 foot tall 500 lbs bipedals have too for over a century now We can find an intelligent near 7 ft tall man with resources of a Billionaire hiding for his life like Bin Laden. A monster sized stinky and slow primitive? fugedaboudit
I wish belief in something would be enough to cause its creation, but that millionaire hot chick who adores middle aged guys with dadbods and no financial promise, just wanting to take care of them do-not-exist. Internets a vast place, but you cant find that demographic. Yet thsts way more realistic than Bigfoot.
If the thread has gone away from if theres a Bigfoot or not and turned into word analysis like most threads here now do, then Ill let yall get back too it.
Sorry, rubbish as in the footage is always blurry, not clear enough, nearly always from too far away and so on. And then others it's footage of someone clearly in a suit.
I'd like to see some of what you think are some good examples of Bigfoot via drone footage. Actually interested.
I'm not making any assertion about these (not saying any of these are "good"). Just showing the kind of videos that pop up on YouTube under a search for Bigfoot drone footage...
Why the hell would Bigfoot be so hard to find? Name me a creature that size which lives its existence in terror of man? Lions, tiger, and bears dont see us and start running. Natives with higher intelligence might, but obviously not to a mythical ninja level like these 8 foot tall 500 lbs bipedals have too for over a century now We can find an intelligent near 7 ft tall man with resources of a Billionaire hiding for his life like Bin Laden. A monster sized stinky and slow primitive? fugedaboudit
I wish belief in something would be enough to cause its creation, but that millionaire hot chick who adores middle aged guys with dadbods and no financial promise, just wanting to take care of them do-not-exist. Internets a vast place, but you cant find that demographic. Yet thsts way more realistic than Bigfoot.
If the thread has gone away from if theres a Bigfoot or not and turned into word analysis like most threads here now do, then Ill let yall get back too it.
Did you look at any of the videos I posted on this thread the other day? They address a lot of the skeptical arguments against Bigfoot's existence.
Some of the explanations as to its elusiveness are that indeed Bigfoot IS highly intelligent and thus avoids humans. That its combination of intelligence, wilderness skills, ability to camouflage itself & ability to operate in total darkness at night make it highly elusive (even more so than other animals). That they are not "slow" but are far faster than any human and have superhuman strength. That they may bury their dead (thus accounting for the lack of corpses or bones) and their scat (environmentally aware Squatches).
P.S. The "chick" you describe definitely exists except she's not a millionaire, rather she adores middle aged guys with dadbods who ARE millionaires! If you've got the money, she will definitely want to take care of you.
Nope. Not biting the bait. The old thread was nonsense. This thread is nonsense. That video is nonsense. Drone controller has all this wide teeritory he can cover and decides to keep going over one unremarkable section over and over. Bigfoot is nonsense. You can make explanations why aliens from outer space live amongst man, or an Illuminati (if I mispelt that Im glad) running the world. Millions of children believe in Santa, but the fact millions of adults believe in Bigfoot is desperation to escape reality. Just like the holdouts that refused to believe pro wrestling was staged. People desperate for recognition say they saw Bigfoot. Its all a country version of an urban legend. Poppycock I say
And just to make sure we're on the same page... again, I'm not asserting one way or another the existence of Bigfoot, but only the possibility of the existence of Bigfoot. (As Henry Fonda asked in @Citizen Rules' "favorite" movie: 12 Angry Men... "Is it possible?")
I would remind you of E.G. Ford's reply, "But, it's not very probable."
And I hold Bigfoot to be so improbable that I don't worry about him.
Indeed, I take a negative view with regard to his existence. I do so presumptively in light of the lack of evidence after scientific searches and the expectation that modern surveillance would have revealed him to the world. It isn't just that "He who asserts must prove" and that the Bigfoot believer must prove their claim. I think we have good grounds to tie presumption to known science and say that we have, until proven otherwise, have reason to conclude that Bigfoot is just a myth.
Bigfoot does not exist is the best-warranted assertion. I am not the a Bigfoot agnostic, baiting the the Bigfoot believer into taking up the burden of proof. I am a Bigfoot atheist. I positively believe that Bigfoot does not exist.
I also believe that Godzilla is just a movie. I also believe the Tremors is just a movie. I also believe that Santa Claus is just a story. I am quite affirmative in these negations.
We are in almost total agreement. The part where we aren't is where you lean slightly into scientism.
I would remind you of E.G. Ford's reply, "But, it's not very probable."
And I hold Bigfoot to be so improbable that I don't worry about him.
Indeed, I take a negative view with regard to his existence. I do so presumptively in light of the lack of evidence after scientific searches and the expectation that modern surveillance would have revealed him to the world. It isn't just that "He who asserts must prove" and that the Bigfoot believer must prove their claim. I think we have good grounds to tie presumption to known science and say that we have, until proven otherwise, have reason to conclude that Bigfoot is just a myth.
Bigfoot does not exist is the best-warranted assertion. I am not the a Bigfoot agnostic, baiting the the Bigfoot believer into taking up the burden of proof. I am a Bigfoot atheist. I positively believe that Bigfoot does not exist.
I also believe that Godzilla is just a movie. I also believe the Tremors is just a movie. I also believe that Santa Claus is just a story. I am quite affirmative in these negations.
I'm glad to know where you stand.
It's funny, yesterday I was also thinking that although I believe Bigfoot's existence is possible, I realize (due to many of the facts you stated about evidence) that it is improbable.
But then the argument as to why there isn't more evidence is that the land masses we're talking about are so vast that their immensity can barely be imagined. In other words, you could hide 100 herds of Brontosauruses in the woods of the Pacific Northwest for generations without anyone ever knowing they were there just due to the area's size and density of its forests.
As to the other comparisons, you have to admit that the Bigfoot legend is not the same. It's ancient, it's global, it's not (just) a movie, it's not a mechanism to try to control children's behavior and the evidence ranges from footprints, dermal ridges, hair samples, forest structures (that could only be built by humans using heavy equipment where there is no trace of any such equipment ever being there), nests, odors, audio recordings, sightings, photos, videos and even close encounters.
Despite the hoaxers, it's an issue that holds little to gain for those making claims, but could cost them a lot to lose - yet the range of people who've made claims is wide: everyone from doctors to teachers to scientists to soldiers to cops have claimed sightings (and often to the detriment of their reputations & careers for doing so).
P.S. What's wrong with "scientism" when one of the alternative explanations is "supernaturalism"? It seems scientism is the far more rational approach (since, scientism also includes the possibility that all evidence is just hoaxsterism!)
I just made up a new word.
Last edited by Captain Steel; 3 weeks ago at 04:49 PM.
...In other words, you could hide 100 herds of Brontosauruses in the woods of the Pacific Northwest for generations without anyone ever knowing they were there just due to the area's size and density of its forests...
Not even close to true. You're imagining the Pacific Northwest as some vast untamed wilderness, when in actuality we have development right up to the very edge of Mt Rainer. Almost the entire west side of the state was logged by the late 1930s and currently the western part of the state is one of the fastest growing areas in the U.S.
It's easy for someone on the east coast to envision the PNW like a huge dense forest but there are people everywhere these days....and all of them have phones in their back pockets and can in an instant take photos or videos of strange creatures or UFOs. I can't quantitatively say how many more people have ready access to cameras/video but it must be a factor of 10,000 or even 100,000 times more than back in the 1970s when UFOs and Bigfoot became popular beliefs. We should have 10,000s more photos/videos of Bigfoot/UFOs just by the very fact there's an army of people with phone cameras, but there hasn't been this massive increase of photos/videos and that tells me alot.
Not even close to true. You're imaging the Pacific Northwest is some vast wilderness when in actually we have development right up the edge of Mt Rainer. Almost the entire west side of the state was logged by the late 1930s and currently the western part of the state is one of the fastest growing areas in the U.S. It's easy for someone on the east coast to envision the PNW like that but there's people everywhere these days and get ready for this all of them have phones in their back pockets and can in an instant take photos or videos of strange creatures or UFOs. I can't quantitative say how many more people have ready access to cameras/video in their phones but it must be a factor of 10,000 times more than back in the 1970s when UFOs and Bigfoot became popular beliefs.
Okay, but don't forget there are other states, there's the entire country of Canada, there's Alaska. We see those scenes taken from airplanes that show trees & mountains as far as the eye can see.
I'm also going by those documentaries that say there is more land in North America that has never been tread upon in modern times by any human beings than there are inhabited areas.
Good point about phones though (which may account for the great number of cryptid videos - both questionable and fake - now that were not a regular thing between the 1967 Patterson film and the 1990's - when cell phones with cameras came into regular usage).
I realize I'm playing Devil's advocate for the positive claims, but that's mostly because some absolute naysayers have checked in to say "impossible!"
But then the argument as to why there isn't more evidence is that the land masses we're talking about are so vast that their immensity can barely be imagined. In other words, you could hide 100 herds of Brontosauruses in the woods of the Pacific Northwest for generations without anyone ever knowing they were there just due to the area's size and density of its forests.
As to the other comparisons, you have to admit that the Bigfoot legend is not the same. It's ancient, it's global, it's not (just) a movie, it's not a mechanism to try to control children's behavior and the evidence ranges from footprints, dermal ridges, hair samples, forest structures (that could only be built by humans using heavy equipment where there is no trace of any such equipment ever being there), nests, odors, audio recordings, sightings, photos, videos and even close encounters.
Despite the hoaxers, it's an issue that holds little to gain for those making claims, but could cost them a lot to lose - yet the range of people who've made claims is wide: everyone from doctors to teachers to scientists to soldiers to cops have claimed sightings (and often to the detriment of their reputations & careers for doing so).
An excellent counterpoint.
And yet, I am a Bigfoot atheist, just not a categorical one (i.e., there is evidence which could convince me of his existence). I disbelieve because of the improbability, not the impossibility.
In short? This, The presuppositional categorical denial of phenomena which do fall into a scientific domain of study.
Math is not scientific (it is prescientific), but most scientists have enough sense not to dismiss math for failing to be empirical. Mathematicians don't tend to make competing claims about reality, so they rarely, if ever, present an opposition/threat.
Philosophy is also prescientific; you need it to justify doing science (e.g., the assumption of the existence of natural laws which are universal and uniform). Not all scientists have had enough sense to resist attacking philosophy for not meeting the standards of science. This is because philosophers do explore competing ideas about reality (e.g., idealism). Here is a nice quotation from a substack exchange:
Although Weinberg, Krauss, and co. don't agree on the details with the Logical Positivists, they are in the overall same epistemic ball park with them, in the sense that they view empirical observation as the only source of truth.
In short, it's the view that "if we don't study it, it ain't real." If you're a hardcore materialist, then this sort of arrogance is baked into the cake of your worldview. You will claim, innocently, that you could be persuaded otherwise with the best evidence, but the truth is that you could never accept such evidence relative to your background of interpretation. Below is Richard Dawkins having a grudging recognition of his own bias against the supernatural:
No matter what evidence we can imagine, his background of interpretation will also have a preferable (relative to that frame) naturalistic explanation for that evidence. There is quite literally no evidence which could convince Dawkins to believe in God on his own reckoning.
Now, as a description, this is fine. If Dawkins is saying, "I am a materialist, so natural explanations are always going to work better for me," that's all well and good. But this is not a justification.
Perhaps you're not warm to the God hypothesis. If so, you may not care if he holds it in contempt as a categorical commitment.
The pattern of thinking that underwrites scientism, however, has resulted in all sorts of silly ideas being espoused in the attempt to deny or suppress that which is inconvenient.
Positivists would reject all metaphysics, only to be hoisted on the petard of their own metaphysical commitments.
Scientists and philosophers queasy about the role of consciousness would attempt to sideline it (e.g., epiphenomenalism, behaviorism) or deny its existence (i.e., eliminative materialism), rather than admit that there is something in this universe which they can't quite explain. Thus, the behaviorist argues that ideas do nothing change behavior, while helping himself to a presumably reasoned argument(!).
And again, scientists have looked to push older brother philosophy off the cliff for having non-scientific ideas about the world.
The proper debate is NOT whether the supernatural is possible in the frame of the natural. It is NOT as a matter of definition. Any debate here will result in a circular denial (the mistake you made upthread). Rather, the proper approach is to move the debate a step back to debate the merits of background views themselves. To insist on settling the debate in terms of your own frame of reference is the sort of move "scientism" makes.
Just a quick response (I may elaborate further in the future)...
I don't agree that scientism says that if a phenomenon can't be studied, tested or explained (subjected to the scientific method) then it is to be denied or deemed that it can't happen or exist. I think scientism simply acknowledges that certain things can't be tested, studied or explained using the methods & means currently available.
Again I refer back to the discovery of germs. Science (as a whole) didn't deny them (while certain individuals did), but rather some scientists theorized their existence in the face of the prevailing belief that illnesses were the results of supernatural causes. And it was through science that the means to ultimately study and confirm the existence & effects of microbes came about.
Just a quick response (I may elaborate further in the future)...
I don't agree that scientism says that if a phenomenon can't be studied, tested or explained (subjected to the scientific method) then it is to be denied or deemed that it can't happen or exist.
The definition I've offered is rather narrow, however, it is useful in our context in that illuminates what I'm talking about. Wikipedia indicates that there are two views about the concept, one of which fits with the objection I am voicing here.
The view of scientism which embraces "only" is the view to which I take strong objection. If we say that science is the ONLY way to find truth about the "world" and "reality" (i.e., everything), then mathematicians are in a pickle, because they're not scientists or scientific. Of course, if this is the case, then science (and by extension scientism) is in a real pickle, because it just sawed off one of the branches its sitting on.
Rejecting scientism does not mean rejecting science. Scientism does NOT = science. Science is great. Scientism is a derangement.
I think scientism simply acknowledges that certain things can't be tested, studied or explained using the methods & means currently available.
I shall not here be arguing from or to your preferred definition. What matters is not the label, but rather reasoning under the label. If you want to "own" or reposition scientism as something more dignified, I can let go of the label, because the reasoning still remains, waiting to be addressed. If you please, you can give what I am talking about a new label. Give it a name. And after that, the analysis, the ideas will still be waiting for you.
I was curious as to the percentage of Americans that believe Bigfoot is real. I found this page with stats that break belief down by various means. This one was the most interesting:
I swear there has to be some plot to keep this thread going. As long as we bite the made-up bait it could work too. Alls someone has to do is post a shadowy figure, and its a Bigfoot sighting. Or say they saw Bigfoot and concoct a spectacularly spooky story. Its like a campfire tale in broad daylight, and we dont tell the listeners its fiction lest we ruin it.
Its almost 2025. Grow up Buttercup! Stop listening to that rock-n-roll.music, wearing shirts with no sleeves......WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO WITH YOUR LIFE ?!
I swear there has to be some plot to keep this thread going. As long as we bite the made-up bait it could work too. Alls someone has to do is post a shadowy figure, and its a Bigfoot sighting. Or say they saw Bigfoot and concoct a spectacularly spooky story. Its like a campfire tale in broad daylight, and we dont tell the listeners its fiction lest we ruin it.
Its almost 2025. Grow up Buttercup! Stop listening to that rock-n-roll.music, wearing shirts with no sleeves......WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO WITH YOUR LIFE ?!
It's fine to hold to your opinion about the topic, but please don't criticize the thread for continuing with willing participants. Like all other threads, it's here for those interested (on any side of the debate) and is easily ignored by anyone not interested.
I don't go on the sports threads and ask how long those threads will keep going - because it's just a bunch of people idolizing unworthy millionaires who make disgusting amounts of money just to play a game - the same thing blue-collar workers PAY to do on their weekends! The irony, injustice and unfairness of it all seems downright... un-woke!
Reply to Topic
We can find an intelligent near 7 ft tall man with resources of a Billionaire hiding for his life like Bin Laden. A monster sized stinky and slow primitive? fugedaboudit
