No, it looks like fake fur swinging out in reaction to the movement. My qualifications: a human female who dressed as a flapper for Halloween at least once.
4 Likes
DunnoâŚstill looks just as much as a bigfoot to me as it did before. But then again, it always looked fake to me.
1 Like
Okay, Iâll take a bite of your pedantic sandwich. If proof is proof, then this film is not proof. And itâs up to the people claiming that this is bigfoot to provide something better. Itâs not up to the rest of us to humor them until they do.
2 Likes
Iâll have you lot know this article comes to me as Iâm reading In The Ocean of Night by Greg Benford. Features Sasquatch no spoilers , is hard to read as ⌠heâs not a natural writer.
That was actually a plot to one of the newer Jonny Quest episodes. Aliens adapting to what for them was cold climate by making themselves furry while they go about fixing their ship.
Now I donât know about jersey devils but snipes have been proven to be real.
1 Like
Nay, 'tis not that. Proof is a license to stop seeking evidence, the notion that evidence which supports a point can or should be deemed as conclusive. But to some, the collection and evaluation of evidence are understood to be a continual process.
1 Like
The problem with the debate here (and what seems to happen anytime there is a debate about Bigfoot) is that thereâs an awful lot of condescension towards (and outright mockery of) anyone willing to entertain the possibility that itâs real. I understand, there are a lot cranks and hucksters in the Bigfoot research subculture, but as a comparison I wouldnât mock people studying alternative fuels because of idiots with âperpetual motionâ devices. The film is certainly not proof, but similarly the opinion that it looks like a guy in a suit is not a solid debunking.
The weirdos who talk about Bigfoot being able to travel inter-dimensionally, and the con men who gaff up chimp suits so they can charge folks to view, they are worthy of all the shit we can fling at them. The people dissecting muscle movement in a film, or studying the shape of plaster-cast footprints, I think are doing honest research.
Is it possible to be skeptical but still hopeful? I think even the most hardcore skeptics (who often sound more like outright deniers) would admit it would be pretty cool if Bigfoot were real, and unlike perpetual motion, itâs not outside the realm of possibility.
1 Like
You will get no argument from me, the modifier âextraordinaryâ was the issue. The quest for knowledge, evidence and understanding should never stop.
1 Like
I have, in the course of my lifetime, seen a wide variety of pop-culture myths and urban legends thoroughly debunked. The young, wide-eyed optimist I once was has been replaced by a hardened skeptic, piece by piece and myth by shattered myth. There are certainly still things yet unproven that I am hopeful and even optimistic will be finally proven one day. Bigfoot is not among those things. After so many frauds and charlatans, I have personally placed any hope I have that Bigfoot might one day be revealed into a well-worn shoebox under my bed labeled âbullshit and other triflesâ.
It could happen, of course. Someone might actually find an actual Bigfoot, or even a genuine Bigfoot corpse. Iâm not getting my hopes up, though, and I will repeat the same thing I said before, still just as applicable despite the pedants that missed the point: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Show me the proof and I will believe. Until then, a pox on all their houses.
1 Like
Must be closely related to these:
Good post. Thank you for sharing your history and current feelings. Glad to hear you are not a hardcore skeptic but have just developed a healthy skepticism through your experiences.
As you are not a âdenierâ I should also tell you that I am not a âbeliever.â I did not intend to come off as âpedanticâ either (first time I have ever been called that), but your post and others made me reflect about what was bothering me with the discussion. I think we have a very different framework for looking at this. The idea of âproofâ seems to me to be part of the problem.
Bigfoot exists, or it does not, regardless of whatever âproofâ is presented. (The most famous example is the duckbill platypus being labeled a hoax even with a body being present for examination.) âProofâ itself is a concept that has bothered many scientists. âWhile the phrase âscientific proofâ is often used in the popular media, many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that âIn the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by âproofâ an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory.â All there really is â(is) evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.â From Wikipedia (emphasis added)
Scientific evidence is ultimately any data, knowledge, observations etc. that we collect with our senses. This can be photos, videos, plaster casts, witness testimony etc. and we may consider it persuasive or not. Whether we consider something âextraordinaryâ is completely subjective and should be jettisoned from the discussion (in my opinion). Evidence is persuasive or not, and we must all judge for ourselves. Whether Bigfoot exists or does not exist will not depend on our judgement.
Is there BS and hoaxing â of course. And it pisses me off to have to sift through that crap. But with the persistence of these phenomena (Bigfoot sightings) I think it continues to be worth looking at and let the weight of evidence fall where it may. My personal bias is that if a variety of people keep reporting a similar observation, there is likely something to it (see Ball Lightening). Maybe it is just in our head and has to do with the way we process information. Or that we like to hoax each other.
1 Like
I would say that this is an oversimplification. Things can have different kinds of existence in different domains. Many rationalists talk about âdebunking mythsâ, but this practice runs counter to what myths actually are. Gods and cryptids are mythology, the same way comic book superheroes are. The cultural problem is that when some gullible people take the myths literally, that critics attack the myths themselves instead of peopleâs misunderstanding. Dismissing their existence as âonly a mythâ, or the rhetorical device of using the term âmythâ as being synonymous with âlieâ or âsuperstitionâ demonstrate reactionary attitudes, and a culturally illiterate approach to understanding mythology.
Myths are metaphors. And like any skilfully deployed metaphor, it is not referred to as such! It is a cultural symbol which has enough meaning for it to exist and be referenced by people. The myths people tend to rage about are old myths, where the average person probably is not aware of its origins or earlier significance. A better way to explain this to people might be to compare them to more contemporary myths, such as Uncle Sam, Spring Heeled Jack, or Pokemon. To illustrate how the ârealityâ of myths tends to be irrelevant, most of what the public knows about celebrities is also mythology. And these are people who are confirmed to either live or have recently lived! Yet those many who donât know them directly only know the stories, passed down, distorted, romanticized, reinterpreted ad-infinitum. Like memory in the brain, the symbolic image is associative, there is no âoriginalâ.
Not unlike literature, myths can communicate truth to people indirectly. But this does not happen through believing them to be factual accounts.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
