99% Sure Sasquatches Do Not Exist

[Doc Holliday]

nah RRS , bigger only during the mating season. all sorts of swelling going on when there busy forni.. .. mmm,errr, pontifi-cating one another

[Guest RedRatSnake]

And it's not a gorilla.....

A gigantic humanoid with super strength is a gorilla, besides it's just a term i use sometimes that is broad and cuts to the chase, since we all really don't know what it is.

Tim

There was more to the squid expedition than you are suggesting. Here's an article about it: http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=42137106980

I totally understand your point, i just talk a bit more to the point and don't get so much into detail, folks that are interested can look up the details for themselves and i always throw folks credit of knowing that ahead of time, sometimes posting to much info looses the audience.

Tim

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

If I discovered and got to name bigfoot, I would go with manrilla ........or Rickmat.

Does anyone remember if the scenario for the giant/colossal squid went through this sort of scrutiny as bf is going through? I assumed those accounts of the sailors were just goofy and they were not completely lucid when they told these tails. It was only one type of person making these claims. Yet it was proven to be. Sightings of bigfoot come from any type across the board, not just drunken sailors who can spin a good yarn. I think we would be negligent to disregard them. But then again, there aren't too many people here that are doing that. Not even the people here who are being looked at in that way. Mainstream science would love to investigate bf if the funding was there IMO. It's going to take a small piece of something solid to get that going. Not stories. As was the case with the squid. Once that small piece of something solid comes in, the money>science will follow. Until then it's up to the people who hate the fact that science isn't looking into it to fork over the dough. I don't think it's mostly about tarnishing reputations in their respected fields. It's about money or lack of it. If you want science to look at the phenomenon, pay them to do it or come up with something solid.

[bipedalist]

Well, if it comes down to paying to publish to prove BF DNA, I sure hope the Ketchum project will consider it. Peer review would of course be the preferred option.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2009/06/pay_to_publish.html

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=106896&sectioncode=26

http://www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Publications/Journals/Educational_Researcher/3408/02ERv34n8_Klingner.pdf

(probably belongs in the peer review thread)

[Guest StankApe]

Ya know , why does it sound so desperate? Why does it always sound so hopeless? The bigfoot spotting masses always sound like a mob ranting..... Yet no evidence... It's making me ...well it's making me think it's allan imagination of people who know no better..... Give me something to come back, something...

Edited December 18, 2011 by grayjay
1A namecalling

[Guest]

Ok so it loses weight in the summer maybe or it swells when it gets wet, but how would you explain it changing height all the time, does it's head crown grow during full moons.

Tim

I think the most obvious and rational explanation would be differing ages mandating differing height/size. It's folly to assume that all reports are of those fully mature.

Probably a notable size difference between male and female as well.

It could also be an area/regional issue having something to do with genetic strains or available diet.

[Guest RayG]

Saskeptic, rather than go about this like a cross examination, I think I will try to liven things up with a more complete description of what I consider to be 'the problem'.

You seem to feel that science has done enough to investigate the BF phenomenon without result, and that consquently BF can be safely lumped into the category 'cryptid' -- cryptid being understood as that group of alleged creatures that scientists can safely scoff at from within the comfy confines of the faculty lounge.

That differs from your earlier definition of cryptid: Cryptid: a reported creature that has not been described by science, whose existence seems so improbable to the scientific community that there is no consensus that the matter is worthy of study.

Your scientists have shifted from a lack of consensus to safely scoffing. As your posts usually contain sufficient verbage to provide adequate information if we dig deep enough, I find this rather puzzling. Has your definition morphed because you find it increasingly difficult to formulate a valid argument to rebuff Saskeptic, or is there a simpler (and hopefully concise) explanation?

So while you're lounging in an overstuffed armchair having a scotch and a hearty guffaw with academic chums next to the reassuring warmth of the Promethean hearth, I'm outside raising my collar and wrapping my scarf tightly against the damp chill of lingering doubts and swirling uncertainties.

Having read a great many of his posts, I think your portrayal of Saskeptic is a huge misrepresentation at best.

I think about the giant / colossal squid for instance. Yes, there have been reports of things washing up on the beach for a long time. But science has been completely unable to get so much as a glimpse of a live one despite numerous apparent opportunities and a number of efforts -- until recently. Yes, I think that is a situation suitably analogous to BF -- the great ape, of which there are numerous exemplars in the fossil record. Indeed, we have extant great ape species without much paleontological precedent to suggest that they even exist.

I thought you didn't consider giant/colossal squid as cryptids. Now you do? Either way your analogy fails. Giant/colossal squid are two separate species, both identified and classified by actual specimens or parts of specimens, not fossils. While there may be more than one species of bigfoot, none have been identified or classified in a similar manner.

Yes, there have been recent live video recordings of giant/colossal squid, but the deployment of game cams and utilization of video recording devices seems to have no impact whatsoever on the discovery or identification of bigfoot. In fact, it seems the pursuit of bigfoot is an area where advances in technology have made no difference.

Giant/colossal squid live in one environment only -- the deep ocean. There are no giant/colossal tree squid, none found in desert areas, none crossing fences, none crossing roads, and certainly none rocking/chasing cars. While scientists have been unable to glimpse a live giant/colossal squid until recently, they have been able to examine dead ones. Not so with bigfoot.

What if BF was a uniquely difficult 'get' for science? What if extraordinary efforts were required? I don't think a dispassionate review of the data will allow us to say with anything resembling confidence that the question might not require extraordinary efforts, far beyond what might pass for the conventional definition of 'due diligence.'

Special pleading aside, what logical reasons make bigfoot a difficult 'get' for science? Location, logistics, technology, money, manpower? Moneymaker seems to have no trouble finding bigfoot. There are even a couple people here on the forum that seem to have bigfoot showing up all the time. Are extraordinary efforts required by any of them? Were extraordinary efforts required to produce giant/colossal squid?

RayG

[Guest exnihilo]

That differs from your earlier definition of cryptid: Cryptid: a reported creature that has not been described by science, whose existence seems so improbable to the scientific community that there is no consensus that the matter is worthy of study.

Your scientists have shifted from a lack of consensus to safely scoffing. As your posts usually contain sufficient verbage to provide adequate information if we dig deep enough, I find this rather puzzling. Has your definition morphed because you find it increasingly difficult to formulate a valid argument to rebuff Saskeptic, or is there a simpler (and hopefully concise) explanation?

Having read a great many of his posts, I think your portrayal of Saskeptic is a huge misrepresentation at best.

I thought you didn't consider giant/colossal squid as cryptids. Now you do? Either way your analogy fails. Giant/colossal squid are two separate species, both identified and classified by actual specimens or parts of specimens, not fossils. While there may be more than one species of bigfoot, none have been identified or classified in a similar manner.

Yes, there have been recent live video recordings of giant/colossal squid, but the deployment of game cams and utilization of video recording devices seems to have no impact whatsoever on the discovery or identification of bigfoot. In fact, it seems the pursuit of bigfoot is an area where advances in technology have made no difference.

Giant/colossal squid live in one environment only -- the deep ocean. There are no giant/colossal tree squid, none found in desert areas, none crossing fences, none crossing roads, and certainly none rocking/chasing cars. While scientists have been unable to glimpse a live giant/colossal squid until recently, they have been able to examine dead ones. Not so with bigfoot.

Special pleading aside, what logical reasons make bigfoot a difficult 'get' for science? Location, logistics, technology, money, manpower? Moneymaker seems to have no trouble finding bigfoot. There are even a couple people here on the forum that seem to have bigfoot showing up all the time. Are extraordinary efforts required by any of them? Were extraordinary efforts required to produce giant/colossal squid?

RayG

Ah, you again.

RayG, if you'll notice, the sentence with the offending definition begins with the phrase "You seem". Forgive me if the context is unclear, but I was characterizing Saskeptic's attitude, some might say lampooning it, for rhetorical purposes. For you see, Saskeptic seems to think the label "cryptid" indicates reports that ought to be treated with extreme -- perhaps even complete -- skepticism. He has gone to great trouble to distinguish anything currently described even if formerly doubted from the category "cryptid" -- indeed, a less generous soul might suggest that he is begging the question. But I would never do that, now would I?

You have completely missed the analogy of the squid. The analogy is that despite numerous opportunities -- how many times have cameras and people submerged themselves in the ocean? -- the giant squid was never seen live until 6 years ago. Is that not supposed to be remarkable?

It's also interesting that the fact of reports is being used to disprove those reports. What? This is a disguised version of the same argument from ignorance: until I see a creature on a slab, I am justified in thinking that there is no reason to suppose that they might exist. In any case, while I won't argue that there is a disturbing degree of subjectivity to a great number of reports, this may just as easily be interpreted as an argument for greater efforts rather than fewer. And isn't that what we're discussing, whether science is burdened with an obligation to look at this further, even if the obstacles are significant and the difficulty is high?

[Guest RayG]

Ah, you again.

RayG, if you'll notice, the sentence with the offending definition begins with the phrase "You seem". Forgive me if the context is unclear, but I was characterizing Saskeptic's attitude, some might say lampooning it, for rhetorical purposes. For you see, Saskeptic seems to think the label "cryptid" indicates reports that ought to be treated with extreme -- perhaps even complete -- skepticism. He has gone to great trouble to distinguish anything currently described even if formerly doubted from the category "cryptid" -- indeed, a less generous soul might suggest that he is begging the question. But I would never do that, now would I?

Yes, me again.

Am I to understand that some might view your misrepresentation of Saskeptic as an appeal to ridicule instead? That's hardly comforting, as I was attempting to engage in a logical discussion, not exchange fallacies.

You have completely missed the analogy of the squid. The analogy is that despite numerous opportunities -- how many times have cameras and people submerged themselves in the ocean? -- the giant squid was never seen live until 6 years ago. Is that not supposed to be remarkable?

You haven't presented a valid analogy for me to have missed. What's remarkable to you might not seem quite so remarkable to me. I have first-hand experience pulling weird looking creatures up from the depths of the sea floor. There's a reason they stay down there. One could say their survival depends on it. We're seeing live video of some of these deep sea creatures now because we have developed the technology to put cameras down there and look around. Or we are dragging them up from the sea bottom. Your analogy is false because no bigfoot body, or part of a body, has presented itself for scientists to poke, prod, measure, or dissect. If anything, bigfoot is more analogous to the hunt for UFOs. Lots and lots of anecdotal reports, sightings, and claims, but still no alien spacecraft or alien pilot.

It's also interesting that the fact of reports is being used to disprove those reports. What? This is a disguised version of the same argument from ignorance: until I see a creature on a slab, I am justified in thinking that there is no reason to suppose that they might exist. In any case, while I won't argue that there is a disturbing degree of subjectivity to a great number of reports, this may just as easily be interpreted as an argument for greater efforts rather than fewer. And isn't that what we're discussing, whether science is burdened with an obligation to look at this further, even if the obstacles are significant and the difficulty is high?

No one can say with certainty whether or not bigfoot exists, but unless a bigfoot washes up onshore, or a piece of bigfoot presents itself in some other manner, the giant/colossal squid analogy is false.

Until that day, it's business as usual, with lots of hype but no substance.

RayG

[Guest exnihilo]

Yes, me again.

Am I to understand that some might view your misrepresentation of Saskeptic as an appeal to ridicule instead? That's hardly comforting, as I was attempting to engage in a logical discussion, not exchange fallacies.

You haven't presented a valid analogy for me to have missed. What's remarkable to you might not seem quite so remarkable to me. I have first-hand experience pulling weird looking creatures up from the depths of the sea floor. There's a reason they stay down there. One could say their survival depends on it. We're seeing live video of some of these deep sea creatures now because we have developed the technology to put cameras down there and look around. Or we are dragging them up from the sea bottom. Your analogy is false because no bigfoot body, or part of a body, has presented itself for scientists to poke, prod, measure, or dissect. If anything, bigfoot is more analogous to the hunt for UFOs. Lots and lots of anecdotal reports, sightings, and claims, but still no alien spacecraft or alien pilot.

No one can say with certainty whether or not bigfoot exists, but unless a bigfoot washes up onshore, or a piece of bigfoot presents itself in some other manner, the giant/colossal squid analogy is false.

Until that day, it's business as usual, with lots of hype but no substance.

RayG

RayG, it is hardly possible to debate an issue without characterizing the sentiments of your opposition and analyzing them. And I think I have done so with both fairness and substance. If a little style is thrown in for amusement, I trust I will be forgiven for it.

Regarding the squid, a massive creature in a murky medium managed to elude science for a prolonged period of time.

Edited December 18, 2011 by FuriousGeorge
Removed a rude comment

[Guest RayG]

RayG, it is hardly possible to debate an issue without characterizing the sentiments of your opposition and analyzing them. And I think I have done so with both fairness and substance. If a little style is thrown in for amusement, I trust I will be forgiven for it.

Hardly possible? I doubt it. If it's stylish and amusing to resort to ridicule, then I prefer to remain old fashioned and unamusing.

Regarding the squid, a massive creature in a murky medium managed to elude science for a prolonged period of time. If you don't see how that could apply to the BF phenomenon...

I certainly see how some things apply, but overall, no, your analogy falls flat in a major way. An analogy between UFOs and bigfoot, yes, between bigfoot and giant/colossal squid, not so much.

Had you presented your assertion in the form of a specific argument, supported by non-fallacious reasons and evidence, I assure you I'd be more understanding. I might still disagree, but at least the meat of your argument would be uncontaminated by fallacies.

I suspect if we could suddenly drain all the oceans of the world, we'd find no shortage of physical evidence for giant/colossal squid. I'm not convinced we'd have the same result for bigfoot if we somehow suddenly removed all the forests/mountains/caves on the planet. I base that on the present physical evidence we have for all three, not a gut feeling.

RayG

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

I happen to agree and disagree with both of you. As an official fence sitter, I suppose that's my job. I think the lines of this argument have been blurred in one particular area. (This is just my opinion of course and nothing official).

I think the squid analogy is good and bad.

It's a good illustration for the people who blindly dismiss this subject. The type that rolls their eyes at the mere mention of the subject. The type that has seen a silly TheHorrorDome costume on Youtube, therefor all evidence is from the same cut. C'mon, you must admit that the notion of finding the Kraken is pretty cool. The problem is, RayG and Saskeptic are absolutely not in this category. In their defense, they have looked at this topic objectively from every angle you can imagine, and have not blindly dismissed anything as far as I can tell. That's a completely different type of "skeptic". IMO

The squid thing is a bad analogy in the respect that, yes, the ocean floor is not the open mainland. Land is where we reside. If we can dispel a myth that resides in the deep, dark depths, why can't we dispel one that's in plain sight on "our" turf?

Hope that brings a little clarity to the standpoints of your dispute. Probably reads like another crazy rant from me though. lol I'm good with either.

[Guest exnihilo]

Hardly possible? I doubt it. If it's stylish and amusing to resort to ridicule, then I prefer to remain old fashioned and unamusing.

I certainly see how some things apply, but overall, no, your analogy falls flat in a major way. An analogy between UFOs and bigfoot, yes, between bigfoot and giant/colossal squid, not so much.

Had you presented your assertion in the form of a specific argument, supported by non-fallacious reasons and evidence, I assure you I'd be more understanding. I might still disagree, but at least the meat of your argument would be uncontaminated by fallacies.

I suspect if we could suddenly drain all the oceans of the world, we'd find no shortage of physical evidence for giant/colossal squid. I'm not convinced we'd have the same result for bigfoot if we somehow suddenly removed all the forests/mountains/caves on the planet. I base that on the present physical evidence we have for all three, not a gut feeling.

RayG

RayG, I am sure we are all aware that the squid is known to science and BF is not; the corollary that we can be more certain that evidence of the squid would be present than that of BF if all impediments to their observation were removed, is tautological. So I'm not sure what you've added to this discussion.

You also seem to insist that no analogies can be drawn unless the comparison is total. But we wouldn't get very far in rhetoric if everything had to be identical before it could be compared. So perhaps I'll be forgiven for finding your opinion of what is and is not fallacious less than compelling.

[Guest HucksterFoot]

I just had to do it. :]

[Guest parnassus]

Saskeptic, rather than go about this like a cross examination, I think I will try to liven things up with a more complete description of what I consider to be 'the problem'.

You seem to feel that science has done enough to investigate the BF phenomenon without result, and that consquently BF can be safely lumped into the category 'cryptid' -- cryptid being understood as that group of alleged creatures that scientists can safely scoff at from within the comfy confines of the faculty lounge.

So while you're lounging in an overstuffed armchair having a scotch and a hearty guffaw with academic chums next to the reassuring warmth of the Promethean hearth, I'm outside raising my collar and wrapping my scarf tightly against the damp chill of lingering doubts and swirling uncertainties. I think about the giant / colossal squid for instance. Yes, there have been reports of things washing up on the beach for a long time. But science has been completely unable to get so much as a glimpse of a live one despite numerous apparent opportunities and a number of efforts -- until recently. Yes, I think that is a situation suitably analogous to BF -- the great ape, of which there are numerous exemplars in the fossil record. Indeed, we have extant great ape species without much paleontological precedent to suggest that they even exist.

What if BF was a uniquely difficult 'get' for science? What if extraordinary efforts were required? I don't think a dispassionate review of the data will allow us to say with anything resembling confidence that the question might not require extraordinary efforts, far beyond what might pass for the conventional definition of 'due diligence.'

is "twaddle" a word? cause, forgive me, but it leaped into my mind while reading your "Promethean hearth..."

Humans have lived in what you seem to think is the environment of bigfoots (ie dry land and air, not the depths of the ocean) for 400 years, with firearms, deadly intent, scientific curiosity, and an urge to explore, conquer, tame, map, trap, kill, survey, fence, farm, graze, develop, police, mine, drill, photograph, surveil, log, hike, hunt, collect and settle every possible resource, and for 150 years with cameras, and 100 years with high momentum vehicles, which now drive over 6 billion miles a day our system of roads, which for most of the country can be found at least every mile. A recent total of some 300,000,000 of us (MOL). Several million trail cams. Yet not a fossil, a body or body part, DNA, or convincing image have we obtained. Not even a consistent description or consistent numbers of toes on the casts of the "footprints."

Did I miss something about us colonizing the depth of the sea for that long? oh, I forgot, not only can we not breath down there unaided, but we would be crushed by the pressure, unable to see, and killed by hypothermia without massive technological developments. Not to mention the massive three dimensional space. I guess you forgot that also.... are there 300,000,000 pairs of aggressive human eyes, minds and tools down there? I don't think so. Do you?

Edited December 18, 2011 by parnassus