Comments on: Ask an Amateur Scientist: Bigfoot

By: AmateurScientist

AmateurScientist — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:40:18 +0000

What about the last 10-15 years? Or the last 50? The number of sightings is irrelevant without any evidence. We’re talking about seeing something furry in the woods here, which isn’t uncommon at all. How people choose to identify the things they see and don’t completely understand is informed by their preconceived notions about reality. If you believe in Bigfoot and you see something you can’t completely identify walking through the woods, your brain is likely to make a false association. And if you’re ascribing reality to Native American beliefs, then why not toss your hat in the ring with thunderbirds and cactus spirits?

Also, no one will rejoice when Bigfoot is finally proven to be false. No one has to prove Bigfoot false. The burden of proof is on those who make extraordinary claims. The skeptics are just trying to weed out the faulty reasoning.

By: BillW

BillW — Sat, 31 May 2008 23:07:47 +0000

Brian I understand what you are saying but with all of the reported sighting around the US and world there has to be something going on with this strange story of an undiscovered ape. As you know even Native Americans have talked about the wild man of the forest for centuries. We have even had some early 20th century and recent sighting here in this part of the Southeast where I live. We need to give this story more time to develop before dismissing it as being a hoax or just people who are seeing things other than an undiscovered ape. If no collected evidence or even a capture of the big ape happens in the next 10 to 15 years then it will be time for the skeptics to rejoice in the belief that Bigfoot truly does not exist.

By: AmateurScientist

AmateurScientist — Fri, 30 May 2008 18:09:51 +0000

Actually, I didn’t say it was a man in a suit, though that seems to be the most likely explanation. However, there seem to be conflicting stories about who exactly donned the suit. Still, the existence of Bigfoot boobs on the creature in the footage don’t go any way toward disproving the man-in-suit hypothesis. If it is a suit, it’s definitely well made. So I wouldn’t find it strange if the designer included a nice rack. And the overwhelming lack of corroborating evidence outside of this film makes its veracity highly suspect. If this is really footage of a Bigfoot, it’s the only such footage. And eventually you have to ask yourself why this would be the case.

By: BillW

BillW — Fri, 30 May 2008 16:16:29 +0000

Brian the man in the monkey suit as you claim was a female or a man with big breast. Look at the film again and you will see breast moving as the man in the monkey suit, as you claim, turns to look at Patterson. Wouldn’t you say that it is kind of strange that they would create breast for the suit?

By: Doctor Zen

Doctor Zen — Thu, 29 May 2008 22:00:47 +0000

What do you know about this?

http://13moon.com/prophecy%20page.htm

By: Robin

Robin — Thu, 29 May 2008 13:06:34 +0000

Very nice, Brian. I’ve been skeptical at best about Bigfoot since sometime in middle school, and it’s good to know that the lack of evidence supports that. No matter what that episode of The X-Files would have us believe.

Just one minor quibble:
“…anything else he could pedal…”
That should be ‘peddle’. [/grammarnerd]