Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

JStevens84 t1_j7krsd1 wrote

Reply to comment by sockbref in Bigfoot sighting in pa deemed credible by people who believe in bigfoot. by mynameisalso

That’s a fair point but maybe they toss their dead into a lake or take them deep into a cave.

we have found non human primate dna, hair samples from unknown creatures, hundreds of footprints that aren’t just fake tracks that some teenagers put there.(see professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho state Jeff Meldrum) Thousands of credible visual sightings from experienced woodsmen.

Based on that you would think it’s worthy of further study by the government. The govt loves wasting money on shit like this and yet they’ve done nothing. That’s weird to me

1

sockbref t1_j7ksv2i wrote

But we have physical bones of currently known animal species that have lived and died in North America for tens of thousands of years. We don’t have one bit of concrete evidence of a supersized human like primate. Tracks can be faked, it is possible and I’m sure you can agree. Everything had been unknown to us at one time. New species are always being discovered.

For the sake of argument, if you enough people claim to see a chupacabras, or more unlikely, leprechauns let’s say, and all we had were eyewitness accounts and unknown tracks and fur, should this be enough to spend public funding searching for these animals?

2

JStevens84 t1_j7kx5hj wrote

I didn’t think we needed concrete evidence to warrant further study. That doesn’t make sense. We have a lot of circumstantial evidence which deserves further study. I’ll take the word of an expert who’s studied the footprints for decades when he says that some would be more or less impossible to fake

So you’re saying leprechauns are comparable to a human like primate in feasibility? If we had dna evidence, thousands of visual sightings and tracks and fur of course it would be enough to look into it further. That’s what science is, studying things that you have evidence for to see if it’s true

0

sockbref t1_j7lbl2o wrote

I was using a hypothetical. If enough people want to believe in leprechauns then they will think they see them. What’s a leprechaun but a tiny human? Imagine the opposite of a Bigfoot. Instead of large tracks there could be tiny foot tracks. Seems just as possible. We have just as many leprechaun bones as we do Bigfoot ones.

2

JStevens84 t1_j7leab1 wrote

I notice how you completely ignore my point about it being something worthy of further study. We know a giant ape lived up until about 100,000 years ago and all we have to show for it is 4partial jawbones and some teeth. We’ve catalogued probably less than 1/4 of all species on the planet. Combine that with all the aforementioned evidence and it’s absolutely plausible that it exists and warrants further(read:any at all) study.

You don’t have to look into it, but if you do I think you might have more of an open mind about it.

1

sockbref t1_j7lgzr6 wrote

To answer your point about being worthy of study, hearsay and circumstantial evidence doesn’t seem to be enough for scientific research into the matter. If it were, you better believe there would be droves of studies and researchers out looking and finding the evidence out there. The notoriety alone would be enough motivation for some but the mostly finding an unknown bipedal human like ape in our backyard would be groundbreaking. It hasn’t happened. Why not?

2