Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok BigFoot is it real or not?
This morning my wife turned on the news and the History channel was still selected from the night before and there was an interesting show about Neanderthal man on there. Back in 1859 I think it was workers found 40,000 year old bones to what would eventually be classified as a Neanderthal.
OK 40,000 year old bones Found! in fact bones of prehumans over 2,000,000 years old have been found so why nothing from Bigfoot in these modern times where more and more people are pressing into the woods? I know some of you, my wife included will say "they don't find bones BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST" But if they don't exist how can you explain so many Native American legends and how do you explain all the sightings had by people on TV shows.
What did these people see that scared the crap out of them? If it was a hoax the guy who dresses up in the suit has to be pretty dumb because alot of people with a gun handy would shoot first then ask questions.
How many of you believe there is something out there?
Some people say Gigantapithicus (sp) is a likely candidate for Sasquatch's nearest antecedent. Its bones were only first discovered in the 20th century in a China apothecary shop.
Some believe that they are advanced enough that they bury their dead. Hence the lack of skeletal remains.
It is very hard to get a picture. You have to be ready at the exact moment.Anything i have seen moving was moving way to fast through the brush to even think about a phto I myself don't really have to have me a photo and the work just to get one is very time consuming and costly.After about 3 days i am wore out and say to heck with these critters i am going home. Seeing glimpses of some animal is a lot different than getting a photo.Another thing i have noted is that once i am around and they are moving in around and surrounding and crashing brush and stomping feet and shaking tress and throwing rocks it is a great rush and at the same time i am wondering why in the hell i wanted to do this anyway. I have only taken 3 guys to the woods with me and only one would ever go back. These things sense when you are looking for them and get more elusive. Laugh all you want or deny it, it won't change my day one bit.
PS. I own several digital cameras.To enhance digital photos you really need at least a 16 Mega pixel camera to equal the old 35 mm film. I have about 2k invested in BF'n equipment.
Try this. Take your Digital camera out with you and do it for hey two weeks even and then show us how many wild animal photos you have. You need to be within at least 50 ft. Just the same distance you would be expecting me to take a BF photo. That's fair isn't it. You are telling me to go get you a photo so now i am telling you to go get a photo and then you will learn how hard it really is.
True. I wouldn't even bother unless one has expertise in action photography and at minimum a 6X telephoto lens.
It is very hard to get a picture. You have to be ready at the exact moment.Anything i have seen moving was moving way to fast through the brush to even think about a phto I myself don't really have to have me a photo and the work just to get one is very time consuming and costly.After about 3 days i am wore out and say to heck with these critters i am going home. Seeing glimpses of some animal is a lot different than getting a photo.Another thing i have noted is that once i am around and they are moving in around and surrounding and crashing brush and stomping feet and shaking tress and throwing rocks it is a great rush and at the same time i am wondering why in the hell i wanted to do this anyway. I have only taken 3 guys to the woods with me and only one would ever go back. These things sense when you are looking for them and get more elusive. Laugh all you want or deny it, it won't change my day one bit.
PS. I own several digital cameras.To enhance digital photos you really need at least a 16 Mega pixel camera to equal the old 35 mm film. I have about 2k invested in BF'n equipment.
Try this. Take your Digital camera out with you and do it for hey two weeks even and then show us how many wild animal photos you have. You need to be within at least 50 ft. Just the same distance you would be expecting me to take a BF photo. That's fair isn't it. You are telling me to go get you a photo so now i am telling you to go get a photo and then you will learn how hard it really is.
Problem with your post is that other animals have been at some point photographed, eaten, shot, touched, etc. Yet bigfoot has not. Over a trend of many years, it would be expected that some actual evidence of bigfoot would be presented, like a pic, bones, teeth, something. It is not like bigfoot is claimed to be small.
You present a fallacy, which is that you require proof of the negative, as in "prove it does not exist".
Some people say Gigantapithicus (sp) is a likely candidate for Sasquatch's nearest antecedent. Its bones were only first discovered in the 20th century in a China apothecary shop.
Some believe that they are advanced enough that they bury their dead. Hence the lack of skeletal remains.
Of course some would believe they are advance enough to bury their dead, it is the only way to support their belief that bigfoot exists. There have been no bones recovered, so to the believers, of course this means they bury their dead, to the point no one in history has ever ran across the bones, burial area, nothing.
Location: Butler County Ohio and Winters in Florida
929 posts, read 2,732,423 times
Reputation: 635
Bf
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
Ok, so just as an example, say one was captured.
a) we would want to do tests to destruction. That means we would want to cut it up, poke it, prod it, test it for this that and the other. We would want to see if it could help us cure disease by using its antibodies etc etc. Basically, mankind is terrible. The ET film might have been fiction, but it is just the kind of reaction the authorities and scientists would have if we captured one.
b) What would happen if we found that the DNA was TOTALLY different from ours? So we have just found another species which is bi-pedal and does not descend from homo sapiens. Can you imagine the huge number of people who would be uncomfortable about this? Some religions reckon we have "dominion over the beasts of the field and fowls of the air", so what happens when we find one who is as intelligent or more so than us ? Do we still have dominion over them?
What happens if it is an alien? Different DNA means different origin means that things did not start as we have been led to believe...
It is fine when we discover a new fish or new 4-legged animal, but one which looks and acts like a human is too close for comfort for a lot of people.
As far as not getting photographs of it - movement detectors use infra red detectors to determine movement. If these bigfoots can see into the infrared range, then they see like a (infrared) flood light shining and they avoid it. It is no wonder we have no pictures from these cameras.
---
Very Good points.
I do enjoy the BF shows. I am undecided.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bf
