Bigfoot yay or nay ?

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Paul Bunyon forensic evidence is vast. Created the Grand Canyon. He painted the Pictured Rocks, there are eye witnesses to his legend scattered throughout time. I've -seen- Paul Bunyon's axe. He is touted from California to Maine.

Now tell me again, how is this different than Bigfoot?

edit on 1-7-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)

Are you really asking this? I would be embarrassed to pose parallel logic like this in a public forum. Please sit down before you hurt yourself.

The only good things about posts like this is it brings back fond memories of 5th grade.

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Paul Bunyon forensic evidence is vast. Created the Grand Canyon. He painted the Pictured Rocks, there are eye witnesses to his legend scattered throughout time. I've -seen- Paul Bunyon's axe. He is touted from California to Maine.

Now tell me again, how is this different than Bigfoot?

edit on 1-7-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)

Are you really asking this? I would be embarrassed to pose parallel logic like this in a public forum. Please sit down before you hurt yourself.

The only good things about posts like this is it brings back fond memories of 5th grade.

5th grade is about the time I stopped believing in Bigfoot. It's kind of interesting that questioning the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Paul Bunyon and the Easter Bunny is met with scorn, but an equally elusive and illogical being such as Bigfoot is completely fair game, and anyone that would point to similarities in their social construction is out of bounds.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Seeing and knowing exactly where Earth is coming from concerning this topic.
That isn't saying you aren't making excellent points. You are. But Bigfoot has
the distinct possibility of being something completely paranormal.

And that, would frankly cast all your reasoning to the four winds.

But of course your points would remain solid in such light.
So you both must simply see it both ways.
Or you both go down that slippery slope into total confusion
and from civil debate into hateful argument you end up.
And that will solve nothing.

I used to play in the woods across from our house when I was younger. This was before the "thing" started screaming, scaring everyone to death. (Story in earlier post.)

One day when I had gone into the woods I heard something, and got a very eerie feeling I was being watched. As I looked through the trees I saw the outline of something big moving. It was very tall!
It is hard to describe... it was like it was invisible, but still had a form... an outline of the body to see that it was moving.
The body itself gave a fuzzy, shimmering look to the area of forest that could be seen through it, and it made a noise in the brush where it moved.
It scared the s*** out of me, and I took off running as fast as my legs would carry me.

If this was a big foot, then it could very well be something paranormal...
from another dimension, or extraterrestrial.
And if it can make itself invisible, then this could explain why no one has ever been able to capture it. They do seem to escape very quickly, once spotted by man.

reply to post by dudeman351


Dudeman that is very similar to what I saw too, tho the one I saw was reddish tannish colored, hard to tell in a nighttime photograph.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
5th grade is about the time I stopped believing in Bigfoot. It's kind of interesting that questioning the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Paul Bunyon and the Easter Bunny is met with scorn, but an equally elusive and illogical being such as Bigfoot is completely fair game, and anyone that would point to similarities in their social construction is out of bounds.

No, communicating in a purposefully insulting, non-sequitur and discourse saturating manner is out of bounds.

None of this tripe you have expressed, nor the false analogy fallacies you present, represents the thinking of those who are skeptical of bigfoot claims in a serious or fair light. You make us look like we are irrational dogmatic idiots at whom everyone must roll their eyes; incapable of assembling even the slightest predicate logic and rigor of thematic equivalence. You insult both the Yay's and the Nay's through this childish rant.

I am skeptical of bigfoot, but I have a friend who is a Park Service Superintendent, whom I trust, who has seen one, and I would sit respectfully and listen to a lecture by Jeff Meldrum.

That is the essence of character expressed in a critical thinking mindset.

This type of post you offer is immature chaff.

'Paul Bunyan' is spelled with an 'a' by the way.

reply to post by randyvs


I've recently read the book "Missing 411", which had lots of anecdotal evidence for something taking these people, but I find it hard to believe that a viable "stock" of Bigfeet has remained undetected for this long.

"IF" Bigfoot existed, then I imagine that they are more like orang-utans, who are more solitary animals and tend to come together only for breeding.

"OR", it's some kind of genetic memory (like being afraid of the dark) or passed down stories, we have from when early humans competed with other possibly more scary hominids. Now when we see something we can't identify for certain, we label it as bigfoot!!

So after my ramble, I'm not yay or a nay, I'm on the fence. I don't know why but I would find it funny that a close relative of humans had evaded us for all this time, if one was ever found saying something like "You humans are dumb!"

reply to post by randyvs


I say yea. (not yay). I have a friend whose family owns land in South Carolina in a marshy area. People come to test their mettle on a semi-regular basis. Stay the night and win a prize, but no one can. As soon as you set up camp, stuff starts to go weird. Cell phone batteries drain in no time. Flashlights won't work. I imagine a clockwork bay-gen radio with flashlight would work. I'll have to try it out someday soon.

They find dead dog carcasses all the time (with the sweet yummy parts gone).

Yep, gotta go out there with my hand-crank generator and video cam. you can be sure I'll post here when I get back.

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
5th grade is about the time I stopped believing in Bigfoot. It's kind of interesting that questioning the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Paul Bunyon and the Easter Bunny is met with scorn, but an equally elusive and illogical being such as Bigfoot is completely fair game, and anyone that would point to similarities in their social construction is out of bounds.

No, communicating in a purposefully insulting, non-sequitur and disrespectful manner is out of bounds.

None of this tripe you have expressed, nor the false analogy fallacies you present, represents the thinking of those who are skeptical of bigfoot claims in a serious or fair light. You make us look like we are irrational dogmatic idiots at whom everyone must roll their eyes; incapable of assembling even the slightest predicate logic and rigor of thematic equivalence. You insult both the Yay's and the Nay's through this childish rant.

I am skeptical of bigfoot, but I have a friend who is a Park Service Superintendent, whom I trust, who has seen one, and I would sit respectfully and listen to a lecture by Jeff Meldrum.

That is the essence of character expressed in a critical thinking mindset.

This type of post you offer is immature chaff.

You misrepresent my presence in this thread, and it is unbecoming.

I posted my logical opinion, and as I followed the logical fallacies of others down their rabbit holes and began to work within the confines of their own realities, their dogmatic, irrational beliefs were brought to light.

I don't speak for anyone but myself, and I do so with my own name, not hiding behind a pseudonym. As I have said in many threads, my opinions are my own, and I endorse each one with my name. If you don't like what it is that I am saying, challenge my logic instead of challenging my personality or tact.

And then to polish it off, you correct my spelling? Class.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Paul Bunyon forensic evidence is vast. Created the Grand Canyon. He painted the Pictured Rocks, there are eye witnesses to his legend scattered throughout time. I've -seen- Paul Bunyon's axe. He is touted from California to Maine.

Now tell me again, how is this different than Bigfoot?

edit on 1-7-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)

Are you really asking this? I would be embarrassed to pose parallel logic like this in a public forum. Please sit down before you hurt yourself.

The only good things about posts like this is it brings back fond memories of 5th grade.

5th grade is about the time I stopped believing in Bigfoot. It's kind of interesting that questioning the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Paul Bunyon and the Easter Bunny is met with scorn, but an equally elusive and illogical being such as Bigfoot is completely fair game, and anyone that would point to similarities in their social construction is out of bounds.

That is because there is a whole lot more evidence for bigfoot than the easter bunny and santa klaus. If you want to believe in those two go ahead but some folks rather be adults and see things for what they are. You can remain childish if you want.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
I posted my logical opinion, and as I followed the logical fallacies of others down their rabbit holes and began to work within the confines of their own realities, their dogmatic, irrational beliefs were brought to light.

I don't speak for anyone but myself, and I do so with my own name, not hiding behind a pseudonym. As I have said in many threads, my opinions are my own, and I endorse each one with my name. If you don't like what it is that I am saying, challenge my logic instead of challenging my personality or tact.

And then to polish it off, you correct my spelling? Class.

edit on 1-7-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)

I post under a pseudonym for safety, as does every other rational person on ATS. You remind us all of how important this is.

You have followed no logic here, only sought to dominate and mock a thread subject (which OP, I will bow aside now and let you retake). I am challenging your logic absolutely as false, you just did not comprehend the words.

And you misspelled the KEY object in your comparative, which showed that you knew nothing about it, not even how to spell it. If it was a tactical misspelling, I would not have cared.

You just had your tail handed to you. You need to bring your game up a notch in rationality, and come down to a respectful and mutual discourse with the people in this thread.

OP, my apologies.

You know, I take a pretty hard line stance on most of the issues here, but this is one where I am truly conflicted. I have no reason to doubt those who claim to have had an encounter, but part of me feels like the technology today is way too good to have not come up with SOMETHING.

I can' take the "Bigfoot Hunters" seriously, and most of the video footage appears to be nothing but hoaxes. I don't even that the Patterson film seriously. It's the people with stories to relate who I find genuine. I don't know if they really saw what they think they saw, but I respect that they believe they did.

So, I guess there is a part of my that really hopes Bigfoot is real, but the other part says Bigfoot either never existed, or doesn't exist anymore. I don't think either part is winning that battle right now.

I absolutely believe Bigfoot is a real unclassified or miscategorized hominid who lives on our planet. Humans are arrogant and misinformed. There is more land on this planet that we can't move around in freely than there is that we can. Just because humans have boats, planes, and helicopters doesn't mean they're omniscient.

Our senses are dull and we are not at all equipped to move about most terrain easily. Any creature who was designed/evolved (Whatever your preference) to live in the forest could easily avoid us.

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
I posted my logical opinion, and as I followed the logical fallacies of others down their rabbit holes and began to work within the confines of their own realities, their dogmatic, irrational beliefs were brought to light.

I don't speak for anyone but myself, and I do so with my own name, not hiding behind a pseudonym. As I have said in many threads, my opinions are my own, and I endorse each one with my name. If you don't like what it is that I am saying, challenge my logic instead of challenging my personality or tact.

And then to polish it off, you correct my spelling? Class.

edit on 1-7-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)

I post under a pseudonym for safety, as does every other rational person on ATS. You remind us all of how important this is.

You have followed no logic here, only sought to dominate and derail a thread (which OP, I will bow aside now and let you retake). I am challenging your logic absolutely as false, you just did not comprehend the words.

And you misspelled the KEY object in your comparative, which showed that you knew nothing about it, not even how to spell it. If it was a tactical misspelling, I would not have cared.

You just had your tail handed to you. You need to bring your game up a notch in rationality, and come down to a respectful and mutual discourse with the people in this thread.

OP, my apologies.

edit on 1-7-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)

Pseudonyms for safety? My "tail handed to [me]"?

You haven't "challenged" any logic. Decrying something illogical doesn't magically make it so. If you would like to continue the debate, I encourage you to u2u me, as the one thing I do agree with you on is that this isn't the place for it.

I seriously doubt that Bigfoot is a "real" thing, based on a serious lack of proof that can't be ignored, as well as estimating the amount of resources it would take to keep a breeding population alive.

The best explanation of Bigfoot I ever heard was from an anthropologist, who said that Bigfoot is something that we as human beings are mentally and physically designed to see. It's essentially an instinct of ours to see these big hairy monsters (and I suspect, little elves and fairies and leprechauns, as well).

Still, while I can't say that I believe in Bigfoot, I'm still a big "fan" of Bigfoot, and would be happy to have real, unequivocal proof found and properly presented. Would love to be proven wrong. Spice things up a little. Why not?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Paul Bunyon forensic evidence is vast. Created the Grand Canyon. He painted the Pictured Rocks, there are eye witnesses to his legend scattered throughout time. I've -seen- Paul Bunyon's axe. He is touted from California to Maine.

Now tell me again, how is this different than Bigfoot?

edit on 1-7-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)

Are you really asking this? I would be embarrassed to pose parallel logic like this in a public forum. Please sit down before you hurt yourself.

The only good things about posts like this is it brings back fond memories of 5th grade.

5th grade is about the time I stopped believing in Bigfoot. It's kind of interesting that questioning the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Paul Bunyon and the Easter Bunny is met with scorn, but an equally elusive and illogical being such as Bigfoot is completely fair game, and anyone that would point to similarities in their social construction is out of bounds.

That is because there is a whole lot more evidence for bigfoot than the easter bunny and santa klaus. If you want to believe in those two go ahead but some folks rather be adults and see things for what they are. You can remain childish if you want.

Millions of people in the world believe in Santa because of evidence that seems foolproof. Evidence in the form of toys, eyewitness accounts, and expert testimony from others they trust. There are others who do not believe in Santa because they can see through the smokescreen of false evidence.

Can millions of people be wrong? Clearly, as Santa isn't anything more than a social construct. Why then, is bigfoot different than Santa? Both rely on evidence that doesn't hold up to empirical scrutiny, and both generate quite a lot of money for those selling the culture.

I've been thinking about the agrument some folks brought up about why no remains have been found of a dead bigfoot.I have been a hunter for well over 25 years,and its very,VERY rare I come across any remains of any animal.If you think about it,there are millions of whitetail deer where I live.While I see plenty of road kill,I have never run across a dead deer in the woods.So what if there are only 2 or 3 thousand sasquatch in North America?Finding a dead one would be like finding a needle in a haystack.Just my opinion,of course. BTW,I'm a yea.

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic

OP, my apologies.

Unaccepted, you do not owe me an apology my good man.
But the gesture is appreciated.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Millions of people in the world believe in Santa because of evidence that seems foolproof. Evidence in the form of toys, eyewitness accounts, and expert testimony from others they trust. There are others who do not believe in Santa because they can see through the smokescreen of false evidence.

Can millions of people be wrong? Clearly, as Santa isn't anything more than a social construct. Why then, is bigfoot different than Santa? Both rely on evidence that doesn't hold up to empirical scrutiny, and both generate quite a lot of money for those selling the culture.

edit on 1-7-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)

Sure millions of kids believe in santa claus up till the age of 12 or maybe till 15 and then they grow up to see there is no evidence for santa claus, the tooth fairy, easter bunny. BUT lots of people in the age up to 80 believe in bigfoot and some even in aliens.

Surely there must be a reason why this happens.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Millions of people in the world believe in Santa because of evidence that seems foolproof. Evidence in the form of toys, eyewitness accounts, and expert testimony from others they trust. There are others who do not believe in Santa because they can see through the smokescreen of false evidence.

Can millions of people be wrong? Clearly, as Santa isn't anything more than a social construct. Why then, is bigfoot different than Santa? Both rely on evidence that doesn't hold up to empirical scrutiny, and both generate quite a lot of money for those selling the culture.

edit on 1-7-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)

Sure millions of kids believe in santa claus up till the age of 12 or maybe till 15 and then they grow up to see there is no evidence for santa claus, the tooth fairy, easter bunny. BUT lots of people in the age up to 80 believe in bigfoot and some even in aliens.

Surely there must be a reason why this happens.

There are lots of people that believe that breaking a mirror is bad luck, does that make breaking a mirror unlucky?

Children learn the truth about Santa and The Tooth Fairy because of logical reasoning. It is entry level. Bigfoot has more believers because the the evidence against his existence is harder for some to understand. Confusion often times breed contempt.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

Bigfoot has more believers because the the evidence against his existence is harder for some to understand. Confusion often times breed contempt.

Besides coming off all arrogant. You're completely wrong about that one Pal.