Debunk The Debunking

[Huntster]

Unlike all other large mammals in North America (including us), bigfoot doesn't get seriously injured when hit by a car

That statement, too, is inaccurate. We don't know if they get injured or killed.

What we do know is this:

Society has not acquired a carcass from roadkill.

The far more parsimonious assumption, in the absence of some significant evidence to the contrary, would be that the same thing happens to bigfoot as happens to all those other species.

And that, too, varies.

Again, this example: Ray pointed out that 800 moose per year are killed by trains and autos in Alaska. Well, how come hundreds of bears are not likewise killed here? There are nearly as many bears in Alaska as moose.

Well, what about a creature many times less common than a bear?

To suggest otherwise is, as Jerry Seinfeld might say, "a pretty big matzoh ball hanging out there."

Not if you agree that sasquatches are very rare.

[Guest]

No apology required, just did not want to go too far down the rabbit hole, thanks for understanding.

Not dictating jodie, it was just a request to keep from derailing the thread. Sasfooty was offering mostly related to the dog question then it was expanding into smoking and such, that is all I was reacting to.

Ahh I see, thanks

[GuyInIndiana]

Alrighty, that's a bit of posting etiquette I missed- if you start a thread you dictate what is and isn't posted in it.

I think the obvious answer is that you "can't". (dictate what is and isn't posted in it)

[Guest]

I think the obvious answer is that you "can't". (dictate what is and isn't posted in it)

Sarcasm doesn't translate well to posting. We need a sarcasm smiley or someone needs to show me which one we use for that.

[Guest]

I think the answer to why there is no BF roadkill is simple:

We don't know.

And this is used fairly in most cases by skeptics. Ok, they don't get hit by cars (or at least they haven't died from a collision and left a body that was later examined).

There are plenty of possibilities why this is, but the simple fact is that we just don't know why, or if it has already happened.

Ding ding ding..we have a winner! It's pointless to speculate "we should have ______ by now" scenerios. Where does it get us? Closer to disbelief? Ok then, let's move on.

[norseman]

I think the answer to why there is no BF roadkill is simple:

We don't know.

And this is used fairly in most cases by skeptics. Ok, they don't get hit by cars (or at least they haven't died from a collision and left a body that was later examined).

There are plenty of possibilities why this is, but the simple fact is that we just don't know why, or if it has already happened.

I've never seen a cougar road kill, wolverine, in fact I've never seen a bear road kill. I've seen plenty of deer, some elk and some moose. I've also seen some turkey road kill, and the occasional raccoon.

If we base our knowledge of species on what's getting ran over on a road, I don't think it would be a very solid foundation.

But one thing the skeptics are right about, a type specimen MUST be found in order for this species to be recognized by science.

[Guest]

Ok, on Bigfoots and car collisions:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/stories/indianapolis.htm

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/stories/bigfoot-casebook.htm

8 collisions reported, several near misses (use search terms hit, car, coll (for collision)

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sightings.htm

1 reported, 1 near (same search terms)

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/ramona.htm

3 reports of collisions (same terms)

http://lawnflowersjerkyandbigfoots.com/bigfootsgovernment.aspx

2 collisions, several near misses

(this site is also a good reference for reports involving LEOs)

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/cb/1973.html

3 collisions reported (same terms plus truck)

http://lawnflowersjerkyandbigfoots.com/bigfootbehavior.aspx

numerous mentions of hits by cars and trucks

Didn't have time to cross-reference, so some repeats I'm sure.

Also try "Bigfoot hit by car" in Yahoo Search

[Guest Spazmo]

Nice work Mulder. That pretty much kills the idea that BF/auto collisions don't happen or are never reported.

[Guest]

Nice work Mulder. That pretty much kills the idea that BF/auto collisions don't happen or are never reported.

I appreciate you tracking those down Mulder. The fact that we have anecdotes of bigfoots getting hit by cars does seem to negate the "bigfoot is too rare . . . too smart . . . too whatever to get hit" arguments. Thanks for tracking down information to support the skeptical viewpoint on such claims.

Nonetheless, I don't think the existence of stories about people hitting bigfoots had been in dispute. What we lack is the corroborating physical evidence. So why don't we have it? I see three main hypotheses:

1) Bigfoot is still so rare that, while there have been some glancing blows, we still haven't had one good, head-on smack capable of taking one down. A fatal bigfoot collision will happen eventually - it's inevitable.

2) Bigfoot does possess, as Jodie postulated, some kind of unique ability to survive crashes that would kill other large mammals. We might begin to address this one by having some data on the number of "near misses" or "light bumps" with other wildlife, relative to the number of roadkills. I suspect such data will be tough to come by. People who (1) are completely making things up or (2) really believe that they've hit (or just barely missed) a bigfoot on the road will have their stories collected with great interest by bigfoot enthusiasts. The same is not true for other wildlife. Maybe there are 99 near misses of black bears for every one that is struck and killed. I don't know, but if a comparable estimate for bigfoot is something like 999 near misses for every one killed, then they are essentially immune to becoming roadkill, quite unlike all our other wildlife.

3) There is no physical bigfoot to be struck.

[masterbarber]

(Mulder, go ahead and put up your "see no evil shield" because I'm sharing information)

Since I've worked auto collisions with "pedestrians" of the bipedal variety, simple physics dictates that If you strike that biped squarely with a vehicle, one of two things will happen depending on the speed of the vehicle:

1) It will be knocked down and/or run over (usually trapped under the vehicle)

or

2) It will become air born, either catapulted onto the hood, windshield and/or roof , over the vehicle altogether or off to one side.

I can tell you for certain that some people will lie about what transpired during a vehicle accident (motivations vary given the circumstance).

The problem we have here (yet again), where BF is concerned, is they never seem to become instantly killed or severely debilitated (read unable to leave) in this type of reported collision. Why is that, do you think?

Unless we are claiming that a BF's legs are like large tree stumps and planted at least as firmly, I'm not buying it.

Edited December 16, 2010 by masterbarber

[southernyahoo]

So why don't we have it?

1. Creature ran off.

2. Creature was disposed of, there is no mandate that we discover BF.

3. we couldn't prove it was a bigfoot hit even with blood and tissue. Bf has no defined genetic make up.

4. It didn't happen.

[masterbarber]

1. Creature ran off.

In some instances maybe, although walked or crawled is more likely-if we believe this.

2. Creature was disposed of, there is no mandate that we discover BF.

How? with a crane? passer-by loggers with chainsaws?

3. we couldn't prove it was a bigfoot hit even with blood and tissue. Bf has no defined genetic make up.

4. It didn't happen.

In every single instance there's an excuse for why BF (alone) fails to comply with the laws of nature and physics.

[Guest]

I appreciate you tracking those down Mulder. The fact that we have anecdotes of bigfoots getting hit by cars does seem to negate the "bigfoot is too rare . . . too smart . . . too whatever to get hit" arguments. Thanks for tracking down information to support the skeptical viewpoint on such claims.

I for one have never propounded that arguement. My arguement is that the lack of a BF "roadkill" is in no small part due to a combination of relative rarity of opportunities combined with a high degree of ability on the part of bf to avoid being struck.

Nonetheless, I don't think the existence of stories about people hitting bigfoots had been in dispute. What we lack is the corroborating physical evidence.

Trace evidence is supposed to have been collected in several of the incidents mentioned. Tracking down the resulting reports is problematic since many of the incidents are pretty old (60s-80s).

So why don't we have it? I see three main hypotheses:

1) Bigfoot is still so rare that, while there have been some glancing blows, we still haven't had one good, head-on smack capable of taking one down. A fatal bigfoot collision will happen eventually - it's inevitable.

At least one of the reports I read said that there WAS a kill, and the corpse was removed by the authorities.

I would submit that many of the other reports may well have involved fatal injury to the BF, but not an "instakill" that left an easily recoverable corpse.

2) Bigfoot does possess, as Jodie postulated, some kind of unique ability to survive crashes that would kill other large mammals. We might begin to address this one by having some data on the number of "near misses" or "light bumps" with other wildlife, relative to the number of roadkills. I suspect such data will be tough to come by. People who (1) are completely making things up or (2) really believe that they've hit (or just barely missed) a bigfoot on the road will have their stories collected with great interest by bigfoot enthusiasts. The same is not true for other wildlife. Maybe there are 99 near misses of black bears for every one that is struck and killed. I don't know, but if a comparable estimate for bigfoot is something like 999 near misses for every one killed, then they are essentially immune to becoming roadkill, quite unlike all our other wildlife.

See above

3) There is no physical bigfoot to be struck.

At least you place this option last, as it is the LEAST likely given all the evidence in toto for BF existing.

[southernyahoo]

2. Creature was disposed of, there is no mandate that we discover BF.

How? with a crane? passer-by loggers with chainsaws?

What ever it takes.

3. we couldn't prove it was a bigfoot hit even with blood and tissue. Bf has no defined genetic make up.

Like that one hey. We can however prove from multiple samples that there is a great ape with unique DNA from multiple samples that is not a known great ape, and I'd be satisfied with that.

4. It didn't happen.

In every single instance there's an excuse for why BF (alone) fails to comply with the laws of nature and physics.

The percieved excuses can also be facts.

[masterbarber]

I suppose they could be. Isn't it curious that in every single instance there's no proof of BF involvement? I mean what are the odds and should BF play the lotto?