Bigfoot

[Ungatt Trunn]

How do real-life facts prove that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist?

heard that some scientist did an anilyzation of the hole thing, coming to the conclusion that it couldn't exist. Don't remember were I heard about it, TV, I think

[W0NWILL]

A bit off topic(Nessie, not Bigfoot), there's three possibilities of Nessie, Elasmosaurus*, mistaken ordinary things, and hoaxes. That's true for almost every Urban legend involving beasts, as long as you swap out the first thing for other animals that have really existed. Nessie is hidden implausibly well, a breeding population of Elasmosaurus, there would have to be about a hundred of them. Elasmosaurus are air-breathing animals, and have to come up for air about every hour. This means that there should be a minimum of several thousand heads popping up per day for air. The two other possibilities, mistaken ordinary things, and hoaxes, don't need to be disproved.


Before Dr. Robert Wilson's famous photo, the Loch Ness Monster had been limited to a few legends and scattered local sightings, which presumably accompanied spottings of highland prostitutes and grain alcohol. After the surgeon's photo, however, the creature gained worldwide attention, despite the fact that Wilson himself denied the Loch Ness Monster even existed and insisted he had just taken a picture of some animal he didn't recognize. Compared to the wavelets around it, it is very small, no bigger than a sock puppet. Compared to the fin photo, it is much smaller than it should be if they belonged to the same sort of creatures. The head photo is a hoax, and there's a confession.

A man called Marmaduke Wetherell engaged the services of his stepson, Christian Spurling, to build Nessie for him. Spurling purchased a toy submarine about 35cm long (just over a foot) and soldered a lead keel to it for stability. He then spent a total of eight days crafting the head and neck out of wood filler putty.

The fin photo, on the other hand, is a hoax as well. The original version of Rines' photo does not truly reveal much more than bubbles and underwater turbulence. Subsequent enhancements of this photo have produced an image that bears an incredible resemblance to a diamond shaped flipper. But it seems that these enhancements were made to bring out what people wanted to see.

*

Looks a bit like Nessie is interpreted. May of inspired the hoaxes.

(Fin photo hoax source: http://strange.myeyez.net/tag/loch-ness-monster-fin/)
(Head photo hoax source: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4318)

If you apply the same critical thinking to Sasquatch, you can disprove that as well. I'll be going about typing up another essay for Sasquatch soon.

[Buzz_Bumble]

The facts disprove Bigfoot too. For the supposed sightings to have lasted so long there would have to be a large family of them (if not multiple familes), and there would then be some actual proof because they would be found much easier.

Loch Ness has been scanned and explored many times with nothing turning up. Pretty much all the photos and films have been proven to be fakes or mistaken identifications. Plus again, there would have to be a significant number of them to have lasted this long.

[blindsimeonjtp]

i think its a man in a suit or a big joke.

[Ungatt Trunn]

The facts disprove Bigfoot too. For the supposed sightings to have lasted so long there would have to be a large family of them (if not multiple familes), and there would then be some actual proof because they would be found much easier.

If there are alot of them, that dosn't mean that they can be found easly (if the exist, that is). I've read several articals about creatures that have been found just recently. Cant this fact be inplied for Bigfoot as well?
Also, we cant let common sence get in the way of real possabliletys and facts. Its bad when we let Common Sence get in the way of facts, but its even worse if we let Common Sence become what we call "facts". Like the Patterson-Gimlin Film, it was anilyzed, and, as I have said before, it proed that it would be virtully impossable for it to be a human in a costum. Now, I'm not saying that the Bigfoot in that film realy is Bigfoot. But at the same time, after looking at it from every angle possable, we know that it wasn't any dressed-up human, so what could it be? This can also be said the same for other "encounters" with Bigfoot. But, for now, we dont know if Bigfoot really exists or not...yet.

[Redwaller]

And Bigfoot doesn't exist.

Yep, "Bigfoot" is a load of nonsense, just like UFOs, ghosts, Loch Ness Monster and all the other bogeymen stories.   

But Bigfoot very well might be real! The thought of the existence of Bigfoot isn't like most other monster legends. Take the Loch Ness monster, for example. Thats something that both Common Sence and Real-Life Facts say that it cant exists. But its different with Bigfoot. The existence of Bigfoot is something that only Common Sence tells you its not real. But with Facts, it dosn't ether deny Bigfoots existence nor verify it, making it possable that Bigfoot really is real. Understand?

Look, there is not one monster that exists(Each time one came up, it was put down). Greek Mythology are stories, all mythologies, myths, and legends are untrue.(except for some.)

And, not wanting to pull any fight, but you say that we shouldn't let common sense come in the way, then why do most people do that towards religion?

[HeadInAnotherGalaxy]

Bigfoot doez exizt; zat iz, ze idea o' bigfoot doez exizt. Therefore az long az ze idea exiztz, Bigfoot vill alvayz exizt. Likevize for every other mysteriouz creature.

[Ungatt Trunn]

Bigfoot doez exizt; zat iz, ze idea o' bigfoot doez exizt. Therefore az long az ze idea exiztz, Bigfoot vill alvayz exizt. Likevize for every other mysteriouz creature.

So you believe in the Loch Ness monster and other creatures like that are real too?

And Bigfoot doesn't exist.

Yep, "Bigfoot" is a load of nonsense, just like UFOs, ghosts, Loch Ness Monster and all the other bogeymen stories.   

But Bigfoot very well might be real! The thought of the existence of Bigfoot isn't like most other monster legends. Take the Loch Ness monster, for example. That's something that both Common Sense and Real-Life Facts say that it cant exists. But its different with Bigfoot. The existence of Bigfoot is something that only Common Sense tells you its not real. But with Facts, it doesn't ether deny Bigfoots existence nor verify it, making it possable that Bigfoot really is real. Understand?

Look, there is not one monster that exists. Greek Mythology are stories, all mythologies, myths, and legends are untrue.(except for some.)

Bigfoot may very well be one of those "Myths" that very well might be true. Not all the facts point to Bigfoot not existing. On the contrary, there are quite a few that point to Bigfoot's possable existence. That fact is undeniable.

[Redwaller]

The "Myths" I talked about were I. e. Saint Patrick chasing the snakes away from Ireland.

[Ungatt Trunn]

The "Myths" I talked about were I. e. Saint Patrick chasing the snakes away from Ireland.

Well, that's an intresting myth!

[Orinoco]

Has anyone ever seen the show Finding Bigfoot on Animal Planet? Most of that show is probably written and staged, but it certainly has made me consider the existance of sasquatches.

[Ungatt Trunn]

Has anyone ever seen the show Finding Bigfoot on Animal Planet? Most of that show is probably written and staged, but it certainly has made me consider the existance of sasquatches.

I've heard about that, though I havn't seen it before. Is it on YouTube? If it is, then I'll probubly see it...

[Buzz_Bumble]

Has anyone ever seen the show Finding Bigfoot on Animal Planet?

Notice that they NEVER actually find ANYTHING remotely real.

Not all the facts point to Bigfoot not existing.

There's no facts that point to Bigfoot existing ... absolutely none. Same with the Loch Ness Monster and all the other boogeymen.

If there are alot of them, that dosn't mean that they can be found easly (if the exist, that is).

Yes it does. If there's a lot of them, then there would be a lot of evidence and they'd be easy to track down.

I've read several articals about creatures that have been found just recently. Cant this fact be inplied for Bigfoot as well?

Nope. Those creatures that have been found (or in some cases re-found) have either been small insects in little explored countries, fish in the very deep oceans, etc. Not human-like creatures in the woods of America. Just look at how many bears, moose, etc. appear wandering in small American towns ... and yet absolutely no actual sign of any supposed Bigfoot. Just lots of superstitious nonsense and boogeyman stories.

[Ungatt Trunn]

Not all the facts point to Bigfoot not existing.

There's no facts that point to Bigfoot existing ... absolutely none. Same with the Loch Ness Monster and all the other boogeymen.

Sooo not true! There ARE several facts that point to Bigfoot existence. For example, Sientice found records from Native Amaricans telling about how some Big, hairy, ape-like creature stole food from them. But those arn't the only facts that point to Bigfoot's existence. Its impossable to say that there are no facts that point to Bigfoot's existence. But, at the same time, there arn't any facts that absolutly prove that Bigfoot truly exists...

[Buzz_Bumble]

For example, Sientice found records from Native Amaricans telling about ...

Those aren't facts. They're just more fabricated stories of older supposed "sightings". They're even more unreliable than modern supposed "sightings" since those are Native American stories passed down through many generations, with each generation adding to and changing the story.

The only way to prove as fact that Bigfoot / Loch Ness Monster / aliens / etc. really exist is to capture one or find a dead one ... which has also never ever happened.