In the interest of keeping this thread a GQ, I thought I’d move the discussion over here. Does a creature similar to the Sasquatch (aka yeti, bigfoot, or skunk ape) exist? Could it? Why or why not?
Before I get the inevitable crass two-letter post dismissing this as pseudoscience, I want ya’ll to read this from howstuffworks.com:
Interesting, no? We couldn’t find the coelacanthe for awhile.
I don’t actually believe in the legend, but my googling in the GQ thread has convinced me that perhaps the legend should be considered with a bit more open mindedness. We have the fossilized remains of a similar animal, we have ancient legends from many different Native American tribes and Asian peoples, and we even have this strange photo of an alleged skunk ape.
I don’t think it is impossible. Improbable though. Humans are much more likely to find something as big as the coelacanthe on land than they would in the water. And, since we have found so many since the first “discovery”, I find it unlikely that a few thousand fishermen have not caught one or two and cooked/sold it as a funny lookin’ hardhead.
I started that thread. I was simply attempting to track the validity of recent reports. Here is the opinion I now have on the subject:
Bigfoot/Sasquatch/etc. is as much a hoax as it ever was. However, this hoax cannot be dismissed by scientist as easily as UFO’s. Enough has been written on the size of the universe, space-time, and the universal speed limit to mathematically deny any claims of alien abductions and such nonsense. Creatures such as bigfoot really did exist, albeit miliions of years ago. No amount of hardcore physics can explain away large primates. They did, and still do, exist. Physicists, meteorlogists, and astronomers can easily counteract claims of UFO’s with easy-to-agree-upon math. Large primates aren’t studied by these aforementioned scientists. They are studied by zoologists and anthropologists. UFO’s cannot exist because of what we know of physics and astronomy. But large primates can and do. Such claims are harder to counteract.
I think the problem is with the handling of evidence by the mainstream media. The Discovery Channel show I saw that sparked this debate truly was a convincing one. But after reasearching the links I found and the ones provided by posters in the thread, I’ve noticed that most of the date can be traced to a few sources, namely www.bfro.net
And once upon a time we thaught the world was flat and the center of the universe. Maybe they cannot exist by what we know. But at what point did we know everything?
I understand what you are saying. I don’t put people who believe in bigfoot in the same league as those who believe in UFO’s. UFOlogists ignore known laws of physics. Those who believe in bigfoot/yeti/etc. do not. I’ll rephrase what I said:
According to everything we have yet learned UFO’s cannot exist.
According to everything we have yet learned Bigfoot can. But, as you said, it’s improbable. And the burden of proof is on the claimants. I have been fascinated by some of this “proof”, but understand that the proof cannot be explained away by science using some agreed-upon equation, like the Theory of Relativity.
For the record, I really wish they did exist. But someone needs to capture one. And until they do, I will consider it as a hoax or misunderstanding. Growing up in the Ozarks I can’t tell you the number of strange things I have seen in the forest. But that doesn’t mean someone else wouldn’t have been able to identify what I couldn’t.
Actually, I was caught up in the absolutes of your arguement and stated one, myself, wich was false. According to what we know, they can exist, and if we go into the realm of probabilities, they probably do exist, as opposed to the bigfoot.
But I get your point. Using the science we know, they cannot exist. And on that, I am ignorant on atm.
I think that I was the author of the mentioned “crass” 2-letter post in the original thread. My apologies if I offended anyone. I was only trying to put in an amusing, quick joke, answer before the serious debate began. I’ve seen this done in many threads and I thought it was OK. No harm or insult meant to anyone. I took part in that thread and in others on that subject so I didn’t think I was guilty of doing a ‘drive-by’ either. I guess I’ll go back and read the rules again more carefully.
I do not believe Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) exist, nor do I think scientists take them seriously.
I’m curious, are there examples of other scientific facts/evidence that were initially mis-handled by the mainstream media?
I’m a little groggy today but a couple might come to mind…
It is entirely possible that aliens have come to this planet without breaking any laws of physics. Traveling at close to light speed they could reach many star systems given the presumed age of the universe. Suppose it takes 2 billion years to evolve to the point where you can create a light-speed space ship. Still gives you 10-14 billion years or so to travel. Aren’t there stars within 20 or 30 light years of us? A spacefaring species could reach thousands and thousands of star systems in billions of years travelling at light speed.
All that is required is a long lifespan, some sort of cryogenics, or a ship that can support generation after generation. Aliens could come here, study us, abduct us, and hide from us without ever breaking any of our assumed “laws” of physics.
Of course, we have been unsuccessful in our attempts to create a grand theory of everything, so the possibility of loopholes (wormholes, subspace, space warps) are not ruled out yet, and conjecture regarding such does not “break” the rules of physics, but rather attempts to fill in the gaps. The puzzle is not solved yet, and to act like it is promotes ignorance in my book. Many skeptics overstate the bounds of our knowledge. We still have so very much to learn.
Undiscovered primates are possible as well. There are still some great patches of wilderness on this planet, and who knows what life lurks in the darkest corners. That’s not to say I “believe” in aliens or bigfoot, only that I understand that they cannot be ruled out. Not ruling them out in no way illustrates an ignorance of physics or scientific discoveries.
Mods, I just noticed that the link in the OP does not go to the start of the other thread, but rather to one of my replies. I don’t know how I did that, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could fix it.
OK, that may be technically true as everything in science is just a “theory”, but then you would have to extend your statement to trilobytes, dinosaurs, wooly mammoths, and everything else in the fossil record. Hence, it is just a theory that dinosaurs once walked the earth.
