Menu
Home
Forum Rules
Store
Donate
Meltdown Mayhem Hacks ⚔︎
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Menu
Log in
Register
Home
Sweatshop - Pure Drama
Meltdown
It just doesn't doesn't feel like Christmas on BF without Purdy Murdie's jingling good cheer!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Blurt" data-source="post: 448477" data-attributes="member: 648"><p>I took a look at the guy's channel, Shamp, and it seems to consist mostly of eyewitness accounts and older alleged photo and video documents. The problem with visual proofs is that they can easily be doctored. That famous 1967 video of a "Sasquatch" purposefully striding through a clearing (as though he were late for work) still remains the best video evidence for the existence of this cryptid. And it's not very good. Blurry. Distant. Short. Could be a guy in a gorilla costume, for all we know. And it probably is.</p><p></p><p>Keep in mind, I'm a skeptic by nature and I'll always abide by Carl Sagan's famous dictum that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs." While the claim that there exists an uncatalogued (and highly secretive) primate species is certainly extraordinary, the evidence for it is weak.</p><p></p><p>There have been over 10,000 "sightings" of Bigfoot over the last fifty years (according to <a href="https://www.livescience.com/24598-bigfoot.html" target="_blank">LiveScience</a>), most of them easily explained as hoaxes or pranks. Or even as accounts delivered by those with vested interests in their being considered authentic.</p><p></p><p>Oddly enough, though, this paucity of extraordinary evidence isn't enough for me to just pooh-pooh the whole thing away. Like most skeptics, I try to keep an open mind when it comes to these things (and, by "things," I mean claims about natural, real world events or persons or creatures that could fall under the purview of scientific scrutiny but for which adequate proof is currently lacking).</p><p></p><p>No, my "objection" to the possibility of Bigfoot's existence has more to do with the following:</p><p></p><p>- We humans WANT to believe. We NEED to believe, it seems.This makes us poor interrogators of our own senses (which deceive us, more often than not);</p><p></p><p>- We humans will often prey on those who want or need to believe. It's in our nature to seek an advantage over others. This makes us (among other things) pranksters and hoaxsters and all manner of deceivers;</p><p></p><p>- And finally, this, the most serious refutation for the existence of lone cryptids such as Bigfoot: any biologist will tell you--as will any zoologist--that for any member of a complex species (such as primates) to reach adulthood and autonomy with no evidence for the existence of a supportive group, clan, or tribe is highly, highly unlikely. For even <em>one</em> Sasquatch to roam the northwestern woods (or a Yeti in the Himalayas), there has to be a whole slew of them that do so. Yet no hunter has ever accidently shot a Sasquatch. No driver has ever hit one on the highway. No wildlife official has ever tagged or bagged one while culling the wolf population. No firefighter has ever found the charred remains of one on the edge of a burned down forest. No skulls or bones have ever been found by a curious hiker. It's hard not to conclude that tales of Bigfoot are taller than the animal itself is said to stand.</p><p></p><p>Like I said, though, I try to keep an open mind. As far as I'm concerned, and based on the evidence (such as it is), the jury's still out on this one.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Blurt, post: 448477, member: 648"] I took a look at the guy's channel, Shamp, and it seems to consist mostly of eyewitness accounts and older alleged photo and video documents. The problem with visual proofs is that they can easily be doctored. That famous 1967 video of a "Sasquatch" purposefully striding through a clearing (as though he were late for work) still remains the best video evidence for the existence of this cryptid. And it's not very good. Blurry. Distant. Short. Could be a guy in a gorilla costume, for all we know. And it probably is. Keep in mind, I'm a skeptic by nature and I'll always abide by Carl Sagan's famous dictum that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs." While the claim that there exists an uncatalogued (and highly secretive) primate species is certainly extraordinary, the evidence for it is weak. There have been over 10,000 "sightings" of Bigfoot over the last fifty years (according to [URL='https://www.livescience.com/24598-bigfoot.html']LiveScience[/URL]), most of them easily explained as hoaxes or pranks. Or even as accounts delivered by those with vested interests in their being considered authentic. Oddly enough, though, this paucity of extraordinary evidence isn't enough for me to just pooh-pooh the whole thing away. Like most skeptics, I try to keep an open mind when it comes to these things (and, by "things," I mean claims about natural, real world events or persons or creatures that could fall under the purview of scientific scrutiny but for which adequate proof is currently lacking). No, my "objection" to the possibility of Bigfoot's existence has more to do with the following: - We humans WANT to believe. We NEED to believe, it seems.This makes us poor interrogators of our own senses (which deceive us, more often than not); - We humans will often prey on those who want or need to believe. It's in our nature to seek an advantage over others. This makes us (among other things) pranksters and hoaxsters and all manner of deceivers; - And finally, this, the most serious refutation for the existence of lone cryptids such as Bigfoot: any biologist will tell you--as will any zoologist--that for any member of a complex species (such as primates) to reach adulthood and autonomy with no evidence for the existence of a supportive group, clan, or tribe is highly, highly unlikely. For even [I]one[/I] Sasquatch to roam the northwestern woods (or a Yeti in the Himalayas), there has to be a whole slew of them that do so. Yet no hunter has ever accidently shot a Sasquatch. No driver has ever hit one on the highway. No wildlife official has ever tagged or bagged one while culling the wolf population. No firefighter has ever found the charred remains of one on the edge of a burned down forest. No skulls or bones have ever been found by a curious hiker. It's hard not to conclude that tales of Bigfoot are taller than the animal itself is said to stand. Like I said, though, I try to keep an open mind. As far as I'm concerned, and based on the evidence (such as it is), the jury's still out on this one. [/QUOTE]
Name
Verification
Post reply
Home
Sweatshop - Pure Drama
Meltdown
It just doesn't doesn't feel like Christmas on BF without Purdy Murdie's jingling good cheer!
