What Evidence Convinces You?

[JDL]

That's an awesome story JDL, but do you understand how that experience you had is not something that a scientist can use to publish a description of a new species?

edited to add: Who are these 7 people who've claimed to be in the Patty suit? I just know of the one. If you can provide a link or something without a big PGF derail, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

Sas, I do understand. You're one of those, who, though not prepared to fully accept such accounts, does not dismiss them out of hand. This I appreciate. What I wanted to achieve in relating the account was to impress upon some others that some reports do not involve a glimpse at a distance or something only partially seen through cover, but actual "this thing could decide to kill me at any second" situations. It raises the bar on the misidentification argument.

There have been several others beside Heironomous. None of the others have been taken as seriously. I picked up the total number of seven off of the PGF thread. Neither side of the debate disputed it. I know there was another of Patterson's associates who made the claim a couple of decades ago, and then there was a guy in the Southeast U.S. who both claimed to have manufactured the suit with his wife and worn it himself. They were in the business of making such things. I'll see if I can resurrect the specifics.

[Guest sandman]

I'd have to let you know when I see it, haven't yet.

Prints, too easily faked, or misidentified

blob photos, don't bother

stick structures are not proof

hair, better than the above named, but easily misid'ed and contaminated

video, nope, too easily faked

it will likely take a body even though I consider myself in the no kill camp. I also think it's silly to think it's just an ape, it's much more likely a humany offshoot. IF it exists.

Edited February 16, 2012 by sandman

[Cotter]

From my viewpoint it is not the existence of bigfoot that is on trial. It is the non-existence of bigfoot that is on trial.

There are thousands of reports. Modern forensic analysis of the PGF presented by National Geographic, among others, concludes that the subject in the film is non-human (I hate to disappoint the fans of the seven or so people who claim to have been the guy in the suit). Footprint evidence is compelling and voluminous. There have been hair and scat samples over the years that have conclusively tested to be from an unknown primate.

Straight line logic dictates that the most likely conclusion is that there are, in fact, bigfoot.

But there are those who continuously craft less likely explanations to dismiss the evidence. The mounds of consistent evidence are troubling, so they point to a single example of each type and provide alternative theories to explain it away. Then they generalize their objections regarding the reliability of one report, for example, to dismiss the thousands of others. Impeach one footprint of dubious quality, and you can impeach all of those of high quality. If the hair and scat samples from an unknown primate aren't easily dismissed, or if the totality of consistent evidence is too daunting, simply say that it is still not enough, gotta have a body, and walk away.

These aren't the tactics of scientists. These are the tactics of lawyers. Stop at nothing to maintain reasonable doubt. At this point they're simply fighting a delaying action.

WTB1, I'll tell you that I've seen something you do not believe exists, under circumstances that would convince even yourself. Less than thirty feet away, broad daylight, no intervening obstacles, two other witnesses with me, one within arm's reach of the bigfoot. We engaged in a staring match for a full 45 seconds. The only reason two of us didn't run was because it could have simply reached out and grabbed David, who was twelve and frozen in shock. We weren't going to run away and simply let it kill him, if that was its intent. So we had a standoff, for 45 seconds, poised and waiting, all the while noting the stature (over eight feet tall), the uniform black hair on its body, the incredible muscle definition that was apparent even under the hair, the details of its face, the proprtional length of its arms, the shape of its shoulders, trapezius, neck and head.

We knew it coud kill us at will.

And then it turned and walked away.

Now someone can respond by trying to convince me that I did not encounter something that they do not believe exists. But it comes down to the fact that they simply do not believe in something that hasn't been close enough to them to kill them.

Even though this is the internet, and I've no idea who JDL is, it is experiences like this that really push me in the 'BF are real' direction. I've had an opportunity to sit and speak with 4 people that are in the same boat as JDL. Close, prolonged encounters.

Very interesting subject matter....

[Guest Biggie]

@ KingsCanyon

Reread my post, I called the use of the argument and the argument itself silly/laughable, not Jiggy. But thanks for practicing to be a mod. Keep practicing, because no actual moderator had a problem with my post.

Oh contraire mon fraire. It was inflammatory and a indirect way to disrespect Jiggy so no more of that. Stay on topic like the rules say or get a warning increase and a suspension out of it next time. You're lucky I didn't choose to do that here so end it please.

[beerhunter]

Another scary thought, if JDL's experience had ended in injury or death to the 12 year old child via BF, and the evidence pointed to blunt force trauma, there would be serious consequences for JDL and partner. I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but we should think about this senario for a second or two.

[Guest]

It raises the bar on the misidentification argument.

Right - yours is a great example of an account that rules out misidentification. But, and we need to consider this from the perspective of a person who might read it 200 years from now, it does not rule out the possibility that you made it up whole cloth, that you experienced some sort of hallucination, that someone hoaxed you, etc. Those possibilities you can rule out with confidence because you were there and this happened to you, but no matter how vehemently you defend yourself and your story, there's nothing you can provide to absolutely rule out these alternative explanations to a third party. The only thing that can do that is a physical specimen, identified, analyzed, described in a paper, and curated in a museum.

[Guest Cervelo]

JDL,

Awesome account! First time I had heard your story. This type of encounter is the only evidence I have any confidence in at this time because there are only a few possibilities. Thanks for sharing!

[PBeaton]

Slabdog,

Regardin' the track you like, I always found them quite interestin' as well. There's photos of the tracks, multiple casts from different tracks/prints left at the scene, interestin' stuff.

Pat...

ps: Regardin' evidence, perhaps someone has evidence, a bone or tooth, an simply doesn't know it ? Or doesn't feel the need to share it. I can understand folks sayin' there is no definitive proof or evidence suggestin' they exist, perhaps there is, it simply hasn't been brought forward, it's a possibility.

[Guest krakatoa]

"

I can understand folks sayin' there is no definitive proof or evidence suggestin' they exist, perhaps there is, it simply hasn't been brought forward, it's a possibility. "

Indeed it is, Pat. In fact, according to some on this very forum, it is an absolute certainty. Why, they even possess the solid-gold proof of 'foot (or in some cases, of not PGF), but refuse to share it for a variety of reasons.

But as this thread is about evidence in the public domain, and not about evidence which is being withheld, seems kind of pointless to tease the what-ifs rather than discuss the known data.

I'm a fan of the aforementioned 911 call, a few of the footprints (particularly "cripple-foot"), and the PGF. I'm intrigued by the mass of witness reports.

I'm not convinced by any of them though.

[Guest Bipedal Ape]

a video showing how these creatures manage to run down a deer and kill it would do me

[Guest Biggie]

Well Biggie. I disagree. I clearly stated the use of this argument is silly because the argument is silly. But then, I'm not the boss around these parts

You disagreement is irrelevant where the only thing you have to be concerned with is that if you violate the rules by posting to people here that way again you'll be disagreeing with a warning increase and a suspension to boot. This includes posts like yours to kings canyon as well so from now on just stick to the subject respectfully and all will be well. I've given you a break over all of this but I'll likely change my mind if you keep on with me about it so I'd advise you not to press your luck any further and end it here.

[Guest]

Running down a deer? Heck, I'd settle for a video of one eating an apple.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Biggie
-Removed text unrelated to topic.

[Guest]

You are absolutely killing me with that avatar JC, seriously...

I could always use the picture of Scott Parker...

[BobbyO]

I could always use the picture of Scott Parker...

You're at least one of them with a sense of humor JC, which is normally lacking in that Tribe...

Hope you're all good Mate..

Edited February 17, 2012 by BobbyO

[indiefoot]

Scenario:

Saskeptic goes afield and finds a great-looking bigfoot print. It's way off the beaten path where no one knew he'd be, the print shows signs of having been made by a flexible foot, etc. He casts it, takes it back to the lab and considers it the best bigfoot evidence he's ever seen.

Three years later (after he earns his degree), Saskeptic's graduate student reveals that the cast his mentor made was from an impression the student had made. The footprint did not come from a bigfoot, it was intentionally put there by a hoaxer.

Clearly, the cast is not bigfoot evidence, right?

Was it bigfoot evidence for the 3-year period between when it was cast and when the hoax was revealed?

If the hoax had never been revealed, would the cast be bigfoot evidence?

A cast is evidence of a footprint having been made. That particular cast is evidence of your lack of training to be able to distinguish between a footprint made by a living foot and other means. It is also evidence of your ability to attract a better quality of grad student but I digress. That cast is not and never was evidence of the existence of Bigfoot.

If the cast was judged by a qualified person to have been the result of a living foot, then you have evidence of barefoot people leaving tracks. Other qualified people might point out that it is unlikely they had ever worn shoes for any length of time. For me, that means it's time to make camp and call in reinforcements to see if we can catch a glimpse of the track makers.

JMO, of course.