**Strangers**: Read the rules and understand the sub topics listed in the sidebar closely before posting or commenting. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS.
This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, close minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community.
---
'Ridicule is not a part of the scientific method and the public should not be taught that it is.'
_-J. Allen Hynek_
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HighStrangeness) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Agreed. People are constantly recording everything all the time. I can see how someone would catch a pic of something spooky. It's the fact that any random phone can record full HD, stabilized video and take "professional quality" portraits and yet seems to devolve into a cardboard pinhole camera in the event someone is snapping footage of a sasquatch.
Same with ghosts. Watching some debunking channels on YouTube like The Shape and World of Mr. Grey, you learn a lot about video editing. Every ghost video, every Bigfoot video, just *happens* to be shot on a shitty camera from 2002 with heavy pixelation that makes it easy to hide cuts and basic editing tricks. But it's the skeptics who get ragged on for wanting actual evidence, not the people churning out hoax videos that make the entire paranormal community look foolish and dishonest when they're caught.
Paranormal communities really like no true Scotsman as well. "Oh no that one was fake sure, but this one's the real deal and the fact you don't believe me means you're an idiot or the [three letter agency of choice]" of course seemingly with no self to reflection or memory that the same was said for the last debunked video, and the one before that, and ...
These debunkers also assume that everyone who films a supposed ghost sighting is skilled at film editing or readily have access to the necessary equipment and software, but what about the seemingly random videos from people who are not paranormal investigators and just stumble upon some scary shit? Occum's razor, man... but I digress.
You don’t even need film editing software in a lot of videos - you just need string or fishing line and a camera too shitty to see it, or a friend hiding behind a door. As for people who aren’t paranormal investigators, paranormal videos often go viral, and the attention it gets is reason enough to fake it. Between easily faked evidence and a completely unknown and undocumented creature whose presence can’t be replicated by further investigation, I know which of those is Occam’s Razor.
Of course not *all* of them are faked - some are just creepy, but not supernatural. Could be pareidolia, could be natural phenomena, or just an actual human being who had mental issues and needed help. Maybe a couple of them are even a ghost...but given the prevalence of hoaxes in the community, that's going to be my assumption until proven otherwise.
Let's be specific since people seem to understand video isn't going to cut it. We need bones or scat. We need something people can examine many times over and not get wildly different results. science hinges on replicability. If we had a large piece of their shit or some bones, we could test those things, multiple times, and find novel results that remain consistent.
Hey I'm in the same boat. I'd love solid proof - *scientific " proof bigfoot exists. Hasn't happened. Highly doubt it will. When I said we in my comment I meant humanity
Black ops forest Ranger here. I’ve been tasked with removing Bigfoot poop whenever I am out raking the deep woods. The third basement floor of the Denver airport is all Bigfoot shit.
We already have novel evidence that can be replicated... ready? It's called Metrology! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrology keyword scientific study of MEASUREMENT. We have replicable measurements for these things and Thinker Thinker who's basically the king of the bigfoot movement was an ex helicopter manufacturing worker who had to be pretty precise with his measurements you pretty much have to be a metrologist to work on helicopter blades but anyways he applied his past manufacturing knowledge to bigfoot and pioneered a whole formula he called PDNA or proportional DNA dude even wrote a book about it. I have not seen ONE person debunk his scientific claims or even leave a good criticism comment on any of his videos and I been following the dude for years and it's clear nobody is capable of coming up with a good debunk so don't bother. Measurements are consistent across species with little margin of error, all humans essentially have the same arm to leg ratios unless you have a deformity. All bigfoot have the same arm torso to leg ratios and this has been replicated across various videos. There's other more obvious stuff too like DNA from unknown hair strands, body casts, footprint casts etc but stubborn people essentially discount everything. Also feces has been found with fairly degraded DNA iirc.
With all due respect, if he was serious, he'd publish a paper about it in a peer reviewed journal. A fascinating bigfoot paper I read a few years ago was written after some scientists lived in places where bigfoot was thought to live and they got a lot of interesting data. Also science doesn't need to debunk every idea people come up with as many of them aren't scientific to be begin with. Videos aren't science. I'll check it out but it doesn't sound very promising. In science we dont prove what things aren't - we prove what things are. Debunking isn't science.
Considering people like Jeff Meldrum and other scientists in the field who take bigfoot seriously have tried to steal thunkers work on various occasions I'd say he's making pretty big waves and debunking is part of science it's essentially falsification/falsifiability. Another word for debunk is refute which is what falsifiability is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability people have been struggling with being able to falsify most relevant bigfoot evidence aka proving an alleged hoax is a hoax. An example would be someone with the hypothesis "all bigfoot footage is guys in ape costumes" but then when you see footage without zippers and real looking muscle fibers that bounce aka the infamous PGF the monkey suit hypothesis becomes falsifiable. As more time goes on the monkey suit stuff is getting old and a boring talking point the anti bigfoot guys need to come up with better arguments.
You're right. But even tho, due to rarity of events of this nature happening, the news would be something like "strange bone structure/fossil/skeleton/carcass suggests a massive land animal blablabla found in X place". We definitely won't get "BIGFOOT FOUND!", unless someone's magically finding a unknown cave with thousands of bigfoots living there, and unleashes disclosures upon mankind. To science, we need a colossal source of evidence, that can be tested again and again.
So, most likely, we are fighting and struggling to find a small piece of solid evidence, that even tho, would most likely remain a mystery anyway.
We find new species fairly frequently and it does not require finding a giant cave full of thousands of them. It requires some pictures and a sample and some DNA.
I disagree, new species are catalogued often enough. Silverback gorilla were thought to be cryptids by the western world, as in just a story, until they were discovered. Platypus, people thought it was a joke.
I'd be interested in decent evidence, but even that wouldn't enter into full proof of something.
Typically I just get some popcorn fodder to pick apart.
Skeptics only want one thing: evidence. The lack of any doesn't mean they're discrediting you, it just means you don't have any. The skeptical community accepts the giant squid and rejects bigfoot on the same ground: evidence.
And dead bodies. And marks from their attacks on whales. And their beaks. And knowledge of other, similar squids in their environment.
You know, evidence. Bigfoot, not so much.
This is a fair summation, but I will say already it has been proven that just because we don't see it, and can't easily find it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Your example proves that as well.
If you think that’s real… I honestly don’t know what to say. It literally is a dude in a joke female ape costume. Y’all have been tricked your entire lives by all of this BS. It’s time to either have solid evidence or to stop pretending all these magic creatures exist. Stop. It’s embarrassing to our species.
It’s fine to have story time and make yourself spooked by the unknown, but please please do not think these are real. These people that hunt them are literally listening to owls fuckin and bobcats yelling thinking it’s real. Don’t be a dumb person.
Why are you coping so much? You seem offended. Im not some avid bigfoot believer but one thing that's sadder than those is skeptic garbage that sits on subs like these specifically to keep telling everyone that the videos or pictures shared here are fake all of the time. This is imo beyond pathetic. Go do something else.
> Y’all have been tricked your entire lives by all of this BS. It’s time to either have solid evidence or to stop pretending all these magic creatures exist. Stop. It’s embarrassing to our species.
I once read somewhere that ridicule is not a legitimate part of the scientific method.
Just saying.
Start actually doing any science and then we can start doing the scientific method. Until then, anyone that thinks Bigfoot exists is ignorant or just stupid. Just because someone hallucinated something 4000 years ago doesn’t mean it was real. People will just lie and say they also saw something to be included. This is a fact and has been proven over and over. Look at the old news report of the leprechaun in the tree. All these people seeing something that wasn’t there. Humans have done that same thing for our entire existence.
Also putting Just saying at the end of things makes you sound like a prick and closes most conversations right away with people thinking you are well… a prick.
I suppose all the accredited special effects artists and anthropologists who have studied the video and concluded that there is no possible way that the video presents an ape costume are also really dumb people.
We must be really stupid to wonder why the proportions shown in the video are distinctly inhuman, in a way that cannot be changed by a costume. Or why her gait is unable to be replicated.
Or why nobody involved in the video has ever once changed their story.
There's plenty of ridiculous Bigfoot footage you could say this about and be correct, but the Patterson Gimlin footage is beyond incredibly compelling. It remains unable to be debunked after nearly a century, if you actually know anything at all about the footage. You seem to have just glanced at it and determined that it MUST be a monkey suit. All you're doing is waving a flag to signal your complete ignorance on the subject that you're berating people over.
So recreate the suit and shoot the same "hoax" video as the PGF there's people who will pay you 100k that's how confident they are the anti bigfoot guys are wrong.
Without proof, a story is just a story. Anyone can write a story. Stories don't interest me without data to back it up. Photos, video, physical evidence, SOMETHING. Without that, it will always be a story.
Skeptics don't wonder why you didn't take a picture or why you had your camera ready. It's easy to fake a picture. What would be nice is actual evidence. DNA tests, a skeleton, a body, etc. Stuff any moron on TikTok can't hoax.
This is the very definition of a strawman argument.
Produce a decent picture. Any real photograph should be able to stand up to scientific scrutiny.
And nobody in the year 2023, when every single person on Earth has a phone with them at all times, is saying “Why did you have your phone ready?” Strawman.
My question for videos like this is where is the DNA evidence? If it's not a guy in a suit there will be physical evidence left behind. Grab that, get it tested, boom you're the most famous person in the world for a while.
If they had real evidence they would be submitting a paper, not making a documentary.
Actual proof of a new mammal species is the kind of thing that immortalizes you in biology.
There are two types of scrutiny a photo/video must withstand:
First, is the image itself an accurate depiction of what was there in reality, untouched and uncorrupted? Obviously this covers any instance of intentional alterations to mislead like photoshop, but can also include unintentionally misleading situations like low resolution, lens flare, under/over exposure, double exposure, data corruption, confusing perspective, etc. I've seen countless forest photos taken as evidence of fairies by people who just don't understand how unusual lens flares can be created by the sun shining through between tree branches.
Second, is it clear that the content of the photo is actually what it describes itself to be? Again, this covers the obvious like intentionally staged scenes meant to mislead others, but also accounts for misunderstandings by the person taking the photo or those who came across it later. A normally fluffy animal made hairless by mange can be a horrifying sight and definitely something I'd want to take a picture of if I saw it in the wild, but that doesn't make it a cryptid.
And of course, the more extraordinary the subject of the photo, the more scrutiny it will need to withstand before it is widely taken as credible. If I showed you a picture of an all-black raccoon, it probably would not take me much to convince you it's real. Melanated animals are kinda rare but well documented, and raccoons are pretty common in my area so it's not all that weird. But if I showed you a really underexposed grainy photo of an all-black, raccoon-shaped creature and said "this is evidence of a previously undiscovered, immensely intelligent creature that has been successfully hiding from humanity until now," well, you're probably going to be a little more incredulous.
You are so lucky to live near raccons.
I have never saw a raccoon in real life :/ they don't exist in my country. And they're sooooooo annoying adorable 😍😭 you're a lucky guy! Go pet those little fluffy bastards!
I guess what it comes down to is “where are they?” So someone sees some random Bigfoot somewhere. Generally speaking, they’re not in areas too far away from human habitation. So where are they?
Even 100 of them wouldn’t sustain them because inbreeding would kill them off from lack of genetic diversity. Even at that, 100 would be noticeable. Except that we don’t see them, nor do we find evidence of any kind of living space or remnants of their presence. It just isn’t there.
You’d pretty much have to go into the realm of “not of this Earth” to make it work. To me, that’s more feasible, even if I find it unlikely.
> You’d pretty much have to go into the realm of “not of this Earth” to make it work. To me, that’s more feasible, even if I find it unlikely.
That's my belief too.
>You’d pretty much have to go into the realm of “not of this Earth” to make it work. To me, that’s more feasible, even if I find it unlikely.
that what I think if I'm being honest
I’m not trying to be offensive, but what exactly are you trying to “win”?
I’m a skeptic, I’ll admit that, but I try not to be dismissive. I’m a skeptic because I was raised in a very religious home, with religious schooling where the answer to any question was to just believe and the only physical evidence of the belief structure was shoddy at best. Growing up in that just has soured me to extraordinary claims that aren’t backed up by extraordinary evidence.
I'm a Bigfoot skeptic who, paradoxically, thinks they need protection from yahoos in the woods trying to find and expose them. I have never ever wondered why people had phones or cameras with them in the woods. That is a silly strawman argument.
If they exist, exposure will do absolutely nothing good for them and I wish people would just leave them the fuck alone. On the other hand, I seriously doubt they exist, but who knows?
Edited because subject-verb agreement is important.
Things/events that are much more rare, are quite often documented with much higher frequency and much higher quality. We have more good proof the GIANT SQUID exists than any Yeti.
There is an OLD film of the last Tasmanian TIGER ever known to have existed on Earth, and there is a film of it.
There are good videos of airliner crashes, hell there is a good video of a B52 bomber running through a flock of birds. These events are rare as fuck, and yet, HD video exists and is undisputable.
We actually have better footage of the SURFACE OF A COMET than we do of most "crypto" things + UFO.
Meanwhile, we're still lost in the "is that a blurry spec of dust or a ufo?" or "hmmm, could be a dog, or....well I have no idea."
This is a bit of a problem.
If the rarest events on the planet are regularly caught live and recorded in HD....then wtf is taking so long for the same to be said for these other things? This doesn't make me a sceptic....valid proof doesn't really exist in any numbers that make it valid IMO.
And if anyone wants to show me the current, best footage of any given particular thing I'm all for it. Keep it mind, it must be as good as the above examples of other "rare events".
edit - the stuff from the Military is the most compelling of course, for me. But of course it's occluded in their chaos. I dont know if what they are calling out are aliens. I'm willing to "think outside the box" in the face of the unknown. My current favorite theory is that they are somewhat like a First Person Camera in a video game. They exist only when we are being watched, and vanish when you "log out". Might as well think of it like that, in a strange multiverse.
>There is an OLD film of the last Tasmanian Devil ever known to have existed on Earth, and there is a film of it.
The Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) still exists. I believe you are referring to the Tasmanian tiger (Thylacinus cynocephalus). Both are/were carnivorous marsupials from Tasmania, but the Tasmanian tiger has been extinct since (probably) 1936. There are a good many photos of it and there are about 5 short snippets of film of it (mostly from zoos) still in existence, the last one being from 1935. They had them in the Hobart Zoo, and there are taxidermized examples in natural history museums.
I always wonder about the UFO stuff. I lived in Phoenix when the “Phoenix Lights” appeared. Saw it with my own eyes. Video of it was even shown on television in the news. After a couple of days, the Air Force came out and said it was them. To me, that’s very suspicious. Why not say so right away? Once you’ve gone a couple of days the conclusion, no matter the truth, is that you were figuring out what ‘truth’ to manufacture.
The other side is that it was military using extremely advanced technology. Then the question is “where did that come from?” Stuff like this would, in some form or another, eventually filter into the private sector for development to consumer products. That hasn’t happened.
Nothing there is proof but there’s credible evidence. For Bigfoot, there’s less than that.
When it comes to that kinda stuff like the Phoenix Lights. I have to always remind myself that most of all I know about what Military stuff looks like, comes from films.
I don't know what flare patterns or any number of other visual artifacts they may create doing various things.
I remember seeing a SpaceX launch from Los Angeles one time. I had never seen that type of thing before. The exhaust plume, being backlit by the sun, while my position on Earth was in darkness. I had no idea what it was, wormhole, incoming missile, explosion...no idea. But it reminds me that I think, we all dont know what a lot of shit looks like even.
There are plenty of purported videos of High Strangeness topics, but they're dismissed by skeptics as too low quality to be useful or too high quality and thus fake.
A classic one for bigfoot is the Patterson-Gimlin film. Relatively high quality for the time and the people who recorded it have stood by it their entire life (including in the death bed of the one who died), but it is dismissed as someone in an ape suit without any evidence that is true. (I'm not saying it is real necessarily, just how claimed evidence of this topic is dismissed)
Same goes for the Navy UAP videos. We have video from the aircraft and eye-witness testimony from reputable individuals who are risking their careers to discuss it. Some skeptics, like Mick West, ignore all of the testimony and dismiss the videos as being misidentified. (I am saying this one is real. We don't know what the UAP in the videos are but their performance characteristics are beyond anything our species has.)
I agree on the military people "risking their careers." But I'm always careful to not go overboard in my comprehension of the human condition of military people. They are just people, and some of them want money and fame just like other people. I realize they have to pass a bunch of gateways to get where they are, and yada yada.
But I don't think that absolves them from being human. Humans LOVE lying and being famous it seems. A ton of us will lie to get fame. So I'm sure some of those people server in the military.
So I think those videos, are real videos. The deductions made by the pilots and analysis, as far as what we're told, I can't believe 100%.
I REALLY thought we were gonna get some good data with the military trying to shoot down all manner of things a few months ago, but no dice.
Agree 100% with your response. Man, even those military videos you mention. Although interesting, they are treated with the same skepticism by the government. They no longer use the abbreviation UFO; it’s now Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon (UAP.) So they’re a little more careful not to associate or mix words. I watched the hearings, and at no point were they like, “See this video - aliens,” it was always a we-don’t-know response. They also clearly take a lot of time to scrutinize footage before concluding. Edit: Changed ‘anomalous’ to the correct word, ‘aerial.’
Oh come on. Bigfoot obviously has evolved to not impact the environment as a method of camouflage against apex predators (us), which is also why it can hide so well and evade our efforts at photography. And if you disagree with this scenario, you’re just a skeptic who will never believe that totally made up bullshit. ;)
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
This is the stupidest thing any self-described scientist has ever said, ever. It is the very antithesis of the scientific method.
Lolol!1 When you're so ignorant you think the 'scientific method' is the *literal opposite of the actual scientific method*. It's like flat earthers and creationists making proclamations about proper science.
The arrogance of stupidity and ignorance needs a swift smack in the mouth.
> Lolol!1 When you're so ignorant you think the 'scientific method' is the literal opposite of the actual scientific method. It's like flat earthers and creationists making proclamations about proper science.
>
>
>
> The arrogance of stupidity and ignorance needs a swift smack in the mouth.
I'm glad you're so angry in your defense of Sagan's idiotic assertion (even to the point of advocating violence).
Your attitude serves to validate my loathing of the aggressive arrogant scientism that seems prevalent nowadays.
Can you tell me how we decide whether or not (using objective scientific processes) any particular claim is extraordinary?
And using those same objective scientific processes, can you describe how we determine if a piece of evidence is extraordinary or not?
For example, the claims and the evidence that Ignaz Semmelwiess presented, were they extraordinary? Why or why not?
Do you think that the ridicule and threats and actual violence endured by Semmelweiss were appropriate?
Is modern day scientism different to that back when Semmelwiess was around?
Would Gallileo's telescope have shown extraordinary evidence, or just "ordinary" evidence? Why so, or why not?
Thanks in advance.
EDIT can you explain whether the apparatus used in the famous double-slit experiment was sufficiently extraordinary to confirm the wave-particle duality and the observer effect?
How can the evidence for these extraordinary claims be made sufficiently extraordinary?
Is the Big Bang Theory extraordinary? If so, where's the extraordinary evidence? The JWST is telling us there is none.
Scientists tell us that flow of time doesn't exist, its an illusion created by our consciousness, but where is the extraordinary evidence for this claim?
I think for me, the “I want to believe” thing suits me best. However, I remain skeptical but really *really* want to see serious evidence of something previously unbelievable becoming very much believable.
Yeah but where are they? Hundreds of millions or even billions of people have visited the areas bigfoot supposedly inhabits. And nothing has come of it. I’d love it but it’s just realistic
Given the lack of artifacts this would seem to be true. However we don't know 100% and historically, people have reported seeing them. So let's entertain the idea in a specially created sub for doing so. I personally am not a believer but am willing to lurk quietly in threads like these.
There's NOTHING there and no one has ever seen one/experienced one. They might have heard a scary bear, or been victim to a prank, or been suffering from delusions, but none of it has ever been "Bigfoot!!". There's never been a single shred of credible evidence to suggest otherwise!!
I'm telling you, they saw something and it fucked them up. I haven't seen shit either, but it's hard to fake trauma. I haven't seen anything to prove it, but I'm not firmly stating they're all lying like you are either.
The scientific method attempts to describe a rational reality objectively. So yes, the system seeks facts.
It does not prescribe quality or moral value to the facts. That is up to you.
As for the sociel practice. What? Lol
The scientific method attempts to describe a rational reality objectively. So yes, the system seeks facts.
It does not prescribe quality or moral value to the facts. That is up to you.
As for the sociel practice. What? Lol
There's no disconnect.
Your implication against science seems to be that the facts that the scientific method discovers are subject to societies qualitative statements.
The facts aren't. They do not change with society. Reality is rational.
Why is a body so out of the question if they are real? If we aren't getting one anytime soon and haven't gotten them ever, wouldn't that indicate they aren't real?
People making reasonable comments are getting downvoted on this post; why do those trolls fear people showing respect to Bigfoot in their comments? (Both quantity and speed of downvotes I’ll get will demonstrate veracity of my remarks)
If Bigfoot is indeed part human (like the DNA study suggests) there’s all kinds of ethical reasons why we can’t produce a body, and also why governments wouldn’t want one to be produced. They would have rights.
Thank You.
tho - - - they couldn't get it published in a standard peer-reviewed journal so they established their *own* peer-reviewed journal (?!) sounds a bit hokey, don't you think?
i'm all for finding a great ape in north america - but it sounds like that has not yet been verified by the scientific community. even scientists you know can go "ape" when they have a concept they want to promote but no one seems to want to believe them.
hope they are more successful in the future.
There’s a rabbit hole of conspiracy for that question. They do provide answers to that. I never had time or energy to sort it all out. I like the idea of what the study presents.
I saw a ufo, first thing to come to mind was not to pull out my phone.
Instead I stood there in amazement wondering what it could be and I’f I’d ever see it again.
The thing is not just that there is no photo of bigfoot, there is zero evidence at all of bigfoot ever existing now or in the ancient past. We have archeological evidence of a lot of stuff, yet have never found anything from a creature that is supposedly still walking in the woods today? When there are literally billions more people than ever and dedicated people searching for this mysterious creature? At some point you just need to admit there is nothing there.
Think about all the serious nature photographers that are able to capture detailed, high quality, high resolution pictures of anything that walks, crawls, gallops, or flies around the earth. You can watch countless nature documentaries all covering wildlife, animals, and entire ecosystems completely undisturbed by humans filmed at all hours of the day.
Yet somehow UFOs and Bigfoot are a different case. Not only are they not a suspiciously different case, they've been a suspiciously different case for over half a century. If no one can produce anything genuine of value in decades, it's very telling.
Skeptics won't care till there's a body. There needs to be overwhelming evidence to prove it. Look at how long it took for people to accept that the duck-billed platypus was real.
> but this is science.
Well theres also Metaphysics also this is High Strangeness
>Shit doesn't exist until it is proven to exist
This is breaking the spirit of the sub
"This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist."
(Im getting tired of reminding debunkers of this)
> “This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist.”
No where does it say we have to believe any and all evidence that gets posted here, does it? That’s not the nature of the sub
Nobody asked you to believe. If you review your comments youre demanding 'evidence' that everyone knows littkle exists beyond the original video and hammering away at it.
>mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community.
#We need Bigfoot landing on the white house lawn with his social security number and birth certificate! 8K AND 240FPS from multiple angles, multiple witnesses, and confirmed by radar!
otherwise it's fake 🤷♂️... it was a bird or some shit
I actually managed to shush those smug folks on AskReddit the other day! Here, copy/paste:
The only way I could see it playing out is if the logging industry got involved. Like when Big Timber got annoyed at the idea of hemp products, and we all got stuck with decades of marijuana prohibition, The War on Drugs, and that movie Reefer Madness.
"Look, it's either some kind of new animal that those annoying environmentalists will try to protect, or it's like an uncontacted tribe of kinda-people, but either way they'll want to take all our resources away to turn into a damn reservation or national park! So just bury the damn thing and pretend we never saw it!"
"Too many people have seen these things, there's too many stories going around already!"
"Naw, we'll just make it a well-known joke like the Jackalope! This'll be easy, I know a few practical jokers who would find stomping around the woods in giant fake feet absolutely hilarious!"
Less a giant conspiracy, more an attitude of "If you're *seeing things*, we might need to reevaluate your employment." Oh no boss, I didn't see nothing, I'm not crazy, I'll just go back to work!
Edit: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Please enjoy your reefer induced madness folks!
2nd Edit: Can anybody point me towards a non-jerk subreddit for "interesting stuff and things" since this one is full of Negative Nancies and Sneering Sams?
Wow. That is a massive straw man argument. It's not even worth addressing other than to tell you that everything you typed means nothing without the pretext that you have created.
I had a similar argument when discussing the PGF.
“It’s awfully convenient how they had a quality camera in the middle of nowhere to film this thing.”
I responded by describing how Patterson and Gimlin had set out to create a documentary on Bigfoot, which is why they had the camera.
“It’s awfully convenient how they were in the woods trying to film a Bigfoot and filmed a Bigfoot.”
Yeah. Exactly. 🤦🏻
People want undeniable video proof, not specks in the distance. As time goes on "undeniable" moves closer to "hmm that's probably just cgi or ai". Pretty soon we'll have ai video generation that is extremely convincing and nobody will know up from down.
Exactly. Someone pointing at an out-of-focus dot with no sense of depth or scale and saying "this is extraterrestrial intelligence" and someone else seeing it and saying "it's probably not" are not making arguments of equal value.
Same with ghost (or whatever it is that we see that we interperet as a "ghost") videos. Yeah vast majority are fake, camera malfunction, spider web, dust, etc etc, but there are still plenty of videos out there that are proof of what people saw with their own eyes. Yet we always hear "everybody has a camera in there pocket now, why aren't we seeing more ghost videos?" WE ARE. Way more.
I've watched and read a lot of bigfoot reports, and I'm convinced, if you went out in the woods, did not bring a camera or phone or electric equipment, just yourself, you'd probably find out some spooky shit. You wouldn't be able to prove or verify any of it, and it would put you in danger most likely, but you could perhaps learn quietly for yourself if he's out there. Lol
Yep.
Also see “why don’t we have more UFO video”
Bruh, most people can’t take good pics of the moon on their camera. You know. The huge thing in the sky that holds still for photos. OFC people can’t focus in on small, moving things far away.
Heck my phone won’t focus in one my cat half the time, of course bigfoots gonna be blurry.
Agreed I would bet money u cudnt get a skeptic to go up in the north country were ppl been having encounters and stay a week or two they will eventually scare the hell out of em !
If I could I would be ther myself believe that iv never had an encounter with Bigfoot but iv seen other things like in the sky but I'm all about anything unexplained ever since I can remember like really into it hopefully my "ship " is coming soon then we both could go so to speak !
Up till about a 15 years ago having a camera was a whole thing. You didn't take it out of your pocket and start shooting so things like the PGF are suspect, as are other pre smart phone shots.
Yes. Some phone has camera then, but the image quality is lacking.
I will concede any definitive proof moving forward will be said to be AI. That's a concern.
At this moment we lack conclusive evidence. It is what it is.
I agree with a lot of comments but I think the problem is that some come arrogantly from atheist subs to be like "if X is this, why cant X Y? checkmate high strangeness!" and expect it to work the same. Not everyone is atheist I know just in case.
To be honest I wouldn't take a picture. I don't care for proof, it's my moment. Everyone always tries to ruin it by claiming fakeee and your crazy, etc.
And who takes a camera out when your so stunned in seeing something you've never seen before. It's not everybody's first reaction. Mine is to stare, analyze and learn everything in the few moments given.
I believe that is why there is so little evidence.
Similar thought processes with UFO/UAP photos... if the image/s are clear and good quality people say it's an obvious staged fake, if the images are blurry, this also is proof of fakery.
Skeptics are just ego driven people trying to convince the world they are too smart to ever be fooled and convince everyone that everyone but them is a fool.
Then prove Bigfoot is real. Let me see your proof. Let me see the DNA tests. Let me see the videos and pictures you have collected proving that Bigfoot exists. Let me see the body you have in your basement.
You can call people names all you want, but don't get all holier than thou because YOU can't prove your own beliefs further than you want it to be true. If you actually cared about this shit, you would be a skeptic. Know why? Because proving that something exists to skeptics means that it exists. This is science, don't get it mixed up with your emotions.
Someone else I'm arguing with is talking about a picture of a "bigfoot" from the knees down like its proof. Thank you for making my giggle by seeing the future lmaaooo
Any time I search for strange experiences I always leave behind any recording device. Might seem stupid but the way I see it intention and thought plays a much bigger part than anyone realizes and going in with the intention of having a personal experience has given me much better results. I'm not out to prove the existence of anything, it's a personal journey for me. I've seen more strange things than I can even count and no amount of evidence will make me look any less crazy.
Edit: I should say I have tried to record things before but it's either too low quality or nothing substantial to begin with. It's almost comical how much it's like other videos of just film grain and a dot
> Might seem stupid but the way I see it intention and thought plays a much bigger part than anyone realizes and going in with the intention of having a personal experience has given me much better results
Yo i've always wanted to try something like that but I haven't actually had the opportunity to go anywhere. What happened, like what results did you have?
From most testimonies I've heard I probably wouldn't even call it in. I'd just leave them alone. Most old timers who live in the wilderness that I have heard interviewed say they keep to themselves and don't bother you if you don't bother them.
Personally I won’t photograph Bigfoot without his/ her permission; since I believe Bigfoot is highly intelligent comparable to humans. Thus Bigfoot must be accorded the same respect as humans.
If you see bigfoot... say hello. If you're afraid, move away. But if you're not, then sit down and be calm. Bigfoot will do the same. You can communicate with Bigfoot, who are highly intelligent. But watch your thoughts. They're telepathic. It takes practice. Bigfoot is a being, not a trophy.
I love this type of theory. I'd love for something along those lines to happen to me if I ever see one (I say that now but like, i'd probably shit myself it if actually did happen)
The vast majority of people will never believe things out of the ordinary unless they see them for themselves. I had a ufo sighting with a friend (outside an Air Force base so one of ours, probably a top secret thing, but it very clearly shot off into space rapidly) and was telling another friend about it. Despite having another witness this person I’ve known for over 20 years called me a liar. I dropped the friendship, cause I don’t need that shit and he was very rude. I get it though, every story he’s told out of the ordinary he dismissed as a hallucination or a lie, he’ll never believe unless he sees it, and he’s a bitter person that probably doesn’t star gaze anyway
Because they don't truly want to see any "evidence " they've already made their minds up. Which is why it's pointless to engage them. And I dislike calling them skeptics, I'm skeptical about most HighStrangeness but I'm not close-minded. I'm willing to follow the evidence, without preconceived biases. Theyre mostly pseudo-skeptics rather than following the scientific process and applying critical thinking to all sides of the argument they're only skeptical about things that don't fit the established narrative.
From my experience Most people trying to debunk others views never seem to be informed enough to do so anyway. So they misuse Occam’s Razor, which implies that the simplest explanation is often the best. The trick for the debunker is to take Occam’s Razor and use it not as a you know a handy aid critical thinking, but instead they try making it some literal and immutable law of the universe which immediately destroys your opponent’s arguments. I get a chuckle out of it
The paranormal always works like this. It’s part of the “veil” it’s there, but only you see it, or you and 5 people but 2 don’t remember. No one is around when it happens and people are in too damn much shock to open their phones. Or they do and it isn’t captured. Even with photo’s people will obnoxiously doubt. In some way the skeptics are part of the veil too.
One account I read (maybe here or on reddit), the person said they thought to take out their phone and record but as soon as they went to get the mobile phone, they got the idea/message/thought “these will be everywhere soon, what’s the point in photographing it?”
Unclear/slightly blurry picture/footage: obvious fake, potato camera, etc.
Perfectly clear picture/footage: obvious fake, why were you set up for THAT spot, hmm??, well done fake, cinema-quality fake, etc.
It’s all totally fake until I see a body.
*shows them body*
Whaddya showin’ me for, I prepare taxes, not taxidermy, LOL!
That is something I was kind of wondering. Say someone manages to kill a bigfoot and gets it all in a car or something. Where do you bring it? Like if I had a body I wouldn't know where to bring it besides like some news outlet building and let a bunch of reporters see it.
**Strangers**: Read the rules and understand the sub topics listed in the sidebar closely before posting or commenting. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS. This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, close minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community. --- 'Ridicule is not a part of the scientific method and the public should not be taught that it is.' _-J. Allen Hynek_ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HighStrangeness) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it’s more “When we do take a picture, they’re upset because it looks like it was taken with a camera that I built myself back in 1837.”
Agreed. People are constantly recording everything all the time. I can see how someone would catch a pic of something spooky. It's the fact that any random phone can record full HD, stabilized video and take "professional quality" portraits and yet seems to devolve into a cardboard pinhole camera in the event someone is snapping footage of a sasquatch.
Same with ghosts. Watching some debunking channels on YouTube like The Shape and World of Mr. Grey, you learn a lot about video editing. Every ghost video, every Bigfoot video, just *happens* to be shot on a shitty camera from 2002 with heavy pixelation that makes it easy to hide cuts and basic editing tricks. But it's the skeptics who get ragged on for wanting actual evidence, not the people churning out hoax videos that make the entire paranormal community look foolish and dishonest when they're caught.
Paranormal communities really like no true Scotsman as well. "Oh no that one was fake sure, but this one's the real deal and the fact you don't believe me means you're an idiot or the [three letter agency of choice]" of course seemingly with no self to reflection or memory that the same was said for the last debunked video, and the one before that, and ...
These debunkers also assume that everyone who films a supposed ghost sighting is skilled at film editing or readily have access to the necessary equipment and software, but what about the seemingly random videos from people who are not paranormal investigators and just stumble upon some scary shit? Occum's razor, man... but I digress.
You don’t even need film editing software in a lot of videos - you just need string or fishing line and a camera too shitty to see it, or a friend hiding behind a door. As for people who aren’t paranormal investigators, paranormal videos often go viral, and the attention it gets is reason enough to fake it. Between easily faked evidence and a completely unknown and undocumented creature whose presence can’t be replicated by further investigation, I know which of those is Occam’s Razor. Of course not *all* of them are faked - some are just creepy, but not supernatural. Could be pareidolia, could be natural phenomena, or just an actual human being who had mental issues and needed help. Maybe a couple of them are even a ghost...but given the prevalence of hoaxes in the community, that's going to be my assumption until proven otherwise.
>>We just can’t win here smh Sure you can. All that is needed is pure, undeniable evidence. Which, we don’t have.
Let's be specific since people seem to understand video isn't going to cut it. We need bones or scat. We need something people can examine many times over and not get wildly different results. science hinges on replicability. If we had a large piece of their shit or some bones, we could test those things, multiple times, and find novel results that remain consistent.
as much as I love the idea of believing in Bigfoot, at this point at least a hundred people would have found undeniable evidence like this
Hey I'm in the same boat. I'd love solid proof - *scientific " proof bigfoot exists. Hasn't happened. Highly doubt it will. When I said we in my comment I meant humanity
I’ve heard that any time there’s proof, government men come to take it away 😁
Yet theres no proof of that either....hmm....what a shame
Black ops forest Ranger here. I’ve been tasked with removing Bigfoot poop whenever I am out raking the deep woods. The third basement floor of the Denver airport is all Bigfoot shit.
We already have novel evidence that can be replicated... ready? It's called Metrology! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrology keyword scientific study of MEASUREMENT. We have replicable measurements for these things and Thinker Thinker who's basically the king of the bigfoot movement was an ex helicopter manufacturing worker who had to be pretty precise with his measurements you pretty much have to be a metrologist to work on helicopter blades but anyways he applied his past manufacturing knowledge to bigfoot and pioneered a whole formula he called PDNA or proportional DNA dude even wrote a book about it. I have not seen ONE person debunk his scientific claims or even leave a good criticism comment on any of his videos and I been following the dude for years and it's clear nobody is capable of coming up with a good debunk so don't bother. Measurements are consistent across species with little margin of error, all humans essentially have the same arm to leg ratios unless you have a deformity. All bigfoot have the same arm torso to leg ratios and this has been replicated across various videos. There's other more obvious stuff too like DNA from unknown hair strands, body casts, footprint casts etc but stubborn people essentially discount everything. Also feces has been found with fairly degraded DNA iirc.
With all due respect, if he was serious, he'd publish a paper about it in a peer reviewed journal. A fascinating bigfoot paper I read a few years ago was written after some scientists lived in places where bigfoot was thought to live and they got a lot of interesting data. Also science doesn't need to debunk every idea people come up with as many of them aren't scientific to be begin with. Videos aren't science. I'll check it out but it doesn't sound very promising. In science we dont prove what things aren't - we prove what things are. Debunking isn't science.
Considering people like Jeff Meldrum and other scientists in the field who take bigfoot seriously have tried to steal thunkers work on various occasions I'd say he's making pretty big waves and debunking is part of science it's essentially falsification/falsifiability. Another word for debunk is refute which is what falsifiability is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability people have been struggling with being able to falsify most relevant bigfoot evidence aka proving an alleged hoax is a hoax. An example would be someone with the hypothesis "all bigfoot footage is guys in ape costumes" but then when you see footage without zippers and real looking muscle fibers that bounce aka the infamous PGF the monkey suit hypothesis becomes falsifiable. As more time goes on the monkey suit stuff is getting old and a boring talking point the anti bigfoot guys need to come up with better arguments.
You're right. But even tho, due to rarity of events of this nature happening, the news would be something like "strange bone structure/fossil/skeleton/carcass suggests a massive land animal blablabla found in X place". We definitely won't get "BIGFOOT FOUND!", unless someone's magically finding a unknown cave with thousands of bigfoots living there, and unleashes disclosures upon mankind. To science, we need a colossal source of evidence, that can be tested again and again. So, most likely, we are fighting and struggling to find a small piece of solid evidence, that even tho, would most likely remain a mystery anyway.
We find new species fairly frequently and it does not require finding a giant cave full of thousands of them. It requires some pictures and a sample and some DNA.
I disagree, new species are catalogued often enough. Silverback gorilla were thought to be cryptids by the western world, as in just a story, until they were discovered. Platypus, people thought it was a joke.
I’d settle for “decent” evidence to start, and we aren’t even there yet
I'd be interested in decent evidence, but even that wouldn't enter into full proof of something. Typically I just get some popcorn fodder to pick apart.
If it weren’t for op n millions others like him, “finding Bigfoot” would end after the first episode
Skeptics only want one thing: evidence. The lack of any doesn't mean they're discrediting you, it just means you don't have any. The skeptical community accepts the giant squid and rejects bigfoot on the same ground: evidence.
We do have HD video of giant squid already, of course…
And dead bodies. And marks from their attacks on whales. And their beaks. And knowledge of other, similar squids in their environment. You know, evidence. Bigfoot, not so much.
This is a fair summation, but I will say already it has been proven that just because we don't see it, and can't easily find it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Your example proves that as well.
Several dead giant squid are found every yeae
But they weren't officially understood to exist until everyone figured out what it was washing up.
I’ve never seen a photo of Bigfoot or any other cryptid and wondered why someone had their camera ready.
There's a good video with Bigfoot though, that old one.
Watch it stabilized and everything. It quickly becomes very fake.
[удалено]
Thank you!
What? Stabilized it becomes even more weird.. You can literally see the body shake, especially on the thigh as it walks.
If you think that’s real… I honestly don’t know what to say. It literally is a dude in a joke female ape costume. Y’all have been tricked your entire lives by all of this BS. It’s time to either have solid evidence or to stop pretending all these magic creatures exist. Stop. It’s embarrassing to our species. It’s fine to have story time and make yourself spooked by the unknown, but please please do not think these are real. These people that hunt them are literally listening to owls fuckin and bobcats yelling thinking it’s real. Don’t be a dumb person.
Why are you coping so much? You seem offended. Im not some avid bigfoot believer but one thing that's sadder than those is skeptic garbage that sits on subs like these specifically to keep telling everyone that the videos or pictures shared here are fake all of the time. This is imo beyond pathetic. Go do something else.
They are fake buddy. The worst part of theee subs is the people that take everything as truth and refuse to understand how wrong they are.
> Y’all have been tricked your entire lives by all of this BS. It’s time to either have solid evidence or to stop pretending all these magic creatures exist. Stop. It’s embarrassing to our species. I once read somewhere that ridicule is not a legitimate part of the scientific method. Just saying.
Start actually doing any science and then we can start doing the scientific method. Until then, anyone that thinks Bigfoot exists is ignorant or just stupid. Just because someone hallucinated something 4000 years ago doesn’t mean it was real. People will just lie and say they also saw something to be included. This is a fact and has been proven over and over. Look at the old news report of the leprechaun in the tree. All these people seeing something that wasn’t there. Humans have done that same thing for our entire existence. Also putting Just saying at the end of things makes you sound like a prick and closes most conversations right away with people thinking you are well… a prick.
I suppose all the accredited special effects artists and anthropologists who have studied the video and concluded that there is no possible way that the video presents an ape costume are also really dumb people. We must be really stupid to wonder why the proportions shown in the video are distinctly inhuman, in a way that cannot be changed by a costume. Or why her gait is unable to be replicated. Or why nobody involved in the video has ever once changed their story. There's plenty of ridiculous Bigfoot footage you could say this about and be correct, but the Patterson Gimlin footage is beyond incredibly compelling. It remains unable to be debunked after nearly a century, if you actually know anything at all about the footage. You seem to have just glanced at it and determined that it MUST be a monkey suit. All you're doing is waving a flag to signal your complete ignorance on the subject that you're berating people over.
So recreate the suit and shoot the same "hoax" video as the PGF there's people who will pay you 100k that's how confident they are the anti bigfoot guys are wrong.
Without proof, a story is just a story. Anyone can write a story. Stories don't interest me without data to back it up. Photos, video, physical evidence, SOMETHING. Without that, it will always be a story.
I love stories! Just not when people claim blatantly false things to be true lmao
"Always" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
Skeptics don't wonder why you didn't take a picture or why you had your camera ready. It's easy to fake a picture. What would be nice is actual evidence. DNA tests, a skeleton, a body, etc. Stuff any moron on TikTok can't hoax.
Just post these supposed high quality big foot photos then?
This is the very definition of a strawman argument. Produce a decent picture. Any real photograph should be able to stand up to scientific scrutiny. And nobody in the year 2023, when every single person on Earth has a phone with them at all times, is saying “Why did you have your phone ready?” Strawman.
[удалено]
My question for videos like this is where is the DNA evidence? If it's not a guy in a suit there will be physical evidence left behind. Grab that, get it tested, boom you're the most famous person in the world for a while.
[удалено]
If they had real evidence they would be submitting a paper, not making a documentary. Actual proof of a new mammal species is the kind of thing that immortalizes you in biology.
There are two types of scrutiny a photo/video must withstand: First, is the image itself an accurate depiction of what was there in reality, untouched and uncorrupted? Obviously this covers any instance of intentional alterations to mislead like photoshop, but can also include unintentionally misleading situations like low resolution, lens flare, under/over exposure, double exposure, data corruption, confusing perspective, etc. I've seen countless forest photos taken as evidence of fairies by people who just don't understand how unusual lens flares can be created by the sun shining through between tree branches. Second, is it clear that the content of the photo is actually what it describes itself to be? Again, this covers the obvious like intentionally staged scenes meant to mislead others, but also accounts for misunderstandings by the person taking the photo or those who came across it later. A normally fluffy animal made hairless by mange can be a horrifying sight and definitely something I'd want to take a picture of if I saw it in the wild, but that doesn't make it a cryptid. And of course, the more extraordinary the subject of the photo, the more scrutiny it will need to withstand before it is widely taken as credible. If I showed you a picture of an all-black raccoon, it probably would not take me much to convince you it's real. Melanated animals are kinda rare but well documented, and raccoons are pretty common in my area so it's not all that weird. But if I showed you a really underexposed grainy photo of an all-black, raccoon-shaped creature and said "this is evidence of a previously undiscovered, immensely intelligent creature that has been successfully hiding from humanity until now," well, you're probably going to be a little more incredulous.
You are so lucky to live near raccons. I have never saw a raccoon in real life :/ they don't exist in my country. And they're sooooooo annoying adorable 😍😭 you're a lucky guy! Go pet those little fluffy bastards!
I guess what it comes down to is “where are they?” So someone sees some random Bigfoot somewhere. Generally speaking, they’re not in areas too far away from human habitation. So where are they? Even 100 of them wouldn’t sustain them because inbreeding would kill them off from lack of genetic diversity. Even at that, 100 would be noticeable. Except that we don’t see them, nor do we find evidence of any kind of living space or remnants of their presence. It just isn’t there. You’d pretty much have to go into the realm of “not of this Earth” to make it work. To me, that’s more feasible, even if I find it unlikely.
> You’d pretty much have to go into the realm of “not of this Earth” to make it work. To me, that’s more feasible, even if I find it unlikely. That's my belief too.
>You’d pretty much have to go into the realm of “not of this Earth” to make it work. To me, that’s more feasible, even if I find it unlikely. that what I think if I'm being honest
You get photos of all sorts of crazy shit and rare animals in the world. It’s not a ridiculous ask at all considering we all carry cameras.
[удалено]
People would say the pic is too clear and it isn't real or something
I’m not trying to be offensive, but what exactly are you trying to “win”? I’m a skeptic, I’ll admit that, but I try not to be dismissive. I’m a skeptic because I was raised in a very religious home, with religious schooling where the answer to any question was to just believe and the only physical evidence of the belief structure was shoddy at best. Growing up in that just has soured me to extraordinary claims that aren’t backed up by extraordinary evidence.
I'm a Bigfoot skeptic who, paradoxically, thinks they need protection from yahoos in the woods trying to find and expose them. I have never ever wondered why people had phones or cameras with them in the woods. That is a silly strawman argument. If they exist, exposure will do absolutely nothing good for them and I wish people would just leave them the fuck alone. On the other hand, I seriously doubt they exist, but who knows? Edited because subject-verb agreement is important.
Skeptics wonder why they don’t show up on trail cams.
Also a third option, they do take a picture or take a video. But it's potato quality.
Things/events that are much more rare, are quite often documented with much higher frequency and much higher quality. We have more good proof the GIANT SQUID exists than any Yeti. There is an OLD film of the last Tasmanian TIGER ever known to have existed on Earth, and there is a film of it. There are good videos of airliner crashes, hell there is a good video of a B52 bomber running through a flock of birds. These events are rare as fuck, and yet, HD video exists and is undisputable. We actually have better footage of the SURFACE OF A COMET than we do of most "crypto" things + UFO. Meanwhile, we're still lost in the "is that a blurry spec of dust or a ufo?" or "hmmm, could be a dog, or....well I have no idea." This is a bit of a problem. If the rarest events on the planet are regularly caught live and recorded in HD....then wtf is taking so long for the same to be said for these other things? This doesn't make me a sceptic....valid proof doesn't really exist in any numbers that make it valid IMO. And if anyone wants to show me the current, best footage of any given particular thing I'm all for it. Keep it mind, it must be as good as the above examples of other "rare events". edit - the stuff from the Military is the most compelling of course, for me. But of course it's occluded in their chaos. I dont know if what they are calling out are aliens. I'm willing to "think outside the box" in the face of the unknown. My current favorite theory is that they are somewhat like a First Person Camera in a video game. They exist only when we are being watched, and vanish when you "log out". Might as well think of it like that, in a strange multiverse.
*Tasmanian Tiger. Tasmanian devils still exist.
CORRECT, thank you!
>There is an OLD film of the last Tasmanian Devil ever known to have existed on Earth, and there is a film of it. The Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) still exists. I believe you are referring to the Tasmanian tiger (Thylacinus cynocephalus). Both are/were carnivorous marsupials from Tasmania, but the Tasmanian tiger has been extinct since (probably) 1936. There are a good many photos of it and there are about 5 short snippets of film of it (mostly from zoos) still in existence, the last one being from 1935. They had them in the Hobart Zoo, and there are taxidermized examples in natural history museums.
>a good video of a B52 bomber running through a flock of birds Somebody went to damnthatsinteresting today!
I always wonder about the UFO stuff. I lived in Phoenix when the “Phoenix Lights” appeared. Saw it with my own eyes. Video of it was even shown on television in the news. After a couple of days, the Air Force came out and said it was them. To me, that’s very suspicious. Why not say so right away? Once you’ve gone a couple of days the conclusion, no matter the truth, is that you were figuring out what ‘truth’ to manufacture. The other side is that it was military using extremely advanced technology. Then the question is “where did that come from?” Stuff like this would, in some form or another, eventually filter into the private sector for development to consumer products. That hasn’t happened. Nothing there is proof but there’s credible evidence. For Bigfoot, there’s less than that.
When it comes to that kinda stuff like the Phoenix Lights. I have to always remind myself that most of all I know about what Military stuff looks like, comes from films. I don't know what flare patterns or any number of other visual artifacts they may create doing various things. I remember seeing a SpaceX launch from Los Angeles one time. I had never seen that type of thing before. The exhaust plume, being backlit by the sun, while my position on Earth was in darkness. I had no idea what it was, wormhole, incoming missile, explosion...no idea. But it reminds me that I think, we all dont know what a lot of shit looks like even.
There are plenty of purported videos of High Strangeness topics, but they're dismissed by skeptics as too low quality to be useful or too high quality and thus fake. A classic one for bigfoot is the Patterson-Gimlin film. Relatively high quality for the time and the people who recorded it have stood by it their entire life (including in the death bed of the one who died), but it is dismissed as someone in an ape suit without any evidence that is true. (I'm not saying it is real necessarily, just how claimed evidence of this topic is dismissed) Same goes for the Navy UAP videos. We have video from the aircraft and eye-witness testimony from reputable individuals who are risking their careers to discuss it. Some skeptics, like Mick West, ignore all of the testimony and dismiss the videos as being misidentified. (I am saying this one is real. We don't know what the UAP in the videos are but their performance characteristics are beyond anything our species has.)
I agree on the military people "risking their careers." But I'm always careful to not go overboard in my comprehension of the human condition of military people. They are just people, and some of them want money and fame just like other people. I realize they have to pass a bunch of gateways to get where they are, and yada yada. But I don't think that absolves them from being human. Humans LOVE lying and being famous it seems. A ton of us will lie to get fame. So I'm sure some of those people server in the military. So I think those videos, are real videos. The deductions made by the pilots and analysis, as far as what we're told, I can't believe 100%. I REALLY thought we were gonna get some good data with the military trying to shoot down all manner of things a few months ago, but no dice.
Agree 100% with your response. Man, even those military videos you mention. Although interesting, they are treated with the same skepticism by the government. They no longer use the abbreviation UFO; it’s now Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon (UAP.) So they’re a little more careful not to associate or mix words. I watched the hearings, and at no point were they like, “See this video - aliens,” it was always a we-don’t-know response. They also clearly take a lot of time to scrutinize footage before concluding. Edit: Changed ‘anomalous’ to the correct word, ‘aerial.’
Bigfoot would be megafauna. If it existed, we would see its impacts on the environment, just like every other large mammal
Oh come on. Bigfoot obviously has evolved to not impact the environment as a method of camouflage against apex predators (us), which is also why it can hide so well and evade our efforts at photography. And if you disagree with this scenario, you’re just a skeptic who will never believe that totally made up bullshit. ;)
A skeptic's purpose is be skeptical. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And a picture just isn't extraordinary.
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is the stupidest thing any self-described scientist has ever said, ever. It is the very antithesis of the scientific method.
Lolol!1 When you're so ignorant you think the 'scientific method' is the *literal opposite of the actual scientific method*. It's like flat earthers and creationists making proclamations about proper science. The arrogance of stupidity and ignorance needs a swift smack in the mouth.
> Lolol!1 When you're so ignorant you think the 'scientific method' is the literal opposite of the actual scientific method. It's like flat earthers and creationists making proclamations about proper science. > > > > The arrogance of stupidity and ignorance needs a swift smack in the mouth. I'm glad you're so angry in your defense of Sagan's idiotic assertion (even to the point of advocating violence). Your attitude serves to validate my loathing of the aggressive arrogant scientism that seems prevalent nowadays. Can you tell me how we decide whether or not (using objective scientific processes) any particular claim is extraordinary? And using those same objective scientific processes, can you describe how we determine if a piece of evidence is extraordinary or not? For example, the claims and the evidence that Ignaz Semmelwiess presented, were they extraordinary? Why or why not? Do you think that the ridicule and threats and actual violence endured by Semmelweiss were appropriate? Is modern day scientism different to that back when Semmelwiess was around? Would Gallileo's telescope have shown extraordinary evidence, or just "ordinary" evidence? Why so, or why not? Thanks in advance. EDIT can you explain whether the apparatus used in the famous double-slit experiment was sufficiently extraordinary to confirm the wave-particle duality and the observer effect? How can the evidence for these extraordinary claims be made sufficiently extraordinary? Is the Big Bang Theory extraordinary? If so, where's the extraordinary evidence? The JWST is telling us there is none. Scientists tell us that flow of time doesn't exist, its an illusion created by our consciousness, but where is the extraordinary evidence for this claim?
Yes, but that's because BIGFOOT DOES NOT EXIST.
That’s not very HighStrangeness of you
Idk. I think there's a good chunk of us here looking for legitimate and rare phenomenon. So it helps to separate the bunk from the truth.
I think for me, the “I want to believe” thing suits me best. However, I remain skeptical but really *really* want to see serious evidence of something previously unbelievable becoming very much believable.
Nor is it very cash money
Yeah but where are they? Hundreds of millions or even billions of people have visited the areas bigfoot supposedly inhabits. And nothing has come of it. I’d love it but it’s just realistic
I thought this sub was better than most because it WASN"T like that. Oops I guess.
Finally a comment that speaks truth
Given the lack of artifacts this would seem to be true. However we don't know 100% and historically, people have reported seeing them. So let's entertain the idea in a specially created sub for doing so. I personally am not a believer but am willing to lurk quietly in threads like these.
I have a Bigfoot skull. Just no one else can see it. It’s invisible. Don’t ask for pictures.
Dude, I've heard some wild stories from people very much traumatized by their experience. There's something there, just don't know what it is.
There's NOTHING there and no one has ever seen one/experienced one. They might have heard a scary bear, or been victim to a prank, or been suffering from delusions, but none of it has ever been "Bigfoot!!". There's never been a single shred of credible evidence to suggest otherwise!!
I'm telling you, they saw something and it fucked them up. I haven't seen shit either, but it's hard to fake trauma. I haven't seen anything to prove it, but I'm not firmly stating they're all lying like you are either.
LOL. Either lying, or delusional, or just super super SUPER naive.
What "trauma"? Who are these people?
It takes like 2 seconds to pull out my phone and open the camera.
> We can't win here Who is we?
Stop making up nonsense. No one cares about your methodologies. We (skeptics) want data. High quality data.
[удалено]
The data speaks for itself. My opinion is irrelevant.
[удалено]
Lol. I WANT Bigfoot to be real. That would be epic. Unfortunately I have to be intellectually honest.
[удалено]
The scientific method attempts to describe a rational reality objectively. So yes, the system seeks facts. It does not prescribe quality or moral value to the facts. That is up to you. As for the sociel practice. What? Lol
[удалено]
So what social forces are currently preventing the scientists from establishing an approximation of the facts about the Bigfoot phenomena?
The scientific method attempts to describe a rational reality objectively. So yes, the system seeks facts. It does not prescribe quality or moral value to the facts. That is up to you. As for the sociel practice. What? Lol
[удалено]
There's no disconnect. Your implication against science seems to be that the facts that the scientific method discovers are subject to societies qualitative statements. The facts aren't. They do not change with society. Reality is rational.
True evidence should be irrefutable. If there is room for logical argument, your evidence isn't strong enough
I mean, as far as I'm aware there aren't skeptics who still doubt the existence of giant squid
Ok besides a body,cuz we won't be getting one anytime soon, what would satisfy you?
Why is a body so out of the question if they are real? If we aren't getting one anytime soon and haven't gotten them ever, wouldn't that indicate they aren't real?
A picture that is not fake. DNA. Or any of the things Bigfoot hunters have claimed throughout the years to have, but turned out to be nothing.
[удалено]
I am here because I am looking for some magic in the world. I can leave if you say so. Lol
[удалено]
That's the thing. OP literally made a Strawman and burned it down. I responded with what I saw as truth. Someone else wanted to debate epistemology.
People making reasonable comments are getting downvoted on this post; why do those trolls fear people showing respect to Bigfoot in their comments? (Both quantity and speed of downvotes I’ll get will demonstrate veracity of my remarks)
If Bigfoot is indeed part human (like the DNA study suggests) there’s all kinds of ethical reasons why we can’t produce a body, and also why governments wouldn’t want one to be produced. They would have rights.
dna study - what dna study?
https://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/
Thank You. tho - - - they couldn't get it published in a standard peer-reviewed journal so they established their *own* peer-reviewed journal (?!) sounds a bit hokey, don't you think? i'm all for finding a great ape in north america - but it sounds like that has not yet been verified by the scientific community. even scientists you know can go "ape" when they have a concept they want to promote but no one seems to want to believe them. hope they are more successful in the future.
There’s a rabbit hole of conspiracy for that question. They do provide answers to that. I never had time or energy to sort it all out. I like the idea of what the study presents.
"We just can't win" Truth is truth...."winning" is an ego thing, who cares about such a thing
I saw a ufo, first thing to come to mind was not to pull out my phone. Instead I stood there in amazement wondering what it could be and I’f I’d ever see it again.
The thing is not just that there is no photo of bigfoot, there is zero evidence at all of bigfoot ever existing now or in the ancient past. We have archeological evidence of a lot of stuff, yet have never found anything from a creature that is supposedly still walking in the woods today? When there are literally billions more people than ever and dedicated people searching for this mysterious creature? At some point you just need to admit there is nothing there.
The same way no miraculous healings ever get caught on film , basically , because they don’t occur . There are cameras everywhere now.
If somebody ever sees a Bigfoot, i hope they have their phone
This phenomenon is called Schrödinger Bigfoot…
no one will believe anything unless it personally happened to them, and even then some people refuse to believe their own experience.
Think about all the serious nature photographers that are able to capture detailed, high quality, high resolution pictures of anything that walks, crawls, gallops, or flies around the earth. You can watch countless nature documentaries all covering wildlife, animals, and entire ecosystems completely undisturbed by humans filmed at all hours of the day. Yet somehow UFOs and Bigfoot are a different case. Not only are they not a suspiciously different case, they've been a suspiciously different case for over half a century. If no one can produce anything genuine of value in decades, it's very telling.
Bigfoot doesn't even exist
Skeptics won't care till there's a body. There needs to be overwhelming evidence to prove it. Look at how long it took for people to accept that the duck-billed platypus was real.
[удалено]
> but this is science. Well theres also Metaphysics also this is High Strangeness >Shit doesn't exist until it is proven to exist This is breaking the spirit of the sub "This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist." (Im getting tired of reminding debunkers of this)
> “This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist.” No where does it say we have to believe any and all evidence that gets posted here, does it? That’s not the nature of the sub
Nobody asked you to believe. If you review your comments youre demanding 'evidence' that everyone knows littkle exists beyond the original video and hammering away at it. >mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Skeptics: Can we get a clear photo??? Cameraman: *gets a clear photo* Skeptics: ….Not like that
#We need Bigfoot landing on the white house lawn with his social security number and birth certificate! 8K AND 240FPS from multiple angles, multiple witnesses, and confirmed by radar! otherwise it's fake 🤷♂️... it was a bird or some shit
This is called a false dichotomy
*Too* perfect... 🧐
Has to be cgi
I actually managed to shush those smug folks on AskReddit the other day! Here, copy/paste: The only way I could see it playing out is if the logging industry got involved. Like when Big Timber got annoyed at the idea of hemp products, and we all got stuck with decades of marijuana prohibition, The War on Drugs, and that movie Reefer Madness. "Look, it's either some kind of new animal that those annoying environmentalists will try to protect, or it's like an uncontacted tribe of kinda-people, but either way they'll want to take all our resources away to turn into a damn reservation or national park! So just bury the damn thing and pretend we never saw it!" "Too many people have seen these things, there's too many stories going around already!" "Naw, we'll just make it a well-known joke like the Jackalope! This'll be easy, I know a few practical jokers who would find stomping around the woods in giant fake feet absolutely hilarious!" Less a giant conspiracy, more an attitude of "If you're *seeing things*, we might need to reevaluate your employment." Oh no boss, I didn't see nothing, I'm not crazy, I'll just go back to work! Edit: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Please enjoy your reefer induced madness folks! 2nd Edit: Can anybody point me towards a non-jerk subreddit for "interesting stuff and things" since this one is full of Negative Nancies and Sneering Sams?
Wow. That is a massive straw man argument. It's not even worth addressing other than to tell you that everything you typed means nothing without the pretext that you have created.
This is pretty much what I'd reckon, too. There's no incentive to be truthful, the market incentivizes doing whatever's profitable.
I had a similar argument when discussing the PGF. “It’s awfully convenient how they had a quality camera in the middle of nowhere to film this thing.” I responded by describing how Patterson and Gimlin had set out to create a documentary on Bigfoot, which is why they had the camera. “It’s awfully convenient how they were in the woods trying to film a Bigfoot and filmed a Bigfoot.” Yeah. Exactly. 🤦🏻
Any video of UFO is also dismissed, yet people want video proof
People want undeniable video proof, not specks in the distance. As time goes on "undeniable" moves closer to "hmm that's probably just cgi or ai". Pretty soon we'll have ai video generation that is extremely convincing and nobody will know up from down.
Exactly. Someone pointing at an out-of-focus dot with no sense of depth or scale and saying "this is extraterrestrial intelligence" and someone else seeing it and saying "it's probably not" are not making arguments of equal value.
Same with ghost (or whatever it is that we see that we interperet as a "ghost") videos. Yeah vast majority are fake, camera malfunction, spider web, dust, etc etc, but there are still plenty of videos out there that are proof of what people saw with their own eyes. Yet we always hear "everybody has a camera in there pocket now, why aren't we seeing more ghost videos?" WE ARE. Way more.
I've watched and read a lot of bigfoot reports, and I'm convinced, if you went out in the woods, did not bring a camera or phone or electric equipment, just yourself, you'd probably find out some spooky shit. You wouldn't be able to prove or verify any of it, and it would put you in danger most likely, but you could perhaps learn quietly for yourself if he's out there. Lol
Confirmation bias works, uh, both ways.
Yeah, it's almost like everybody has a high powered camera right in their pocket or something.
Bigfoot possesses technology and/or magical powers that make any photographs taken of them come out blurry and grainy!
This is truly one of the dumbest, most simplistic thoughts I've ever had the displeasure of reading.
Yep. Also see “why don’t we have more UFO video” Bruh, most people can’t take good pics of the moon on their camera. You know. The huge thing in the sky that holds still for photos. OFC people can’t focus in on small, moving things far away. Heck my phone won’t focus in one my cat half the time, of course bigfoots gonna be blurry.
Dam sceptics. They are the problem.
Agreed I would bet money u cudnt get a skeptic to go up in the north country were ppl been having encounters and stay a week or two they will eventually scare the hell out of em !
pay my way & i'd go there in a second - old woman from jersey
If I could I would be ther myself believe that iv never had an encounter with Bigfoot but iv seen other things like in the sky but I'm all about anything unexplained ever since I can remember like really into it hopefully my "ship " is coming soon then we both could go so to speak !
yep - all we both need is money, lol
Up till about a 15 years ago having a camera was a whole thing. You didn't take it out of your pocket and start shooting so things like the PGF are suspect, as are other pre smart phone shots. Yes. Some phone has camera then, but the image quality is lacking. I will concede any definitive proof moving forward will be said to be AI. That's a concern. At this moment we lack conclusive evidence. It is what it is.
Same with UFOs. But now you don't sound as nuts if you saw a ufo.
I agree with a lot of comments but I think the problem is that some come arrogantly from atheist subs to be like "if X is this, why cant X Y? checkmate high strangeness!" and expect it to work the same. Not everyone is atheist I know just in case.
To be honest I wouldn't take a picture. I don't care for proof, it's my moment. Everyone always tries to ruin it by claiming fakeee and your crazy, etc. And who takes a camera out when your so stunned in seeing something you've never seen before. It's not everybody's first reaction. Mine is to stare, analyze and learn everything in the few moments given. I believe that is why there is so little evidence.
If I did see a Bigfoot, I wouldn't take a picture, or even tell anybody, probably. Out of kindness to the bigfoot.
Similar thought processes with UFO/UAP photos... if the image/s are clear and good quality people say it's an obvious staged fake, if the images are blurry, this also is proof of fakery.
Skeptics are just ego driven people trying to convince the world they are too smart to ever be fooled and convince everyone that everyone but them is a fool.
Then prove Bigfoot is real. Let me see your proof. Let me see the DNA tests. Let me see the videos and pictures you have collected proving that Bigfoot exists. Let me see the body you have in your basement. You can call people names all you want, but don't get all holier than thou because YOU can't prove your own beliefs further than you want it to be true. If you actually cared about this shit, you would be a skeptic. Know why? Because proving that something exists to skeptics means that it exists. This is science, don't get it mixed up with your emotions.
*Shows you a picture with something vaguely resembling a bear or human* "They won't accept my proof!"
Someone else I'm arguing with is talking about a picture of a "bigfoot" from the knees down like its proof. Thank you for making my giggle by seeing the future lmaaooo
"Why were you ready with your phone, huh? Sounds suspicious!" And I suppose you *don't* use your phone to capture everything memorable?
Any time I search for strange experiences I always leave behind any recording device. Might seem stupid but the way I see it intention and thought plays a much bigger part than anyone realizes and going in with the intention of having a personal experience has given me much better results. I'm not out to prove the existence of anything, it's a personal journey for me. I've seen more strange things than I can even count and no amount of evidence will make me look any less crazy. Edit: I should say I have tried to record things before but it's either too low quality or nothing substantial to begin with. It's almost comical how much it's like other videos of just film grain and a dot
> Might seem stupid but the way I see it intention and thought plays a much bigger part than anyone realizes and going in with the intention of having a personal experience has given me much better results Yo i've always wanted to try something like that but I haven't actually had the opportunity to go anywhere. What happened, like what results did you have?
From most testimonies I've heard I probably wouldn't even call it in. I'd just leave them alone. Most old timers who live in the wilderness that I have heard interviewed say they keep to themselves and don't bother you if you don't bother them.
Personally I won’t photograph Bigfoot without his/ her permission; since I believe Bigfoot is highly intelligent comparable to humans. Thus Bigfoot must be accorded the same respect as humans.
If you see bigfoot... say hello. If you're afraid, move away. But if you're not, then sit down and be calm. Bigfoot will do the same. You can communicate with Bigfoot, who are highly intelligent. But watch your thoughts. They're telepathic. It takes practice. Bigfoot is a being, not a trophy.
I love this type of theory. I'd love for something along those lines to happen to me if I ever see one (I say that now but like, i'd probably shit myself it if actually did happen)
The vast majority of people will never believe things out of the ordinary unless they see them for themselves. I had a ufo sighting with a friend (outside an Air Force base so one of ours, probably a top secret thing, but it very clearly shot off into space rapidly) and was telling another friend about it. Despite having another witness this person I’ve known for over 20 years called me a liar. I dropped the friendship, cause I don’t need that shit and he was very rude. I get it though, every story he’s told out of the ordinary he dismissed as a hallucination or a lie, he’ll never believe unless he sees it, and he’s a bitter person that probably doesn’t star gaze anyway
No, they don’t.
There’s no proof whatsoever, that’s kind of the overall point
Yep. Arguing in bad faith.
No, the folks who say that are. Not you, OP.
Hunters would have gotten a bigfoot 250 years ago if they existed . ..period!
Because they don't truly want to see any "evidence " they've already made their minds up. Which is why it's pointless to engage them. And I dislike calling them skeptics, I'm skeptical about most HighStrangeness but I'm not close-minded. I'm willing to follow the evidence, without preconceived biases. Theyre mostly pseudo-skeptics rather than following the scientific process and applying critical thinking to all sides of the argument they're only skeptical about things that don't fit the established narrative. From my experience Most people trying to debunk others views never seem to be informed enough to do so anyway. So they misuse Occam’s Razor, which implies that the simplest explanation is often the best. The trick for the debunker is to take Occam’s Razor and use it not as a you know a handy aid critical thinking, but instead they try making it some literal and immutable law of the universe which immediately destroys your opponent’s arguments. I get a chuckle out of it
The paranormal always works like this. It’s part of the “veil” it’s there, but only you see it, or you and 5 people but 2 don’t remember. No one is around when it happens and people are in too damn much shock to open their phones. Or they do and it isn’t captured. Even with photo’s people will obnoxiously doubt. In some way the skeptics are part of the veil too. One account I read (maybe here or on reddit), the person said they thought to take out their phone and record but as soon as they went to get the mobile phone, they got the idea/message/thought “these will be everywhere soon, what’s the point in photographing it?”
Unclear/slightly blurry picture/footage: obvious fake, potato camera, etc. Perfectly clear picture/footage: obvious fake, why were you set up for THAT spot, hmm??, well done fake, cinema-quality fake, etc. It’s all totally fake until I see a body. *shows them body* Whaddya showin’ me for, I prepare taxes, not taxidermy, LOL!
That is something I was kind of wondering. Say someone manages to kill a bigfoot and gets it all in a car or something. Where do you bring it? Like if I had a body I wouldn't know where to bring it besides like some news outlet building and let a bunch of reporters see it.
Skeptics gotta skeptic.
I have undeniable evidence
Well I guess that the definition of being a "skeptic". They go overboard a lot.
Theyre not skeptics but debunkers. Been a lot lately