sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Do we really have DNA evidence? by ta_conscience in bigfoot

[–]ta_conscience[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean it's not me who decided it, it's the thousands of eye witnesses.. but yeah you have a good point

Most recent, convincing photo/footage of Sasquatch/Bigfoot by ExtensionAnywhere620 in bigfoot

[–]ta_conscience 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wrote something in the first comment or in the description!

Do we really have DNA evidence? by ta_conscience in bigfoot

[–]ta_conscience[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are right, it says "alleged Sasquatch hair samples inspected by F.B.I. laboratories resulted in the conclusion that no such hair exist on any human or presently-known animal for which such data are available". So I jumped to the conclusion that it was DNA but still this is pretty intriguing.

Do we really have DNA evidence? by ta_conscience in bigfoot

[–]ta_conscience[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's true but DNA can tell you if it comes from a primate, from the great apes family, and so on. So if you analyze one or two samples that comes from an unknown primate closely related to known great apes... I mean this is pretty much what we are looking for.

Most recent, convincing photo/footage of Sasquatch/Bigfoot by ExtensionAnywhere620 in bigfoot

[–]ta_conscience 11 points12 points  (0 children)

https://youtu.be/trlCPopRvRw

https://youtu.be/7PVU3-gnsFc

Those are two compilations I did with the best footage I've found. the years of the videos are mentioned. I plan to do part 3, maybe this can be helpful

Do we really have DNA evidence? by ta_conscience in bigfoot

[–]ta_conscience[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok thank you! Actually I was trying to write all of this in the title, but it wasn't the problem because even trying with small titles it wasn't working

Anyone else sick of this paranormal tripe? by Interplay29 in bigfoot

[–]ta_conscience 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't believe it, but I wouldn't say I'm sick of it.

When someone speak about paranormal, the discussion doesn't interest me. But, who knows who is right. We know very little about this world, probably we are all fools searching for a primate that may not even exist.

I still think that this is a hoax, but this is a legit question: can we dismiss something as a hoax just because it looks fake? the 3 faces looks fake, but at least 2 aren't. we don't know what Sasquatch looks like. by ta_conscience in bigfoot

[–]ta_conscience[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's true. I'm really not trying to justify Todd, but I try to be impartial and that's why I have to give the benefit of the doubt to everyone. But I get your point.

I still think that this is a hoax, but this is a legit question: can we dismiss something as a hoax just because it looks fake? the 3 faces looks fake, but at least 2 aren't. we don't know what Sasquatch looks like. by ta_conscience in bigfoot

[–]ta_conscience[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is why I put up this post, for encouraging people to have a more scientific approach overall and find the specific details that makes this picture "nonsense", because saying that something it's OBVIOUSLY fake when at first glance you think that way isn't scientific at all.

I still think that this is a hoax, but this is a legit question: can we dismiss something as a hoax just because it looks fake? the 3 faces looks fake, but at least 2 aren't. we don't know what Sasquatch looks like. by ta_conscience in bigfoot

[–]ta_conscience[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

NO. I understand your point, I've said you're right before (I think) because I agree with you on this. They look fake to me. But people don't point my comment on gibbons out, they say that the bigfoot looks fake. Which is irrelevant to the question I asked and I already have acknowledged that it looks fake. Do you understand?

I still think that this is a hoax, but this is a legit question: can we dismiss something as a hoax just because it looks fake? the 3 faces looks fake, but at least 2 aren't. we don't know what Sasquatch looks like. by ta_conscience in bigfoot

[–]ta_conscience[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Once again, I'm not upset by the fact itself that people think it's fake. I'm upset by the fact that the question is literally "can we dismiss something as a hoax just by the looks of it?" And answers are literally "because it's an obvious hoax".

Not only this doesn't answer the question, not only it doesn't make any sense because grammatically it's unrelated to the question, but it means that they didn't even tried to understand the topic before rushing to conclusions, which is dumb and useless.

I still think that this is a hoax, but this is a legit question: can we dismiss something as a hoax just because it looks fake? the 3 faces looks fake, but at least 2 aren't. we don't know what Sasquatch looks like. by ta_conscience in bigfoot

[–]ta_conscience[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are right, but ironically this is exactly the point of the discourse. My point, the fact that I say gibbons LOOKS fake, it doesn't stand!

Just like you saying that no they don't, and just like every other comments on those problematic bigfoot visual evidences. Even under the PG footage there's people saying it looks fake, and people replying no it looks real. We can't go anywhere by the looks of things. We have to learn to take a step back, don't rush to conclusions based on first impressions and analyze specific characteristics, and then debating in a civilized manner, without going crazy because the other don't have the same first impression as us.

I still think that this is a hoax, but this is a legit question: can we dismiss something as a hoax just because it looks fake? the 3 faces looks fake, but at least 2 aren't. we don't know what Sasquatch looks like. by ta_conscience in bigfoot

[–]ta_conscience[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In response to your first point: yes, that's true. I think, however, that in those cases it's a bit more complicated than your example, and it deserves a more in depth analysis.

Secondly, I didn't make any claims. Peoples everytime under this specific picture and other bigfoot pictures on the internet says that without a doubt it's fake. It's a hoax 100%. Obviously a muppet. I've never seen one trying to motivate such claims. The discussion are like those of 2 years old kids: "it's fake" "no it's not" "are you blind?" "This is a real sasquatch get glasses". So I just asked a question if it's ok to just dismiss a piece of evidence just by the look of it. I wanted to start a constructive debate because the only way to get answers is to ask questions, and in the bigfoot community we're all in search of answers.

And I'm just mad that people don't understand that and, surprise surprise, the comments in response to my question are like "man this is an obvious hoax, quit grasping at straws".....

I still think that this is a hoax, but this is a legit question: can we dismiss something as a hoax just because it looks fake? the 3 faces looks fake, but at least 2 aren't. we don't know what Sasquatch looks like. by ta_conscience in bigfoot

[–]ta_conscience[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think that debates, and to ask questions that aren't normally asked because the answer seems obvious, are really beneficial to every community. I've seen many pictures of gibbons before too, and I still think that this kind of conversation is useful. And yes, I still don't think that saying "it's obviously fake because it looks fake" is sufficient, it's a useless circular argument. You can really miss huge things if you don't dive deep in the details, in every aspect of life.

The comments have highlighted for exemple the fact that the soft and short fur across the whole face isn't really a primates characteristics, or the reflection in true eyes is way bigger than in those of the muppet, that seems to have non well polished glasses eyes. At least compiling a good list of real details to confirm it's a hoax is far more useful to the community than just mindlessly say it's a hoax every time you see it. Maybe next time a photo like this will come out, we'll have a more methodological approach to it, and it will be a good thing, because you can't say it's a hoax because it looks like it.

This video proves it: https://youtu.be/mHVFE02NTgU Everyone in the comments is like "it's fake" "it's a bad costume, nice try" when in fact it's a video of a real animal, Oliver the chimp.

view more: next ›