Help support the Mego Museum
Help support the Mego Museum

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New reality series Killing Bigfoot

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • MIB41
    Eloquent Member
    • Sep 25, 2005
    • 15633

    #46
    Originally posted by enyawd72
    Probably not, but I don't think most people would. The question here is irrelevent. It is not for me to recognize a unique or unidentified species anywhere. The only correct course of action is to accurately report what I observe and then compare those findings to the record of known animals. Such is the case with Bigfoot. It's classification has never been determined other than some type of great ape, which includes humans. Without positive identification, any cryptid animal must be compared to something that is known, if for no other reason than to provide some frame of reference.

    That's why it's interesting to note that there are no Bigfoot sightings where there shouldn't be any...Hawaii is a perfect example. There was never any way for an ape species to migrate there from Asia...hence, no Bigfoot reports come from there.

    Now to address Lonnie's assertions that there is no evidence...well, that's bunk. There have been plenty of pieces of evidence. There are photos, videos, nests, tree structures, vocalizations, etc.
    Lonnie's claim that he could cast his own footprint and fool any true expert betrays his ignorance on the subject. I'm not going to get into it any further than that.
    In 45 years I have never seen one black bear in Ohio. I've never seen any bones, or nests. I guess that means they don't exist right? That's how utterly stupid that argument is. There are currently 200,000 to 300,000 chimpanzees living in the wild, and over thousands of years millions have lived and died. How many chimpanzee remains have ever been found? TWO. Out of MILLIONS.

    Gorillas...elephants...giant squid...all were once thought to be myths. Thankfully, science eventually won out and proved them all.
    Thanks Dwayne. My point in asking that question is if we are to look at statistics and apply science to the authenticity of these sightings, there's a number of undeniable truths that come from this. First, there have been over 3,000 sightings in more than 90 + years. Virtually every state in America and even one in Australia. That's allot of animals Dwayne. It becomes even more fantastic if we are to assume, it's the same creature existing incognito in all of these various ecosystems where their food sources would be entirely different.

    Second, if we look at species that are hard to monitor, like say a Great White, we are still puzzled at a number of things we still can't confirm such as mating and where this occurs. There are tons of theories but nothing definitive. Can you IMAGINE the number of undocumented creatures we have never come across in the vast oceans? So, I would absolutely say there are likely possibilities to species on land that we have not accounted for due to our issues with accessibility. But lack of access is not in itself proof of anything.

    Do I think there is any weight to some of these sightings? Probably. Do I think some of these people believe in what they saw? Surely. Do I believe there are scores of hoaxes along the way? Unquestionably. Is there an industry that thrives on perpetuating the notion that one could be in your back yard? You would be blind not to see that. But my belief comes not so much from sightings but from the inherit arrogance that science thinks it has everything figured out. So much of what we think we know is all predicated on theory. Lots of lose theories at that all founded on scientific opinion (which does not mean it's right). Where Big Foot falls in that equation is still to be determined. I would LOVE to see them come across one alive or otherwise. It would be fascinating but not shocking.

    I do not hesitate to say we are surrounded by all types of things we are oblivious to. But one thing I can also say with equal conviction is I know a money grab when I see one. And these TV shows that go after the "unexplained" are quite frankly an insult to my intelligence. It's Maury Povich with a blue light whispering, "Whats that?" I think there is a thoughtful search for facts and then there are these shameless hack TV series that quite honestly give the myth the reputation it gets, when people defend them as if they should walk hand in hand with research. It's exploitation and a sham that, in my opinion, makes fun of the people who actually do serious exploration of the facts. They mix in bits and pieces of scientific research, then sensationalize it for ratings. I can't stand behind that stuff Dwayne. And it's painful to watch you defend all things Big Foot then you KNOW so much of this stuff is garbage.

    Believing there are unidentified species should not be a stretch for anyone. But I think you have to be wise enough to know when to separate yourself from the hype machine and not personalize these one dimensional shows that cater to all the wrong nuances about the myth and it's followers. There should always be a measured reflection between what is real science and a industry that exists to make a cheap buck off this. I truly hope one day they discover something that fits the scale and appearance of some of these sightings. But whether that happens or not, it won't be because these shows were taking it serious. There's two words for these shows - Paid advertising.
    Last edited by MIB41; Feb 6, '17, 9:59 AM.

    Comment

    • enyawd72
      Maker of Monsters!
      • Oct 1, 2009
      • 7904

      #47
      Originally posted by MIB41
      Thanks Dwayne. My point in asking that question is if we are to look at statistics and apply science to the authenticity of these sightings, there's a number of undeniable truths that come from this. First, there have been over 3,000 sightings in more than 90 + years. Virtually every state in America and even one in Australia. That's allot of animals Dwayne. It becomes even more fantastic if we are to assume, it's the same creature existing incognito in all of these various ecosystems where their food sources would be entirely different.

      Second, if we look at species that are hard to monitor, like say a Great White, we are still puzzled at a number of things we still can't confirm such as mating and where this occurs. There are tons of theories but nothing definitive. Can you IMAGINE the number of undocumented creatures we have never come across in the vast oceans? So, I would absolutely say there are likely possibilities to species on land that we have not accounted for due to our issues with accessibility. But lack of access is not in itself proof of anything.

      Do I think there is any weight to some of these sightings? Probably. Do I think some of these people believe in what they saw? Surely. Do I believe there are scores of hoaxes along the way? Unquestionably. Is there an industry that thrives on perpetuating the notion that one could be in your back yard? You would be blind not to see that. But my belief comes not so much from sightings but from the inherit arrogance that science thinks it has everything figured out. So much of what we think we know is all predicated on theory. Lots of lose theories at that all founded on scientific opinion (which does not mean it's right). Where Big Foot falls in that equation is still to be determined. I would LOVE to see them come across one alive or otherwise. It would be fascinating but not shocking.

      I do not hesitate to say we are surrounded by all types of things we are oblivious to. But one thing I can also say with equal conviction is I know a money grab when I see one. And these TV shows that go after the "unexplained" are quite frankly an insult to my intelligence. It's Maury Povich with a blue light whispering, "Whats that?" I think there is a thoughtful search for facts and then there are these shameless hack TV series that quite honestly give the myth the reputation it gets, when people defend them as if they should walk hand in hand with research. It's exploitation and a sham that, in my opinion, makes fun of the people who actually do serious exploration of the facts. They mix in bits and pieces of scientific research, then sensationalize it for ratings. I can't stand behind that stuff Dwayne. And it's painful to watch you defend all things Big Foot then you KNOW so much of this stuff is garbage.

      Believing there are unidentified species should not be a stretch for anyone. But I think you have to be wise enough to know when to separate yourself from the hype machine and not personalize these one dimensional shows that cater to all the wrong nuances about the myth and it's followers. There should always be a measured reflection between what is real science and a industry that exists to make a cheap buck off this. I truly hope one day they discover something that fits the scale and appearance of some of these sightings. But whether that happens or not, it won't be because these shows were taking it serious. There's two words for these shows - Paid advertising.
      I definitely agree with your views on the TV circus surrounding Bigfoot...my original comments were specifically regarding the morality/ethics of killing an unknown species that may in fact be a primitive type of human. Even if the TV series is bunk (which I'm sure it is), it establishes a dialog on the subject. Unfortunately these types of programs invite ridicule on those trying to do legitimate research.The worst offender is Mountain Monsters, and truthfully, even on Finding Bigfoot, I cringe whenever Matt, Cliff, or Bobo claim every little thing is a Bigfoot. I'm not that naive. All I can speak from is my own personal experience, and look for what I believe to be credible evidence among what's presented. Now, in regards to the number of sightings and theories on what the population may be, bear in mind how many people go missing in forests and are never found. This, despite the fact that searchers have a general idea of where to look and assuming the lost person wants to be found. All Bigfoot encounters seem to be accidental. The notion of a highly intelligent species being able to evade detection in millions of acres of forest doesn't seem far fetched to me at all.
      Of all the evidence collected...including eyewitness testimony, photographs, video, audio, footprint casts, etc. It doesn't matter if 99% are fake. If even 1% are genuine, then Bigfoot exists. BTW...a new species of shark was just discovered.

      Comment

      • megomania
        Persistent Member
        • Jan 2, 2010
        • 2175

        #48
        The Producer of the show was on Coast to Coast last night....it was the Midnight Pacific time hour so I only made it about 30 mins...wasn't really that provocative.

        George Noory told this story about a call he received once from this guy who was bass fishing. While he was fishing he found a Bigfoot just staring at him quizzically. The dude handed two bass to BF...BF looked at them for a sec and then handed one back.

        He asked the Producer dude if he believed the story...when he replied "Yes, I totally believe that" (I'm paraphrasing) I kinda figured out he wasn't really that credible. Just my opinion tho.

        -Chris

        Comment

        • Mego Milk
          Custom Mego Maker
          • Jun 3, 2007
          • 2843

          #49
          I believe you, enyawd72.

          Comment

          • Bruce Banner
            HULK SMASH!
            • Apr 3, 2010
            • 4335

            #50
            "There's only one thing in the mountains that leaves a track like this. The creature of legend that roams the timberline. My people named him Sasquatch. You call him... Bigfoot."

            Tom Raintree



            For the record, I also believe in the existence of Sasquatch.
            PUNY HUMANS!

            Comment

            • Hedji
              Citizen of Gotham
              • Nov 17, 2012
              • 7246

              #51
              Originally posted by Mego Milk
              I believe you, enyawd72.
              ^Great post. I do too.

              My Wife always had a recurring nightmare as a child of driving through a forest road, when all of a sudden, Bigfoot steps out into the road, and they have to swerve before hitting him. I'm not suggesting that's evidence or anything, but I always enjoy her account of it.

              Comment

              • warlock664
                Persistent Member
                • Feb 15, 2009
                • 2108

                #52
                Originally posted by Mego Milk
                I believe you, enyawd72.
                Oh, I totally believe him too. I wouldn't for a minute suggest he's a liar; I acknowledge he saw something, and he's convinced it's Bigfoot. I'm just personally skeptical that such a creature could exist in the numbers required to reproduce, and in so many different climates, in this modern age, with no indisputable photographic evidence produced. Or remains.
                As I said earlier, though, I don't begrudge anyone their personal beliefs. We can disagree without being uncivil.

                Comment

                • Riderfan
                  Megos are cool
                  • Feb 14, 2012
                  • 405

                  #53
                  Originally posted by CrimsonGhost
                  The unfortunate thing about this show and the Finding Bigfoot show is that they are pre-taped, so the viewer goes in knowing they don't find anything substantial because if they had, it would have made the news back whan it happened.
                  Can't agree more, this why I don't watch shows such as this, and not the Bigfoot ones, but the one about Hitler or (here in Canada) Oak Island-if they actually ever found anything it would be in the news a year (or whatever) before the episode was broadcast. Just cheap entertainment that makes money, as MIB41 & tjacwave50 mention.

                  I have a theory that Sasquatch existed, perhaps still does, but not in the conventional sense. In N. America there's a lot of mammals that have close relatives in Africa (big cats, wild dogs, antelope) but some have gone extinct here (elephants & rhinos). Not a huge stretch of the imagination that at least one species of great ape existed here.

                  Human & apes are similar but obviously not identical. One difference is the feet.

                  Native Americans surely would've known of such an ape but, with the language barrier, when trying to describe it to Europeans did something lost in the translation? Like, does sasquatch actually mean 'hand foot' or 'thumb foot' or big foot but with a different meaning? I mean, Canada was incorrectly translated from Kanata, which meant something like 'that place over there', or some such thing.

                  Maybe Sasquatch is more like an orangutan in size & shape, living in the trees in the pacific NW & British Columbia, rarely coming down to ground level. IF this were the case, the TV shows shows, or anybody, will never find anything.

                  Just a theory based on nothing more than mastodons & woolly rhinos. All this said, the 'Mulder' in me hopes the traditional sasquatch is proven, but the Scully in me just can't see it happening.

                  But in answer to your original question enyawd72, killing something to prove its existence is wrong IMO.

                  K
                  I've come here to chew bubblegum & kick ***. And I'm all out of bubblegum

                  (Rowdy Roddy Piper in 'They Live' 1988)

                  Comment

                  • Goblin19
                    Talkative Member
                    • May 2, 2002
                    • 6124

                    #54
                    Yes, knowing that nothing will be found makes the suspense they try to build before commercial breaks laughable.

                    Comment

                    • sprytel
                      Talkative Member
                      • Jun 26, 2009
                      • 6651

                      #55
                      Actually I just heard an interesting Radiolab podcast about the Guadeloupe raccoon. In it, they revealed this tidbit: in order to consider something a new species, an emblematic sample of the species must be killed and put "on file" in one of several species cataloging facilities around the world. This way the animal can be compared to other specimen to determine if it is truly a unique species. In this story, the Guadeloupe raccoon was on file at the Smithsonian, which has a massive storage area for preserving these specimen. And (spoiler if you actually plan on listening to the podcast), further investigation found that the Guadeloupe raccoon, long thought to be a unique species, is actually no different than the common North American raccoon. So while it may seem wrong, particularly with a threatened species... this is apparently what we do for every species.

                      Comment

                      • knight errant00
                        8 Inch Action Figure
                        • Nov 15, 2005
                        • 1773

                        #56
                        As a guy who wrote a book collecting interviews of people relating their experiences with ghosts (that on a couple occasions I've actually been ridiculed for -- don't shoot the messenger!), as they said in Ghostbusters, enyawd72, I'm ready to believe you. And I'd love to hear your story, if you'd care to share, even off-forum.

                        Comment

                        • Werewolf
                          Inhuman
                          • Jul 14, 2003
                          • 14958

                          #57
                          Originally posted by Riderfan
                          Native Americans surely would've known of such an ape but, with the language barrier, when trying to describe it to Europeans did something lost in the translation? Like, does sasquatch actually mean 'hand foot' or 'thumb foot' or big foot but with a different meaning?
                          The Big Foot of popular culture is not exactly the same as the ones of Native mythology. The native people of North America had no concept of apes and had no words to describe ape like animals. The names various nations gave to the creature translates to wild man, big man or hairy man. The Native paintings of the Wild Man creature look like a big shaggy monster and are not really ape like. Think more traditional Wild Man looking, like Bionic Big Foot, and not ape like, like and Harry and the Hendersons. Some cultures also considered the creature to be a spirit and not a physical being. The creature wasn't universally peaceful either. In some cultures it was down right evil.

                          About the show, it's reality TV, so don't expect any advancements and the study of the creature. Reality TV is all staged and scripted. The guys on the recent bigfoot shows I've checked out acted like they couldn't find a gorilla in a zoo with a map and directions let alone an elusive creature like bigfoot in a hundred miles of dense woods.
                          You are a bold and courageous person, afraid of nothing. High on a hill top near your home, there stands a dilapidated old mansion. Some say the place is haunted, but you don't believe in such myths. One dark and stormy night, a light appears in the topmost window in the tower of the old house. You decide to investigate... and you never return...

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          😀
                          🥰
                          🤢
                          😎
                          😡
                          👍
                          👎