MovieChat Forums > Finding Bigfoot (2011) Discussion > Is Bigfoot real?

Is Bigfoot real?

posted 9 years ago by AlarmedGibbon
92 replies | jump to latest

It's a question all of us have asked ourselves.. and sometimes our answers change over time.

I used to believe in Bigfoot. I got very into Bigfoot around the year 2000, when I turned 18. I remember predicting that surely someone would find a Bigfoot body by 2010. There's more people hunting for Bigfoot than ever before. But as the years have ground on, and no body has surfaced, I began to take a more skeptical look.

I remember seeing a video where a Bigfoot researcher said that they had found DNA from an unknown primate. It didn't prove that Bigfoot exists, but it sure seemed to me like a smoking gun anyway. If you have any unknown primate in North America, that's gotta be Bigfoot, right? I'm sorry that I can't recall which video it is, but perhaps some of you have seen the same claim made. I think one video even claimed that some of the supposed Bigfoot DNA looked human-like and other parts of it looked primate-like.

Unfortunately, it turns out that we were either lied to, or we were victims of over-eager Bigfoot researchers who were reading too far into the evidence, and seeing things that weren't there. When you really want something to be true, some people might even "fudge" a few things to make it work.

Oxford University did a study last year on all available alleged Bigfoot DNA. Samples came in from all over the world, and were meticulously analyzed and tested with the most current state-of-the-art technology.

Here's a link to an article talking about this study: http://www.theguardian.com/science/grrlscientist/2014/jul/02/genetics-evolution-dna-analysis-yeti-sasquatch-bigfoot-zoology-primates

The conclusion: Every one of the supposed Bigfoot DNA samples turned out to be from other already known animals:

including American black bear (6 samples), canids (4 samples), cows (4 samples), horses (4 samples), brown bear (2 samples), deer (1 sample), North American porcupine (1 sample), sheep (1 sample), Malaysian tapir (1 sample), serow (1 sample), human (1 sample), and even raccoons (2 samples)

For many people, the most convincing evidence for Bigfoot is eyewitness testimony. How could all these people by lying? When someone says they clearly saw Bigfoot, why should we think they saw a bear? Etc.

It doesn't take too much Google searching to see the short-comings of eyewitness testimony. The Innocence Project has freed numerous people from death sentences that were put away by eyewitness testimony, and exonerated by DNA.

Would you believe there have only been about 3,300 Bigfoot sightings in the past 100 years?

Here's a link for that statistic: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/21/bigfoot-sightings-map-josh-stevens_n_3967703.html

When I heard that figure, I was absolutely shocked at how low that number was. Only 3,300 Bigfoot sightings that entire time?

Google: what conditions cause hallucinations?

Mental illnesses are among the most common causes of hallucinations. Schizophrenia, dementia, and delirium are a few examples. Substance abuse is another fairly common cause. Some people see or hear things that aren't there after drinking too much alcohol or taking drugs like cocaine or PCP.

How many Americans have Schizophrenia? About 2.5 million adults, according to Google. That's just one of the many conditions that can cause hallucinations.

Just to clarify, I am not indicating that I think all, or even a majority, of Bigfoot sightings are due to hallucinations. I'm just trying to give some context to the 3300 number.

Add in pranks as a possible cause of Bigfoot sightings, add in legitimate mis-identifications, etc, and I'm surprised we haven't had waaaaaaay more Bigfoot sightings. 3,300 is just shockingly low.

And then there's evolutionary science, which for me has become one of the most damning criticisms.

The fact is, there is no fossil-record antecedents to Bigfoot. Gigantopithecus was more closely related to Orangutans, not gorillas. There are no evolutionary links leading to Bigfoot, and this is a major, major problem.

Then there's the proliferation of cameras over the last decade, including trap cams in the woods, with lots of people hunting for Bigfoot. Not a single credible picture of this creature has been located. In the case of trap cams, they routinely find an incredible diversity of life in the forests. But no Bigfoot.

I've heard Bigfoot researchers explain away the lack of a body by saying how forest animals and carrion feeders quickly breakdown corpses in the woods. While this is true, it's also somewhat overstated.

Bones should still be found. Decaying remains should still be found, partially eaten.

From what I've read subsequently, hunters and outdoors men who spend a good amount of time in an area eventually see the remains of all of the animals that live there, in varying states of decay, including Elk and other large animals. But no Bigfoot. Ever.

I'm sorry to say, the Patterson-Gimlin film appears to be a hoax. Patterson did this to secure money for his wife, while he was dying of cancer. Patricia Patterson charges about $10,000 per use of the Patterson Gimlin film (used in numerous Bigfoot specials over the years), and it has greatly helped her live out her golden years in relative comfort.

I really wish Bigfoot was real. But let's face facts at this point, everyone. No Bigfoot body is ever, ever going to be found. No one is ever going to bring one in. Believers are going to be waiting forever for this to happen. All you're ever going to have are people saying they've seen Bigfoot. But a corpse will never be found, studied, or proven to exist.

If you're a believer, go ahead and keep waiting for that proof. But as the years grind on for you, with no real evidence in sight, I hope you too turn a skeptical eye toward Bigfoot. It's a great story, and a fun cryptid.. but no one is ever going to be able to study a Bigfoot corpse, because he only exists in our minds.

[–] Crustacean_Predation 9 years ago

3,300 sightings sounds like a lot to me. If I'm doing my math right that comes out to 33 per year, or one sighting every week and a half. I live in a neighborhood where there are deer and in 3 years I've only seen a deer once. But there are deer crossing signs on the streets and the paper just recently ran an article reminding people not to approach or feed them. So they're here, but I basically never see them.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 9 years ago

Crustacean_Predation, I appreciate your response. I definitely see what you're saying.

You're absolutely right, deer are shy creatures, just like Bigfoot is purported to be (except of course for the most famous Bigfoot film subject, who did not seem to be perturbed at all).

So yeah, deer are a great example to compare to.

And yet... notice that when hunters go in search of Deer, they are able to find them.

For example, here's a study from Wisconsin where they asked hunters to voluntarily submit their observations of deer, and other wildlife, that they observed on their hunts.

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/documents/reports/dhsurv2.pdf

This study involved:
2,045 hunters, who made about 22,000 hunting trips, for a total of 97,200 observation hours (about 4.5 hours per hunting trip). These hunters were from all over the state.

They averaged seeing 0.43 deer per hour hunting.

Doing the math, we have .. 97,200 hours X .43 deer = 41,710 deer sightings.

Based on those numbers, I think it's safe to say that there are likely hundreds of thousands of deer sightings per year in the U.S. That survey was only in Wisconsin, only in a single year, and only by the specific hunters that participated in this in this particular survey. Undoubtedly many more people in Wisconsin also spotted deer, but were not taking part in this survey.

Unfortunately, and of course, the hunters did not report seeing a single Bigfoot. Not-a-one.

With that context, I hope you can see just how small a number 3,300 is, especially over the period of a century.

If Bigfoot was a real animal, it should be sighted far more often than that. Further, we should have one that has accidentally passed by a trap cam, or have a modern hunter carrying a smartphone capture evidence of one (or shoot it and bring it in), or come across bones of an old individual who has died, or one that caught an infection and died and was spotted by a hunter, or just old bones even, etc etc. There should be evolutionary steps leading up to them.

But Bigfoot has none of this. It's just stories, and one video that sticks out like a sore thumb (seeing as no one has been able to replicate it in 50 years).

Patterson made it look so easy. He goes out in search of Bigfoot, and voila, he finds Bigfoot, walking through a clear pass, totally undisturbed by the presence of men and horses. It doesn't even seem to quicken its pace at all. And yet no one can reproduce this through another random encounter? That's the only "credible" documentation for 50 years, of a real actual creature?

None of it makes sense. It only makes sense as a hoaxed video (which benefits from being far less resolution than it appears, using a 1957 hand-held camera, smoothing over what would otherwise be glaring defects in a more modern video), and a collection of stories, legends, pranks, mis-identifications, results of intoxication, and who knows what other reasons people like to tell and embellish good stories.

People can sound extremely convincing with their eyewitness tesimtony, and turn out to be wrong. The Innocence Project knows this very well.

We must rely on evidence... and the absence of Bigfoot evidence is absolutely glaring at this point.

[–] Head_Cheese74 9 years ago

With that context, I hope you can see just how small a number 3,300 is, especially over the period of a century.

I never realized it was that small of a number.

[–] Crustacean_Predation 9 years ago

I think the thing to consider is the total population of each species. I'm not surprised they saw 42,000 deer because there are millions of those in North America and they're in every state. I think when it comes to sasquatches they would be more on the verge of extinction otherwise we would be seeing them in the thousands too. I think it was a year ago I looked up how many would need to remain to keep the species going, and I forget the number, but I want to say 1,500. If that's all that remain it's no surprise they're so much harder to find. I also don't believe Matt and the BFRO who think there are packs of sasquatch roaming through the Kansas prairies and in the Arizona desert. I can believe they are in the far remote wooded areas of Canada where there are less people, but if they were out in the open so much they would have nowhere to hide. I can't say what the people in Kansas are seeing. You could say misidentifications, but it shouldn't be bears either. Nor should people anywhere be seeing bears in winter when they should be hibernating. Until I see a sasquatch I'll never know, but if I did I wouldn't want to be called crazy either.

As to the point about catching them on camera, I think they are just too quick. My camera takes about 2 seconds to turn on and be ready, which sounds fast, but feels like an eternity when the squirrel or bird I want to get a picture of leaves in that time. Unless you have your camera rolling constantly it's too easy for any animal to escape behind a tree and basically vanish before you can be ready. And that doesn't even take into account the time to reach into my pocket and grab the camera, or the period of being so stunned at what I'm looking at that I even realize I need to act.

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

^^A little heads up. The posters you're replying to are going to keep ignoring what you're saying and keep implying that you're not in your right mind if even remaining open to the possibility that BigFoot may exist. Why waste your time.

I'm not going to suggest Ignore'ing them (read as, put your head in the sand/stick your fingers in your ears and sing to yourself/etc.), because that is the act of someone incapable of being objective about their opinions.

[–] Head_Cheese74 9 years ago

Doing the math.

Supposed BigFoot per square mile..

9,540,000 Square miles in North America divide by 1,500 = 1 BigFoot per 6,360 square miles.

158,648 Square miles in the state of California divide by 1,500 = 1 BigFoot per 105.76 square miles.

7,790 Square miles in the state of New Jersey divide by 1,500 = 1 BigFoot per 5.193 square miles.

If you look at the original estimate of 1,500 Supposed BigFoot's and used New Jersey as a marker compared to the entire North American Continent area square miles 6,360 that would mean there is only 1 BigFoot in the entire state of New Jersey.

It seems as though A Supposed BigFoot would have to travel along way just to breed.

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

by doubting_Wayne » Doing the math.

Supposed BigFoot per square mile..

Are those the kinds of "facts" your opinions are USUALLY based on?

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

Annnnd here we go again, ANOTHER(?) poster who loses no time starting down the witness discredit/dismiss route...and suggesting/implying hallucinations were the main factor behind all recorded sightings?

My main question is, why such detailed and long-winded posts attempting to persuade others NOT to consider bigfoot to be possible...and once again CLAIMING that proof will NEVER happen?

Why is no one considering such a thing possible apparently so important to you?

So AlarmedGibbon (if that is your original ID here and not just a latest offering on an already lengthy list of banned past IMDB ID's), since you've IMMEDIATELY gone so far as to make the public claim that bigfoot DOES NOT exist and no evidence will EVER be produced to prove otherwise, please provide your conclusive evidence for why your claim should not be disputed/questioned/discredited/dismissed.

Otherwise, yours is just another OPINION like everyone elses.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 9 years ago

Hello WhoToTrust, I appreciate your response.

I do have a few issues with your post that I'd like to address.

and suggesting/implying hallucinations were the main factor behind all recorded sightings?

I think you're mis-characterizing or mis-interpreting the point I was making.

Let me clarify: I am not attempting to imply or suggest that hallucinations are the main factor behind all reported Bigfoot sightings, nor do I myself believe that hallucinations are the main factor behind Bigfoot sightings.

However, with an average of 33 Bigfoot sightings per year, and 2.5 million people with one of the many conditions that causes hallucinations (among many other conditions that also do), you could certainly make a case that some sightings might be due to mental conditions.

I myself believe Bigfoot sightings are a combination of mis-identifications, pranks, results of intoxication, and who knows what other reasons people like to tell and embellish good stories. The available evidence, the lack of credible Bigfoot evidence, is more indicative of a variety of these types of causes, rather than of a real biological animal.

In decades past, you could make the argument that scientists aren't taking Bigfoot seriously, or putting much effort into it. But that case can't really be made anymore. Scientists are testing available evidence, and many of them really wish Bigfoot was real, as I do.

But, the absence of concrete evidence stands out more and more with every year that goes on with no Bigfoot bones, no Bigfoot tissue samples, no Bigfoot hair samples, etc.

My main question is, why such detailed and long-winded posts attempting to persuade others NOT to consider bigfoot to be possible

Let me give some context. First, I wrote up that post very quickly, it didn't take me that much effort. I do try to be as detailed as seems warranted, especially when making logical arguments on a controversial topic.

The other thing is, the notion of waiting for real evidence before you go believing something, has become increasingly important to me over the years. Sometimes, I just feel like sharing my opinion on a topic like this, and these IMDB boards are a fun place to do that.

since you've IMMEDIATELY gone so far as to make the public claim that bigfoot DOES NOT exist and no evidence will EVER be produced to prove otherwise, please provide your conclusive evidence for why your claim should not be disputed/questioned/discredited/dismissed.

Otherwise, yours is just another OPINION like everyone elses.

Well let me just come out and say, you are right that it is my opinion.

I am not claiming that I can prove that Bigfoot does not exist. As we should all know by now, it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. That's basic logic, you can never prove something does not exist.

That is why it is my opinion that Bigfoot does not exist, and not something that I or anyone else can ever prove. You can only ever prove that something exists, not that it doesn't exist.

So the relevant question is then, which facts inform my opinion? And, am I making a logical inference based on these facts, that Bigfoot likely does not exist?

I served up plenty of facts to consider, which I shall briefly recap here:

1. There's shockingly few Bigfoot sightings, lending plausibility to alternate explanations.

2. There's no tissue samples, hair, bones, trace DNA, or any kind of physical Bigfoot remains at all in any quantity.

3. Eye-witness testimony has been proven to be unreliable (I'm sorry, but that is a fact), leading us to rely more firmly on other methods of identification that are not so fallible.

4. There are no fossil-record antecedents to Bigfoot. If Bigfoot is ever proven to exist, we would have yet another mystery on our hands as to what this creature evolved from, because right now there's nothing that makes sense.

5. The proliferation of cameras over the last decade, including numerous trap cams in the woods which routinely capture a tremendous diversity of forest life, has not produced a single credible Bigfoot image.

6. Scientists have now proven willing to give Bigfoot a fair chance, but they need evidence to go on, which is unfortunately lacking.

7. Every year that no credible Bigfoot evidence emerges lends further and further to the notion that alternate explanations are more likely than Bigfoot being a real animal.

As I say, I used to be a believer. But as the years go on... it just gets harder and harder to believe.

[–] Head_Cheese74 9 years ago

^^A little heads up. The person whom your replying to is going to keep ignoring what your saying. Keep asking you too prove that BigFoot does not exist. Why waste your time. Just put him on ignore.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 9 years ago

Hehe, thanks for the heads up. He's been twisting my words, if you know what I mean.

If only Bigfoot believers had as much evidence as they do faith. Then scientists would really have something to study.

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

by AlarmedGibbon » Hehe, thanks for the heads up. He's been twisting my words, if you know what I mean.

If only Bigfoot believers had as much evidence as they do faith. Then scientists would really have something to study.

Gee, now where have we seen these tactics before (claiming I'm the person twisting words when it's actually you that is twisting you own words....and...claiming FOR ME that I'm a "believer" when I've never made such a statement myself)...

...oh yeah...

...from all of the trolls who have been here before you. 

You "skeptics" should REALLY at least TRY learning something new for a change.

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

by doubting_Wayne » ^^A little heads up. The person whom your replying to is going to keep ignoring what your saying. Keep asking you too prove that BigFoot does not exist. Why waste your time. Just put him on ignore.

This coming from someone ELSE on this message board who has time and time again made claims he's never bothered to provide proof for.

A waste of time indeed.

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

by AlarmedGibbon - Well let me just come out and say, you are right that it is my opinion.

I am not claiming that I can prove that Bigfoot does not exist. As we should all know by now, it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. That's basic logic, you can never prove something does not exist.

What this all boils down to is yes, you DID claim that bigfoot does not exist.

And that claim you just made is EXACTLY the same claim that many other posters before you on this message board have made.

Now THEY were never able to provide proof for the claim they had made, but that didn't stop them from making the claim in the first place...just like you have done.

Feel free to continue trying to walk back your claim at this point using the same twisted logic those other posters tried to use, but since I've already quoted your claim in my previous response so that others can see exactly what you wrote, and those other posters have already proven that the logic you're trying to use now is not sufficient to prove your point, let's just say you've not made things easy on yourself already.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 9 years ago

What this all boils down to is yes, you DID claim that bigfoot does not exist.

Yes, I did claim Bigfoot does not exist. I just didn't claim that I could prove that he doesn't exist. Because as I said:

As we should all know by now, it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. That's basic logic, you can never prove something does not exist.

You then said:

Now THEY were never able to provide proof for the claim they had made, but that didn't stop them from making the claim in the first place...just like you have done.

If providing proof that Bigfoot does not exist is your standard for skepticism on the topic, then you are holding skeptics to a literally impossible standard.

You can read more about that here at logicallyfallacious.com, about proving non-existence.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

You continued on:

Feel free to continue trying to walk back your claim at this point using the same twisted logic those other posters tried to use

I have not walked back any claim. I maintain that Bigfoot does not exist, and this is based on logical deduction based on the available evidence.

Remember, you can never prove non-existence. In making an argument that something does not exist, you have to work with the available evidence (which in the case of Bigfoot is in very short supply).

It's been almost 50 years since the Patterson-Gimlin film.. at some point we need to acknowledge that real Bigfoot evidence is probably never going to turn up.

The probability that Bigfoot is real gets lower with every passing year.

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

by AlarmedGibbon » Yes, I did claim Bigfoot does not exist. I just didn't claim that I could prove that he doesn't exist. Because as I said:

As we should all know by now, it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. That's basic logic, you can never prove something does not exist.

And as I said, that is the same BS we've already heard here many times before, and for all we know, from you those times too...just under a different IMDB ID. (It happens...we've proven it. )

But what you're basically admitting is, you made a definitive claim that you knew you couldn't prove.

So why waste anyone's time here to begin with?

Unless of course it was just to troll....

[–] Thomas-FordJr-1 9 years ago

No!!!

1. There are just too many people on this planet, to not have seen anything concrete thus far. And these areas that the Bigfoot have been seen, are in areas that people frequent.

2. FAR too many reliable recording devices nowadays. People nowadays record EVERYTHING!!! Bigfoot, if it existed, would have been captured on some kind of device by now.

3. You cannot just see, or have one Bigfoot in a given area. There has to be some sort of breeding population. There have to be old, middle aged, young, and infant Bigfoot somewhere.

4. If these creatures exist...there would have been some hard evidence found by now, and probably found thousands of years ago. Humans have lived along side other large primates(gorillas/chimps/orangutans) for millenia. There have been no bodies, no feces, no living spaces, nothing...nothing has been found on this creature.

5. This is a large animal, that lives on the land. This is not some insect or rodent, or some animal living in the vastness of the world's oceans. Large land animals leave traces of their existence. There is none of this for Bigfoot.

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

by ur18409973 -

No!!!

1. There are just too many people on this planet, to not have seen anything concrete thus far. And these areas that the Bigfoot have been seen, are in areas that people frequent.

2. FAR too many reliable recording devices nowadays. People nowadays record EVERYTHING!!! Bigfoot, if it existed, would have been captured on some kind of device by now.

3. You cannot just see, or have one Bigfoot in a given area. There has to be some sort of breeding population. There have to be old, middle aged, young, and infant Bigfoot somewhere.

4. If these creatures exist...there would have been some hard evidence found by now, and probably found thousands of years ago. Humans have lived along side other large primates(gorillas/chimps/orangutans) for millenia. There have been no bodies, no feces, no living spaces, nothing...nothing has been found on this creature.

5. This is a large animal, that lives on the land. This is not some insect or rodent, or some animal living in the vastness of the world's oceans. Large land animals leave traces of their existence. There is none of this for Bigfoot.

Opinions noted.

The facts are though that evidence HAS been presented.

If for some reason there are people intent on wanting that evidence dismissed/discredited/mocked/ridiculed/etc (as the poster AlarmedGibbon started doing here on this message board right from the start...like many posters before him/her have done), then it's been proven that no type of evidence will ever be considered enough

Of course there ARE good reasons why it would be better for such a thing as the existence of bigfoot to be kept secret (for the benefit of bigfoot for instance), but the ways in which that has been attempted so far (from posters like AlarmedGibbon for instance) are just not worthy of a mature society.

[–] namaGemo 9 years ago

Another note, this guy constantly mentions that there is evidence, but not once has he ever supported his claims. When mentioning delusional people, he's one the 2.5 million. That's why he gets so upset about skepticism towards Bigfoot.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 9 years ago

I'll note that this sounds just like you and your unsupported claim that obesity is an eating disorder.

Boy do you get upset over my justified skepticism.

I want a Lamborghini. I hear they cost an arm and a leg.

[–] Thomas-FordJr-1 9 years ago

Of course there ARE good reasons why it would be better for such a thing as the existence of bigfoot to be kept secret (for the benefit of bigfoot for instance), but the ways in which that has been attempted so far (from posters like AlarmedGibbon for instance) are just not worthy of a mature society.

So....are we trying to find Bigfoot, or keep it a secret???

Are you telling me all of these shows attempting to find this fairy tale creature, are really fake diversions, attempting to really protect this known species?

I've really hard it all now(eye roll)....

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

by Thomas-FordJr-1 » So....are we trying to find Bigfoot, or keep it a secret???

Are you telling me all of these shows attempting to find this fairy tale creature, are really fake diversions, attempting to really protect this known species?

I've really hard it all now(eye roll)....

Depends on who you're referring to when you say "we".

That you have tried to lump everyone into the same category and tried to equate bigfoot as a "fairy tale creature" illustrates your lack of objectivity and your inability to make distinctions between the trolls here like Alarmedgibbon, namagemo, and doubting_Wayne (and now yourself?), and the posters who remain realistically open to the possibilities.

Unfortunately for you, I'd already heard the argument you just tried to use... 

[–] Head_Cheese74 9 years ago

Another note, this guy constantly mentions that there is evidence, but not once has he ever supported his claims. When mentioning delusional people, he's one the 2.5 million. That's why he gets so upset about skepticism towards Bigfoot.

Anyone who disagrees with him is using a Sock Account. I guess when someone gets tired of hearing the same thing over again they are convinced it's the same person.

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

by doubting_Wayne » Anyone who disagrees with him is using a Sock Account. I guess when someone gets tired of hearing the same thing over again they are convinced it's the same person.

the problem with your response is that it's been proven on this very message board that the posters you're defending WERE proven to be sock accounts.

And yet here you are STILL defending those posters.

You should really choose your allies more wisely, because the ones you've chosen time and time again have continually made you appear very gullible and uninformed.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lulupalooza 9 years ago

@AlarmedGibbon, @Thomas-FordJr-1, @doubting_Wayne, @namaGemo:

It is excellent to read such sound logic and to obtain stats and new information! I applaud your tenacity and ability to stand on scientific principles, instead of pandering to magical/hopeful thinking based on a TV show or sensationalism. I imagine that we would all like to see Bigfoot somehow exist after all these years, but logic and reason should always trump any cryptozoological fantasy that persists without scientific merit.

AlarmedGibbon: In my youth, like yourself, I thought Bigfoot was more possible. However, I am now of your opinion that they are unlikely to exist and am flabbergasted by people who continue to claim that this informed opinion is not valid until we prove actual non-existence. As you have pointed out very clearly and succinctly, Bigfoot's non-existence (a negative) cannot be proven. Logically, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant - and so far, there is no definitive proof that Bigfoot exists. Therefore, Bigfoot's potential existence (a positive) continues to require evidence to be proven. That is a fact whether we like it or not. Nobody should take it personally. We've been waiting years for just one solid piece of evidence. Blurry footage of a solo Bigfoot, does not make for definitive proof. Neither does an indistinct recording of a howl or knocking sound. And, as you pointed out, witness testimony is technically considered unreliable and cannot stand alone, no matter how compelling someone's story may sound. While reports may have led researchers and explorers to certain areas, by themselves they are not considered definitive proof - nor have they led us to that proof, directly or indirectly.

Thomas-FordJr-1: Your bullet points are right on and are a good reminder of the basic facts. After many years had passed since the Patterson-Gimlin film's debut and I had grown into an educated adult, I began to find it suspicious that the vast majority of Bigfoot sightings are of a solo creature. Why in the natural world, would only
one rogue Bigfoot (usually adult) nearly always be wandering on its own? I would expect that some of the time we would at least get blurry footage of a group of them, a couple, or an adult with a small juvenile/baby. That type of footage or photo rarely happens. It's safe to assume they would need to breed wherever they hide, unless they happen to be lone, inter-dimensional travelers ("Quantum Leap", anyone?) ;) At the very least, there should be multiple creature clusters caught on crappy video more often and their footprints cast and categorized as a grouping. I think this speaks volumes about misidentification or hoaxing. The only grouping on video that I've seen is the AZ DOT traffic-cam family...that turned out to be bushes. :P

Logically, is Bigfoot still a possibility in North America? Sure. Like Crustacean_Predation touched on, there is a chance of a small population that may thrive in the nearly unreachable, dense forests of WA state, Alaska, and Canada. However, until we actually discover definitive proof: a live, captured Bigfoot, full remains, or a DNA sample (e.g. tissue/bone/hair/blood), we are scientifically obligated to assume what AlarmedGibbon has so eloquently stated here and to respect Oxford University's "rigorous standard against which to judge any future claims." Barring those who have invested countless hours of their lives to find proof of Bigfoot (e.g. Loren Coleman), its potential existence should not have much affect on most people's lives. If Bigfoot, as an undiscovered primate, is proven to exist...cool beans, woo-hoo, right on, high-five, etc. If it isn't...oh well. Period. There are other amazing and wonderful mysteries on Earth and in outer space that will keep us researching and wondering for countless years! :)

"Don't get chumpatized!" - The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007)

[–] AlarmedGibbon 9 years ago

Thanks so much, lulupalooza. I'm glad I'm not the only one who enjoys a reasoned conversation :)

[–] namaGemo 9 years ago

There are two delusional people on this board, and two trolls who back them up constantly but also, never consider the statistical facts. The one tool will constantly repeats the same line of crap saying "skeptics and their tactics, mock, ridicule, and so on", and the trolls will not even bother with the topic, but just throw out pathetic verbal jabs because they had their asses wiped on other boards.

They will follow people around like beaten puppy dogs because they can't deal with the notion that someone easily beat them in some verbal sparring. I've got one A hole who took things so personal (yes, on a movie message board) that he's been stalking me on several topics, actually searched for my personal information, and is still to this day, posting about a comment I made over 3 years ago because his life is so empty, this is all he has.

These people are the ones you mentioned as being the small percentage of believers that can't come to terms with rational thought based on what are easily logical conclusions.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 9 years ago

I keep bringing it up because it's pertinent. You don't like me doing it because it shows how much of a hypocrite you are.

You talk about others being delusional when it's you who constantly rewrites history so that you can pretend that you've "wiped" my ass (Do you like wiping peoples asses?) and beaten me at verbal sparring. Really now? Is that why you can't reply to me directly anymore and instead have to play the sycophant? FACE IT! You do it because you're scared spitless of me. You know that I'll bury you just like I always have. Coward! You say that I keep bringing up the past. Yeah? Better look in the mirror, pal!

What do I believe? You can't answer that, because I've never stated what I believe. You believe that I believe. Well? Support your claim!

I want a Lamborghini. I hear they cost an arm and a leg.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 9 years ago

I just read Less_Crunchy_Technique's response to your post, and I see what you mean.

It's always funny when believers in something there is no evidence for try to act like they don't really believe it. As if they're just vociferously defending something that they don't believe in. I've seen it happen in religion debates as well.

I personally think people should stand up for what they believe. If someone refuses to talk about what they believe, they probably believe something fishy that they can't really defend.

You should be able to talk confidently about what you believe, because that means you've really thought about it, weighed the evidence, etc.

Why hide your beliefs, unless you're afraid of receiving criticism that you can't defend?

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 9 years ago

I find it funny when your ilk don't hold yourselves to the same standards you hold others.

What am I defending?

I personally think people should stand up for what they believe. If someone refuses to talk about what they believe, they probably believe something fishy that they can't really defend.

I stand up for and talk about what I believe all the time. Especially here.

I don't state my position on the existence of Bigfoot, because it's irrelevant.

You should be able to talk confidently about what you believe, because that means you've really thought about it, weighed the evidence, etc.

I do that all the time. 

Why hide your beliefs, unless you're afraid of receiving criticism that you can't defend?

Wait a minute! Am I not a believer?

The criticism is already there.  You shipdit!

I want a Lamborghini. I hear they cost an arm and a leg.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 9 years ago

ROFL!!

I said:

I personally think people should stand up for what they believe. If someone refuses to talk about what they believe, they probably believe something fishy that they can't really defend.

You should be able to talk confidently about what you believe, because that means you've really thought about it, weighed the evidence, etc.

You replied:

I stand up for and talk about what I believe all the time. Especially here.

I don't state my position on the existence of Bigfoot, because it's irrelevant.

LOL! We're posting on a Bigfoot forum.. what beliefs did you think I was referring to?! rofl..

Did you think I was referring to your beliefs about the virtues of capitalism?

You are so funny! I needed a good laugh, thanks :)

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 9 years ago

Why does what I believe concerning the existence of Bigfoot matter?

I want a Lamborghini. I hear they cost an arm and a leg.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 9 years ago

This entire thread is about whether belief in Bigfoot makes sense, so it's pretty silly to say that your beliefs about Bigfoot are irrelevant.

People's beliefs about Bigfoot (such as yours), and whether or not they make sense, is exactly what this thread is about.

If you're not going to comment about your beliefs about Bigfoot, and whether or not you believe that the facts support your beliefs, then you simply don't belong in this thread.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 9 years ago

I have commented about my belief. It's irrelevant.

I want a Lamborghini. I hear they cost an arm and a leg.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 9 years ago

If you're not going to discuss your beliefs and the reasons for them, then you, good sir, are what is irrelevant. To this thread.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 9 years ago

Yet here you are. 

I want a Lamborghini. I hear they cost an arm and a leg.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 9 years ago

Well yeah, I started the thread. It's about whether to believe (that Bigfoot is a real creature), and the reasons for those beliefs.

That's why I started the thread by stating my beliefs about Bigfoot, as well as my reasons for holding those beliefs.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 9 years ago

How many edits do you need?

And for not following your rules, I don't belong and am irrelevant. Yet here you are. 

I want a Lamborghini. I hear they cost an arm and a leg.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 9 years ago

I edit most of my posts. I usually continue to think about what was said after posting, and I often want to revise them to more accurately communicate whatever I'm trying to get across.

Speaking of irrelevant, you've finally hit on something that's actually very irrelevant to this discussion :)

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 9 years ago

Your buddy namaGemo likes do do that. He sometimes comes back six months later and edits.

Speaking of irrelevant, you've finally hit on something that's actually very irrelevant to this discussion

And yet you focus on it and explain yourself. 

I want a Lamborghini. I hear they cost an arm and a leg.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 9 years ago

And yet you focus on it and explain yourself.

Hey, you're the one who asked how many edits I need.

Since we've conversed this long, how about we get to know each other a little?

Where ya from? How's life treatin' ya?

When did you get into Bigfoot?

And feel free to ask me anything you'd like.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 9 years ago

What am I defending?

I want a Lamborghini. I hear they cost an arm and a leg.

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

Regarding lulupalooza's post and the logical fallacy of "proving a negative".

Skeptics and Their Arguments

"Cut through the ridicule and search for factual information in most of the skeptical commentary and one is usually left with nothing. This is not surprising. After all, how can one rationally object to a call for scientific examination of evidence?" Bernhard Haisch, Ph.D., "Be Skeptical of the Skeptics". "Skeptics, who flatly deny the existence of any unexplained phenomenon in the name of 'rationalism,' are among the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public. People are not stupid and they know very well when they have seen something out of the ordinary. When a so-called expert tells them the object must have been the moon or a mirage, he is really teaching the public that science is impotent or unwilling to pursue the study of the unknown." (Vallee, J., Confrontations, New York: Ballantine Books, 1990.) Dr. Jacques Vallee, astrophysicist, computer scientist and world renowned researcher and author on UFOs and paranormal phenomena. He worked closely with Dr. J. Allen Hynek. Commenting on the need for science "to search beyond the superficial appearances of reality."

The fact of the matter is that posters here like AlarmedGibbon, Thomas-FordJr-1, doubting_Wayne and namaGemo are CONSTANTLY making public claims of non-existence yet CONSTANTLY leaving those claims unsubstantiated.

Claims are claims, whether trying to prove a positive OR a negative.

It's not the fault of the objective posters here that AlarmedGibbon, Thomas-FordJr-1, doubting_Wayne and namaGemo were dumb enough to choose the more difficult of the two types of claims to promote. 

[–] AlarmedGibbon 9 years ago

Welcome back, WhoToTrust, I appreciate the response, though I don't think you're using proper logic.

I do have a question for you, however..

Currently, as is obvious from this thread, I do not believe that Bigfoot is real. And, you seem to think that is an illogical conclusion.

Can you please explain to me why I, or anyone, should believe that Bigfoot is real, in your opinion?

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

by AlarmedGibbon » Welcome back, WhoToTrust, I appreciate the response, though I don't think you're using proper logic.

You're of course free to continue thinking that if you like, but until you can accept the possibility that your own logic might be flawed, there is no logical reason for me to explain myself further.

[–] toddt07 8 years ago

It would be cool if Bigfoot was real but I don't believe such an animal exists. This planet has been too explored by man for multiple animals of this size to have remained concealed. Someone would have shot one hunting, hit one with a car, found a body, gotten an incredibly clear picture of or even captured a live one by now if these animals existed. I don't believe bigfoot would remain undiscovered if they were the size of Ewoks much less the 7-9 foot tall, massive animals they are alleged to be.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

Well put!

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

Excellent. Now we know what you two BELIEVE.

Unfortunately for you though, your beliefs amount to nothing more than opinions, so you've essentially still proven nothing.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

You want me to prove the non-existence of Bigfoot? That's quite impossible.

However, drawing reasonable conclusions from the dearth of credible Bigfoot evidence.. that's very possible.

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

No. As I've explained before, what I've said is that you should hold yourself to your own standards and show the proof to back up the claim you've made. You've stated that you don't believe Bigfoot exists. So prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist.

After all, every time you say FOR someone that they're a "believer", you then go on to ask them to show the proof of the belief you've said they have.

It's a reasonable conclusion to draw from the dearth of times you've illustrated the same double-standard in impossible logic that you can't...else you would have.

What I can't believe is that I have to explain this to you every time you reengage in this discussion.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

WhoToTrust, always good to hear from you! I hope you've been well the last 6 months or so.

So, to recap, I asked:

You want me to prove the non-existence of Bigfoot? That's quite impossible.

And you replied (very beginning of the above post): No.

But then, at the end of literally that same paragraph, you then say:

So prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist.

When you do these kinds of contradictions, it makes me think you're just trolling us. Can you truly want me to prove the non-existence of Bigfoot (which is impossible), and also not want me to prove the non-existence of Bigfoot? (Since you answered "No.")

I really wish you would at least be logically consistent in your responses. It would make it so much easier to have a fun debate!

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

Same old Gibbon.

You talk a lot, but you still never provide any proof to back up what you believe has already been proven.

Logically, that should be easy for you...yet you repeatedly fail.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

Well, I do talk a lot, so touche' ;)

But I've also never claimed to be able to prove a negative.

I have claimed to make reasonable conclusions from available evidence.

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

And yet knowing that a negative cannot be proven has never stopped you from repeatedly making your negative-based claim.

It would seem that any reasonable person would know to stop before making a type of claim that by it's very nature can't be proven, and yet here you are having done it again.

But speaking of "again", since you're again making the same type of claim and basing it on a lack of evidence (a situation you've once again placed yourself in), there's no logic in proceeding further with you...same as the LAST time you tried to make your claim of non-existence.

Feel free to talk a lot in more circles that lead nowhere though.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

Wait, this is getting interesting now.. are you implying that because a negative (or specifically non-existence) cannot be proven, then no one should make a "negative-based claim", as you put it?

For instance, no one should argue that fairies don't exist, because it cannot be proven that they don't?

Or, no one should argue that unicorns don't exist, because it cannot be proven that they don't?

Given our track record in these conversations, I'm expecting you to avoid directly answer my question, but I enjoy reading your responses nonetheless.

*grabs popcorn*

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

by AlarmedGibbon » Wait, this is getting interesting now.. are you implying that because a negative (or specifically non-existence) cannot be proven, then no one should make a "negative-based claim", as you put it?

For instance, no one should argue that fairies don't exist, because it cannot be proven that they don't?

Or, no one should argue that unicorns don't exist, because it cannot be proven that they don't?

Given our track record in these conversations, I'm expecting you to avoid directly answer my question, but I enjoy reading your responses nonetheless.

*grabs popcorn*

You should really hope that everyone reading at this point just assumes you're playing stupid arguing the misinterpretation of my comments that you are, because the alternative is that you really ARE that stupid.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

(As stated in my previous post, I expected you to dodge my questions, and you didn't disappoint!)

Hey, you're the one who said "any reasonable person would know to stop before making a type of claim that by it's very nature can't be proven"

So for instance, the statement "fairies don't exist" cannot be proven true. That means, by your logic stated above, that a reasonable person would not try to argue that fairies don't exist, since it can't be proven.

Does that really make sense to you?

By your logic, no one can ever argue for something being non-existent, since it can't be proven (since you can't prove something doesn't exist).

I can't argue that for intsance Unicorns don't exist, since it can't be proven?

Does that actually make sense to you?

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

As I stated in my previous post, if all you're going to do is argue misinterpretations, don't blame anyone else if you aren't taken seriously here.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

You haven't specifically pointed out where or how I've misinterpreted, nor laid it out in logic terms... So I guess at this point, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

And by the way, I don't think you're foolish. I understand the allure of these beliefs. I used to believe in Bigfoot, I used to believe in alien visitations, and various conspiracies.. so while I may argue my points and my current beliefs, and maybe I even believe that certain beliefs are foolish (though I'd probably use the word far-fetched over foolish).. that doesn't mean I think the people who hold those beliefs are themselves foolish. I definitely do not think those people foolish.

I used to believe in God, I used to disbelieve evolution, I used to think that humans were brought here from an alien race.. hell, I used to suspect that the moon was a giant spaceship. So to be clear, I'm no stranger to unusual beliefs, and I understand the mindset that allows for them, because I used to have it. Fairly recently too, in the grand scheme of things. I'm only 33 years old.

I respect you, I hope your life is going OK, and I enjoy these discussions with you. If I give you a little friendly ribbing in some of these posts, it's because I like you, not because I dislike you :)

Please take my goodwill at face value, if you're able to.

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

Sorry, while I AM capable of taking goodwill at face value, that's not what you're exhibiting.

This is proven by the fact that as long as you've been posting here, you've continually tried to equate a belief in something that has documented accounts with real life eyewitness with things like fairies and unicorns.

It you were actually as reasonable as you claim, you'd have admitted to the absurdity and disingenuousness of trying to equate the two from the start.

As things stand though, you're main goal seems to be to try to provoke people into saying something you can then try to equate as absurd.

As I said though, as far as being the smartest person in the room goes, you're simply not that clever.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

If equating belief in Bigfoot to belief in Fairies or Unicorns is so offensive to you that you can't be friendly, that's just a shame.

I should point out that I only brought up fairies and unicorns when pressed by you about the logic of proving non-existence. When defending myself against your accusation that I was being illogical, it's often helpful to provide other examples to make clear the logic being used. That is the context in which those other examples were brought up.

And for the record, I'm not the one dodging questions here, if you look at the last few posts. You've actually made quite an art form of it ;)

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

Just more of the same disingenuousness from you.

it's obvious why you'd want to spin my comments as being unfriendly, but it's you who started the discussion down that path by being disingenuous from the start.

As I said, you're simply not as clever as you think you are, but you brought such observations on yourself, so stop trying to shift the blame/unfriendliness on to others.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

Alright buddy, I'll let you have the last word.

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

by AlarmedGibbon » Alright buddy, I'll let you have the last word.

Well that's mighty white of you considering it's you who was being disingenuous from the start.

Not surprised that you would end by trying to portray yourself as the victim though. Whatever it takes to try to make the other guy look bad, right?

[–] Bee_Hands 8 years ago

no big foot is not real. mods can close this thread?

[–] Scarecrow-88 7 years ago

I have no reason to not believe there couldn't be a type of creature not yet catalogued officially out there, but until there is documented proof truly recognized, skepticism reigns.

--
"Get the cheese to sickbay."

[–] AlamoScout210 7 years ago

hey dude! fancy seeing you here...

I'm in the camp that likes to believe a bigfoot creature exists although all of my logical senses tells me its more myth than anything else. But hey, if someone ever finds proof I'll be the first to by a Bigfoot Is Real t-shirt! lol

https://www.facebook.com/xxAlamoScoutxx

[–] Head_Cheese74 7 years ago

I'd say those odds are pretty long that they will find proof. Like 99-1 against BigFoot.

[–] AlamoScout210 7 years ago

To quote a famous man, So you're saying there's a chance.

[–] WhoToTrust 7 years ago

You "skeptics" really need to get a new shtick.

With you, it's always either:

A: "I'm not saying I'm right, only that anyone who doesn't agree with my opinion is illogical."

Or,

B: "I'll believe in it when the dubious current process (where nothing can be verified as existing if it isn't already on file as existing) tells me it's been verified as existing.

FYI - Disingenuousness and attempts to discredit on a personal level aren't accepted, peer-reviewed thought processes where it pertains to objective scientific debate.

[–] AlamoScout210 7 years ago

Dude, I don't know WTF your talking about but if you can't tell this is all in fun then I suggest loosen your belt and lighten up. Remember fun or are you just a natural stick in the mud?

https://www.facebook.com/xxAlamoScoutxx

[–] WhoToTrust 7 years ago

So basically...nothing new from you either.

Well played sir...well played.

[–] AlamoScout210 7 years ago

Again I don't know what you're talking about or if you got me confused with someone else but do us a favor and put me on your ignore list. I've had my fill of jerks on these boards ruining threads with bs and I don't need another replying to my posts. Thanks for nothing. Peace out.

https://www.facebook.com/xxAlamoScoutxx

[–] WhoToTrust 7 years ago

And you accuse OTHERS of having no sense of humor...

[–] AlarmedGibbon 7 years ago

Sorry about WhoToTrust, AlamoScout. He's a friend of mine, but he doesn't have much of a sense of humor, and he's quite unforgiving if you make any kind of joke near him. He's a real reactionary, unfortunately.

He also relentlessly picks on anyone who's skeptical of Bigfoot. Sometimes I wonder why we're friends at all, but at his core, I know there is some good.

Anyway, good to meet you!

The greatest trick God ever pulled was convincing the world that He's good.

[–] AlamoScout210 7 years ago

it's all good man, seems like every board has their resident douche and I wasn't in no mood to butt heads with one over an innocuous statement I made in jest about a mythical creature.

https://www.facebook.com/xxAlamoScoutxx

[–] WhoToTrust 7 years ago

It's always interesting to watch "skeptics" (like alamo and alarmed) think they are proving ignorance, intolerance, and d'baggishness in others when the only people illustrating those tendencies are themselves.

Oh, and FYI alamo, you're new pal alarmed just lied to you seeing as how he and I actually AREN'T friends. He just says stuff like to try to goad me into being the kind of "reactionary" he obviously wants everyone to "believe" I am.

That's HIS schtick, old and tired as it may be at this point.

Anyway, consider yourself informed.

[–] Head_Cheese74 7 years ago

To quote a famous man, So you're saying there's a chance.

Better chance winning the lottery than finding the legendary BigFoot.

Post ignored WhoToTrust

[–] AlamoScout210 7 years ago

just so you know, it was a tongue-in-cheek reference to Dumb & Dumber. Besides I think I'd have more fun searching the woods for a squatch that doesn't exist rather than throwing away $5. Why you ask? I really don't know, just for the fun of it I guess...

https://www.facebook.com/xxAlamoScoutxx

[–] WhoToTrust 7 years ago

by Head_Cheese74 » Better chance winning the lottery than finding the legendary BigFoot.

Post ignored WhoToTrust

So you made a point of specifically including it in your post to say you Ignored my post?

Now THAT'S funny.

You "skeptics" obviously can't ignore me even when you try, and only prove to illustrate a sense of humor when you're NOT trying.

You just can't make this $#!+ up! 

[–] AlarmedGibbon 7 years ago

Wow.. your the type of person who feels good about how much you can upset and annoy others on the internet?

There's a word for that: Troll

You heckled this guy until he put you on ignore, and then you gloat about how funny it is and how good you feel about it?

You sir have just outed yourself as a troll. Now anyone who reads this board will see you for what you are.

[–] WhoToTrust 7 years ago

Alarmed, you conveniently forgot to include the fact that the people you're referring to I referred to as "skeptics", which YOU well know by now means I'm referring to internet trolls.

Not surprised that you would try to play ignorant/outright lie about such facts as you tried to turn my comments against me though. 

[–] AlarmedGibbon 7 years ago

I guess we'll let others judge for themselves whether or not the fact that you take pleasure by antagonizing other people makes you a troll or not.

If I see you trolling anyone else on this board, I'll remind them what you've said here and how you gloat and take pleasure by making others miserable.

[–] WhoToTrust 7 years ago

Something else we'll let them judge for themselves is the underlying reason you spend SO much time here mocking/ridiculing/discrediting/dismissing anyone who even suggests that Bigfoot may possibly exist, to the point that you will lie about others to that end...as you've just done again about me.

Because the fact of the matter is, that's a question you've never specifically addressed.

So again, why is EVERYONE believing that Bigfoot isn't real SO important to YOU?

[–] Wookieebitch 7 years ago

If I see you trolling anyone else on this board, I'll remind them what you've said here and how you gloat and take pleasure by making others miserable.

He may also get it in his head that he has the right to know your personal information. He's on The X-Files board hounding me for information on my past work history. He's obsessive and creepy.

[–] WhoToTrust 7 years ago

by Wookieebitch » He may also get it in his head that he has the right to know your personal information. He's on The X-Files board hounding me for information on my past work history. He's obsessive and creepy.

As an FYI, in this case I asked Wookiebitch what position she held "in the (movie) industry" because that's the exact phrase she used to justify specific knowledge she was claiming to have about the distribution of box-office profits between theaters and studios in the movie industry on another message board I post to.

My exact question to her was, "in what capacity" was her position "in the industry" that she was referring to?

To date though, rather than answer that simple question...which could serve to bolster HER side of the discussion about said box-office profit distributions...she has refused to answer...on the apparent grounds that such information is "too personal".

It's starting to appear that my additional comment...that the position "in the industry" she held in the past could just as easily have been "Chief Popcorn Maker/Lobby Sweeper" at the local mom and pop movie theater when she was in high school...wasn't too far off the mark. 

[–] AlarmedGibbon 7 years ago

Thanks for making us aware of this, Wookieebitch.

I'm sorry for what he's putting you through. I've about had it with his incessant trolling.

The greatest trick God ever pulled was convincing the world that He's good.

[–] WhoToTrust 7 years ago

by AlarmedGibbon » Thanks for making us aware of this, Wookieebitch.

I'm sorry for what he's putting you through. I've about had it with his incessant trolling.

The greatest trick God ever pulled was convincing the world that He's good.

How anyone could fall for the ruse AlarmedGibbon tries to perpetrate on these message boards is beyond me personally (especially when he even tries to make it obvious with signature lines like the one above - I mean, that's pretty basic stuff regardless of what your religious beliefs are), but as we can see for ourselves, there ARE some people who do actually get fooled.

Stay in school kids. 

[–] Wookieebitch 7 years ago

Based on the way he's been behaving, I figured it would be prudent to pass on the warning.

[–] WhoToTrust 7 years ago

Says a person who won't admit to even the "possibility" they could have been fooled by the person they're now offering "warnings" too.

Birds of a feather it seems.