Description Of "bigfoot"

[Guest RayG]

Excuse me, Ray, but I asked one simple question.

Did parnassus make the list or did he quote some other person who made the list. If the latter, please source for us.

What is so difficult about getting a straight answer for that question, from the man who posted the statement?

Everything else is just a smokescreen.

Bill

Yet when it is pointed out that Parn didn't invent those characteristics, they are actual descriptions from witnesses (proponents too), you continue to hold to your idea that some skeptic on a bigfoot forum has made up this description instead. Parn made no specific claims about the description, and called it the "generally accepted bigfoot." I take that to mean just what it says.

And, oh the irony, speaking of getting straight answers from the man who posted the statement...

You are the one claiming it's a straw man description, which is why I asked how you determine the difference between a straw man description and a real description. It's a question I would have asked regardless of what Parn or anyone else has posted in this topic or elsewhere. A question you still haven't answered.

Here's a couple more:

Which of the things that Parn describes have you not heard before?

Which witness description should be used as the default description?

RayG

[Guest Jodie]

Can we just put a match to this straw man debate and get on with the topic? I really don't care what Parn thinks a bigfoot looks like since he has never seen one. I took his remark in the other thread to be tongue in cheek for the sake of making a point.

This is the description of Bigfoot that my Dad had from his sighting. The eyes were like dog eyes, no whites, black skin under black hair( not fur). Hair pattern was like a male human's just heavier. No mention of this creature being excessively tall, or any description of the feet, but it was on all fours in front of him. He did say the fingers were a good bit shorter than the palms, and fatter than ours. The creature was not on knuckles but had it's hands splayed out on the ground when down on fours in front of him. He never mentioned seeing ears, or anything different about the teeth. He always said it looked like a naked hairy black man, and never referred to it as an ape.

[Branco]

Racial/Race is a cultural concept; not a biological reality.

We are all Homo sapiens sapiens. There is no such thing as racial groups in the human species. :]

ReallY? H'mmm. From the viewpoint of that "cultural concept", could you produce a depiction showing the visible features of a "typical" Homo sapiens sapien? Or of a "typical" Bigfoot?

That "cultural concept" thing sure has become ingrained in our society hasn't it? Maybe you ought to bring that to the attention of our government. I'm sure they would be thrilled that you took the time to explain the concept to them.

[Guest]

Interesting topic. Which leads me to ask; why wouldn't what is presumably a very closely related species to modern humans also share the one trait that we seem to express better than almost any other: morphological diversity.

As for the 9 types, or species (species being a definition that to a significant degree depends on the use to which it is being applied) of sasquatch, just as it was with C.Hart Merriam,the world's greatest authority on Ursus Arctos just a few decades ago, who fully believed that there were something like 30 different species of brown bear in North America alone, we can either be splitters or clumpers. I prefer to be curious about them and am open to their being numerous adaptations but not necessarily adaptations that make one population so distinct it is beyond genetic crossing. Cheers.

[Guest]

I've always thought that bigfoot was supposed to look something like these:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/femalebf/

Pete Travers' Bigfoot Sketch Project

Here are some quotes from eyewitnesses who provided some estimates of general size on Pete's site:

"Height guesstimated at about 7-8 feet."

"7-8' 400-500 lbs"

"Taller than an NBA player, and more buff than an NFL footbal player."

"It was about 6 1/2ft tall, very stongly built. . . . I estimate its weight at approximately 275 to 325 lbs."

"I would describe it as being a muscleur ape like creature about 7-71/2 feet tall."

"Very tall (6'5 or more) with a very powerful chest with evident pectoral muscles."

"It was about 7'7" feet tall"

[Guest bsruther]

He always said it looked like a naked hairy black man, and never referred to it as an ape.

That description reminded me of an article I read about slave ships that ran aground, or sunk, off the east coast.

[ShadowBorn]

Your response suggests you're not familiar with the variety of characteristics that witnesses report, and more specifically, that you're not familiar with Coleman's book. You should give it a read. He lists, if I recall correctly, 9 specific species of bigfoot in North America alone. Each with their own distinguishing features or traits.

RayG

I am going by what i saw at least 10 yards away once with a light shined on it.Yes it was around 8' talland it was built but not fat and it was side ways to me.Like i said the hair was long and it looked like chubaka like but others who have camped with me in this area have discribe it as hunch over as it moved through camp.

The other veiw that I seen was that of a female which was wider and that was swaying and she did have broader shoulders and was much heavier.the ones that i seen on the sides of this creature were thin and hunched over and were in that ready to flee mode.They were not that tall and i would guess that they were about 5'-6' tall but hunch over with the long arms the hair was not long but then again i was looking at them through the star light so not much detail.They did look like a naked person with long arms.

On other sighting that i have had they were mainly just short sightings where i am not sure off.It was one of those things that has made me wonder.I would hear strange noises and then i would see something move from tree to tree and as i would put my attention to that,some thing else would happen that would draw my attention away from the subject at hand.

So what i am trying to say is that these creatures are good at doing magik in other words when you would focus on one they would draw you attention to another part of the woods so that you would no longer draw your attention to what you were lokking at in the first place.Are there any other animal or primate that does this other then us.It is this kind of wierdness that has me freaked out.That if they really wanted to have me killed they could have done so at thier pleasure and i could not stop it. If you want a description of these creatures then i would stick to what most people are reporting with most frequecny and not vary from those descriptions.Just my opionion.

[JDL]

I've always thought that bigfoot was supposed to look something like these:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/femalebf/

Pete Travers' Bigfoot Sketch Project

Here are some quotes from eyewitnesses who provided some estimates of general size on Pete's site:

"Height guesstimated at about 7-8 feet."

"7-8' 400-500 lbs"

"Taller than an NBA player, and more buff than an NFL footbal player."

"It was about 6 1/2ft tall, very stongly built. . . . I estimate its weight at approximately 275 to 325 lbs."

"I would describe it as being a muscleur ape like creature about 7-71/2 feet tall."

"Very tall (6'5 or more) with a very powerful chest with evident pectoral muscles."

"It was about 7'7" feet tall"

Hate to say it due to my acknowledged Moneymaker bias, but Moneymaker's body sketch is closest to the one I saw most closely and for the longest time. Just need to add short even-length black hair to its torso.

[Bill]

Ray:

You just plain cannot grasp the specifics of my question.

You said:

"Yet when it is pointed out that Parn didn't invent those characteristics,"

I never asked or thought he "invented" the characteristics.

I asked if he composed the list or was quoting another source who composed the list.

In other words, (to dumb it down a notch or two) did he quote another source or did he look through various characteristics and descriptions offered by other people and compose the list by choosing which described characteristics to include and which to exclude?

There is no stated or implied "invention" of characteristics in that request, so that has never been an issue in question.

If you cannot tell the difference, that any further dialogue between us is doomed.

I don't see this going anywhere and I don't see him actually stepping up to quote the question and answer it with a simple "Yes" or "No", and I do see you continually steering the discussion off on tangents, so I see no point in pressing it further. The question was asked, and not answered.

Case closed, as far as I am concerned.

Bill

Edited December 12, 2011 by grayjay
GG2

[bipedalist]

....but Moneymaker's body sketch is closest to the one I saw. ...

Is there a link to this famous Moneymaker sketch? Don't believe I've ever known one by that name.

[JDL]

Saskeptic provided the link in post #35. The Pete Travers' Bigfoot Sketch Project.

The one I saw did have more of a V-shaped torso. Very wide shoulders with a comparatively narrow waist. Imagine an Olympic swimmer with an oversized torso. Well-defined lats. The hair was denser, but comparatively short and very even over the entire body. Not shaggy anywhere. It was short enough that you could see defined musculature without actually seeing skin.

The mouth wasn't as wide. More human. Very similar to African American features.

Edited December 12, 2011 by JDL

[Guest RayG]

Ray:

You just plain cannot grasp the specifics of my question.

I not only understood, I gave my opinion on it.

Since you are the starter of this topic, and you've dangled the 'straw-man description' vs 'real description' as the subheading for the topic, can you explain how you are able to discern the difference between the two?

Or is that a forbidden question?

RayG

[Guest HucksterFoot]

ReallY? H'mmm. From the viewpoint of that "cultural concept", could you produce a depiction showing the visible features of a "typical" Homo sapiens sapien? Or of a "typical" Bigfoot?

Easy. Variation in visible features (Genetic variation; mainly individual variation) and all are of the same Human species. :]

Can you produce clear pictures of the typical Bigfoot?

That "cultural concept" thing sure has become ingrained in our society hasn't it? Maybe you ought to bring that to the attention of our government. I'm sure they would be thrilled that you took the time to explain the concept to them.

Ya sure, You point me to any government official that points out these human racial groups.

[Guest Blackdog]

In other words, (to dumb it down a notch or two) did he quote another source or did he look through various characteristics and descriptions offered by other people and compose the list by choosing which described characteristics to include and which to exclude?

Taking the high road again I see... Makes me wonder what the moderator edited out.

I understood your question too but I don't see the significance of it.

I also understand why Parn used all of those descriptors, they've all been used by people reporting sightings, not all at the same time, and have in the past been accepted, not by all, as traits of bigfoot. How would a person pare down all of the descriptions into one acceptable description when there are so many variations reported. What is wrong with questioning that?

He left out the shape shifters, the dimension jumpers and the UFO deployed bigfoot, the ones that assault with infra-sound and the raper squatches.

Is there any straw left?

The mere fact that there is no proof of any set of descriptors that fit bigfoot, if they even exist and even if you believe that Patty is the base data set, means that at this point in time the only strawman argument is the one that tries to distract away from the original point of Parn's argument in the Ketchum thread, and we know who did that.

[Bill]

Ray:

Let's sart with a "straw man" descriptive explanation, from Wikipedia:

"The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person A has position X.

Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.

2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[2]

3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]

4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

5. Presenting an oversimplification of the opponent's position.

Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position."

parnassus has apparently made it clear he does not believe bigfoot exists (as least it seems that way to me. So he would not be well qualified to describe something he does not believe in. Let's call an "opponent" someone who holds an opposite idea, that bigfoot does or does likely exist.

"1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position."

Did parnassus present some specific opponent's position fairly (needs name and source cited so we can verify) or did he present his own defining list of traits as to what a bigfoot is, when he said "*9 feet tall, 500 lbs, runs 30 mph on two legs or 4, glowing eyes, conical head, covered with hair, non opposable thumbs, no fire or tools, midtarsal break, 4-6 toes, strangely shaped feet, no neck, no clothes, no shelters, non modern human proportions, etc".

If he made his own list, why did he pick those specific traits and specifications? Do they represent fairly the opinions of people who do advocate BF exists, or has parnassus misrepresented the description any individual advocate for BF would claim.?

If he cherry=picked various traits or claimed descriptive comments from various reports or sources, what was his determining factor in which traits he picked and which he did not pick.

Bottom line, does his description fairly represent, or misrepresent, the claimed description of any specific person, researcher or report of analysis? If the former, please source so we can review it in context. If he composed the list himself, did he represent the discription fairly or did he assemble a combination of traits no one claims, thus mis-representing the position of opponents.

reviewing: in the OP, I said:

"I see that often people who expect the report to reveal nothing new or have nothing substantially supportive of something we like to call "Bigfoot" as existing, said people like to make somewhat fanciful descriptions of Bigfoot which (like a straw man argument) are exhaggerated to easily be defeated as illogical."

Please note the "like a straw man argument", indicating some apparent similarity, but not a conclusive statement such as "is a straw man argument".

I saw enough similarity to ask the person to clarify his remarks. He refuses to provide such clarification.

Seems we've hit a dead end.

Obviously any straw man claim is debatable, and I expect disagreeing opinions to be posted.

I have answered your question, which was:

"Since you are the starter of this topic, and you've dangled the 'straw-man description' vs 'real description' as the subheading for the topic, can you explain how you are able to discern the difference between the two?"

I'm done.

Bill