Do you think Bigfoot exists?

[Tigerace117]

Did you think Bigfoot or other creatures such as Bigfoot exist? Why or why not?

 

[Skeptic Bob]

No, I don't think Big Foot exists. There is no compelling evidence for its existence that didn't turn out to be faked or explained by something more innocuous. The same goes for the Abominal Snowman and Nessie.

I think it would be really cool if they existed but wishful thinking doesn't make it so.

 

[HonestJoe]

I doubt there are any species of large bipedal mammals that have only been recorded by occasional amateur photography and a couple of indistinct footprints. I think the various sightings and claims reported could all be explained with combinations of misidentification of “mundane” animals and phenomena, deliberate hoaxes and a whole load of confirmation bias.

 

[Lutherf]

Bigfoot is a fraud. There aren't even any good pictures of one unlike the Jackalope

 

[StillBallin75]

I fall somewhere in between the two ends of the spectrum between skeptic and believer. I believe it's healthy to be a skeptic but at the same time not to close one's minds to the possibility that there are things that science has not yet explained, and I'll explain what I mean by that.

First, a couple things about cryptozoology (the field of pseudoscience which creatures like Bigfoot fall under). Science doesn't advance unless there are constant new discoveries. We are constantly discovering new species every day, and there have even been examples of other cryptids' existence being confirmed (in other words, other creatures who were once thought to be legendary and/or extinct that have been discovered, notably the coelecanth fish and the giant squid).

Taken individually, reports of bigfoot, Nessie, UFOs, and the like all should be treated with a healthy degree of skepticism. But with certain phenomena, there's definitely something out there that's unexplained when we have large groups of numbers of sightings. When it comes to Bigfoot sightings taken as a group, there are a lot of interesting points that can't be explained simply by mistaken identification or hoaxes. That is, there are common threads among a significant number of the sightings (i.e. bigfoot/sasquatch sightings are associated with a particularly strong odor). Some of the people claiming to have allegedly seen bigfoot are experts and professionals not prone to mistaken identification, such as LEOs, former military, and Park Rangers etc. Also, those who have attempted to collect alleged bigfoot footprints say that the samples follow a normal distribution when it comes to the size of the footprints. That's something that can't simply be explained away by hoaxes. So, just from a data and analytics standpoint, there's at least a lot of evidence that something unexplained is happening.

On the skeptic side of things, there's also the very convincing argument that in the areas where Bigfoot is claimed to reside/populate (i.e. mostly in the Pacific Northwest), there simply isn't enough food and vegetation to support a steady population of large ape-like creatures, or if there were, we would have way more sightings than we actually do.

I'm inclined to think that there's something out there and we just haven't confirmed its existence yet. But I'm also of the mindset that any claim of a bigfoot sighting should be treated with a healthy degree of skepticism.

 

[polgara]

I fall somewhere in between the two ends of the spectrum between skeptic and believer. I believe it's healthy to be a skeptic but at the same time not to close one's minds to the possibility that there are things that science has not yet explained, and I'll explain what I mean by that.

First, a couple things about cryptozoology (the field of pseudoscience which creatures like Bigfoot fall under). Science doesn't advance unless there are constant new discoveries. We are constantly discovering new species every day, and there have even been examples of other cryptids' existence being confirmed (in other words, other creatures who were once thought to be legendary and/or extinct that have been discovered, notably the coelecanth fish and the giant squid).

Taken individually, reports of bigfoot, Nessie, UFOs, and the like all should be treated with a healthy degree of skepticism. But with certain phenomena, there's definitely something out there that's unexplained when we have large groups of numbers of sightings. When it comes to Bigfoot sightings taken as a group, there are a lot of interesting points that can't be explained simply by mistaken identification or hoaxes. That is, there are common threads among a significant number of the sightings (i.e. bigfoot/sasquatch sightings are associated with a particularly strong odor). Some of the people claiming to have allegedly seen bigfoot are experts and professionals not prone to mistaken identification, such as LEOs, former military, and Park Rangers etc. Also, those who have attempted to collect alleged bigfoot footprints say that the samples follow a normal distribution when it comes to the size of the footprints. That's something that can't simply be explained away by hoaxes. So, just from a data and analytics standpoint, there's at least a lot of evidence that something unexplained is happening.

On the skeptic side of things, there's also the very convincing argument that in the areas where Bigfoot is claimed to reside/populate (i.e. mostly in the Pacific Northwest), there simply isn't enough food and vegetation to support a steady population of large ape-like creatures, or if there were, we would have way more sightings than we actually do.

I'm inclined to think that there's something out there and we just haven't confirmed its existence yet. But I'm also of the mindset that any claim of a bigfoot sighting should be treated with a healthy degree of skepticism.

Greetings, Stillballin75. :2wave:

Very well stated! :thumbs: :applaud

 

[Beaudreaux]

Did you think Bigfoot or other creatures such as Bigfoot exist? Why or why not?

No. Any animal that large would have been seen, or at least evidence of them seen (like skeletal remains), and in a way that proving their existence was possible. In fact, over the last decade, with the proliferation of cell phones that take videos and all the social media available everyone, if Big Foot existed, there would be a video online of him and his family.

I do, however, believe in ghosts.

 

[shrubnose]

I don't have any proof that they don't exist but I won't be spending any time looking for them.

:lol:

 

[Tigerace117]

No. Any animal that large would have been seen, or at least evidence of them seen (like skeletal remains), and in a way that proving their existence was possible. In fact, over the last decade, with the proliferation of cell phones that take videos and all the social media available everyone, if Big Foot existed, there would be a video online of him and his family.

I do, however, believe in ghosts.

Bigfoot is a fraud. There aren't even any good pictures of one unlike the Jackalope

No, I don't think Big Foot exists. There is no compelling evidence for its existence that didn't turn out to be faked or explained by something more innocuous. The same goes for the Abominal Snowman and Nessie.

I think it would be really cool if they existed but wishful thinking doesn't make it so.

True. Still, a lot of these places where the creatures supposedly live are remote and large, or, in the case of the lake creatures, deep.

 

[Deuce]

Did you think Bigfoot or other creatures such as Bigfoot exist? Why or why not?

97% of the population has a camera on them 24/7.

There's no bigfoot.