[_ Old Earth _] Bigfoot: Myth or Truth?

[servant of light]

is he real? I want to know if anyone has seen him ever or had any experiances or if you just wanna tell what you think.

 

[peace4all]

in the americas? dirty lie..

The slim possibility in the russian mountains, dinland, places like that, maybe..

 

[Khaine]

is he real? I want to know if anyone has seen him ever or had any experiances or if you just wanna tell what you think.

If your really serious in wanting to know about BF, you might want to check out http://www.cryptozoology.com.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Likely just a tall tale built around a bear seen in bad lighting. It would have been found by now otherwise.

 

[scitso]

Not necessarily, SyntaxVorlon. In India they discovered a new species of monkey recently. It wouldn't be too hard for a small population of an animal to exist without our knowing it, especially something that is shy.
If bigfoot exists, I doubt that there is a population of an significance.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Not necessarily, SyntaxVorlon. In India they discovered a new species of monkey recently. It wouldn't be too hard for a small population of an animal to exist without our knowing it, especially something that is shy.
If bigfoot exists, I doubt that there is a population of an significance.

A population of an animal that size would have a large territorial range, so much so that it would intersect with our civilization several times. This being the case, we would have more than just a few sightings and one poorly made hoax video.

 

[experimental-robot]

there is an unkown ape in sumatra called orang pendek (well thats what people call it so far)
there has been hair etc examined and scientist say it is an unkown ape species
witnesses say it walks upright
thats the only real proof i know about a type of creature bigfoot
in manitoba a man said the other day he filmed one
he is waiting for a scientists to examine the footage before releasing it to the media
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... nal/Canada

i think it was someone who got lost during a greatful dead concert

 

[Featherbop]

I'm undecided.

On the one hand, there are numerous sightings/film of Bigfoot.

On the other hand, one would assume Bigfoot would have been discovered by now...

 

[Khristeeanos]

I have no idea, but I don't think there really is. There is a bunch of people trying to get popular (see: $ $ $) by claiming to have seen one.

Just my take.

 

[Dave...]

Here is the BFRO link. It's a cool site to browse. They answer a lot of the questions that many people ask today...look under "Frequently Asked Questions" on the home page.

http://www.bfro.net/

I think that bigfoot is Gigantopithecus. "The Bigfoot-Giganto hypothesis suggests that bigfoots are surving relatives of the genus Gigantopithecus. Gigantopithecus (the Latin word for "Giant Ape") was a giant cousin of the orangutan. It was presumed to be extinct."

 

[Scott]

On the one hand, there are numerous sightings/film of Bigfoot.

Yeah, there's also a monster truck named Bigfoot... : . I'm sorry, I've got to agree with SV on this one. If it exists for real, we'd already have found and classified him by now. I'm sure the evolutionists would hunt night and day for it because of what it could mean for their theory.

 

[Dave...]

We have nothing to fear from the truth. True science has never contradicted the Bible yet. The Hard facts of science will never contradict the Bible.

 

[KrissyLen]

On the one hand, there are numerous sightings/film of Bigfoot.

Yeah, there's also a monster truck named Bigfoot... : . I'm sorry, I've got to agree with SV on this one. If it exists for real, we'd already have found and classified him by now. I'm sure the evolutionists would hunt night and day for it because of what it could mean for their theory.

Yet new animals are being found all the time. How about that new rockrat that was found in a bazar eatery? Or the new apes that have been found, or the new pigmy deer? They were legends and fairy tales before someone proved their existance.

 

[Dave...]

We may have physical evidence already. We have fossel evidence of Gigantopithecus.

What I would question is the "scientist" who declared that the fossel evidence of Gigantopithecus is millions of years old and because of that, the two are never linked. Their is no way to scientifically prove that something is "millions of years old".

 

[keebs]

Their is no way to scientifically prove that something is "millions of years old".

Yes, there is.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Their is no way to scientifically prove that something is "millions of years old".

Yes, there is.

Sure there is, you can show that something fell into 20 million year old mud and had 10 million years worth of sedimentary deposits dumped on it, then it is scientifically shown to be between 10 and 20 million years.
There done.

There's also radiometric dating and various other methods of dating things that are very old.


Within everything change occurs over time. This leaves markers, it leaves ticks and tocks of a clock that runs through everything. Science has found these and uses them to find the age of objects.

 

[Dave...]

Sure there is, you can show that something fell into 20 million year old mud and had 10 million years worth of sedimentary deposits dumped on it, then it is scientifically shown to be between 10 and 20 million years.
There done.

How do you know that the "mud" is 20 million years old?

How do you know that there is 10 million years of sedimentary deposits dumped on it?

At the very core of your argument, you have theory.

There's also radiometric dating and various other methods of dating things that are very old.

Again, how can you prove that this method is sound?

Within everything change occurs over time. This leaves markers, it leaves ticks and tocks of a clock that runs through everything. Science has found these and uses them to find the age of objects.

But assigning exact dates and times to these "markers" is just another theory.

 

[keebs]

How do you know that the "mud" is 20 million years old?

There are many ways to tell, depending on the type of "mud," the rocks within the mud, etc.

How do you know that there is 10 million years of sedimentary deposits dumped on it?

Same as above.

At the very core of your argument, you have theory.

Exactly.

Again, how can you prove that this method is sound?

Because we can derive the principles from proven scientific theories, and we can verify and reverify that these principles work using objects which have a history recorded by humans.

But assigning exact dates and times to these "markers" is just another theory.

Exactly. You don't seem to understand what a scientific theory is.

 

[Khaine]

Putting this back on topic;
http://www.theroyalforum.com/article.php?id=46