gigantor

Tech
  • Content count

    4,947
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,187 Mythical

About gigantor

  • Rank
    Bigfoot

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Contact Methods

  • Have you ever had an encounter with a sasquatch-like creature?
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

4,883 profile views
  1. It is true that there are no credentialed scientists doing BF research these days. Does that means BF doesn't exist?
  2. ^^^ Good thinking Trog, The same stats removing the "No Color Provided" (NCP) totals: Ohio NH/ME/Can (east) Total 110 (141 - 31 NCP) Total 53 (126 - 73 NCP) White/Grey/Yellow 18 (16%) 7 (13%)(Gray only) Black 21 (19%) 18 (33%) Brown 35 (31%) 10 (18%) Dark Brown 14 (12%) 7 (13%) “Dark” 19 (17%) 8 (15%) Cinnamon 3 ( 2%) 3 (5%) No color provided 31 73 -------------- So they're more brownish, lighter color in Ohio?
  3. Catmandoo, I think your assumption of the "sound emitter" being a Grouse is.... incorrect. Here are Sooty Grouse calls from several sites, including Cornell which you suggested. Not one of them sounds even remotely like wood knocks. Cornell Sooty (Blue) Blue Grouse Intro Cornell Lab of Ornithology - drumming. Cornell - calls - wing beating IBC Bird Collection Bird Song ID
  4. ^^^ That's how science works, you form a hypothesis based on available data... and test it until new information invalidates it. No theory is set in stone, ever. --------- Very interesting finding, although I'm not too exited considering the hypothesis "is based on broken rocks and mastodon bones found in California that a team of researchers say point to human activity. " The researchers could simply be wrong, probably are if they're hanging their hat on such a weak link. It sounds like the global warming "hockey stick" hypothesis which was based on a few petrified tree rings analysis to deduce the historical climate data for the entire planet. It's a big joke today. The validity rate of new studies is pretty low after many eyeballs look at it... see http://retractionwatch.com/ yet the BF enthusiast in me hopes it's true.
  5. We can play round-a-bout all you want. It won't work for you because your logic is flawed. The disappointing part is that you know it , so I have to question your intellectual honesty at this point.
  6. You are positing an argument from ignorance by trying to claim a false dichotomy. Here, read it again: Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, true false unknown between true or false being unknowable (among the first three).[1] --------------------- You are trying to claim that a single study designed to detect carnivorous animals in a limited area, has failed to detect an omnivore animal as proof that said omnivore does not exist. Just to try to help you realize your fallacy, I'm gonna claim that BF is 30 miles south of where the cameras in the study are placed and that is why it was not detected.
  7. Nice try to dodge, but no cigar. So I'll answer your question: Obviously, not in the immediate, very limited area that the cameras were installed and cover. Say, 30 miles south of their position.
  8. Argument from Ignorance Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, true false unknown between true or false being unknowable (among the first three).[1] --------------------- At this point in time, I'm going with #3.
  9. yeah, So what? Finish your claim, what does that prove?
  10. We have about five cameras and a couple of sound recorders. No big deal. We've captured most of the animals known to exist in the area. C1-Coyote.mp4 bobcat.mp4
  11. WVFooter and I do have our WV Trailcam project. This is year four and no bigfoot. Yet, it happens there is a theorem which posits the impossibility of proving a negative... so there's that piece of scientific principle that keeps us going (plus its a lot of fun going out in the woods looking for evidence). I suggest to my fellow skeptics to check your first principles before foolishly thundering forward with a fallacy.
  12. I hears some knocks too.
  13. Welcome to the BFF 7.62. I have a thread in the premium section with a parts list for my setup. I leave it recording continuously until the memory card gets full, it's the limiting factor at this time. It records about 350 hours. There is also a discussion "In The Field" forum about this, with people posting their excellent recording contraptions --> here.
  14. yup, take some of the knocks we've recorded for example. It could certainly be some human just messing around, even hoaxing us. But I'm certain that ain't a cheek popping sound... Knocks With One Loud One - amped.mp3
  15. It's not plausible to attribute a good knock to a mouth popping sound. The volume is just not there. Most of the interesting knocks may not have been made by a BF, but I'm sure they weren't made by a cheek popping sound. Its just not loud enough.