Of course, we all know that a Bigfoot is hiding in plain sight right here on Zoochat; assuming they are the same species as the Yeti and Orang-Pendek, and as such found in Asia as well as North America, there are several intriguing points which lead to an inevitable conclusion..... Very tall and muscular Long, shaggy hair A keen interest in nature At home in thick, tropical jungle as well as grasslands and mountainous climes Very seldom photographed Now, am I describing Bigfoot..... or Chlidonias?
I'm not as tall as a Bigfoot. In fact I'm willing to suggest that I'm not tall at all, except in relation to malnourished Asian children. If I knocked on ThylacineAlive's door it would take three times answering it before he looked down and realised there was actually someone on his step, and his remark would probably be along the lines of "Oh, a little floresiensis. How extraordinary."
The theory goes - in its saner form - that to prevent embarassment of failure during the Cold War footage was already shot in a film studio. Thus its irrelevant if man went to the moon or not, the astronauts in the video would be actors who remained on Earth. The theory is given credence because the CIA did have a studio handy so they could say genuine footage of accidents and such was in fact special effects. However all objections to the authenticity of the footage were debunked as far as I know.
I went to the NASA Space Center last week, in the gift shop they sell these great T-shirts with a picture of the moon landing and it says "I want to believe". I'm so tempted to buy, but I already have lots of T-shirts. Speaking of bigfoot, I totally hate that Finding Bigfoot has been going on for 8 seasons. (meanwhile, there are no documentaries on beaked whales! I'm sure Finding Bigfoot costs extremely little to produce, but still) If Bigfoot existed and lived in North America, someone would have shot it by now. And even if the guys on the show did find irrefutable proof, it would be on the news before the show airs. (my mom thought that stupid Mermaids: The Body Found thing was real until I pointed out that if real mermaids were found, that would be all over the news) I tell my friends, we should try to get a monster hunting show but it would just be a way to get paid to go on vacations. Be all like "A sea monster was spotted near this luxury resort in Hawaii! BETTER GO INVESTIGATE".
@TheMightyOrca, agreed: beaked whales and real wildlife are far more interesting and remain alas underreported, which should and does not have to be. We deserve better docu dramas and real life stories, not manufactured commercialized product. These FBF and Nessie docus do sure look like alternative facts idiocy … (aaah … I rest my case in disbelief), it almost looks like some kind of religion (no disrespect to those believing in one or another religion, it is fine).
The Mermaids documentary was extremely intelligent and therefore better than most "real" wildlife docus. If you watch closely you can see the deliberate scientific errors and inconsistencies from a mile away: this was by design.
This is why it bugs me, there are lots of weird and interesting and obscure animals out there, there's no need for an educational network to air programs about looking for fictional creatures. I'd be fine with a program about the history or mythology behind bigfoot, but there's no reason to have 8 seasons of a show about people looking for him. People get into this stuff because they don't think real animals are interesting enough, and that's a damn shame. (and if they found bigfoot? In a few years he'd just become a "boring" normal animal)
It wasn't intended as satire, it was supposed to be "If mermaids were real, this is potentially how they could be". They made a similar mockumentary about dragons many years ago.
Of course it wasn't intended as satire. I said it was intelligent programming, not intended as satire. Have you any idea how many wildlife scenes are staged? At least they don't catapult lemmings nowadays. But the genre is heir to ancient hoax documentaries where Eskimos speared fish in a barrel and it was presented as happening in the Arctic. Besides how many people watch wildlife documentaries repeating the same facts about charismatic megagauna: and yet learn nothing. Even I admit, even after watching so many shows, I can't memorise reliably data about things like lion litter sizes. Though wildlife docus are seen as wholesome for educational reasons, their educational value is low. So someone does something smart with the genre of special effects wildlife, in the vein of WWD (remember the sauropod ovipositor?) and they get flak. Why?
7 new planets possible 3 could support life. How do they know it's only 3? Who told them? We are supposed to believe them because they're scientist's as they know everything or do they? Are these the same 7 planets reported in 1993 and dismissed by US scientists. will we ever know the truth?
Those three are within the habitable zone of the star. This means their surface temperature could support liquid water. However, this is really a best guess about whether they are suitable for life it or not. There are too many other variables. Similarly we can't really say the others could not support life. No-one. They worked it out themselves. This is what science is. No. We don't have to believe them. If we have the training and knowledge, we can look at the same evidence and decide for ourselves if we come to the same conclusion. This is why science is peer reviewed and papers are published; there is a huge amount of scrutiny of results, especially controversial ones. The problem comes when you don't have the knowledge to do this for yourself. Then you don't have to believe the scientists, but you do have to believe in the process. Attempts to discredit science by people who disagree with some of its conclusions are some of the more serious and insidious threats to civilization, both in the short-term and the long-term. I have to admit I don't know what you are referring to here. But, it seems almost certain they are not, as these seven are recently discovered by methods that were not available in 1993. There is often no 'truth' in science, especially in astronomy, where all information comes from little wisps of light that are thousands of years old. If people actually understood how much we have worked out from so little, they would worship astronomers as the gods they really are. Science is constantly revising or rejecting ideas that were previously consider completely correct. Often there is uncertainty about specific numbers or there may be processes with something that is generally understood that are themselves not. People who are 'anti-science' always use this uncertainty to criticize and delegitimise it. In fact this flexibility is the strength of science. It can, and does, change itself. The lack of dogma is one of the things that makes science better than the alternatives.
